[Parliament]

[...]
AFAIK, Pentax sends catalog for the products that will come in 6 months before announcement of the camera. Also, continuous meeting here and there with the retailers to get there feedback if these cameras are worth selling in their area.
[...]

Thank You!
I didn't know that they get information that early! =)

[clover]

There is no panic for Pentax to update a whole FF line. This will come in time...

What they need to do is officially announce two new zooms at the moment they announce the FF, to establish the trust and confidence for the buyers.
Updating the old FF lenses that are in production will come later on, just like Nikon did with the 1.4 and 1.8 G series (and those are very recent)
In the meantime Pentax has imho the strongest old FF line that still is in production, namely the 31, 43 and 77. Add to that, the FA 50 1.4 and D-FA lenses.
That is high quality lenses, and sales of those will rise upon release of FF.

And other that that.... feel free to use whatever lenses från DA line you know will work!!!

Even I agree with your point of view, photozone has jsut shows 31mm and 43mm tests on 16MP
Pentax SMC FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited - Lab Test / Review
Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited - Lab Test / Review

These are old school design, not for DSLR.
It will be very important to make new specfic lenses ( just like lenses for the 465D )
And after, to improve the old ones.

[bossa]

These are good points, but a lot of people want FF for its low light performance and IQ with regard to noise. A lot of recent tests will show close ratings when it comes to low light and noise performance between an aps-c and FF, but there is still a difference. I can see it when I am editing pictures taken from a 2nd shooters FF right next to mine.

As you concluded, a lot of wildlife shooters like an aps-c because of the "crop." it is nice to get the added range out of your longest lenses.

As a wedding and portrait shooter, my ideal kit would actually contain both. At a ceremony I would shoot from both cameras, so that I could maximize each of their strengths (width and low noise on ff, telescoping close ups on aps-c). At the reception I could really use that FF!

The noise level on my D800E is extremely low and I can only hope that the next top level Pentax has a similar noise profile. I now have a pretty decent excuse NOT to sell off my Pentax gear.

[bossa]

Try to get your hands on a 180 f/2.8 AF-N crinkle finish - $450 -$600 used. Brilliant lens.


.

Thanks Josh.. I've been looking around for that lens after seeing your work with it.

[ogl]

Even I agree with your point of view, photozone has jsut shows 31mm and 43mm tests on 16MP
Pentax SMC FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited - Lab Test / Review
Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited - Lab Test / Review

These are old school design, not for DSLR.
It will be very important to make new specfic lenses ( just like lenses for the 465D )
And after, to improve the old ones.

I don't see any problem with FA31 at all.

As for FA43/1.9 -
it's unreal - for example
at K10D - f2.8 corner - 1993 LW/PH
at K-5 - f2.8 corner - 1743 LW/PH

The same situation at f4-5.6.

10 MP is always lower than 16 MP.

FA43 coudn't be worse at 16 MP than at 10 MP. In the worst case the resolution could be almost the same in test. But not lower.

1993 LW/PH is very good resolution at 10 MP, the drop of 250 LW/PH at 16 MP camera indicates that Klaus has no good sample of lens.
I have K200D and K-5, my FA43 is sharper at K-5 at all apertures. The center and corners.

[clover]

I don't see any problem with FA31 at all.

As for FA43/1.9 -
it's unreal - for example
at K10D - f2.8 corner - 1993 LW/PH
at K-5 - f2.8 corner - 1743 LW/PH

The same situation at f4-5.6.

10 MP is always lower than 16 MP.

FA43 coudn't be worse at 16 MP than at 10 MP. In the worst case the resolution could be almost the same in test. But not lower.

1993 LW/PH is very good resolution at 10 MP, the drop of 250 LW/PH at 16 MP camera indicates that Klaus has no good sample of lens.
I have K200D and K-5, my FA43 is sharper at K-5 at all apertures. The center and corners.

The tests show (more about the 43mm, I admit ) that the lens get worst in the border with a higher resolution sensor.

If the Pentax FF is a 24MP, it can be ok, if it is the 36MP the D800 uses... I am not so sure the quality can be maintained.

[Blue]

The tests show (more about the 43mm, I admit ) that the lens get worst in the border with a higher resolution sensor.

If the Pentax FF is a 24MP, it can be ok, if it is the 36MP the D800 uses... I am not so sure the quality can be maintained.

It did o.k. on Kodachrome 64.

[clover]

film is not the same as sensor.

[ogl]

The tests show (more about the 43mm, I admit ) that the lens get worst in the border with a higher resolution sensor.

If the Pentax FF is a 24MP, it can be ok, if it is the 36MP the D800 uses... I am not so sure the quality can be maintained.

It's absurd. Even Klaus can't explain it now. By the way, he had a lot of bad copies of lenses of any brands. No any surprise.
Do you understand the SIMPLE FACT - ANY LENS of ANY brand will have HIGHER resolution at the camera with higher MP.
It's pure mathematics tests of lenses. Klaus uses IMATEST.

The resolution of system camera+lens+soft are always higher with higher MP. If there is any strange results like with FA43, it means - there is any problem with lens.

Have a look at the DA18-55, for example. All Pentax lenses tested at K-5 have higher resolution than at K10D.
Except for corners of FA43. Pay attention - FA43 is MUCH better resolution at f1.9 at the center than at K10D.
MUCH BETTER.

This test shows only one thing - Klaus has the sample with very good center and bad corners.

[Blue]

film is not the same as sensor.

Didn't say it was. However, film has resolving power. It varies with type and format.

[jsherman999]

Thanks Josh.. I've been looking around for that lens after seeing your work with it.

Jay.

[jsherman999]

.

FWIW, I posted a question to Klaus on photozone:

Klaus, how do you account for the MTF numbers being *lower* on the edge on the 16MP sensor than they were on the 10MP sensor? (Sample variation?) On a related note, where was the copy you tested manufactured?

Thanks!

And his speculation:

I do not know for sure. The 16mp sensor of the K5 is not much different than the 10mp sensor of the K10D.
The AA filter characteristic is very different though. The K10D AA filter has no vertical filtering at all so the border performance figures can be different if the sagittally or tangentially is emphasized.
The center resolution characteristic may be different due to the different RAW profile of the cameras although I am surprised about the difference.

Ogl popped in:

AA filter characteristic which may explain at least part of the results.
AA filter could affect only at sharpness and WHOLE resolution of system, which 2750 LW/PH for K-5. AA filter has no any affect at the drop of resolution of lens at 16 MP vs 10 MP. Klaus, it's strange to hear such explanation from you.

I have K200D with weak AA filter (more than 4 year) and K-5 (1 year). I don't see than K-5 has much thicker AA filter.
Thicker, but just a bit. I use C1 Pro.

As for strange corner result of FA43 at K-5 - it seems to me - it's lens variation - you got strange sample with good center and bad corners. Pay attention - FA43 is soft at center at f1.9 at K10D, but MUCH better at K-5 - I see the same at my cameras.
As for corners - I'm puzzled. FA43 is one of the sharpest lens at my K200D and the same at K-5.

To which Klaus replied:

Maybe I have a better insight then ?

We measure the MTFs at quadrant transitions - at the borders / corners the edges of the quadrants are slightly aligned to the sagittally and tangentially resolution respectively (not on purpose). If a lens suffers from astigmatism these resolution types will differ.
On a symmetrical AA filter the measured results are just averaged whereas an asymmetrical one favors one resolution type at the quadrants - not much, of course, but there is a certain tendency.

[clover]

It's absurd. Even Klaus can't explain it now. By the way, he had a lot of bad copies of lenses of any brands. No any surprise.
Do you understand the SIMPLE FACT - ANY LENS of ANY brand will have HIGHER resolution at the camera with higher MP.
It's pure mathematics tests of lenses. Klaus uses IMATEST.

The resolution of system camera+lens+soft are always higher with higher MP. If there is any strange results like with FA43, it means - there is any problem with lens.

Have a look at the DA18-55, for example. All Pentax lenses tested at K-5 have higher resolution than at K10D.
Except for corners of FA43. Pay attention - FA43 is MUCH better resolution at f1.9 at the center than at K10D.
MUCH BETTER.

This test shows only one thing - Klaus has the sample with very good center and bad corners.

Nevertheless, you cannot only say a lens is supposed to be good at the center.

It is not the first time, when sensor gets higher resolution, some lenses sho weakness in their borders.
I can admit it for a lens such as the 50mm FA f/:1.4, because the price is reasonnable.
Not for the 43mm.
And now, it is only the border of the aps-c size. Imagine for the border of a FF sensor.

If what I say is so wrong, why so much nikon users of D800 complain about their 24-70mm f/:2.8 AFS...?

A film lens does not care about the angle of incidence of a light ray, a sensor does...

If Pentax makes a FF, remaking 28-70mm f2.8 and 80-200mm f2.8 cannot be a qualitative answer.
Just look at the 35mm DA, there is something called ghostless treatement... Is it so unusefull ?

[ogl]

A film lens does not care about the angle of incidence of a light ray, a sensor does...

If Pentax makes a FF, remaking 28-70mm f2.8 and 80-200mm f2.8 cannot be a qualitative answer.
Just look at the 35mm DA, there is something called ghostless treatement... Is it so unusefull ?

Do you have FA43 and do you use this lens at 10 MP and 16 MP cameras?

[clover]

I Have a 43mm, a K10D and a K5.