[jeztastic]

But at the same time they don't need to reinvent the wheel as they have some excellent lenses already that could do with a digital coating and would become phenomenal FF lenses.

I should clarify that I was thinking about top quality f2.8 zooms here. Pentax have already demonstrated that they can do this with primes - DA40, DA35 2.4, DA501.8, this list could be endless, and I hope it is. I even suspect that the new limited zoom will be a repro of the old 24-50 f4 lens. I sincerely hope it is actually.

However, look at the differences between the newest Canon 24-70 L lens and the ones just one or two generations ago. Recent reviews of the 16-50 and 50-135 Pentax lenses show that they are already behind the competition optically. Not sure Pentax can do the same with old zooms as they have with old primes and stay relevant.

[Ash]

Pentax had an FA* 28-70/2.8 and an 80-200/2.8
Both were quite good in their own right, and their current reselling value attests to their ongoing worth/quality.

[Clavius]

Pentax had an FA* 28-70/2.8 and an 80-200/2.8
Both were quite good in their own right, and their current reselling value attests to their ongonng worth/quality.

...It probably only attests to the lack of current DA* 28-70/2.8 or 80-200/2.8...

[redrockcoulee]

Originally posted by redrockcoulee
Why is FF "better" for most people?
It is not. It is simply an option to utilise the whole image circle provided by compatible lenses on the existing K-mount, and this means more flexibility for cropping (more resolution capability) and high ISO performance (better signal-to-noise ratio). Plus, the experience of shooting through a FF OVF is nicer than that of an APS-C dSLR.

I am aware of some of the advantages (and disadvantages) of FF. I have used FF digital and of course film and 645 to 68 film cameras with even larger OVF. But I was asking which is better in terms as neither is better unless you know what it is you want it to do. For some FF is better and for others FF is not. Walked around one day with the Nikon D3 and for walking around to take photos it is certainly not better than the K-r. For other situations it is much better but is it a better camera for everyone all the time? I think not. A large number of people who buy dslr cameras are not wanting to lug a huge camera and large lenses around nor do they want to give up the convience of interchangeable lenses and good quality. Their choices for the most part are cropped sensors and micro 4/3s. And I think that it will remain for some time, at least until after I stop shooting. Listened to a podcast with two wedding photographers one of which switched back from FF and gave his practical reasons for doing so. Just was not in his personal and commerical best interest to use Ff and hence a FF camera was not best for him.

[redrockcoulee]

Why is 35mm film format better than 110mm!?

But it is far inferior to 16X20 film or even medium format. In medium format there were at least three commonly used negative sizes and each had their followers and their advantages and disadvantages. Very few people in the 70s to this century shooting film used medium or large format film. Not counting the pros but the consumers who purchase the vast majority of cameras. For the average Joe a Pentax 67 was not better than a 35mm camera for what they used that camera for. If best is all that counts we would all be shooting Phase One or H series Hasselblads but even they cannot complete with my K-r for many tasks and hence they would not be the best camera for me or most people even though the quality from those sensors and cameras are easily much better. But are the cameras better for the user's intensions and needs?

That is why I think cropped sensors will remain, not because larger sensors will not be better but larger cameras (and the lenses they require) are not always better for the user and no matter how much you make the body smaller the same technology can be used to make cropped sensor cameras smaller. They are going to be if they are not already, two very closely related formats but still fullfilling different market segments.

I sometimes wonder why those who want FF cameras cannot see that the cropped sensor ones have their place and yet are more than willing to try to convince those not wanting FF of the errors of their ways This last statement is not directed at any one individual but to members in general.

[mrNewt]

I am aware of some of the advantages (and disadvantages) of FF. I have used FF digital and of course film and 645 to 68 film cameras with even larger OVF. But I was asking which is better in terms as neither is better unless you know what it is you want it to do. For some FF is better and for others FF is not. Walked around one day with the Nikon D3 and for walking around to take photos it is certainly not better than the K-r. For other situations it is much better but is it a better camera for everyone all the time? I think not. A large number of people who buy dslr cameras are not wanting to lug a huge camera and large lenses around nor do they want to give up the convience of interchangeable lenses and good quality. Their choices for the most part are cropped sensors and micro 4/3s. And I think that it will remain for some time, at least until after I stop shooting. Listened to a podcast with two wedding photographers one of which switched back from FF and gave his practical reasons for doing so. Just was not in his personal and commerical best interest to use Ff and hence a FF camera was not best for him.

But in this case you are talking about commodity rather than what is technologically better ... or who would offer better options ...
In that case, yes, I agree, a smaller frame camera is more preferred because of its size. But when the technology will evolve to the point where things will be just as small in a FF body, things will change.

Let's be honest ... who would dislike the idea of a ME, MX, LX, etc body sized camera as a FF digital!?

[mrNewt]

But it is far inferior to 16X20 film or even medium format. In medium format there were at least three commonly used negative sizes and each had their followers and their advantages and disadvantages. Very few people in the 70s to this century shooting film used medium or large format film. Not counting the pros but the consumers who purchase the vast majority of cameras. For the average Joe a Pentax 67 was not better than a 35mm camera for what they used that camera for. If best is all that counts we would all be shooting Phase One or H series Hasselblads but even they cannot complete with my K-r for many tasks and hence they would not be the best camera for me or most people even though the quality from those sensors and cameras are easily much better. But are the cameras better for the user's intensions and needs?

Again, this is commodity ... I am only talking about the ... let's call it technological fact.
Now each user will have different needs and wishes ... and that's up to them what to use or not.

The option of having those cameras if you wish to have them ... is not bad to have it is it!?

I sometimes wonder why those who want FF cameras cannot see that the cropped sensor ones have their place and yet are more than willing to try to convince those not wanting FF of the errors of their ways This last statement is not directed at any one individual but to members in general.

Most of us who wants an FF is not trying to convince anyone why x is better than y ... as you, those who like the smaller frame (mind you I still love my K10D, K5, K01), we just express our wishes .

There is a place for both bodies ... nothing wrong for Pentax to do both now ... is there!?

---

Last edited by mrNewt; 02-20-2013 at 11:24 AM.

[monochrome]

Let's be honest ... who would dislike the idea of a ME, MX, LX, etc body sized camera as a FF digital!?

The MX is wider than a K-5. The MESuper is the same width. The LX is much wider than a K-5, taller than and 1mm deeper than either of the M's. Were it not for the protruding grip the K-5 would be thinner than all three. Were it not for the taller K-5 viewfinder the LX would be taller than a K-5 and the MX and MESuper would still be shorter.

Let's be honest - the K-5 is really a tiny camera!!

[mrNewt]

The MX is wider than a K-5. The MESuper is the same width. The LX is much wider than a K-5, taller than and 1mm deeper than either of the M's. Were it not for the protruding grip the K-5 would be thinner than all three. Were it not for the taller K-5 viewfinder the LX would be taller than a K-5 and the MX and MESuper would still be shorter.

Let's face it - the K-5 is really a tiny camera!!

It is ... that's why I got the extra grip - hard to hold it without it.
But my questions was ... would you honestly say NO to an MX, LX sized digital camera - obviously FF!?

[monochrome]

It is ... that's why I got the extra grip - hard to hold it without it.
But my questions was ... would you honestly say NO to an MX, LX sized digital camera!?

The LX is trhe smallest SLR camera I am personally comfortable using. I sold my MX'es and MESupers because they're just too small. I didn't buy a K-7 or K-5 partly because I didn't want to also obsolete my BG-2 grip from the K10D - it annoyed me - and it is too small for my comfort without a grip.

I keep a KX (and I'm just now selling a group of K-body and S-body film cameras I have used for quite some time) because I am comfortbale with their size and form. That being said I use a K-01 and Q because I prefer the LCD to a viewfinder now (I know I could use LiveView on a K-5).

I actually would prefer any FF Pentax have a form closer to the K10/20 form than the K-5, so in answer to your question, "Would I honestly say NO to an MX, LX sized digital camera" -- Yes. I already have.

[mrNewt]

..."Would I honestly say NO to an MX, LX sized digital camera" -- Yes. I already have.

... soooooo ... you would honestly say "Yes" to a "NO" ... as in you do not want one (even FF!?) ...

[redrockcoulee]

Again, this is commodity ... I am only talking about the ... let's call it technological fact.
Now each user will have different needs and wishes ... and that's up to them what to use or not.

The option of having those cameras if you wish to have them ... is not bad to have it is it!?



Most of us who wants an FF is not trying to convince anyone why x is better than y ... as you, those who like the smaller frame (mind you I still love my K10D, K5, K01), we just express our wishes .

There is a place for both bodies ... nothing wrong for Pentax to do both now ... is there!?

I started off with a D1X and then chose the D200 over the D2X due to the smaller size. My personal perference in camera size would be the K30 or K5 but would take the K-r over the D200 (or D300 which I am getting soon ). My point was never that FF was wrong or bad but that it is not for everyone and not to expect cropped sensor cameras to disappear from the market place. The best camera still remains the one that best suits the needs and requirements of the user. My 4X5 is better than my Hasselblad which is better than my MZ5n which is better than my Hasselblad which is better than my 4X5. It really depends on what I wish or need to do with the equipment as to which is the best.

There are those who state that APS-C is going to end soon based mostly I believe on their own personal desire to have a FF digital camera. I am just saying that it might end for them but I doubt it will in the market place anytime soon.

[mrNewt]

My point was never that FF was wrong or bad but that it is not for everyone and not to expect cropped sensor cameras to disappear from the market place. The best camera still remains the one that best suits the needs and requirements of the user. My 4X5 is better than my Hasselblad which is better than my MZ5n which is better than my Hasselblad which is better than my 4X5. It really depends on what I wish or need to do with the equipment as to which is the best.

There are those who state that APS-C is going to end soon based mostly I believe on their own personal desire to have a FF digital camera. I am just saying that it might end for them but I doubt it will in the market place anytime soon.

I never argued any of the above and personally I never said APS-C will be extinct ... especially not soon . And I think deep down inside others knows this as well but maybe their too "absolute" with their wishes .

I do desire an FF, but would never part away with my APS-Cs either.

I think the so called era of FF digital is barely starting since some of the issues were ironed out and I believe Pentax is not late ... but rather just in time to provide us with something smallish and full of cool features as they usually do ... in a Pentax way.
But they better not be later than this though

[Ash]

...It probably only attests to the lack of current DA* 28-70/2.8 or 80-200/2.8...

Why should Pentax have produced those when they already have DA* 16-50 and 50-135? Those focal lengths make much more sense on APS-C format.

[redrockcoulee]

I never argued any of the above and personally I never said APS-C will be extinct ... especially not soon . And I think deep down inside others knows this as well but maybe their too "absolute" with their wishes .

I do desire an FF, but would never part away with my APS-Cs either.

I think the so called era of FF digital is barely starting since some of the issues were ironed out and I believe Pentax is not late ... but rather just in time to provide us with something smallish and full of cool features as they usually do ... in a Pentax way.
But they better not be later than this though

No you did not. I responded to one statement/question of yours and continued voicing my opinions on which was probably a pile of other posts and posters and perhaps should have made it two posts so that you do not precieve it as a response to your stated views on that. I think we are on agreement other than I do not see a FF in my future. If I was younger or did not like using my larger film cameras my future would include FF.