I am old enough to have bought a K2 when it first came out.

It's definitely the right choice, if it's working. It can do anything the others can do, and more.

G

I'd never heard of Floyd, but he writes well.

Thanks for the link.

G

I think, Japers, that this is an example of a huge and hubristic error in pricing, not just an adjustment to the EAP (Early-Adopters' Premium).

This is probably Sigma's last gasp as a camera manufacturer. It's interesting that no new name has managed to compete successfully in the serious photography market. Despite having enormous resources, and one of the world's best known names, Sony has made little impact. Samsung made none. Panasonic still aren't in the serious (aka SLR) camera market. All the best brands were in business 40 years or more ago.

Sony might have succeeded had it retained the Minolta name.

Ricoh has seen this, and realised that if it is to get anywhere it needed a name with pedigree. Thankfully, they've got cash as well.

G

The MX is certainly simpler than the LX, but compared to today's cameras, the LX itself is pretty simple, and there is no point in sacrificing the LX's huge advantages just because an MX is simpler.

Taken altogether, many people would say that the LX was the best manual-focus 35mm film camera ever made.

There are many sites devoted to it, such as this:
LX

G

After recent events, they might have learnt a lesson.

But sadly, as in politics, such lessons are soon forgotten.

G

I tend to avoid pictures of pets, children, or sport. However, a good picture is a good picture, whatever the subject matter.

For that reason, I think the first is the best. It tells a story, whereas the treecreeper picture, whilst technically excellent, does not.

G

You might well be right, Cabstar. It is not unknown for manufacturers to milk the early adopters, and then price the product realistically.

G

The pavilion looks interesting, and you chose a good time to photograph it. I also like the picture of the two Mughal-inspired domed shelters. Again, excellent use of light.

G

Coming back to the dangers of comparing chalk with cheese, the Pentax-A 1:4 200mm weighs 405gms, and the A* 1:2.8 weighs 850gms. One stop doubles the area of the glass and more than doubles the weight of it (all else being equal).

Obviously the mount is the same, but the fact remains that the Pentax lens will be significantly smaller and lighter and cheaper to make than the Nikon and Canon 1:4 lenses.

It will still be quite a beast, though.

Let's assume it's going to be sharp. The real make or break factor will be focussing speed. I just hope Pentax put a nice torquey motor in it.

The more I think about it, the more I reckon this is Pentax's most significant new product for years. If they get it right, which includes pricing it right, then it will remove the biggest single barrier to Pentax taking a larger share of the market.

G

It's a 1:5.6 lens, not 1:4 or 1:4.5. There is no point in comparing it with faster glass.

I suspect it will come in under £2,000. It's actually quite easy to make long primes, and provided you sell enough, there is no need for them to be very expensive.

The other point is that the market for this lens, if priced high, will be tiny. There are far fewer potential Pentax buyers (at high prices) than there are potential Nikon or Canon buyers. So if Pentax want to make money from this lens, they will have to pile 'em relatively high, and sell 'em relatively cheap.

G