[rdrum76]

Any geusses to what the crop factor of the new K??D will be???

Will the 1.5 crop be viable in the future???

I am asking because I cannot imagine losing the focal gain for my telephoto lenses

Wildlife shooting must have been difficult without crop gain and without digital cropping

Did people use 600mm as a minimum wildlife lens before digital crop factor?????

thanks

[thibs]

Yeah 1.5X.

[Canada_Rockies]

I have a K10d, and am very happy with it, except for the 1.5x crap factor. I had to, at the very least, spend $400 on a 16-45 to get back the 24mm I have with the 24-90 on the MZ-S. I decided to spend more, and go even wider, but I had to buy a 16mm lens to get what I had. I can feel the flames coming, so I have my asbestos suit close to hand.

On my wall hangs an 11x14 Cibachrome print cropped vertically out of a horizontally oriented Fuji 100 slide. I never skip a shot because it might not be worth taking. I take it, and decide later whether or not to keep it. Yes, I spent an awful lot of money on film.

I took this particular shot with the SF-1 and 70-210. It's what I had in my hands when I saw an osprey stoop. I banged off three quick shots using the tripod as a monopd. I got two splashes and the shot that is on the wall, in that order. The print is a lovely landscape, with the osprey at the bottom of the image, about 1 inch in body length on the print. The bird can almost be covered by a Kingston 2 Gb SD card. Only the wing tips and feet hang over the edge. We are talking about an image on film 2 mm or less. I don't remember how much we cropped out top and bottom, but we did not use the whole width of the slide.

Here's the kicker: You can see that the fish in the osprey's talons is pointed toward the camera. The osprey has not yet oriented it for flight.

[/RANT]

[lol101]

When I used film (Z1-P), my usual setup was two zooms and a prime:
*17-35 Sigma for wide angle stuff;
*85 f1.4 for portraits and low light;
*80-200f2.8 (Tamron, not Pentax unfortunately, the Pentax was far beyond my economic reach).

With 1.4 and 2x TCs I was pretty much set.

Now, I have :
*12-24f4 for wide angle stuff;
* 50f1.4 for portraits and low light (not as good as the 85 but close enough);
*DA*50-135f2.8

All in all, I spent less than 1/2 of what I would have spent on equivalent film equipement if I could have afforded the Pentax 80-200 and I carry 1/2 of the bulk (the Tamron was a nice piece of foundry ...) .
Now, with the money I "saved", I can still buy a DA*300f4 and, as soon as Pentax sees it fit, a 1.4x SDM extender to go with it and I'll have the nicest setting I have ever had in 20+ years of shooting.

Am I happy with 1.5x croped sensor?

You betcha!!

[roscot]

No flames. It really depends on your shooting style.

People who shoot tele a lot tend to really like the crop sensor. I mean, who wouldn't like the equivalent of a 300mm f2.8 for the price and size of a 200mm f2.8.

People who shoot wide angle tend to dislike the cropped sensor for the very reason you point out. It is very difficult and expensive to make a quality wide angle below about 20mm. That being said, I'd love it if Pentax would build a 16mm f2.8 prime. Doesn't have to be a pancake. Just a high quality CA free 16.

[thibs]

That being said, I'd love it if Pentax would build a 16mm f2.8 prime. Doesn't have to be a pancake. Just a high quality CA free 16.

What exactly do you dislike about the DA14/2.8? I'm curious.

[roscot]

Oh, I don't dislike the 14, I do think it, like most 1.5x crop wide angles has too much CA, and I don't really need anything that wide. I mainly shoot in the normal to tele range, when I go wide, a 24mm equivalent is all I really need. For really wide, I like the 10-17 FE for the fish eye effect.

[Canada_Rockies]

When I used film (Z1-P), my usual setup was two zooms and a prime:
*17-35 Sigma for wide angle stuff;
*85 f1.4 for portraits and low light;
*80-200f2.8 (Tamron, not Pentax unfortunately, the Pentax was far beyond my economic reach).

With 1.4 and 2x TCs I was pretty much set.

Now, I have :
*12-24f4 for wide angle stuff;
* 50f1.4 for portraits and low light (not as good as the 85 but close enough);
*DA*50-135f2.8

All in all, I spent less than 1/2 of what I would have spent on equivalent film equipement if I could have afforded the Pentax 80-200 and I carry 1/2 of the bulk (the Tamron was a nice piece of foundry ...) .
Now, with the money I "saved", I can still buy a DA*300f4 and, as soon as Pentax sees it fit, a 1.4x SDM extender to go with it and I'll have the nicest setting I have ever had in 20+ years of shooting.

Am I happy with 1.5x croped sensor?

You betcha!!

What I was trying to point out was that the 1.5X crop factor is fictitious. You can crop film to the same with similar quality. The only place the crop factor really makes a difference is on the wide end of things.

[roentarre]

Oh, I don't dislike the 14, I do think it, like most 1.5x crop wide angles has too much CA.

I think the flare is more likely a problem in broad daylight instead of CA

[roscot]

I think the flare is more likely a problem in broad daylight instead of CA

I haven't noticed any excess flare from Pentax wides. The SMC coating does a superb job in controlling it. I have seen excess CA in just about all super wides form most brands. I just think it is a very difficult thing to design out of lenses of these FLs.

[lol101]

What I was trying to point out was that the 1.5X crop factor is fictitious. You can crop film to the same with similar quality. The only place the crop factor really makes a difference is on the wide end of things.

Yes, I understand your point.

1.5x crop is fictitious but no more than 2x, 1.3x, 24x36, 6x45 or other formats.

To me, it's just a matter of considering if you can get tools that get the job done in a given format.

I just wanted to say that when I analysed my needs and my current setup in regards of what I would have to fork for a similar FF system, I concluded that I was glad I had a 1.5x crop system.

The state of mind I am presently could be summarized as follow:

I have never had a better performing body than the K10D since I bought my first PZ1 in 1992 (also used ZX5N, ZX-L and *istDs);
I have never had better lenses;
I have never had such a compact system (I remember hesitating each time I had to bring the 80-200f2.8 with me if it was really worth the bulk and weight to carry, I have no such problems with the 50-135);
I have all this for a reasonable amount of cash;
Prospects on future Pentax products fit me like a glove (I am a patient man...)

Since I cannot find a reasonable reasons to recriminate, I decided on being happy and shoot some more!

[Canada_Rockies]

Yes, I understand your point.

1.5x crop is fictitious but no more than 2x, 1.3x, 24x36, 6x45 or other formats.

Since I cannot find a reasonable reasons to recriminate, I decided on being happy and shoot some more!

That's the main point of it all, isn't it. Take nice pictures. Enjoy!

[axl]

I never had FF SLR or DSLR so 1.5x crop factor is no problem at all.