[rparmar]

Are the DA Limiteds any worse?

I am not going to say "worse", but the rendering is different. Depending on one's style of photography that may not matter, or may only matter in edge cases. But it's sure nice to know the option exists to buy special rendering in a small lens package with auto-focus. the only competition on the IQ front is Zeiss, but they are honkin' big monsters and have no AF.

Of course most people, most of the time, are not going to notice. And some people will never notice. That's not a put-down, by the way, just a fact of life.

The DA Limiteds also suffer by not having an aperture ring. That's a big deal for some of us. In fact, a deal-breaker when I use lenses on my Olympus PEN.

---

Last edited by rparmar; 05-22-2012 at 10:09 AM.

[Macroguy]

Well, waiting for full frame is finally over for me. D800 is on order. I would say there is no point for Pentax to come out with FF anymore, majority of people who wanted a FF DSLR will in all likelihood have one by the time Pentax rolls one out in 2050. Might as well stick to making cameras in 6 different colors. What a pitty.

[ihasa]

A pitty indeed.

[french_mike]

Well, waiting for full frame is finally over for me. D800 is on order.

congratulation

[rparmar]

What a pitty.

A pitty indeed.

A pity perhaps. (Sorry, but can't watch a simple word get repeatedly misspelled.)

Waiting for something Pentax never promised is a fool's errand. Moving on to a camera that actually exists makes a lot more sense. Good decision.

[Anvh]

No, i see no reason to use the 16mp AGAIN. beginners loves to see the number of megapixels and this will be on par with the D3200 and better than the canon's supposedly 18mp (*yawn) for their T4i. Again, more knowledgeable camera users will love the twin dials, the weather resistance, the durablility of the K30, and they should feel that 16mp is plenty especially with the improve iso vs. the 24 mp sensor.

Calling it now, K-z will be 24 mps.

But 24mp will slow the camera down quite a bit compared to 16mp, there are 50% more pixels so it's simple to say that such a camera will be 50% slower.

Sure some might go for the extra MP but i'm sure that some that actually try the camera might go for the faster one.

[Aristophanes]

Consider this:
1. 31mm on APS-C = 46.5 on FF

Did you mean to phrase it this way?

[clover]

Show me your low resolution corners at f2.8-5.6.

I can easy trust the test if lens works weaker at 24 MP APS-C sensor than at 10-16 MP, but I can't trust if outstanding lens at K10D became weaker at K-5.

When cheap kit lens 18-55 is better at K-5 than at K10D.

Klaus answered me, by the way...He has no any exact answer.

As soon as I will be able to grab all the stuff to show you.

[Emacs]

I can easy trust the test if lens works weaker at 24 MP APS-C sensor than at 10-16 MP, but I can't trust if outstanding lens at K10D became weaker at K-5.

I guess you believe in god and magic too.

[bossa]

Did you mean to phrase it this way?

I would have said equivalent but I don't know the keyboard codes for that.

Is there something wrong with what I said apart from leaving out the 'mm'?

[Aristophanes]

I would have said equivalent but I don't know the keyboard codes for that.

Is there something wrong with what I said apart from leaving out the 'mm'?

31mm on APS-C is 31mm.

31mm on FF is 31mm.

A FF-capable lens at 31mm lens is equivalent to 46.5 on APS-C when accounting for the crop factor of the smaller sensor.

[noser]

This is undervaluing the whole Pentax concept in creating photographic tools that are both ergonomically and technically sound, whilst still being lightweight, physically small and yet robust. If you're looking for heavy and large FF bodies, there are amply available D800s, D3Xs, 1DMkIVs and 5DMkIIIs available.

I'm not specifically looking for 'large and heavy' (lol!), in fact the K-5 isn't significantly smaller in a side-by-side comparison with my K20D (both with grips attached).

What I've found is the button spacing and placement was shoved so far to the right - I assume from the larger LCD - that I find some of the controls hard to use now. The ISO button is the most frustrating. I use a handstrap, and find that in comparison to the K20D I have to move my palm further away from the body to get at some of the buttons.

I just find the whole mentality of squeezing the physical size at the expense of ergonomics to be wrong-headed. I don't want a cute factor and fun colors, and I don't want the cheapo feel of the 5DmkII either. The K5 feels solid, but it's too fiddly. I miss the door latch on the SD slot, and the left side port cover is ... cheap.

If they brought back the K20D body shape, with the deeper grip (either the K5, or the optional retrofit grip of the K20 series), I'd be in heaven. With retina-style screens I don't think we need bigger LCD's, either, just tighter pixels.

Now the dust has settled on the C/N debate I'm looking at the 5DmkIII semi-seriously, if it feels better than the mkII. I don't want to re-invest in glass, but if the next gen Pentax shrinks again it almost becomes a no-brainer.

[bossa]

31mm on APS-C is 31mm.

31mm on FF is 31mm.

A FF-capable lens at 31mm lens is equivalent to 46.5 on APS-C when accounting for the crop factor of the smaller sensor.

You don't say?

That's what I said wasn't it? You should have been able to take that from my post as a given..

I can't believe some of the tools around here frankly. Hilarious and pedantic all at once.

PS: In case you still don't get it I was comparing a 31mm lens on an APS-C with a 50mm lens on FF and equivalence was the common thread that allowed for the comparison.

[jsherman999]

31mm on APS-C is 31mm.

31mm on FF is 31mm.

A FF-capable lens at 31mm lens is equivalent to 46.5 on APS-C when accounting for the crop factor of the smaller sensor.

You know that's exactly what he meant, c'mon.

[pinholecam]

Sure! So then instead of using a 15mm f/4 wide open, you can use a 24mm at f/5.6 or higher. Surely 'even a sigma' lens is pretty good at those apertures. Instead of the 35 on APSC you can use a $125 50mm f/1.8, and have way more flexibility DOF-wise. Instead of lugging around the extra DA70 you can use the 50mm f/1.8 and crop (and again have more DOF options, to boot).

Is the encumbrance really all that much worse, the D800 + 2 lenses, compared to the K5 and 3 lenses? Could it be better with the D800?

This will be my only reply.
I don't want to add on anymore to this FF/D800/D600 nonsense in a happy Pentax new release thread.

This is again in theory.
Practically, I've not seen 2 or more folks shoot with APS-C and FF cams on a photo outing with the FF one producing obviously better results than the APS-C users.
If there is such a case, it has only been for very controlled situations like model shoots.

24mm at f5.6 is at f5.6 too in terms of light gathering.
Candids, streets or a more environmental shot done in less ideal brightness, the DA15/4 at f4 would be better.
SR too on a Pentax camera.


Actually, I usually carry a 85/2 or 77ltd.
Perhaps you could crop a 50mm on FF to be a 70 on APS-C but the 70 on aps-c can also be cropped to be 130mm, and thats with a~2yr old 16mp camera. On a 24mp one, perhaps more.
I'm interested to see if this works out for you (as in purposely using a 50mm as a 70mm equivalent on APS-C as a travel solution).
I usually crop when necessary when reviewing the shot or have a preconceived notion that a shot needs to be cropped to 'something' later in PP, but can't judge what is 70mm APS-C on 50mm FF just by looking thru the viewfinder.


Encumbrance (not only weight) is different. The clunk of size and the weight means a bag that is 1 size bigger and a bit more strain from carrying around.
Easy for those who drives around, not that desirable if one does not.
Of course we humans are adaptable and can get used to the weight, but given a choice, I'd rather not go there.

It's not about getting thinner DOF. It's about getting the DOF you want at smaller apertures on cheaper, longer focal length lenses.

Consider this:
1. 31mm on APS-C = 46.5 on FF

2. Distance to K-5 is 1 meter

3. to compensate for distance of subject the 50mm lens must be backed off a bit on FF
a) FF with 50mm must be backed off to 1.075 meters (50/46.5 = 1075)

4. a) DOF 31mm f/1.8 at 1.000 meters = 75.89mm
b) DOF 50mm f/2.73 at 1.075 meters = 75.81mm (f/2.8 will have to do DOF = 77.76)

It appears from the above calculations that a cheap 50mm lens on FF can match it with an expensive wide-angle FF lens being used on APS-C. The 50mm is sharper at that aperture so it's not really a fair comparison but is accurate.

Costs:
D800E = $3850 (we pay GST.. or VAT)
Sigma 50 = 500
Total = 4350

K-5 = 1500
31LTD = 1500
Total = 3000

By the time you add more expensive fast lenses to the APS-C system you have ended up (probably) spending more cash. But that hasn't really happened for me because most of my lenses were bought used.

Don't ask me why I did all of that.

I understand what you mean (I do shoot 35mm film and also MF 6x7; On 67, a 180mm lens focusing the distance like a ~90mm on 35mm film for portraits is really nice)
What I'm just saying is that shallow DOF is not everything in photography that is not still life, fine arts, portraits (including family ones).
For travel/landscapes/streets/documentation etc it matters much less and can be an advantage for comfort due to encumbrance and sometimes 'visibility' from a larger camera.

Like I've mentioned above, practically, I've not seen APS-C and FF shot on the same outing with the FF one producing obviously better results than the APS-C users. (Neither did I ever see Canikon branded cameras perform any better in terms of AF and such )

The lack of cheaper choices for Pentax to match the equivalent FOV on FF, I blame Pentax.
On Canikon, there are cheap 28, 35, 50, 85.
I'll have to say that the Pentax ones are smaller, typically better built and optically good though.
If the FA35/2 is used over the FA31ltd cited as an example, then the price difference becomes larger.






Ok. Enough from me.