Almost Positive about FF Pentax...I think...

Kunzite · 05-05-2008, 03:59 AM

I doubt Pentax will advertise any of their lenses as "FF-compatible" even one minute before announcing (at least the development of) a full frame camera.

lol101 · 05-05-2008, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I doubt Pentax will advertise any of their lenses as "FF-compatible" even one minute before announcing (at least the development of) a full frame camera.

Probably true but it will cost them a few sales...

An example, should I buy the coming DA*55f1.4 SDM or the also coming Sigma EX 50f1.4 HSM?

The later is advertised as covering FF, the former...??

Lance B · 05-05-2008, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by lol101

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.

There is absolutely *no* reason to make the DA*200 and DA*300 APS C only as there is no advantage size wise, and therefore cost wise also, so even though they have not publically stated as such, I am sure that they are FF suitable. Pentax are not going to admit they are FF compatible as they may not want to admit that FF is on the horizon, just yet.

lol101 · 05-05-2008, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Lance B

There is absolutely *no* reason to make the DA*200 and DA*300 APS C only as there is no advantage size wise, and therefore cost wise also, so even though they have not publically stated as such, I am sure that they are FF suitable. Pentax are not going to admit they are FF compatible as they may not want to admit that FF is on the horizon, just yet.

OK, then they better get used to journalists/reviewers scaring away people with the "be careful buying these lenses because you will not be able to use them on a FF DSLR later!" argument... :ugh:

But then again, I understand that the FF project is in a very early stage and could still go down the drain if not economicaly sound, leaving Pentax exactly where it was last year: an APS-C only company with no need for FF lenses (just as Olympus is a 4/3rd only company).

The question then becomes: do I need a FF camera? But that's another story of course...

*isteve · 05-05-2008, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by philmorley

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?)

Its all down to the angle at which the light hits the sensor plane. Sensors are not very sensitive to light at an angle because the photosites are not on the surface of the chip but in a well covered by a microlens. As the incident light moves away from the vertical it reaches a point quite suddenly where the photosite is not well illuminated. The drop off is more sudden than for film.

Also on a cropped sensor you are simply not capturing the light at those angles, so you have no idea what the performance of your 28-75 lens is like at the extremes of its projected circle because youve never seen it. Most FF lenses work well on APSC because their poor edge performance is no longer an issue.

regken · 05-05-2008, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by lol101

The question then becomes: do I need a FF camera? But that's another story of course...

Back in the dark ages when Ben first started to post on this forum he made a comment to the effect bodies will become more and more affordable. I see a sweet spot of somewhere around the $1,000 mark that we will start looking at bodies as we now think of lenses, just another tool. I want 3 bodies. A FF, an APS-C, and a 4/3eds. All using my same set of lenses.

Ken

froeschle · 05-05-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Digital SLRs only

is not equivalent to APS-C only

. When Pentax goes FF, then obviously all DA*s are fully compatible

...

proudtoshootpentax · 05-05-2008, 03:35 PM

There is a simple reason that I'm not very excited about a 'FF' Pentax DSLR. Pentax is a small company, if it builds a FF camera, that means that in all likelihood there will be no top of the food chain APS-C. In other words, if they do a pro body, and if they do 'full frame' they would be less likely to do an APS-C size pro body. That means that not all, but some (some of which I own) lenses would be incompatible, or at least less compatible than on the current system. This also means a bigger, heavier camera, and bigger heavier lenses for equivalent focal length and speed. I don't know about anyone else, but I'll take the K20D and the DA* 50-135mm over a D3 with a 70-200mm f2.8 just based on size alone. Besides that, I'm still convinced that sensor technology will continue to allow better and better images at higher ISO's from smaller and smaller sensors.
I've heard it predicted before, and I'll jump on the band wagon to support the idea, that APS-C will take the role of 35mm film in the past, and that 'FF' will take the place of smaller medium formats like 6x4.5.
I'd rather have all the pro features in the smallest possible body, and have my 400mm lens have 14mp or better resolution at an equivalent to 600mm focal length on the 'FF.'

But that's probably just me...

*isteve · 05-05-2008, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by proudtoshootpentax

There is a simple reason that I'm not very excited about a 'FF' Pentax DSLR. Pentax is a small company, if it builds a FF camera, that means that in all likelihood there will be no top of the food chain APS-C. In other words, if they do a pro body, and if they do 'full frame' they would be less likely to do an APS-C size pro body. That means that not all, but some (some of which I own) lenses would be incompatible, or at least less compatible than on the current system. This also means a bigger, heavier camera, and bigger heavier lenses for equivalent focal length and speed. I don't know about anyone else, but I'll take the K20D and the DA* 50-135mm over a D3 with a 70-200mm f2.8 just based on size alone. Besides that, I'm still convinced that sensor technology will continue to allow better and better images at higher ISO's from smaller and smaller sensors.
I've heard it predicted before, and I'll jump on the band wagon to support the idea, that APS-C will take the role of 35mm film in the past, and that 'FF' will take the place of smaller medium formats like 6x4.5.
I'd rather have all the pro features in the smallest possible body, and have my 400mm lens have 14mp or better resolution at an equivalent to 600mm focal length on the 'FF.'

But that's probably just me...

No its not just you. Everyone thinks Pentax can make a D3 for $2000 because apparently they can break the laws of physics.

More likely they will make a 5Dmk2 class camera with 25-30MP for 5Dmk2 price, make a few very expensive lenses that few could afford and sell 3 worldwide.

I think they would sell more of a D300 competitor with the K20D sensor but higher AF performance and 6+ FPS. But then what do I know?

kent vinyard · 05-05-2008, 05:25 PM

Amen Steve! I'm with you on this and I do hope that this is the path that Pentax takes for now. Maybe a full frame in a couple of years.

PentaxScott · 05-05-2008, 06:12 PM

Its also very possible (and if financially feasible) that Pentax could satisfy BOTH platforms by employing a crop system on a future FF camera that is similar to that found on the Nikon D3. I would think that this system wouldnt be expensive, and would continue the tradition of the K-mount being virtually 100% backwards compatible. That way you could use any FF compatible lens getting 12/14 Mps (or thereabouts) with a APS-C sized crop getting somewhere around half that.

proudtoshootpentax · 05-05-2008, 09:08 PM

But you will still have a bigger, heavier, clunkier camera. I have always loved Pentax cameras for many reasons, one being that they are often smaller, lighter and friendlier!

NickC · 05-06-2008, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by proudtoshootpentax

But you will still have a bigger, heavier, clunkier camera. I have always loved Pentax cameras for many reasons, one being that they are often smaller, lighter and friendlier!

Hear, hear! Give me a digital MX for use with the DA limiteds over a FF behemoth any day.

Nick

falconeye · 05-06-2008, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

Everyone thinks Pentax can make a D3 for $2000 because apparently they can break the laws of physics.

There is no law of physics saying that a sub-$2k D3 can't be made. I know the laws and this is not one of them.

Please be more cautious in citing laws of physics.

anomaly · 05-06-2008, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

There is no law of physics saying that a sub-$2k D3 can't be made. I know the laws and this is not one of them.

Please be more cautious in citing laws of physics.

What about the laws of economics then?

05-05-2008, 03:35 PM	#98
proudtoshootpentax Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Idaho Falls Posts: 110	Why I'm not a fan... There is a simple reason that I'm not very excited about a 'FF' Pentax DSLR. Pentax is a small company, if it builds a FF camera, that means that in all likelihood there will be no top of the food chain APS-C. In other words, if they do a pro body, and if they do 'full frame' they would be less likely to do an APS-C size pro body. That means that not all, but some (some of which I own) lenses would be incompatible, or at least less compatible than on the current system. This also means a bigger, heavier camera, and bigger heavier lenses for equivalent focal length and speed. I don't know about anyone else, but I'll take the K20D and the DA* 50-135mm over a D3 with a 70-200mm f2.8 just based on size alone. Besides that, I'm still convinced that sensor technology will continue to allow better and better images at higher ISO's from smaller and smaller sensors. I've heard it predicted before, and I'll jump on the band wagon to support the idea, that APS-C will take the role of 35mm film in the past, and that 'FF' will take the place of smaller medium formats like 6x4.5. I'd rather have all the pro features in the smallest possible body, and have my 400mm lens have 14mp or better resolution at an equivalent to 600mm focal length on the 'FF.' But that's probably just me...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Very positive K-x review again	gazonk	Pentax News and Rumors	9	03-29-2010 05:10 PM
be positive	axl	Monthly Photo Contests	0	06-09-2009 03:46 PM
be positive...	axl	Post Your Photos!	8	05-07-2009 09:39 AM
Converting a Negative to a Positive	Iowa Tom	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	02-23-2009 03:27 AM
Positive news about Pentax AF over Canon....	offertonhatter	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	10-08-2008 07:49 AM

05-05-2008, 03:59 AM	#91
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I doubt Pentax will advertise any of their lenses as "FF-compatible" even one minute before announcing (at least the development of) a full frame camera.

05-05-2008, 04:05 AM	#92
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by Kunzite I doubt Pentax will advertise any of their lenses as "FF-compatible" even one minute before announcing (at least the development of) a full frame camera. Probably true but it will cost them a few sales... An example, should I buy the coming DA*55f1.4 SDM or the also coming Sigma EX 50f1.4 HSM? The later is advertised as covering FF, the former...??

05-05-2008, 04:12 AM	#93
Lance B Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	Originally posted by lol101 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 DA200mm 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. There is absolutely no* reason to make the DA200 and DA300 APS C only as there is no advantage size wise, and therefore cost wise also, so even though they have not publically stated as such, I am sure that they are FF suitable. Pentax are not going to admit they are FF compatible as they may not want to admit that FF is on the horizon, just yet.

05-05-2008, 04:59 AM	#94
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by Lance B There is absolutely no reason to make the DA200 and DA300 APS C only as there is no advantage size wise, and therefore cost wise also, so even though they have not publically stated as such, I am sure that they are FF suitable. Pentax are not going to admit they are FF compatible as they may not want to admit that FF is on the horizon, just yet. OK, then they better get used to journalists/reviewers scaring away people with the "be careful buying these lenses because you will not be able to use them on a FF DSLR later!" argument... :ugh: But then again, I understand that the FF project is in a very early stage and could still go down the drain if not economicaly sound, leaving Pentax exactly where it was last year: an APS-C only company with no need for FF lenses (just as Olympus is a 4/3rd only company). The question then becomes: do I need a FF camera? But that's another story of course...

05-05-2008, 06:05 AM	#95
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by philmorley 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?) Its all down to the angle at which the light hits the sensor plane. Sensors are not very sensitive to light at an angle because the photosites are not on the surface of the chip but in a well covered by a microlens. As the incident light moves away from the vertical it reaches a point quite suddenly where the photosite is not well illuminated. The drop off is more sudden than for film. Also on a cropped sensor you are simply not capturing the light at those angles, so you have no idea what the performance of your 28-75 lens is like at the extremes of its projected circle because youve never seen it. Most FF lenses work well on APSC because their poor edge performance is no longer an issue.

05-05-2008, 06:54 AM	#96
regken Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bangor, Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,377	Originally posted by lol101 The question then becomes: do I need a FF camera? But that's another story of course... Back in the dark ages when Ben first started to post on this forum he made a comment to the effect bodies will become more and more affordable. I see a sweet spot of somewhere around the $1,000 mark that we will start looking at bodies as we now think of lenses, just another tool. I want 3 bodies. A FF, an APS-C, and a 4/3eds. All using my same set of lenses. Ken

05-05-2008, 02:04 PM	#97
froeschle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 552	Quote: Digital SLRs only is not equivalent to APS-C only . When Pentax goes FF, then obviously all DA*s are fully compatible ...

05-05-2008, 05:13 PM	#99
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by proudtoshootpentax There is a simple reason that I'm not very excited about a 'FF' Pentax DSLR. Pentax is a small company, if it builds a FF camera, that means that in all likelihood there will be no top of the food chain APS-C. In other words, if they do a pro body, and if they do 'full frame' they would be less likely to do an APS-C size pro body. That means that not all, but some (some of which I own) lenses would be incompatible, or at least less compatible than on the current system. This also means a bigger, heavier camera, and bigger heavier lenses for equivalent focal length and speed. I don't know about anyone else, but I'll take the K20D and the DA* 50-135mm over a D3 with a 70-200mm f2.8 just based on size alone. Besides that, I'm still convinced that sensor technology will continue to allow better and better images at higher ISO's from smaller and smaller sensors. I've heard it predicted before, and I'll jump on the band wagon to support the idea, that APS-C will take the role of 35mm film in the past, and that 'FF' will take the place of smaller medium formats like 6x4.5. I'd rather have all the pro features in the smallest possible body, and have my 400mm lens have 14mp or better resolution at an equivalent to 600mm focal length on the 'FF.' But that's probably just me... No its not just you. Everyone thinks Pentax can make a D3 for $2000 because apparently they can break the laws of physics. More likely they will make a 5Dmk2 class camera with 25-30MP for 5Dmk2 price, make a few very expensive lenses that few could afford and sell 3 worldwide. I think they would sell more of a D300 competitor with the K20D sensor but higher AF performance and 6+ FPS. But then what do I know?

05-05-2008, 05:25 PM	#100
kent vinyard Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Norman, Oklahoma USA Posts: 348	Amen Steve! I'm with you on this and I do hope that this is the path that Pentax takes for now. Maybe a full frame in a couple of years.

05-05-2008, 06:12 PM	#101
PentaxScott Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Salt Lake City UT Photos: Albums Posts: 182	Its also very possible (and if financially feasible) that Pentax could satisfy BOTH platforms by employing a crop system on a future FF camera that is similar to that found on the Nikon D3. I would think that this system wouldnt be expensive, and would continue the tradition of the K-mount being virtually 100% backwards compatible. That way you could use any FF compatible lens getting 12/14 Mps (or thereabouts) with a APS-C sized crop getting somewhere around half that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-05-2008, 09:08 PM	#102
proudtoshootpentax Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Idaho Falls Posts: 110	But you will still have a bigger, heavier, clunkier camera. I have always loved Pentax cameras for many reasons, one being that they are often smaller, lighter and friendlier!

05-06-2008, 08:07 AM	#103
NickC Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 53	Originally posted by proudtoshootpentax But you will still have a bigger, heavier, clunkier camera. I have always loved Pentax cameras for many reasons, one being that they are often smaller, lighter and friendlier! Hear, hear! Give me a digital MX for use with the DA limiteds over a FF behemoth any day. Nick

05-06-2008, 08:16 AM	#104
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by *isteve Everyone thinks Pentax can make a D3 for $2000 because apparently they can break the laws of physics. There is no law of physics saying that a sub-$2k D3 can't be made. I know the laws and this is not one of them. Please be more cautious in citing laws of physics.

05-06-2008, 08:52 AM	#105
anomaly Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Barbados Photos: Gallery Posts: 264	Originally posted by falconeye There is no law of physics saying that a sub-$2k D3 can't be made. I know the laws and this is not one of them. Please be more cautious in citing laws of physics. What about the laws of economics then?