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

Nicolas06 · 10-22-2014, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

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.

ElJamoquio · 10-22-2014, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

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.

Nicolas06 · 10-22-2014, 11:07 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

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.

normhead · 10-23-2014, 06:22 AM

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.

Nicolas06 · 10-23-2014, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by normhead

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.

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!

noser · 10-23-2014, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

The adventages of FF are also more theoritical than practical anyway!

Yeah, that big, bright viewfinder is just a theory anyway. Nobody needs that.

rawr · 10-23-2014, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by noser

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.

Cynog Ap Brychan · 10-23-2014, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by rawr

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.

thibs · 10-23-2014, 10:19 PM

That would be cool if that was the differenciating spec of coming FF: a huge VF

bossa · 10-23-2014, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

The adventages of FF are also more theoritical than practical anyway!

YOU are a funny person.. hilarious in fact.

cfraz · 10-23-2014, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by rawr

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.

Nicolas06 · 10-23-2014, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by bossa

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).

rawr · 10-23-2014, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by cfraz

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'.

gazonk · 10-24-2014, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by thibs

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.

**Aristophanes** · 10-24-2014, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

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.

10-22-2014, 11:07 PM - 1 Like	#633
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by ElJamoquio 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.

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

10-22-2014, 12:07 PM	#631
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by ElJamoquio 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: DA16-50 f/2.8, FA31 f/1.8, FA35 f/2, DA35 f/2.4, DA35 ltd, FA43 f/1.9, DA50-135, 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, DA200 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
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Nicolas06 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: DA16-50 f/2.8, FA31 f/1.8, FA35 f/2, DA35 f/2.4, DA35 ltd, FA43 f/1.9, DA50-135, 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.

10-23-2014, 06:22 AM	#634
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	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
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by normhead 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. 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
noser Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Calgary, AB CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 292	Originally posted by Nicolas06 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
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by noser 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
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by rawr 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
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	That would be cool if that was the differenciating spec of coming FF: a huge VF

10-23-2014, 10:21 PM	#640
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by Nicolas06 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
cfraz Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 521	Originally posted by rawr 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
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by bossa 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
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by cfraz 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
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by thibs 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
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by gazonk 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.