[Steve Beswick]

so lets say you will get in too photography as a professional, and need the gear and service available to you ... you will find that Pentax is not giving that to you.

My clients never seem to notice.

[DavidWasch]

I may be wrong, but IIRC, 35 mm film was developed for the movies and adapted to still cameras.

Somebody correct me if I have this wrong, but I don't think 35 mm film was introduced to produce a small still camera.

Jer

Ah, thank you Jer. I stand, and sit corrected.

[DavidWasch]

I think FF will die faster than cropped sensors. Eventually someone will produce a sensor which cools itself after each shot and has reflectors on parts of the camera to reflect more light into the sensor (20 years from now maybe?) Olympus has been doing great with improving ISO performance especially with the new Lumix GH1.
IMHO, I think the only reason why FF was made was b/c there was so many old Canon/Nikon/Minolta FF glass. Everyone with APS-C sensors dream of having FF, but its just a trend and I think it will die eventually.
JUST MY OPINIONS

Nicely put. The consensus seem to be that FF makes little difference; some desirable lenses just happen to be FF.

[asdf]

I have just purchased a new K20D, and am awaiting delivery. When I was considering which lenses to purchase, I was tempted by some of the premium DA lenses but decided to hold off because

1- Being a modestly funded novice, I didn't want to overspend on something I might not benefit from for a while

2- By the time I refine my interest, develop the skills, and save the funds, there may be a full-format Pentax that would render the DA lens obsolete.

Does anyone here have concerns about the useful life of their DA lenses? How long might it be before a full-format Pentax body renders them obsolete?

Thanks ahead of time for your thoughts. When I make the jump to premium lenses, I want to be confident that I can use them for a long time.

-David

A lot of the DA lenses work fine on film cameras--as long as you use a different lens shade, or avoid the wide end, if it's a zoom. For example, DA* 200 f/4 has the same optical formula as FA* 200 f/4.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

[DavidWasch]

A lot of the DA lenses work fine on film cameras--as long as you use a different lens shade, or avoid the wide end, if it's a zoom. For example, DA* 200 f/4 has the same optical formula as FA* 200 f/4.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

Great resource! Thanks.

[Marc Sabatella]

OMFG 645 & K mounts are so different they cannot be even compared.

Why not? The basic principle stands - the mere existence of a bigger format doesn't invalidate the validity of the smaller ones. If APS-C is useful today, there is no reason on earth to assume it won't be useful 20 years from now.

[K-9]

...If you have a digital camera, why on earth do you think that a film lens can ever possibly be a better solution?...

Ummm, how about because Pentax DA/digital lenses have yet to match some Pentax titanic film lenses of the past ... FA85mm1.4, F50mm1.4, FA135mm1.8, FA31mm, FA28-70mm2.8, A50mm1.2.

Exactly what Marc just said. You will always be able to use DA lenses.

And someone will always be able to use their Pentax Elfina APS camera if there's a battery in it, but why on Earth would they want to when better, more advanced camera and lens setups will inevitably exist?

Let's say Pentax never makes another APS sized sensor body. Fast Forward 8 years from now and Pentax is unleashing it's 42 megapixel FF body. Are you really going to want to keep shooting at 14.6 with those DA lenses?? If you had spent that $800 on an FA lens, you'd be all set.

Bottom line is, if you could care less about how much money you spend and may lose, and want to live in the now, buy DA. If you like to invest and spend your money wisely, buy FA lenses. The DA lenses will almost certainly not hold their value over the years, as technology advances, when in fact some of the the FA's have increased.

The other thing you could do, if you're someone who is savvy about selling your stuff, is buy DA now, and make sure you sell them at the right time, before they start to decrease in value. They're not long term keepers.

[Marc Sabatella]

Let's say Pentax never makes another APS sized sensor body. Fast Forward 8 years from now and Pentax is unleashing it's 42 megapixel FF body. Are you really going to want to keep shooting at 14.6 with those DA lenses?? If you had spent that $800 on an FA lens, you'd be all set.

Yeah, until Pentax puts out their 645 digital, and you wish you had saved your $800 toward that. Or, you could sit tight and keep using your APS-C camera and spend the $800 on something else entirely.

We can play this game forever. You can imagine that FF is the be-all and end-all of camera design now and forever, and that all your decisions should be based on the dream that some day, if you play your cards right and start investing now, you too might have the opportunity to use the Holy Grail of All Possible Sensor Formats (after which, you can presumably die happy, having seen the Promised Land that measures 24x36mm). Or you can realize there is a whole continuum of possibilities, of which APS-C and FF are just two, and that there is just as good a chance that something else might catch your fancy in the future.

[K-9]

Yeah, until Pentax puts out their 645 digital, and you wish you had saved your $800 toward that. Or, you could sit tight and keep using your APS-C camera and spend the $800 on something else entirely.

We can play this game forever. You can imagine that FF is the be-all and end-all of camera design now and forever, and that all your decisions should be based on the dream that some day, if you play your cards right and start investing now, you too might have the opportunity to use the Holy Grail of All Possible Sensor Formats (after which, you can presumably die happy, having seen the Promised Land that measures 24x36mm). Or you can realize there is a whole continuum of possibilities, of which APS-C and FF are just two, and that there is just as good a chance that something else might catch your fancy in the future.

There's actually 3. Two are already here. The K-mount film bodies of the past, and the current APS sized sensors of the present. We can all only speculate about a FF of the future. And, as far as the 2 existing formats, the DA lenses are only good on 1 out of 2. The FA lenses and all non DA, are available for 2 out of 2. Just one of the many concrete reasonings behind not spending the money on the DA lenses.

Again, if you're savvy about selling lenses and knowing when to sell them, and you don't use film bodies, you can be fine buying DA lenses right now. Otherwise, someone like me, who primarily uses film bodies, and occasionally my DSLR (and probably a FF one if they ever come out with it) is sticking to the lenses that can be used on both of my current setups, not just one.

[jstevewhite]

Yeah, until Pentax puts out their 645 digital, and you wish you had saved your $800 toward that. Or, you could sit tight and keep using your APS-C camera and spend the $800 on something else entirely.

We can play this game forever. You can imagine that FF is the be-all and end-all of camera design now and forever, and that all your decisions should be based on the dream that some day, if you play your cards right and start investing now, you too might have the opportunity to use the Holy Grail of All Possible Sensor Formats (after which, you can presumably die happy, having seen the Promised Land that measures 24x36mm). Or you can realize there is a whole continuum of possibilities, of which APS-C and FF are just two, and that there is just as good a chance that something else might catch your fancy in the future.

I'm with you, Marc. I was going to post the same comment about 645 until I saw your post.

Also, there's no guarantee that any mythical FF Pentax will work with the FA lenses. The FF sensor is *all about marketing*. I'm not saying that it doesn't do some things better than a crop sensor. But I will say that when I page through the portfolio of professional photographers that shoot digital FF, I have yet to see any images that make use of those things in such a way as an APS-C camera couldn't have done it just as well.

If sensor size is the holy grail of IQ, then why would we expect them to stop at FF? Why not go bigger? With modern on-camera software engineered as part of the optical formula of the lens, we can make lenses with sufficient coverage just as light and portable as current FF lenses. 645? 6x6? 6x7?

I promise you that there are labs working on making high-pixel-count multiplane sensors. An APS-C 4k multiplane sensor would make a FF bayer sensor camera look silly in the IQ department. I think we'll see (high-pixel-count, like 4k or better) mulitplane sensors in the next three to five years. Perhaps some other advances that reduce noise in the hardware, and more non-intrusive noise reduction in software as well.

No matter - I think Pentax is going to be APS-C for a long time. Probably from here until photography's *next* revolutionary change.

[Photomy]

I would assume the 35mm format was initially developed because it was the largest format that could be conveniently carried around. Up to the point of producing fatigue and camera shake, the bigger, the better. The 35mm format allows for 50% more light to hit the sensor than the the current standard, which means more resolution and quicker exposures.

If Pentax is not going to produce a FF camera, I agree-- FF lenses loose their inherent advantage. BUT, I have a feeling I will love my new 50mm f/1.7 SMCP-FA, and it was very cheap. I'm not sure what advantage a similar DA lens would provide (I'd rather do my processing on a large pc screen than in-camera), but it probably wouldn't provide it for less than $135.

No it was based on the size of the role film that was available from the movie business. It happened to also be smaller and handier than various larger film sizes but also the smallest size that still held some quality. Smaller film sizes never did all that well except for cheap consumer cameras.

[johnmflores]

Compare DA*16-50 to either Canon or Nikon FF equivalent (24-70mm) ... FYI the Canon lens is 2.1 lb same with 50-135mm (70-200)

DA* 50-135 2.8 vs. Canon 70-200 2.8:



To the OP, buy the DA lenses now, and then give them to me when they are "obsolete"!

[legacyb4]

Only diamonds last forever, right? I figure at $100/year, several hundred shots through a lens, I've probably gotten my money's worth and will sell it for the future value and get whatever comes out at that point.

Let's say Pentax never makes another APS sized sensor body. Fast Forward 8 years from now and Pentax is unleashing it's 42 megapixel FF body. Are you really going to want to keep shooting at 14.6 with those DA lenses?? If you had spent that $800 on an FA lens, you'd be all set.

[scorpioh]

Actually the "diamond last forever" thing is just a marketing gimmick - analogous to what we are discussing here. I had learnt in A level Chemistry that the structure of graphite is more stable than that of diamond - i.e. over some years (probably millions), diamonds will be reduced to graphite. But well, it definitely outlast you.

[Spock]

The whole concept of 'Full Frame' is just a hang over of the old 35mm film days. There is nothing special or magical about the 36x24mm sensor size. As others have said it is just one size in a whole continuum of possible sensor sizes.

I think it is fair to say the the aps-sized sensor is the new standard and the only reason Canon and Nikon produce full frame digital sensors is because there are a lot of professionals out there with lenses that they still like to use.

Pentax seems to have committed to the aps-sized sensor. It's a shame that many of the older short lenses aren't as useful on digital cameras but to be honest most have been replaced by newer better ones and and if anything the long lenses are better on the cropped sensor anyway.