[RMabo]

Ned really needs to try using a D3 at 1600iso or higher sometime.
The marginal increase in quality is about as wide as the Mississippi river.
They would have to ramp up production on glass that would cover the full frame again, so he is correct that their present lens line isn't up to the task.

Neds post about lenses on 24x36 wasn't about ISO 1600 or higher. There is no relation between lenses and ISO 1600 performance.

What Ned simply tried to say, is that to take fully advantage of a 24x36 sensor, the lenses needs to be designed for it. He did not wrote that Pentax old 24x36 lenses wouldn't work on 24x36 cameras, but what he tries to say s is that it would be a compromise and that they would not perform as good as a "designed for digital 24x36 lens" would do, and for Pentax - just being "good enough" is simply not enough. Pentax wants to be excellent and outstanding. The performance of those old lens designs on 24x36 sensor wouldn't be outstanding, even if most users would probably call them good enough.

[*isteve]

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.

Thats business suicide in any market, let alone the one we are in now. Would you bet your company on a 5 year strategy not knowing how the economy or technology would progress?

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

I have several lenses that are worn out and need refurbishment. With internal lens motors, the problems are even worse.

[*isteve]

Doesn't matter, you will not see that because the corners are dark.

LOL!

[Pål Jensen]

I would be pretty sceptical too. The corner performance of most Pentax FF lenses wide open is not that good even on APSC.]

I don't get this. Why must lenes be great at the corners in order to make FF viable when the same demand apparently is not mandatory for all other formats? I've shot film; MF and 35mm and APS digital. Whats common for all these formats, with their dedicated lenses, is that many lenses are not that great at the corners. So what?

[ogl]

I would be pretty sceptical too. The corner performance of most Pentax FF lenses wide open is not that good even on APSC. Check out Photozone for the following

FA*24, FA43LTD, FA50F1.4, FA77LTD, FA*80-200.



Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L (full format) - Test Report / Review

FA*24, FA43 and FA77 are very good at center at APS-C wide open.
As for corners - almost 99% fast lenses has weak corners wide opened.
It's notorious fact. FF cameras with MP lower than 21 has less requirement for resolution of lenses than APS-C cameras.
The common resolution of DSLR SYSTEM = lens + sensor (+weak or strong AA filter) + RAW + convertor.
FA*24 won't be worse at f/2 at K10D than at 20 MP FF. It will be the same.

[Wheatfield]

Perhaps you should change your name to Ricefield? You both have a similar approach to a debate. Even agreeing with you is strangely disagreeable.

Try agreeing with me sometime and see how it tastes. You might be surprised.
Or at least make an attempt at intelligent debate before resorting to insulting language.

Please look up the definition of "Troll", and perhaps your other favourite epithet, "Fanboy", and try an use them in their correct context. As a hint....

Troll is not someone who disagrees with your manners.
Fanboy is not someone who disagrees with your opinion.

I call it like I see it.
In this case I presented an opinion based on what the leading companies in camera manufacturing are doing. That this opinion disagrees with what the president of Pentax imaging is saying wasn't tossed out as a personal slight at you.

You replied directly to my comment with a derogatory post.
This is what trolls do.
You fall into the category I pointed out to one of the moderators in post #58 of this thread.

[*isteve]

I don't get this. Why must lenes be great at the corners in order to make FF viable when the same demand apparently is not mandatory for all other formats? I've shot film; MF and 35mm and APS digital. Whats common for all these formats, with their dedicated lenses, is that many lenses are not that great at the corners. So what?

Its a matter of degree. Please read the link I posted. If you think the Canon 17-40 F4 has "acceptable" edge performance, fine.

Also, film is not so sensitive to incident light angles. The problem is less pronounced.

[ogl]

Canon EF 135mm f/2 USM L (full format) - Review / Test Report

Good at FF

Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM - Lab Test Report / Review
Good at APS-C

[Wheatfield]

I don't get this. Why must lenes be great at the corners in order to make FF viable when the same demand apparently is not mandatory for all other formats? I've shot film; MF and 35mm and APS digital. Whats common for all these formats, with their dedicated lenses, is that many lenses are not that great at the corners. So what?

I think it's called setting up a strawman arguement.

Writing off the concept of a full frame camera because a few lenses have dodgy corner performance when wide open seems to be the only arguement that they can come up with.

That the three biggest companies aren't buying into it tells me more about who know what than anything else.

[*isteve]

Try agreeing with me sometime and see how it tastes. You might be surprised.
Or at least make an attempt at intelligent debate before resorting to insulting language.

I call it like I see it.
In this case I presented an opinion based on what the leading companies in camera manufacturing are doing. That this opinion disagrees with what the president of Pentax imaging is saying wasn't tossed out as a personal slight at you.

You replied directly to my comment with a derogatory post.
This is what trolls do.
You fall into the category I pointed out to one of the moderators in post #58 of this thread.

The enduring irony is, so do you.

[Wheatfield]

Neds post about lenses on 24x36 wasn't about ISO 1600 or higher. There is no relation between lenses and ISO 1600 performance.

For the record, I never said there was.

What Ned simply tried to say, is that to take fully advantage of a 24x36 sensor, the lenses needs to be designed for it. He did not wrote that Pentax old 24x36 lenses wouldn't work on 24x36 cameras, but what he tries to say s is that it would be a compromise and that they would not perform as good as a "designed for digital 24x36 lens" would do, and for Pentax - just being "good enough" is simply not enough. Pentax wants to be excellent and outstanding. The performance of those old lens designs on 24x36 sensor wouldn't be outstanding, even if most users would probably call them good enough.

Also for the record, I have said that Pentax would have to come up with a new lens line to go full frame because the present lens line isn't up to the task.

As well, in another thread, I mentioned my opinion that Pentax will probably skip full frame and jump straight to medium format.

Just keeping things straight guys, I seem to have developed a cult of followers who either deliberately misread my posts or quote out of context to try to score their internet points off of me.

[illdefined]

in the complete absence of food we're forced to turn to cannibalism.

[Wheatfield]

in the complete absence of food we're forced to turn to cannibalism.

That's gotta be it.
Probably, that explains why it feels like something is gnawing at my left leg.

[Art Vandelay II]

It seems like most all of these full frame vs APS-C debates center around IQ. I can't be the only person that thinks both formats have more than good enough IQ.

For me it's a tunnel vision thing. APS-C bodies view finders simply aren't as good as FF view finders; period. This weekend I tested out a Nikon D3, D700, Sony A900, and Canon 5D Mk II; then played with a K20D & Olympus E3. All I can say is don't ever try and use a APS-C or 4/3's camera after picking up an A900. The E-3 felt especially good in my hand (better then the K20D even), but with the memory of the A900 fresh in my brain I couldn't get over the feeling that I wasn't seeing the whole picture. It's very similar to dropping down from a 50" TV to a 32" model.

That said, I'm not a telephoto junkie (my longest lens is 100mm), and if I were I'd shoot APS-C or 4/3's just because fast 300mm+ full frame lenses weight almost as much as my car. So I think it just comes down to what you want to do. For wild life photography I'd personally get an E3, D300, Canon 50D, or K20D, but for portrait shooting and general photography under 135mm's or so then I just don't see much of a case for APS-C aside from price.

[*isteve]

LOL... good one steve

Actually the irony is that a lot of the more reasonably priced Canon primes work fine on FF. The 35 F2, 85 F1.8, 135 F2 all perform very well indeed. In fact, better than Pentax primes perform on APSC. I suspect they used the change to the EF mount to change the core lens design.

Personally I would much rather trade in for Canon glass than irreversably hack a decent LTD lens.

The main issue for Canon is their WA zooms (16-35 F2.8, 17-40 F4 etc). Nikon seem to do better here. The 14-24 and 24-70 are exceptional but both were purpose designed for the Nikon FF cameras as I understand it.

As for the 70-200, corner perfomance is generally less of an issue for tele's due to application.

My only objection regarding Nikon is price.