[Na Horuk]

Speaking of miniaturization - the K-S1 is really tiny! I find that to be a very attractive feature. If Pentax makes a top tier camera of a tiny size, I would be very tempted

[kooks]

I would ask you what are your methods... Typically when I shoot in such environement at f/2 of f/1.4 I tend to mostly out of focus shoots and the light is often not that good. I tend to get better results with a flash for light quality (not getting more light) and f/4 for the deph of field (not getting more light again).

Well I manage portraiture without problem with those wide apperture but for the rest that more problematic to me.

It depends a lot of the kind of shot that i want to take. the problem that i have is that at nigthclubs/events the people is always moving, the light always changing and ofcourse.. the ambient light is really really dim... so i always shoot wide open. if i could do it f1.4 i would.. but for "party" portraits if the place is to crowded i need a really wide lens ( like the Pentax 10-17 @ 10mm ) otherwise is kind of difficult cuz i gotta back up some steps and anything could happen between the camera and the subject in that enviroments.. so as closer i can get to the subject.. the better.. When i shoot with the fisheye because it's only 3.5 i HAVE to use an external flash ALWAYS.. when i shoot with the tamron ( f2.8 ) it depends of the amount of light in the ambient... i also have the Sigma art 30 f1.4 but the thing with this lens is that for really crowed places it is too long.. :/ .. so most of my shots i do it wth a setting like: 10mm @ f3.5, ISO 1600 @ around 1/40sec or lower .. Manual flash at something between 1/16 1/32 power ..

I this situations a FF behaves really nice because more light in sensor = faster shutter speed = sharper images .. The good thing about the K3 is that with the -3eV focussing the shots MOST of the time are in focus, and a wide angle at larger aperture helps with that..

Im also considering getting a Sigma fisheye @ 10mm f2.8 ( most of my images when i shoot the the 10-17 are at 10mm so... ).. but i saw that they have a 15mm f2.8 that can be use with a FF so..mmmmm i might go with that one hoping that we will have a FF sometime soon..







This ones in my opinion are not with bad light. BUT.. i know that could be better ( less noisy ) at higher ISOs with a FF sensor...

[monochrome]

There no need for that huge miniaturzation. I guess that a K3 with a bigger bump for the pentaprism could do just fine. The sensor would fit without problem: just look at A7 size. the mirror should not that big of a problem. I mean the mount and it distance to the sensor already ensure most of it would fit anyway on current K3.

The technological challenge will always be IBIS, and for video the noise the IBIS platform makes.

And there's potentially the problem of the image circle not being quite big enough to allow IBIS on the entire image. In that case the processor might capture a slightly smaller than FF image, leaving photosites around the borders for IBIS.

I wonder how that idea would sell?*


* Noting rumors that the rumored FF lenses are ILIS lenses.

(Is that a meta-rumor?)

[Nicolas06]

The technological challenge will always be IBIS, and for video the noise the IBIS platform makes.

And there's potentially the problem of the image circle not being quite big enough to allow IBIS on the entire image. In that case the processor might capture a slightly smaller than FF image, leaving photosites around the borders for IBIS.

I wonder how that idea would sell?*


* Noting rumors that the rumored FF lenses are ILIS lenses.

(Is that a meta-rumor?)

For the image circle, the problem isn't really dependant of the body and it never hapen on third party lenses made for APSC today so I don't see any reason for that to kick in for normal FF lenses.

For IBIS needed more space, it just need to make the same movement as for APSC but for a larger area. It may need 1mm-2mm more in some directions at worst. That not that big of a difference I would say and would not make the body that much bigger.

I would really appreciate they keep IBIS, even if they decide to have optical stab for some lenses; They could combine the 2 for even better performance, but much more it make most non stab lenses far better in dififcult conditon.

It would be a shame that an APSC sensor achieve better low light shoot because of IBIS and so reduced speed + lower isos !

[monochrome]

It would be a shame that an APSC sensor achieve better low light shoot because of IBIS and so reduced speed + lower isos !

The challenge of making IBIS work on a small FF sensored body would explain the delay in releasing a FF.

[Nicolas06]

It depends a lot of the kind of shot that i want to take. the problem that i have is that at nigthclubs/events the people is always moving, the light always changing and ofcourse.. the ambient light is really really dim... so i always shoot wide open. if i could do it f1.4 i would.. but for "party" portraits if the place is to crowded i need a really wide lens ( like the Pentax 10-17 @ 10mm ) otherwise is kind of difficult cuz i gotta back up some steps and anything could happen between the camera and the subject in that enviroments.. so as closer i can get to the subject.. the better.. When i shoot with the fisheye because it's only 3.5 i HAVE to use an external flash ALWAYS.. when i shoot with the tamron ( f2.8 ) it depends of the amount of light in the ambient... i also have the Sigma art 30 f1.4 but the thing with this lens is that for really crowed places it is too long.. :/ .. so most of my shots i do it wth a setting like: 10mm @ f3.5, ISO 1600 @ around 1/40sec or lower .. Manual flash at something between 1/16 1/32 power ..

I this situations a FF behaves really nice because more light in sensor = faster shutter speed = sharper images .. The good thing about the K3 is that with the -3eV focussing the shots MOST of the time are in focus, and a wide angle at larger aperture helps with that..

Im also considering getting a Sigma fisheye @ 10mm f2.8 ( most of my images when i shoot the the 10-17 are at 10mm so... ).. but i saw that they have a 15mm f2.8 that can be use with a FF so..mmmmm i might go with that one hoping that we will have a FF sometime soon..

This ones in my opinion are not with bad light. BUT.. i know that could be better ( less noisy ) at higher ISOs with a FF sensor...

Ok, I better understand your case... I mean when using a fish, you have quite a lot deph of field that you don't care a large apperture. But on the other end there no fast lenses available. For me the 30mm f/1.4 is not only too narrow... It is that f/1.4 would reduce deph of field and prevent all subjects to be in focus so that not very usuable...

So that very specific use case to me... f/1.4 would help because at 10mm you still have some deph of field... but I think there no f/1.4 fish available, even for a high price...

[simon6z]

Still prefer APSC though since it can use FAs and DAs

[kooks]

I think IBIS is a plus for all pentax cameras and there is no reason why they should remove it from a FF body.. as @Nicolas06 said.. 1 or 2mm will not make that much difference in a Pentax body.. still compared with other FF cameras Pentax should be smaller... dont know the technical data so i cant really tell but.. besides the space.. what other problem will be performing IBIS with a FF?

---------- Post added 11-01-14 at 08:04 PM ----------

but I think there no f/1.4 fish available, even for a high price...

Correct.. i think that the fastest fisheye available is the Sigma f2.8.. also is not that i really need to use JUST a fish eye.. it could be a really wide angle lens.. like a 10mm / 15mm.. but as you said. there is no f1.4 lens available at that range..

---------- Post added 11-01-14 at 08:09 PM ----------

Still prefer APSC though since it can use FAs and DAs

Hopefully they can perform something similar of what Nikon do with the crop mode..so you can still use this lenses but in crop mode to avoid vignetting.. or at least i hope that they can perform something like this specially because most of pentax users have a good amount ( if not all ) of APS-C glass and not FF..

[y0chang]

IBIS requires a larger image circle as well as large amounts of movement of the sensor. The larger the sensor the larger the movement. This means the optical stabilization of a FF may be stop or more worse than a stabilization of a smaller sensor. The sony A99 is the only FF IBIS that was created, i wonder how sony solved those issues (maybe SLT gives some sort of advantage?)

[rawr]

IBIS requires a larger image circle as well as large amounts of movement of the sensor.

Not a lot of extra sensor movement for FF may be required in body. Maybe 2-3mm, I'm guessing, since you are working right down at the angle of the image plane.

Note that there are lots of FF lenses with stabilization built-in that aren't much bigger/wider than non-stabilized lenses. For example, the stabilized/non-stabilized Canon 70-200 f2.8's are only 4mm apart in diameter. And the stabilized/ unstabilized Canon 70-200 f4's have an identical diameter. So, if there's a lot less room inside a lens than there is inside a camera body ...

[Nicolas06]

IBIS requires a larger image circle as well as large amounts of movement of the sensor. The larger the sensor the larger the movement. This means the optical stabilization of a FF may be stop or more worse than a stabilization of a smaller sensor. The sony A99 is the only FF IBIS that was created, i wonder how sony solved those issues (maybe SLT gives some sort of advantage?)

That Sony did it is another reason is a proof that it is possible.

One should not think that many maker don't bundle it a a real reason for not having it. My bet is more they want photographers to spend money on expensive, modern stabilized glasses instead.

[NicoleC]

Speaking of miniaturization - the K-S1 is really tiny! I find that to be a very attractive feature. If Pentax makes a top tier camera of a tiny size, I would be very tempted

Totally agree. Some things you can't miniaturize (like long glass). And there's going to be an ergonomic sweet spot where you can't drop below a certain size to be comfortable with commonly used heavier lenses.


I won't be buying another body for some years unless disaster strikes, but I would be far more interested in a revolutionary FF design from Pentax than a traditional design. I might even be willing to change lens mounts for it if it's that much of an improvement.

[OldSchoolPentax]

Holding off on buying another body until the FF arrives - hopefully soon as the k10d is getting tired!

[LensBeginner]

Totally agree. Some things you can't miniaturize (like long glass). And there's going to be an ergonomic sweet spot where you can't drop below a certain size to be comfortable with commonly used heavier lenses.


I won't be buying another body for some years unless disaster strikes, but I would be far more interested in a revolutionary FF design from Pentax than a traditional design. I might even be willing to change lens mounts for it if it's that much of an improvement.

Well, I'm always amazed at how tiny SMC-M (fast) glass is...
I mean, is there a smaller 50mm f/1.7 or a smaller 100mm f/2.8?
The fact that the 100mm is an old-ish 4-elements design surely helps...
BTW, anyone knows transmittance figures for old manual glass compared to newer, multi-element glass? Would be intrigued to know the t-stop...

[RuiC]

The technological challenge will always be IBIS, and for video the noise the IBIS platform makes.

And there's potentially the problem of the image circle not being quite big enough to allow IBIS on the entire image. In that case the processor might capture a slightly smaller than FF image, leaving photosites around the borders for IBIS.

I wonder how that idea would sell?*


* Noting rumors that the rumored FF lenses are ILIS lenses.

(Is that a meta-rumor?)

From patent descriptions I have read the SR systems that Pentax engineers develop are applicable to ILIS !!
I'm not sure but I think I have read already a lens patent with ILIS.