Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-29-2012, 04:07 AM   #361
gtl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 349
QuoteOriginally posted by TOUGEFC Quote
I dont know about that, but if so..... an extra 220grams in weight is still certainly worth it for a lens that lets in twice the amount of light
Well I think things have to be relative. 220g is over half the Pentax FA 24mm weight.

06-29-2012, 05:04 AM   #362
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Comparing a prime to a long zoom is silly.

The FA/24 is 405g, the FA 50/1.4 is only 220g, the 35/2 is 195g.

The FA 100-300 is 395g, but is a lot longer, for obvious reasons.

For a prime, the FA*24/2 is a large lens.

Just as a comparison, the Leica Summilux-M 24mm f/1.4 ASPH is 468g and the Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M f/ 3.4 ASPH Lens is only 285g.

Fast glass gets big and heavy faster than it attains FOV. With the Leica's lose ~ 2 stops and you lose almost half the size and mass. Now you see why high-ISO sensors are sooting a lot of problems.
Nikon come in at 620g on the 24mm 1.4, but hell it's 1.4 as well. the 24 2.8 comes in at only 270 grams and is pretty compact. both are FX. on a FF cam the 2.8 would meet most peoples needs since at 24 it's not about thin dof. the heavier one would provide subject isolation at closer quarters though (at the expense of weight)
the FA 24 looks like a good compromise in this case. still lighter and smaller than the 2.8 zooms that are ff in this range. (my sigma 24-70 comes in at 715gr. I'd rather carry the FA* any day
06-29-2012, 08:44 AM   #363
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
That's funny, I consider the FA*24 to be one of my lightest lenses. Certainly compared to my 80-200 it's small and light, but with the exception of the Limiteds, it's not very big on my K10D with attached grip.
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Nikon come in at 620g on the 24mm 1.4, but hell it's 1.4 as well. the 24 2.8 comes in at only 270 grams and is pretty compact. both are FX. on a FF cam the 2.8 would meet most peoples needs since at 24 it's not about thin dof. the heavier one would provide subject isolation at closer quarters though (at the expense of weight)
the FA 24 looks like a good compromise in this case. still lighter and smaller than the 2.8 zooms that are ff in this range. (my sigma 24-70 comes in at 715gr. I'd rather carry the FA* any day
No to be silly, but only serious………

My point was that faster and wider = bigger.

Even changing the behind the lens concept town RF = the same dynamic.

Zeiss glass has always been the heavyweight. They have no internal motors, yet have always weighed a tonne.

FF is great, but striving for a very small body when your smallest glass is going to be 400+ grams and quite bulky goes against the grain. Compact 135 cameras like the MZ-S only came out in the 1990's when colour film ISO's increased to 400 easily pushed to 800) ISO. This allowed smaller lenses with the f/3.5 becoming very common as the right compromise between DOF, speed, size, cost and design matched tot he camera.

That still exists in APS-C land as witnessed by the Pentax primes. But FF DSLR gets to be an issue because the bodies have more bulk than film cameras, and fast 2.8 constant zooms are the dominant market lenses, and they have to be large. So a larger body is necessary for balance and structural integrity and power.

It's all about compromises.
06-29-2012, 11:41 AM   #364
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
FF is great, but striving for a very small body when your smallest glass is going to be 400+ grams and quite bulky goes against the grain.
Huh?

Check out the FA 50mm f/1.4, the "DA" 40mm F/2.8, the F24-35...

there's definitely small FF glass out there, and if you don't want any faster than equivalent APS-C glass it's basically the same size; the comparisons I've made show the equivalent FF stuff is generally smaller and lighter. It's tough to make an exact comparison, though.

The market seems to like much faster equivalent glass on FF, though.

How much bigger and heavier do you think a FF 24-70 2.8 would be compared to the DA* 16-50 2.8?

There will definitely be a market for a FF f/4, if a zoom eventually becomes available... just like there's the same market for the Canon f/4. How much bigger and heavier do you think the FF 24-70 f/4 (faster on an equivalent basis) will be?


Last edited by ElJamoquio; 06-29-2012 at 11:49 AM.
06-29-2012, 12:33 PM   #365
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
How much bigger and heavier do you think a FF 24-70 2.8 would be compared to the DA* 16-50 2.8?
900g vs. 565

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens (Black) 2164

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens 21650 B&H Photo Video

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
The market seems to like much faster equivalent glass on FF, though.
Canon's EF 85's compared in price/mass:

85/1.8 = $389 @ 425g
85/1.2 = $2,049 @ 1030g

Again from B&H.
06-29-2012, 01:19 PM   #366
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
OK, and the 24-105 canon f/4 is about 670 grams + $950; and the 24-70 f/2.8 is something like 950 grams and $1900, and the 17-55 f/2.8 is 650 grams + $1100.

Advantage in speed is the FF 24-105 over APS-C and 17-55 (very slight), weight is the 17-55 (very slight), advantage in length is 24-105, advantage in price is the 24-105.

Just general rambling here. Other than the weight of the larger, brighter viewfinder, the larger files/slower FPS, and, well, just the general availability of FF lens options (only 35+ current lenses; with some major gaps in the Pentax-branded lineup), I haven't yet seen a disadvantage in FF... well, there's the initial cost, of course, which I'm guessing will be about $1k higher than the K-5 at intro.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 06-29-2012 at 01:28 PM.
06-29-2012, 01:30 PM   #367
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
OK, and the 24-105 canon f/4 is about 650 grams; and the 24-70 f/2.8 is something like 950 grams, and the 17-55 f/2.8 is 650 grams. Advantage in speed is the FF 24-105 over APS-C and 17-55 (very slight), weight is the same, advantage in length is 24-105.

Just general rambling here. Other than the weight of the larger, brighter viewfinder, the larger files/slower FPS, and, well, just the general availability of FF lens options (only 35+ current lenses; with some major gaps in the Pentax-branded lineup), I haven't yet seen a disadvantage in FF.
The argument for or against is just getting Silly

1. there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting and needing a FF
2. there are just as many perfectly valid reasons for not wanting one and using apsc (or even m 4/3) instead

that sums up the user end

the Pentax ricoh end can only adequately be answered by Pentax Ricoh but
1. FF will continue to grow and be a larger part of the market as sensor costs drop
2. Ricoh wants to grow share dramatically
3. Ricoh has said they think a 4 body DSLR line is necessary (to implement 2 I'm sure)
4 Currently we have 2 bodies. a direct replacement for 1 (the K5 ) is pretty certain in September, given #3 above a lower entry level is highly likely at the same time.....So that leaves body #4. Which could be an even more technically advanced apsc targeted at pro sport shooters (unlike due to lackof lens support) or Perhaps a FF targeted at enthusiasts that takes advantage of the same platform/features as the K5 replacement (much more likely). Pro will continue to mean Medium format in Pentax land (largely like it did for he last 40 years)
06-29-2012, 01:45 PM   #368
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
#4 body is the 645D


Last edited by TOUGEFC; 06-29-2012 at 02:26 PM.
06-29-2012, 06:28 PM   #369
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 58
I read over at the canon forums that if you drill holes in your lens housing you can eliminate up to 100 grams, 200 on the bigger lenses.
06-29-2012, 06:31 PM   #370
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
QuoteOriginally posted by TOUGEFC Quote
#4 body is the 645D
I disagree it's a wholly different category that doesn't even ruire being in the conventional market
In fact Pentax is the only player from that market now
06-30-2012, 05:42 AM   #371
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,467
QuoteOriginally posted by TOUGEFC Quote
#4 body is the 645D
Product manager specifically said at CP+ 4 dSLRs. 645D is a specialty camera.
06-30-2012, 06:07 AM   #372
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
Specialty camera or not, its still a DSLR
06-30-2012, 06:10 AM   #373
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,912
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Product manager specifically said at CP+ 4 dSLRs. 645D is a specialty camera.
It's a little hard to see how that's going to happen quickly or how 4 DSLRs can be squashed into APS-C now that the format is being challenged from above and below. Over the past year, Pentax have produced only one DSLR and it's not even out yet, the K30. Are they going to produce another three between now and the end of the year? Unlikely, at a guess. In fact since the spring, Pentax have really had only one DSLR in play, the K5. The K-r has been on end of stock or last few remaining etc around here.

Even Nikon might reduce their range of APS-C cameras, for example by letting their new 3200 occupy the old slots of both the D3000 and D5000 range or at the higher end a new D400 which does the same for the D7000 and D300s. I think we may have to wait until the end of next year before we see four Pentax DSLRs out at one time, if ever. Plans change, the market moves more quickly than was thought, etc. It could be that APS-C mirrorless will play a more important role in the Pentax line than was envisaged in 2011, for example. The K-01 is a more powerful camera than the naysayers think and a K-02 done right - with a more powerful processor driving Prime M, better autofocus, EVF options and every vestige of airport furniture designer chic removed - would be even more powerful still. I'd prefer to see that prediction as "four bodies which take the full range of K-mount lenses".
06-30-2012, 07:54 AM   #374
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
It's a little hard to see how that's going to happen quickly or how 4 DSLRs can be squashed into APS-C now that the format is being challenged from above and below.
It isn't. It is on the increase saleswise....
06-30-2012, 09:04 AM   #375
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 172
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
1. there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting and needing a FF
2. there are just as many perfectly valid reasons for not wanting one and using apsc (or even m 4/3) instead
On 2, given a FF can be cropped to give identical result to APS-C, presumably the valid reasons for wanting APS-C are size, weight and price.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cameras, dslr, frame, full-frame, pentax, pentax full frame, rumor, rumors, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 02-13-2012 10:09 AM
The full frame Pentax that never was dj_saunter Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:34 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top