Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-22-2014, 12:07 PM   #631
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
You must hate Pentax... I guess the slight increase in length is enough to turn you off?
Sony A7 f/2.8 or faster primes: 35mm f/2.8 & 55mm f/1.8... That's all. On the roadmap, you'll get some prime, but no f/2.8 zoom.

Pentax f/2.8 or faster lenses: DA*16-50 f/2.8, FA31 f/1.8, FA35 f/2, DA35 f/2.4, DA35 ltd, FA43 f/1.9, DA*50-135, FA50 f/1.4, DA50 f/1.8, DA55 f/1.4, DA70 f/2.4, FA77 f/1.8, DFA 100 f/2.8, DA*200 f/2.8. On the roadmap, very likely a 70-200 f/2.8.

I do not see Pentax in such bad state, only missing would be a 24mm f/2.


Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-22-2014 at 12:14 PM.
10-22-2014, 03:18 PM   #632
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Sony A7 f/2.8 or faster primes: 35mm f/2.8 & 55mm f/1.8... That's all. On the roadmap, you'll get some prime, but no f/2.8 zoom.

Pentax f/2.8 or faster lenses: DA*16-50 f/2.8, FA31 f/1.8, FA35 f/2, DA35 f/2.4, DA35 ltd, FA43 f/1.9, DA*50-135, FA50 f/1.4, DA50 f/1.8, DA55 f/1.4, DA70 f/2.4, FA77 f/1.8, DFA 100 f/2.8, DA*200 f/2.8. On the roadmap, very likely a 70-200 f/2.8.

I do not see Pentax in such bad state, only missing would be a 24mm f/2.
Ah. I guess since I started out on APS-C, I still consider a full-frame F/4 fast enough. I certainly find F/4 on FF to be more capable than F/2.8 on APS-C, as predicted by equivalence.

So far every lens made for the FE mount is faster in my view than an APS-C F/2.8, with the half-exception of the kit zoom which is only F/5.6 (3.7) on the long end.
10-22-2014, 11:07 PM - 1 Like   #633
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Ah. I guess since I started out on APS-C, I still consider a full-frame F/4 fast enough. I certainly find F/4 on FF to be more capable than F/2.8 on APS-C, as predicted by equivalence.

So far every lens made for the FE mount is faster in my view than an APS-C F/2.8, with the half-exception of the kit zoom which is only F/5.6 (3.7) on the long end.
There 1.15EV difference between the 2 formats. For all practical purposes, one can consider the difference to be 1EV. So APS-C f/2.8 or FF f/4 is the same. The 0.15EV is not significant at all. And at least there is a real offering of fast primes in Pentax echosystem!

That being said, why one choose FF?
- sharper images... Both format now have 24MP and similar sharpness... You need to jump to 36MP FF to really get a difference... And pay much more. So that would be Sony A7r.
- more deph of field control. For practical purposes no sony lens for A7 echosystem achieve this.
- more high isos capability. For practical purposes no sony lens for A7 echosystem enable this. I can just use an f/2.8 zoom on my APSC, use half the iso and get same quality (with same dof). The gain with A7s is really small (0.3EV) and come with a tax of pushing 12MP + low pass filter.

What the A7 familly is also supposed to bring?
- More compactness... Well The APSC lenses are smaller due to the registration distance difference, negating any gain on the A7 familly body.

Really the only thing Sony A7 familly bring toward an APSC DSLR is the EVF. And that's in exchange for loosing an OVF. The other thing A7 echosystem bring is hype... It is the only FF echosystem where one don't get the benefits of FF while still paying a premium for it and having to buy even bulkier lenses.

A used 5D + used tamrons lenses will cost less and while not improving isos, will improve dof control. Get some D610 or equivalent + same tamron lenses, and you beat A7 familly for a fair price.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-22-2014 at 11:20 PM.
10-23-2014, 06:22 AM   #634
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,493
Since I tend to try and use lenses at their sharpest, ƒ5.6 is what I want from most lenses...but if you think of the 31 ltd., it's sharpest at ƒ4...now there's a lens that deserves to be on a FF. Can you imagine, ƒ5.6 APS-c sharpness, with ƒ2.4 (APS-c) DoF for narrow DoF images.

IN a way a good lens would be wasted in me, I kind of like my sharpest to be ƒ5.6 on APS_c because it gives me both wide DoF and maximum sharpness on many lenses. The DOF for many lenses @5.6 on FF just isn't wide enough. You have to stop down, and then you're out of the lenses sharpest ƒ-stop. You pay a lot more for a lens that is sharpest a ƒ4... of course this is an intellectual problem, not a practical problem, a 31 ltd on FF stopped down to ƒ8 would be great, it would be that niggling little thing about it being sharper at ƒ4, it would bother me. The mind is a funny thing.

10-23-2014, 01:00 PM   #635
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Since I tend to try and use lenses at their sharpest, 5.6 is what I want from most lenses...but if you think of the 31 ltd., it's sharpest at 4...now there's a lens that deserves to be on a FF. Can you imagine, 5.6 APS-c sharpness, with 2.4 (APS-c) DoF for narrow DoF images.

IN a way a good lens would be wasted in me, I kind of like my sharpest to be 5.6 on APS_c because it gives me both wide DoF and maximum sharpness on many lenses. The DOF for many lenses @5.6 on FF just isn't wide enough. You have to stop down, and then you're out of the lenses sharpest -stop. You pay a lot more for a lens that is sharpest a 4... of course this is an intellectual problem, not a practical problem, a 31 ltd on FF stopped down to 8 would be great, it would be that niggling little thing about it being sharper at 4, it would bother me. The mind is a funny thing.
It is more f/2.63 than f/2.4 for dof control. We speak of 1.15EV difference between the 2 formats, not 1.5EV For high iso performance, that maybe even less for practical purpose on Sony with the monstruous vigneting on the strantandard lens.

Anyway I really understand you point, and to me that logical. The guys that after an FF argue endlessly of slightly better dof control and sligly better sharpness and better high iso perf at the detriment of a smaller dof.

That also logicial to think of what you miss when going to FF Even if that more theoretical than practical. The adventages of FF are also more theoritical than practical anyway!
10-23-2014, 05:01 PM   #636
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, AB CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The adventages of FF are also more theoritical than practical anyway!
Yeah, that big, bright viewfinder is just a theory anyway. Nobody needs that.
10-23-2014, 07:08 PM   #637
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,008
QuoteOriginally posted by noser Quote
that big, bright viewfinder is just a theory anyway
It's often not THAT bright.

'Full frame' film cameras like my MX have lovely bright OVF's, but that brightness doesn't seem to have transferred across completely to FF digital.

I've been spending some time recently behind a D610 viewfinder, and while it is bigger, it doesn't seem that much brighter at all compared to a K-3. Maybe all the overlays they put on OVF's nowadays - AF points, grids etc - dim the view a bit.
10-23-2014, 09:47 PM   #638
Pentaxian
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,096
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
I've been spending some time recently behind a D610 viewfinder, and while it is bigger, it doesn't seem that much brighter at all compared to a K-3.
I'd go along with this. I have a D810, and I really don't see the viewfinder as that much better than my K-3 - I can manually focus fine with both. And neither comes close to the MX.

10-23-2014, 10:19 PM   #639
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,451
That would be cool if that was the differenciating spec of coming FF: a huge VF
10-23-2014, 10:21 PM   #640
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The adventages of FF are also more theoritical than practical anyway!
YOU are a funny person.. hilarious in fact.
10-23-2014, 10:33 PM   #641
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 490
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Maybe all the overlays they put on OVF's nowadays - AF points, grids etc - dim the view a bit.
The light diverted to the autofocus sensors must be a significant factor as well. That light doesn't even reach the prism.
10-23-2014, 11:20 PM   #642
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
YOU are a funny person.. hilarious in fact.
It they where really practical, everybody would instantly see the difference between FF shoots and APSC shoots, regardless of apperture, isos, speed. Most of time through, compare A4 prints (8x12") and you'll not be able to see any difference. It is not like we were speaking something substencial like FF vs 8"x10" where the 8"x10" would really have and edge (even today with film).
10-23-2014, 11:35 PM   #643
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,008
QuoteOriginally posted by cfraz Quote
The light diverted to the autofocus sensors must be a significant factor as well.
True. None of my film cameras needed to deal with any AF 'light-stealing'.
10-24-2014, 01:46 AM   #644
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,520
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
That would be cool if that was the differenciating spec of coming FF: a huge VF
It would be quite logical, actually, since they've already shown a non compromise attitude by putting pentaprisms in beginner's cameras.
10-24-2014, 05:08 AM   #645
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,925
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
It would be quite logical, actually, since they've already shown a non compromise attitude by putting pentaprisms in beginner's cameras.
And the K-500/50 have dual control wheels.

Sadly the K-S1 "forget" that at home.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, development, dslr, engineers, ff, full-frame, gallery, hands-on, idea, information, lens, lenses, market, mirrorless, model, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photographyblog, photos, price, sensor, tc, tcs, telephoto, thread, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One more time, but in a funny way: Crop Sensors vs Full Frame carlosodze Pentax Full Frame 32 10-16-2014 01:15 PM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
Vivitar flash no fire, no smoke either! telfish Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 10 04-15-2011 08:48 PM
Need more megapix? Future possibilities and no need for full frame! rburgoss Pentax DSLR Discussion 57 10-16-2008 03:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:41 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top