Originally posted by Omestes At the point, why not just get an APS-C camera? Lightweight. Weather sealed. Highly portable. Not $2000+.
But then again, I recently decided that I'm probably not going FF, instead opting for either a cheap K-3 and a good lens (I'm thinking the FA77 might enjoy a FA31 little brother), or for the K-3 II. I don't see the need, in my own photography, at least I don't see the need for the cost (I can buy a EM5 II, K-3, and a lens for the same price, to put things in perspective). I don't see it as the second coming, though I hope it does make Ricoh a tidy sum, and allows them to put that into lens design.
Done and done! I'm already a huge fan of the 1.5x crop, I think it is by far the most powerful and versatile sensor size of all. It is professionally capable at high ISOs, creates great shallow DOF with modestly affordable and compact lenses, and allows for significant space / weight savings over any FF option, including mirrorless FF.
However, I plan on owning both formats. As an astro-landscape photographer, I often go into the wilderness with 2-3 cameras, and usually only one of those need be full-frame, for when I absolutely must have the best high ISO performance possible, or the most resolution possible.
Originally posted by Omestes As for you original point, I haven't really read about any of the "classic" lenses losing their luster with higher resolutions. That could because of nostalgia and expectations, or because Pentax really nailed it on some lenses. Probably a mixture of both.
So how has the 20 f4 suffered? It is just not as technically sound? Does this change anything? I have several flawed lenses, and I love putting their flaws to use. This isn't a matter of novelty, or a trophy, but those lenses do something that modern lenses generally avoid doing; have a personality. I don't need a perfectly flat, ultra sharp, super-neutral lens all the time. Sometimes that old, ugly, brick of metal takes a better picture. Hell, my favorite (with the most postive results according the the internet) lens is an ugly, creaky, cheap feeling plastic zoom with horrid bokeh (the F35-70 Macro). Of all my lenses, I feel dirty to say that it is probably the best lens I own, warts and all. For some reason I can wring more out of it than I can any of my "superior" lenses.
I'm not sure how to answer your main question here, but generally speaking, yes... When you cram this many pixels so densely, the older lenses do indeed often start to look abysmally soft. There is just no denying how insanely sharp a modern Nikon, Sigma, or Rokinon lens is, especially when stopped down just ~1 stop.
The Nikon 20mm f/4 AIS, for example, is indeed still a fantastic lens, however the modern 20mm f/1.8 is just so insanely sharp at f/4 that for serious projects, let alone paid jobs, It'd be silly to use the older classic lens just for posterity's sake.
Ironically, as an astro-landscape photographer, I do in fact like my lenses to have a perfectly flat plane of focus, be extremely high-performance in the absolute corners, and offer unparalleled wide-open sharpness. Admittedly, what I do is probably one of the most sterile, technically un-forgiving forms of "creativity", if you even want to call it creativity / art. I simply like to make landscape images at night, it entertains me.
It is a shame that my particular interest in photography does not better align with my affection towards classic cameras. I have a Nikon FM2 and an Asahi Pentax on my shelf that I love to put rolls of film through, when I'm doing more casual photography. I'd love to own a Nikon Df, and if Pentax made something similar, I'd love to own that too. But for now, that continues to be an enjoyment that I cannot always utilize for my more serious photography projects. I'm fine with that.
BTW, while we're on the topic of old, awesome looking lenses, what the heck is THIS lens? It doesn't even specify a mount type...
https://www.keh.com/337011/pentax-18mm-f-2-8-110-lens-30-5