[KungPOW]

Yes I have. Not that has anything to do with the price of tea. Film comes in many sizes.

Big fan of the Pen F are you?

Olympus Pen F

[DAP]

clearly you've never shot film

Wow...that came off as more than a bit smug.

I shoot film exclusively and, much like KonraDarnok, I personally don't understand the obsession w/ "full frame" digital cameras.

[Gooshin]

Wow...that came off as more than a bit smug.

I shoot film exclusively and, much like KonraDarnok, I personally don't understand the obsession w/ "full frame" digital cameras.

after F5.6 the differences start to get muddled and i guess there is no difference, so perhaps you simply dont shoot in that style, going for shallow depth of field and the perspective of standing close to your subject, in which case its clear that you wouldn't understand, since you just never needed that little extra.

[DAP]

after F5.6 the differences start to get muddled and i guess there is no difference, so perhaps you simply dont shoot in that style, going for shallow depth of field and the perspective of standing close to your subject, in which case its clear that you wouldn't understand, since you just never needed that little extra.

Yeah...that must be it.

[creampuff]

What's with the FF Postings - why is this discussion even in the "Pentax News and Rumors forum"?

I really do wish the moderators can be more active in moving off topic posts to the appropriate forum. :ugh:

The phrase "asleep on the wheel" comes to mind...

[jay]

after F5.6 the differences start to get muddled and i guess there is no difference, so perhaps you simply dont shoot in that style, going for shallow depth of field and the perspective of standing close to your subject, in which case its clear that you wouldn't understand, since you just never needed that little extra.

Buy faster glass and STFU.

FF fanboys on these forums don't seem to get it. I see things like, "well, I want FF so my lenses perform at their real focal lengths"

What does that even mean?

Pull out an 80mm f/2.0 lens for you mystical FF Pentax and I could just as easily say, "oh, that's not the REAL focal length. You need to shoot with my Mamiya 645 with my 80/1.9."

The focal length is the intrinsic characteristic of a lens. it doesn't matter what sort of insignificant size you crop the image circle to -- FF, APS-C, super-16... who cares.

There's nothing inherently wrong with full-frame (nor MF or LF, for that matter). If all of your lenses are full-frame, and you're comfortable with the weight of those lenses, their image quality, and focal lengths -- great.

But none of the FF advocates have addressed any concerns about lens availability. They spend all their time arguing that they need less depth, or they need better IQ (We'll see how good the 5D mk II looks against a fine-tuned K-7 when it comes out...), but no one has explained to me which lenses they plan on using with this mystical FF camera.

Pentax doesn't have any glass in production that meets these requirements. You can't go out and buy a mystical "16-35 f/2.8 SDM" like you can with Canon or Nikon to use as your ultra wide -- Pentax just doesn't make it; they never have. They don't make a 70-200/2.8, a 300/2.8, or a 400/2.8. Yes, they used to make AF versions of the teles, their AF is slow, and they're extremely hard to come by these days. And they're outrageously expensive.

Not to mention, a Pentax FF body would cost more than $2,000 USD. And again, the widest usable pro zoom you'd have available is a 24-70 f/2.8 -- with screw-drive AF. You wouldn't have SDM on *any* of your lenses. Nor would you have the water sealing.

...These were great lenses, but they're old dinosaurs. I was playing with my dad's 50-135 -- and I'm planning on ordering a 60-250 -- and it was awesome. When I look into the viewfinder, it reminds me of my old Canon 1-series film camera with a 70-200. Except, with my K10D, it was much much lighter and compact.

And I'm comparing that to my imagination of a Pentax FF camera with a big old clunky FA* 80-200, with that loud AF drive. The weight. The size of the whole package. Icky!

It just seems absolutely ridiculous that there's a single person out there who would really shell out all that dough for a few less centimeters (yes... centimeters) of depth.

And! If you do have the dough, why not advocate for the speedy release of the Pentax 645D? I see that as Pentax's answer to the full-frame question. You all should be running your mouth in a "645D Requests" thread, and hopefully Pentax will integrate some of your ideas into their product. Start with this one:

-Design K-mount adapter allowing the use of full-frame and crop-frame lenses, in addition to the 645 lenses, on the camera in crop mode

"But that costs too much money." I can hear it now. Consumer cameras are out of the question. APS-C isn't good enough, MF is too good. So Pentax -- wiith all their market reach and huge stockpiles of capital laying around -- should introduce a FOURTH camera line. And, I'm assuming you all expect another line of lenses?

I can hear the responses now. "Yeah, but sometimes that's what you need to make the perfect image."

Sure. But, if you're so critical of your photography, I'm sure you spend days in post production examining every pixel to make sure it's perfect. If you need even less depth, just rotoscope it in photoshop.

Or buy faster glass.

Or buy a nice Nikon.

[*isteve]

But thats cheating

Sure. But, if you're so critical of your photography, I'm sure you spend days in post production examining every pixel to make sure it's perfect. If you need even less depth, just rotoscope it in photoshop.

[Gooshin]

Buy faster glass and STFU.

FF fanboys on these forums don't seem to get it. .

first of all, you're an idiot.

second of all, i'm not a fanboy, i have both a pentax K20D and a pentax MZ-S, i use both, successuflly, depending on the situation.

I see things like, "well, I want FF so my lenses perform at their real focal lengths"

What does that even mean?.

*looks around*, where did you hear me say that?

Pull out an 80mm f/2.0 lens for you mystical FF Pentax and I could just as easily say, "oh, that's not the REAL focal length. You need to shoot with my Mamiya 645 with my 80/1.9."

my FF pentax is not mystical... here is a picture...

The focal length is the intrinsic characteristic of a lens. it doesn't matter what sort of insignificant size you crop the image circle to -- FF, APS-C, super-16... who cares.

you are only correct if you talk about focal length, and nothing else, and completly disregard the final result, which is the image, which will have a different look to it when used on different bodies

here is a picture, since maybe words dont work on you that well (depth of field numbers for illustrative purposes only)

There's nothing inherently wrong with full-frame (nor MF or LF, for that matter). If all of your lenses are full-frame, and you're comfortable with the weight of those lenses, their image quality, and focal lengths -- great.

ever hold a takumar in your hand...... you're a joke, stop talking.

But none of the FF advocates have addressed any concerns about lens availability. They spend all their time arguing that they need less depth, or they need better IQ (We'll see how good the 5D mk II looks against a fine-tuned K-7 when it comes out...), but no one has explained to me which lenses they plan on using with this mystical FF camera.

*looks around again*, where did you see me talk about more IQ? I think you have me confused with someone else.

as to which lenses i plan to use, well "I" plan to use my FA lenses, also my takumar lenses, also i had an inkling to the Ziess pieces as well.

Pentax doesn't have any glass in production that meets these requirements. You can't go out and buy a mystical "16-35 f/2.8 SDM" like you can with Canon or Nikon to use as your ultra wide -- Pentax just doesn't make it; they never have. They don't make a 70-200/2.8, a 300/2.8, or a 400/2.8. Yes, they used to make AF versions of the teles, their AF is slow, and they're extremely hard to come by these days. And they're outrageously expensive.

okay so what are you tring to say about the 16-35, pentax doesnt have an equivalent now anyway, i dont follow? thats one.

pentax has always had the FA line, its not like the plans for these lenses magically went POOF, thats two

AFAIK all "DA" lenses above a certain focal length and aperture cover a FF circle, even the DA40, to my surpise. thats three.

so really, what are you saying? (dont answer)

Not to mention, a Pentax FF body would cost more than $2,000 USD. And again, the widest usable pro zoom you'd have available is a 24-70 f/2.8 -- with screw-drive AF. You wouldn't have SDM on *any* of your lenses. Nor would you have the water sealing.

...These were great lenses, but they're old dinosaurs. I was playing with my dad's 50-135 -- and I'm planning on ordering a 60-250 -- and it was awesome. When I look into the viewfinder, it reminds me of my old Canon 1-series film camera with a 70-200. Except, with my K10D, it was much much lighter and compact.

And I'm comparing that to my imagination of a Pentax FF camera with a big old clunky FA* 80-200, with that loud AF drive. The weight. The size of the whole package. Icky!
.

dinasours! HA.

clunky, icky, love your adjectives!

also 2000 bucks for a piece of professional photo gear is not that expensive....

It just seems absolutely ridiculous that there's a single person out there who would really shell out all that dough for a few less centimeters (yes... centimeters) of depth.
.

centimeters ehh, you are right, centimeters, you know how many centimeres are in a meter.... right?

Online Depth of Field Calculator

do a subject distance of 15 feet, 35mm on digital F2.8, and 50mm on film F2.8

it is centimeters.. alot of them, and "numbers" dont even begin to explain the difference that you see on the final image.

And! If you do have the dough, why not advocate for the speedy release of the Pentax 645D? I see that as Pentax's answer to the full-frame question. You all should be running your mouth in a "645D Requests" thread, and hopefully Pentax will integrate some of your ideas into their product. Start with this one.

are you blind, the forum is filled with 645 D speculations.

. But, if you're so critical of your photography, I'm sure you spend days in post production examining every pixel to make sure it's perfect. If you need even less depth, just rotoscope it in photoshop.

Or buy faster glass.

Or buy a nice Nikon.

everyone else did it, hell, even sony, why not pentax.


and also, once again, why are you ranting at me, are you angry that i see the merits of owning a FF digital pentax, and you dont?

welcome to the forums, "Jay", i'll give you a digital pat on the back if you stay around past June.

[stevebrot]

Buy faster glass and STFU...

FF fanboys on these forums don't seem to get it...


...Or buy a nice Nikon.

1. Ummm...I think you are the one being verbose
2. The way I see it, the "APS-C is all you need" fanboys have their heads up their ____ (fill in blanks). Somehow, there is the perception that development of a FF Pentax camera would disenfranchise them is some way. Fragile egos I guess...
3. Nikon might be the way to go. Several highly talented forum members have already moved to that camp.

Steve

BTW...In case you did not notice...your Pentax dSLR (pick a model, any model) IS both oversize and overweight. Lighter and smaller than some of the competition, but huge and heavy none-the-less. If you want small/light, go 4/3rds...

(My last post in this highly humorous thread...)

[stevebrot]

welcome to the forums, "Jay", i'll give you a digital pat on the back if you stay around past June.

GOOSHIN! And after I gave you a good word! On the other hand, it is sort of humorous to be lectured by a "junior" member*...

I could not help but notice that my FF camera (Ricoh XR7) is half the size of yours...just a hair larger than an MX...

Steve

(Ok...could not resist another post...I am really through now...honestly...)

* "Jay" had less than 50 posts at the time of this interaction...everyone knows that you don't have any smarts until you get around the 200 mark...

[robgo2]

I`d take good iso 3200 performance over built in SR any day.

Unless i specifically want to shoot flowing water handheld, which i dont think is a good idea anyway ( tripods rule )

Not me. SR is something I need almost every time I shoot. ISO 3200 I need only rarely. Of course you can get image stabilized lenses for FF cameras, but you will pay through the nose. Life is full of trade-offs.

Rob

[lol101]

Not me. SR is something I need almost every time I shoot. ISO 3200 I need only rarely. Of course you can get image stabilized lenses for FF cameras, but you will pay through the nose. Life is full of trade-offs.

Rob

Genuine question: could you give examples of what kind of subjects you shoot that requires SR so often?

[slrl0ver]

Based on my understanding, I'd like to chime in my $0.02 on FF and why I would like to see a Pentax FF.

1. The trend is bigger sensor, lower noise. 5D MK.2 has wonderful low-noise performance, at any ISO. You can claim its all image processing, but more surface area for light == higher Signal-to-Noise ratio.

This is really king for me.

1a. Physically larger sensor could POTENTIALLY mean lower thermal contributions to noise by larger surface area to dissipate power. This could be offset by any number of things (more switching circuits, more power consumption, etc) so it's not a clear winner.

Reduction in thermal noise contributions would immensely help long exposures.

2. WA vs. telephoto & DOF issues are "complex".

This might boil down to a comfort issue. If you have 35 mm equivalency and familiarity, you know what to expect from your existing glass, you know how the picture will turn out, or what settings to use for the desired result. Moving to a FOV-crop (and using the same lenses) requires a mindset change that some are not as comfortable making.

3. High-quality lenses (especially primes) that already exist and perform well for 35 mm should do equally well on a FF camera body. Software-based vignette correction should deal with the light drop off that tends to be more visible with FF.

In keeping with the times, this kind of correction doesn't seem like cheating, I just think of it as a calibration per lens.

- slrl0ver

[falconeye]

first of all, you're an idiot.

I really liked this clear, constructive, charming and unbiased opening of your post

I am looking forward to a discussion we all can only learn from

Popcorn, more popcorn !!

[mer]

FF + F/1.2 lenses for the win !!! APS-C SUX !!!