well thats not good

ive been looking for the SMC one for awhile now.


and how in the world did you score one for a mere 265?

Good one. 14,6 on the k20d is just enough on a APS-C sensor

I've got some old 2000-2002 era KEH bi-monthly price booklets. Its always fun to see a half dozen 24mm f2 FA selling below $300. Need several 85mm 1.4 K-A or FA? KEH had them and they were typically $500ish ! 250-600 F or FA would set you back $2,500. Pentax succeeding in offerring their dslr: IstD* drove those old lens prices up and nowdays these items are impossible to find in quantity or at 2002 pricing.

At the point I bought 15mm SMC it was ebaying for $500. That shop had no clue about ebay back then and priced it the old fashioned way. It was so beautiful and I recognized it as a rectilinear with its enormous front element. At that same point a 14mm 2.8L FD lens was $1,000+ used and still available new for $1,700 so I bought the pentax 15mm on the spot and then considered how to adapt it to FD mount. After I decided I was incapable of adapting it and i didn't want to sell it I looked to used pentax film bodies. Finially after studying up on used pentax film bodies I opted for new ZX-L to drive it. It was very cool, my very first rectilinear. But over time I got other rectilinears and compared with the Tamron 14mm 2.8 AF it was time to let it go. I did same with 14mm 2.8L FD I eventually got an insane great price on: $550 new in the box. The identical Tamron eos mount 14mm 2.8 was superior too. So up until last month I owned a pair of tamron 14mm 2.8 in Pentax AF and Eos mounts. That Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 was constantly nagging me. No regrets adding as it ITS INSANE! Truely a 21st century design:

Rectilinear f2.8 Zoom.

Long story short, get the Tamron 14mm 2.8 in Pentax af mount. Mine was like new from KEH for $515 maybe 30 months ago. It even went unloved and experienced a couple price drops while I thought about getting it. New they are like $1,100. I'm not sure what film bodies are compatible with 14mm 2.8 Tamron. It does have an aperture ring & A auto setting & you can manually focus it too so these features should broaden the list of compatible film bodies.

Yeah, I don't think that's really feasible... rangefinder lens are designed so that the rear element is going to be very close to the film/sensor plane -- the SLR mirror-box puts the rear element of the lens too far from the film plane.

You can adapt M lenses to the Panasonic G1, as it has no mirror, but if you used them on an SLR, I think you'd be limited to using the lenses for macro focusing.... so, as it stands, the G1 is the low-end "M", but you're dealing with a 2x crop factor...

According to this Big Foot story, it will have a APS-C mode as well as APS-H. It is also supposedly 22 mp.



mythical large-sensor K3D* 22MP body.

With 22 MP to play with, it could have automatic cropping built in to allow portrait and landscape modes without tilting the camera.

No need for auto cropping when Lightroom allows so much flexibility to crop to different aspect ratios.

Well talking of 22 megapixel, allow me to skip the countless posts on theory and what-if hypothesis and share what a FF sensor can deliver.
Here is a re-sized shot of a bird using the EOS 1Ds Mk III with 300mm f/2.8L lens with 1.4x converter giving an effective focal length of 420mm. The camera records a FF image at 21.1 megapixels (5616 x 3744 pixels). Shot at 1/80 sec at f/4 ISO 800.



Here is the 100% crop


Absolutely no sharpening or levels or curves adjustment was done to the image but you can easily see the details from this example (high megapixel, full frame, high end glass).

Talk is cheap on internet forums because the reality is most would not be prepared nor willing to pay the cost of a 22 megapixel camera and top quality glass.

Does that Canon and L glass work 2.5x better than the K20d and FA* 200mm? That's what it comes down to some of us. This photo belongs to Rburgoss:

Absolutely gorgeous shot.

It cracks me up that people are betting on a move to APS-H for Pentax, a format Canon initially used on their cameras because it was too expensive to go full-frame, so they got as close to it as they could.

Pentax has tossed all their eggs in one basket -- the APS-C basket. They're sort of stuck with it. They don't have the lenses or the sensor to go full-frame or APS-H, so expect a fine-tuned 14.6 MP sensor for better ISO performance, faster AF, and maybe some more gadgets. Do not expect a complete overhaul of the K-mount system.

As an electrical engineering student specializing in semiconductor research, I can tell you there's a lot of ways to improve optical sensors than just making their photosites bigger (which a FF design does).

I believe Sony's front-illuminated CMOS sensor has been mentioned on this board -- that's a HUGE development that is going to vastly increase image quality. If Samsung could beat Sony to the punch with something like that, it would revolutionize ALL digital cameras -- not just Pro SLRs.

Because Samsung manufacturers sensors for point-and-shoots as well, they have a vested interest in improving imaging technology in general -- instead of trying to get out of jail by building bigger sensors.

I know, it's not as exotic or fun as some of the possibilities being mentioned on the board (square sensor....?), but with a big, big, big partner like Samsung, they've been going fairly mainstream recently as the competition stiffens.

Full frame / APS-H isn't going to happen. They don't have the sensor. They don't have the lenses.

I believe the technology you are referring to is "back-illuminated CMOS" not "front-illuminated." Conventional CMOS sensors are front-illuminated. As an "electrical engineering student specializing in semiconductor research" you should know that.

Haha, thank you. I obviously forgot which lame marketing term went with which technology. Neither "front" nor "back" are very accurate terms, actually -- a process designer would refer to it as top-illumination versus bottom-illumination, since the light is striking the silicon substrate on the component side, versus the body side. And, by convention, we always think of the silicon as component-side-up. So, really, I should have said "top-illuminated" as opposed to either "front-illuminated" or "back-illuminated"

I guess I didn't realize people on this board argued over things like this....

We don't (until someone claims to be an expert. ) Here is the technology he is referring to:
Sony Global - Press Release - Sony develops back-illuminated CMOS image sensor, realizing high picture quality, ne

I stay away from press releases.

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/39312/1/05-1215.pdf

There's the original paper, I think.

Yes that's a great photo of the macaw.
As to your question, it really depends on one's personal take on the matter. As good as the K20D is with great glass, there is still a difference in image quality compared to FF. Though that gap is narrowing, it is nonetheless there. And we are not even taking into account the difference in feature set like AF, frame rate, larger viewfinder, etc.

How much people are prepared to pay for that difference is the more pertinent question. I know of many who have ponied up that kind of money and some have the pictures to show for it, well for others... it's just better quality erm... snapshots.

Let's face it, if the K20D which offers excellent value and performance, still gets people here hesitating to buy one, what more if Pentax does actually come out with a FF model (which in my own view will happen sooner if not later)?

You would be suprised by the level of expertise some members of this board can offer.

And then, don't forget that there could be members who already take photographs using back-illuminated sensors. Take, for example, the back-illuminated SITe CCDs that are currently available in cameras manufactured by companies such as Apogee Instruments. Although not yet CMOS, of course.