[Ash]

Those of you who haven't seen or voted on this thread are invited to do so and carry on the discussion there: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography-industry/209882-next-...-new-post.html

Rockville Bob, the majority of Pentaxians (here) are keen on a FF dSLR, but few of them are pros. They're just enthusiasts keen on a little more DoF control and more resolution from their existing FF compatible lenses.

[mecrox]

My wish is for a Pentax camera that is a step up from the K-5 line with:
1. Better autofocus capabilities - faster / spot on
2. More quality lens options from Pentax and third party lens companies, especially at the long end.
3. Protect the K mount so I can use the lenses that I already own.

So the issue of FF vs cropped isn't important to me. If I were a professional photographer doing landscapes then FF would be important. I m not a professional, just a serious amateur photographer who feels that 16 Mega pixels is adequate (yes more would be nice if noise didn't degrade) but feels hemmed in by a limited lens selection versus Canon and Nikon (even from third parties and even from Sony mounts) and autofocus that limits my sports and wildlife photography. I also do a fair amount of HDR photography, both interior and landscape, just getting started in macro photography with a good macro 1:1 lens and bellows, and family event photography - for all of these I find my current Pentax K-5 more than adequate. It is when I try my hand at sports and wildlife photography that I feel hemmed in by Pentax autofocus and lens options.
[snip]

Entirely agree about the virtues of APS-C, and I'm glad someone has said this too. But any camera, no matter how good, is only a stop on the road to somewhere else - whatever comes down the IT pike, what the world economy does, and changing tastes and fashions over the next few years. Then it is time for a new camera. That's one reason it's so crazy to make such a cult out of FF and generally howl and dance around it, as if "FF" were a block of granite impervious to all change. In fact, whatever FF is now, it will be a different FF in, say, five years. Oh, the sensor size may have remained the same, but just about everything else will have changed. Better to stay flexible and firmly in the middle of the market, imho, if you want to stay in business - which, broadly, is how Pentax have stayed in business. They make very good and arguably the best mid-range cameras for enthusiasts - mid-range being between compacts and professional FF cams. Long may this continue, with evolutionary improvements and of course the occasional foray and experiment. If FF becomes the middle of the market, well fair enough and time for a change, but there is really no evidence of that happening now or in the near future. Even with the new, cheaper FF cameras like the 6D or the D600 included, FF would have to increase its market share of DSLRs sold by 5-6 times or so to become middle and mainstream - say from 7.5% to approx 40%.

Not sure I agree about AF and Pentax. It does need better tracking and smaller AF points, imho, but I don't think in its latest incarnation Pentax AF is nearly so weak as some paint it.

[.a.t.]

.....
Rockville Bob, the majority of Pentaxians (here) are keen on a FF dSLR, but few of them are pros. They're just enthusiasts keen on a little more DoF control and more resolution from their existing FF compatible lenses.

...And some are also eager for the pleasures of a large optical viewfinder.

[Allison]

I dont think any of the FF proponents are suggesting that you should toss your APSC gear, or that APSC gear is worthless. I think what we're saying is that FF gear is what many of us need to move our images to the next level.

And I believe that this is why so many pros have moved to FF. There are advantages to both systems - crop has longer reach, FF has better low light, compression is different on the two formats. Some pros have two cameras so they can take advantage of both systems.

Pro status also doesn't make someone a better photographer, it just means that they are making money from photography. I know many amateurs/enthusiasts who exceed the abilities of pros. There are people who want a FF in Pentax because they simply want to push the boundaries of what they can do.

[Adam]

My wish is for a Pentax camera that is a step up from the K-5 line with:
1. Better autofocus capabilities - faster / spot on
2. More quality lens options from Pentax and third party lens companies, especially at the long end.
3. Protect the K mount so I can use the lenses that I already own.


So the issue of FF vs cropped isn't important to me. If I were a professional photographer doing landscapes then FF would be important. I m not a professional, just a serious amateur photographer who feels that 16 Mega pixels is adequate (yes more would be nice if noise didn't degrade) but feels hemmed in by a limited lens selection versus Canon and Nikon (even from third parties and even from Sony mounts) and autofocus that limits my sports and wildlife photography. I also do a fair amount of HDR photography, both interior and landscape, just getting started in macro photography with a good macro 1:1 lens and bellows, and family event photography - for all of these I find my current Pentax K-5 more than adequate. It is when I try my hand at sports and wildlife photography that I feel hemmed in by Pentax autofocus and lens options.

So if I were a professional, making my living with my camera, I would probably own a Nikon or Canon FF with maximum pixels and a selection of high end glass so I could get that great grab from the thousands of shots I take weekly. My camera system would be very expensive and push the envelope.

As a cost conscious, serious amateur I am pleased and very happy with my K-5. Just give me a better autofocus, invest in introducing more high quality lenses and work with third party lens companies to get their high end glass available for Pentax users. As sensor technology continues to improve all cameras, FF and cropped, will take advantage of these changes. I see sensor technology as a rising tide that raises all boats.

I would be interested in how others feel about this.

Pentax can't live off of the K-5 forever. They're bound to release something better before they launch a FF body.

[Ash]

And some are also eager for the pleasures of a large optical viewfinder

Yes, that too, and it does make a difference in the experience of shooting. So these things matter.

[northcoastgreg]

But any camera, no matter how good, is only a stop on the road to somewhere else - whatever comes down the IT pike, what the world economy does, and changing tastes and fashions over the next few years. Then it is time for a new camera.

I'm skeptical of this. I think that only applies to those who are update junkies eager to get their next fix. I suspect there are many photographers who are content with what they have now and who don't feel a compelling need to update their gear every two years. How many people really need more megapixels, better light sensitivity, more dynamic range? The current gear is really quite good in all these areas, and improvements are really only needed for specialist tasks. Besides, the technologies are started to become exhausted in any case. It's becoming increasingly difficult for camera companies to make compelling upgrades, particularly in the APS-C DSLR space. This, I conjecture, is what is primarily fueling the FF and mirrorless manias. The upgrade junkies can no longer get their fixes with APS-C DSLRs, so they're looking at either FF or compact mirrorless. The problem is that FF will also soon reach the exhaustion point, and compact mirrorless only has more room to grow because the companies making mirrorless have screwed up so badly. So the whole business paradigm of selling cameras every two years to upgrade junkies has a limited lifespan. Manufacturers of cameras are going to have adjust to a new paradigm, which is going to be painful.

[mecrox]

I'm skeptical of this. I think that only applies to those who are update junkies eager to get their next fix. I suspect there are many photographers who are content with what they have now and who don't feel a compelling need to update their gear every two years. How many people really need more megapixels, better light sensitivity, more dynamic range? The current gear is really quite good in all these areas, and improvements are really only needed for specialist tasks. Besides, the technologies are started to become exhausted in any case. It's becoming increasingly difficult for camera companies to make compelling upgrades, particularly in the APS-C DSLR space. This, I conjecture, is what is primarily fueling the FF and mirrorless manias. The upgrade junkies can no longer get their fixes with APS-C DSLRs, so they're looking at either FF or compact mirrorless. The problem is that FF will also soon reach the exhaustion point, and compact mirrorless only has more room to grow because the companies making mirrorless have screwed up so badly. So the whole business paradigm of selling cameras every two years to upgrade junkies has a limited lifespan. Manufacturers of cameras are going to have adjust to a new paradigm, which is going to be painful.

While I agree with you about those who already have well-specced cameras, there is a steady stream of folks moving up or moving in for the first time. They will be looking for new cameras which are up with the times. In any case, if the tech industry in general is anything to go by, there is plenty of room for new developments still to come even if, right now, there is a bit of a lull because the future is a little more obscure than it was a few years ago. Maybe Pentax folks by nature are a little more conservative than most. And, as Adam pointed out, there is only so long you can go on selling a specific model - K5, D300s, 7D, etc - before it starts to look as if it's really had its day.

[Clinton]

Pentax can't live off of the K-5 forever. They're bound to release something better before they launch a FF body.

I have to agree. I predict a 26mp K-3 before the FF arrives

[nanok]

Sorry to disappoint you, but no,
my post was about wide angle lenses (more than ninety degree angle of view).

so a lens changing it's focusing point magically because it's mounted to a different camera doesn't happen if it's a 50mm lens, but it does happen if it's a wide angle? perhaps your meaning of "register distance" is an extremely original one, i suggest we clarify that before we take this too far, mine was intended as a sort of a joke, but it seems it was lost

Interesting point of view.
However, that kind of processing degrades the image,
so genuine rectilinear wide-angles are still the way to go.

i call bs. have you tried it? what you lose in the processing is insignificant, if the lens is very good to begin with, and you have "many megapixels". you believe that adding loads of glass and making a complicated lens design comes at no loss? the difference is only where the loss lies.

the real reason why rectilinear still makes some sense (though not much) is "what you see in the viewfinder", seeing the slightly distorted image and "imagining" the corrected one might not be for everybody, but for some people the lower cost, lower weight and size and (possibly) better results might justify it.

See the "defishing" discussion on
Pentax SMC DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 ED[IF] Fisheye - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict

Wider than ninety degrees (diagonal), and rectilinear?
If you want that for APS-C,
your only options are really big primes and zooms with (D)SLR register distances,
or vignetting and color shifts on mirrorless, like
Voigtlander Ultra-Wide Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical II on Sony NEX - Review / Lens Test Report - Analysis

the meaning you give to "register distance" remains a mystery.

[lytrytyr]

so a lens changing it's focusing point magically because it's mounted to a different camera doesn't happen if it's a 50mm lens, but it does happen if it's a wide angle?

This is your straw man, so I'll leave you to deal with it.

i call bs.

Well, that's an issue you'd better take up with Klaus over at Photozone.

the meaning you give to "register distance" remains a mystery.

The distance from the face of the lens mount to the surface of the film or sensor.

[WPRESTO]

This is your straw man, so I'll leave you to deal with it.



Well, that's an issue you'd better take up with Klaus over at Photozone.



The distance from the face of the lens mount to the surface of the film or sensor.

Isn't that called the "back focus?"

[lytrytyr]

Isn't that called the "back focus?"

Camera Mounts Sorted by Register

"Back focus" seems to get used most
for when autofocus overshoots the target.

Indeed, looks like the site has added
an automatic link for that from your post.
And it just did it to mine as well.

[WPRESTO]

Camera Mounts Sorted by Register

"Back focus" seems to get used most
for when autofocus overshoots the target.

Indeed, looks like the site has added
an automatic link for that from your post.
And it just did it to mine as well.

OK. Looked up "back focus" and I was a bit off. The term originated about 1895 for the distance between the rearmost glass surface of a lens and the surface for infinity focus. So it is a property of a lens, not a camera mount. However, the use and meaning of words can/do change, despite pedants' efforts to stabilize and standardize usage.

For an SLR with mirror, the allowable back focus of a lens is close to the surface of the lens mount on the camera, but there is some room for the lens to protrude into the camera body. As we all know, mirrors on SLR's caused problems for designing wide angle lenses, which on rangefinder cameras commonly intrude deeply into the camera body. Until the advent of inverted telephoto designs, SLR's were at first limited to about 35mm, then 28mm, and eventually 21mm became the stopping point. Japanese manufacturers, especially Nikon, eventually designed down to 15mm rectilinear, then full frame and circular 180 degree "fish eye" lenses, and I think ultimately a 270 degree monster. Inverted tele designs have the disadvantage of being bulky and heavy, with many lens elements that can degrade contrast and increase the risk of internal reflections, particularly with the sometimes enormous and protruding front element. Curiously, it seems to be easier to design a super-wide zoom than a single focal-length, as we have a 14mm Takumar (also Bower/Samyang etc), equivalent to 21mm and almost grotesquely larger than the 15mm, but Sigma has a zoom that goes to 8mm, although with considerable "distortion."

[nanok]

Well, that's an issue you'd better take up with Klaus over at Photozone.

not at all. it's not him i'm talking to. if all that was was appeal to authority, and that's what you mean by this, i'll just drop it, as it's not worth the time to even acknowledge it. however, if you have your own opinion about it, i'm glad to discuss it in a rational manner.

The distance from the face of the lens mount to the surface of the film or sensor.

okay, thanks. that distance is the same for the k-mount, regardless if the sensor is aps-c or 35mm. this is also true of all the other mounts. in fact, a lens mount includes that distance, if you change that distance you have a different mount (even if you can (maybe) still mount the lenses for the other mount). That's what i meant with my "straw man": the register distance is the same between aps-c and 35mm, it's the mount not the sensor size which defines that distance, so your argument doesn't stand. Hope it's clear now.

edit: note that i didn't go into the discussion about how shorter register distance, as rangefinders have, actually help with wideangle design. with digital sensors it's a bit different, and some problems arise (see leica digital and the trouble they went through to get the sensor to work well with such wideangles), this is true for extreme wideangles, and it's mainly due to what you noted: the incidence angle to the microlenses on the sensor causes rather serious vignetting