Dust proof in my book means it is impossible for dust to enter, not difficult to enter. The wording is not well thought out.

The 'difference' between DA* and WR is the former makes it difficult for water to enter the lens and the latter makes it difficult for water to enter the lens through the use of the same technology.

I think that proves Jim's point.

I can't say I disagree with that. There is nothing wrong with being the leading APSC manufacturer. But this new Fuji is a challenge to that and a sign of future challenges to come. All early new technology products have their failings. But they normally win out in the end as the innovation progresses.

And selling fast.

A real dilemna actually.

If they can engineer a ff sensor into a K3 body then they have a very tempting product. At least a tempting concept for the next few years.

If they need to make it mirrorless then the body will be bigger than it needs to be.

So what happens when mirrorless technology catches and negates the advantages of having a mirror?

The likes of Fuji in particular have no baggage and can steam in there, well they are doing that. Sony are quite happy to pour money in to a news lens mount and lenses, and then another.

How do you solve a problem like the brick? Gamble that mirrorless will never quite catch up? Bring in a new mount now to compete in future and hack off all your customers? Bring in a new mount later and come to the party way too late? Put your faith in the brick?

Dunno.

Compactness, build quality and weather sealing. These are the big Pentax advantages that attracted me. Pentax is still ahead of Nikon And Canon for me in that regard. But Sony and Fuji are making big statements and Pentaxians are liking what they see there (as are owners of Nikons and Canons too). Olympus have said they want a piece of dslr action as well. The marketplace is becoming increasingly crowded and Ricoh will have to show their hand soon so I am sure that there is a lot of substance to those rumours. This will be an interesting year no doubt.

I know people have been clamouring for this for ages now, I wonder what makes it the holy grail? The f1.7 converter seems to do a very good job with the right lenses. Will this be a significant improvement on that? WR is obviously welcome.

I add my condolences. A forum is a strange entity, a place for masks and alter egos, misconceptions and misjudgements. My sympathies are for Richard, about whom I knew nothing, not for Generator who was a mere work of fiction.

Hereis a (potentially) useful piece on focal length and perspective as it relates to portrait photography.

One can argue until the cows come home about the maths of it all and controlled tests. But in the real world then if you are after a head and shoulders shot then you will change camera position according to focal length because you have to.

Perspective is about the distance between objects. But does the perception of perspective depend entirely on that simple fact? Using different focal lengths will mean, inter alia, different depths of field. And though you can argue that this hasn't changed the brain surely interprets depth of field as having an impact on perspective. Compare two in focus objects versus one in focus and one out of focus - whilst the mathematical perspective hasn't changed the brain's interpretation will probably be different and the perception of perspective may well have changed. I think Algi has raised a good point of debate, something worth thinking about, and I don't see why it should be stymied. The other thread has been locked so I have to set out my opinion here.

Actually John when you say the contributions in this thread are not helping understanding of any matters then you are wrong, because they are helping me thinking about these issues. The very reason there is a 'myth' about perspective changing focal length to me indicates that there is some merit to it.

So imo this I am right you are wrong classroom approach which I see in these threads is just too simplistic and unmerited.

Why stop now please? Algi is expressing an opinion and has not contravened any forum rules, surely? That opinion might be right or it might be wrong. It is a matter of science. But to be mistaken is a reason to be leaned upon?

Whether or not focal length affects perspective might be a completely incontravertible mathematical certainty, but there is a degree of natural counterintuitiveness to the argument. I can understand that. I think it is unfair to try and put an end to an opinion, a forum is surely an exchange of opinions. Whether those opinions are scientifically/mathematically right or wrong I don't really see as relevant. Discussion is good, censorship of discussion is not.

It does seem strange to me to have Ricoh branding everywhereon the large banners and then a different name written on most of the products.

They could change everything to Ricoh but then the current catalogue lenses have Pentax written on them so it seems likely that they will continue with the Pentax name.

Either dropping the Pentax name or using it full makes more branding awareness sense to me, but not a sort of halfway house.