[attack11]

So you pay 3000 euros to have same quality (or less) than an APS-C sensor?

i only own 1 digital lens, i'd pay more for a ff body since the majority of my glass will not suffer from vignetting.

[lol101]

Nikon has claimed over years they will not build a FF DSLR and that the future of Nikon was APS-C ONLY.

But still they continuously produced FF compatible lenses, which was my point.

All this doesn't really matter anyway, I wish Pentax/Samsung will produce a FF sometimes in a not too distant future. Given the quality I get from my K20, one can only dream about what could be possible with a FF.

I was really impressed with overall IQ of the 5D when I had the chance to use it for a few weeks but handling and build quality is on Pentax's side.

I would really like to be able to buy new Pentax lenses for my current setup (mostly long lenses above 200mm) but it would be better if I knew that I could use them in 2 or 3 years on a FF camera with the Pentax logo on it.

Who knows, maybe it's already in the making? Maybe this 60-250 was delayed because they re-designed it to cover FF? Maybe the new 55f1.4 will also be FF compatible?

The DA*200 seems to cover FF and maybe the DA* 300 does too (I would like to be sure of this before buying one and will wait for the 60-250 anyway to see if it covers FF)...

It would make little economic sense to develop two completely distinct lens lineup anyway.

APS-C needs dedicated wide angle lenses (12-24, 14 and 16-50 + 17-70 have to be specially designed for APS-C) but everything from 50mm up should be made FF compatible and clearly marketed as such.

Then the real signal will be the apparition on the roadmap of a 24-70f2.8 or 24-105f4...

[falconeye]

however, the square is THE rectilinear shape that provides the MOST sensor coverage inside of the image circle. IMO it would be the optimal shape!

Elsewhere in this forum I have described the optimum sensor format (to the exact millimeters) applicable as soon as CMOS real estate gets cheaper than good glass.

It has an octagon shape, allowing for both good wide-screen formats and near-square formats.

A square chip doesn't make sense if it is smaller than 43mm edge size. It may make best usage of the image circle at 30.6mm edge size, but then CMOS real estate would still matter and ordinary FF 24x36 would still be cheaper and preferred by most people.

[philmorley]

Then I think you should try looking at the distortion CA and PF of 28mm primes on FF cameras.

so this is an angle thing rather than a lens thing? (I've never used ff, so I assumed that say my tamron 28-75 with very low ca distortion would perform the same re distortion ca etc at 28mm as does at 42mm?? is this a wrong assumption?)

[Anastigmat]

I think you are right.
Pentax will either go FF or bancrupt, in the 21. century

MaritimTim

I doubt that. It will either go FF or go under. It cannot go bankrupt because it is no longer an independent company. Hoya would either shut it down, sell it or keep operating it. If it is kept operational or if it were sold, then it will come out with a FF.

[Anastigmat]

Sony is presently rolling out older Minolta designs for use with their cameras. No new optical designs other than from Zeiss. If they do deliver a full format, just stand back and watch!

Minolta probably had help from Leica in designing some of those great old AF lenses. Since Sony bought the Minolta DSLR business, and since Sony has been collaborating with Car Zeiss, it is natural that new designs should come from Carl Zeiss. Perhaps Sony may consider rebadging Tokina, Tamron or Sigma lenses to offer consumers a lower priced lens line.

[Lance B]

That is just not true. Never did Canon or Nikon promote a 100% APS-C lens lineup. People who bought APS-C lenses had the choice of buying them or sticking to FF compatible lenses.

I know that for a fact because I have bought a Canon APS-C DSLR but nothing but FF compatible lenses to go with it. And it was not special order, I just went into a shop and bought them.

You're seing no problem because you have a large FA array but I don't and many people who recently bought into Pentax don't either.

All I am saying is this: if Pentax plans to release a FF in the next three years, please, release FF compatible lenses NOW. These can be used on APS-C with no problems (as you know) so I don't see who wouldn't benefit from it.

If Pentax is currently planning a FF camera but is sticking to sell APS-C only lenses until the camera is ready, I would find it borderline dishonest and Pentax would have no credibility as a FF system.

Plus, releasing FF lenses (and clearly stating it, unlike the release of the DA* 200 and 300 where they stated explicitely that they were APS-C only lenses) would send a message to people considering buying the now affordable (and still better IQ-wise than any APS-C camera, including K20) 5D or the coming Sony that they can be confident that they can buy a lens compatible with everything the future might bring (pretty much like in the film days).

Right now, they are sending the opposite message quite clearly and that is bad communication if this is not their intention.

I never said that Nikon and Canon promoted a 100% APS C line up and Pentax has not made a claim of 100% line-up of APS C lenses either. You could still get FA20, FA31, FA43, FA50, FA77, DFA100 macro and DFA50 macro. The only reason none of the Canon lenses were not special order was because Canon is much more freely available, nothing more than that. Canon and Nikon had to produce some wide angle lenses to fulfill the wide angle requirements for APS C, so they are no less guilty of anything than Pentax.

Pentax have all these FF FA lenses available *now* and the DA*200 and DA*300 are also available which are FF compatible. I really do not see the problem. Yes, Pentax will need a couple of extra FF wide angle lenses but that is about it. Pentax have not made any overtures as to whether they will go FF and by releasing FF lenses all they will be doing is admitting the fact when they quite possible don't want/need to at this juncture.

Pentax need to secure current sales so as to build the company and if they admit to FF, they may undermine current APS C sales.

My choice of puchasing FF lenses is a choice I made for a number of factors. One of which being that I always thought that Pentax would possibly go FF at some stage, but also because I thought that they were top notch lenses. The reason I purchased APS C lenses because I *required* thses lenses *now* and if I didn't I would have missed photographic opportunities that presented themselves now. Why anyone would defer purchasing a lens in the hope that one day Pentax would release a FF camera body and therefore FF lenses is quite beyond me.

I also fail to see how you think that Pentax had duped their customers. They have APS C cameras and developed APS C lenses to suit that format which seems bleedingly obvious thing to do. The idea is that lenses desgined specifically for APS C would be better suited to that particular format and possibly smaller and cheaper due to that. Just because FF maybe released does not mean that the APS C lenses do not work as well as they used to. The APS C cameras and lenses will still be working just as well when FF is available and you will still be able to use/purchase and take photos with them. What is the problem?

Maybe you can tell me where these FF lenses that you want Pentax to make will fill a void in the Pentax lense line-up considering there is *no* FF camera in the Pentax line-up. There is *no* requirement for *any* FF lenses until Pentax make a FF camera.

There is also ne reason for Pentax to release FF lenses *now* as there are no FF bodies for them to go onto to. There would be absolutely no point. If Pentax decide to release a FF body, I can *assure* you that there will be FF lenses that will be released as well. If the FF body *is* 3 years off, then I am sure there will be FF lenses 2-3 years off too.

[Anastigmat]

I disagree. Very few pictures are printed or displayed square, so you'd always be cropping or throwing pixels away. the side of a square sensor will be smaller than the longest side of a rectangular sensor for the same image circle (30mm vs 36mm for FF), so you'd end up overall with less quality.

Nick

That is quite true. The Hasselblad 6x6 format is more like a 6x4.5 format because of cropping. OTOH, a Pentax 67 camera gives a much bigger rectangular negative. So, even though Carl Zeiss 6x6 lenses are slightly sharper than Pentax 67 lenses, the Pentax 67 still beats the Hasselblad in image quality. Besides, the lens mount of most 35mm cameras would not accomodate a larger mirror that can cover 30mm on the horizontal dimension. That means a new mount is required if the sensor's horizontal dimension is increased to 30mm.

[falconeye]

so this is an angle thing rather than a lens thing?

The problems constructing a good wide angle lens would actually factor out between FF and APS-C if ...

... if the distance between rear lens element and sensor would scale proportionally as well.

However, this distance is defined by the 35mm K mount specification which makes it impossible to construct top-notch super wide angle for APS-C.

I use my 12-24mm Sigma rectilinear wide angle which I am quite happy with (for both APS-C digital as well as FF onto film). To match the scenic performance on my film body, an 8mm rectilinear wide angle lens would have to exist for APS-C. Does it exist? I don't think so.

[Anastigmat]

There is also ne reason for Pentax to release FF lenses *now* as there are no FF bodies for them to go onto to. There would be absolutely no point. If Pentax decide to release a FF body, I can *assure* you that there will be FF lenses that will be released as well. If the FF body *is* 3 years off, then I am sure there will be FF lenses 2-3 years off too.

Pentax is indeed releasing new FF lenses now: the DA* 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 lenses. I think Pentax is readying the transition to full frame already, even though it is not telling the users about that. I doubt that it will take 3 years for a full frame body to appear. 3 years is a long time and the market can change overnight to full frame. Canon is committed to bringing entry level full frame cameras, and Nikon is hinting that at the right time it too will bring out an entry level full frame. I predict that we will see a prototype full frame Samsung and/or Pentax by this fall at Photokina. Working prototypes may be shown at PMA 2009 and by the fall of 2009, we will probably see a Samsung and Pentax full frame, enough time for Samsung to work out the intricacies of making full frame sensors.

[Lance B]

Pentax is indeed releasing new FF lenses now: the DA* 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 lenses. I think Pentax is readying the transition to full frame already, even though it is not telling the users about that. I doubt that it will take 3 years for a full frame body to appear. 3 years is a long time and the market can change overnight to full frame. Canon is committed to bringing entry level full frame cameras, and Nikon is hinting that at the right time it too will bring out an entry level full frame. I predict that we will see a prototype full frame Samsung and/or Pentax by this fall at Photokina. Working prototypes may be shown at PMA 2009 and by the fall of 2009, we will probably see a Samsung and Pentax full frame, enough time for Samsung to work out the intricacies of making full frame sensors.

The DA*200 and 300 lenses would be FF regardless of whether they were made for APS C.

I agree that Pentax are going to make a FF camera too and the only reason I used the 3 year time frame is because lol101 used that figure. Where *required* FF lenses will be manufactured and released when a FF camera is announced and not before. The *only* FF lenses that are really *required* are lneses wider than the FA20 or FA31. We have FF lenses that cover most of the range any now, like the FA20, FA31, FA43, FA50 and DFA100, DA*200, DA*300. The FA20 is the same FOV as the DA14, so there is no real need for much wider as a *necessity* at this juncture for FF. There may need to be a few cheaper alternatives for primes, but the only real requirement is for a few zooms in this range.

I also agree that I believe that it will be less than 3 years before they release a FF camera.

[*isteve]

The problems constructing a good wide angle lens would actually factor out between FF and APS-C if ...

... if the distance between rear lens element and sensor would scale proportionally as well.

However, this distance is defined by the 35mm K mount specification which makes it impossible to construct top-notch super wide angle for APS-C.

I use my 12-24mm Sigma rectilinear wide angle which I am quite happy with (for both APS-C digital as well as FF onto film). To match the scenic performance on my film body, an 8mm rectilinear wide angle lens would have to exist for APS-C. Does it exist? I don't think so.

I think you had better test its performance on a FF sensor before deciding if it "works" or not.

There are quite a few Canon L zooms such as the 16-35 F2.8 which were pretty darn rubbish on the 5D (its since been replaced with the mk2 version for double the price). Funnily enough that was the widest zoom they make for FF and the 10-20 EFS is available for APS.

The registration distance is not really the issue - the rear lens group can be placed closer to the sensor because of the smaller mirror, as in Canons EFS lenses, but that introduces other issues with incident light angles.

[barondla]

The manual lens focal length chart for SR goes down to 8mm. They already built a 10mm Fe. So what else would that 8mm be for? Oly has a deeper registration distance (for its sensor size than APS C). They make a 7mm wide angle. Sigma will probably do it first for other companies.
thanks
barondla

[Matjazz]

Judging from interview of Pentax executives old Pentax lenses aren't suitable for digital 35 camera. They don't plan 35, but if once it will happen it will be after 645.

* full-frame 35mm: The concept is clearly doable, and a development plan would be possible "I think~I guess" (as in, "we haven't done such a plan"). I can't say it would be impossible. But the priority is the 645, not 35mm. Pentax don't have the resources to do both at the same time, so any 35mm camera would be developed after the 645 is released.

When asked if there is any planning or awareness of a possible 35mm camera in the future regarding lens development, the answer is that lenses are focused on APS cameras (as that is the volume segment they're developing). As for old FA lenses, there are issues with using such lenses with a 35mm digital sensor. Implies a 35mm camera would entail a whole new setup of lenses and other accessories as well, effectively making it a separate system.

I certainly hope they make 645D and stand out of the crowd rather than follow it with 35 sensor camera.

[lol101]

The DA*200 and 300 lenses would be FF regardless of whether they were made for APS C.

I agree that Pentax are going to make a FF camera too and the only reason I used the 3 year time frame is because lol101 used that figure. Where *required* FF lenses will be manufactured and released when a FF camera is announced and not before. The *only* FF lenses that are really *required* are lneses wider than the FA20 or FA31. We have FF lenses that cover most of the range any now, like the FA20, FA31, FA43, FA50 and DFA100, DA*200, DA*300. The FA20 is the same FOV as the DA14, so there is no real need for much wider as a *necessity* at this juncture for FF. There may need to be a few cheaper alternatives for primes, but the only real requirement is for a few zooms in this range.

I also agree that I believe that it will be less than 3 years before they release a FF camera.

Where did Pentax state that the new DA* 200 and 300 were suitable for FF?

I am asking because they sure are promoting them as APS-C only lenses and I think it's a mistake, as I have already said. If they indeed cover FF, just say it!

Why?

Well, it's pretty simple really:

Here is a rough translation (from my failing memory...) of the comments that went with the presentation of the new DA*200mm in a reputable french journal:

"Pentax seems to launch themselves 100% in the APS-C adventure with a bunch of attractive new offerings coming our way (DA 200, DA 300, DA 55 , DA 17-70 and the long overdue DA 60-250). While Pentax customers will probably be happy to see their lens lineup grow at a steady pace, we are a little bit unsettled by the decision to develop an APS-C only lineup when FF is growing to be the high end standard in digital photography. We would be particularly wary of spending such high amounts of money on high-end glass restricted to APS-C. If you don't care for future evolutions towards FF though, this lens is a real gem ... ... ..."


Visibly, this journal (and all the other I have seen who have read Pentax's brochures) are persuaded (and explicitely state in their reviews) that the DA lenses are limited to cover the APS-C format.

If it is not the case, Pentax should just stop comunicating on APS-C only for their new lenses and distinguish those covering FF from those really restricted to APS-C.