Do you really want a FF???

Fogel70 · 10-09-2012, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by i83N

Yes, they were designed for film not sensors, what makes you think that they will work on FF digital sensors same way they were working on film?

I was talking about FOV, but I think most high quality "old FF lenses" work better on FF sensors, than on APS-C sensors.

i83N · 10-09-2012, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

I was talking about FOV, but I think most high quality "old FF lenses" work better on FF sensors, than on APS-C sensors.

FOV is better on midell format so again we need cheeper 645D

Fogel70 · 10-09-2012, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by i83N

FOV is better on midell format so again we need cheeper 645D

LOL, and how can you make K-mount lenses to be used on 645D?

Well. thinking about it. Maybe Pentax can make a cheap specal version of 645D. With small body, 36x24mm sensor and K-mount.

i83N · 10-09-2012, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

LOL, and how can you make K-mount lenses to be used on 645D?

Two lense at the same time. Joking.
Serosly pepole with FF lenses complaining about no FF sensor must just shoot on film because they stuck in past. Idely every time new sensor is made it should have new lenses specially made for it, that what RICHON did with GRX.

Fogel70 · 10-09-2012, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by i83N

Two lense at the same time. Joking.
Serosly pepole with FF lenses complaining about no FF sensor must just shoot on film because they stuck in past. Idely every time new sensor is made it should have new lenses specially made for it, that what RICHON did with GRX.

And how about the Leica M-mount module for GXR?

i83N · 10-09-2012, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

And how about the Leica M-mount module for GXR?

APS-C sensor

hansenn · 10-09-2012, 03:14 AM

I just want back my old 24x36mm format.
Because I still have those "old" lenses who also imo are not really performing as they should perform on my k20d. I only use my FA 50mm/1.4 sometimes. In the analogue days a super lens with superb quality, but now not really performing better than my 18-55mm kit lens. Especially in the shorter ranges the kit lens performs very well.

And "need" is a big word. What do we really need. Water, bread and sleep.

I guess when a ff is available we just WANT it. For many different reasons.

123jippo · 10-09-2012, 03:16 AM

I want FF for sure. FF that is exactly same as K5 with FF sensor. Same price, size, weight, outlook, design, menus, SD cards, battery, all same lenses fit...everything same but only sensor is FF. Naturally mirror and viewfinder also will be litter bigger size than K5. Thank u pentax, i am waiting for K5 IIf

stevebrot · 10-09-2012, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Realisticly speaking, an FF DSLR can never be as small as the K5. An FF sensor is huge, twice the size of APSC, and the mirror, that has to swing up and down, is also twice as large. The only way an FF camera is going to be compact is if it has no mirror.

To reiterate other's comments...huh? The mirror box on my K10D is the same depth as the one in my tiny Pentax Super Program and that camera is bigger than a Pentax MX or any of the Olympus OM-series film cameras. In theory, a FF dSLR should be the same depth as and about 1cm taller and 1.5cm wider than an APS-C body based on sensor size alone. Unfortunately there is the matter of those bulky electronics and power system to support fast FF image processing, frame rate, video, and AF systems.

Steve

stevebrot · 10-09-2012, 04:24 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by i83N

Serosly pepole with FF lenses complaining about no FF sensor must just shoot on film because they stuck in past. Idely every time new sensor is made it should have new lenses specially made for it,

There are a number of considerations in relation to sensor size, but for many of us it boils down to creative control over depth of field (DOF) and availability of decent and relatively compact wide-angle options. There are reasons why 35mm film was and is such a popular film size despite more compact formats being available (e.g. 1/2 frame, 110, 16mm, Minox, etc.). It has to do with "sweet spot" in each of the following areas:

DOF control
Size of kit (both bodies and lenses)
Lens maximum aperture
Viewfinder image

Yes, "sweet spot". Great DOF control, available compact fast glass, and large bright viewfinder images in a package that is easily hand-holdable and compact.

In case you don't get the DOF connection. Have you ever shot medium format? If you have, you are probably aware of why there are NO f/1.4 lenses for say the Pentax 645d and no, it has nothing to do with physical size. Instead, it has everything to do with DOF. As the format size increases, the available DOF for a particular aperture decreases. A 80mm f/1.4 normal lens for the 645D would have razor-thin DOF and would be unworkable wide open.

The opposite is also true. With APS-C and smaller formats even a fast lens does not provide adequate subject isolation in many cases for normal or wide angle shooting.

Steve

(BTW...am seriously stuck in the past and shoots film (35mm through 4x5) to get the creative control missing in APS-C digital...)

Fogel70 · 10-09-2012, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by i83N

APS-C sensor

Yes, but they did not use the M-mount module for new lenses, but for up to 58 year old lenses.

Ricoh made this because they saw a maket in offering a cheap solution to Leica users, so they use APS-C to keep price down.

westmill · 10-09-2012, 05:14 AM - **3 Likes**

I can not believe the amount of FF v APSC that goes on in these forums. They all have there Pros and Cons. Who cares what who uses ? The best format is the one thats best for the individual. Anyone claiming that one format is better than the other for anyone but themselves is simply an idiot. Between the three main contenders of Four thirds, APSC and FF , I prefer APSC format and would choose four thirds even over FF. Thats just me though. I spend more time after more DOF than less. Its not difficult to get shallow DOF with APSC either. Surely to god everyone is well aware of the differances by now between the formats. Im going have to stop reading posts lol.

i83N · 10-09-2012, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by westmill

I can not believe the amount of FF v APSC that goes on in these forums. They all have there Pros and Cons. Who cares what who uses ? The best format is the one thats best for the individual. Anyone claiming that one format is better than the other for anyone but themselves is simply an idiot. Between the three main contenders of Four thirds, APSC and FF , I prefer APSC format and would choose four thirds even over FF. Thats just me though. I spend more time after more DOF than less. Its not difficult to get shallow DOF with APSC either. Surely to god everyone is well aware of the differances by now between the formats. Im going have to stop reading posts lol.

Very Well Said

Blue · 10-09-2012, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Because film is quite a bit thinner then an LCD screen and supporting electronics + sensor + sensor stabilisation & its needed clearence & support frame / plate + processors + IR & low pass filter + giant battery + all the stuff I'm forgetting about.

You are also forgetting about the film pressure plate in the door of a film camera as well as the cartridge and spool. The LCD made the digital bodies thicker anyway so that part is moot. You should only consider the sensor, SR, when comparing the film body and the film and plate should be taken into account.

Blue · 10-09-2012, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

And how about the Leica M-mount module for GXR?

10-09-2012, 02:41 AM	#18
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by i83N FOV is better on midell format so again we need cheeper 645D LOL, and how can you make K-mount lenses to be used on 645D? Well. thinking about it. Maybe Pentax can make a cheap specal version of 645D. With small body, 36x24mm sensor and K-mount. Last edited by Fogel70; 10-09-2012 at 02:47 AM.

10-09-2012, 03:16 AM	#23
123jippo Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 165	I want FF for sure. FF that is exactly same as K5 with FF sensor. Same price, size, weight, outlook, design, menus, SD cards, battery, all same lenses fit...everything same but only sensor is FF. Naturally mirror and viewfinder also will be litter bigger size than K5. Thank u pentax, i am waiting for K5 IIf Last edited by 123jippo; 10-09-2012 at 03:22 AM.

10-09-2012, 03:30 AM	#24
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Clavius Realisticly speaking, an FF DSLR can never be as small as the K5. An FF sensor is huge, twice the size of APSC, and the mirror, that has to swing up and down, is also twice as large. The only way an FF camera is going to be compact is if it has no mirror. To reiterate other's comments...huh? The mirror box on my K10D is the same depth as the one in my tiny Pentax Super Program and that camera is bigger than a Pentax MX or any of the Olympus OM-series film cameras. In theory, a FF dSLR should be the same depth as and about 1cm taller and 1.5cm wider than an APS-C body based on sensor size alone. Unfortunately there is the matter of those bulky electronics and power system to support fast FF image processing, frame rate, video, and AF systems. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 10-09-2012 at 03:45 AM.

10-09-2012, 04:24 AM - 1 Like	#25
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by i83N Serosly pepole with FF lenses complaining about no FF sensor must just shoot on film because they stuck in past. Idely every time new sensor is made it should have new lenses specially made for it, There are a number of considerations in relation to sensor size, but for many of us it boils down to creative control over depth of field (DOF) and availability of decent and relatively compact wide-angle options. There are reasons why 35mm film was and is such a popular film size despite more compact formats being available (e.g. 1/2 frame, 110, 16mm, Minox, etc.). It has to do with "sweet spot" in each of the following areas: DOF control Size of kit (both bodies and lenses) Lens maximum aperture Viewfinder image Yes, "sweet spot". Great DOF control, available compact fast glass, and large bright viewfinder images in a package that is easily hand-holdable and compact. In case you don't get the DOF connection. Have you ever shot medium format? If you have, you are probably aware of why there are NO f/1.4 lenses for say the Pentax 645d and no, it has nothing to do with physical size. Instead, it has everything to do with DOF. As the format size increases, the available DOF for a particular aperture decreases. A 80mm f/1.4 normal lens for the 645D would have razor-thin DOF and would be unworkable wide open. The opposite is also true. With APS-C and smaller formats even a fast lens does not provide adequate subject isolation in many cases for normal or wide angle shooting. Steve (BTW...am seriously stuck in the past and shoots film (35mm through 4x5) to get the creative control missing in APS-C digital...)

10-09-2012, 02:28 AM	#16
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by i83N Yes, they were designed for film not sensors, what makes you think that they will work on FF digital sensors same way they were working on film? I was talking about FOV, but I think most high quality "old FF lenses" work better on FF sensors, than on APS-C sensors.

10-09-2012, 02:39 AM	#17
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fogel70 I was talking about FOV, but I think most high quality "old FF lenses" work better on FF sensors, than on APS-C sensors. FOV is better on midell format so again we need cheeper 645D

10-09-2012, 02:54 AM	#19
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fogel70 LOL, and how can you make K-mount lenses to be used on 645D? Two lense at the same time. Joking. Serosly pepole with FF lenses complaining about no FF sensor must just shoot on film because they stuck in past. Idely every time new sensor is made it should have new lenses specially made for it, that what RICHON did with GRX.

10-09-2012, 02:56 AM	#20
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by i83N Two lense at the same time. Joking. Serosly pepole with FF lenses complaining about no FF sensor must just shoot on film because they stuck in past. Idely every time new sensor is made it should have new lenses specially made for it, that what RICHON did with GRX. And how about the Leica M-mount module for GXR?

10-09-2012, 03:00 AM	#21
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fogel70 And how about the Leica M-mount module for GXR? APS-C sensor

10-09-2012, 03:14 AM	#22
hansenn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: twente Photos: Gallery Posts: 123	I just want back my old 24x36mm format. Because I still have those "old" lenses who also imo are not really performing as they should perform on my k20d. I only use my FA 50mm/1.4 sometimes. In the analogue days a super lens with superb quality, but now not really performing better than my 18-55mm kit lens. Especially in the shorter ranges the kit lens performs very well. And "need" is a big word. What do we really need. Water, bread and sleep. I guess when a ff is available we just WANT it. For many different reasons.

10-09-2012, 04:51 AM	#26
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by i83N APS-C sensor Yes, but they did not use the M-mount module for new lenses, but for up to 58 year old lenses. Ricoh made this because they saw a maket in offering a cheap solution to Leica users, so they use APS-C to keep price down.

10-09-2012, 05:14 AM - 3 Likes	#27
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	I can not believe the amount of FF v APSC that goes on in these forums. They all have there Pros and Cons. Who cares what who uses ? The best format is the one thats best for the individual. Anyone claiming that one format is better than the other for anyone but themselves is simply an idiot. Between the three main contenders of Four thirds, APSC and FF , I prefer APSC format and would choose four thirds even over FF. Thats just me though. I spend more time after more DOF than less. Its not difficult to get shallow DOF with APSC either. Surely to god everyone is well aware of the differances by now between the formats. Im going have to stop reading posts lol.

10-09-2012, 05:53 AM	#28
i83N Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,203 Original Poster	Originally posted by westmill I can not believe the amount of FF v APSC that goes on in these forums. They all have there Pros and Cons. Who cares what who uses ? The best format is the one thats best for the individual. Anyone claiming that one format is better than the other for anyone but themselves is simply an idiot. Between the three main contenders of Four thirds, APSC and FF , I prefer APSC format and would choose four thirds even over FF. Thats just me though. I spend more time after more DOF than less. Its not difficult to get shallow DOF with APSC either. Surely to god everyone is well aware of the differances by now between the formats. Im going have to stop reading posts lol. Very Well Said

10-09-2012, 06:07 AM	#29
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Clavius Because film is quite a bit thinner then an LCD screen and supporting electronics + sensor + sensor stabilisation & its needed clearence & support frame / plate + processors + IR & low pass filter + giant battery + all the stuff I'm forgetting about. You are also forgetting about the film pressure plate in the door of a film camera as well as the cartridge and spool. The LCD made the digital bodies thicker anyway so that part is moot. You should only consider the sensor, SR, when comparing the film body and the film and plate should be taken into account.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2012, 06:10 AM	#30
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Fogel70 And how about the Leica M-mount module for GXR?