Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-09-2010, 08:20 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 17
do you agree the point that aps system restricts the pentax lens sales&development?

Everytime pentax releases a high-end aps-c lens,customers always compare it to corresponding FF lens.Actually,some of my friends would rather purchase FF lens with much higher price than aps-c lens.They think the FF is the tendency for future,so they are not used to the high price of aps-c lens,even it's distinctly cheaper than FF lens


Last edited by weikle; 08-09-2010 at 08:27 AM.
08-09-2010, 09:25 AM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,147
Pentax has made a lot of FF lenses (FA series) in the past, so I would say that the only reason they aren't re-releasing them at the moment is that there's no FF body.

With that said, there are a lot of people that opt for the older FF Pentax lenses over DA lenses.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

08-09-2010, 11:10 AM   #3
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,831
I have yet to hear a rational reason why FF is necessarily better than APS-C. The only valid arguments towards FF are actually better applied to medium format. The current APS-C lenses are generally just as good as their older FF counterparts, and ISO performances now are better than what most film offered.

Give me good bodies, a good lens lineup, and more than anything else better marketing exposure. THEN we'll see if Pentax can fight in the niche market of the FF world.
08-09-2010, 11:36 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
the argument for full frame basically comes from 2 camps as I see it.

camp one, are ultra wide angle enthusiasts that want eigher the same pixel density, but just a hell of a lot more of them, or the benefit of lower noise with bigger pixels,

camp two are people that want to use lenses wide open, but retail the shallow DOF of, for example an F1.2/50mm with the new format but find there is no F.9 35mm lens.

I think camp 1 is better served by Medium format or by splicing shots, and camp 2 is being anbswered by ever faster ultra wides for ASP-C

As for the restriction of lens development, I do see some of this. Pentax seems to be developing many lenses which offer the same FOV as the film equivelents, like the 16-50 and 50-135, both at F2.8 and which would repace FA lenses like a 28-75 and 70-200 F2.8.

the problem I see is I would be interested in fast longer versions, like a 300F2.8 or a 400mm F4 but they are just not being developed. Pentax has the 300F4 and 200F2.8 but that's it.

08-09-2010, 11:44 AM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
I have yet to hear a rational reason why FF is necessarily better than APS-C.
How many stops of light can your APS-C capture in a single shot compared to FF? That would be the compelling reason.
08-09-2010, 11:53 AM   #6
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
I have yet to hear a rational reason why FF is necessarily better than APS-C.
Some of the arguments are ephemeral -- they will fade with the next generation of sensors. ISO, DR, noise, that kind of stuff, all susceptible to Moore's Law. Even VF brightness is fixable. The eternal argument, physically irreducible, is: width. On FF, my Zen-16 (US$170) is a FISHEYE, not a distorted wide; my Tokina 21 (US$23) and various 24's (US$20 avg) are WIDE, not medium wide. Yes, excellent (and not inexpensive) ultrawide glass exists for APS-C. Yes, much FF ultrawide glass was/is equally or more expensive.

But in the 15-30mm range, the HF (APS-C) vs FF difference is compelling. Back in the day, I shot both FF/135 and HF/135, especially the tiny Oly Pen-FT SLR system. It was GREAT that teles were small, primes even tinier; and not so great that wide glass just wasn't available. I could carry an entire system in one field-jacket pocket, but if I wanted a wider shot, I had to back-up without bumping into stuff. For a wide rectilinear shot with my K20D, I must mount the 21mm and march to the rear. Or spend a pile of money on more lenses. Bother.

The trade-off comes down to: more $$$ on wide lenses, or more $$$ on a FF body? dSLR bodies come and go, but lenses last. But APS-C might *not* last, which is why just 3 of my 80+ PK-mountable lenses are DA's. Many users here are heavily invested in DA's. Would PenHoya capture a viable market with an FF body line, a market of users buying new FF lenses? Work that into the money calculus, eh?
08-09-2010, 02:36 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 408
I would be happy as a lark in poo if my da 21mm f3.2 was a f1.2 which would make it equivalent to the fa 31mm. So either give me a da* 21mm f1.2 or a FF body and then I can sell my da 21mm and k7 to fund the equivalent fa 31mm.
08-10-2010, 05:09 AM   #8
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,831
QuoteQuote:
How many stops of light can your APS-C capture in a single shot compared to FF?
Respectfully and honestly, I do not understand what you mean here.

QuoteQuote:
FF, my Zen-16 (US$170) is a FISHEYE, not a distorted wide; my Tokina 21 (US$23) and various 24's (US$20 avg) are WIDE, not medium wide. Yes, excellent (and not inexpensive) ultrawide glass exists for APS-C.
Letting you use older, used glass on a "new" format is not a ccompelling argument for Pentax to develop that format...

QuoteQuote:
For a wide rectilinear shot with my K20D, I must mount the 21mm and march to the rear. Or spend a pile of money on more lenses. Bother.
But with a digital you can correct distorsion extremely easily. And even then, many lenses are not that bad. For instance, if you're satisfied with the distorsion of the 21, you'd be happy with the distorsion of the 16-50 or the Sigma 17-70 too.

I think I note a trend among people wishing for full frame. If I'm right, many of these want to use their digital camera as they used their film camera. I respectfully propose that:

1-Pentax never ever gave any indication that they would develop a FF

2-Pentax cannot develop a format so people can better avoid buying new glass

3-APS-C is where the money is

4-Wide glass exists now that compares well with the older wide glass of the film era

5-When looked at rationally, Pentax glass has never been this good (think about the current kit lens vs. the kit lenses of the end of the film era)

6-Buying one high-quality ultra-wide lens is less expensive than buying any FF camera currently on the market

7-The current FF market trends are not for larger individual pixels yielding better high ISO. They are for more pixels, each of them small. So you gain resolution, not high ISO marvels.

8-People willing to shell thousands for a FF camera would be better serrved buying into the medium format to address their ultra-wide needs. That's a system currently available from Pentax.

That's my two cents, anyway.

08-10-2010, 05:16 AM   #9
New Member
bkhl's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
Respectfully and honestly, I do not understand what you mean here.
In some sense a larger sensor all else being equal can capture more light in the same time. You can compensate that with a wider lens though. Really, the difference in quality caused by the optical compression will only be a factor at the very edges of lens design.
08-10-2010, 05:25 AM   #10
Veteran Member
RBellavance's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Near Montréal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by troglodyte Quote
I would be happy as a lark in poo if my da 21mm f3.2 was a f1.2 which would make it equivalent to the fa 31mm.
I would not, because it would be large and heavy. The appeal of the DA Ltd pancakes is their compactness, and the tradeoff is a smaller maximum aperture.

That being said, I probably wouldn't mind if the DA21 was f/2.8, but the difference between f/3.2 and f/2.8 is not all that significant in practice.
08-10-2010, 06:33 AM   #11
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by RBellavance Quote
I would not, because it would be large and heavy. The appeal of the DA Ltd pancakes is their compactness, and the tradeoff is a smaller maximum aperture.

That being said, I probably wouldn't mind if the DA21 was f/2.8, but the difference between f/3.2 and f/2.8 is not all that significant in practice.
That is the biggest reason for Pentax to exist and gain market share. The K-x is tiny and the K-7 is smaller than its predecessor. Last week at a dance camp where I was the photographer, I had more than one pro or enthuisiast from the CaNikon world ooh and ah over my DA Ltd pancakes--especially when they saw the shots. Some of these could be and have been approximated in the FF world, and some not.
08-10-2010, 07:56 AM   #12
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
QuoteOriginally posted by bkhl Quote
In some sense a larger sensor all else being equal can capture more light in the same time. You can compensate that with a wider lens though. Really, the difference in quality caused by the optical compression will only be a factor at the very edges of lens design.
How is changing the lens going to bring in more range of light captured by the sensor? I'm talking about visible detail in the shadows to the amount of visible detail in the highlights - the number of stops of light.
08-10-2010, 08:23 AM   #13
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,831
QuoteQuote:
In some sense a larger sensor all else being equal can capture more light in the same time. You can compensate that with a wider lens though. Really, the difference in quality caused by the optical compression will only be a factor at the very edges of lens design.
The total amount of light on the sensor depends on the aperture and diameter of the lens, not on the sensor itself.

Your reasoning is convoluted, but would generally hold if you had the same amount of pixels, each of them larger. If you have more pixels, each the same size as those of an APS-C sensor, you have gained resolution, but not light-gathering capabilities.
08-10-2010, 08:31 AM   #14
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
And of course if you are really in a race for the biggest sensor, MF is the way to go. I pulled out the old 645 last week for some fast-moving dance shots, and was reminded of how easy handling this camera is. It really is not (much) more unwieldy in hand than the pro FF Nikons.
08-10-2010, 09:00 AM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
The total amount of light on the sensor depends on the aperture and diameter of the lens, not on the sensor itself.

Your reasoning is convoluted, but would generally hold if you had the same amount of pixels, each of them larger. If you have more pixels, each the same size as those of an APS-C sensor, you have gained resolution, but not light-gathering capabilities.
I'm not an expert but I think you've been shooting digital too long.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, ff, k-mount, lens, pentax, pentax lens, price, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Much point for the SMC 28mm SHIFT with APS-C for architecture? JayR Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 06-07-2010 05:02 AM
For Sale - Sold: Raynox DCR-250 & Olympus Point & Shoot atnbirdie Sold Items 2 03-09-2010 01:30 PM
multi-point (11, 16, whatever) focal system—WHY?? WMBP Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 03-02-2010 10:51 AM
Would you buy a Pentax P&S with APS-C sensor? NorthPentax Pentax News and Rumors 20 04-01-2009 10:47 AM
B&W film development + digitization in Toronto/GTA Gooshin Photographic Technique 2 05-27-2008 11:23 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top