Pentax announces that they're working on new film cameras!

[albireo]

No, they are not generally overall much larger and heavier. Just look at the new lenses from Voigtländer, Leica and Zeiss for thr Leica mount. Or the Sigma 1.4/35 Art, or the 50mm Zeiss Makro-Planar / Milvus, or the Nikon 1.8/28 and 1.8/24 AF-S lenses.

Sorry, Helge is spot on. New mainstream prime lenses are, in general, huge multi-element monstrosities, and way bigger than what they replaced.

My AF-D primes are even smaller than the AF-G pictured above.

 

[Agulliver]

I do not understand the fascination with super fast lenses for this proposed compact P&S camera. That's not what the folk who might buy this camera are looking for. They're falling over themselves to bid hundreds of (choose your dollar, euro or pound) for Olympus, Canon, Pentax and Ricoh models from the 90s with f3.5 lenses. And they're not saying that they want smaller apertures in new cameras.

The Konica Off Road was just one example of an autofocus P&S that has a couple of extra features. I agree it's too bulky for what Pentax/Ricoh are looking to bring to the market but there might be some ideas there in the fact that it can be used in proper rain and dropped without breaking. These days just about everyone carries around a thousand dollarpoundeuro device that we put in and out of our pockets and sometimes drop....so we protect it with rugged cases.

 

[Film-Niko]

Sorry, Helge is spot on. New mainstream prime lenses are, in general, huge multi-element monstrosities, and way bigger than what they replaced

Sorry, but why do you refuse to read what I have written?

Your are posting a picture of a lens for a digital mirrorless system. I have not talked about that at all !!!
Mirrorless is a complete different game and irrelevant for the discussion as we are talking about lenses for film cameras.
I am talking about lenses for F, K and EF mount, which can be used for film SLRs and digital SLRs.
And lenses for classic rangefinder cameras for M mount.
I have mentioned the examples, see above.

 

[Film-Niko]

I do not understand the fascination with super fast lenses for this proposed compact P&S camera. That's not what the folk who might buy this camera are looking for.

+1.

My point was just that with an SLR - which is next step in Pentax' road-map - we have now a better situation with improved lens designs available in low light situations (wide aperture lenses and lenses with image stabilisation).
And that we can therefore be a bit more relaxed concerning high-speed films.
Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Craig]

I was reading the Nikon histories linked up thread, and I was surprised at the difficulties they had recreating the S3 rangefinder, even in 1998 when film cameras were in full production. I was surprised at how much the production depended on the skill of the people assembling the cameras to get everything adjusted "just right" to enable everything to work.

After actually figuring out how to assemble the next major challenge was making them in any sort of commercial volume. Making a one off is a very different problem than making something in volume with consistent quality.

Nikon was using the people who were assembling the F3 and FM2, so they were skilled builders of mechanical cameras. Pentax is starting with nothing in terms of experienced mechanical camera builders.

 

[Huss]

Sorry, but why do you refuse to read what I have written?

Your are posting a picture of a lens for a digital mirrorless system. I have not talked about that at all !!!
Mirrorless is a complete different game and irrelevant for the discussion as we are talking about lenses for film cameras.
I am talking about lenses for F, K and EF mount, which can be used for film SLRs and digital SLRs.
And lenses for classic rangefinder cameras for M mount.
I have mentioned the examples, see above.

Ok, how about my two 50mm 1.4 AF lenses that I use on my Nikon F6? Both are SLR lenses, not mirrorless. One is a little bit bigger than the other.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ok, how about my two 50mm 1.4 AF lenses that I use on my Nikon F6? Both are SLR lenses, not mirrorless. One is a little bit bigger than the other.

I would go for the one on the left because it is smaller, lighter and not a G lens which does not have an aperture ring. Which do you prefer? Why did you buy the one on the right which also requires a much larger filter?

 

[albireo]

Sorry, but why do you refuse to read what I have written?

Your are posting a picture of a lens for a digital mirrorless system. I have not talked about that at all !!!
Mirrorless is a complete different game

How so?

 

[Film-Niko]

How so?

Because you cannot use a Nikon Z, Canon RF, Sony Alpha mirrorless system etc. with film. Therefore lenses designed for these mirrorless systems are completely irrelevant for my point, which is about lenses which can be used for film.

 

[Film-Niko]

Ok, how about my two 50mm 1.4 AF lenses that I use on my Nikon F6? Both are SLR lenses, not mirrorless. One is a little bit bigger than the other.

And then take the 1.4/35 Art and compare it with the Nikkor 1.4/35 AI-S and the size difference will be very small.

Concerning the 1.4/50 Art vs. the 1.4/50 AF-D Nikkor:
The Sigma is by far the much better performer. You yourself have praised it here on photrio a lot because of that.

 

[albireo]

Because you cannot use a Nikon Z, Canon RF, Sony Alpha mirrorless system etc. with film. Therefore lenses designed for these mirrorless systems are completely irrelevant for my point, which is about lenses which can be used for film.

Sorry, I wasn't commenting on 'your point' - I have failed to identify one. I was commenting on your rebuttal to Helge here:

I will only venture to say that modern lenses are overall much larger, heavier, more expensive new adjusted for inflation

You:

No, they are not generally overall much larger and heavier.

Well, I disagree with you. Generally, modern lenses are larger, heavier, and composed of more elements than older iterations. This is a tendency that has been going on for a long time, way before mirrorless. This happens regardless of what sort of body they're meant for, the body technology is not a constraint here. Eg wrt old-ish 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor designs:

The Nikon 50mm f/1.8G replaces the older Nikon 50mm f/1.8D lens (introduced in 2002). Compared to the AF-D version that has 6 optical elements in 5 groups, the new 50mm f/1.8G has a modified optical design with 7 optical elements in 6 groups,

There is a trend in photography optics whereby it seems the priority is on improving chart performance at the expense of weight/ergonomics/size.

 

[abruzzi]

Of course it varies, but modern highly corrected lenses are usually larger, sometimes much larger. To me the poster child of that is the Pentax 50mm 1.4:

Though it’s easy to cherry pick examples like this or examples in the other direction.

I would also throw into the discussion that for many photographers today, large aperture is not a low light feature, but a shallow depth of field feature so I think that a faster aperture is a real selling point, but only in instances where focus can be accurately placed and the fast aperture can be explicitly selected (i.e. aperture priority.). So probably not useful for the first camera but definitely for the “premium compact.”

 

[Steven Lee]

@Film-Niko you can't be denying the obvious trend of increase in the element count, weight and bulk of photo lenses that's been going on for 10+ years. IMO this is due to the combination of digital resolution increasing and pixel peepers willing to spend money on a regular basis to examine every single skin pore on their wives' noses at f/1.4. So many people would have been happier with a $250 microscope than with a $5K mirrorless photo kit and don't realize it because microscope makers do not have marketing budgets.

But not all lens mounts are affected at the same rate. IMO this is about volumes / economics. More popular mounts got infested first.

The M-mount is just behind due to the slower pace of product refresh. Leica hasn't touched some of their Summicrons for decades. Zeiss hasn't updated their M-mount lineup for many years, but eventually they will release the ZM versions of their Otus monstrosities. But Voigtlander happily offers comically huge and heavy lenses that, in my humble opinion, defeat the purpose of owning an M-sized rangefinder. And god helps us if Sigma ever decides to enter the M-mount market. Expect plenty of ART.

The optical design limitation of SLRs that have to clear the mirror box does not apply to mirrorless cameras, so whatever is happening to mirrorless optics will happen to rangefinders as well. Just give it time.

 

[Huss]

I would go for the one on the left because it is smaller, lighter and not a G lens which does not have an aperture ring. Which do you prefer? Why did you buy the one on the right which also requires a much larger filter?

If I want small/compact, I way prefer the AF-D lens. It makes the F6 fun to use, similar if I use the 50 1.8G which is super light weight.
But if I want eye popping quality, starting at 1.4, it's not even close. The Sigma Art lenses are insane in comparison. Which they should be given the massive size.
FYI while the AF-D lenses do have aperture rings, they are kinda crappy to use with lots of plastic stiction. Nothing like the sublime rings on the AI and AI-S lenses.

 

[Huss]

..



There is a trend in photography optics whereby it seems the priority is on improving chart performance at the expense of weight/ergonomics/size.

Yeah, it is unfortunate. It seems only Leica is improving performance while maintaining size but at a cost. Next best is Voigtlander, which has some lenses that match up very well optically at a much cheaper price, their excellent APOs - 35 and 50 in M mount - are much bigger than the waaaaay more expensive Leica versions.

When you move to mirrorless - even with Leica - those lenses are fr-ckn huge now. You seen the size of the Nikon 50 1.2 S lens? It is like a howitzer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I want small/compact, I way prefer the AF-D lens. It makes the F6 fun to use, similar if I use the 50 1.8G which is super light weight.
But if I want eye popping quality, starting at 1.4, it's not even close. The Sigma Art lenses are insane in comparison. Which they should be given the massive size.
FYI while the AF-D lenses do have aperture rings, they are kinda crappy to use with lots of plastic stiction. Nothing like the sublime rings on the AI and AI-S lenses.

I missed the f/1.8 versus f/1.4. When doing night photography every bit of aperture helps.

 

[Huss]

And then take the 1.4/35 Art and compare it with the Nikkor 1.4/35 AI-S and the size difference will be very small.

Concerning the 1.4/50 Art vs. the 1.4/50 AF-D Nikkor:
The Sigma is by far the much better performer. You yourself have praised it here on photrio a lot because of that.

 

[pentaxuser]

Interesting video. Does anyone know what position he holds at Pentax/ Ricoh and what support he and his group has from the top management in terms of money, resources?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Film-Niko]

There is a trend in photography optics whereby it seems the priority is on improving chart performance at the expense of weight/ergonomics/size.

It isn't just "chart performance". I see the improvements of the designs daily in my photography, in the results. And as already mentioned, these improvements can be seen with several different quality parameters.
And I find it a bit funny that in such discussions often those complain about a bit more lens weight who in other discussions are the biggest promotors of medium format systems......

 

[Film-Niko]

@Huss
Yes, thanks, from my personal usage of both lenses: The difference in seize and weight is small and does not play a role for me. The Sigma Art 1.4 / 35 is very well balanced on my Nikons.
And the optical performance is much much better acros the range, especially at f1.4, f2 and f2.8. But also further stopped down, and generally the Sigma has a more even performance acros the whole frame.
And extremely low distortion for a wide angle, which I really like.

 

[Film-Niko]

The M-mount is just behind due to the slower pace of product refresh.

That is not the case. Leica has renewed their line permanently in the last three decades with improved designs. And added many new lenses as well. Their M lens programme has also never been so big in their history as today.

Zeiss hasn't updated their M-mount lineup for many years,

Not needed, as they are recent, modern designs.

but eventually they will release the ZM versions of their Otus monstrosities.

They won't. Because it makes no sense. Otus is a completely different concept and market segment.

The optical design limitation of SLRs that have to clear the mirror box does not apply to mirrorless cameras,

This optical limitation is valid only in the wide(r) angle area, when retrofocus designs are needed for SLRs.

so whatever is happening to mirrorless optics will happen to rangefinders as well. Just give it time.

I bet against it . Mirrorless is nothing new, it is on the market since 2008. If your assessment would be right, we would have already seen that.

 

[Film-Niko]

Interesting video. Does anyone know what position he holds at Pentax/ Ricoh and what support he and his group has from the top management in terms of money, resources?

Thanks

pentaxuser

It is said at the beginning of the video. He is one of the senior engineers and responsible for product programmes and planning.
As this is published globally, and not only with these two official videos, but also with a detailed global PR statement by Ricoh/Pentax, this project will probably has a substantial support.
But as Ricoh/Pentax is a small(er) manufacturer, there definitely won't be a "limitless funding".

 

[Steven Lee]

I bet against it . Mirrorless is nothing new, it is on the market since 2008. If your assessment would be right, we would have already seen that.

You clearly have read what I've written, but you are replying as if you haven't. My "assessment" in itself is an explanation for the delay. So the "we would have already seen that" part does not fit here. The M-mount is just relatively neglected by the market, that's why we haven't seen as many M-monstrosities yet.

They will come if there's demand. Will there be demand? Depends on how many pixel peepers can afford an M11.

Most people clearly prioritize speed and sharpness above all else. This is true for all mounts and the only plausible explanation for the delay is economics, not a lack of demand.

 

[Film-Niko]

The M-mount is just relatively neglected by the market, that's why we haven't seen as many M-monstrosities yet.

Neglectet?
The M mount has seen a very significant resurgance in the last 20 years. Compare the situation with the 80ies or 90ies: Just one camera model, and only a limited lens programme by Leica.
Now several different camera models, digital and film, and several different lens manufacturers with lots of different lenses. From absolute top quality to cheap Chinese options. And the number is increasing from year to year.......

They will come if there's demand. Will there be demand? Depends on how many pixel peepers can afford an M11.

It has very little to do with the M11, as the current top lenses from Leica, Voigtländer and Zeiss have a performance fitting that sensor.

 

[takilmaboxer]

I'd "kill" to have a new Stylus Epic type camera. Kill my budget, if needed.