More full-frame smoke, but still no fire, this time from photographyblog

**monochrome** · 10-03-2014, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by fast50

And with the Pentax, you have an optical viewfinder, so f/3.2 gives you a darker image, whereas on the Fuji's EVF would compensate for the slower lens. People always overlook the benefits of a bright viewfinder and assume everyone just wants a fast lens to get narrow depth of field.

Plenty of people here prefer to see what is actually in front of the lens - and avoid the EVF headache. Fuji isn't there yet.

Again, why are you here arguing with Pentax users about whether Fuji is better? For me - no, it isn't. I don't like the form factor, I don't buy the idea that a regular lens on a skinny, shiny, hipster plate is better than a slim lens on a traditional body and I certainly don't want to watch television inside my viewfinder. I believe my eyes, not Fuji lies.

I don't want it. But don't worry. Soon I'll be dead and you'll still be arguing with Pentax users.

Parallax · 10-03-2014, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by normhead

My 21 and 40XS come almost every where. My FA 50 and DA 35 go almost no where

I just got the 21 this year. It's been my most used lens this year, with my 40Ltd coming in second and the 15Ltd not far behind that. The only time I've even mounted my 31Ltd is do do the focus adjustment when I got my K-5iis. I've become addicted to the pancakes.

**Rondec** · 10-03-2014, 11:51 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by monochrome

Plenty of people here prefer to see what is actually in front of the lens - and avoid the EVF headache. Fuji isn't there yet.

Again, why are you here arguing with Pentax users about whether Fuji is better? For me - no, it isn't. I don't like the form factor, I don't buy the idea that a regular lens on a skinny, shiny, hipster plate is better than a slim lens on a traditional body and I certainly don't want to watch television inside my viewfinder. I believe my eyes, not Fuji lies.

I don't want it. But don't worry. Soon I'll be dead and you'll still be arguing with Pentax users.

You sound discouraged. Honestly, I don't see Fuji as having a particularly smaller body as compared to cameras like the K5 or K3. It's just thinner. Certainly not more portable. And the lenses are about the same size.

On the other hand, it is nice to have options. If you want fast lenses, there are FA limiteds and Sigma primes and if you are OK with slower lenses (and you want smaller lenses) there are DA limiteds. The DA limiteds are the sort of lenses that folks that don't shoot Pentax don't understand. The look terrible on the whole "equivalence" thing, but they are just so much fun to shoot, it doesn't really matter...

normhead · 10-03-2014, 11:58 AM

I was so inspired by this Fuji thing I looked at my favourite fabric samples on Imaging Resource, my K-3 is better, I looked at the cost of my favourite lens, the 18-135, it's $1000 for the Fuji, it can be had on a Pentax for about $500, and the IQ on a K-3 is going to be better than the IQ of the fuji version on an X-pro 1(16) MP even if the lens is better. And the Pentax is 90 grams lighter. End of investigation...

Weightr- XTi 390 grams ... 18-135 490 grams... combo price $1999 longest lens available XF 50-150, $1699
--------------K3 800 grams.. 18-135 - 405 grams combo price $1399 longest comparable lens available DA* 60-250 $1399
--------------K-50 649 grams.. 18-135 405 grams combo price $699

If you want Xti or X pro 1 quality get a K-50 and save yourself a pile of money... just my advice. You can almost have the K-50 18-135 and DA*60-250.. for the cost of the xTi and 18-135..

OK, that's really the end of the investigation.

**monochrome** · 10-03-2014, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

You sound discouraged.

Not really. Frustrated - sure.

I need to do more of this* ^^ and less of that <<.

* Must be nice to live in Indiana - beautiful state. I have to drive 2 hours before I can walk 30 minutes to get to that kind of location.

**Rondec** · 10-03-2014, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Not really. Frustrated - sure.

I need to do more of this* ^^ and less of that <<.

* Must be nice to live in Indiana - beautiful state. I have to drive 2 hours before I can walk 30 minutes to get to that kind of location.

The Indiana border is only a couple of hours from St Louis, now that the speed limit is 70 mph on I-64.

**luftfluss** · 10-03-2014, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

I just got the 21 this year. It's been my most used lens this year, with my 40Ltd coming in second and the 15Ltd not far behind that. The only time I've even mounted my 31Ltd is do do the focus adjustment when I got my K-5iis. I've become addicted to the pancakes.

The DA21 is more than the sum of its specs.

XMACHINA · 10-03-2014, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by mecrox

However, currently only two companies really offer it, at least cleanly: Nikon and Canon.

Is there something about Sony's Full-Frame offering (which is rumored to be refreshed very soon) that doesn't provide a sufficiently "clean" upgrade path for their ASP-C A-Mount users?

-XM

gazonk · 10-03-2014, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

And soon, imaging sensors will be everywhere, not just phones, tablets, notebooks and cameras. But cars, watches, glasses, frigerators, TVs, traffic lights, ... trillions. I already own a dozen or so (image sensors, not cameras).

How true! My son started counting the cameras in our family the other day. I don't remember the total, but it was amazing - every smart phone has two, the four iPads in the family each has two, our car has two, and so on...

Winder · 10-03-2014, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

But in no way it is investment.

Actually it is, and I have made money on lenses. The 31mm LTD is selling for more now on the used market than I paid for it new. I have used it all this time and can still sell it for a profit. I am selling my Contax 645 system. I bought all but one of my lenses after Contax was discontinued in 2005. Because I bought it so cheap, I can sell my entire system today for more than I paid for it almost 10 years ago. These hipsters are nuts about old film cameras and everyone in my market seems to want a Contax 645. I love the camera, but its time to move on and get my money back out of it. My MF film scanner died last year and I don't want to "invest" in another one. By this time next year I plan to be all digital.

These are tools that I use in my business. Any money I spend on equipment for my business I consider an investment.

You have every right to not look at lenses as an investment. Many of us do look at it that way whether you like it or not.

**Rondec** · 10-03-2014, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Winder

Actually it is, and I have made money on lenses. The 31mm LTD is selling for more now on the used market than I paid for it new. I have used it all this time and can still sell it for a profit. I am selling my Contax 645 system. I bought all but one of my lenses after Contax was discontinued in 2005. Because I bought it so cheap, I can sell my entire system today for more than I paid for it almost 10 years ago. These hipsters are nuts about old film cameras and everyone in my market seems to want a Contax 645. I love the camera, but its time to move on and get my money back out of it. My MF film scanner died last year and I don't want to "invest" in another one. By this time next year I plan to be all digital.

These are tools that I use in my business. Any money I spend on equipment for my business I consider an investment.

You have every right to not look at lenses as an investment. Many of us do look at it that way whether you like it or not.

It still isn't an investment. You have tools that happen to hold their value or even gain a little value, but you don't buy 5 31 limiteds on the off chance that in five years you could sell them for a 10 percent increase over what you bought them for now. That would be an investment.

Buying a lens that you use is buying equipment. If it happens to appreciate in value, that's fine, but I still wouldn't call it an investment (as compared to stocks, bonds, CDs, etc).

ElJamoquio · 10-03-2014, 02:33 PM

I keep waiting for the next round of price increases! Come on, Pentax!

LensBeginner · 10-03-2014, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

The look terrible on the whole "equivalence" thing, but they are just so much fun to shoot, it doesn't really matter...

Mmmmh... that picture...
Color is so good it's mouth-watering.
Nice idea and composition!

RonHendriks1966 · 10-03-2014, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

It still isn't an investment. You have tools that happen to hold their value or even gain a little value, but you don't buy 5 31 limiteds on the off chance that in five years you could sell them for a 10 percent increase over what you bought them for now. That would be an investment.

Buying a lens that you use is buying equipment. If it happens to appreciate in value, that's fine, but I still wouldn't call it an investment (as compared to stocks, bonds, CDs, etc).

There are people who buy lenses to sell them. I did that myself for a small series of 645 lenses believing that the 645D would actually come. Did get a free K-5 Silver out of it. If the 645D didn't come, I probably still would have them having no value. Currently for K-mount it is difficult.

mecrox · 10-03-2014, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by XMACHINA

Is there something about Sony's Full-Frame offering (which is rumored to be refreshed very soon) that doesn't provide a sufficiently "clean" upgrade path for their ASP-C A-Mount users?

-XM

Yes. With Canon and Nikon you only have one mount to worry about and there isn't the risk factor of it being discontinued any time soon.

10-03-2014, 11:59 AM	#410
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Rondec You sound discouraged. Not really. Frustrated - sure. I need to do more of this* ^^ and less of that <<. * Must be nice to live in Indiana - beautiful state. I have to drive 2 hours before I can walk 30 minutes to get to that kind of location. Last edited by monochrome; 10-03-2014 at 12:06 PM.

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	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	42	01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame....	Deedee	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	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

10-03-2014, 11:28 AM	#406
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by fast50 And with the Pentax, you have an optical viewfinder, so f/3.2 gives you a darker image, whereas on the Fuji's EVF would compensate for the slower lens. People always overlook the benefits of a bright viewfinder and assume everyone just wants a fast lens to get narrow depth of field. Plenty of people here prefer to see what is actually in front of the lens - and avoid the EVF headache. Fuji isn't there yet. Again, why are you here arguing with Pentax users about whether Fuji is better? For me - no, it isn't. I don't like the form factor, I don't buy the idea that a regular lens on a skinny, shiny, hipster plate is better than a slim lens on a traditional body and I certainly don't want to watch television inside my viewfinder. I believe my eyes, not Fuji lies. I don't want it. But don't worry. Soon I'll be dead and you'll still be arguing with Pentax users.

10-03-2014, 11:45 AM	#407
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by normhead My 21 and 40XS come almost every where. My FA 50 and DA 35 go almost no where I just got the 21 this year. It's been my most used lens this year, with my 40Ltd coming in second and the 15Ltd not far behind that. The only time I've even mounted my 31Ltd is do do the focus adjustment when I got my K-5iis. I've become addicted to the pancakes.

10-03-2014, 11:51 AM - 2 Likes	#408
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by monochrome Plenty of people here prefer to see what is actually in front of the lens - and avoid the EVF headache. Fuji isn't there yet. Again, why are you here arguing with Pentax users about whether Fuji is better? For me - no, it isn't. I don't like the form factor, I don't buy the idea that a regular lens on a skinny, shiny, hipster plate is better than a slim lens on a traditional body and I certainly don't want to watch television inside my viewfinder. I believe my eyes, not Fuji lies. I don't want it. But don't worry. Soon I'll be dead and you'll still be arguing with Pentax users. You sound discouraged. Honestly, I don't see Fuji as having a particularly smaller body as compared to cameras like the K5 or K3. It's just thinner. Certainly not more portable. And the lenses are about the same size. On the other hand, it is nice to have options. If you want fast lenses, there are FA limiteds and Sigma primes and if you are OK with slower lenses (and you want smaller lenses) there are DA limiteds. The DA limiteds are the sort of lenses that folks that don't shoot Pentax don't understand. The look terrible on the whole "equivalence" thing, but they are just so much fun to shoot, it doesn't really matter...

10-03-2014, 11:58 AM	#409
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I was so inspired by this Fuji thing I looked at my favourite fabric samples on Imaging Resource, my K-3 is better, I looked at the cost of my favourite lens, the 18-135, it's $1000 for the Fuji, it can be had on a Pentax for about $500, and the IQ on a K-3 is going to be better than the IQ of the fuji version on an X-pro 1(16) MP even if the lens is better. And the Pentax is 90 grams lighter. End of investigation... Weightr- XTi 390 grams ... 18-135 490 grams... combo price $1999 longest lens available XF 50-150, $1699 --------------K3 800 grams.. 18-135 - 405 grams combo price $1399 longest comparable lens available DA* 60-250 $1399 --------------K-50 649 grams.. 18-135 405 grams combo price $699 If you want Xti or X pro 1 quality get a K-50 and save yourself a pile of money... just my advice. You can almost have the K-50 18-135 and DA*60-250.. for the cost of the xTi and 18-135.. OK, that's really the end of the investigation.

10-03-2014, 12:13 PM	#411
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by monochrome Not really. Frustrated - sure. I need to do more of this* ^^ and less of that <<. * Must be nice to live in Indiana - beautiful state. I have to drive 2 hours before I can walk 30 minutes to get to that kind of location. The Indiana border is only a couple of hours from St Louis, now that the speed limit is 70 mph on I-64.

10-03-2014, 01:25 PM	#412
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by Parallax I just got the 21 this year. It's been my most used lens this year, with my 40Ltd coming in second and the 15Ltd not far behind that. The only time I've even mounted my 31Ltd is do do the focus adjustment when I got my K-5iis. I've become addicted to the pancakes. The DA21 is more than the sum of its specs.

10-03-2014, 01:53 PM	#413
XMACHINA Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 75	Originally posted by mecrox However, currently only two companies really offer it, at least cleanly: Nikon and Canon. Is there something about Sony's Full-Frame offering (which is rumored to be refreshed very soon) that doesn't provide a sufficiently "clean" upgrade path for their ASP-C A-Mount users? -XM

10-03-2014, 02:01 PM	#414
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by falconeye And soon, imaging sensors will be everywhere, not just phones, tablets, notebooks and cameras. But cars, watches, glasses, frigerators, TVs, traffic lights, ... trillions. I already own a dozen or so (image sensors, not cameras). How true! My son started counting the cameras in our family the other day. I don't remember the total, but it was amazing - every smart phone has two, the four iPads in the family each has two, our car has two, and so on...

10-03-2014, 02:26 PM	#415
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Nicolas06 But in no way it is investment. Actually it is, and I have made money on lenses. The 31mm LTD is selling for more now on the used market than I paid for it new. I have used it all this time and can still sell it for a profit. I am selling my Contax 645 system. I bought all but one of my lenses after Contax was discontinued in 2005. Because I bought it so cheap, I can sell my entire system today for more than I paid for it almost 10 years ago. These hipsters are nuts about old film cameras and everyone in my market seems to want a Contax 645. I love the camera, but its time to move on and get my money back out of it. My MF film scanner died last year and I don't want to "invest" in another one. By this time next year I plan to be all digital. These are tools that I use in my business. Any money I spend on equipment for my business I consider an investment. You have every right to not look at lenses as an investment. Many of us do look at it that way whether you like it or not.

10-03-2014, 02:32 PM	#416
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by Winder Actually it is, and I have made money on lenses. The 31mm LTD is selling for more now on the used market than I paid for it new. I have used it all this time and can still sell it for a profit. I am selling my Contax 645 system. I bought all but one of my lenses after Contax was discontinued in 2005. Because I bought it so cheap, I can sell my entire system today for more than I paid for it almost 10 years ago. These hipsters are nuts about old film cameras and everyone in my market seems to want a Contax 645. I love the camera, but its time to move on and get my money back out of it. My MF film scanner died last year and I don't want to "invest" in another one. By this time next year I plan to be all digital. These are tools that I use in my business. Any money I spend on equipment for my business I consider an investment. You have every right to not look at lenses as an investment. Many of us do look at it that way whether you like it or not. It still isn't an investment. You have tools that happen to hold their value or even gain a little value, but you don't buy 5 31 limiteds on the off chance that in five years you could sell them for a 10 percent increase over what you bought them for now. That would be an investment. Buying a lens that you use is buying equipment. If it happens to appreciate in value, that's fine, but I still wouldn't call it an investment (as compared to stocks, bonds, CDs, etc).

10-03-2014, 02:33 PM	#417
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	I keep waiting for the next round of price increases! Come on, Pentax!

10-03-2014, 02:37 PM	#418
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by Rondec The look terrible on the whole "equivalence" thing, but they are just so much fun to shoot, it doesn't really matter... Mmmmh... that picture... Color is so good it's mouth-watering. Nice idea and composition!

10-03-2014, 02:42 PM	#419
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Rondec It still isn't an investment. You have tools that happen to hold their value or even gain a little value, but you don't buy 5 31 limiteds on the off chance that in five years you could sell them for a 10 percent increase over what you bought them for now. That would be an investment. Buying a lens that you use is buying equipment. If it happens to appreciate in value, that's fine, but I still wouldn't call it an investment (as compared to stocks, bonds, CDs, etc). There are people who buy lenses to sell them. I did that myself for a small series of 645 lenses believing that the 645D would actually come. Did get a free K-5 Silver out of it. If the 645D didn't come, I probably still would have them having no value. Currently for K-mount it is difficult.

10-03-2014, 03:51 PM	#420
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by XMACHINA Is there something about Sony's Full-Frame offering (which is rumored to be refreshed very soon) that doesn't provide a sufficiently "clean" upgrade path for their ASP-C A-Mount users? -XM Yes. With Canon and Nikon you only have one mount to worry about and there isn't the risk factor of it being discontinued any time soon.