Here is what is said:-
"I had met with Adorama two weeks ago, but their gesture is symbolic of how important a relationship between manufacturer and retailer is. Equally important are the relationships we have with our users.
With this in mind, I've read many of your concerns about the recent launch of a unilateral pricing policy in the U.S. and its impact on our lens prices. I'm going to spend some time over this holiday weekend to develop a list of the top conerns you've voiced and then will share my comments with you here - hopefully early next week."
But never mind, what Ned is going to explain and "respond" will NOT change the lens prices and they will not come back to the old ones! So, what's the true meaning of his "response(s)"?Related:-
Breaking Bad News! Crazy Price Increases of Pentax Lenses with Immediate Effect!
Logging you in...
Ying · 675 weeks ago
The only way price will come down if if lens sales volume drops right off. but can Pentax afford yet another mistake?
MrBig · 675 weeks ago
Le Guest · 675 weeks ago
Is Ned still squawking that Pentax does not need a Full Frame camera and that old lenses won't work? LOL!
Tell that to Nikon and Canon!
My old lenses work great on my Full Frame camera, even my old Pentax lenses!
:)
AlexS · 675 weeks ago
Ned was/is right, mostly because he didn't claimed what Pentax-bashers says he did. For very good to excellent performance, center to corner, with a high resolution "FF" sensor, they can't just re-introduce decades old designs; they need new lenses. Some lenses could be OK, though.
And if you're not pixel peeping, don't worry, others will. Even more so if we would be talking about expensive lenses ;)
AlexS · 675 weeks ago
Le Guest · 675 weeks ago
"Saturday, April 25, 2009
Op-Ed thoughts by the Spa"
Maybe Ned should spend less time by the spa and more time collaborating with Japan on product development. This article is three years old and still no Pentax Full Frame. Pentax is in a sad state of affairs, both in management, marketing and in product offerings. I get great results from my old lenses on my Full Frame camera. Don't believe everything you are told by a corporate TOOL. You can also check FLICKR for image samples of old lenses on Full Frame cameras.
Alex · 675 weeks ago
"In our case, if we developed a full frame camera, it's likely that very few of our recent DA lenses (those designed for APS-C) would be able to properly fill the viewing area of this new sensor. And although we have some wonderful FA lenses, like my favorite FA 31mm Limited, I'm not sure even this lens would be up to the optical challenge.
I know that our engineers have studied these issues and would probably not agree totally with my simplistic explanation. However, I think it's important to understand that going to a full frame sensor means not only having to design a brand new camera from ground up, but likely a new line of lenses that meet the more demanding optical requirements."
I fully agree with what he wrote - which as you can see is not "old lenses won't work" but common sense and valid concerns (yes, he tries to explain why it's not easy for Pentax to make a commercially viable FF - but this doesn't means he isn't right). And, how about lenses that are missing? 24-70 f/2.8? 70-200 f/2.8? f/4 versions? 28 and 24mm, FF-compatible? 14mm, FF compatible?
Indeed, a new line of lenses would be required as they are required for Canikon. Otherwise, why the 14mm II? Why the 28mm f/2.8 II? Why the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II? You can check FLICKR for image samples of old versions - why the new ones?
RiceHigh 110p · 675 weeks ago
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2008/10/sample-photo...
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2009/04/some-sample-...
To the surprise of many, even the cheap FAJ did well on Full Frame when stopped down, whilst the FA Limited and the Full Frame Fisheye were doing very well near wide opened. So, what's the *real* problem?
Alex, I knew that you always liked to argue endlessly on words and by theories of your own. But the basic problem is: have you ever tried any Full Frame btw? (Not even to mention about trying any Pentax lens on FF!)
Alex · 674 weeks ago
Now explain why Canikon are replacing their old lenses, and why people are paying $$$$$ for L series and high end Nikkors. They could use a cheap kit zoom, stop down and get... erm... something.
Of course I did; I have 2 full frame Pentax cameras, you know?
Le Guest · 675 weeks ago
Alex · 675 weeks ago
Le Guest · 675 weeks ago
Pentax and Ned did a great disservice to Pentaxians by stating that the old lenses were not suitable for new Full Frame cameras. Quite the contrary, many of the old lenses, even Pentax, are quite good on Full Frame cameras.
Last I checked, this is an open forum. ANYONE can post their opinion. Ned's been wrong in the past, I wouldn't hold out much hope for Ned to have a suitable response to the new Pentax pricing structure, he's a corporate TOOL.
Go Back To Sleep,
LG
RiceHigh 110p · 674 weeks ago
Alex · 674 weeks ago
I see you're also ignoring the few valid points I've made in my previous messages, and resort to name calling. Way to go!
RiceHigh 110p · 674 weeks ago
AlexS · 674 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 674 weeks ago
My counter evidence provided is that I have actually used Pentax film glass on a 135 FF digital for long enough to tell that most of my old Pentax lenses are very capable and they are all good glass!
Your another "argument" is even more silly and actually pointless, I have to say, when Canon and Nikon have updated their lenses in generations and revisions, then the old film lenses must be not good enough for Full Frame? Wow, what a good assumption and strong point! Hey man, you really believe too much in what those marketing guys are telling you! Don't you?
Alex · 674 weeks ago
I'm quoting Ned, obviously, so that anyone can see what he actually claimed. Is that a bad thing? Is it dangerous, because people could actually understand and agree with him?
Your counter-evidence, really? I find those 18-35 pics to be weak, even in the center - on a low resolution camera.
But as I've said, you're missing the obvious. One can be satisfied with old lenses, find some that works (much better than that 18-35) - but this doesn't mean Pentax should not do better. Your standards are pretty low - if that helps your agenda; however, Pentax lens range MUST NOT be below the competition's - and in this context Ned's words absolutely makes sense. The idea of a $3000 camera with that 18-35 as a kit lens is laughable.
Can you convince me that a Pentax FF+lenses won't ever be pixel peeped upon, and no comparison with Canikon would be made? If not...
And, last but not least, you're completely ignoring the most stringent reason: missing lenses.
Alex · 674 weeks ago
You conveniently forgot to explain the new Canikon lenses - why do they make them? Why not being contempt with the old ones, if they're so good?
You also conveniently ignore the missing lenses. No standard zooms? No wide angle?
Better to be a TOOL than a FOOL. Yes, it's foolish to expect they could just make a FF camera and no new lenses. And you, my dear "Le Guest", would be one of those who would loudly complain their FF lens system is incomplete and blah blah.
P.S. FYI, Pentax bashing is not opinion, it's just silly.