[TaoMaas]

Got a spare $300 million?

Will you take a check?

[eddie1960]

Will you take a check?

What kind of rubber is it made from

[Aristophanes]

Well, if that's true, then it would also be true of Minolta legacy glass, right? I, for one, am doing exactly what you think folks won't do because I think you're wrong about how some of these older lenses will perform. Sure...they all may not make the cut, but I'm thinkin' a lot of what I have will far out-resolve any display media I'm likely to use. Also...if I buy a FF camera, I won't be shopping for a 24-70/2.8 zoom, so you can stop padding your guess. lol

Fair enough.

But Minolta (like Canon) cut off a foot to move to AF when they dropped their manual focus Rokkor mount for the current A-Mount. But that was in the 1980's. Lost me as a customer. I went to Nikon. Still, Minolta easily held onto 3rd place in SLR sales, and for awhile was pretty much outselling Nikon.

If your photos are likely to outresolve your media for viewing, you do not need FF, unless you are the King of Cropping.

Pentax FF will require something like a 24-70/2.8, and likely a 28-xxx/3.5/4.8 for the prosumer crowd. This will NOT be cheap glass.

FF only makes sense for Pentax is new glass is also purchased. If it's as much for legacy glass, it's a dead idea.

The idea of Pentax 14-24 and 24-70 lenses with in-camera SR and a 24MP FF sensor makes me shake all over. However, such a combo is an arrow straight from the quiver aimed at the 645D.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Please show me proof that a LOT of the old manual K/M/A focus glass will struggle on FF. I've put emphasis on the word " LOT" as I don't accept a single example from the M85/2 to prove your point, or shots from $5 no-name lenses off eBay.

Nah! I'll just quote Pentax USA's Ned Bunnell. I think he knows more than you, for sure:

NED BUNNELL: April 2009

Anyone that is currently using a full frame sensor 35mm camera knows that they exact a high price in terms of the lenses that perform acceptably. Many lenses originally designed for film fall short in terms of distortion control and edge-to-edge sharpness when used with a full frame sensor. I have a good friend who currently shoots high-end weddings in Southern California with a 5D. While he loves the fact he can now use his wide angle lenses, he has quite a few lenses he's shot with for years that he can no longer use.

In our case, if we developed a full frame camera, it's likely that very few of our recent DA lenses (those designed for APS-C) would be able to properly fill the viewing area of this new sensor. And although we have some wonderful FA lenses, like my favorite FA 31mm Limited, I'm not sure even this lens would be up to the optical challenge.

I know that our engineers have studied these issues and would probably not agree totally with my simplistic explanation. However, I think it's important to understand that going to a full frame sensor means not only having to design a brand new camera from ground up, but likely a new line of lenses that meet the more demanding optical requirements.[my emphasis]

It's clear that there is a place for full frame cameras, but it currently is a small part of the overall SLR market. Due to the total cost of ownership and increased demands shooting with full frame images, the majority of cameras sold will still use APS-C, 4/3rds type sensors.

Despite some of our desires to always want newer, faster, better technology, I'm not sure that many of us would see a dramatic improvement in our photography if we were given a full frame sensor camera. Personally, I think we've hit the sweet spot with APS-C sensor cameras today. 12-15 megapixels is more than adequate for even your most demanding assignments, we've got far better control of noise, frame rates and processing speeds are sufficient for the majority of work advanced or serious photographers need and all of this is available at very reasonable price points, regardless of your choice of brand.

For people who use center AF and crop for composition in post the performance of the older glass will be just as good as it is on APS-C.

Agreed. But you just shrunk the market even more, which is exactly the point Ned makes above. The market will not contort itself to one person's shooting style. (Unless you are Cartier-Bresson...but he's dead).

My 2 bits about old glass is the weakness of WA lenses and flare control with digital sensors. There's precious little WA old Pentax glass as is compared to other brands.

I don't accept a single example from the M85/2 to prove your point,

What? I love my 85/2, but it absolutely requires a hood.

Then highest resolving lens I own is the A 50/2.8 macro. I'm not against old glass, but I see limits in it being used to justify a $3,000 FF DSLR expenditure for me personally, much less as an investment justification for Pentax. They will need to sell, and you will need to buy, a LOT of new FF glass to make the system fly.

[RonHendriks1966]

Nah! I'll just quote Pentax USA's Ned Bunnell. I think he knows more than you, for sure:

NED BUNNELL: April 2009

Anyone that is currently using a full frame sensor 35mm camera knows that they exact a high price in terms of the lenses that perform acceptably. Many lenses originally designed for film fall short in terms of distortion control and edge-to-edge sharpness when used with a full frame sensor. I have a good friend who currently shoots high-end weddings in Southern California with a 5D. While he loves the fact he can now use his wide angle lenses, he has quite a few lenses he's shot with for years that he can no longer use.

In our case, if we developed a full frame camera, it's likely that very few of our recent DA lenses (those designed for APS-C) would be able to properly fill the viewing area of this new sensor. And although we have some wonderful FA lenses, like my favorite FA 31mm Limited, I'm not sure even this lens would be up to the optical challenge.

I know that our engineers have studied these issues and would probably not agree totally with my simplistic explanation. However, I think it's important to understand that going to a full frame sensor means not only having to design a brand new camera from ground up, but likely a new line of lenses that meet the more demanding optical requirements.[my emphasis]

It's clear that there is a place for full frame cameras, but it currently is a small part of the overall SLR market. Due to the total cost of ownership and increased demands shooting with full frame images, the majority of cameras sold will still use APS-C, 4/3rds type sensors.

Despite some of our desires to always want newer, faster, better technology, I'm not sure that many of us would see a dramatic improvement in our photography if we were given a full frame sensor camera. Personally, I think we've hit the sweet spot with APS-C sensor cameras today. 12-15 megapixels is more than adequate for even your most demanding assignments, we've got far better control of noise, frame rates and processing speeds are sufficient for the majority of work advanced or serious photographers need and all of this is available at very reasonable price points, regardless of your choice of brand.

Then again, we are now almost 3 years on the road. That sensor he is talking about is now considdered outdated and not good enough anymore.

The things he saiys convince me even more that keeping Pentax "on a budget" and moving forward the APS-H is still a very good move to do.

Only old lens I use is FA*85mm/f1.4 and lucky me, it is still holding its ground!


Should Pentax think of making a mission statement and move the company from that new startingpoint in the future?

I would think that having a direction to move in makes it easier to bring your brand in a place of recognition. The outdoors- and adventures camerabrand is the thing coming to my mind.

[eddie1960]

They will have to draw new users to the brand as well. those new users need glass as they won't be sitting on old glass. I have seen som pretty nice examples BTW of old tak performance on FF like 5d (and seen some very good video shot on 5d mk Ii with old taks. given these are the oldest designs in pentax's stable i don't think they will be unusable
to quote cartier bresson sharpness is a bourgeois concept
Point being not everyone pixel peeps as it is only one aspect of photography
I certainly don't need FF to get my shots and with 13 cameras at the moment i don't even need another camera. for thinner DOF i can go to my medium format or shoot on a 35mm film body
But if I had a FF body It would get a lot of use (more than the Film cameras do certainly and more than most of my digital)
it is tempting to just pick up an old used 5D (there's one in the marketplace right now) and just use it with old tak, but in reality then i would spend mony on another apsc upgrade as well. I'd rather just buy the one at about the same cost

[eddie1960]

I will also point out that Ned is a company man and will support whatever the company line is and find a way to justify it. It's his job. when he wrote that there wasn't much prospect of a FF line coming out Hoya having the company in shrink/rationalization mode. Times have changed. New owner, company in better shape and a different marketplace to some degree. Time will tell but I think FF is on the horizon (hopefully in 2012 but if not then 2013 i would think)

[maxfield_photo]

Pentax FF will require something like a 24-70/2.8, and likely a 28-xxx/3.5/4.8 for the prosumer crowd. This will NOT be cheap glass.

They need this regardless. If you're a Pentax user, what do you replace your kit 18-55 with? The DA*16-50? That thing doesn't deserve the star in it's name. The center is sharp, but the corners are mush at 2.8, vignetting is bad, and CA is through the roof. At least a FF 24-70 would throw a 35mm image circle and be useful for APS-C shooting while we wait for our full frame body.

[eddie1960]

I bought my 24-70 from sigma partially because i couldn't get a Pentax. I'd like to upgrade it actually to a newer model at some point with sdm/hsm so it would be nice to see one appear from Pentax (like a DFA 24-70 2.8 wr for instance)

[Aristophanes]

to quote cartier bresson sharpness is a bourgeois concept

I did not quote him. I said he's dead.

at the moment i don't even need another camera

Yes, you do.

I will also point out that Ned is a company man and will support whatever the company line is and find a way to justify it. It's his job. when he wrote that there wasn't much prospect of a FF line coming out Hoya having the company in shrink/rationalization mode. Times have changed. New owner, company in better shape and a different marketplace to some degree. Time will tell but I think FF is on the horizon (hopefully in 2012 but if not then 2013 i would think)

The economic case for FF has gotten worse, not better, IMO. Substantially worse. The market for discretionary consumer items is extremely price-sensitive right now. The Yen is ridiculously high. Export markets are in poor shape. Consumers are wary. Credit is scarce even while the cost of credit is low.

while we wait for our full frame body

No one will move until we see what Sony has for the market in 2012, and what the price of the Nikon D800 is. It's all going to revolve around the price of the FF sensor.

That fountain of objectivity and camera knowledge flatulence, Ken Rockwell (whose unabashed love for his family is nevertheless endearing):

October 31

Boo!

What's my costume?

The Invisible Man, of course!

The scariest thought is that maybe Nikon really is letting FX digital die. They've had no completely new FX cameras since 2008, and clearly DX works great and gets better all the time. There isn't much money in pro gear or FX compared to the mass-markets of DX, so maybe that's it for Nikon FX cameras. We'll see.

Ken Rockwell's Photography Updates

The Sendai earthquake and now the Thailand flooding have hammered Nikon, in all fairness.

[eddie1960]

the last line you wrote is the true issue. Nikon has had a horrible year due to natural disasters
Canon Ff has benefited from it all year. If you wanted FF and didn't want to wait an indeterminate time you bought canon. Nikon stock has been spotty, Sony a little better but really if i had to choose the D700 kills the Sony so does the canon in many ways. functionally of the 3 the only one i like the feel of and operation on is the Nikon. Teh sony isn't bad though (certainly not as annoying as I found the Maxxums in film days - the older Minolta though was very nice product.
I've pretty much always been a Pentax or Nikon guy though, and it's surprising how well both adapt to my style.
if i really decide i need FF and Pentax doesn't come along with one I'll likely end up selling off all my Pentax gear just to get started which would be sad for me since i really do like it

[RuiC]

.....

Ned Bunnell April 2009

I know that our engineers have studied these issues and would probably not agree totally with my simplistic explanation. However, ...

I love this paragraph!! It's time now to show some work done.

[Ash]

The FA 31 not optically good enough for FF?
Wasn't it, along with all the other FA and previous lenses, designed for 35mm film?
I'm sure there are fine examples of the FA limiteds on FF cameras, and even a recent thread I recall of FA limiteds performing well on a 5D.
Anyway, I'm sure Pentax are thinking of all this in their camera designs.

[deadwolfbones]

Aristophanes, I'll just note that the sensor used in the D700 makes most lenses I put on it look better, not worse, than they do on DX sensors.

[Emacs]

The FA 31 not optically good enough for FF?

I guess such a BS was introduced some time ago (before the D3 release) by nikon marketing services in order to explain why they don't have FF camera but Canon does.
The reality is lenses performs better on FF.

[jsherman999]

I will also point out that Ned is a company man and will support whatever the company line is and find a way to justify it. It's his job. when he wrote that there wasn't much prospect of a FF line coming out Hoya having the company in shrink/rationalization mode. Times have changed. New owner, company in better shape and a different marketplace to some degree. Time will tell but I think FF is on the horizon (hopefully in 2012 but if not then 2013 i would think)

Exactly - that interview and another one has been discussed quite a bit.

Basically he's speaking from the standpoint of a guy who 1) heads up the American side of a company that has no full frame product, and 2) wants to sell as many new lenses as possible.

Ask ourselves this: what would you expect Ned to say about Full Frame, especially in 2009? : That it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and folks should really check out that D700? That most old lenses are actually very good, good enough for 98% of shooters, and there's no-need to require new DA lenses?

.