Everlast66: It would be a very interesting move if Pentax could adopt Sony E mount, not sure if Sony would be willing to share it though, but will get a experienced partner in their competition with better populated M4/3 system.
Would be great to see Pentax legendary Limited lens series re-designed for E-mount and they will be able to gain some existing mirror-less market straight away. Plus a body or two with Pentax ergonomics would be interesting to see.
Japan (where small size is particularly valued) is not a predictor for other markets. Nor is there any evidence that any increase, anywhere, in MILC sales is being "taken from" DLSR sales. DSLRs have experienced market saturation, that's all. They still outsell MILC by about 4:1 worldwide, even in a down market. Cherry picking individual country stats doesn't change that.
nathantw: I'm really impressed. But, how well does the Tamron perform at 14mm? For those that say it's only one mm, look at the comparison photo. That one mm was the difference between seeing the top of the Space Needle and just seeing the support structure.
Congrats to all 6 of you. All kidding aside, 15mm as a minimum focal length on an ultra wide angle zoom was a big deal when Sigma introduced it - in 2001. In 2015, they should be starting with 12mm or less, even if it means making an f4 lens instead of an f 2.8.
Maybe they'll bring out a 75-150 "telephoto" zoom while they're at it. ;)
RichRMA: One thing about FF; if the edge definition of my m4/3 Olympus 12-40mm was as bad as either of these two lenses, I'd return it.
@RichRMA you need to read my post above again, since it appears you have completely missed the point. It makes no difference what you "chop off," since the same issues apply unless you chop off everything but your subject.
Should read 12-24 (typo)
PhotoKhan: "Mr Yamaki tells us that even though his company loses money on cameras /.../"
They shouldn't have gone after such a small niche market.
After all, color deficiency only affects about 8% of men and 0,5% of women.
Personally, I think the dumbest thing Sigma ever did was to make a separate, proprietary camera mount for Sigma DSLRs. They should have just made Sigma DSLRs in Nikon and Canon mounts, which would save them from the cost of producing the lenses in another separate mount, and would make their bodies more successful as "special purpose" additions to the Nikon and Canon system buyers (who would be much more likely to buy Sigma bodies if they could use the same lenses for them vs. having to buy and carry entirely different lenses for the Sigma bodies).
matthew saville: YES, Sigma please give us a 14-24 f/2.8, NOT a 10-20mm f/4! (full-frame)
Although, personally as a lightweight traveler, I'd much rather see a ~16-18mm f/2 that accepts front filters, than a 14-24 2.8 if it's going to weigh anything like the Nikon or Tamron...
No, please DON'T squeeze out the wide end of your wide angle zoom! Wider is OK, I'd take an updated 12-24, but an 11-24 or maybe 10-24 would be even better! F4 is perfectly fine, don't have to have f2.8 (but wouldn't complain mind you). Just make it a sharp, low distortion lens (and make the zoom ring turn clockwise to zoom IN, please - as well as keeping the zoom ring close to the body and having the focusing ring toward the end of the lens, not the other way around). ;D
estarkey: Excellent interview! I would pay north of $1000 for the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 in an OS, micro four thirds mount. If they mad one with a built in speedbooster so they could mostly use their current design and speed this thing up to f/1.2, I'd certainly pay $1500.
That would be "Nikon DX buyer;" 18-35 is an APS-C lens, not a FF lens.
As far as the range goes, no argument - the 27-52.5mm FF FOV equivalent range is way too small, and neither wide enough nor long enough to make it interesting. Basically a good perfromer in a range (particularly where positioned) that is much too narrow.
MJW1: This one statement could effectively respond to a huge number of issues that come up here (on the Open Forum at least):
"The camera business doesn't make money at all. It costs a lot to develop the sensors, so including these costs we're always losing money. So in strictly business terms it's not a good business". Yet Sigma keeps investing from the profitable side of the business into the losing side for a whole range of reasons.
Factor that logic into the 'death of the DSLR', 'which companies will still exist in 5 years' type of threads and a lot of things start to make sense.
Not sure what you're trying to say. Sigma loses money on cameras because they are a low volume seller who makes their own, rather unconventional sensors. That's why, FOR SIGMA, the camera business doesn't make any money. Think of it as more of a test bed for their lens development. The high volume sellers like Nikon and Canon don't have any trouble making money on cameras, since with the volumes they sell they can much more easily amortize the cost of the sensors used in them.
alouette: great Comparison!
Would be nice to see a comparison with the FT Zuiko 7-14mm F/4 attached at the E-M5 Mark II using the hiRes Mode at 40MPix (Jpg) or 64Mpix (Raw)
Which means the "hiRes mode" is meaningless unless you shoot maybe indoor pictures of "still life" subjects, since everything else has moving elements - clouds, trees, grasses/vegetation, etc.
@Dianoda, BJN it doesn't matter, because there's a 24-70 in the bag to "perform" at 30mm. If your widest lens is 1mm longer, you're missing some AOV. From 24-30mm you're just duplicating coverage of other lenses you already have.
Tamron should have made a 12-14 rather than a 15-30.
@RichRMA "Edge definition" is the most overblown issue in photography. You have been conditioned to believe it is important by those trying to convince you that you "need" to buy new/different/better equipment. Just what is there in the edges of your images that makes or breaks the image?! The vast majority of the time (about 99.99%), there is NOTHING in the frame "edges" (or in the "corners" for that matter) that is important to the image. Furthermore, the vast majority of the time what IS in the frame "edges" is NOT in the plane of focus - which means it's not going to be sharp anyway, even if you have the "sharpest edge to edge lens" in the world - unless your images are pictures of test charts or brick walls and your subject is perfectly aligned with the image plane.
Marcin 3M: It's time for Sigma to refresh their's 12-24.
Yes, and unlike Tamron, they should put the zoom ring and focusing ring in the right places. ;)
Everlast66: For any other manufacturer I'd say it is a bad idea to re-introduce a FF DSLR line now, when mirror-less cameras are aggressively eating into DSLR sales. Especially that the FF lens line has not been maintained for a while. I almost feel they' should've rather created a new FF mirror-less system rather than going back.
However, I feel Pentax have the most loyal customer base of the big three DSLR makers and I think they will not be affected as bad by mirror-less rise. I certainly hope they succeed as there is something likeable about them that's lacking in Canon and Nikon.
MILCs are not "aggressively eating into" anything. DSLRs still outsell them by nearly 4:1, and any reduction in DSLR sales has everything to do with market maturation/saturation and little to do with MILCs "replacing" DSLRs, which they are not. Hype does not equal reality.
A fly in the ointment - people that actually want a MILC as opposed to a DSLR will have already purchased one from one of the many players fighting over this minority market long before Pentax could waste is resources jumping into the same miniature market space. So why would they bother?
Aur: hopefully they can keep it light enough, even though I like the pentax crop, they are all 200 grams heavier than the comparable canon equivalent for whatever reason (200 grams of weather sealing? sounds weird)
Sony A7 II full frame mirrorless = 599 grams, that is less than most of Pentax their crop DSLR
...making for a nice FRONT HEAVY, uncomfortable to hold and use lens + body combination. With a battery sucking, inferior EVF. No thanks!
duckling: It is evident Ricoh has given up on the mainstream market. Sticking to DSLRs will not gain them many new customers and the shortage of fast-focusing K mount lenses which also cover FF means that upgrading from APS-C may prove an expensive adventure.That said, I am sure the Pentax FF will be a magnificent camera. Pentax has a long tradition of putting on the market mature, fully-working and highly reliable products.
@JCT I don't think Pentax is so much a "boutique" brand as much as a brand that has been decimated over the years by "bottom feeding" in the market. Hopefully Ricoh (ironically one of the K-Mount "piggybackers" during film days) can restore some of the former glory of the brand.
Edymagno: In my opinion, Pentax should focus on the 645Z system:
1.- Three or four new strategic lenses could make it into a Super FF camera. It could well be the 1Ds of this decade. The 1 Series is only now for sport photography.
2.- Three new digital-formula lenses with leaf-shutters and strengthening the tether capabilities and medium format users will switch to Pentax in hordes.
As psychology says, some individuals start diverting and branching in order to not achieve their goals to full potential. I think it's called fear of success.
...which is less size difference than APS-C vs. FF that people are constantly trying to tell you means very little. Not that I agree with the notion that the difference between APS-C and FF is small, but the difference in size (and the related advantages) for the "cropped" medium format 645 vs. FF is pretty small.
Zvonimir Tosic: First of all, if I were a representative of company that always gets worst of attention from DPR, starting from lack of reviews onto everything else, I would not give them any bit of information about anything. Rule goes, know your enemy first.
Also, I would love DPR spare us mirrorless tirade when conversing with a representative of the company that has practically invented an SLR!
Instead, why DPR do not bother mirrorless-solution-only companies, bugging them with questions like: when will they try out SLR designs and change their mounts to ones with larger distance, in order to simplify their lens designs, introduce native distortion-free images and not images no one can swallow without software manipulation, insist on 100% tele-centricity, considerably preserve battery life with introduction of a bright OVF?
I don't agree that DPR is "biased" against Pentax, but then I'm not obsessed with comparing their "scores" and such either.
I agree wholeheartedly that the MILC hype needs to be doused with some cold water already. About 4 times as many buy DSLRs as MILCs, and who cares when or IF Nikon, Canon or Pentax will ever make FF MILCs, when they are already making what more people actually WANT - DSLRs! Anybody that wants a MILC has plenty to choose from, and can get them from those camera makers that are in that product "niche."
Your last paragraph makes me LOL - I would LOVE to see that! Turn the tables on MILC hype!
jaxson: An interesting take away for me was that Pentax considers the MF camera as the professional line, and FF as just a progression from APS-C. They only seem to be getting in FF as the low end users don't have an intermediary option before the MF 645Z. Seems fair.
I'd love to see Pentax back on top of something, but of late the competition has been fierce. Sony and Olympus now do sensor shift stabilisation better than Pentax. Pentax has always done solid bodies, well weather sealed well. They still have a place for sure.
I'll say it again though: Give us back (yes you had it right already on the K-5 series) sensor based stabilisation during video mode and you'll have quite the package. Also release this back into previous models too, which are presently only offered the crippled 'Movie SR' rubbish...
@ZT That's BS - see the Pentax LX system. Just because they didn't market it well doesn't mean they dismissed the 135 format.
Greg Lovern: > The 70-200mm is the first full-frame telephoto zoom to bear Pentax's 'Star' designation <
Not true. It's at least the fourth. The first three were:F* 250-600/5.6 (1988)FA* 250-600/5.6 (1991)FA* 80-200/2.8 (1994)
I don't really see GL's interpretation as "splitting hairs," because he is correct. The sentence doesn't tie together the "star rating" and the "HD coating" as one thought, they are clearly separate.