[ElJamoquio]

a stop shorter shutterspeed at the same DOF compared to FF.

I like this argument better than 'you don't need shallow DOF'. Of course you're still neglecting a larger formats noise vs. ISO advantage.

[ElJamoquio]

Full-frame compatible lenses still in production:
- FA 31mm f1.8
- FA 43mm f1.9
- FA 77mm f1.8
- FA 35mm f2
- FA 50mm f1.4
- DFA 50mm f2.8 Macro
- DFA 100mm f2.8 Macro WR

I think the decision to release a full frame DSLR would be welcome by many. But improvements in AF to match CaNikon counterparts must follow. Also, a wider variety of (improved) SDM lenses. Every full frame Pentax-made lens is currently screw driven. Full frame users who want to stay discrete might want SDM lenses..

If you count patents, you missed the 300mm and 60-250. And of course there are many sigma and tamron offerings.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/183420-current...me-lenses.html

[Pål Jensen]

I like this argument better than 'you don't need shallow DOF'. Of course you're still neglecting a larger formats noise vs. ISO advantage.

Not neglecting anything. I said that FF has an advantage in image quality.
Nor have I ever said that no one need shallow DOF. I have said that 99.999% of all photographs taken do not display shallower DOF than whats possible with APS.

[ElJamoquio]

Not neglecting anything. I said that FF has an advantage in image quality.

So, then, for an equivalent image quality you could run the FF at higher ISO, correct?

Nor have I ever said that no one need shallow DOF. I have said that 99.999% of all photographs taken do not display shallower DOF than whats possible with APS.

Are you only including DSLR's in the 99.999% estimate? Or are you including cell phone cameras?

FWIW, I was shooting an event yesterday in which a FF camera would've had what I consider to be 'professional' results and my APS-C just couldn't isolate the subject.

[Spag]

Please, can we leave the DOF arguments outside of this thread? I feel like reading the same again and again.

[Pål Jensen]

So, then, for an equivalent image quality you could run the FF at higher ISO, correct?

.

Correct but you don't buy FF to get APS quality. You have to compare apples to apples. You can turn up ISO on APS as well.

[bobmaxja]

Yes Please no DOF discussion

[ElJamoquio]

Correct but you don't buy FF to get APS quality. You have to compare apples to apples. You can turn up ISO on APS as well.

How much cheaper and lighter do you think the 31mm f/1.8 + K-5 replacement would be compared to a 50mm f/1.8 + FF? Which do you expect will have better IQ?

[Cinders]

All this news is nice, but I was kinda hoping for a new Q with a bigger or better sensor for photokina. :<

[westmill]

All this news is nice, but I was kinda hoping for a new Q with a bigger or better sensor for photokina. :<

We have got a new Q I believe its john clease

[Emacs]

How much cheaper and lighter do you think the 31mm f/1.8 + K-5 replacement would be compared to a 50mm f/1.8 + FF? Which do you expect will have better IQ?

All I know Nikon D600 + 50/1.8G will be much cheaper compared to K-5 successor + 31Ltd. With significantly better IQ.

[rparmar]

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.

In all the time since they were released, Pentax has not improved on the FA Limiteds. Nor will they, IMO, since their priorities have changed from producing optical excellence to increasing profits at all costs. The last gasp of their idealism and commitment to photographers was the release of the 645D which made no financial sense. But did make sense in terms of a need to preserve their honour in light of promises they had been making for years.

(Please do not mistake me. This does not mean that I think Pentax will make no more good products. Only that exemplary items like the FA Limited will enter the era of mythology. I wonder how long will it be before they stop production? At that time expect the prices to rise to two grand.)

The discussion of the Photozone tests regarding the FA Limited lenses omits one possibility, indeed a very real fact that explains the apparent contradictions in resolution figures, etc. These tests are not capable of measuring the excellence of the FA Limited lenses, since they were specifically designed to optimise rendering quality at the expense of raw test scores. This is well known and documented. Please see previous threads and white paper of Jun Hirakawa. This will clear up the confusion.

[Pål Jensen]

All I know Nikon D600 + 50/1.8G will be much cheaper compared to K-5 successor + 31Ltd. With significantly better IQ.

But the K-5 sucessor with the DA 50/1.8 will be considerable cheaper than any Nikon FF with a 75/1.8 lens....
If the Nikon has only 24mp I doubt you'll see any differences in a final print....

[Pål Jensen]

(Please do not mistake me. This does not mean that I think Pentax will make no more good products. Only that exemplary items like the FA Limited will enter the era of mythology. I wonder how long will it be before they stop production? At that time expect the prices to rise to two grand.)
.

Are the DA Limiteds any worse?

[ElJamoquio]

But the K-5 sucessor with the DA 50/1.8 will be considerable cheaper than any Nikon FF with a 75/1.8 lens....
If the Nikon has only 24mp I doubt you'll see any differences in a final print....

My guess is that the k-5 successor will start at $1600 and with the DA50/1.8 it will be $1850.

My guess is that the D600 will start at $1800 and with the Nikon 50mm 1/.8, cropped to APSC, it will be $1920. So there's a $70 difference, in my expectation; which isn't that much when you consider how much more versatile the FF would be (both a 31mm f/1.8 'APS-C equivalent' and a 50mm f/1.8 'APS-C equivalent').