[jogiba]

Does anyone think the eventual Pentax full frame will include an option that allows for using DA lenses?

The only DA lenses that don't vignette on 35mm K-mount SLRs are the DA 35/2.4 AL, DA 40/2.8 AL Limited , DA 40mm F2.8 XS , DA* 55/1.4 SDM , DA 70/2.4 Limited , DA* 200/2.8 ED [IF] SDM and DA* 300/4 ED [IF] SDM.

vjacesslav: SMC PENTAX DA 55-300MM F4-5.8 vs FULL FRAME

[RioRico]

Does anyone think the eventual Pentax full frame will include an option that allows for using DA lenses?

More likely it'll just read the lens ID and adjust automagickally. If 3rd-party makers use the wrong ID, well that's just tough patooties. I personally want to see a selectable-frame option, freer than the JPEG Recorded Pixel choices. Want to shoot 1:1, or 4:3, or 5/4; or at 3000x2000 or 3200x1800 or 5000x2500 or 5600x5600 or whatever? Done! Want vignetting with those DA lenses? Done!

I mention the various aspects and sizes because so many shooters attempt "perfect compositions" with their 3:2 cameras, then find that those won't print on available paper sizes without cropping or stretching or otherwise spoiling the 'perfection'. If you know that your shot will be displayed in certain ways, format the shot ahead of time, with the final aspect visible in the VF. Shooting portraits to be printed for an 8x10in frame? Shoot in 5:4!

Or at least project frame lines in the VF so the desired aspect can be seen and exploited. Yeah, that should be a simple FW addition: press a button to activate the selection, then spin an edial to select amongst aspects. Easy-peasy.

[les3547]

The only DA lenses that don't vignette on 35mm K-mount SLRs are the DA 35/2.4 AL, DA 40/2.8 AL Limited , DA 40mm F2.8 XS , DA* 55/1.4 SDM , DA 70/2.4 Limited , DA* 200/2.8 ED [IF] SDM and DA* 300/4 ED [IF] SDM.

vjacesslav: SMC PENTAX DA 55-300MM F4-5.8 vs FULL FRAME

What I was thinking is how, for example, Nikon's D800 has the DX mode. Couldn't the FF Pentax offer that (or wouldn't they automatically to encourage DA lens holders to buy)?

[aurele]

What I was thinking is how, for example, Nikon's D800 has the DX mode. Couldn't the FF Pentax offer that (or wouldn't they automatically to encourage DA lens holders to buy)?

it would not really cost more to implement such feature in a FF body. Because basically cropping mod is just cropping.

So there is no point of not offering this in a top notch body.

[yen800]

The only DA lenses that don't vignette on 35mm K-mount SLRs are the DA 35/2.4 AL, DA 40/2.8 AL Limited , DA 40mm F2.8 XS , DA* 55/1.4 SDM , DA 70/2.4 Limited , DA* 200/2.8 ED [IF] SDM and DA* 300/4 ED [IF] SDM.

vjacesslav: SMC PENTAX DA 55-300MM F4-5.8 vs FULL FRAME

i can say that it is not 100% true, DFA 50 F2.8, DFA100 F2.8 and DA 60-250 F4 actually don't vignet on FF

[boriscleto]

i can say that it is not 100% true, DFA 50 F2.8, DFA100 F2.8 and DA 60-250 F4 actually don't vignet on FF

But those are D FA, not DA. D FA has always been marketed as being Full Frame compatible.

[Pentaxtic]

What would be mind blowing is if they can put all the Circular polarizer, nd and graduated filter plus other filters into the camera itself so it doesn't need any Lee or Cokin filters or filter holders on the full frame camera. Just run and gun.

[Allison]

Let me clarify this before it gets any deeper. I like my Pentax system and I'm not trying to make it a Canon vs Pentax thread. I'm just trying to drive home the point that for 2500 bucks, a prosumer might not pull the trigger. AND if they did why not spend 1000 more for a better platform. It would cost literally one days shooting if your actually getting paid for your work. That's nothing.

Well, I think 2500 is a lot for a camera and I am not interested in spending an extra 1000 on top of it. And that doesn't get into the cost of lenses. Even the more expensive Pentax fa ltd lenses don't cost nearly as much as some of the canikon equivalents. Just because I shoot professionally doesn't mean I can or should spend an extra thousand dollars or more.

As to it costing one day of shooting at 2500...that is true...well, kind of. I make 2500 at a wedding, but I can only shoot so many of those a year. If I could make 2500 a day, Monday-Friday, for 45 weeks of the year I would be looking at buying a sweet collection that included a medium format, top of the line nikons and everything Pentax I could get my hands on!

I know you weren't trying to get anyone riled up, so I hope you don't take my response the wrong way. I just think there are some pros out there who appreciate a good value. I also think a FF that costs less than canikon, but offers some sweet features, would be appealing to students and those who are just beginning to be paid for work. If that market wasn't substantial, then we wouldn't be seeing all of those rumors about the D600 or the canon entry level FF.

[RioRico]

What would be mind blowing is if they can put all the Circular polarizer, nd and graduated filter plus other filters into the camera itself so it doesn't need any Lee or Cokin filters or filter holders on the full frame camera. Just run and gun.

Would be rather tough building those filters into a camera, since 1) they're hard to implement digitally (except maybe GND {*}) and 2) some need to be rotated. Something of a solution: Sigma and Fujica have made 'forensic' cameras with an easily-swapped behind-the-lens filter position. These are mostly used with spectrum-slicing optical filters, for scientific-forensic work in very narrow bits of EMF. I very nearly bought a Fujica forensic rather than my K20D -- but then I'd have been stuck using Nikon-mount lenses. But these cameras have small markets. I don't know if that provision would work with a mass-market camera.

Another think about digitally-implemented filters is that they don't really work like optical filters. Digital color filters work by mixing the outputs of the RGBG pixels. Optical filters work by blocking and passing various spectra, with various cutoff curves. If we could tune the spectral response of digital pixels, great! But we can't. That's why optical filters still have a place in digital photography.
__________________________

{*} GND: Could be built digitally by boosting sensitivity in just some pixels, not all of them. Simple ND could NOT be done digitally because pixels have a base voltage and can't go any lower. I've read of some building very slow sensors, but those are apparently not ready for prime time.

[Pentaxtic]

Would be rather tough building those filters into a camera, since 1) they're hard to implement digitally (except maybe GND {*}) and 2) some need to be rotated. Something of a solution: Sigma and Fujica have made 'forensic' cameras with an easily-swapped behind-the-lens filter position. These are mostly used with spectrum-slicing optical filters, for scientific-forensic work in very narrow bits of EMF. I very nearly bought a Fujica forensic rather than my K20D -- but then I'd have been stuck using Nikon-mount lenses. But these cameras have small markets. I don't know if that provision would work with a mass-market camera.

Another think about digitally-implemented filters is that they don't really work like optical filters. Digital color filters work by mixing the outputs of the RGBG pixels. Optical filters work by blocking and passing various spectra, with various cutoff curves. If we could tune the spectral response of digital pixels, great! But we can't. That's why optical filters still have a place in digital photography.
__________________________

{*} GND: Could be built digitally by boosting sensitivity in just some pixels, not all of them. Simple ND could NOT be done digitally because pixels have a base voltage and can't go any lower. I've read of some building very slow sensors, but those are apparently not ready for prime time.

Wishful thinking but maybe the full frame camera can have a touch screen to fix the gradients and can download presets for different filter types....hope the Pentax engineers can do it...would be smashing....

[yen800]

But those are D FA, not DA. D FA has always been marketed as being Full Frame compatible.

DA* 60-250 is not though

[ElJamoquio]

But those are D FA, not DA. D FA has always been marketed as being Full Frame compatible.

The 60-250 (and 300) are DA* but discussed as FF in patent.

[parsons]

The 60-250 (and 300) are DA* but discussed as FF in patent.

I think that this would be a problem for pentax if they were to release a FF camera. They need to be clear which lenses are properly compatible. I think that they could do with changing the names of all the ones compatible to DFA. otherwise people looking at the lineup would be mistaken for thinking that only the current DFAs are.

doubt that would take much effort though, its just changing a label.

[monochrome]

Don't get me wrong, I'll keep my K5 and the lenses as a second system but its "prosumer" equipment vs pro equipment. just my opinion though.There is nothing wrong with Pentax as a company.

WOTS here is PRicoh intends to build a pro-spec FF camera first, not prosumer.

[DaveBlack]

unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if ricoh is putting all effort on full frame

Don't forget the Q2. :-)