Pentax Sold To Ricoh!!!

[rparmar]

<p>No doubt I do sound a little fixated in this thread... on various things no doubt, not just the aperture ring!</p>

<p>My thinking on that widget has changed in the last three years. Before that time the aperture ring was necessary in practice only for compatibility with certain film cameras -- not such a bad thing, but not essential. Though in terms of usability a ring is preferable to computer -- er, camera -- control, in that one can clearly see the setting and manipulate it. Visual feedback and tactile response (affordance) are both eminently good things. I suppose if cameras had a dedicated aperture dial I would not require one on the lens.</p>

<p>So that was the state of things three years ago. But with the rise of mirrorless cameras the aperture ring has come into its own again. Now I can put any of my Pentax lenses on my Olympus E-P1 and dial in the aperture with the ring. The camera then exposes correctly -- no green button, no false meter readings. This is something I dearly hope Ricoh adds to the next gen of Pentax cameras -- correct and instantaneous metering. Once this is done, I bet more people start using the aperture ring!</p>

<p>In the current environment, an aperture ring on a lens increases its desirable across camera systems. If I was Ricoh I'd explicitly market the excellent Pentax lenses in the MFT market, because the FA Limiteds look absolutely wonderful on these cameras! I have a series of articles on my blog relating to the E-P1, but here is one example.</p>

<p><a title="lavender by robinparmar, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/5850819483_ac6a22a816.jpg" alt="lavender" width="500" height="500" /></a></p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>In the current environment, an aperture ring on a lens increases its desirable across camera systems. If I was Ricoh I'd explicitly market the excellent Pentax lenses in the MFT market, because the FA Limiteds look absolutely wonderful on these cameras! I have a series of articles on my blog relating to the E-P1, but here is one example.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I totally agree with you on this. Although, I still believe/hope that an electronic aperture ring can be built into the lens adapters for these MILCs. after all, if you need an adapter anyway, why can't it also control the aperture? Heck, you could even make it semi mechanical...meaning the aperture ring rotates on the adapter like a real ring. Pretty cool! <br /><br />So I think the problem is solvable. Obviously, adding the ring to the lenses in the first place simplifies the process, though I don't see it happening. Then again, perhaps Ricoh is smart enough to do something Pentax wouldn't do.<br>

I care less about adding the ring back than I do about future DSLRs having what is probably between a 50 cent and $10 coupling added back into the camera. It's precisely why I am sitting out the K-5. The K-5 addresses the only real problem I have with the K-7, the shutter vibration when not bolted to a monster tripod. But it lacks two of my other wants/needs. Higher flash sync, and possibly more importantly, the ability to meter with any lens like the PZ-1P could.</p>

<p>I'd love to be able to meter with my Vivitar 28mm f/2.0, or my 55mm 1.8 without the convoluted green button setup.</p>

[rparmar]

<p>You know Justin, we always agreed more than we disagreed, so you shouldn't find the current coincidence of opinion that surprising. :-)</p>

<p>If Nikon can add meter coupling on a DSLR, as they did with the D7000, then Pentax can too. Backwards compatibility <em>does</em> matter. And cross-system compatibility matters now more than ever in photographic history. The first company to realise and exploit this fact could reap significantly increased lens sales.</p>

<p>Then again other brands have their blind spots. Why has Olympus not released a small MFT camera with built-in EVF? Or, better yet, why can you still not control ISO directly on a dial? That would greatly improve the control usability. It can be fixed with a simple firmware update. Yet they just released three new models without addressing this glaring oversight!</p>

<p>Back to Ricoh/Pentax, I recommend that they ditch ridiculous ventures like the Q and instead convert their lenses for the MFT mount. They'd have an instant new market with minimal investment... one that is currently crying out for quality primes! This could hardly hurt their own camera sales, particularly if they concentrate on the high-end (K-5, 645D), for which MFT has no answer.</p>

[ruslan]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Justin let them do. There is such a definition the cost of manufacturing. Jaguar cars were fine but where are they now? Leica people have this right. Leica is FF now, it has a special Kodak sensor, no AA filter and all is made in it to unparralelled quality.... I have read a lot of direct comparisons (in image quality) between ...say, Carl Zeiss 50/1.4ZF and Nikkor 50/1.4G... I find those comparisons<strong> appropriate</strong>. The CZ although feels like expensive swiss watch - Nikkor doesn't. I see your point. Maybe I compare oranges to cows but in terms <em>of materials and finishing</em> only, but if we compare them only in PQ if we compare full-res shots without knowing what lens were they taken... 43mm, 50mm/1.4 Pentax, 50/1.4 Nikkor, 50/1.8 G... The latter 1.8 feels cheap but in terms of sharpness it is no slouch (the examples from <em>photozone</em> on <strong>Nikon D3x</strong> impressed me so much - much stronger than a full-res. portrait of girl taken with 43mm @f4 from www.lenstip.com). Maybe it is beacuse of <strong>D3X</strong> and its pixel resolution and finer camera details and not because of the lens. And I know examples when a very cheap 50/1.8D lasted for 20 years of extensive use whereas some large and expensive Sigmas broke quickly after 2 months of gentle use... <br>

As for harsh bokeh which gives so-called 3-d look. I saw such examples (43mm) hundreds of times... I did not find on flickr nothing that could make me say <strong><em>wow</em></strong>. Flick shows how few people use limiteds compared to C/N stuff... And the level of their photography isn't higher (to say gently) than those in C/N groups. Sadly to state this. <br>

<a href="

I know that 85/1.8D Nikkor is capable of alike somewhat harsh bokeh and look (3D?), but It is 2.3 times cheaper and it is a <em>REAL</em> portrait lens. It is also <em>sharper</em> wide open than 43mm. <br>

The following shot is taken with 77mm..<br>

<a href="

I can say that a faily cheap Canon 85/1.8 USM is not worse looking at the picture. And top notch build of lenses should mean weather resistance, (recently I shot in the rain and was nervous) and not only strong toleranses and aluminum body. 77mm does not contain plastic aspherical or plastic hybrid elements and it is all-metal, I understand what its price comes from... It is kind of pleasure having them. But I concentrate on photography at least not on feel and look of the lens now. <br>

As for the topic - Ricoh - they must develop the sistem, more lenses, good servise net, good FF primes and top-class zooms, all water sealed, 85/1.4*, <em>very good</em> 100/2 and 135/2, <strong>affordable FF camera</strong> (not more expansive than Sony A-850) and the brand will revive. I wonder if Ricoh can compete with the monters... I don't want Pentax to be the second Olympus and share alike place... </p>

 

[ruslan]

<p>As far as it concerns image quality, IMO, we could compare everything: 50/1.8G with 43/1.9, Canon 50/1.2L with Pentax 55/1.4*, even plastic 35/2.4 with 35/2.8 limited macro (which is done on the net), 50/2 Olympus macro with 50/1.4ZF Planar (both are solid but different the former is splash-proof the latter is all-metal vintage design), not expensive clone Tokina 35/2.8 macro with costy Pentax 35/2.8 macro limited - every lens concerning their IQ is comparable. And from such a comparison we could make conclusion if such a high price deserves to be paid and <em>for what it is paid</em> - compactness, aluminum alloy body, strong tolerances, mechanical rigidity, splash-resistance or <strong>for the image quality</strong>. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why has Olympus not released a small MFT camera with built-in EVF? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>To reduce the cost of manufacturing and to make it in a smaller size... IMO. </p>

[rparmar]

<p>I have seen hundreds of images with the FA Limiteds that made me sit up and say "wow"! That's the reason I started looking at them seriously in the first place. It all started with the pictures. When I got the lenses myself I did not find an instantaneous transformation of my abilities. Once I had learned the lenses I would indeed have to credit the glass with making me a better photographer. This has nothing to do with sharpness, however, but everything to do with making the tactile side of the act more pleasurable and, eventually, transparent. The difference might be fractional, but it is real.</p>

<p>Ruslan, the ability (or lack thereof) of the Flickr photographers you reference is of course a red herring. And so is price, since, as has already been demonstrated, the Limiteds are cheaper than correspondingly well-built lenses and even cheaper than very average feeling Canikon lenses. (Sorry this is not as true in Russia, but on the other hand I cannot even buy a Pentax lens in Ireland, so I use the internet instead. Rather why we are here, I suppose.)</p>

<p>In any case, to each their own. You don't think the Pentax lenses are worth it; others find them a relatively good buy. You don't like the bokeh; I find it perfectly acceptable and even excellent when used properly. You don't think the build is worth paying money for; I do. I know I have an edge over my friends shooting Nikon, just as their choice of system gives them certain advantages over me.</p>

<p>All I hope is that Ricoh enhances the innate advantages of Pentax and does not abandon them for buyers with your priorities. Because, though they may be valid, other brands already exist to meet them. I believe in plurality.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Flick shows how few people use limiteds compared to C/N stuff... And the level of their photography isn't higher (to say gently) than those in C/N groups. Sadly to state this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ruslan,</p>

<p>You are correct. The camera makes the photograph.</p>

<p>My feelings are if you went with Pentax you'd be one of those disgruntled users that in 9 months wrote us a sad good-bye letter, telling us your reasons for leaving Pentax. These would most definitely include the fact that you'd have already been an award winning photographer had you not wasted 9 months with a crummy system.</p>

<p>You are obviously free to do what you want, but if it was me, and I knew that this was my future, I'd save the expense of buying one system, only to buy another 9 months from now.</p>

<p>Best of luck on the C/N forums and I hope your photographic skills hold up to the scrutiny of the best photographers in the world, cause they all shoot C/N!</p>