[lol101]

I am not saying all Pentax lenses will perform badly on FF. I am only talking about the old Takumars. My brick wall test of the SMC takumar 28/3.5 on a K10D showed pretty soft corner. Too bad that I deleted all the test images(raw file) when my laptop hard drive was running out of space. I can only prove that I am not making this up by pointing to the following lens review written a year ago, where I mentioned the soft corner issue.

Pentax Lens Review Database - 28mm F3.5

Old lenses are just that: old lenses and I do believe you when you say that the 28f3.5 has soft corners on digital. Especially since this lens (and many others) add already soft corners on film. That's just the way they were conceived.

Again, my point is not that Taks are perfect on FF, my point is that they are very very close on FF of their performances on film: good lenses stay good, bad ones stay bad.

But Pentax didn't stop at Taks didn't they? They did produce much better lenses until the FA ones and I would be VERY surprised to see the good FAs give some unacceptably bad (read "worse than an APS-C lens on APS-C") performances on FF. So bad as to necessitate a complete redesign and be a major obstacle to issuing a FF.

There are heaps of excellent photographies taken by "non digital optimized" lenses on FF bodies that prove that lenses's digital optimization, although beneficial, isn't crucial.

Again, I am not saying: "Just get a FF body out and put some Takumars on it", I am saying "The main reason for Pentax not getting into the FF hype isn't the necessity of redesign lenses, it is just that they cannot run three rabbits at the same time and can't justify a correct return on investment for a FF camera while they are already struggling with APS-C ones and are (courageaously) aiming at developping digital MF": what's so difficult to understand?

Optimizing lenses designs for digital is peanuts compared to getting a whole industrial process up to speed for producing a new format.


Let me also emphasize that I think that Pentax is RIGHT about that. Even though I would personnaly buy a Pentax FF in a heartbeat, I know it is not a sound business plan for Pentax, but the reasons invoked by Ned just sound fake to me.

[Wheatfield]

not any more - Adorama sells Canon 5D (not MkII, but new body - not used one) for USD $2K and kit with 24-105/4 L IS for USD $2550 (that makes body even cheaper than USD $2K)... this is affordable for somebody who just wants it...

More expensive cameras are sold to well heeled amateurs than working pros anyway. It doesn't change the message.
Does this sort of parsing minutae really serve anything?

[Wheatfield]

I agree. But even if the lenses are there, I still doubt that many pros would've gone Pentax. As mentioned in another recent thread, it's not just the availability of a wide variety of lenses that is the problem with Pentax being a pro brand. It's also the pro support programs that Canon and Nikon have that encourages pros to go with their brands. Loaner cameras, lens rentals, and speedy, professional service are things pros care about, and with good reason, too.

Pentax is well known and very respected by studio pros. The 6x7 was, at one time, one of the most used cameras in the fashion industry.
It's doubtful a digital 645 would have much appeal to a wedding or sports photographer, but it would certainly be of interest to a fashion shooter. It's not a mainstream type of camera.

[vinzer]

Pentax is well known and very respected by studio pros. The 6x7 was, at one time, one of the most used cameras in the fashion industry.
It's doubtful a digital 645 would have much appeal to a wedding or sports photographer, but it would certainly be of interest to a fashion shooter. It's not a mainstream type of camera.

Admittedly, I'm not old enough to remember seeing wedding pros run around with MF cameras, so I'll ask: were there pro support programs from any camera company at that time? I do understand that medium and large-format were what a lot of pros used, but that's about all I know about them.

[Priyantha Bleeker]

Admittedly, I'm not old enough to remember seeing wedding pros run around with MF cameras, so I'll ask: were there pro support programs from any camera company at that time? I do understand that medium and large-format were what a lot of pros used, but that's about all I know about them.

Well this is all about the past...
Pentax is right now not known for it's Professional use, not known for it's Professional service programs, not known for it's Professional lenses, not known for it's Professional bodies.
In the past Pentax was well known for it's Professional Medium-Format camera's, well known for it's Professional service programs for Medium-Format camera's.

Pentax is beginning to make a couple of good(big) steps since they introduce the(small 'film' format) K10D, they did produce a body which is in between a 'enthusiast' and a 'more advanced' camera. And there are even Professional users who use these types of camera's with great success

[*isteve]

Please, try and understand, Ned did not say that was the reason that Pentax are not going full frame "some time" he said its the reason why people should not expect the K7 to be full frame (because the lenses dont exist).

No one is making a secret of the fact that they decided BETWEEN 645 and FF and I think even Ned said, they could not do both at the same time.

Now I know its fun to think up conspiracy theories, but its just not appropriate in this case. You are assuming an intent that never existed.

So, leaving Ned out of it, some of US were agreeing that they would indeed need to redesign a lot of lenses because they could not simply reuse old FA designs (many of which used lead glass) and some were claiming that the old FA designs were fantastic (which of course some of them are).

Old lenses are just that: old lenses and I do believe you when you say that the 28f3.5 has soft corners on digital. Especially since this lens (and many others) add already soft corners on film. That's just the way they were conceived.

Again, my point is not that Taks are perfect on FF, my point is that they are very very close on FF of their performances on film: good lenses stay good, bad ones stay bad.

But Pentax didn't stop at Taks didn't they? They did produce much better lenses until the FA ones and I would be VERY surprised to see the good FAs give some unacceptably bad (read "worse than an APS-C lens on APS-C") performances on FF. So bad as to necessitate a complete redesign and be a major obstacle to issuing a FF.

There are heaps of excellent photographies taken by "non digital optimized" lenses on FF bodies that prove that lenses's digital optimization, although beneficial, isn't crucial.

Again, I am not saying: "Just get a FF body out and put some Takumars on it", I am saying "The main reason for Pentax not getting into the FF hype isn't the necessity of redesign lenses, it is just that they cannot run three rabbits at the same time and can't justify a correct return on investment for a FF camera while they are already struggling with APS-C ones and are (courageaously) aiming at developping digital MF": what's so difficult to understand?

Optimizing lenses designs for digital is peanuts compared to getting a whole industrial process up to speed for producing a new format.


Let me also emphasize that I think that Pentax is RIGHT about that. Even though I would personnaly buy a Pentax FF in a heartbeat, I know it is not a sound business plan for Pentax, but the reasons invoked by Ned just sound fake to me.

[falconeye]

many of which used lead glass

Lead glass for optics has not been deprecated.

[zntgrg]

Lead glass for optics has not been deprecated.

Yes, in Europe they are forbidden.

[lol101]

Please, try and understand, Ned did not say that was the reason that Pentax are not going full frame "some time" he said its the reason why people should not expect the K7 to be full frame (because the lenses dont exist).

No one is making a secret of the fact that they decided BETWEEN 645 and FF and I think even Ned said, they could not do both at the same time.

Now I know its fun to think up conspiracy theories, but its just not appropriate in this case. You are assuming an intent that never existed.

So, leaving Ned out of it, some of US were agreeing that they would indeed need to redesign a lot of lenses because they could not simply reuse old FA designs (many of which used lead glass) and some were claiming that the old FA designs were fantastic (which of course some of them are).

Thank you for these clarifications Steve.

So I think we do agree that the #1 factor in choosing not to go FF is good sound economics and not the necessity (which I don't discuss) to redesign lenses.

Again, I am convinced that Pentax made the right choice by privileging MF to FF: MF has always been their foothold on the pro market and I can definitely see a, small but lucrative, market in this direction.

No point in putting large resources towards conquering 3-5% of 5% of the current DSLR
market, better concentrate on the main 95%.

As much as I would like to see a Pentax FF, I know I'll have to wait until FF has taken a significant share of the "advanced amateur" market (ie until you can find new FF models significantly bellow the $2000 barrier) .

Maybe in 2011-2012, maybe later, maybe never...

[falconeye]

Yes, in Europe they are forbidden.

No, it is not. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written what I did. I am from Europe too.

Read here:
Richtlinie 2002/95/EG (RoHS) ? Wikipedia
Exception #13:

Blei und Cadmium in optischen Gläsern und Glasfiltern.

(Lead and Cadmium in optical glass and glass filters)

(The English version of this Wikipedia article didn't list the exceptions, or I didn't see them at first glimpse).

So, lead glass is forbidden in EU, except for optical glass.


That lenses with lead glass are forbidden in Europe has become a common "Urban Legend" by now

[*isteve]

Thank you for these clarifications Steve.

So I think we do agree that the #1 factor in choosing not to go FF is good sound economics and not the necessity (which I don't discuss) to redesign lenses.

Again, I am convinced that Pentax made the right choice by privileging MF to FF: MF has always been their foothold on the pro market and I can definitely see a, small but lucrative, market in this direction.

Yes we agree and I think we always have

No point in putting large resources towards conquering 3-5% of 5% of the current DSLR
market, better concentrate on the main 95%.

Yes we agree again, and I think we always have

As much as I would like to see a Pentax FF, I know I'll have to wait until FF has taken a significant share of the "advanced amateur" market (ie until you can find new FF models significantly bellow the $2000 barrier) .

Maybe in 2011-2012, maybe later, maybe never...

I understand your desire, but if I were Nikon or Canon I would see many good economic reasons for maintaining the "premium" status of FF cameras (and lenses). If I dont, I would have no permium product to offset all the low margin consumer stuff and provide a platform for new investment in new technology.

I know why Pentax went a grade higher, think about it and its obvious.

[deejjjaaaa]

More expensive cameras are sold to well heeled amateurs than working pros anyway. It doesn't change the message.

which message ? yours "This is pro territory" ?

[mickey]

Another post from Ned.
He's hinting at comparing this old shot of the Beatles with something coming in the future...
NED BUNNELL: Beatles Pentax Photo

Any ideas??

[Blue]

Another post from Ned.
He's hinting at comparing this old shot of the Beatles with something coming in the future...
NED BUNNELL: Beatles Pentax Photo

Any ideas??

Pentax is going to release a digital camera with ttl metering? A digital Spotmatic or SV?

[KungPOW]

I've posted this on two other threads. But with all the thread overlap on the topic of this camera, I figured why stop at just two!

What if Ned wants us to notice the external light meter.

What if the "eye" on the K-7 is neither a white balance sensor of an AF assist light.

What if it is a light meter that works with the TTL meter system to allow the camera to automatically adjust exposure comp?

It senses the scene before it is bright, and it adds ex comp to the the settings the TTL meter comes up with.

Or it "sees" the scene is dark and it adds some neg exp comp.

Just like the "eye" on the light meter on top of the SV (Photo in Ned's blog), it is an "eye" that helps adjust exposure.

Could the "neat thing about the camera" is this hybrid exposure system?

After all, the eyes are windows to the soul.

______________

To the admins: Sorry about the multiple posts.