[Rondec]

I think it is important to separate want from need. There are many people (myself included) who want a Pentax full frame -- because we own full frame compatible lenses, because we used to used to shoot with 35mm film, because we want better viewfinders, because we want some of the upper end features that full frame cameras tend to have. That said, a K5 II/IIs is more camera than most photographers could have dreamed of for 98 percent of the history of photography and if you could have given a such a camera to a photographer in the 70s or 80s or 90s, they wouldn't have complained about too much depth of field.

There are certain photographers who because of their shooting style benefit from full frame and even larger formats, but for most people it is a want. Unfortunately, folks who only have a want tend to buy when the price is right and not before...

[normhead]

I Just find that so odd. I shot film pentax for 30 years, with full frame lenses used on full frames, and to me it seems like an non-issue. Taking pictures is composing in the viewfinder. What lens is on my camera is not important, because I can see what I need to see in the viewfinder regardless of what lens is on the camera. The only place I pay attention to lenses is I need to know the minimum ƒ stop and I need to know what lens to put on. So I put on a 50 instead of a 70. Once that 50 is on the camera it's business as usual. You compose, you shoot. Am I thinking "I'd really like to use this lens on the format it was designed for? " Why would I care about that? I've used old camera lenses in my enlargers, I'm buying an adapter to use 645 lenses on my K-5. A lens is a piece of glass. It doesn't care what it was designed for and I don't either. It's a crazy notion. Of all the irritants you can be bothered by that's one of the oddest ones, at least as I see it.

[pinholecam]

I Just find that so odd. I shot film pentax for 30 years, with full frame lenses used on full frames, and to me it seems like an non-issue. Taking pictures is composing in the viewfinder. What lens is on my camera is not important, because I can see what I need to see in the viewfinder regardless of what lens is on the camera. The only place I pay attention to lenses is I need to know the minimum ƒ stop and I need to know what lens to put on. So I put on a 50 instead of a 70. Once that 50 is on the camera it's business as usual. You compose, you shoot. Am I thinking "I'd really like to use this lens on the format it was designed for? " Why would I care about that? I've used old camera lenses in my enlargers, I'm buying an adapter to use 645 lenses on my K-5. A lens is a piece of glass. It doesn't care what it was designed for and I don't either. It's a crazy notion. Of all the irritants you can be bothered by that's one of the oddest ones, at least as I see it.

Precisely!
I don't understand this 'used to the FL on film' too.
I put on a lens APS-C/m4/3/MF/FF, look through the EVF/OVF/LCD and compose accordingly based on the FOV I get from what I see.
I can't/don't relate back to what the lens 'could have been' on another format.
Maybe different ppl adapt/comprehend this differently though.

[Paul MaudDib]

Precisely!
I don't understand this 'used to the FL on film' too.
I put on a lens APS-C/m4/3/MF/FF, look through the EVF/OVF/LCD and compose accordingly based on the FOV I get from what I see.
I can't/don't relate back to what the lens 'could have been' on another format.
Maybe different ppl adapt/comprehend this differently though.

Because some of us like wide compositions and have a collection of high-quality wide glass, and the crop factor turns it into normal or long lenses instead. I guess if you just look into the VF and push the button instead of selecting a focal length appropriate for the scene it doesn't matter.

[johnmflores]

I Just find that so odd. I shot film pentax for 30 years, with full frame lenses used on full frames, and to me it seems like an non-issue. Taking pictures is composing in the viewfinder. What lens is on my camera is not important, because I can see what I need to see in the viewfinder regardless of what lens is on the camera. The only place I pay attention to lenses is I need to know the minimum ƒ stop and I need to know what lens to put on. So I put on a 50 instead of a 70. Once that 50 is on the camera it's business as usual. You compose, you shoot. Am I thinking "I'd really like to use this lens on the format it was designed for? " Why would I care about that? I've used old camera lenses in my enlargers, I'm buying an adapter to use 645 lenses on my K-5. A lens is a piece of glass. It doesn't care what it was designed for and I don't either. It's a crazy notion. Of all the irritants you can be bothered by that's one of the oddest ones, at least as I see it.

I've got a FA31/1.8. Love that lens. It's not an irritant that the FA31 is a short normal on my K-5 and K-01. I use it as such and enjoy it greatly. It's also a nice long normal when used on my Panasonic GH2 for video.

That said, it would also be cool if it could be used as a 31mm wide on a full frame camera, then I'd have a lens that I use in three different focal lengths.

It's not an irritant, it's an opportunity.

[bluespearbone]

Maybe am missing the point here but,,,
Have found that an MZ-50 loaded with a roll of film adds little weight or space to the kit carried but gives the option of shooting FF in those few instances where have thought the shot would benefit and/or be worthwhile committing to print (having first considered it on the LCD of course). Just my two-pennies as it seems to suffice if and until Pentax does release an FF and get my commitment to acquire - likely if the cost is justifiable.
For the infrequency, have found the cost of film and processing not to be prohibitive.

[jsherman999]

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.

Just like driving a car with more than 60HP is 'overkill' for 95% of most folk's 'driving style'.

Need vs want, Norm. I'm going on three years now trying to find ways to highlight that distinction!

.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 05-28-2013 at 12:32 PM.

[normhead]

Actually jsherman, I've understood that point for almost as long as you've been making it. It's you that's a little slow on the uptake here. I've never argued that people don't want all kinds of crazy things. My brother used to want one of those Green Bay packer cheese head things until I bought one for him. He never tried to say he needed it. If you consider it a "want', buy what you want. I don't care. There's not need to justify it. If you're going to sell it as something you need, you should probably be able to justify that. Need is different than want. After 3 years explaining that, I hope you get it this time.

However, some people are actually interested in understanding technical differences and stuff, as is trying to help them understand what they are getting for their money. Telling people what you want is fine. Or better still go to some gift registry and tell people who might buy you what you want, what you want. An old Quaker adage..."tell me what you want and I'll tell you how to get along without it." It's hardly a case of not understanding the difference between a need and a want, it's way more philosophical than that.

And as I've always said, I want a Pentax 645. I can want with the best of them... but do i need one? I can't justify it.

[jsherman999]

I Just find that so odd. I shot film pentax for 30 years, with full frame lenses used on full frames, and to me it seems like an non-issue. Taking pictures is composing in the viewfinder. What lens is on my camera is not important, because I can see what I need to see in the viewfinder regardless of what lens is on the camera. The only place I pay attention to lenses is I need to know the minimum ƒ stop and I need to know what lens to put on. So I put on a 50 instead of a 70. Once that 50 is on the camera it's business as usual. You compose, you shoot. Am I thinking "I'd really like to use this lens on the format it was designed for? " Why would I care about that? I've used old camera lenses in my enlargers, I'm buying an adapter to use 645 lenses on my K-5. A lens is a piece of glass. It doesn't care what it was designed for and I don't either. It's a crazy notion. Of all the irritants you can be bothered by that's one of the oddest ones, at least as I see it.

These are fair points, and I'd say that it depends on what lenses you'd like to be able to buy and use. If everything you want to do could be handled by an existing, affordable prime or zoom on aps-c, then it's a non-issue.

In my case I like to use the 50 1.8 on FF - it's small, $110, and gives me a lens we don't really have for aps-c - a 33mm f/1.2.

I also like my 20mm f/2.8, which becomes a 13mm f/1.8, my 180 f/2.8 (120mm f/1.8) and my Tamron 28-75 2.8 (18-50 f/1.8)

It's just fun to shoot with these affordable FOV/DOF combos, with a nice big VF to boot, with a stop less noise as a bonus. (I never shot film, so it's not a nostalgia issue for me.)

.

[jsherman999]

However, some people are actually interested in understanding technical differences and stuff, ....

Oh, I've been trying that too. The concept of equivalence is still witchcraft to some.

.

[fuent104]

The only place I pay attention to lenses is I need to know the minimum ƒ stop and I need to know what lens to put on. So I put on a 50 instead of a 70. Once that 50 is on the camera it's business as usual. You compose, you shoot. Am I thinking "I'd really like to use this lens on the format it was designed for? " Why would I care about that? I've used old camera lenses in my enlargers, I'm buying an adapter to use 645 lenses on my K-5. A lens is a piece of glass. It doesn't care what it was designed for and I don't either. It's a crazy notion. Of all the irritants you can be bothered by that's one of the oddest ones, at least as I see it.

It it really that difficult to understand? Here's an example. When I was shooting film, I bought an M28 f2.8. This was a nice, wide lens, which delivered a quality image with a wide field of view, for under $100.

Now, on aps-c, it shows the field of view of a normal lens. I literally do not have a prime lens with all of the benefits of the M28 for my aps-c cameras, one of which was the cost. Why don't I have such a lens? Because, to my knowledge, Pentax has never made one. As such, the very function for which I bought the lens has been nullified by the lack of a full-frame sensor. It's a very simple and legitimate reason to want a full-frame sensor. The available Pentax solutions - the DA 15 and DA 14 - are not analagous to a 28mm on full-frame, from my understanding.

I should add that, for my personal preferences, the field of view of a lens is its most important characteristic. The difference between a 50mm and a 70mm is huge, for me.

[jogiba]

These are fair points, and I'd say that it depends on what lenses you'd like to be able to buy and use. If everything you want to do could be handled by an existing, affordable prime or zoom on aps-c, then it's a non-issue.

In my case I like to use the 50 1.8 on FF - it's small, $110, and gives me a lens we don't really have for aps-c - a 33mm f/1.2.

I also like my 20mm f/2.8, which becomes a 13mm f/1.8, my 180 f/2.8 (120mm f/1.8) and my Tamron 28-75 2.8 (18-50 f/1.8)

It's just fun to shoot with these affordable FOV/DOF combos, with a nice big VF to boot, with a stop less noise as a bonus. (I never shot film, so it's not a nostalgia issue for me.)

.

PK-NEX Lens Turbo to make full frame lenses work like full frame lenses on APS-C sensors with 1 stop gain .

[Pål Jensen]

Oh, I've been trying that too. The concept of equivalence is still witchcraft to some.

.

It IS whichcraft as lenses for different formats never (or extremely rarely) are truly equivalent and theres no reason why they should or even that it should be desireable. I'm mean, you might choose a format over another because they are not equivalent. Using DOF wide open and magnification at infinity as the ONLY factors is silly and intellectual cheating. Also using characteristics from one format as benchmark, simultaneously disregard the non- equivalent characteristic of the choosen reference format when using another formats characteristics as benchmark, is to choose the parametres that fit your argument and disregard the rest. Ie many of the lenses claimed to be equivalent are not because of different maximum DOF, different DOF ranges, different maximum magnification, different close focusing distances and different focus throw. Clearly such lenses are not equivalent in any meaning of the word.
Besides, very few buy lenses from absolute DOF wide open. Thats why some lenses are called fast and not narrow (from being able to shoot at faster shutter speeds at lower light levels)....

I have no problems with that some want FF for whatever reasons. Like using the FF lenses like intended, bigger viewfinder or whatever. But the equivalency principle isn't invented by anyone remotely a photrographer; thats for sure.

[pinholecam]

Because some of us like wide compositins and have a collection of high-quality wide glass, and the crop factor turns it into normal or long lenses instead. I guess if you just look into the VF and push the button instead of selecting a focal length appropriate for the scene it doesn't matter.

In fact the argument is the other way around.
Why can't one form a composition based on the existing 'wides'/'normal'/'teles' equivalent FL lenses that one has at hand or can get.
Why keep harping back on 'what it could have been'.
Its a reminising to 'what its was' wrt the FL of the lens that makes so many here bitter and displeased.

And if you get a lens like a Sigma 10-20 (cheap too in the US compared to the price here), you solve that problem of going wide.
All I'm saying is that one can get a wide lens (or normal or long), on aps-c and shoot with the framing one wants too.
Sigma 8-16 is the widest on aps-c (12mm eq on 135 format), 12-24 is widest lens on FF.


But enough from me.
This whole issue touches on a lot of entrenched views which were not open to discussion.
I've already provided my few cents of samples and views.
It just a matter of trade-offs to me.

[jsherman999]

However, some people are actually interested in understanding technical differences and stuff, ....

Oh, I've been trying that too. The concept of equivalence is still witchcraft to some.

It IS whichcraft ...

^^ Right on cue

.... But the equivalency principle isn't invented by anyone remotely a photrographer; thats for sure.

It wasn't 'invented' by anyone; it's just a description of the relationship between formats as described by physical laws. It's not 'invented' any more than Einstein 'invented' e=mc^2.

The person who wrapped up these physical concepts into the neat term you so despise is Joseph James, and yes, he is a photographer. (But it doesn't matter if he's a photographer or not - physical truth is physical truth.)

Recently Falk looked at it from another angle with his 'camera equivalency' paper.

.