[dmbaile2]

I'm doing them a favor by making my wants known. Frankly Pentax not licensing to their costumers may have in fact been there demise. Ricoh should be happy customers are sticking around long enough to complain, and it sounds like Recoh is smart enough to listen.

---

Last edited by dmbaile2; 03-11-2014 at 12:16 AM.

[ChristianRock]

The MZ(ZX)5 will not control the aperatures of a DA lens, one needs a model like the MZ7 instead. The 5 will shot everythingn wide open. I bought a MZ7 with a couple of lenses just so that I could use it with our digital lenses as the MZ5n did not so well.

The rest of your sugesstion is great

The ZX(MZ)-5 will not control aperture in Program mode? The ZX-M does...

[Eyewanders]

I'm confused - sorry, but let me ask a couple of questions.

• What do you consider high ISO?
• Why do you feel the need for such high ISO? Photographing a black cat in a totally dark room lite by a small candle?
• What level of image quality is acceptable to you out of the camera?
• Are you willing to apply some post noise reduction?

K-3 doesn't even need the candle.




---------- Post added 03-11-14 at 10:34 AM ----------

Hey I have a suggestion for you... do some experimentation before spending the big bucks on FF. From your current collection of lenses it seems like you tried to get a feel of Pentax without spending too much money. How about having the same approach to FF and if it works out, then go out and spend your heart out?

Get a Pentax film camera like the ZX5, ZX-M or Super Program that can control the aperture on your lenses, and a few rolls of Kodak Ektar or Portra. Get out with those 50s and the 35 and the 28 and shoot some scenes and some people. As you know, both DA lenses work on full frame as long as the camera can set the aperture for you. On the other lenses where you got the aperture ring, you're fine and could use an older mechanical camera like the K1000 or MX or Super ME.

After you get the films developed, see if the "full frame perspective" is all that it's hyped to be. If it is, get that Canon... as with all things digital, don't worry that the 6D is going to cost more in two months than it does now. Prices always go down, as the newest and hottest thing comes out and there will always be deals on bundled lenses.

That's what I'm doing... the problem is, film is scratching my FF itch, and I see no need to invest a ton of money anymore, plus the film bug is quite contageous and so far I've spent most of the time on cheap film... but it's so much fun...

Agreed. I'm having a similar experience in the past months. And more, coming back to film after 20 years (for me personally) is becoming a thing of beauty simply because I've 20 years added general photography experience that immediately translates into a better film experience that I ever had in the beginning.

---------- Post added 03-11-14 at 10:44 AM ----------

Looks like you already have you thoughts worked out.

Its either Aps-c and embrace all the aps-c lenses for what they are (smaller for Pentax) or go FF for what it gives.
The worst may be to be stuck in the middle like what you have described above.

But look at it this way.
So what if 77ltd is actually 77mm and not 115mm and 43ltd was really 43mm and not 65mm.
As a photographer, YOU make the decision of buying and using the lenses for the FL characteristics on the format you use.
I use the 43/77ltd happily on aps-c, framing it accordingly to what the format give me. - PEACE...
I don't go hopping mad that somebody somewhere (namely Pentax) owes me this or that because its 'Really' 43mm or 77mm.

I personally *love* the fact that my k-mount FF glass DOES behave differently on my aps-c bodies; it's another subtlety that provides even more options beyond "should i shoot film or digital"... It's like I have a twice the amount of lenses available to me, and learning their strengths and applications in each realm is both exciting and fun. It's enough for me, and if/when the elusive Pentax FF does come along, it will only add to the mix of options I already have.

[ElJamoquio]

K-3 doesn't even need the candle.




---------- Post added 03-11-14 at 10:34 AM ----------



Agreed. I'm having a similar experience in the past months. And more, coming back to film after 20 years (for me personally) is becoming a thing of beauty simply because I've 20 years added general photography experience that immediately translates into a better film experience that I ever had in the beginning.

---------- Post added 03-11-14 at 10:44 AM ----------



I personally *love* the fact that my k-mount FF glass DOES behave differently on my aps-c bodies; it's another subtlety that provides even more options beyond "should i shoot film or digital"... It's like I have a twice the amount of lenses available to me, and learning their strengths and applications in each realm is both exciting and fun. It's enough for me, and if/when the elusive Pentax FF does come along, it will only add to the mix of options I already have.

I love being able to crop FF to APS-C levels while maintaining APS-C IQ. It's nice, two cameras/two lenses in one - although it's tough to justify "needing" the same number of lenses!

[SyncGuy]

Looks like you already have you thoughts worked out.

Its either Aps-c and embrace all the aps-c lenses for what they are (smaller for Pentax) or go FF for what it gives.
The worst may be to be stuck in the middle like what you have described above.

But look at it this way.
So what if 77ltd is actually 77mm and not 115mm and 43ltd was really 43mm and not 65mm.
As a photographer, YOU make the decision of buying and using the lenses for the FL characteristics on the format you use.
I use the 43/77ltd happily on aps-c, framing it accordingly to what the format give me. - PEACE...
I don't go hopping mad that somebody somewhere (namely Pentax) owes me this or that because its 'Really' 43mm or 77mm.

Best advice ever... C'mon... 43mm is just.....that...... Frame with 43mm, shoot with 43mm.. That's it..
Pentax ain't Leica where you dump money into lenses for investment.

Seriously, just jump into MF + a good tripod.. That's it! Candle or no candle, don't matter... You want it better, shoot video and you'll get to select from 60 frames per second for each shot you want.. Right @Jogiba?

Edit: Oh wait! I can recommend you the most suited limited lens, DA*16-50/2.8.. You may select from 16mm to 50mm with f/2.8 to boot.. It's really a good lens!

[Rondec]

I love being able to crop FF to APS-C levels while maintaining APS-C IQ. It's nice, two cameras/two lenses in one - although it's tough to justify "needing" the same number of lenses!

I don't believe that your D600 will crop to APS-C levels while maintaining a K3 level of detail/IQ. Everything I have seen shows that at most isos, the image quality is pretty equivalent between those two cameras without cropping.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't believe that your D600 will crop to APS-C levels while maintaining a K3 level of detail/IQ. Everything I have seen shows that at most isos, the image quality is pretty equivalent between those two cameras without cropping.

12 MP is certainly good enough for me most of the time. And lets not frame this around me, the D600 plus lenses is cheaper than the k3. If I wanted to spend more money then 36 MP without AA is easy enough to get.

[Rondec]

12 MP is certainly good enough for me most of the time. And lets not frame this around me, the D600 plus lenses is cheaper than the k3. If I wanted to spend more money then 36 MP without AA is easy enough to get.

It isn't about you or me. I just think there are certain applications for which full frame is better and some for which APS-C is better or, at a minimum equivalent. It is just a little irritating when folks say that "Everything APS-C can do, full frame can do better, full frame can do everything better than you..."

If you already own a bunch of K mount lenses, then the price of a D600 plus lenses isn't cheaper than selling your K5 for 425 and buying a K3 for 1100 (as I did). Total outlay there was a little less than 700 dollars -- no glass needed. And for what I shoot, there would be minimal benefit to getting a D600.

[ElJamoquio]

It isn't about you or me. I just think there are certain applications for which full frame is better and some for which APS-C is better or, at a minimum equivalent.

OK, I thought it was about me when you brought up my D600.

There are certainly applications where APS-C is as good as FF. When starting from scratch, though, for most 'prosumers' (~F/5.6 or faster on FF) you have to spend more to get an APS-C system that can do the same thing... and even then it's at best debatable whether the APS-C camera has the same sharpness.

[Parry]

OK, I thought it was about me when you brought up my D600.

There are certainly applications where APS-C is as good as FF. When starting from scratch, though, for most 'prosumers' (~F/5.6 or faster on FF) you have to spend more to get an APS-C system that can do the same thing... and even then it's at best debatable whether the APS-C camera has the same sharpness.

This is bang on true.

Having blown the lifetimes budget chasing the "try to make APS-C do what full frame does" nightmare . . . I still recommend those starting out . . .

1. Get an X20 or similar manual control point and shoot and shoot RAW and post-process for a couple of years first;

2. Research the hell out of the lenses you'd actually use on a full frame and then blow the budget on a D800e (or 5D MkIII) and fewer lenses, the ones you'd actually use regularly.


For me it should have gone . . . LX5 > D800e + 50/1.2 + 85/1.4G + 135/2 DC . . . perhaps a Siggy 35/1.4 Art and Nikkor 14-24/2.8.

As it stands I have a K-5, a K-5 IIs, a K-3 and over twenty lenses including the 31 and 77 FA Limiteds and K 50/1.2 and 100 WR Macro and 50/1.4 and 15/4 Limited and Siggy 8-16 and M-50/1.7 and Jupiter 11A (x2) and 21M, Helios 44M-4, 44M-7, 77M-4, Tair 11A, Meyer 135/2.8 (x2) and 200/4 and 300/4, Petri 28/2, Sun (awful) . . . oh and Carl Zeiss Jena DDR MC S 135/3.5 and CZJ DDR 50/1.8 Electric . . . there's more, I know there is . . . . oh yes, 2x dead Tamron XR 17-50/2.8's . . . .

All good fun. But a really expensive mish mash.rather than a coherent system of fewer lenses with greater all round capability. That said, the way I have the kit arranged, mobility is easy (I have three Lowepro bags).

Still need to sell a bunch to get the Pentax system down to something realistic. Most likely dump a lot of the old Soviet stuff and get a DA 60-250/4 instead. Trouble is that old Soviet bokeh is a real winner.

[osv]

For me it should have gone . . . LX5 > D800e + 50/1.2 + 85/1.4G + 135/2 DC . . . perhaps a Siggy 35/1.4 Art and Nikkor 14-24/2.8.

As it stands I have a K-5, a K-5 IIs, a K-3 and over twenty lenses including the 31 and 77 FA Limiteds and K 50/1.2 and 100 WR Macro and 50/1.4 and 15/4 Limited and Siggy 8-16 and M-50/1.7 and Jupiter 11A (x2) and 21M, Helios 44M-4, 44M-7, 77M-4, Tair 11A, Meyer 135/2.8 (x2) and 200/4 and 300/4, Petri 28/2, Sun (awful) . . . oh and Carl Zeiss Jena DDR MC S 135/3.5 and CZJ DDR 50/1.8 Electric . . . there's more, I know there is . . . . oh yes, 2x dead Tamron XR 17-50/2.8's . . . .

All good fun. But a really expensive mish mash.rather than a coherent system of fewer lenses with greater all round capability. That said, the way I have the kit arranged, mobility is easy (I have three Lowepro bags).

you already have a coherent system, you just don't know it :-) i suspect that all of those lenses will bolt up to a sony e-mount body... nex, a7, a7r, a6000... and you'll gain the evf magnify function, on a sony evf, which is wonderful for manual focusing.

it's not all wine and roses, i'm sitting on 3 p-ttl flashes that i can't use, hoping that someday pentax will come out with a ff sensor camera.

[SyncGuy]

This is bang on true.

Having blown the lifetimes budget chasing the "try to make APS-C do what full frame does" nightmare . . . I still recommend those starting out . . .

1. Get an X20 or similar manual control point and shoot and shoot RAW and post-process for a couple of years first;

2. Research the hell out of the lenses you'd actually use on a full frame and then blow the budget on a D800e (or 5D MkIII) and fewer lenses, the ones you'd actually use regularly.


For me it should have gone . . . LX5 > D800e + 50/1.2 + 85/1.4G + 135/2 DC . . . perhaps a Siggy 35/1.4 Art and Nikkor 14-24/2.8.

As it stands I have a K-5, a K-5 IIs, a K-3 and over twenty lenses including the 31 and 77 FA Limiteds and K 50/1.2 and 100 WR Macro and 50/1.4 and 15/4 Limited and Siggy 8-16 and M-50/1.7 and Jupiter 11A (x2) and 21M, Helios 44M-4, 44M-7, 77M-4, Tair 11A, Meyer 135/2.8 (x2) and 200/4 and 300/4, Petri 28/2, Sun (awful) . . . oh and Carl Zeiss Jena DDR MC S 135/3.5 and CZJ DDR 50/1.8 Electric . . . there's more, I know there is . . . . oh yes, 2x dead Tamron XR 17-50/2.8's . . . .

All good fun. But a really expensive mish mash.rather than a coherent system of fewer lenses with greater all round capability. That said, the way I have the kit arranged, mobility is easy (I have three Lowepro bags).

Still need to sell a bunch to get the Pentax system down to something realistic. Most likely dump a lot of the old Soviet stuff and get a DA 60-250/4 instead. Trouble is that old Soviet bokeh is a real winner.

Oooooooo..... I would love to know more about these 2.....
Care to elaborate?

[Parry]

Oooooooo..... I would love to know more about these 2.....
Care to elaborate?

Killed on building sites, nothing to do with lens faults (apart from the awful bokeh).

Sharp for cheap zooms, I used to use them for work (brownfield regeneration) but now only use my phone. Won't take the gear on site anymore.

[Rondec]

This is bang on true.

Having blown the lifetimes budget chasing the "try to make APS-C do what full frame does" nightmare . . . I still recommend those starting out . . .

1. Get an X20 or similar manual control point and shoot and shoot RAW and post-process for a couple of years first;

2. Research the hell out of the lenses you'd actually use on a full frame and then blow the budget on a D800e (or 5D MkIII) and fewer lenses, the ones you'd actually use regularly.


For me it should have gone . . . LX5 > D800e + 50/1.2 + 85/1.4G + 135/2 DC . . . perhaps a Siggy 35/1.4 Art and Nikkor 14-24/2.8.

As it stands I have a K-5, a K-5 IIs, a K-3 and over twenty lenses including the 31 and 77 FA Limiteds and K 50/1.2 and 100 WR Macro and 50/1.4 and 15/4 Limited and Siggy 8-16 and M-50/1.7 and Jupiter 11A (x2) and 21M, Helios 44M-4, 44M-7, 77M-4, Tair 11A, Meyer 135/2.8 (x2) and 200/4 and 300/4, Petri 28/2, Sun (awful) . . . oh and Carl Zeiss Jena DDR MC S 135/3.5 and CZJ DDR 50/1.8 Electric . . . there's more, I know there is . . . . oh yes, 2x dead Tamron XR 17-50/2.8's . . . .

All good fun. But a really expensive mish mash.rather than a coherent system of fewer lenses with greater all round capability. That said, the way I have the kit arranged, mobility is easy (I have three Lowepro bags).

Still need to sell a bunch to get the Pentax system down to something realistic. Most likely dump a lot of the old Soviet stuff and get a DA 60-250/4 instead. Trouble is that old Soviet bokeh is a real winner.

Interesting line up. Personally, I am never about matching another format's look, just about trying to get the best photos I can with the glass I have at hand. I do hope Ricoh/Pentax releases a full frame option this year and think it is likely...

[Parry]

Interesting line up. Personally, I am never about matching another format's look, just about trying to get the best photos I can with the glass I have at hand. I do hope Ricoh/Pentax releases a full frame option this year and think it is likely...

I suppose I do. But I guess in trying to squeeze the life out of the crop sensor I'm trying to make it do what a FF would do . . . easily. DoF and resolution rather than sharpness.

It would be handy to be honest. A K-mount full frame.