[Digitalis]

I would personally be more pleased with a stronger contender to the D800 than I would with a competitor to the 6D/D600

Fair enough. Though bear in mind all the AF issues the D800 has brought to light, do you think Ricoh would have bought pentax only to drag the name the mud considering bad publicity involving the D800's autofocus inaccuracies? Considering the continuous and incremental improvements pentax has made with AF i'm not sure they could do better than Nikon did with the D800.

face it: Pentax has never produced a AF module capable of competing on equal footing against the ones used in Canon or Nikon cameras.

[thibs]

I don't suppose Pentax are keen on mirroring this marketing strategy (for better or for worse) just to get a cheaper product out there.
Looking back in history, all Pentax dSLRs, whether entry level or flagship, were solidly-built and well featured.

I would personally be more pleased with a stronger contender to the D800 than I would with a competitor to the 6D/D600. There's more to life (for a photographer) than a couple hundred dollars saved towards an investment into a higher end tool that both brings more satisfaction in the shooting process as well as performance that matters.

Totally agree Ash. But will Pentax customers follow with such a high price cam?
I certainly hope they will !

[Tesla]

The D800 has problems? I knew the D600 did with oil on the senors. Surprised Nikon having problems with their dslrs.

[Kunzite]

You're assuming that a Pentax FF camera would have a K-mount. Consider if they were to bring out a new mount to accommodate SR on the FF? But I suppose a simple adapter may be possible, depending on the mounts spec's.

Here we go again. Why would anyone assume otherwise?
If I'm not mistaken, there are large format lenses with a smaller mount diameter than the K-mount. And there definitely were small format mounts with a smaller diameter, e.g. M37... Last (but not least) Sony made their in-camera stabilization works with legacy lenses.

Ash, I agree - the first Pentax FF should be a true K-mount flagship. Not necessary matching the D800 feature-by-feature, but it can match their high-end APS-C camera, right?

[Clavius]

Here we go again. Why would anyone assume otherwise?

Yes, keep denying it without any arguments to back it up. I'm a father, so I'm used to that kind of debating.

If I'm not mistaken, there are large format lenses with a smaller mount diameter than the K-mount. And there definitely were small format mounts with a smaller diameter, e.g. M37... Last (but not least) Sony made their in-camera stabilization works with legacy lenses.

And how are those legacy lenses mounted to that Sony? Yes, with an adapter that increases the distance between the sensor and the lens. That distance increases the image circle too! Like holding a magnifying glass further away from your eye.

It's not about the lens diameter, it's about the image circle that those lenses cast on the sensor. Remember, DA lenses cast an image circle that is much bigger then neccesary for their corresponding sensor format to accomodate SR. Pentax Film lenses don't.

Ash, I agree - the first Pentax FF should be a true K-mount flagship. Not necessary matching the D800 feature-by-feature, but it can match their high-end APS-C camera, right?

That's a matter of opinion. Backwards compatibility is a nice-to-have, but if it means sacrificing IBIS to go FF in favor of K-mount then it is absurd. Retaining IBIS however, would mean the Pentax FF would have something the Nikon D800 doesn't.

Moreover, if Pentax film era lenses lens turn out to be incompatible with FF-sensor-IBIS anyway, then there aren't even any lenses to be backwards compatible with.

The image circle gets bigger when the flange distance increases. Then a Pentax FF DSLR with SR can still use legacy film FF glass if there is an adapter (extension tube) in between. (Like your Sony example.) In other words, an adapter might still have to be used for legacy glass, even if the Pentax FF DSLR turns out to have the good old K-mount.

[Kunzite]

Yes, keep denying it without any arguments to back it up. I'm a father, so I'm used to that kind of debating.

I am sorry, but it's the "other camp" who has to prove that:
A. there is a serious issue with the K-mount that Pentax has to solve, and
B. there is no other way than a new mount.
Shifting the burden of proof while advocating such a dramatic change is not acceptable.

And how are those legacy lenses mounted to that Sony? Yes, with an adapter that increases the distance between the sensor and the lens. That distance increases the image circle too! Like holding a magnifying glass further away from your eye.

It's not about the lens diameter, it's about the image circle that those lenses cast on the sensor. Remember, DA lenses cast an image circle that is much bigger then neccesary for their corresponding sensor format to accomodate SR. Pentax Film lenses don't.

I am talking about the Sony Alpha, which is actually the good old Minolta AF mount. One can directly mount a Minolta legacy lens on an Alpha A900 or A850, and have in-body stabilization.
The Sony E mount does not have in-body stabilization. You are arguing without knowing such facts?

That's a matter of opinion. Backwards compatibility is a nice-to-have, but if it means sacrificing IBIS to go FF in favor of K-mount then it is absurd. Retaining IBIS however, would mean the Pentax FF would have something the Nikon D800 doesn't.

Until I'll see some proof that SR+FF is impossible with the K-mount, discussing this is pointless.

Moreover, if Pentax film era lenses lens turn out to be incompatible with FF-sensor-IBIS anyway, then there aren't even any lenses to be backwards compatible with.

Some vignetting in the extreme corners. The ability to disable SR for critical work. A slight crop. There are many other possibilities than changing the mount, even if this would actually be an issue.

The image circle gets bigger when the flange distance increases. Then a Pentax FF DSLR with SR can still use legacy film FF glass if there is an adapter (extension tube) in between. (Like your Sony example.) In other words, an adapter might still have to be used for legacy glass, even if the Pentax FF DSLR turns out to have the good old K-mount.

I'm afraid you don't understand some basic principles. Increasing the flange distance for a lens means focusing it on a closer subject. If you'd adapt a K-mount lens on a new-mount Pentax camera, the lens cannot be moved farther away from the sensor, not even 1mm - otherwise you'd lose infinity focus.
By your own words, this means a new mount will not solve the (so far) imaginary FF+SR+legacy lenses issue.

Even on the Sony E, the role of that adapter (besides making mounting the lens possible) is to set the Alpha lens at the exact distance from the sensor, as it would be on an original Alpha camera. But, again, it wasn't about the E-mount but the Alpha.

[ogl]

FF camera from Pentax in 1 day...It would be big surprise for me....

[Billium28]

Can we get like a list of actual usable digital FF lenses currently available and then call it a day. It seems each thread moves in circles about which lens currently is FF ready. I just don't understand how we have't actually determined this yet because it seems this topic starts up and repeats constantly.

I'm not angry it just seems to be like a never ending discussion. Ya know?

[Clavius]

I am sorry, but it's the "other camp" who has to prove that:
A. there is a serious issue with the K-mount that Pentax has to solve, and
B. there is no other way than a new mount.
Shifting the burden of proof while advocating such a dramatic change is not acceptable.

Until I'll see some proof that SR+FF is impossible with the K-mount, discussing this is pointless.

Proof is all around: In the film days, vignetting was very normal, and even favoured over no vignetting at all. So, film era lenses produce an image circle just big enough, (or just a tiny bit too small) to cover full frame film. If that film is replaced with a sensor on IBIS, it will worsen the vignetting. Even 1 mm of movement would result in dark corners or worse. Not to mention the full 3 mm that the Pentax SR moves!

Yes, we can disable SR... So what's the benifit in having stabilized legacy glass then?

[Kunzite]

Can we get like a list of actual usable digital FF lenses currently available and then call it a day. It seems each thread moves in circles about which lens currently is FF ready. I just don't understand how we have't actually determined this yet because it seems this topic starts up and repeats constantly.

I'm not angry it just seems to be like a never ending discussion. Ya know?

I guess we won't know until the FF camera will be available. For the sake of breaking this circle, I hope they'll launch it asap.

Proof is all around: In the film days, vignetting was very normal, and even favoured over no vignetting at all. So, film era lenses produce an image circle just big enough, (or just a tiny bit too small) to cover full frame film. If that film is replaced with a sensor on IBIS, it will worsen the vignetting. Even 1 mm of movement would result in dark corners or worse. Not to mention the full 3 mm that the Pentax SR moves!

Yes, we can disable SR... So what's the benifit in having stabilized legacy glass then?

You are ignoring the existence of FF cameras with in-body stabilization - which works with legacy lenses.
Clavius, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Good bye.

[Cannikin]

And how are those legacy lenses mounted to that Sony? Yes, with an adapter that increases the distance between the sensor and the lens. That distance increases the image circle too! Like holding a magnifying glass further away from your eye.

...

The image circle gets bigger when the flange distance increases. Then a Pentax FF DSLR with SR can still use legacy film FF glass if there is an adapter (extension tube) in between. (Like your Sony example.) In other words, an adapter might still have to be used for legacy glass, even if the Pentax FF DSLR turns out to have the good old K-mount.

Um, no.

Lenses will only obtain correct focus at a certain distance they were specifically designed for. An extension tube moves them further away than their designed rear focal length, shifting the whole focal range towards the short end (which is why it's used for macro), making it impossible to focus at infinity. A correctly made adapter spaces the lens from the sensor so that it matches exactly the specifications of the original mount, projecting a correctly focused image. The image circle will be the size of whatever it was originally.

[bossa]

Here we go again. Why would anyone assume otherwise?
If I'm not mistaken, there are large format lenses with a smaller mount diameter than the K-mount. And there definitely were small format mounts with a smaller diameter, e.g. M37... Last (but not least) Sony made their in-camera stabilization works with legacy lenses.

Ash, I agree - the first Pentax FF should be a true K-mount flagship. Not necessary matching the D800 feature-by-feature, but it can match their high-end APS-C camera, right?

Because I'm stirring the pot to see what comes out

[Ash]

What if this Mike Svitek guy actually is testing out this Pentax FF camera? Would K-mount FF + SR doubters be ready to eat their shorts? And what if it really will be announced in a few days' time?
He's seemingly legit with his posts but won't confirm it'll be called the K-3 (he just refers to it as K-3 because that's what everyone else is calling it...)

Hard to confirm or deny, but he swears not to be making this stuff up for whatever motive, and was given the sheer serendipitous fortune of testing it as he was well known to the Ricoh hierarchy. We'll just have to wait and see, and be surprised with the official announcement.

And he said also that the FF prototype he's testing had no trouble with DA and DA* lenses (including the 16-50), just expected vignetting if some of these lenses (like the 16-50) aren't stopped down.

[Paul Ewins]

Proof is all around: In the film days, vignetting was very normal, and even favoured over no vignetting at all. So, film era lenses produce an image circle just big enough, (or just a tiny bit too small) to cover full frame film. If that film is replaced with a sensor on IBIS, it will worsen the vignetting. Even 1 mm of movement would result in dark corners or worse. Not to mention the full 3 mm that the Pentax SR moves!

Yes, we can disable SR... So what's the benifit in having stabilized legacy glass then?

There is no benefit to Pentax in having stabilised legacy glass, they will want to sell new lenses.

However the image circles on legacy lenses are nowhere near as tight as you might think. In some lenses (notably telephotos like the 500/4.5) there are baffles to prevent excess light from bouncing back onto the film and these lenses may well have a restricted image circle as a result, but most lenses have a rear element close to the mount which prevents the use of a baffle. The image quality will degrade further into the corners but I seriously doubt that an extra 3mm of movement is going to cause wide spread vignetting.

Just as some legacy lenses didn't work well with APSC digital there will be some more that don't work well with FF digital. I would expect that Pentax will have to tweak a lot of lenses when FF finally surfaces, but I don't think image circle will be the biggest problem.

[Kunzite]

Ash, given what Pentax (Kitazawa-san) said about FF, I think it's reasonable to believe that FF prototypes are being tested. However, I doubt Mike Svitek is doing that. There are things that doesn't match.