My 2500 word essay on the K20D

[falconeye]

Originally Posted by KungPOW

Does anyone know if any of the third party lens makers (voitlander, zeiss etc) are making lenses that would work on a FF pentax? That might hint at the future.

Zeiss only makes FF 35mm lenses for PENTAX, their ZK series. With the possibly exception of their lenses developed OEM for Sony, they have totally ignored the APS-C era.

A company like Zeiss, it seems, lives at a pace where APS-C lives only as long as a wink, between 35mm film and full frame digital. If you look up their site, they reference documents from 19th century as proof of their innovative power

[mr.voigtlander]

Originally Posted by 24X36NOW

As for the point, the point would be a much larger/brighter viewfinder, and a 24mm lens that sports the field of view of a 24mm lens, rather than the field of view of a (yawn) 36mm lens.

Apart from improved image quality with a full frame sensor (or larger format films), the other difference is the bigger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field is at a given f-stop. So this is important for portraiture and when using fast primes for out of focus areas and getting a look. If you shoot Macro however, then maybe this is not a good thing for you.

At a pro level, having that look is all part of standing out from the crowd and making a signature shot.

But don't despair, we have film, you can do it, it ain't nothing new. Old school is good school!

[mr.voigtlander]

Originally Posted by falconeye

Zeiss only makes FF 35mm lenses for PENTAX, their ZK series.

A company like Zeiss, it seems, lives at a pace where APS-C lives only as long as a wink, between 35mm film and full frame digital. If you look up their site, they reference documents from 19th century as proof of their innovative power

Yep. A lens manufacturer who has been around for over 100 years... There might be a reason for that. Most 19th century photographers are better than 99% of todays photographers in fact. If you just dismiss the greats of the past you're missing out.

I've been told by Zeiss that they will be making more wide angle SLR lenses. Currently they do 85mm, 50mm 35mm, 28mm, and 25mm in Nikon F, Pentax K and Pentax M42 (in various configurations). It looks like Voigtlander will be doing more SLII lenses too (though this I can't confirm).

For B&W shooters this is good news as I myself will always be using film and these lenses are what I need for what I do. They are fantastic lenses.

Having these lenses available is the main reason why I am interested in Pentax today. It is a great compliment to the pentax lens line-up. And suits the Pentax niche market that Pentax says it wants.

[24X36NOW]

Originally Posted by mr.voigtlander

But don't despair, we have film, you can do it, it ain't nothing new. Old school is good school!

Indeed; unfortunately, my old slide film standby was discontinued by those #%&@!$%^&*s in Rochester; but I just picked up a couple of rolls of the film I'll probably use as a replacement for a try, which is a stop faster with less grain. As long as the color pallette is satisfactory, I'll still enjoy shooting slides with my LX's (albeit with the need to handle the film more carefully since it's E-6 film with the color dyes in it). What I would also like, however, is to have a digital SLR with the same format.

As for those who think the 14 megapixels of the K20D is "too much" and is a "disadvantage," I'll be happy to sell you my recently purchased K10D for the $700 I paid for it when the K20D shows up on the shelves of B&H.

[ricardobeat]

Originally Posted by mr.voigtlander

Apart from improved image quality with a full frame sensor (or larger format films), the other difference is the bigger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field is at a given f-stop. So this is important for portraiture and when using fast primes for out of focus areas and getting a look. If you shoot Macro however, then maybe this is not a good thing for you.

At a pro level, having that look is all part of standing out from the crowd and making a signature shot.

But don't despair, we have film, you can do it, it ain't nothing new. Old school is good school!

I know you won't agree, but technically and practically the difference in DOF is not that significant.

Actually I don't quite get it yet, but using any of the available DOF calculators online, they tell me the DOF for a given focal lenght, aperture and subject distance is smaller/shorter in APS-C than for 35mm (?). Anyone care to explain? I thought DOF was shorter for larger formats.

[falconeye]

Originally Posted by ricardobeat

I know you won't agree, but technically and practically the difference in DOF is not that significant.

Actually I don't quite get it yet, but using any of the available DOF calculators online, they tell me the DOF for a given focal lenght, aperture and subject distance is smaller/shorter in APS-C than for 35mm (?). Anyone care to explain? I thought DOF was shorter for larger formats.

You seem to have forgotten to also increase the focal length correspondingly. And it is more complicated than this because image quality is involved as well (by the increase in both sensor and lens areas). There are various threads in this forum discussing this at length, with mixed conclusions This thread here, I would say, isn't the place to carry on this discussion

[WMBP]

Originally Posted by ricardobeat

I know you won't agree, but technically and practically the difference in DOF is not that significant.

I think it's significant, but it does not seem to me nearly as significant as the difference in depth of field going from a fixed-lens camera like my old Canon PowerShot S3 IS to an APS-C digital SLR.

[Added a few minutes later] Actually I think the depth of field ratio on my K10D is just about perfect, in other words, the difference between aps-c and full frame (or 35mm film) is an advantage of the aps-c. It's absurd to think that less depth of field is absolutely and always better, for example, that it would be even better than full frame to have, say, only 3 inches of depth of field at 75mm and f/5.6.

Actually I don't quite get it yet, but using any of the available DOF calculators online, they tell me the DOF for a given focal lenght, aperture and subject distance is smaller/shorter in APS-C than for 35mm (?). Anyone care to explain? I thought DOF was shorter for larger formats.

You're comparing depth of field for the two formats at the same focal length. But if you adjust the focal length so that your comparing effective field of view, you'll see that the depth of field for film or full-frame dslr is smaller. In other words, compare what you get with a Pentax K10D at 50mm with what you'd get on a 35mm film camera at 75mm camera.

Will

[ricardobeat]

Originally Posted by WMBP

You're comparing depth of field for the two formats at the same focal length. But if you adjust the focal length so that your comparing effective field of view, you'll see that the depth of field for film or full-frame dslr is smaller. In other words, compare what you get with a Pentax K10D at 50mm with what you'd get on a 35mm film camera at 75mm camera.

Will

Thanks. I knew I was doing something stupid (I adjusted the focal length for APS-C not 35mm). It's better to stay away from discussions after 3 AM :]

falconeye: Seems to me all this discussion is already way off topic, so I didn't bother.