Pentax Full Frame DSLR (Well, sort of...)

Capslock118 · 01-27-2011, 04:09 PM

hey you can probably start a business with this idea!

buy canons, dremel them, stamp a new logo "K-EOS 721" and market it as Full frame 100% Pentax compatible.

i'm sure no body would notice...

tuco · 01-27-2011, 04:27 PM

Congrats on your new camera. But smashing APS-C subject isolation against the wall is a bit extreme. I mean, lots of us have shot FF cameras long before there was digital and are familiar with the isolation difference.

721 · 01-27-2011, 06:33 PM

Thanks for the comments, everyone!

@Urkeldaedalus:

I see. Unfortunately I do not have an awful lot of time for taking pictures at the moment, but I will see what I can do.

@tuco:
Hm? I used a hyperbole as a figure of speech. Maybe I am just a bit slow right now, but I do not think I get your point.

**Ash** · 01-27-2011, 07:01 PM

Mate these are impressive, especially the A* and DA ltd stuck on the 1D!

Absolutely great results.
Pretty gutsy doing that kind of surgical intervention on that fine camera.
Thanks for sharing.

tuco · 01-27-2011, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by 721

@tuco:
Hm? I used a hyperbole as a figure of speech. Maybe I am just a bit slow right now, but I do not think I get your point.

I see. I just interpreted that you saying shallow DOF on that new camera literally and totally blows a your K-7 out of the water in obtaining thin DOF with those fast lenses. Yet I have no problem with paper thin DOF with my 85/1.4 and 50/1.2 on an APS-C and really haven't noticed a DOF difference that I would describe as phenomenal when I use those same lenses on a FF film camera.

**jimmm18** · 01-27-2011, 11:19 PM

Or use a 35mm film camera??

Originally posted by 721

That is exactly what I did it for, in order to achieve shallow depth of field. Larger sensor means wider angle of view means I can get closer to the subject or use a longer focal lenght for the same framing means less depth of field.

To pull off a comparable shot (perspective, framing and depth of field) to the Aprilia one with a Pentax crop DSLR, one would need something like a 55mm/0.95 lens - preferably one that has the wide open performance of the A*85. For the second shot one would need something around 35mm/0.8. I imagine one might have some difficulties finding such lenses...

anthers · 01-28-2011, 12:12 AM

Hey that's pretty cool! Sounds like a fun project, maybe when the 1Ds is a little cheaper I might try that for myself.

RioRico · 01-28-2011, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus

I know a way I can get a pretty cheap Canon 5D to experiment on

I suppose the HOW and WHERE is a trade secret?

721 · 01-28-2011, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by tuco

I see. I just interpreted that you saying shallow DOF on that new camera literally and totally blows a your K-7 out of the water in obtaining thin DOF with those fast lenses. Yet I have no problem with paper thin DOF with my 85/1.4 and 50/1.2 on an APS-C and really haven't noticed a DOF difference that I would describe as phenomenal when I use those same lenses on a FF film camera.

I suppose there is not much sense in arguing over such elastic terms, but considering that a crop camera would have cropped any of the posted pictures to less than half of their area, I actually do find the difference quite drastic.
Whether that is necessary for one's style of shooting is a whole different question, of course. Say, for close-ups I have been (and still am) pretty happy with what my crop cameras produce(d), but not so much once I wanted to include more of the surroundings.

Originally posted by jimmm18

Or use a 35mm film camera??

Hm yeah, good point. But that would have been too easy. Plus, it would not be digital. Plus, I could not brag here about probably having the first 135 DSLR that can mount Pentax-K lenses

(Well, okay, apart from that MZ-D prototype).

rob1234 · 01-28-2011, 11:52 AM

Ballsy!

The obvious solution would have been:

But God only knows how much that little combo would set you back!

721 · 01-28-2011, 02:23 PM

The lens alone would cost me quite a bit more than my whole A*85+1Ds combo, even when buying a used one.

But yes, the 85L is one of the few Canon lenses that I really want to try out some day. Helluva lens. Although, according to 16-9.net, the A*85 is by no means worse, rather just the opposite. It is just not f/1.2. But then again, it is smaller and lighter, does not have that weird focus-by-wire-stuff for manual focusing and its lens coating seems to look better.

Urkeldaedalus · 01-28-2011, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

I suppose the HOW and WHERE is a trade secret?

Haha, no secret. A guy I'm doing wedding second shooting for already has his Canon Mrk IV and 5D Mrk2 so he may be looking to sell his 5D.

721 · 01-29-2011, 03:59 PM

One more for Urkeldaedalus:

SMC 30mm/2.8 @ f/16

Steve Beswick · 01-29-2011, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by 721

... but considering that a crop camera would have cropped any of the posted pictures to less than half of their area, ...

You might want to double check your math. The correct amount is two-thirds.

721 · 01-29-2011, 04:37 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Steve Beswick

You might want to double check your math. The correct amount is two-thirds.

?
I object!

1/1.5² = 1/2.25

The edge lenght or diagonal is 2/3, but the area is 1/2.25 which is less than 1/2.

01-27-2011, 04:27 PM	#17
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Congrats on your new camera. But smashing APS-C subject isolation against the wall is a bit extreme. I mean, lots of us have shot FF cameras long before there was digital and are familiar with the isolation difference. Last edited by tuco; 01-27-2011 at 04:50 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
No Pentax Full Frame DSLR, What to Do Now Then?	RiceHigh	Pentax DSLR Discussion	95	07-19-2014 10:57 AM
Why doesn't Pentax develop full frame DSLR?	fast_boat	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	12-11-2008 08:46 PM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning!	RiceHigh	Pentax News and Rumors	78	08-04-2008 06:18 PM
Full Frame Pentax DSLR	Wheatfield	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	07-21-2008 06:43 PM
So It's True....a Full-Frame 'Professional' Samsung Dslr Coming !!!!	Confused	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	05-02-2008 04:12 PM

01-27-2011, 04:09 PM	#16
Capslock118 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Haven, CT Photos: Gallery Posts: 173	hey you can probably start a business with this idea! buy canons, dremel them, stamp a new logo "K-EOS 721" and market it as Full frame 100% Pentax compatible. i'm sure no body would notice...

01-27-2011, 06:33 PM	#18
721 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 56 Original Poster	Thanks for the comments, everyone! @Urkeldaedalus: I see. Unfortunately I do not have an awful lot of time for taking pictures at the moment, but I will see what I can do. @tuco: Hm? I used a hyperbole as a figure of speech. Maybe I am just a bit slow right now, but I do not think I get your point.

01-27-2011, 07:01 PM	#19
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Mate these are impressive, especially the A* and DA ltd stuck on the 1D! Absolutely great results. Pretty gutsy doing that kind of surgical intervention on that fine camera. Thanks for sharing.

01-27-2011, 08:49 PM	#20
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by 721 @tuco: Hm? I used a hyperbole as a figure of speech. Maybe I am just a bit slow right now, but I do not think I get your point. I see. I just interpreted that you saying shallow DOF on that new camera literally and totally blows a your K-7 out of the water in obtaining thin DOF with those fast lenses. Yet I have no problem with paper thin DOF with my 85/1.4 and 50/1.2 on an APS-C and really haven't noticed a DOF difference that I would describe as phenomenal when I use those same lenses on a FF film camera.

01-27-2011, 11:19 PM	#21
jimmm18 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: San Francisco Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 291	Or use a 35mm film camera?? Originally posted by 721 That is exactly what I did it for, in order to achieve shallow depth of field. Larger sensor means wider angle of view means I can get closer to the subject or use a longer focal lenght for the same framing means less depth of field. To pull off a comparable shot (perspective, framing and depth of field) to the Aprilia one with a Pentax crop DSLR, one would need something like a 55mm/0.95 lens - preferably one that has the wide open performance of the A*85. For the second shot one would need something around 35mm/0.8. I imagine one might have some difficulties finding such lenses...

01-28-2011, 12:12 AM	#22
anthers Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: California Photos: Albums Posts: 125	Hey that's pretty cool! Sounds like a fun project, maybe when the 1Ds is a little cheaper I might try that for myself.

01-28-2011, 12:23 AM	#23
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus I know a way I can get a pretty cheap Canon 5D to experiment on I suppose the HOW and WHERE is a trade secret?

01-28-2011, 07:14 AM	#24
721 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 56 Original Poster	Originally posted by tuco I see. I just interpreted that you saying shallow DOF on that new camera literally and totally blows a your K-7 out of the water in obtaining thin DOF with those fast lenses. Yet I have no problem with paper thin DOF with my 85/1.4 and 50/1.2 on an APS-C and really haven't noticed a DOF difference that I would describe as phenomenal when I use those same lenses on a FF film camera. I suppose there is not much sense in arguing over such elastic terms, but considering that a crop camera would have cropped any of the posted pictures to less than half of their area, I actually do find the difference quite drastic. Whether that is necessary for one's style of shooting is a whole different question, of course. Say, for close-ups I have been (and still am) pretty happy with what my crop cameras produce(d), but not so much once I wanted to include more of the surroundings. Originally posted by jimmm18 Or use a 35mm film camera?? Hm yeah, good point. But that would have been too easy. Plus, it would not be digital. Plus, I could not brag here about probably having the first 135 DSLR that can mount Pentax-K lenses (Well, okay, apart from that MZ-D prototype).

01-28-2011, 11:52 AM	#25
rob1234 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire Photos: Albums Posts: 1,760	Ballsy! The obvious solution would have been: But God only knows how much that little combo would set you back!

01-28-2011, 02:23 PM	#26
721 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 56 Original Poster	The lens alone would cost me quite a bit more than my whole A85+1Ds combo, even when buying a used one. But yes, the 85L is one of the few Canon lenses that I really want to try out some day. Helluva lens. Although, according to 16-9.net, the A85 is by no means worse, rather just the opposite. It is just not f/1.2. But then again, it is smaller and lighter, does not have that weird focus-by-wire-stuff for manual focusing and its lens coating seems to look better.

01-28-2011, 03:37 PM	#27
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Originally posted by RioRico I suppose the HOW and WHERE is a trade secret? Haha, no secret. A guy I'm doing wedding second shooting for already has his Canon Mrk IV and 5D Mrk2 so he may be looking to sell his 5D.

01-29-2011, 03:59 PM	#28
721 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 56 Original Poster	One more for Urkeldaedalus: SMC 30mm/2.8 @ f/16

01-29-2011, 04:26 PM	#29
Steve Beswick Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ontario, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,736	Originally posted by 721 ... but considering that a crop camera would have cropped any of the posted pictures to less than half of their area, ... You might want to double check your math. The correct amount is two-thirds.

01-29-2011, 04:37 PM - 1 Like	#30
721 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 56 Original Poster	Originally posted by Steve Beswick You might want to double check your math. The correct amount is two-thirds. ? I object! 1/1.5² = 1/2.25 The edge lenght or diagonal is 2/3, but the area is 1/2.25 which is less than 1/2.