[ElJamoquio]

Well, the Fuji wide angles are smaller and lighter, EJ, it was pointed out in another thread, because of the short registration distance.

The thread where one person said they're easier to build because they're easier to build?


I dunno, you can have a short registration distance, but then you need a huge rear element. I haven't seen the Fuji lenses*, but the Sony lenses aren't much smaller or lighter, by-and-large, than a lot of other lenses. They claim huge gains but I haven't seen them. Their 18-55 is about the same weight and size as our 18-55. Their 30mm F/3.5 macro is a bit lighter than our 35mm F/2.8 macro, but is 2/3rds slower and about the same size.

I've never said there's no difference, but I honestly don't think it's all that much of a difference. The 16mm Sony is light, sure, but it has absolutely horrid border performance wide open - basically uncorrected, likely because the rear element isn't large enough, isn't far enough away from the sensors, they didn't use enough elements to correct everything, etc., to minimize size and weight.

Lighter, sure, but not really comparable to a decent wide angle lens IMO.


*don't pay much attention after they lied about their ISO to fool people (ISO6400 was really ISO1000)

---

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 08-07-2014 at 07:38 PM.

[Doundounba]

I can take the same pictures with a 14mm F/2.8 lens on a FF camera that I can on a 9mm F/1.8 lens on a APS-C camera.

It's true that the Samyang 14mm is FF. Except that all current Pentax DSLRs are k-mount APS-C, not FF! So in real-world terms, I can have a 12mm F/2 250g on an APS-C Fuji X camera or a 14mm F/2.8 560g on an APS-C Pentax K-mount camera. If I understand you correctly, you claim that someone ought to be able to make a 12mm F/2 APS-C-only lens for k-mount that's 250g? If that were the case, I'd buy that in a flash. Please convince Pentax to make such a lens! When I asked why no k-mount for the Samyang 12mm F/2, every one here promptly told me you can't do that kind of lens on k-mount because of greater registration distance, and retrofocal design and so on... So, is it possible or not?

[ElJamoquio]

It's true that the Samyang 14mm is FF. Except that all current Pentax DSLRs are k-mount APS-C, not FF! So in real-world terms, I can have a 12mm F/2 250g on an APS-C Fuji X camera or a 14mm F/2.8 560g on an APS-C Pentax K-mount camera. If I understand you correctly, you claim that someone ought to be able to make a 12mm F/2 APS-C-only lens for k-mount that's 250g? If that were the case, I'd buy that in a flash. Please convince Pentax to make such a lens! When I asked why no k-mount for the Samyang 12mm F/2, every one here promptly told me you can't do that kind of lens on k-mount because of greater registration distance, and retrofocal design and so on... So, is it possible or not?

As I've said, I think the advantage is overstated. Usually the examples given aren't comparable at all, like the 16mm F/2.8 Sony, which is incredibly uncorrected.

Is a lotsa plastic, full manual 12mm F/2 possible at 250g? Never said it was, but you could probably get one at 300grams-350grams or so with equivalent correction, assuming an appropriate registration distance for an APS-C DSLR.

[Clarkey]

As I understand it, your observations are precisely what Pentax believes - the technology isn't there yet, and they doubt LED will ever get there. OLED is another matter.

Using an OVF, a passive viewfinder, just requires practice. With practice one learns how the passively viewed scene will appear digitally; how to adjust settings to preemptively alter the digital capture; how to shoot without histogram and without chimping, just like film; etc.

We suffer from equipment churn - we don't keep a camera body long enough to learn how to use it. We want an electronic crutch so we don't have to invest time in learning - or so we can be perfect immediately.

IMHO that's what drives the desire to use an EVF or an OVF overlay instead of our own eyes.

This is getting really off-topic, but feel obliged to point out some of the similarities to the film days - EVFs just give you full time view of what some meters and equipment did in the old days (especially for monochromatic work). And having used one for over a year, now I am used to what the EVF will result in (I don't have auto-review on, and don't often feel the need to chimp). IMO, the biggest change that a EVF brings is that you have to have the camera on - no quick framing checks - and that is the part I can't get used to.

Equipment churn is relative to usage too. I probably shot less that 100 36 exposure films over 5 years in one film body. I'd easily do that in a year, now.

YMMV, I don't generally do sports or low light stuff. And I still very much have a DSLR.

And if we did it would probably be massive, heavy, and expensive

If it's a Fuji, it'll be expensive... but it will be good and fast (pointless, maybe ).

---------- Post added 08-07-2014 at 10:57 PM ----------

The thread where one person said they're easier to build because they're easier to build?


I dunno, you can have a short registration distance, but then you need a huge rear element. I haven't seen the Fuji lenses*, but the Sony lenses aren't much smaller or lighter, by-and-large, than a lot of other lenses. They claim huge gains but I haven't seen them. Their 18-55 is about the same weight and size as our 18-55. Their 30mm F/3.5 macro is a bit lighter than our 35mm F/2.8 macro, but is 2/3rds slower and about the same size.

I've never said there's no difference, but I honestly don't think it's all that much of a difference. The 16mm Sony is light, sure, but it has absolutely horrid border performance wide open - basically uncorrected, likely because the rear element isn't large enough, isn't far enough away from the sensors, they didn't use enough elements to correct everything, etc., to minimize size and weight.

Lighter, sure, but not really comparable to a decent wide angle lens IMO.


*don't pay much attention after they lied about their ISO to fool people (ISO6400 was really ISO1000)

I'm getting sucked in now. The Pentax 18-55mm is lighter (and WR). But the Fuji 18-55mm is F2.8 - 4.0, 70g heavier and IME simply smokes the 18-55mm in terms of performance.

* Yes, the floor is ISO 200 on the same chip as Pentax et al rated at ISO 100. But at the end of the day, I can shoot good shutter speeds at "ISO 6400" and get results I'd only previously dreamed of. Performance based lying......

Personally, the reason I have moved away from Sony is that they do not seem to be able to design decent wide angle consumer grade lenses. The 16-50 was so under designed, you could see the black edges when starting up a camera, before the correction kicks in. The Pentax 18-55 is much better than the Sony variant, IMO. Sony is lighter, yes, but you can't beat the laws of physics!

[jsherman999]

The only logical explanation I can imagine is (whether explicitly or by winks and nods) CaNikon have conceded advancing APS-c DSLR technology to Pentax so long as Pentax stays out of FF.

.

Personally I think this ^^ is extremely far-fetched

There's no wink-nod going on that allows Pentax to meekly survive in the aps-c space as long as they don't fly towards the sun of FF and get their wings melted by CaNikon-god. (although it is a vivid image.)

Canon/Nikon are still concerned with, in probable order:

1) Each Other
2) MILC aps-c DSLR tier disruption, from Fuji, Oly, Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung.
3) Keeping their own internal product lines from stepping on each other - thus, an 'upgrade' to a D7100/7D is, as they wish it to be, FF.


Whatever Pentax does in the aps-c DSLR space almost doesn't matter to Canon/Nikon, and whether or not Pentax goes FF depends mostly on two things, IMO:

A) Can they get sensors from Sony, and at what price, and
B) The level of internal corporate inertia, probably centered around the cost of FF lens production as the stopping point.

I've always thought reason B above is a much bigger factor than people realize. Corporate execs are often not as visionary and daring as many people imagine; a lot of the time their main concern is to survive in their position until their kids are out of college (I'm dead serious here,) and then maybe to retirement - being the executive sponsor of something that carries risk often isn't on their career agenda.

People, I think, mistakenly assume that vast, accurate market research is the reason behind a lot of what looks like non-decisions, and in reality it's just as often simply inertia, and top-down-driven fear of new investment in areas where there's a hint of technological disruption.

.

[jpzk]

This is getting really off-topic, but feel obliged to point out some of the similarities to the film days - EVFs just give you full time view of what some meters and equipment did in the old days (especially for monochromatic work). And having used one for over a year, now I am used to what the EVF will result in (I don't have auto-review on, and don't often feel the need to chimp). IMO, the biggest change that a EVF brings is that you have to have the camera on - no quick framing checks - and that is the part I can't get used to.

Equipment churn is relative to usage too. I probably shot less that 100 36 exposure films over 5 years in one film body. I'd easily do that in a year, now.

YMMV, I don't generally do sports or low light stuff. And I still very much have a DSLR.




If it's a Fuji, it'll be expensive... but it will be good and fast (pointless, maybe ).

---------- Post added 08-07-2014 at 10:57 PM ----------



I'm getting sucked in now. The Pentax 18-55mm is lighter (and WR). But the Fuji 18-55mm is F2.8 - 4.0, 70g heavier and IME simply smokes the 18-55mm in terms of performance.

* Yes, the floor is ISO 200 on the same chip as Pentax et al rated at ISO 100. But at the end of the day, I can shoot good shutter speeds at "ISO 6400" and get results I'd only previously dreamed of. Performance based lying......

Personally, the reason I have moved away from Sony is that they do not seem to be able to design decent wide angle consumer grade lenses. The 16-50 was so under designed, you could see the black edges when starting up a camera, before the correction kicks in. The Pentax 18-55 is much better than the Sony variant, IMO. Sony is lighter, yes, but you can't beat the laws of physics!

Interesting post here.

I too have the chance of using the Fuji 18-55 on the XE-2 and this little lens shines.
Notwithstanding the fact that the EVF does indeed provide you with the ability to see what you will get once you press the shutter button (WYSIWYG).

I also own the Pentax DA*16-50 and in spite of all of the reported problems with the SDM, I still like to use it once in a while (images turn out very good I think) but, to tell the truth, this is getting less and less use since I got the Fuji.

So, I have to admit that the EVF is great for some photography style, be it a FF or APSC camera.
On the other hand, my K5 with the DA*300/4 is my workhorse for birding and other wildlife shots.

Wouldn't be nice to see an announcement of a Pentax FF but with a hybrid EVF much like that of the Fuji XT-1 ?

JP

[rawr]

If it's a Fuji, it'll be expensive... but it will be good and fast

I don't trust any Fuji low-light and AF claims.

Although I have tried hard to find it, it seems literally impossible to find the specifications for the EV sensitivity of the AF system or the metering system for the XE-1, XT-1 or any current Fuji. Meanwhile, it's easy to find that data for every other camera on the market. Plus Fuji seem to play around too much with their RAW's and ISO specifications.

[Wired]

Fuji xt1 has a function when the EVF only lights up when you bring it to your face... Or anything else that covers the light sensor... Like your hip

[clackers]

The thread where one person said they're easier to build because they're easier to build?


I dunno, you can have a short registration distance, but then you need a huge rear element.

Digitalis was giving an opposite explanation, EJ.

The distance is so short that it compares similarly to the focal length and needs very little manipulation.

[Sarcasm] From that fountain of knowledge [\Saracasm], photo.stackexchange.com:

Having the lens sit much closer to the sensor removes the need to have a retrofocal (reverse telephoto) group which results in less extreme image correction, fewer lens elements and often a sharper image.
However the increased angle of incidence of light rays at the edge of the image often results in increased light falloff (vignetting). For this reason a weak retrofocal group is included even when a non-retrofocal design is permitted.

... I haven't seen the Fuji lenses ...

Apparently, those wide angle primes are very small, very fast and very good, with price tags to match.

[ElJamoquio]

Digitalis was giving an opposite explanation, EJ.

The distance is so short that it compares similarly to the focal length and needs very little manipulation.

[Sarcasm] From that fountain of knowledge [\Saracasm], photo.stackexchange.com:

Having the lens sit much closer to the sensor removes the need to have a retrofocal (reverse telephoto) group which results in less extreme image correction, fewer lens elements and often a sharper image.
However the increased angle of incidence of light rays at the edge of the image often results in increased light falloff (vignetting). For this reason a weak retrofocal group is included even when a non-retrofocal design is permitted.

I understand the optics. It's just that if you want to remove that retrofocal group, you now have problems with telecentricity/images in the corners. I am unaware of a high quality, small, lightweight wide angle that's really substantially better (hey, it removed superfluous glass!) than DSLR lenses.

Apparently, those wide angle primes are very small, very fast and very good, with price tags to match.

If you're willing to spend more, you can get better DSLR lenses too. Just looked at some of their lenses; the 14mm is expensive and vignettes horribly (2.4 stops). It does have better CA than I'd expect. The 150 grams or whatever between the Pentax and the Fuji was more than I expected, admittedly; but the Pentax has a registration distance a bit too long for the format, too.

Fuji and Pentax charge the same. Ridiculous for both lenses.

[Clarkey]

I don't trust any Fuji low-light and AF claims.

Although I have tried hard to find it, it seems literally impossible to find the specifications for the EV sensitivity of the AF system or the metering system for the XE-1, XT-1 or any current Fuji. Meanwhile, it's easy to find that data for every other camera on the market. Plus Fuji seem to play around too much with their RAW's and ISO specifications.

? on the metering: "TTL 256-zone metering, Multi / Spot / Average" (from Fuji website) . Same for the X-E1. All I know, is that K-5IIs smokes it in low light (as you would expect, given Contrast AF.

I have the X-E1, so my AF experience is decidedly slower than the current versions. It`s at least as fast as screw AF on generations prior to the K3.
As to the Raws, also agree there is some cooking going on, but I can certainly live with the output. Now that LR has caught up, it's worth processing again.

I understand the optics. It's just that if you want to remove that retrofocal group, you now have problems with telecentricity/images in the corners. I am unaware of a high quality, small, lightweight wide angle that's really substantially better (hey, it removed superfluous glass!) than DSLR lenses.

If you're willing to spend more, you can get better DSLR lenses too. Just looked at some of their lenses; the 14mm is expensive and vignettes horribly (2.4 stops). It does have better CA than I'd expect. The 150 grams or whatever between the Pentax and the Fuji was more than I expected, admittedly; but the Pentax has a registration distance a bit too long for the format, too.

Fuji and Pentax charge the same. Ridiculous for both lenses.

Yes it vignettes, but the 14mm starts at F2.8. A lot stronger corner performance than the Pentax 15mm at F4. Swings and roundabouts.
I think that Fuji may have the edge on ridiculous prices, but generally, at least you feel you are getting your moneys worth in terms of lens speed - and as observe, choices are available.

As I was telling Digitalis in another thread, it`s my experience that Fuji is somewhat more edge tolerant than Sony (given the same adapted, or native lens).

Now, are we going to see anything new or fast at Photokina from Pentax=?!

---------- Post added 08-08-2014 at 07:25 AM ----------

Interesting post here.

I too have the chance of using the Fuji 18-55 on the XE-2 and this little lens shines.
Notwithstanding the fact that the EVF does indeed provide you with the ability to see what you will get once you press the shutter button (WYSIWYG).

I also own the Pentax DA*16-50 and in spite of all of the reported problems with the SDM, I still like to use it once in a while (images turn out very good I think) but, to tell the truth, this is getting less and less use since I got the Fuji.

So, I have to admit that the EVF is great for some photography style, be it a FF or APSC camera.
On the other hand, my K5 with the DA*300/4 is my workhorse for birding and other wildlife shots.

Wouldn't be nice to see an announcement of a Pentax FF but with a hybrid EVF much like that of the Fuji XT-1 ?

JP

A hybrid VF would be interesting for sure.
Definitely need another camera for birding and wildlife - I am currently using a Nikon V1 for this purpose, but will likely get a longer lens for either my Pentax system (especially if 135-480 or whatever emerges)

[IchabodCrane]

? on the metering: "TTL 256-zone metering, Multi / Spot / Average" (from Fuji website) . Same for the X-E1. All I know, is that K-5IIs smokes it in low light (as you would expect, given Contrast AF.

I have the X-E1, so my AF experience is decidedly slower than the current versions. It`s at least as fast as screw AF on generations prior to the K3.
As to the Raws, also agree there is some cooking going on, but I can certainly live with the output. Now that LR has caught up, it's worth processing again.
....

XT-1 and X-E2 have on-sensor PDAF so they are certainly better at low light AF than other Fujifilm cameras such as the X-E1. I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive review of hybrid focusing systems on MILCs, especially the nuances of how each manufacturer has implemented it.

[rawr]

? on the metering: "TTL 256-zone metering, Multi / Spot / Average" (from Fuji website)

I mean specifications like this (in the 'EV Sensitivity' columns), which Fujifilm is doing it's best to hide:

[Wired]

I think Pentax should look at dabling into the MILC a bit more, expand on the K-01 concept, but make it a bit less boxy, try to go for a blend of retro modern. Maybe like 90 or 80's film SLR instead of 70's? Like an MZ series. Put in an EVF, delete the mirror, but keep the K mount. sure your leaving a lot of extra space that people will be "why not put a mirror there", but then your 100% getting rid of mirror slap, your experimenting with eVF without needing adapters or a new mount. All the electronics exsist. Experiment to see if the Pentax community and new buyers decide to jump on. I would also hope for higher flash sync too...

[6BQ5]

I say Pentax should make it even smaller. How about like a ME Super? Pentax seems to have a history of "small". The should extend it!

P.S. I know a ME Super may be too small but they can try.