Rumor: Pentax FF Sept 18-23, 2012

**maxfield_photo** · 03-01-2012, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

You keep repeating this but it is wrong. These lenses are not equivalent because DOF is not equivalent between formats. No one buy lenses for various format in order to have exactly the same DOF, say, three stops from wide open. Photographer compare lenses in order to get the same exposure at a certain magnification and aperture.

I do. But just as often I buy lenses to be used at maximum aperture, because yes, I am a bokeh whore. The problem with APS-C is if I want to frame my subject with my nifty fifty at f/1.4, I have to back up which means less BOKEH! I don't care about the exposure, high ISO has leveled that playing field. ISO 400 is nothing these days. And of course I carry about 600ws of light in my bag. It's all about bokeh and wider angles for me. Even the added DR and sharpness are just fringe benefits to me.

eddie1960 · 03-01-2012, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

I do. But just as often I buy lenses to be used at maximum aperture, because yes, I am a bokeh whore. The problem with APS-C is if I want to frame my subject with my nifty fifty at f/1.4, I have to back up which means less BOKEH! I don't care about the exposure, high ISO has leveled that playing field. ISO 400 is nothing these days. And of course I carry about 600ws of light in my bag. It's all about bokeh and wider angles for me. Even the added DR and sharpness are just fringe benefits to me.

You are just one of many Bokeh Whores out there. it's something Pal fails to see i think

a quick search on flickr groups comes up with pages of them

Flickr: Search for a group

and one for you specifically

http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokehwhores/

ogl · 03-01-2012, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

The hotshoe is the key to comparison. I'd estimate the 5D3 to be about 131.5mm wide, only 2 mm wider than the K-5.

Mark III is a bit bigger and heavier than Mark II.
152 x 116 x 76 mm vs 152 x 114 x 75 mm

Weight (inc. batteries) 950 g (2.09 lb / 33.51 oz) vs Weight (inc. batteries) 850 g (1.87 lb / 29.98 oz)

K-5 - 131 x 97 x 73 mm

Kunzite · 03-01-2012, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by stanleyk

Looks like the new 5D is going to start out at $3499........

All right, I'll ask again: where is that downwards spiral?

Clavius · 03-02-2012, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

All right, I'll ask again: where is that downwards spiral?

That's what I was thinking too. Doomsday prophets here have been repeating over and over again that the FF prices will come down and eat at the APSC DSLR market from above. But nobody can really bring any arguments to support that, other then: technology is always improving and becomming cheaper. A false argument of course. Yes, old tech becomes cheaper, because it's being replaced by the expensive newest full featured versions.

So I still think it's a big oppurtunity for Pentax to issue a FF body that is more affordable then any of the competition. Possibly even by giving up some features. Or by not improving on others. (Sorry for going back on topic again.)

Asahiflex · 03-02-2012, 01:14 AM

Now that I have seen the 5D MkIII specs it's clear that Canon again chose to cripple a product to protect its other camera lines (1Dx). It's even worse than the 5D MkII in some aspects, for instance the focusing screen is now fixed and not user replaceable! That's a bad thing for users wanting to shoot with MF lenses...

In a way the 5D MkIII is good indeed because there are still lots of opportunities for Pentax left. I've said it often and I'll say it again: Pentax does not have any camera lines to protect. There's lots of room in the $1,500-$8,000-bracket (I forgot how much the 645D costs but it should be around that, right?).

garyk · 03-02-2012, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

Now that I have seen the 5D MkIII specs it's clear that Canon again chose to cripple a product to protect its other camera lines (1Dx). It's even worse than the 5D MkII in some aspects, for instance the focusing screen is now fixed and not user replaceable! That's a bad thing for users wanting to shoot with MF lenses...

In a way the 5D MkIII is good indeed because there are still lots of opportunities for Pentax left. I've said it often and I'll say it again: Pentax does not have any camera lines to protect. There's lots of room in the $1,500-$8,000-bracket (I forgot how much the 645D costs but it should be around that, right?).

Yea, I really feel sorry for Canon shooters. With a crummy 61 point AF system inherited from the IDx. FF with class leading ISO. And those poor canon guys that have to shoot with the inferior glass canon makes... Really Canon. What a joke.
I'm buying another K-5.

Asahiflex · 03-02-2012, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by garyk

Yea, I really feel sorry for Canon shooters. With a crummy 61 point AF system inherited from the IDx. FF with class leading ISO. And those poor canon guys that have to shoot with the inferior glass canon makes... Really Canon. What a joke.
I'm buying another K-5.

Of course, it's definitely a good camera (I wouldn't mind owning it!). But really, the MkIII is the camera the MkII should have been. I think current MkII shooters don't have a compelling reason to upgrade to the MkIII.

garyk · 03-02-2012, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

Of course, it's definitely a good camera (I wouldn't mind owning it!). But really, the MkIII is the camera the MkII should have been. I think current MkII shooters don't have a compelling reason to upgrade to the MkIII.

That is a valid point.

Alizarine · 03-02-2012, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by viggen

Uuhhhh, considering the weak presence of Pentax in South-East Asia, that would be a VERY tall order...
Finding them in Thailand is tough. Singapore? Not there. Same in KL. Cambodia was the first country I saw a shop carrying Pentax... China? No one cares for Pentax there, I've seen 2 guys with a Pentax in 4 months there, compared to bazillions with Canikon.
Problem is, distribution in Asia is way more problematic: there are few big shops as Fnac (in Europe), or Adorama (in the US). So you have to cater to A LOT of very small shops, and that's no easy task.
It wouldn't surprise me that Pentax is 5 or 6th in Asia, behind Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony and/or Panasonic. When you see their presence on the shelves, it's no surprise. Pentax is nowhere to be seen.

Come to the Philippines, where there are around 14 malls in Manila alone that sell Pentax. And perhaps some more in Cebu and other major cities. (all owned by the same distributor, I think)

Considering the number of distributors thorugh, you're right. A lone legit seller in one country makes for monopoly and ridiculously high prices.
Even for the country where the Pentax bodies are made....

saladin · 03-02-2012, 05:54 AM

i would love it if Pentax produced something in FF around the 5d3 MP range, kept the impressive noise and sensor technology of the k5 and ditched the fancy (or even all) video capability to keep costs down. just build us a dedicated stills camera with top-shelf IQ and low-light ability to make use of all the prime lenses. It'd be an outstanding wedding and street camera, especially if it can be kept smallish. And if the D800 is $3k and the 5d3 in the next segment above, then anything below the D800 will be enticing. which would be possible imo. they can certainly get this done, we know pentax would produce a great photographic tool, but whether they want to is another matter.

those already in nikon or canon won't change, but there just might be a market for non-FF and P&S users who want to become FF shooters in the low $2k price range.

markac · 03-02-2012, 05:59 AM - **1 Like**

The Canon 5D Mark III seems like a bit of a yawn. Mostly just an enhanced 5D Mark II really. This still leaves Pentax a spot to make a small (K20D sized) affordable enthusiast FF DSLR. Yep Sony might have failed with it's A900/A850 combo, but there were valid reasons for that and it hasn't diminished Sony's intention to stay in the FF market, with several new models expected. Unfortunately it seems like none of those models will be a real DSLR. The beautiful viewfinder of the A900 will likely be replaced by an EVF.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-02-2012, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

I do. But just as often I buy lenses to be used at maximum aperture, because yes, I am a bokeh whore. The problem with APS-C is if I want to frame my subject with my nifty fifty at f/1.4, I have to back up which means less BOKEH! .

But you don't use the same lens for the same magnification between various formats; you won't get the same picture that way. You use a lens with a different focal lenght. The fact that you want your 50mm to give images with the same magnification as on the 35mm format is really nothing to do with this discussion. Bokeh is all well and good but a 50/1.4 wide open on APS give so shallow DOF that hardly any three dimentional subjects can be rendered in focus. The 77 Limited has so shallow DOF on APS that anything shallower is virtually useless and/or academic.
Anyway, only a tiny fraction of all images rely on very thin DOF and even a tinyer, if any, rely on DOF thinner than what is available with APS. The DOF argument have less merit than generalization about tilt/shift lenses consequences for various system; an issue without relevance for the vast majority of users. One get the impression that APS have endless DOF but difference between APS and FF is one stop which is hardly distingushable without close side by side comparison, and rarely if ever has much artistic relevance.

**Rondec** · 03-02-2012, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

But you don't use the same lens for the same magnification between various formats; you won't get the same picture that way. You use a lens with a different focal lenght. The fact that you want your 50mm to give images with the same magnification as on the 35mm format is really nothing to do with this discussion. Bokeh is all well and good but a 50/1.4 wide open on APS give so shallow DOF that hardly any three dimentional subjects can be rendered in focus. The 77 Limited has so shallow DOF on APS that anything shallower is virtually useless and/or academic.
Anyway, only a tiny fraction of all images rely on very thin DOF and even a tinyer, if any, rely on DOF thinner than what is available with APS. The DOF argument have less merit than generalization about tilt/shift lenses consequences for various system; an issue without relevance for the vast majority of users. One get the impression that APS have endless DOF but difference between APS and FF is one stop which is hardly distingushable without close side by side comparison, and rarely if ever has much artistic relevance.

I think you are correct. I have had more photos spoiled by too narrow depth of field than by too much depth of field (eg taking photos of my wife and daughter and having my wife in focus, daughter not).

Where full frame does have most benefit is to get subject isolation with wide angle lenses. There just isn't really anything truly equivalent of a 35mm f1.4 lens on full frame with APS-C. With 50mm on up on full frame, I don't think there really is any difference with APS-C.

Smolk · 03-02-2012, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

But you don't use the same lens for the same magnification between various formats; you won't get the same picture that way. You use a lens with a different focal lenght. The fact that you want your 50mm to give images with the same magnification as on the 35mm format is really nothing to do with this discussion. Bokeh is all well and good but a 50/1.4 wide open on APS give so shallow DOF that hardly any three dimentional subjects can be rendered in focus. The 77 Limited has so shallow DOF on APS that anything shallower is virtually useless and/or academic.
Anyway, only a tiny fraction of all images rely on very thin DOF and even a tinyer, if any, rely on DOF thinner than what is available with APS. The DOF argument have less merit than generalization about tilt/shift lenses consequences for various system; an issue without relevance for the vast majority of users. One get the impression that APS have endless DOF but difference between APS and FF is one stop which is hardly distingushable without close side by side comparison, and rarely if ever has much artistic relevance.

Hm, I disagree. I have seen quite a few photos which would have been better with a narrower DOF, but obviously that depends on subject matter.
But I also disagree that 1.4 is useless on APS-C. The smaller the size of sensor or film, the larger DOF, so there is no argument against 1.4 on APS-C I'd say. I like my Takumar 1.4/50mm on APS-C a lot wide open.

Just the other day I used a 645 200mm lens on film (645) and was astounded by the isolation it produced—which was very, very useful for people on the street. The equivalent, roughly, of 120mm on FF (roughly because the ratio differs). By the same token, it can make life difficult when shooting landscapes where you might prefer a large DOF.
There can be no argument against shallow DOF per se, it all depends on the subject and context.

03-02-2012, 05:54 AM	#236
saladin Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: outer eastern melbourne, australia Posts: 427	i would love it if Pentax produced something in FF around the 5d3 MP range, kept the impressive noise and sensor technology of the k5 and ditched the fancy (or even all) video capability to keep costs down. just build us a dedicated stills camera with top-shelf IQ and low-light ability to make use of all the prime lenses. It'd be an outstanding wedding and street camera, especially if it can be kept smallish. And if the D800 is $3k and the 5d3 in the next segment above, then anything below the D800 will be enticing. which would be possible imo. they can certainly get this done, we know pentax would produce a great photographic tool, but whether they want to is another matter. those already in nikon or canon won't change, but there just might be a market for non-FF and P&S users who want to become FF shooters in the low $2k price range. Last edited by saladin; 03-02-2012 at 06:03 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Picture of the Week POTW #181 Sept. 11, 2011-Sept 25, 2011	lukulele	Weekly Photo Challenges	49	09-24-2011 01:00 AM
Picture of the Week POTW #180 Sept. 4, 2011-Sept 18, 2011	lukulele	Weekly Photo Challenges	57	09-18-2011 06:30 AM
Pentax Q price rumor - $699	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	50	07-05-2011 07:08 AM
Rumor of Pentax D FA 645 25mm f/4	Noisychip	Pentax News and Rumors	94	04-24-2011 02:41 PM
Rumor: One SLR, one prime plus two compacts on Sept. 9th	Noisychip	Pentax News and Rumors	75	09-09-2010 02:46 AM

03-01-2012, 07:00 PM	#226
maxfield_photo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,216	Originally posted by Pål Jensen You keep repeating this but it is wrong. These lenses are not equivalent because DOF is not equivalent between formats. No one buy lenses for various format in order to have exactly the same DOF, say, three stops from wide open. Photographer compare lenses in order to get the same exposure at a certain magnification and aperture. I do. But just as often I buy lenses to be used at maximum aperture, because yes, I am a bokeh whore. The problem with APS-C is if I want to frame my subject with my nifty fifty at f/1.4, I have to back up which means less BOKEH! I don't care about the exposure, high ISO has leveled that playing field. ISO 400 is nothing these days. And of course I carry about 600ws of light in my bag. It's all about bokeh and wider angles for me. Even the added DR and sharpness are just fringe benefits to me.

03-01-2012, 08:20 PM	#227
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	Originally posted by maxfield_photo I do. But just as often I buy lenses to be used at maximum aperture, because yes, I am a bokeh whore. The problem with APS-C is if I want to frame my subject with my nifty fifty at f/1.4, I have to back up which means less BOKEH! I don't care about the exposure, high ISO has leveled that playing field. ISO 400 is nothing these days. And of course I carry about 600ws of light in my bag. It's all about bokeh and wider angles for me. Even the added DR and sharpness are just fringe benefits to me. You are just one of many Bokeh Whores out there. it's something Pal fails to see i think a quick search on flickr groups comes up with pages of them Flickr: Search for a group and one for you specifically http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokehwhores/

03-01-2012, 11:08 PM	#228
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by maxfield_photo The hotshoe is the key to comparison. I'd estimate the 5D3 to be about 131.5mm wide, only 2 mm wider than the K-5. Mark III is a bit bigger and heavier than Mark II. 152 x 116 x 76 mm vs 152 x 114 x 75 mm Weight (inc. batteries) 950 g (2.09 lb / 33.51 oz) vs Weight (inc. batteries) 850 g (1.87 lb / 29.98 oz) K-5 - 131 x 97 x 73 mm

03-01-2012, 11:38 PM	#229
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by stanleyk Looks like the new 5D is going to start out at $3499........ All right, I'll ask again: where is that downwards spiral?

03-02-2012, 01:09 AM	#230
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Kunzite All right, I'll ask again: where is that downwards spiral? That's what I was thinking too. Doomsday prophets here have been repeating over and over again that the FF prices will come down and eat at the APSC DSLR market from above. But nobody can really bring any arguments to support that, other then: technology is always improving and becomming cheaper. A false argument of course. Yes, old tech becomes cheaper, because it's being replaced by the expensive newest full featured versions. So I still think it's a big oppurtunity for Pentax to issue a FF body that is more affordable then any of the competition. Possibly even by giving up some features. Or by not improving on others. (Sorry for going back on topic again.)

03-02-2012, 01:14 AM	#231
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Now that I have seen the 5D MkIII specs it's clear that Canon again chose to cripple a product to protect its other camera lines (1Dx). It's even worse than the 5D MkII in some aspects, for instance the focusing screen is now fixed and not user replaceable! That's a bad thing for users wanting to shoot with MF lenses... In a way the 5D MkIII is good indeed because there are still lots of opportunities for Pentax left. I've said it often and I'll say it again: Pentax does not have any camera lines to protect. There's lots of room in the $1,500-$8,000-bracket (I forgot how much the 645D costs but it should be around that, right?).

03-02-2012, 01:47 AM	#232
garyk Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	Originally posted by Asahiflex Now that I have seen the 5D MkIII specs it's clear that Canon again chose to cripple a product to protect its other camera lines (1Dx). It's even worse than the 5D MkII in some aspects, for instance the focusing screen is now fixed and not user replaceable! That's a bad thing for users wanting to shoot with MF lenses... In a way the 5D MkIII is good indeed because there are still lots of opportunities for Pentax left. I've said it often and I'll say it again: Pentax does not have any camera lines to protect. There's lots of room in the $1,500-$8,000-bracket (I forgot how much the 645D costs but it should be around that, right?). Yea, I really feel sorry for Canon shooters. With a crummy 61 point AF system inherited from the IDx. FF with class leading ISO. And those poor canon guys that have to shoot with the inferior glass canon makes... Really Canon. What a joke. I'm buying another K-5.

03-02-2012, 02:03 AM	#233
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by garyk Yea, I really feel sorry for Canon shooters. With a crummy 61 point AF system inherited from the IDx. FF with class leading ISO. And those poor canon guys that have to shoot with the inferior glass canon makes... Really Canon. What a joke. I'm buying another K-5. Of course, it's definitely a good camera (I wouldn't mind owning it!). But really, the MkIII is the camera the MkII should have been. I think current MkII shooters don't have a compelling reason to upgrade to the MkIII.

03-02-2012, 02:05 AM	#234
garyk Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	Originally posted by Asahiflex Of course, it's definitely a good camera (I wouldn't mind owning it!). But really, the MkIII is the camera the MkII should have been. I think current MkII shooters don't have a compelling reason to upgrade to the MkIII. That is a valid point.

03-02-2012, 03:09 AM	#235
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by viggen Uuhhhh, considering the weak presence of Pentax in South-East Asia, that would be a VERY tall order... Finding them in Thailand is tough. Singapore? Not there. Same in KL. Cambodia was the first country I saw a shop carrying Pentax... China? No one cares for Pentax there, I've seen 2 guys with a Pentax in 4 months there, compared to bazillions with Canikon. Problem is, distribution in Asia is way more problematic: there are few big shops as Fnac (in Europe), or Adorama (in the US). So you have to cater to A LOT of very small shops, and that's no easy task. It wouldn't surprise me that Pentax is 5 or 6th in Asia, behind Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony and/or Panasonic. When you see their presence on the shelves, it's no surprise. Pentax is nowhere to be seen. Come to the Philippines, where there are around 14 malls in Manila alone that sell Pentax. And perhaps some more in Cebu and other major cities. (all owned by the same distributor, I think) Considering the number of distributors thorugh, you're right. A lone legit seller in one country makes for monopoly and ridiculously high prices. Even for the country where the Pentax bodies are made....

03-02-2012, 05:59 AM - 1 Like	#237
markac Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Adelaide Posts: 84	The Canon 5D Mark III seems like a bit of a yawn. Mostly just an enhanced 5D Mark II really. This still leaves Pentax a spot to make a small (K20D sized) affordable enthusiast FF DSLR. Yep Sony might have failed with it's A900/A850 combo, but there were valid reasons for that and it hasn't diminished Sony's intention to stay in the FF market, with several new models expected. Unfortunately it seems like none of those models will be a real DSLR. The beautiful viewfinder of the A900 will likely be replaced by an EVF.

03-02-2012, 06:43 AM	#238
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by maxfield_photo I do. But just as often I buy lenses to be used at maximum aperture, because yes, I am a bokeh whore. The problem with APS-C is if I want to frame my subject with my nifty fifty at f/1.4, I have to back up which means less BOKEH! . But you don't use the same lens for the same magnification between various formats; you won't get the same picture that way. You use a lens with a different focal lenght. The fact that you want your 50mm to give images with the same magnification as on the 35mm format is really nothing to do with this discussion. Bokeh is all well and good but a 50/1.4 wide open on APS give so shallow DOF that hardly any three dimentional subjects can be rendered in focus. The 77 Limited has so shallow DOF on APS that anything shallower is virtually useless and/or academic. Anyway, only a tiny fraction of all images rely on very thin DOF and even a tinyer, if any, rely on DOF thinner than what is available with APS. The DOF argument have less merit than generalization about tilt/shift lenses consequences for various system; an issue without relevance for the vast majority of users. One get the impression that APS have endless DOF but difference between APS and FF is one stop which is hardly distingushable without close side by side comparison, and rarely if ever has much artistic relevance.

03-02-2012, 07:18 AM	#239
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by Pål Jensen But you don't use the same lens for the same magnification between various formats; you won't get the same picture that way. You use a lens with a different focal lenght. The fact that you want your 50mm to give images with the same magnification as on the 35mm format is really nothing to do with this discussion. Bokeh is all well and good but a 50/1.4 wide open on APS give so shallow DOF that hardly any three dimentional subjects can be rendered in focus. The 77 Limited has so shallow DOF on APS that anything shallower is virtually useless and/or academic. Anyway, only a tiny fraction of all images rely on very thin DOF and even a tinyer, if any, rely on DOF thinner than what is available with APS. The DOF argument have less merit than generalization about tilt/shift lenses consequences for various system; an issue without relevance for the vast majority of users. One get the impression that APS have endless DOF but difference between APS and FF is one stop which is hardly distingushable without close side by side comparison, and rarely if ever has much artistic relevance. I think you are correct. I have had more photos spoiled by too narrow depth of field than by too much depth of field (eg taking photos of my wife and daughter and having my wife in focus, daughter not). Where full frame does have most benefit is to get subject isolation with wide angle lenses. There just isn't really anything truly equivalent of a 35mm f1.4 lens on full frame with APS-C. With 50mm on up on full frame, I don't think there really is any difference with APS-C.

03-02-2012, 07:29 AM	#240
Smolk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Eerbeek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,857	Originally posted by Pål Jensen But you don't use the same lens for the same magnification between various formats; you won't get the same picture that way. You use a lens with a different focal lenght. The fact that you want your 50mm to give images with the same magnification as on the 35mm format is really nothing to do with this discussion. Bokeh is all well and good but a 50/1.4 wide open on APS give so shallow DOF that hardly any three dimentional subjects can be rendered in focus. The 77 Limited has so shallow DOF on APS that anything shallower is virtually useless and/or academic. Anyway, only a tiny fraction of all images rely on very thin DOF and even a tinyer, if any, rely on DOF thinner than what is available with APS. The DOF argument have less merit than generalization about tilt/shift lenses consequences for various system; an issue without relevance for the vast majority of users. One get the impression that APS have endless DOF but difference between APS and FF is one stop which is hardly distingushable without close side by side comparison, and rarely if ever has much artistic relevance. Hm, I disagree. I have seen quite a few photos which would have been better with a narrower DOF, but obviously that depends on subject matter. But I also disagree that 1.4 is useless on APS-C. The smaller the size of sensor or film, the larger DOF, so there is no argument against 1.4 on APS-C I'd say. I like my Takumar 1.4/50mm on APS-C a lot wide open. Just the other day I used a 645 200mm lens on film (645) and was astounded by the isolation it produced—which was very, very useful for people on the street. The equivalent, roughly, of 120mm on FF (roughly because the ratio differs). By the same token, it can make life difficult when shooting landscapes where you might prefer a large DOF. There can be no argument against shallow DOF per se, it all depends on the subject and context.