[tclausen]

Oh but they have.

They have, have they? Just without releasing it in public, is that it?

[gofour3]

They have, have they? Just without releasing it in public, is that it?

A* 135/1.8

A* were the "first" Limiteds.

Phil.

[jogiba]

A* 135/1.8

A* were the "first" Limiteds.

Phil.

The first * (Pentax Star ) lens was the SMC Pentax-M* 300mm F4
The first Limited Pentax lens was the FA 43/1.9 Limited in 1997

[normhead]

Same old suspects, same old conclusions...

So far a 24 MP FF increases MTF 13 % for a 50% increase in file size. Over a 24 MP APS-c camera, and that only in lab tests. IN tests in the field it's almost certain to be closer, although, no one is testing. There exists a serious case of the law of diminishing returns. People always say there is no wide angle 1.4 lens for APS-c. People never say there is no 1.4 135 for FF, but there is an 85 1.4 for APS-c that has the same FoV? When something is true at one end of the spectrum, it's also true at the other. People ignore the back end of trade offs. Or even more likely, they post theory to prove that it is in some way not true.

But the killer is, that people who say they can't live without a WA 1.4 lens, never seem to know what percentage of their WA images were best taken at 1.4. Someone should post a break down so we know what we're missing. Not how many were taken, I've taken a huge number of images @ 2.8 up until F16. F 16 it turns out is a lot more useful than F-2.8. I'm guessing 1.4 would be even less useful than 2.8.

There I've said my same old thing, issued a challenge that will be ignored. Now I expect a line by line breakdown of my post with at least one poster will post that he's not telling because i wouldn't listen anyway.

What's funny...

people who mix the FF argument with the image size argument. If you're talking FF vs APS-C , keep the discussion to the discussion of sensor size. Pixels is another issue. We can argue that quite conclusively that a D800 out resolves all other APS-c and FF cameras. It's just not an issue related just to sensor size.

The biggest reason, for not wanting a Pentax FF? I'd have to buy a 31 ltd to make it worth my while. I find the distortion, whether aspherical or not can be disturbing in APS-c WAs. That's the only lens I can think of I'd rather use on an FF system than APS-c. But, my 21 ltd really isn't that bad for the same FoV. I use WA for landscapes. F 1.4 in landscapes is probably about as useless as...._________ (insert your favorite useless thing)

You definitely have more lens choices with APS-c. With APS-c you can use FF lenses, like my A-400 FF lens to great advantage. You can use APS-c lenses, only as APS-c lenses. Even the D800 only gives you 15 MP in crop mode. People seem to forget you have an MTF advantage using a K-5 over a D800 used in crop mode, using the same lens. The D800 is less, all other FFs are way less.

FF isn't the holy grail. But there are a lot of folks who are completely fixated on it, and possibly not in a good way... and that's the truth.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-26-2013 at 01:59 PM.

[rawr]

For me it isn't about abandoning aps-c, but I want ff so I can take advantage of the best of two systems with a single set of lenses.

I agree. APS-C vs FF isn't an either/or equation, even though it is often framed that way in discussions. It would indeed be useful to have access to both formats, while using the same lens mount. If I need low-light and to shoot wide, pull out the Pentax FF body. If I need telephoto and/or simply a lighter kit, pull out the APS-C body. Put both around your neck when covering an important event to cover all your bases, and as a bonus have a backup body.

[tclausen]

A* 135/1.8

A* were the "first" Limiteds.

Phil.

SighS, I was afraid that this would happen.

I used the "Ltd" designation (which I think was never used for Pentax MF lenses...) since I explicitly was targeting a lens with that fancy-pants 21th century tech, known as "Auto Focus", in it.

If I'd meant a MF lens, I'd not have written Ltd, but something else (such as A/A*).

I am, of course, aware that there are 20th century MF lenses of that range out there - but, Pentax has not released a 135/1.8 Ltd .... and they /really/ should do so.

[John Poirier]

It might be useful to separate our individual wishes from strategic issues such as industry trends.

Speaking as an individual, my next upgrade will be to a body with a minimum resolution of 24MP. As a professional artist selling large prints, I view this as a useful improvement over my current 14.6 MP body. 36MP would be better still. As the owner of a large set of excellent FF Pentax lenses, I would like the new body to be FF. That would be very convenient for me personally. I don't mind working with APS-C, but I'd rather not.

While I would prefer to stay with Pentax, I will not hesitate to switch brands if Pentax doesn't come through. The only reason I haven't switched already is that until recently most of my serious work has been on medium format film. However, health issues are pushing me to go for lighter gear somewhat sooner than anticipated. I expect to make a decision next year.

Looking at strategic issues, much is dependent on Ricoh's intentions for the Pentax brand. We won't know what those intentions are until some products that fully reflect the change of ownership are announced, which I would expect later this year or early next year.

Leaving aside the various opinions about the merits of different formats, there is the basic reality of format as a marketing device. Brands that include FF bodies justifiably claim to offer more flexible upgrade paths than those that offer only smaller formats. That's just the way it is.

If Ricoh's strategic intention is to make the Pentax brand a major player in professional DSLRs, if only to piggyback marketing of lower level cameras on that sort of bling, I don't think they have much choice about getting into FF.

[jsherman999]

It might be useful to separate our individual wishes from strategic issues such as industry trends.

Yes.

Speaking as an individual, my next upgrade will be to a body with a minimum resolution of 24MP. As a professional artist selling large prints, I view this as a useful improvement over my current 14.6 MP body. 36MP would be better still. As the owner of a large set of excellent FF Pentax lenses, I would like the new body to be FF. That would be very convenient for me personally. I don't mind working with APS-C, but I'd rather not.

Good, realistic summary of personal needs and wants.

...

Leaving aside the various opinions about the merits of different formats, there is the basic reality of format as a marketing device. Brands that include FF bodies justifiably claim to offer more flexible upgrade paths than those that offer only smaller formats. That's just the way it is.

Yes, it is, nice to see others realizing and admitting to this point.

If Ricoh's strategic intention is to make the Pentax brand a major player in professional DSLRs, if only to piggyback marketing of lower level cameras on that sort of bling, I don't think they have much choice about getting into FF.

+1. And it's not just the halo effect, it's a question of who's going to be buying K-mount just for aps-c DSLR in five or ten years. That market will have more alternative goods than it did in 2010 or does now.

.

[Urkeldaedalus]

This is turning into another Why FF? thread, which is fine. But I think the true answer to this question is that right or wrong people have been waiting for full frame from Pentax for a long, long time. Like a decade long. So long that a lot of the fans of Pentax's full frame lenses, like jsherman999 above me, have said "Enough with the waiting, I'm going to try Nikon for a bit." So long that the first comment on Pentax's Facebook page whenever a new camera comes out is (stupidly I think) more often than not "When is fullframe coming out?" So long that we have a subforum dedicated to a camera system that's only been announced in the most tenuous, dipping-their-toe-in-the-water-so-later-they-can-say-they-were-just-kidding way possible. So long that April Fool's prank of a fullframe announcement got recirculated by rumor sites for what seemed like a full year.

That's a long time to want something, and when you want something that long it takes on a significance of its own. I'm waiting for either Pentax to release a full frame camera or another camera company to release a full frame system that's portable and based around smaller primes (want to give it a try again, Contax? Contax? Are you there?) like I think Pentax can and should do it. If some other company fills that niche like maybe a Fuji or Sony that would be fine. But I really want Pentax to come through and truly connect to its past with a full frame system, partially because of how awesome I think they could do it in their own quirky way, partially because a quest for the holy grail should have an end.

Of course, we might all just end up at the French castle over and over.

You Tube

You Tube

[Sandy Hancock]

"I told 'em we already got one!"
Gold. And so apt.

[Aristophanes]

The DA*55 is about an 85/2 @135 in real life on APS-C. I have the M85/2 and really to go to 1.4 would 2x the size and get all that 1.4 fuzziness. Sometimes it is just not worth it. Ricoh GR vs Sony RX 1, anyone?

[tuco]

Same old suspects, same old conclusions...

Somehow all the arguments of just a small percent improvement, not worth it, too big, etc can be made with MFT cameras vs APS-C. So where do you draw the line in the sand. Some FF, some not and so on.

[Kerrowdown]

why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?

Because we can't have it...

Yet...

[jogiba]

Same old suspects, same old conclusions...

So far a 24 MP FF increases MTF 13 % for a 50% increase in file size. Over a 24 MP APS-c camera, and that only in lab tests. IN tests in the field it's almost certain to be closer, although, no one is testing. There exists a serious case of the law of diminishing returns. People always say there is no wide angle 1.4 lens for APS-c. People never say there is no 1.4 135 for FF, but there is an 85 1.4 for APS-c that has the same FoV? When something is true at one end of the spectrum, it's also true at the other. People ignore the back end of trade offs. Or even more likely, they post theory to prove that it is in some way not true.

But the killer is, that people who say they can't live without a WA 1.4 lens, never seem to know what percentage of their WA images were best taken at 1.4. Someone should post a break down so we know what we're missing. Not how many were taken, I've taken a huge number of images @ 2.8 up until F16. F 16 it turns out is a lot more useful than F-2.8. I'm guessing 1.4 would be even less useful than 2.8.

There I've said my same old thing, issued a challenge that will be ignored. Now I expect a line by line breakdown of my post with at least one poster will post that he's not telling because i wouldn't listen anyway.

What's funny...

people who mix the FF argument with the image size argument. If you're talking FF vs APS-C , keep the discussion to the discussion of sensor size. Pixels is another issue. We can argue that quite conclusively that a D800 out resolves all other APS-c and FF cameras. It's just not an issue related just to sensor size.

The biggest reason, for not wanting a Pentax FF? I'd have to buy a 31 ltd to make it worth my while. I find the distortion, whether aspherical or not can be disturbing in APS-c WAs. That's the only lens I can think of I'd rather use on an FF system than APS-c. But, my 21 ltd really isn't that bad for the same FoV. I use WA for landscapes. F 1.4 in landscapes is probably about as useless as...._________ (insert your favorite useless thing)

You definitely have more lens choices with APS-c. With APS-c you can use FF lenses, like my A-400 FF lens to great advantage. You can use APS-c lenses, only as APS-c lenses. Even the D800 only gives you 15 MP in crop mode. People seem to forget you have an MTF advantage using a K-5 over a D800 used in crop mode, using the same lens. The D800 is less, all other FFs are way less.

FF isn't the holy grail. But there are a lot of folks who are completely fixated on it, and possibly not in a good way... and that's the truth.

Using that logic then the 645D is a total waste of money compared to the D800E.

[normhead]

Using that logic then the 645D is a total waste of money compared to the D800E.

What is a waste of money is totally need dependent. If you never use more the 6 MP, a K-5 is a waste of money. It's not a race to see who has the most lw/ph. SO really if you look at what I do, my Optio 10 WR is a waste of money, because I never use the file size on the 9 WR (12 MP) and my K-x is a waste of money because I never use it for anything more than I would have used the K100D for. I don't think I'd ever declare something a waste of money categorically, but i would declare something overkill for one's shooting style in some circumstances.