-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The story of k new development " 1-4"
- Thread starter zakaria
- Start date
Mike Arledge
Senior Member
Not much new, but glad you posted this for us!
timo
Veteran Member
I would love to have an off-the-record conversation with Shigeru Wakashiro (Product Planning), to learn more about developments, past, present and future, at Pentax throughout the phases he has witnessed - Asahi, Hoya, and Ricoh.
drummercam
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,987
- Reaction score
- 2,011
It is significant that the article mentions optimizing the working environment. Developing the new prism was not simply a matter of perfecting a new glass chemistry. The story revealed here is the additional detailed work that likewise was necessary to mass produce these new prisms.
We all know that Pentax is now "just" a brand owned by Ricoh. Nonetheless, it remains abundantly clear that Ricoh has let Pentax be Pentax, providing innovations they believe are valuable and in keeping with the Pentax heritage. They are not really engaging in specification chasing, driven by false perceptions of "need" and "performance" held forth as holy grails.
We all know that Pentax is now "just" a brand owned by Ricoh. Nonetheless, it remains abundantly clear that Ricoh has let Pentax be Pentax, providing innovations they believe are valuable and in keeping with the Pentax heritage. They are not really engaging in specification chasing, driven by false perceptions of "need" and "performance" held forth as holy grails.
DougOB
Senior Member
Personally I find this and the videos released by Ricoh/Pentax significant less for what they say (although there are significant bits) but more from the fact that they exist in the first place. I have never seen this from them before and I believe that it is a conscious effort to say "We have a direction, we are not going away".
Doug
Thanks for posting--it's a quick read.
It raises a question I've always had, though, when he mentions "the high-end Limited-series models."
I've always considered the * line as the IQ-optimized 'high-end' line, and thought of the Limited more as a strictly size-optimized line: extra small, and willing to sacrifice the faster f-stop ranges in exchange for compactness.
But I'm not aware of Pentax ever stating that the Limiteds were supposed to have *-like sharpness or other IQ-specific features that characterize the * line such as flare resistance.
So what exactly is a Limited? a small lens, or a small * lens--or is that not uniform? Are some Limiteds as good as *s, and others not? AFAIK Pentax has never released a lens called both Limited AND *.
bob5050
Last edited:
DougOB
Senior Member
I think you can have more than one lens series that is "high-end" just with different design criteria. "Highest-end" would have a different context.
I believe that the design criteria for the FA Ltd and the DA Ltd lenses was different. I think the small size was more of a design criteria for the DA Ltd series.
For me a Ltd lens has excellent build quality and very good IQ but not necessarily super fast or optimized to the Nth degree to remove aberrations. It does result in a lens that is smaller than a * lens but not necessarily smaller than normal or bargain lens.
Doug
drummercam
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,987
- Reaction score
- 2,011
Yes, these information releases are significant because they exist at all. And yes, they do not provide a great amount of detail. People complain about the lack of information, but it is market forces that create the need for industrial/commercial secrecy, and not just with Pentax but with others also.
This article about the OVF prism does provide useful insight and context on what that technology demanded, and it is good they published it because it counters underestimation and disparagement of what they have achieved. DPReview incorrectly reported in their July 23 article on the recent video: "The new optical viewfinder . . . uses a new high-refraction glass pentaprism first developed back in 2017." The video was clear that development merely commenced in 2017. The article referred to here details the serious and protracted work that actually went into creating the prisms and making them capable of mass production possible. DPReview's error remains uncorrected today, along with their reference to a Pentax Z-1 camera, when the correct reference is the K-1.
drummercam
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,987
- Reaction score
- 2,011
Limited speed for the sake of size, in the SMC–M (M as in miniature) tradition, and to match well with the APS-C cameras, which were always going to be smaller than full frame digitals. The five original limited lenses all used 49 mm filters. Plus, "Limited" was a way to call attention to the high-quality, all-metal construction and the effort put into the optical formulae.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
A few years back when I taught an introduction to photography course, I'd often let students compare the viewfinder of my MX to that of my K20/K5 cameras and they were always surprised at the difference in size of the viewfinder image and to be fair, so was I. The MX viewfinder is approximately four times the size of that in a Pentax DSLR and if we can increase the size of the viewfinder in the new camera, that can only be a good thing.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
Smaller maximum aperture does not necessarily equate to less sharpness, in fact the simpler lens design could equate to greater sharpness in some circumstances.
I can't think of any large Limiteds...
I'd accepts that as generally true.
Two things raised the issue I suppose: while the *'s are consistently expensive, the limited lenses have quite a range--with the 21mm going for instance @ amazon at ~350, while the 31mm is priced at 896. Mostly they seem to cluster in the mid $400's, which in today's market doesn't seem particularly high end.
Since the 31mm is still the SMC model, one could wonder whether it's re-issue as an HD model might not see it re-designated as a * lens. While still reasonably small, at f/1.8, in both speed and price it seems an outlier as a Limited lens, and one wonders why it wasn't designated a * to start with.
Anyone have a 31mm and want to comment on why it doesn't deserve a * designation?
bob5050
Shigeru Wakashiro (Pentax):
"Our goal is to develop a camera that our users will say is the best PENTAX APS-C-format digital SLR camera ever."
Dear Shigeru,
You have to beat the Pentax K5iis, the best digital Pentax camera ever built (for me, of course)!
And I would kindly remind you that the bar was set really high
Regards,
Tibor
"Our goal is to develop a camera that our users will say is the best PENTAX APS-C-format digital SLR camera ever."
Dear Shigeru,
You have to beat the Pentax K5iis, the best digital Pentax camera ever built (for me, of course)!
And I would kindly remind you that the bar was set really high
Regards,
Tibor
Last edited:
DougOB
Senior Member
Agreed. Kind of why I like them ;-) I would argue excellent value.
I think a lot of people would really, really like to see new versions of the FA Ltd lenses with HD, WR, rounded aperture blades, and DC/PLM.
I have a 31 LTd, but he only * lenses I have are DA* (50-135mm & 300mm) so a direct comparison might be difficult.
I guess two thoughts... The first is the 31mm is not THAT big and f1.8 is OK but if you look at the 35mm/f1.4 lenses on the market they are a lot bigger. Which leads to the 2nd point, I think you have to go back to the initial design philosophy/criteria going into the lens design. The video from early June (?) where they present the DFA 21mm Ltd talks a bit about this.
To me Ltd lenses are quality lenses, no question. They just have not gone to the extreme in optimizing performance (which comes at a cost)...
DougOB
Senior Member
rmalbers
Leading Member
I'm not sure about the 'mass produce' part, how many camera's of a given model do they even sell? Has anyone every heard?
James O'Neill
Veteran Member
You know the 5 point philosophy had something about "not just about the best numbers" ? I think of the * lenses being the best by the numbers, and the limited series being very good, fast (sub f/2 but not f/1.4 or f/1.2), but compact in a way that * lenses don't attempt to be, extremely nice to use but not competing on lines per mm or smallest aberrations alone.
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
Spot on:
"Unlike the Star series, which is developed in the pursuit of the ultimate quality, the Limited series is evaluated by analyzing printed images of various subjects, captured in different environments and under varying shooting conditions.". - from the horse's mouth:
Although I'd say not all * lenses are the same (the DA series are not what I'd call high-end); and I'm tempted to say neither are the Limiteds (as nice as the DA Limiteds are).
Alex
No argument here. But I shoot a lot of dark venues (cathedrals, wine cellars, restaurants, etc.) so the Limiteds never seemed to be the best fit for me. I do think they're good deals for those who buy them.
This is where my specific needs make me wonder about the 31mm. I tend to travel with a walk-around day (18-135mm or 16-85mm, both WR), a walk around evening (right now a Sigma 16-50mm), and a coat-pocket always-carry for the most speed (right now a Sigma Art 30mm f/1.4). That's the go-to lens for interior shots, museums, etc.
But the Sigma 30mm, as nice as it is, is big enough to be quite a pocket-full. I'm thinking that when the K-new comes out, it should be sufficiently better in low-light than my K-3 is that I can afford to give up the f/1.4 --> f/1.8 difference in exchange for the smaller size.
Of course, an HD update for the 31mm Limited isn't on the lens roadmap yet, so it's not a solve-today issue. I just wonder how good the 31mm is. At $896, is it in fact a * in Limited clothing?
bob5050
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum