[Cideway]

Well, in any case, people have reported that the DA* lenses at least can cover the 135 format in full. That's two currently available lenses for a possible shift to FF. I'm guessing Pentax keeps the upcoming future lenses to also be able to cover the 135 format, just in case.

Yes the do cover a 135mm frame in full, it is just a portion of that coverage, is black. If you want 135 coverage, buy a Canon or a Nikon, as you will be waiting a long time for Pentax. If it happens at all, it will unlikely be within the next 5 years.

[Cambo]

Yes the do cover a 135mm frame in full, it is just a portion of that coverage, is black. If you want 135 coverage, buy a Canon or a Nikon, as you will be waiting a long time for Pentax. If it happens at all, it will unlikely be within the next 5 years.

the two macros cover 35mm.

Anyway, we should know this month, if Ben wouldn't keep getting the announcements DELAYED for us!



Cheers,
Cameron

[mawz]

Well, in any case, people have reported that the DA* lenses at least can cover the 135 format in full. That's two currently available lenses for a possible shift to FF. I'm guessing Pentax keeps the upcoming future lenses to also be able to cover the 135 format, just in case.

The DA*'s do NOT cover a full 35mm at all lengths. The only DA lenses that cover 35mm are the DA 40 Limited (Which is an update of a 35mm lens likely designed for the MZ-D FF project) and the DA 70 Limited. The D-FA macros do as well, but are not digital-specific unlike the DA's.

[Cideway]

the two macros cover 35mm.

Yes but they are DFAs not the DA*s that are being referred to here. Plus two 135 types lenses a system don't make. In all there are currently 5 135 type lenses while there are 12 APS-C type lenses.

[Cideway]

The DA*'s do NOT cover a full 35mm at all lengths. The only DA lenses that cover 35mm are the DA 40 Limited (Which is an update of a 35mm lens likely designed for the MZ-D FF project) and the DA 70 Limited. The D-FA macros do as well, but are not digital-specific unlike the DA's.

Most likely the DA 40 is a redesign of the M 40 from the ME days, the MZ-D would have just used the existing FA/-J lenses.

[lol101]

Well, in any case, people have reported that the DA* lenses at least can cover the 135 format in full. That's two currently available lenses for a possible shift to FF. I'm guessing Pentax keeps the upcoming future lenses to also be able to cover the 135 format, just in case.

No, none of the DA* zooms cover the 135 format (I have the 50-135 and mounted on the Z1P, heavy vigneting can easily be seen).

The DFA macro lenses cover the 135mm as well as the DA 40 from what I have read but Pentax has 0 zooms in the DFA range.

I also suspect that the DA (ex DFA) 200f2.8 might cover 135 (from vigneting measurements in Chasseur d'Images) but even with that, I fail to see what would Pentax gain from going to FF so early if at all.

IMO, the "Pentax way" would better be served by a full line of competitive APS-C DSLRs + 645D instead of going through the aggravation of having to maintain two lines of DSLRs + matching lenses with increasingly thin differences in IQ.

[ZaphodB]

a big heavy camera and huge lenses to go with it ......

35mm and Digi are totally different and with advancements in tech, there is no need for a 35mm sized sensor, unless you really, really need it .... and in that case go with a 645 :-)

wll

I'm happy to keep using APS-C dSLRs so long as they do what I want, and so long as "full frame" bodies remain prohibitively expensive (which by the way won't be forever, just like APS-C dSLRs are much cheaper now than they were a few years back).

But what I don't understand is the suggestion that 35mm-format dSLRs are "big heavy" things with "huge lenses", something which yourself and others previously have mentioned. They may not be compacts, but are APS-C cameras really that much smaller and lighter? I certainly know when I have a K10d hanging from my neck, and my K100d is not pocketable nor amazingly light.

A dSLR using a 35mm sensor really does not need to be that much bigger. Yes, most current 135-format dSLRs are much bigger and heavier, but that's largely because they are very expensive "professional-grade" cameras (and although the dreaded P-word will start an argument, fact is those very very expensive models will take more of a beating). Not simply because they're 135-format. For an exception, take a look at the Canon (spit) 5D... do you really consider it enormous and unwieldy compared to a K10d? It's only a 35mm sensor, not a 6x6 one.

I guess I'm just not convinced by the inherent weight or size advantage of APS-C. For me there isn't one, or if there is, it's about as insignificant as the quality advantages of full-frame are to others here.

[mattdm]

I guess I'm just not convinced by the inherent weight or size advantage of APS-C.

One word: lenses.

[skaktuss]

here you are pentax full frame Pentax 6mp Digital SLR hands-on: Digital Photography Review

[ZaphodB]

One word: lenses.

And three words, along the same theme as the bodies...

Not much difference.

I look at my APS-C dSLR with APS-C lens and I look at the same dSLR with a "full-frame" equivalent lens. Either way it's not pocketable. Either way it doesn't fit under a jacket. Either way it's something that takes up a significant amount of space in a bag, and requires the decision to go shooting rather than being something I can carry around all day everyday. Because it's a chunky dSLR with a sticky-outy lens, and being APS-C or 135 format doesn't really enter into it

Basically the "full-frame" body would be a bit bigger and heavier, and the "full-frame" lens a bit bigger and heavier. A bit. Not like the difference between the 35mm format and the 6x7 format. So from my point of view it's very likely that the quality advantages of the larger format will outweigh the weight/size advantages of the smaller one.

[lol101]

And three words, along the same theme as the bodies...

Not much difference.

I look at my APS-C dSLR with APS-C lens and I look at the same dSLR with a "full-frame" equivalent lens. Either way it's not pocketable. Either way it doesn't fit under a jacket. Either way it's something that takes up a significant amount of space in a bag, and requires the decision to go shooting rather than being something I can carry around all day everyday. Because it's a chunky dSLR with a sticky-outy lens, and being APS-C or 135 format doesn't really enter into it

Basically the "full-frame" body would be a bit bigger and heavier, and the "full-frame" lens a bit bigger and heavier. A bit. Not like the difference between the 35mm format and the 6x7 format. So from my point of view it's very likely that the quality advantages of the larger format will outweigh the weight/size advantages of the smaller one.

So tell me why the MF didn't overtake the 35mm film format?

Medium format can be surprisingly small, I have a 6x10 camera that is approximately 2x smaller than my K10 + grip.

You left out the most important side of it: price of a given lens for a given FoV.

One could argue for example that the DA*50-135 is 1/2 the bulk and cost than a 70-200f2.8 would be or compare a 50mmf1.4 to a 85f1.4...

Another thing is that the quality advantage we see in FF cameras might vanish as technology progresses.

It could go two ways: the APS-C could improve (we'll see about that in the next few month) or the FF quality could "decrease" (as in "cram" 22Mpix+ in a FF sensor and compare to a 10-12MP APS-C sensor: the pixel size is about the same so what you get is more resolution, everything else being the same, but how much more resolution can your optics resolve and how much more resolution do 99% of the photographers need?)

At one point, you'll reach a resolution limit (in close relation with the lens design) where the sole advantage with FF over APS-C will be to have the choice between a few more pixels or a slight increase in high ISO quality, both of which will be utterly unimportant for 99% of photographers because differences will be visible on 4x3m size prints when inspected with a magnifier, but you'll remain with the larger/more expensive FF lenses for a given field of view.

What will drive the market won't be size or weight, heck it won't even be IQ when differences will be so minute you'll need to go 100% pixel peeping to see them, it will be price and I don't see how FF is ever going to be cheaper than APS-C.

[vinzer]

Yes the do cover a 135mm frame in full, it is just a portion of that coverage, is black. If you want 135 coverage, buy a Canon or a Nikon, as you will be waiting a long time for Pentax. If it happens at all, it will unlikely be within the next 5 years.

Okay, now I'm really confused about the DA* coverage. I'll leave that up to others.

Me, I don't see the need to go FF. APS-C suits my needs just fine.

The DA*'s do NOT cover a full 35mm at all lengths. The only DA lenses that cover 35mm are the DA 40 Limited (Which is an update of a 35mm lens likely designed for the MZ-D FF project) and the DA 70 Limited. The D-FA macros do as well, but are not digital-specific unlike the DA's.

Thanks for the added info.

Yes but they are DFAs not the DA*s that are being referred to here. Plus two 135 types lenses a system don't make. In all there are currently 5 135 type lenses while there are 12 APS-C type lenses.

Not saying that the 2 DA*s will complete a system (let's assume they cover 135 format nicely), but at least they're there just in case, and Pentax would have to fill in the other gaps.

No, none of the DA* zooms cover the 135 format (I have the 50-135 and mounted on the Z1P, heavy vigneting can easily be seen).

The DFA macro lenses cover the 135mm as well as the DA 40 from what I have read but Pentax has 0 zooms in the DFA range.

I also suspect that the DA (ex DFA) 200f2.8 might cover 135 (from vigneting measurements in Chasseur d'Images) but even with that, I fail to see what would Pentax gain from going to FF so early if at all.

IMO, the "Pentax way" would better be served by a full line of competitive APS-C DSLRs + 645D instead of going through the aggravation of having to maintain two lines of DSLRs + matching lenses with increasingly thin differences in IQ.

I'm also thinking that the big announcement on the 24th would include some news, at least, of what happens to the 645D. Just too much media coordination, splurging on an international news conference in Dubai, and a really, really tight NDA. It must lead to some very big news.

[txbonds]

Okay, maybe I'm just dumb, but why is a 645D such a big deal to everyone? I mean, it isn't going to use our existing 35mm lenses, and is basically going to be just another of the multitude of other MF bodies/backs out there, right? Or is it solely because it is the only way to use the existing pentax MF lenses on digital or something?

Again, maybe a dumb question, but not having a background with pentax MF, I don't see why this is a big deal to warrant such press releases and what not, when it would seem to me that 35mm is where all the general public interest is these days.

[barendvl]

I don't think there was a time when MF was ever the format for the general public's interest. I don't even think you or me should be that interested in any 645D, simply because I assume a very high price...

For the general public, I guess the 645D makes great sense though, because for Pentax, this is a great way to show their skill and dedication.

[kent vinyard]

There are thousands of pro photographers that already have Pentax 645 system with lenses and these lenses would work on a new 645 digital body. Lots of fashion photogs, commercial photogs, and landscape photogs would love to have digital body. If priced right it would sell very well and put Pentax back into competition with other pro systems. If you ever get a chance lay a 35mm slide on a light table next to a 645 slide and you will see the dramatic difference---same applies to digital. My x stock agent used to make 70mm dupes out of my 35mm slides to show to clients--just more impressive!