[KDAFA]

... The supertele will also be quite heavy/big and comes with a DC motor. It might support FF officially while the DA*200 does not.

In fact, the DA*200 supports FF. (There is info about that in the forum).

So this is another strength of the DA*200.

[Nicolas06]

In fact, the DA*200 supports FF. (There is info about that in the forum).

So this is another strength of the DA*200.

One must understand that officially support FF lenses have a specific name like DFA or FA. While a DA might look to work on a film body or without contact on a digital FF body, it doesn't mean that once really connected to an hypothetical FF body it would not be recognised as an APSC only lense as officially said by the specifications.

I would add that there is no FF out right now in K-mount That it has been something like 10 years some say that the FF is for "next year" and Pentax explain they study the market and will do if they see the conditions for it. So maybe they see the camera market is shriking right now (it does shrink heavily in fact), or they see new sensors technology that make FF completely useless (much more dynamic range/high iso perf), maybe the priority is more to serve the demand of 645 where they have the market for themselves or maybe they decide to stop investing...

Whatever is decided, anybody really interrested on FF should not buy a lense branded and labelled as optimized for APSC. More anybody that want to go for FF should consider Pentax really consciously until an actual FF model that fit their needs is actually released.

Having a different behavior is just a receipe for a big disapointment.

[emalvick]

I'd guess now that Pentax would go FF in a mirrorless body if they go that route, but I would suspect that any FF camera would allow the use of a DA lens on the full frame sensor (with perhaps and option of cropping to APSc). Pentax has to be aware that some of the DA lenses may actually work in FF, and since FF implies professional use, I would suspect that they could provide an option for the Professional to decide whether the FF is usable with a DA lens.

Of course anyone who buys a lens for APSc and is thinking ahead for FF needs to consider the different field of view their lenses are going to give. Shooting 200 mm on a FF lens is not going to give you the same image as it would on a APSc sensor. I think that's a no duh, but I do wonder how many are going to be surprised when their telephoto lenses are decidedly less telephoto on FF.

[Nicolas06]

I'd guess now that Pentax would go FF in a mirrorless body if they go that route, but I would suspect that any FF camera would allow the use of a DA lens on the full frame sensor (with perhaps and option of cropping to APSc). Pentax has to be aware that some of the DA lenses may actually work in FF, and since FF implies professional use, I would suspect that they could provide an option for the Professional to decide whether the FF is usable with a DA lens.

Of course anyone who buys a lens for APSc and is thinking ahead for FF needs to consider the different field of view their lenses are going to give. Shooting 200 mm on a FF lens is not going to give you the same image as it would on a APSc sensor. I think that's a no duh, but I do wonder how many are going to be surprised when their telephoto lenses are decidedly less telephoto on FF.

To me there lot of hypothesis here. Mirrorless for a brand like Pentax that is very traditionnal for its flagship and care a lot to provide the best possible OVF even in entry level body. Then that the obvious decision from your point of view will be the one Pentax will take... Pentax cannot allow too easily to use FF more on most zoom and few DA primes where there would be a circle instead of full image at some settings. Does lot of vigneting and softness acceptable? Wouldn't the safe route of disabling all DA lenses be better/safer overall than try to explain why 60-250, 50-135 or DA15 can't but DA200 could and another one is just barely usable? Doesn't look professionnal to me.

On an EVF, if it even go to be considered as EVF, numerical zoom could be combined with variable max image circle and crop factor, maybe APSC at some apperture and focal length for some zoom, maybe FF, maybe somewhere in the middle. You could even imagine to configure it. But honestly this would be a mess.

If one is serious about FF, I think he should avoid such bets.

[pacerr]

. . . since FF implies professional use, I would suspect that they could provide an option for the Professional to decide whether the FF is usable with a DA lens.

Like they did when they accommodated the M42-to-PK revolution with the OEM M42 adapter to help pros budget the transition to the new bayonet mount?

Thank you again, Pentax.

[Nicolas06]

Like they did when they accommodated the M42-to-PK revolution with the OEM M42 adapter to help pros budget the transition to the new bayonet mount?

Thank you again, Pentax.

But I mean M42 lenses where advertized as say... Lenses that you could take photos with. The migration to K-mount ensure you could still use theses lenses.

For sure, just keeping all DA lenses in APSC mode would do exactly that and ease the transition. Except that would be really painfull on an OVF. Even if APSC limit visible on the view finder. But allow for FF on some lenses or allowing to choose is for sure to be a problem. The guys with DA lenses not compatible would be pissed wanting to have it anyway. Then the guy that would abuse the feature would complain the lense is really weak and low quality on borders. The worst case would be if reviewer start to review DA lenses for FF and give them badscore based on that.

Using a DA lense as an FF lense is not easing the transition, it is asking fo something you couldn't do before, a pure improvement. This also very difficult for Pentax to market properly and to manage.

What to do with zooms? I'am sure some would want their zoom to be managed as APSC zoom where the vigneting is heavy an as FF at setting where the zoom is good enoug. A real nightmare.

[emalvick]

To me there lot of hypothesis here. Mirrorless for a brand like Pentax that is very traditionnal for its flagship and care a lot to provide the best possible OVF even in entry level body. Then that the obvious decision from your point of view will be the one Pentax will take... Pentax cannot allow too easily to use FF more on most zoom and few DA primes where there would be a circle instead of full image at some settings. Does lot of vigneting and softness acceptable? Wouldn't the safe route of disabling all DA lenses be better/safer overall than try to explain why 60-250, 50-135 or DA15 can't but DA200 could and another one is just barely usable? Doesn't look professionnal to me.

On an EVF, if it even go to be considered as EVF, numerical zoom could be combined with variable max image circle and crop factor, maybe APSC at some apperture and focal length for some zoom, maybe FF, maybe somewhere in the middle. You could even imagine to configure it. But honestly this would be a mess.

If one is serious about FF, I think he should avoid such bets.

Forget the mirrorless thing (I know it is specualtive, and adds nothing to my point anyway)... If I were a user of a FF camera, I'd like the option of having the full sensor available for a shot if I so choose. Of course the image could be circular (or highly vignetted) if I'm using a DA lens. The point is, I can choose to crop what I want for what I find acceptable. It doesn't even have to be the default setting. The point on being professional is that an FF camera implies a professional user (or at least a knowledgeable, advanced photographer). A professional user should know that vignetting, softness, etc. are likely with a DA lens, and they will know where the weaknesses are and compensate themselves. Or perhaps they will only have FA lenses anyway, thus making the argument more relevant to a more knowledgeable or aware photographer (like myself) that might have DA lenses I'd like to have an option for using if they might work. I really don't see this type of feature as a bad thing as long as it isn't the only thing (and not even a default thing). It would be like our abilities to use manual focus lenses, which require an adjustment to activate.

As for auto-adjusting for a variable image circle, I agree it could be a mess. I'm not advocating that, either. Another advantage is for something like the above is that one could crop out of the resulting image at aspect ratios that don't have to be 3:2... Anyway, it's digressed a bit, partially or mostly at my fault, but even with FA lenses, I think people will probably be certainly surprised when their images are different (i.e. no longer cropped) if they move to FF. For myself, I'm fairly certain I'll never bother with FF anyway unless at some point it becomes the only thing. Given Pentax's speed, it probably won't be anytime soon anyway.

[KDAFA]

One must understand that officially support FF lenses have a specific name like DFA or FA. While a DA might look to work on a film body or without contact on a digital FF body, it doesn't mean that once really connected to an hypothetical FF body it would not be recognised as an APSC only lense as officially said by the specifications.

I would add that there is no FF out right now in K-mount That it has been something like 10 years some say that the FF is for "next year" and Pentax explain they study the market and will do if they see the conditions for it. So maybe they see the camera market is shriking right now (it does shrink heavily in fact), or they see new sensors technology that make FF completely useless (much more dynamic range/high iso perf), maybe the priority is more to serve the demand of 645 where they have the market for themselves or maybe they decide to stop investing...

Whatever is decided, anybody really interrested on FF should not buy a lense branded and labelled as optimized for APSC. More anybody that want to go for FF should consider Pentax really consciously until an actual FF model that fit their needs is actually released.

Having a different behavior is just a receipe for a big disapointment.

I am aware of the Pentax nomenclature - FA, DA, DFA.

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that one should plan for a yet-to-be-introduced Pentax FF system, and on that basis purchase the DA*200.

Rather, purchase it fully intending for APS-C use, but be aware that this DA lens (and several others too) has the added "bonus" (advantage) of an image circle which supports FF dimensions, when that possibility appears.

Of course, in FF use, the FOV would become like 135mm in APS-C, as per the DA*50-135.

Or put it another way, those who use a film/FF DSLR body with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom will be familiar with the 200mm FOV.

Interesting to note that while there may possibly be issues in using a DA lens on a FF body, the same is true for the reverse case - using an FA lens on an APS-C body.

Today we do this all the time, eg with the FA Limiteds. In so doing, we suffer the "purple fringing" phenomenon. FA lenses were meant for film, and can cause purple fringing on digital sensors - so I'm given to understand. (In fact, if I understand right, one of the design aims for DA series lenses was to solve/control this issue.)

But that doesn't put us off using FA lenses on APS-C. So it would be really great if certain DA lenses could work on FF - just think of it as a bonus, not a "guaranteed thing". There may be limitations, but if one uses it with understanding, and to the extent possible works around the limitations, it could open many new dimensions to explore...

[zzeitg]

I'm wondering why all new lenses are not simply DFA. Is price the main reason (DA equivalent cheaper than DFA), or are there any other aspects, too?

[Rondec]

I'm wondering why all new lenses are not simply DFA. Is price the main reason (DA equivalent cheaper than DFA), or are there any other aspects, too?

Some of the DA lenses do cover a full frame circle -- at least stopped down a little . I don't know a lot about lens design, but I think that Pentax did specifically design zooms and the wide DA lenses with smaller image circles in order to keep the size of the lens down. A 16-50 f2.8 or even a 15mm f4 lens that covered a full frame sensor would be huge. For telephotos, there isn't a whole lot of size savings by covering a smaller image circle.

The problem is that people don't know for sure how the DA lenses will perform on a full frame sensor. I own the 200 and it seems to do fine on film, but I'm not pixel peeping either.

[zzeitg]

Some of the DA lenses do cover a full frame circle -- at least stopped down a little . I don't know a lot about lens design, but I think that Pentax did specifically design zooms and the wide DA lenses with smaller image circles in order to keep the size of the lens down. A 16-50 f2.8 or even a 15mm f4 lens that covered a full frame sensor would be huge. For telephotos, there isn't a whole lot of size savings by covering a smaller image circle.

The problem is that people don't know for sure how the DA lenses will perform on a full frame sensor. I own the 200 and it seems to do fine on film, but I'm not pixel peeping either.

There is this old thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-le...ts-thread.html


Seems like DA* 200 should be OK for FF, well - at least "common belief".


Speaking about primes, I've read somewhere that everything above approx. 40 mm should be fine for FF. But in the linked thread the DA70 is rated not so good (step down needed, lost of IQ).

[Timd]

The risk is that Pentax might automatically "crop" the mythical future FF sensor when a DA lens is mounted, even if it has the FF image circle (as Nikon does). This firmware "hobbling" is done with the flash system already as one cannot trigger a flash faster than 1/180 sec unless a HSS enabled flash is mounted. I fear that Pentax, having created the FA, DA and DFA naming, will impose the cropped sensor on the DA lenses.

[zzeitg]

having created the FA, DA and DFA naming,

So I'd bet that the new announced telephoto lenses will be DFA... just my 2 cents.

[Nicolas06]

The risk is that Pentax might automatically "crop" the mythical future FF sensor when a DA lens is mounted, even if it has the FF image circle (as Nikon does). This firmware "hobbling" is done with the flash system already as one cannot trigger a flash faster than 1/180 sec unless a HSS enabled flash is mounted. I fear that Pentax, having created the FA, DA and DFA naming, will impose the cropped sensor on the DA lenses.

This is exactly the point.

Until we see the FF body and until we see the DA*200 really work in FF mode on the FF body and we see it maintain good quality... This is a wrong argument.

[asp1880]

I usually stay away from FF speculation, but ...

So I'd bet that the new announced telephoto lenses will be DFA... just my 2 cents.

If they are DFA, Ricoh must announce a 35mm K-mount camera at the same time.


Regards,
--Anders.