Pentax Sold To Ricoh!!!

<p>Justin Serpico wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Patrick, their FF designs are from the film era, and the venerable 31mm isn't quite as good on digital. Neither is the 77. Both have fringing issues and some other problems on digital (though mostly fringing).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would not exaggerate the limitations of the FA Limited lenses on digital since all tests and personal experience show them to be exemplary performers whose match has not yet been found in the auto-focus realm. Any theoretical problems (perpendicularity of resultant light, for example) do not show up in real shots, except the purple fringing, most notable on the FA77. That is easy to correct and is in all likelihood a good indicator that one needs a polariser for that particular shot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Essentially what I am saying is, you are losing almost nothing with the K-5 and Pentax DA* and DA Limited glass, and gain very little (except on the long end with very expensive used options) with FA glass.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not concur. The FA Limiteds (of which I own only two, alas) have unsurpassed rendering on digital. There might be some few expensive manual focus lenses out there which can draw as nicely, but there is nothing in the auto-focus world to compete.</p>

<p>Pentax would only enhance their reputation by producing <em>more</em> FA limited lenses, even if they never release a FF camera! I look forward to an FA 24 f/2 Limited. (In my dreams.)</p>

<p>If not releasing a full frame camera, why can't they release a DA 24mm? <br /><br />btw, we all agree, they need to release a 24 or 28mm Limited. If it takes giving it a FA prefix, so be it.</p>

<p>As you know, I'm more in favor of a 28mm DA limited or DA*. there already is a 21mm. And while there already is a 31mm, it's an FA design, lacks quick shift, and could be a optimized for digital SLR shooting. Hence the DA 28mm f/2.0</p>

<p>Justin, of course you're correct in that the crop factor renders the outside edges of the lens useless. :-) Oh, and I did intend for "mute" to be mute; as in I usually scramble for the remote and try to ignore the conversation like bad Super Bowl advertising... Although "moot" would certainly qualify if we were talking academically. :-) How I got sucked in this time, I'll probably never know. Maybe I just miss you guys. :-)</p>

<p>I know some people that take advantage of that fact when they're shooting sports or other events (birding perhaps?). However, these are the same people that wanted to buy a 300mm lens but could only afford (or <em>find</em> in the case of us Pentax guys) a 200mm. A 200mm on a crop will NEVER look like a 300mm on a "FF" sensor. The compression of the image will just look like the center of a 200mm, not the compression of a 300mm. Ask a CaNikon guy with a "FF" body and a crop body to do some side-by-sides for you with the same lens on each body. Or better yet, have a 50mm on a FF and compare it side-by-side with a 35mm on a crop (52mm equiv). You'll see for yourself that it's not at all similar. Framing: Maybe. But expansion and compression are more telling of lens characteristics than working distance and focal length.</p>

<p>How on Earth did this topic come up again? Oh... lens designs... I'm sure that if they released the architecture of the old F and FA series but used the same DA optical coatings that the PF, CAs, and other issues wouldn't matter much anymore. Not to mention that the factory would only have make one batch of coating goo and not two. Don't change the glass, just use the modern SMC process and call it a day. The lower end $125 24mm, 50mm, and 85mm (Cosina-like 85/4 anyone?) lenses are needed right now. I'd take those over the far end of the telephoto lenses some of us have been asking for, but I'm a portrait photographer so I'm not in need of anything longer than 200mm. I fear that taking portraits with a 600mm lens might have the same result as diving by zero or something....</p>

<p>Again, I apologize for being nonsensical. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A 200mm on a crop will NEVER look like a 300mm on a "FF" sensor. The compression of the image will just look like the center of a 200mm, not the compression of a 300mm. Ask a CaNikon guy with a "FF" body and a crop body to do some side-by-sides for you with the same lens on each body. Or better yet, have a 50mm on a FF and compare it side-by-side with a 35mm on a crop (52mm equiv). You'll see for yourself that it's not at all similar. Framing: Maybe. But expansion and compression are more telling of lens characteristics than working distance and focal length.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you should try that experiment yourself, because you're wrong. The sense of compression or expansion is purely a matter of where the lens is located relative to the objects within the frame. If one object is, say, ten feet closer to the lens than another, but the lens is placed 100 feet away from it, there will be a sense of compression between the two objects. If the lens is only two feet away from it, there will be sense of exaggerated distance. This is basic perspective and has nothing whatsoever to do with focal length. So if you shoot a scene with a 200mm lens, then, without moving the camera, shoot the scene again with a 300mm lens, and then crop the 200mm image to match the framing of the 300mm, the two will be identical except for resolution (since cropping the 200mm image throws away a lot of pixels) and DOF. That is, the relative sizes of objects within the frame will be the same in both images, and it's the relative sizes of objects that create the sense of spatial compression or exaggeration.</p>

<p>If you want to have similar framing between a 35mm lens and an 85mm lens, you have to move closer for the 35mm shot (obviously). This physical change of perspective is what causes the sense of exaggerated distances; the focal length just defines framing (and is one factor influencing DOF).</p>

<p>Hey Craig! :-) I'm totally cool with being wrong.</p>

<p>If compression and expansion are the singular function of camera-to-subject distance and nothing to do with the framing than why does the bokeh change in the background? The bokeh on my 50mm on my ZX-M looks nothing like the 35mm on the K10. I'm not talking shape(# of blades, etc), but distance between themselves. (I get that larger sensors get great DOF inherently...hence 8x10 landscapes at f/64). Isn't it different from the compression (or in this case, expansion) and the influence of the field of view evident? What if we stand in the same place and remove the foreground subject? Would crop factor effect the scene more than the lens? Maybe I'm not reading your post the way you intended, but if the only difference between a 35mm and an 85mm is working distance (camera to subject) than why would anyone buy different lenses when they can simply walk and get closer or farther from the subject? :-)</p>

<p>I love this subject. There seem to be two different camps. Does focal length define framing? or Does framing define focal length? They aren't the same thing, and that question only addresses one of three influences on DOF. Imagine how long of a thread we could make it we talked about all three! :-) We're probably way off topic now... not to mention I'm stirring a pot I don't intend to make a meal of. I'll catch you guys later. Craig, you can totally email me later to continue to fix my wrong thinking if you'd like. :-)</p>

<p>Bokeh varies for a number of reasons, one being that the narrower angle of view of a longer lens means that less of the background gets spread out over a wider area of the image (assuming similar framing of a subject). But that wouldn't be the case in your example of shooting a 35mm lens on an APS-C camera while shooting a 50mm lens on full-frame, because the smaller sensor will more or less compensate for the shorter focal length, resulting in a very similar angle of view. Bokeh in the two pictures will be positioned pretty much the same, though the shape and quality of the bokeh may be different simply because the two lenses don't use the exact same design, and DOF will probably be noticeably different, mostly because different focal lengths are being used.</p>

<p>I buy different focal lengths because I want freedom to choose different combinations of subject distance and framing in order to get the perspective I want for various shots. A 24mm lens at a distance of three feet may give similar framing of the subject as a 100mm lens at a distance of around ten to twelve feet, but the resulting images will be quite different because they were shot from different locations. Plus, you don't always have complete freedom to choose any subject distance you want.</p>

<p>My preference for an FA Limited assumes they follow the same optical constraints and design goals of the other three FA Limiteds. And that it has full-frame coverage and aperture dial. This is ever-more important now that folks get such lenses to use on MFT cameras and so on. The dial is essential for this use and in other cases a much nicer and more direct way to interact with a lens. Besides I see no harm is supporting older film cameras. Which is to say I am not choosing the nomenclature arbitrarily.</p>

<p>Quick shift focus is for me a solution looking for a problem. I never find myself in the situation of deciding to use auto-focus and then discovering it didn't work (?) and so over-riding it with the ring. I either trust AF or I don't; the switch on the body works just fine. And prevents accidental use of the focus ring when I don't want it.</p>

<p>The existing DA21 is an average lens with no special rendering properties, and slow to boot. In terms of the existing FA line-up, 24mm makes more sense than 28mm since the FA31 is already close to that (though actually measuring 32mm). Likely we need both, but if I could choose only one I'd go for the FOV equivalent of 35mm, which has always seemed "just right" for street work.</p>

<p>All these are hypothetical ramblings I know. We will never again get lenses as nice as the FA Limited trio.</p>

<p>This is why I keep suggesting that they make a 26mm lens... it solves the "24 or 28?" problem, and it would be exactly 5mm separated from the DA 21 and the FA 31. Perfect.</p>

<p> </p>

"I must correct the common misconception that a smaller sensor somehow gives you longer telephoto lenses. It does

not, since the sensor cannot change the lens at all. What it does instead is produce a resulting image as if you had

taken a centre crop of a larger sensor. The rest of the information delivered by the lens is simply discarded.

 

There is no image quality advantage whatsoever to shooting a smaller sensor. (All else being equal of course.)

Advantages are instead potential reduced cost and the smaller size of the resulting camera system. These are very

real incentives for many people."

 

This is just plain wrong. You are confusing angle of view with resolution. It might help you to think in terms of film.

For any given focal length, a lens subtends an angle of view that is proportionate to the size of the film frame. Thus,

50mm is considered a normal lens in 35mm format, whereas it is a wide angle lens in medium format and an even

wider angle lens in large format. With film, the resolution of the "sensor" is the same

regardless of size, so you really could just crop a MF frame to get the identical angle of view and resolution as a

35mm frame. With digital sensors, however, pixel density is generally greater with smaller size, so the narrower angle of view is

being projected onto more pixels, which translates into higher resolution than if you simply cropped a FF image. You

may argue that the smaller pixels on an APS-C sensor are inferior to those on a FF sensor, which is true. Nevertheless, the IQ from the latest APS-C cameras is nothing short of excellent and can serve the needs of all but the most demanding photographers. It will only get better in the future. (Sorry, I really don't want this to become a FF vs. APS-C thread, but the post that I quoted demands a mild response.)

 

Rob

<p>Rob, your argument is incorrect. I said "All else being equal of course" but your logic calls for something to be unequal, pixel density. There is absolutely no reason pixel density should change with sensor size.</p>

<p>If you are just tuning in...Ricoh bought Pentax!</p>

Robin,

 

In theory, you are correct, but in reality, pixel density is almost always inversely proportional to sensor size. For

example, there are now numerous small sensor pocket cameras with 12MPs. As sensor technology improves,

designers will be packing ever more pixels closer together, but we can always expect higher pixel density on smaller

sensors, simply to achieve greater resolution.

 

Getting back to the point about focal length and effective angle of view, if pixel density were kept constant, then there

would be no true multiplier effect associated with smaller sensors, but it isn't, so there is.

 

Rob

<p>There is quite wide variation in pixel density even within the same size sensor. And there could be even more if manufacturers thought outside the box. As an example consider the Nikon D700, which owes its incredible image in large part to the lack of pixel crowding.</p>

<p>Regardless, one cannot make a meaningful comparison in one parameter if a second parameter is varied at the same time. Either hold pixel density constant, in which case larger sensors are always better for IQ. Or hold sensor size constant in which case higher pixel densities increase the deleterious effects of diffraction and reduces the per-pixel signal-to-noise but increase the possible resolution. Confusing the two parameters does no-one any favours.</p>

<p>But I do believe this has become yet another thread about a well hashed-out issue.</p>

 

<blockquote>If you are just tuning in...Ricoh bought Pentax!</blockquote>

<p>That would be me--just returned from 3 weeks w/o connection* in China. </p>

<p>We all knew something of the sort was in the works. I've got concerns (this is yet another subject about which I know very little but I have doubts about Ricoh's long-term prospects) but I'll go with my hopes for the time being. The release of some new quality lenses (extra-long would be my preference) in the near future would boost my spirits (any of those mentioned would be welcome in that regard but I'd prefer something longer than 300mm--of course.) </p>

<p>*Clara's imac connected instantly but my attempts to connect in Windows would have required hacking for which I didn't have the time skill & patience. </p>

<p>Glad you are back. Hope the trip went well, and hope it was photographically fruitful!</p>

<p>So do I get the K-5 or jump ship given the uncertainty over the merger? </p>

<p>Well, personally, I'd get a K-5. If the camera last you 5 years you don't have to jump ship for 5 years. My original K10D and ist D (given away but still being used by someone else) are still working. We are going on 5 and 6 years for both those cameras.</p>

<p>Remember, people assume if Pentax were to go out of business tomorrow that they have some sort of kill switch on your cameras and lenses. Not true. If anything, if they were to go out of business, I'd open my wallet and load up.</p>

<p>The K-5 is a great camera, and on my radar. The minute I hear Pentax/Ricoh are killing the DSLR business, I'm buying 2 of them, maybe a third down the road. I'm putting 2 in my glass cabinet and using one till the shutter falls out. Then I'll open the second, and do the same. In about 10 years I'll open the 3rd. 13-15 years from now, when both Nikon and Canon no longer produce still cameras either, my K-5 collection will be dead, and I'll move on to RED or whatever else is the rage.</p>

<p>No one can tell you what the camera market will look like in 5 years, let alone 10 years. If you enjoy the K-5, what makes you think you'll need another camera?</p>

<p>The key really is to stock up on batteries for your cameras. I believe long term that will be the limiting factor. However, Pentax saved the K-7 and K-5 from this issue with AA battery grips. So really it's just the shutter and other moving parts you have to wait to fail. I'm sure shutters and other parts will be available for a few years, so chances are you might even get the original K-5 repaired and keep the other two as spares for another few years.</p>

<p>Anyway, this was my plan when the Hoya takeover happened. It's still my plan. And, IMO, it avoids the panic sales that might devalue your equipment. Using it till it dies is the best return on your investment!</p>

<p>I planned to buy Pentax system about 1 month ago and have saved for it... But now... I am afraid that in the future all that expensive stuff would be useless - that became with Olympus 4/3 used optics. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The FA Limiteds (of which I own only two, alas) have unsurpassed rendering on digital. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm. inexpansive Nikkor 50/1.8G is not worse than very expansive 43/1.9 limited and having better bokeh, 50/1.8 G is sharper at corresponding apertures than 40/2.8 Limited and so on... many examles. 135/2L on FF Canon EOS-1Ds versus more expansive 77/1.8 (screwdriven, without being splash proof) - ever tried? Or versus Nikkor 85/1.4G? 70/2.4 vs. a cheaper and still superb Canon 85/1.8 USM.... Pentax... <em>Unsurpassingly </em>high prices. They should concentrate on affordable, modern and reasonable optics. </p>

 

<p>Thanks Justin, i have a lot of deleting and pp to do but t does look like I got some nice shots. </p>

<p>Jemal If you have any investment in Pentax glass, I'd certainly agree with Justin's green light on the K-5. It's really a terrific camera. Of course, I probably have a different time horizon than you do: given my age and history of bad habits, it's pretty likely that the K-mount system will outlive me (OTOH, I have a better marketing department. ;~) </p>

<p>Ruslan, I cannot believe you'd compare the over-large, plastic, cheap-feeling Nikkor 50/1.8G, which doesn't even have an aperture ring, to the beautiful well-crafted and superb handling FA 43 Limited. I have no great experience with this or any other Canikon lens. My early shooting was with hard body Nikon and Pentax 35mm and later Contax/Zeiss. In the contemporary era I am thankful every day I am not a commercial photographer and hence don't have to use a well-supported camera system that would force me to handle such unpleasant lumps.</p>

<p>You then wish to compare the 135/2L to the FA77 Limited? You do realise that the former is three times the weight, three times the length and announces to everyone "oh look here I am -- big man photographer!" Sorry, but that's not my style. I need to take photos inconspicuously with the minimum of impact on my environment. (That's a good reason why I get hired when others don't.) Wake me up when Canon learns to design a camera for usability and ergonomics and shrinks their entire lens line by at least one-half.</p>

<p>I am sure these lenses are all as sharp as they need to be. And they render well enough too. But none would give me much pleasure, so why bother, really? One can reasonably compare Leica, Voigtlander and Zeiss to the Limiteds, but Canon and Nikon have nothing to offer.</p>

<p>Ruslan, some prices from your comparisons:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G: $220 — Pentax 43mm f/1.9 Ltd: $570</li>

<li>Canon 135mm f/2L: $1,050 — Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G: $1,700 — Pentax 77mm f/1.8 Ltd: $785 </li>

<li>Canon 85mm f/1.8G: $410 — Pentax 70mm f/2.4 Ltd: $560</li>

</ul>

<p>I wouldn't say the prices are that high, considering you're paying for well-crafted metal lenses that are very small compared to anything Canon makes, or Nikon for that matter. And that's the point, the Ltd lenses are different in concept to anything Canon or Nikon produces, so it's not possible to make a direct comparison in many cases. You either appreciate what the Ltd line has to offer, or you don't.</p>

<p>If you like big, bulky, heavy lenses, then go ahead and shoot Canon; you won't be alone, as they're the #1 camera brand by DSLRs sold. Nikon G lenses have become very expensive at the high end, lately, so take that into account if buying into a Nikon system.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I planned to buy Pentax system about 1 month ago and have saved for it... But now... I am afraid that in the future all that expensive stuff would be useless - that became with Olympus 4/3 used optics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why are you worried exactly? Olympus lenses didn't stop working, many people are still shooting with them, and they're still as good as they ever were.</p>

<p><strong>Let's remember something important here, folks: Ricoh clearly stated that they bought Pentax for the interchangeable lens dept. That means that there <em>will be</em> a K-5 successor in due course, and most likely a K-r follow-up too. The sky is not falling! If anything, it's looking brighter than ever.</strong></p>

<p>Well, <strong>Robin</strong>, get me right. I do love finely crafted things and even was a kind of a <em>fitishist</em>. The 43mm is a finely crafted lens. But do not let me be misunderstood. Now nothing but the picture or IQ matters for me. The 50/1.8G feels cheap but it delivers, no-doubt, very hi quality picture. It is good on hi-res sensors like D3X... I like it....And it may keep on working for many and many years. It is silent. I <strong>thought</strong> that 43mm delivers MUCH higher IQ than all AF 50 mm existing and the difference <em>IS</em> obvious. But this is not so. I put up with the harsh bokeh, OK.... Moreover - a month ago I visited <a href="lenstip">www.lenstip.com</a> a Polish site and examined 43 mm full-resolution imges from K-5. I was shocked with mediocre quality @f4 from this combo. (See a photo of a girl, model taken at f4.0 at lenstip). My Olympus Pancake IS sharper and better at f4 even shooting JPEG. <br>

Miserere, I get what you say, but in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the prices for Pentax are exorbitant. Nobody can figure out <strong>WHY</strong>.</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G: $220 — Pentax 43mm f/1.9 Ltd: <strong>$1000</strong></li>

<li>Canon 135mm f/2L: $1,050 — Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G: $1,700 — Pentax 77mm f/1.8 Ltd: <strong>$1200</strong></li>

<li>Canon 85mm f/1.8G: $450 — Pentax 70mm f/2.4 Ltd: <strong>$740</strong></li>

</ul>

<p>I keep on monitoring the prices (1 RUR = 28 USD)... While the prices noted by you for N/C are the same... I do not like heavy lenses I am shooting with the Olympus pancake 25/2.8 ZD keeping surprised my customers somehow... with the smallest ever SLR... But the pancake blows away any mid-class and some pro-grade C/N zooms easily. To <strong>Miserere </strong>- Olympus ditched 4/3 for micro and 4/3 lenses are in no demand in the market though being stellar. </p>

<ul>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>I am sure these lenses are all as sharp as they need to be. And they render well enough too. But none would give me much pleasure, so why bother, really? One can reasonably compare Leica, Voigtlander and Zeiss to the Limiteds, but Canon and Nikon have nothing to offer.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, we totally agree. Jot the date down!</p>

<p>I can't agree with Ruslan either, he's comparing apples to cows.</p>

<p>There is another thread where the OP was asking about the D7000 vs the K5 and his issue with Nikon was the cheap lens build. Nikons lens build is not on par with the limiteds in terms of compactness or feel. Their upper end lenses are well built, but no better than Pentax DA* or FA* line, at least not the current lenses. The older stuff was built like olderTokina lenses, TANKS!</p>

<p>I know the Zeiss and Leica people probably vomit when we do stupid things like compare our rather inexpensive Japanese optics to finely designed and (at least with Leica) German crafted (though some are made in south america I believe, perhaps all) works of art, but while it's probably apples to oranges, at least it's not apples to cows!</p>

<p>Robin, I didn't realize how fixated you were on the aperture ring. I actually prefer the aperture ring too, but unlike you, I don't let it determine if the lens is good or not.</p>

<p>I've always used Pentax cameras with dual control wheels, so I rarely used the aperture ring anyway. And I don't shoot 35mm film anymore. Even if I did, again, I always shot Pentax SLRs with dual control wheels. No need for an aperture ring.</p>

<p>But let me assure you, if Pentax started putting an aperture ring and an aperture coupling in it's cameras, I'd have no complaints and we'd have a beer together to celebrate what would be a wonderous occasion.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I <strong>thought</strong> that 43mm delivers MUCH higher IQ than all AF 50 mm existing and the difference <em>IS</em> obvious. But this is not so. I put up with the harsh bokeh, OK.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Bokeh with any lens is a personal preference. The Limiteds bokeh is a bit harsh by comparison to most lenses, but it's what is responsible for what many call the 3D rendering qualities.Some argue it's all BS, but there is some truth to it, even from this semi believer.</p>

<p>I'll agree with you, I prefer a creamier bokeh, but my 43mm Limited is one of my favorite lenses, and I sold the 50mm 1.4 (considered by many reports to be either the best or among the best 50s on the market) for this lens. I'm very happy with it, and wouldn't consider selling it for any lens. This accounts for the fact that it's a weird (but usable) focal length on a cropped sensor.</p>

<p>Certainly, Ruslan, everyone has different priorities and I as much as admitted I would be shooting Nikon if I had to sustain a professional career in photography... a horrible thought! I shoot (mostly) for joy and contemplation, benefits that would be sucked dry by such a fate. (Obviously a subjective take on things I expect no-one to agree with.)</p>

<p>It is not the lens that captures an image, it is the lens/camera/photographer system working with the light/subject/environment at their disposal. No profound revelation there! A lens that feels good in the hand and is usable and responsive is a boon to me. Furthermore, it is paramount that I use tools that are small and unobtrusive. This is not fetishism since I do not buy lenses to put on a shelf or baby -- no UV protection destroying the subtleties of the rendering for me! But a good lens that is quick to adjust and accurate to focus (I mean manually of course) helps make the part of the system that I can control that bit better. My ideal is the feeling of Takumar or Zeiss. The FA Limiteds are the only auto-focus lenses that come close.</p>

<p>Unlike some, I do not downplay the importance of testing and MTF figures etc. in evaluating lenses. But I always keep in mind that these quantitative measures are not enough. If I do not feel good using a camera and if it does not aid me in my task, then I cannot take special pictures. I can take <em>decent</em> pictures, sure, since I know the mechanics of photography. I could shoot weddings, school portraits, event stuff for newspapers... no problem. This takes "only" an accomplished technician. (Of course the exceptional examples of photography in these areas are indeed exceptional, and I <em>do</em> appreciate them. But exceptional work, by definition, is not required of such professional work. Stable, consistent, assembly-line output is the goal.)</p>

<p>So, yeah, Nikon have a nice system, no doubt. I know exactly what I would buy if I needed to step into the pro realm. Pentax would not suffice, since the support network is nowhere. I would not build a career on such a frail foundation. Perhaps this is where Ricoh could make a real difference? Nothing to do with technology at all!</p>

<p>But since you mention sharpness, the FA43 has it in every test, sharpest of all lenses in the Pentax system (except, likely, the FA 50 f/2.8 macro) in the centre, surpassing most lenses from other systems too. Chosen as exemplary by Pop Photo, Mike Johnson and many others. Even Lenstip, whom you cite, has a user rating of 5 out of 5 for optics. But I would not laud it so much if sharpness was the only criteria. Quite simply it has a special rendering. If indeed it has "weak image quality on the edge of the frame" and "monstrous coma", as that site concludes, this is what give it its character... much like fast Leica lenses that cost several times as much.</p>

<p>Lenstip is a perfect example of a site that makes conclusion based only on tests. As such they are half useless. Shooting with a lens is about learning what it is good for, and then using it for exactly that. The FA43 Limited happens to be superlative at capturing the dimensionality of anything I put in front of it, with excellent contrast and detail. Despite the tested weak corners it is wonderful for landscapes as well. I would much rather have a lens like this than one that is supposedly good at everything but excels at nothing. I suppose that is the difference between someone who has the freedom to be an art photographer and explore lenses for their own character and someone who must deliver consistently at all times.</p>

<p>I chose Pentax entirely because of the exceptional possibilities of the system. I do hope Ricoh maintains this philosophy and does not instead try to make the brand good at all things but master of none.</p>

<ul>

</ul>