Originally posted by gazonk That's the drawback of APS-C DSLRs using the flange distance of FF... (on a smaller mount system, a 35mm/1.2 could be made smaller than the 50mm/1.2).
Then buy a Leica M8 and a voigtlander 35/1.2, but personnally I think there is a reason why Leica don't sell a 35/1.2. It's simply not needed. When you want shallow DOF, just take a longer lens. I doubt that you need the perpective of a 35mm when the background (and foreground) is all blurry. Half a stop speed compared with 35/1.4 doesn't justify it for low light either.
Having the flange of a FF allows for an easier 100% coverage viewfinder, like in the K7. So at least there's some logic here. I don't think that the compacity of a camera is driven by the registration flange at the moment. There's much more improvement to be expected by getting more compact electronics and batteries. Especially with the mechanical assembly of the sensor and the screen that can be thinner.
I'm all in for fast primes but I found myself choosing the 43/1.9 against 31/1.8 when going out for its compacity while I believe that the 31 have the edge on quality.
For the same reason I lust more the 77ltd than the 85/1.4 not for focal lens or quality but for compacity (provided this is an excellent lens) Today's APSC cameras can provide clean enough 1600 iso pictures, that's enough for 99.9% of my photography.
If you look at Pentax strength to me they are the following :
- Rugged cameras and lenses
- Compacity (for cameras and the DA & FA ltd)
- Compatibility and ease of use of manual lenses
- Great ergonomics.
They are not strong on extreme focal length or extreme apertures, while some may desire such lenses, I believe that there enough brands providing very capable products for those categories (Canon for focal length and extreme apertures, Nikon for focal length, Leica for extreme apertures) I feel that Pentax is rigth to dig their own way which suit travel, adventure photoraphers and hardware geeks.