[Zygonyx]

Well, take any 12 Mpix FF and you should be OK

[thibs]

55-300 is no way FF AFAIK

[Winder]

Which ones are these? I will verify and remove them from the list. (I am assuming you are talking excessive about vignetting, and not just poor corner resolution before stopping down, plenty of lenses have the latter and still sell for their respective formats)

I think people will be disappointed in the performance of of most of those lenses on a FF. If you are composing by rule of thirds or simply off setting the subject on a FF you a basically putting the subject into a soft area of the lens. They only way most of these lenses work well is to only use center composition and crop in post.

There was someone on the forums complaining about how bad this outer AF points were on his K-5. Nothing was focusing sharp. It turned out his lens was the problem. It was soft everywhere but the center and it he used the outer AF points his subject was soft. Now imagine if we are taking about a FF with the AF points spread farther apart.

Most of the compact film era lenses are going to show softness, vignetting, & CA until stopped down to F/5.6 on a FF digital body. I don't think people will be happy with the results, and AF points become a separate issue.

[RXrenesis8]

55-300 is no way FF AFAIK

My two sources: (Falclumo and Ricehigh) listed it as usable so that's what I was going off of. I do not have a 55-300 to test myself.

[falconeye]

My two sources: (Falclumo and Ricehigh) listed it as usable so that's what I was going off of. I do not have a 55-300 to test myself.

I maintain the test shot thread. The result for the DA55-300 is from viking79. It receives +/++ depending on the focal length, out of +++ which would be the rating of a true FF lens. So, it was certainly reported as usable.

[_quicksilver_]

I think people will be disappointed in the performance of of most of those lenses on a FF. If you are composing by rule of thirds or simply off setting the subject on a FF you a basically putting the subject into a soft area of the lens. They only way most of these lenses work well is to only use center composition and crop in post.

Most of the compact film era lenses are going to show softness, vignetting, & CA until stopped down to F/5.6 on a FF digital body. I don't think people will be happy with the results, and AF points become a separate issue.

Where do you base this argument? Have you tested these lenses on FF digital? AFAIK, some of the lenses are stellar performers on FF when converted to EF mount.

[TomE]

No different than Nikon and Canon, where the highest end lenses work the best with FF. I expect the A*, F* and FA* lenses would be far from a disappointment with a FF Pentax digital camera.

Tom

[thibs]

I maintain the test shot thread. The result for the DA55-300 is from viking79. It receives +/++ depending on the focal length, out of +++ which would be the rating of a true FF lens. So, it was certainly reported as usable.

Very much surprised by that one. Excellent news IMO. I stand corrected.

[eddie1960]

The lens arguement is kind of moot people. do you really think Pentax would introduce a Ff without an auto crop mode like the nikon DX mode. when used on the 36mp D800 this essentially is like using a D7000 (or K5 in Pentax case) hardly a hradship and for people moving up from apsc it means they can use all their lenses while they grow their collection of FF
It's not like Pentax will write a subroutine that shuts down the camera when a DA lens is attached

unlike film days where going FF meant going medium format and requiring a whole new set of lenses this is a relatively painless move IMO, and for Pentax a good one as it will also build lens sales as well

If you don't want the FF you need not buy it of course

[angus]

I sincerely believe that most of the strong supporters of FF for Pentax are oldies like me who learnt their photography in the FF-only days. I neglect small peripheral sidesteps into MF - my first camera was a plasticky thingy with a red see-through window which took rollfilm AND bad pictures - or into smaller formats - I never went for disc or aps in those days.

Only a very small percentage of the younger and fresher-to-the-hobby photographers are likely to end up considering FF as an option - as we all know, APS-C of today - and even more so of tomorrow - will be plenty for >90% (with me >99.9%) of the possible and >99% of the real needs of a normal hobbyist. Whoever wants to be one of the "professional" crowd or needs the extra image a big camera might supply will anyway look towards CaNikon - even if the basic assumption is still right.

This leaves a very small market already heavily embattled by two major and one - in this respect - minor company, i.e. CaNikon and Sony.

I'd really like to know the percentage of upgraders for Nikon and Canon vs. people who just stop at APS-C. Basic economics says - be the first and successfully market this - you'll earn a lot - be a fast-follower and earn a bit - if you're third or even later your offer must be very special either in price (both extremes possible: super-duper luxury or cut-price) or in specifications, both mean you'll be in a niche and a niche is quickly occupied.

As late to the game as Pentax would be now, let's see: the luxury-niche is taken up by Leica and the cut-price? Not yet really taken which can only show one of two things - either it would not be profitable to go this way as the demand for sales would not support the investment or what we see in pricing is already so close to low that a new-/late-comer could also not succeed as the margins would be too low.

Ok, falconeye, I offer you a bet: If there are more FF DSLRs at photokina 2018 than APS-C or smaller format DSLRs (nothing about mirrorless) we'll meet at photokina and I will take you for dinner to Frueh! Including the necessary number of beers - if I win - you probably know the place....

[eddie1960]

while I agree a lot of the Ff noise here is older togs who started in 35mm (I'm one of them) I disagree on the younger crowd not clamouring for FF. I spent a lot of the last 6 years shooting live music events. I'm at least 15 years and mcloser to 30 years older than the majority of Music shooters I've met over the years. 6 years ago almost all of them shot apsc cameras. the last big event I did (NXNE last june which is a 5 day event) I would have put the FF crowd at about 60% of the shooters. and the other 40% all wanted a FF but hadn't made the leap yet. Number one reason is better noise (sure the K5 and D7000 and 7D were hitting FF performance but that will change with all the new FF sensors this year using the same level of tech and then the gap will exist again)
I would say about 70% of these kids are all aspiring pro's but because they are at the beginning of their career trek none of them are particularly tied to one brand. I would guess about half that number will actually make a career out of photography (once they start shooting something other than music since the same people have devalued the images in that category by giving them away)
If Pentax has a FF like Falk describes above with the F4 lenses at a greatly reduced cost compared to a D800 5DII then you will see a lot of these people opt for Pentax (as long as Pentax does some marketing to make them aware of it)

[fikkser]

Seriously. I bet 90% of you who says ff is not needed/overrated has never tried one. I use a 5d and a k5, imo the k5 gets beaten quite hard many times. 5d is super good on "mid" iso's.

Remember the 5d was released like 2005. The iq is super, it might not work very well at iso 3200 in very low light, but the k5 is very overrated in low light high iso. The 5d got "better" noise. I do not miss sr, its fine without Thanks to the normal sized camera.

The 5d gave my manual glass new life. The only old m42 i find inferior is the takumar 28 which vingettes alot.

Sorry for spelling, impossible on Phone.

[the swede]

Nope, many younger people want and do go for FF to, i know plenty of them. i know i know... the ones i talk of sure isnt many in big picture, but its real.

35mm film has nothing to do wih it IMHO. I just started with 35mm film though and im young... or i'd like to think that anyhow

[Winder]

Where do you base this argument? Have you tested these lenses on FF digital? AFAIK, some of the lenses are stellar performers on FF when converted to EF mount.

Look at how these lenses perform on APS-C sensors. Now double the size of the sensors and spread the AF points out for a FF VF. You will have really sharp centers and very poor edges.

Can you link in some pictures of some of these lenses used on and EF mount?

[Rondec]

The newest full frame sensors have pixel densities close to APS-C (at least the D800), meaning that there is no particular advantage with APS-C, except for cost. Sure corners/borders will be weaker with full frame, but there is always cropping and truthfully, for many photos corner sharpness isn't crucial. The big thing that full frame has on APS-C is fast, wide glass (no equivalents available for APS-C). Size is something I am not sure about. Could you truly fit a full frame sensor in a K5 body with adaquate specs or, is the D800 the lower end of the size spectrum?

However cost is still pretty huge. I have a hard time believing that a three thousand dollar camera is going to sell for anything close to the volumes of a thousand dollar camera (upper end APS-C). Even if the D700 stays on line for awhile at two thousand dollars a pop, it is still pretty pricey and has much less cropping ability as compared to the newer full frame cameras.

Unless someone releases a full-speced, full frame camera for a lot cheaper than current prices, I see upper end APS-C sticking around for quite awhile.