[MSM]

You have nailed the dilema I find myself in.

If I buy new glass, I would like it to be FF glass so that in 5 years from now, when FF cameras are as affordable as APS-C camers, I do not find myself with a stable of APS-C glass that I have little use for.

So, I've been waiting, and waiting, to see if Pentax shows ANY interest in developing a FF camera. Even if I cannot afford to buy it today, at least I know that I will be staying with Pentax. But right now, I am stuck.

The number one lens that I would use is the 16-50 DA*. But I have not bought this lens for two reasons. Quality issues and its APS-C. For my budget, $1000.00 is allot of cash to have to do my own QA, and expect that I will be selling the lens in 5 or 6 years. So I have not bought. The number two lens I want is the 31 FA ltd. But why shell out for this lens ($1300.00) when I may not stay with Pentax DSLR's?

Now with the third strike of the MASSIVE price jump of lenses in Canada, I am forced to rethink my system choice. I could move to either of the Big Two, loose the features that make Pentax great, but gain the stability of long term lens purchases.

This leaves the new K-7. It will really need to be special for me to stay long term with Pentax DSLR's. I don't ever expect to give up my Pentax film SLR's.

KungPow: I know what you are saying. But, five years or even less is still a long ways off. Heaven forbid but you could be injured, go blind, contract Swine Flu, die, etc. ( I am in health care and see this all the time.) Why worry. I am of the Buy-what-you-need (and afford)-Now camp. It's not like the lenses will stop working just because FF becomes available. Plus the lenses of tomorrow may be quite different from the FF lenses today. In such, you would be buying new lenses because of those improvements anyway. Just my $.02

[kenyee]

The number one lens that I would use is the 16-50 DA*. But I have not bought this lens for two reasons. Quality issues and its APS-C. For my budget, $1000.00 is allot of cash to have to do my own QA, and expect that I will be selling the lens in 5 or 6 years.

Unfortunately, even if you could get the 28-70, the 16-50 still makes more sense. I have a Canon 40D friend who bought a Tamron 28-75 but it wasn't wide enough for inside use...it's nice and sharp, but for friendly gatherings, it's not wide enough. On FF, it'd be a perfect range.
So, you basically need to get a 16-50 to cover the most used range on APS-C. The only lenses that cover this range are APS-C. You could get the Tamron 17-50 to minimize costs, which is what this friend did...

[claude21]

What you say sounds logical.

However ... it is all a matter of time and buying glass is a long-term investment.

What Pentax REALLY cannot afford is to ONLY sell glass which is to be deprecated. Well, it is ok for $300 glass. Not $1000+ glass. Not selling expensive glass anymore -- is what is killing Pentax -- now!

I, for my part, would be happy if $1000+ glass except for ultra-wide angle would again be certified FF-suitable. I need no body (now).

I feel the same, that's why I've never bought any DA lenses and never will. My best hope is Pentax releasing D-FA (star) lenses, but in the meantime it's tamron or sigma only.

[illdefined]

You have nailed the dilema I find myself in.

If I buy new glass, I would like it to be FF glass so that in 5 years from now, when FF cameras are as affordable as APS-C camers, I do not find myself with a stable of APS-C glass that I have little use for.

So, I've been waiting, and waiting, to see if Pentax shows ANY interest in developing a FF camera. Even if I cannot afford to buy it today, at least I know that I will be staying with Pentax. But right now, I am stuck.

The number one lens that I would use is the 16-50 DA*. But I have not bought this lens for two reasons. Quality issues and its APS-C. For my budget, $1000.00 is allot of cash to have to do my own QA, and expect that I will be selling the lens in 5 or 6 years. So I have not bought. The number two lens I want is the 31 FA ltd. But why shell out for this lens ($1300.00) when I may not stay with Pentax?

I remember this position well.

All I wanted was a Pentax FF SLR and it just didn't exist. I waited and waited for almost a year waiting for at least a rumor to be confirmed and no such luck. The D700 came out and it was a milestone, the 5DII came out and it was a milestone + video. But I just didn't like those cameras, they were obnoxiously large and heavy and so were their obscene lenses.

That's when I knew to jump in and get the K20d. I was going to enjoy their system while I waited for their FF model and I'm so glad I did. I found the K20 deeply discounted with all the interest in the new FFers so it was a relatively small investment. Then I purposely decided not to get those expensive FF lenses and strictly get DA Limiteds. They were sharp, beautiful lenses that were even smaller and much cheaper than the exquisite FA limiteds. for the price of that one lens you wanted I got a new K20 and a pair of DA Limiteds. Pentax's DA zooms were also smaller and cheaper than the other brands' aps-c equivalents.

So now I have a small, high quality setup (do i have to mention its also weathersealed?) that I got for less than the price of one good L zoom. And when the time comes for Pentax's FF and those FA Limiteds get really worth their price, I will continue to have a small, tough, versatile high quality setup for those times I won't want to bring a full (and expensive) FF setup. I'm sure Pentax would allow to use my DA Limiteds in "DA mode" on their eventual FF model too.

Small, tough, high quality and affordableare a particularly unique combination to Pentax I feel, and I'm just as proud of said setup as anyone lugging their huge, expensive clone camera around. The K-7 will embody this even further, as small and aps-c as it will be, it will be a serious photographic tool that any actual photographer would envy.

Even still, once Pentax does come out with their FF model and I felt i had a need to sell my current aps-c setup to afford it, who wouldn't want to buy a compact, weathersealed camera with a set of these tiny jewel lenses? ONLY Pentax has this. It's now your "USP" (universal selling point) as well. I would expect you to get a good amount back of the relatively little you would have spent on such a genuinely useful setup.

Pentax is just that special.

---

Last edited by illdefined; 04-27-2009 at 03:11 PM.

[illdefined]

KungPow: I know what you are saying. But, five years or even less is still a long ways off. Heaven forbid but you could be injured, go blind, contract Swine Flu, die, etc. ( I am in health care and see this all the time.) Why worry. I am of the Buy-what-you-need (and afford)-Now camp. It's not like the lenses will stop working just because FF becomes available. Plus the lenses of tomorrow may be quite different from the FF lenses today. In such, you would be buying new lenses because of those improvements anyway. Just my $.02

I'll see those $.02. I forgot that excellent point. by the time the Pentax FF comes around, there's a good chance the FA Lens lineups will be modernized any number of ways. digital coatings, size/weight reduction by losing the aperture ring (I know, I like them too) and more likely still, get this new "WR" treatment.

[falconeye]

there's a good chance the FA Lens lineups will be modernized any number of ways. digital coatings, size/weight reduction by losing the aperture ring

You are right. It is possible to make lenses deprecate rather fast. Like dropping the screw drive motor in newer bodies...

However, it isn't necessarily so.

The vendor can opt to make some long term promises and stand by their word.

A collection of lenses is so much more expensive (and longer term to build up) than one or two bodies that the faith in the system becomes a critical factor.


I understand the "buy it now while you live" argument. It has its merits. But then, in retrospect, if I sum up all money I've sunk in stuff I didn't really need and only used a couple of times before new stuff came out ... Really, it isn't rational.


Simple truth is: As long as the laws of optical physics don't change there is no need that lenses deprecate.

But then, I'm living in a country which needs wars to destroy its houses, not financial crisis

[*isteve]

Consider the growing cult of people who are modifying older Pentax glass to go onto full frame Canons. I suspect they know something that Ned is pretending doesn't exist.

Hacking would be a better word. I guess they must be desparate to find some glass that actually works.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Hacking would be a better word. I guess they must be desparate to find some glass that actually works.

...and which they can afford.

It's sacrilege actually! And now these awfull 4/3rd people have started to hack my poor old Hexanon lenses too!

[*isteve]

Personally, I think Ned is full of bollocks on this one. A full frame camera with the same pixel density as a 15MP APS C sensor would end up being about the same pixel count as the Nikon D3X.
His argument also completely ignores the advantage of a lower pixel count full frame sensor WRT noise control, such as what Nikon has done with the D3.

Wow, you really have it in for Ned today don't you. Since Ned is only passing information on from the Pentax engineering team, I presume you also think you know more than all of them as well. Oh sorry, of course you do.

Ned is a person. Just because he's head of Pentax US and therefore the cause of all the grief you have in the world does not mean its any less rude to insult him in the third person.

[Duplo]

Hacking would be a better word. I guess they must be desparate to find some glass that actually works.

LOL... good one steve

[leeak]

I feel the same, that's why I've never bought any DA lenses and never will. My best hope is Pentax releasing D-FA (star) lenses, but in the meantime it's tamron or sigma only.

Please consider current FF lens may not be good enough for FF sensors. Take a look at the mighty Tamron 28-75/2.8 full frame test on slrgear.com. As good as it is with crop sensor, the Tamron is quite soft wide open. Nikon knows that the FF sensors demands more from their glass and they recently introduce their new 24-70/2.8. It is sharp edge-to-edge, weights 2lb, and cost almost US$2000. I guess what I am saying is, current FF lens may not be good enough for FF sensors and you have to ask yourself do you really need FF. Let me tell you it is much harder to get sharp edge-to-edge images on a FF than a crop. When I mean "harder" I mean more $ and weight. Having both Pentax and Nikon now, I am much more appreciative of the Samsung sensor. It is much much better than others give it credit for.

[Aristophanes]

Please consider current FF lens may not be good enough for FF sensors. Take a look at the mighty Tamron 28-75/2.8 full frame test on slrgear.com. As good as it is with crop sensor, the Tamron is quite soft wide open. Nikon knows that the FF sensors demands more from their glass and they recently introduce their new 24-70/2.8. It is sharp edge-to-edge, weights 2lb, and cost almost US$2000. I guess what I am saying is, current FF lens may not be good enough for FF sensors and you have to ask yourself do you really need FF. Let me tell you it is much harder to get sharp edge-to-edge images on a FF than a crop. When I mean "harder" I mean more $ and weight. Having both Pentax and Nikon now, I am much more appreciative of the Samsung sensor. It is much much better than others give it credit for.

This is right on. The dilemma for FF is that it is just an arbitrary size based on historical anomaly. What matters is the quality of image for the investment in the capture device. Digital APS-C now significantly outperforms most legacy film cameras in equivalent price ranges. We have an abundance of quality systems and lenses. The technical quality of photography has gone upwards in the last 3 years. Look at Flickr. Some amazing amateur photographers there using equipment with capabilities only dreamed of 20 years ago. The APS-C sensor family is responsible for a huge amount of this quality and creativity. Relating FF to "normal" legacy photo standards in the pre-digital age simply does not apply anymore.

So the basic premise towards FF is that the technical upgrade is worth the massive $$$ for both lenses and bodies above ad beyond the revolution underway right now. As long as APS-C is around (and it will be for a long time as a cost-effective production size and form factor—it has "legs"), FF will be premium priced, so the accompanying lens selections will also be at a substantial extra cost. So FF represents a marginal increase in quality in relative terms, and a very limited return on quality in cost-effective terms. Are you going to spend ten thousand $$$ more on an FF system for photos where the quality is only marginally better than APS-C? The return on investment goes both ways for Pentax and the consumer. That is why the FF market is so small. FF is no longer the "normal" size for photography—it's the premium product all the way. The major brands are positioning themselves for this with super-expensive lenses for the duration.

Pentax is going towards MF with the 645D, at a price difference that may not be much more than FF. If you want to stay Pentax, that may be the way.

[Wheatfield]

Wow, you really have it in for Ned today don't you. Since Ned is only passing information on from the Pentax engineering team, I presume you also think you know more than all of them as well. Oh sorry, of course you do.

Ned is a person. Just because he's head of Pentax US and therefore the cause of all the grief you have in the world does not mean its any less rude to insult him in the third person.

I see my pet troll has found me again.

I don't know who knows more about what, but it seems to me that if Nikon and Canon can make full frame work, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, then there must be something to it.
What this says about Pentax's engineering team, whether good or bad, I'll leave up to the people who think they know more about what I know than I do to decide.

[Duplo]

Please consider current FF lens may not be good enough for FF sensors. Take a look at the mighty Tamron 28-75/2.8 full frame test on slrgear.com. As good as it is with crop sensor, the Tamron is quite soft wide open. Nikon knows that the FF sensors demands more from their glass and they recently introduce their new 24-70/2.8. It is sharp edge-to-edge, weights 2lb, and cost almost US$2000. I guess what I am saying is, current FF lens may not be good enough for FF sensors and you have to ask yourself do you really need FF. Let me tell you it is much harder to get sharp edge-to-edge images on a FF than a crop. When I mean "harder" I mean more $ and weight. Having both Pentax and Nikon now, I am much more appreciative of the Samsung sensor. It is much much better than others give it credit for.

Now I do not disagree that the idea of using old 35mm lenses on 35mm digital can result in bad performance. However it is all relative.

the tamron 28-75 from the little I have used it does fairly well on 35mm digital.
On APS-C you would need to compare it to a what 18-50 f2.0, well sorry but such lens do not exist and from f4 there is little to complain about with the tammy IIRC.
True the weathersealed Nikkor 24-70/2.8 is much better and much more expensive, but some of the reason for that is in the build and the seals it as, as much as the IQ. professional grade and consumer lenses tend to differ in price by a fair margin.

Now some older lenses has turned out to be absolute stars on 35mm digital, the old zeiss 21mm distagon is one of them, some of the 50mm lenses performs fairly decent, not as good as the new sigma I admit, but they do a respectable job.

Another lens that has taken a real hard beating on digital 35mm is the 70-200VR nikkor, however being on of my primary workhorses I can testyfy it to be a steller protrait lens and stopped down an excellent landscape lens. So sometimes there are more to it than test results suggests.

Genereally though, the lenses to be used with a 35mm digital camera or at least the ones I have decided to use, has proven substantially more expensive than what you pay in pentax land.

But on all of these soft corner, vignette discussions we need to remember that usually the lenses we compare between APS-C and 35mm digital are not really equivalent. and it is not uncommon in APS-C land to see lenses being bashed for poor corner performance, the DA14 was (I have always found it a stellar lens) the DA15ltd has been and so on.

But it all comes down to one thing, does it really matter what format we shoot?
Personally I do not think so and I am very intrigued by the upcomming announcement, perhaps the perfect companion to my 35mm gear?

[illdefined]

I don't know who knows more about what, but it seems to me that if Nikon and Canon can make full frame work, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, then there must be something to it.

orders of magnitude more marketshare, millions of dollars and infrastructure?