[pinholecam]

I'm FF ready, but will certainly miss some very small lenses like the DA15ltd.
Doubt I'll be able to juggle APS-C and FF to give both fair usage.


Having used my M42 lenses (esp. S.Takumars, not even what I consider 'Pentax 1st tier lenses') on a 5D, I don't have any doubts that the good/excellent Pentax lenses (eg. FA*; FA ltd; other well reviewed lenses) will perform perfectly on a Pentax FF.
In fact I think they will make many ppl sit up when used on FF.
Just a matter of Pentax making it happen for its user base.

I'm also convinced that Pentax is the way to go in terms of DSLRs for me (Canon just disagrees with me in every way in terms of usability)

[Blue]

I'm FF ready, but will certainly miss some very small lenses like the DA15ltd.
Doubt I'll be able to juggle APS-C and FF to give both fair usage.


Having used my M42 lenses (esp. S.Takumars, not even what I consider 'Pentax 1st tier lenses') on a 5D, I don't have any doubts that the good/excellent Pentax lenses (eg. FA*; FA ltd; other well reviewed lenses) will perform perfectly on a Pentax FF.
In fact I think they will make many ppl sit up when used on FF.
Just a matter of Pentax making it happen for its user base.

I'm also convinced that Pentax is the way to go in terms of DSLRs for me (Canon just disagrees with me in every way in terms of usability)

The FA 20/2.8 isn't a huge lens. Its a myth that Pentax lenses have to be huge to cover full frame. Look at the FA 35/2 and FA 50/1.4 or the F 28/2.8. Non of those are huge lenses. The FA 43 LTD and 77 LTD are relatively compact as well. The F 35-70/3.5-4.5 is incredibly compact.

[Jean Poitiers]

The FA 20/2.8 isn't a huge lens. Its a myth that Pentax lenses have to be huge to cover full frame. Look at the FA 35/2 and FA 50/1.4 or the F 28/2.8. Non of those are huge lenses. The FA 43 LTD and 77 LTD are relatively compact as well. The F 35-70/3.5-4.5 is incredibly compact.

Yes, the F 35-70/3.5-4.5 is very compact and mine is on the K-5 a lot ... a very likable zoom. J

[normhead]

I have a Pentax 35-80 (SMC Pentax FA 1:4-5.6 35-80mm). It's lightweight and quite nice on my K-5. About the same size as a the 18-55. (I don't use it often but there's nothing wrong with it when I do.) It's not an indoor lens but outdoors with good light, what's not to like? Cost me 50 bucks.



Photo albums here.

[pinholecam]

The FA 20/2.8 isn't a huge lens. Its a myth that Pentax lenses have to be huge to cover full frame. Look at the FA 35/2 and FA 50/1.4 or the F 28/2.8. Non of those are huge lenses. The FA 43 LTD and 77 LTD are relatively compact as well. The F 35-70/3.5-4.5 is incredibly compact.

Totally agree, which is why I'd rather just wait for a Pentax FF (or even just continue to use a Pentax APS-C).

I'm always a bit irritated by those who make the comment that existing lenses are not FF ready.
Totally untrue as my own use of the Takumars on FF has shown to myself.


I tried the latest and greatest 5DIII with 24-75 at their showroom. What a clunky beast.
Made to impress though with its size and machine gun like loud shutter on multi-frame mode.
I can see why it sells to those who like it this way.

[msatlas]

The only APS-C lens I have is my Tamron 17-50/2.8--everything else is FF compatible.

For FF, I'd really want something that covers 24mm. I'd probably try to track down an AF Sigma 24mm f/2.8 Super Wide II. The Sigma EX 24/1.8 and FA* 24/2 don't really have the sharpness across the frame that I'd want. The Tamron 20-40/2.7-3.5 and Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 are decent zoom options but to my knowledge never came in Pentax mount.

I also might be more tempted to get a 77 Limited since I'd much prefer that FL on FF than on APS-C (and yes I know people love the 77 I'm just saying for me it's more appealing on FF).

Depending on the resolution of this hypothetical FF camera and whether or not it includes an APS-C crop mode, I might keep around my K-r if I wanted to use long tele lenses in order to get more reach.

[qblade]

I'd probably stick with APS-C for 2 reasons:
1. Budget (though if I make any new purchases I'll probably make sure they'll work on FF equipment.)
2. I like shooting sports - what I would lose in "reach" would probably kill me!
(And please allow for a dumb question; what the heck is "IQ"?)

IQ = Image Quality

[abacus07]

Why are there several posts that mention a loss of reach in the FF vs APSC. APSC doesn't reach any further, it is simply a crop and you can do the same on your computer.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Why are there several posts that mention a loss of reach in the FF vs APSC. APSC doesn't reach any further, it is simply a crop and you can do the same on your computer.

People have missed the fact that FF cameras have proportionately more resolution these days. It used to be that cropping a FF image to APS-C size would give you a lower resolution than an APS-C camera would, but that is no longer the case now, with cameras like D800 offering 36MP to APS-C's 20-24MP. Tough times for APS-C.

[jpyykonen]

If (when) Pentax FF will come I will most likely wait until price will come down a bit and then buy it. I will definitely buy it but not at the full release price. My primes are already FF compatible. That said, I will not sell K-5 to get it as the zooms I got for it are very good (DA* 16-50 and Sigma 50-150). So my answer is

c) Do both

[normhead]

People have missed the fact that FF cameras have proportionately more resolution these days. It used to be that cropping a FF image to APS-C size would give you a lower resolution than an APS-C camera would, but that is no longer the case now, with cameras like D800 offering 36MP to APS-C's 20-24MP. Tough times for APS-C.

The guy that missed something is you. There are no FF "cameras" that a has proportionately more resolution... the D800. That's "a camera". The D800 cost 3 times as much as a K-5. That's real bad economics. You can say you are going to buy a D800 and use it in crop mode. That's kind of like buying a half ton truck and using it to go to the grocery store. Why wouldn't you just buy a small car? Not at all tough times for APS-c.

[snake]

If (when) Pentax FF will come I will most likely wait until price will come down a bit and then buy it. I will definitely buy it but not at the full release price. My primes are already FF compatible. That said, I will not sell K-5 to get it as the zooms I got for it are very good (DA* 16-50 and Sigma 50-150). So my answer is

c) Do both

You should never, ever definitely buy something not even released yet just because it has the name on it you want. If it's a stinker, then what's the incentive from manufacturers to do better when they know they have people that will buy any junk they make?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

There are no FF "cameras" that a has proportionately more resolution... the D800. That's "a camera". The D800 cost 3 times as much as a K-5. That's real bad economics.

The D600 has proportionately more resolution than the K-5. So that's 2 cameras now.

Same for the A99. That makes 3 cameras.

There are a few APS-C cameras with 24MP, it's true, but not many (about 5 if I am right) and for those cameras you have the D800 offering proportionally more resolution. In time there will be more FF options based on a 36MP sensor, just as there will be more APS-C models based on a 24MP one.

Economics don't matter here. The point is that an APS-C camera no longer offers an advantage in "reach" over a FF camera. Whether you deem the advantages of FF to be worth the extra price is between you and your wallet.

[normhead]

WIth a 1.5 crop, a 24 MP camera is the same pixel count as a K-5 per inch so no. (1.5 x 16 is 24.) So still one camera. YOu get the same picture essentially but smaller. But if you expand the K-5 image to the same size (24 MP) as a D600 image they look almost identical. So really no advantage. I've done it a few times with the test pictures from Imaging Resource) so I'm pretty confident that's true. If you want to blow up some images that show a difference I'll look at them, but, I've done my work on this issue to my satisfaction, and while words are nice, really, what my eyes see is worth more than what somebody says.

Economics don't matter here.

SO why aren't we discussing Phase one or 645's or the cameras they use satellites, or the hubble telescope? Because economics do matter.

[snake]

WIth a 1.5 crop, a 24 MP camera is the same pixel count as a K-5 per inch so no. (1.5 x 16 is 24.) So still one camera. YOu get the same picture essentially but smaller. But if you expand the K-5 image to the same size (24 MP) as a D600 image they look almost identical. So really no advantage. I've done it a few times with the test pictures from Imaging Resource) so I'm pretty confident that's true. If you want to blow up some images that show a difference I'll look at them, but, I've done my work on this issue to my satisfaction, and while words are nice, really, what my eyes see is worth more than what somebody says.



SO why aren't we discussing Phase one or 645's or the cameras they use satellites, or the hubble telescope? Because economics do matter.

I saw that exact post made by Viking79 on DPR.