[ElJamoquio]

Or you could ask Pentax for a lens that does two things.

[normhead]

My car is designed to go about 100 miles an hour, yet I rarely drive much more than 60. For some reason, that doesn't bother me at all. I still enjoy driving at 60 mph, more than I'd enjoy 100.

But I'm supposed to enjoy my FA 50 less because it could cover a bigger sensor size? If you want to ruin your life with that kind of thinking, fine, it's a choice. I choose to enjoy using what I have the way I can, leaving the impossible for others. The crazy thing is, most on the forum will enjoy their FA 50s and DA 35s etc without ever using them on FF. It's a tortured soul who can't enjoy what he does , because of what he thinks he should be able to do.

I feel sorry for those souls, never happy in the moment, always regretting what might be that isn't. The ghost of the future clouding their past and present.

But I digress.

[ChristianRock]

Well, that might be a bit of a false dichotomy, Norm. No one says I can't enjoy what I have now, but still wish that I could use it in a different way. The 50mm lens is a perfect example. I have no problem enjoying it as a 75mm equivalent, while at the same time it would be more useful as a 50mm on full frame. I can be content with what I have - and still have something to look forward to.
My 35mm lens works as my normal lens, and I enjoy it very much in that fashion. But with a digital FF camera it would be a wide angle lens and I'd also enjoy it a lot, I'm sure.
Best of both worlds, I can enjoy these lenses on both formats now, but I have to pay for film and development to do that

[normhead]

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, meaning it is a procedure in which a whole is divided into two parts. It is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

In no way did I suggest any dichotomy, much less a false one.

[Rondec]

My car is designed to go about 100 miles an hour, yet I rarely drive much more than 60. For some reason, that doesn't bother me at all. I still enjoy driving at 60 mph, more than I'd enjoy 100.

But I'm supposed to enjoy my FA 50 less because it could cover a bigger sensor size? If you want to ruin your life with that kind of thinking, fine, it's a choice. I choose to enjoy using what I have the way I can, leaving the impossible for others. The crazy thing is, most on the forum will enjoy their FA 50s and DA 35s etc without ever using them on FF. It's a tortured soul who can't enjoy what he does , because of what he thinks he should be able to do.

I feel sorry for those souls, never happy in the moment, always regretting what might be that isn't. The ghost of the future clouding their past and present.

But I digress.

I just have always been of the opinion that you buy new gear based on deficiencies in what you have now. If you need narrow depth of field (it's kind of overrated in my opinion) and can't get narrow enough with APS-C, then it is reasonable to go with full frame. I just don't see making a big deal about it. It's a little bit like going to a dance with a pretty girl and then ogling all the other girls there.

[monochrome]

. . . . most on the forum will enjoy their FA 50s and DA 35s etc without ever using them on FF. It's a tortured soul who can't enjoy what he does , because of what he thinks he should be able to do. . . . . But I digress.

Let me just go on record here as one who enjoys my FA35/2 on my K-01 more than any other camera / lens combination I have, or have ever experienced.

I'll stop now.

[normhead]

I just have always been of the opinion that you buy new gear based on deficiencies in what you have now. If you need narrow depth of field (it's kind of overrated in my opinion) and can't get narrow enough with APS-C, then it is reasonable to go with full frame. I just don't see making a big deal about it. It's a little bit like going to a dance with a pretty girl and then ogling all the other girls there.

You make it sound like there's something wrong with that.

[Na Horuk]

The thing is, if you want a brutally sharp 50mm with immense contrasts and fast aperture, you will sacrifice other things. The announced Sigma is a good example. Its a huge lens, very heavy, with big filter threads. Im sure it will do well on objective reviews, but who knows if it will actually consistently take photos better than ones taken with FA 50mm or DA 50mm.
And no, de-sharpening and lowering contrast are not without penalty. I can desharpen my DFA 100mm photos all I want and they will never look like those taken with a soft lens (or a classic portrait lens).
Rendering is a whole package and every time you improve one characteristic, you have to make sacrifices somewhere else.

The problem is that modern lenses are made to do well on test scores, instead of being made to produce photos that are pleasing to human viewers (and to be easily handled, carried around, etc.)

Edit:But of course, its good to have choices available, the more the merrier. It just bothers me when people judge a lens simply by DoF and resolution

[Rondec]

You make it sound like there's something wrong with that.

Well, the issue is if you think gear is going to make the difference in your shooting. Looking at the full frame thread, there are plenty of great shots, but it isn't like the majority of them couldn't be taken with a K5 and APS-C lens (at least at web size) and most of the guys posting there took similar great shots with APS-C gear when they owned that.

[Iberia]

As I've said before, I would like the full frame body for it's larger viewfinder, faster wide-angle lenses, shallower depth-of-field, lesser high-ISO noise but I would also like some fast, high performance D-FA primes (with "conventional" focal-lengths) to go with it.

APS is fine as well, even if I find acurate manual focus almost impossible to achieve on such a small and dim viewfinder.
And I could use a high quality DA 24mm f2 or even f2,8 (36mm equiv. FOV) and DA 35mm f1,4 (52mm equiv. FOV)…21mm just doesn't work for me and f2,4 for a normal lens is much too slow.

R

[ElJamoquio]

Well, the issue is if you think gear is going to make the difference in your shooting. Looking at the full frame thread, there are plenty of great shots, but it isn't like the majority of them couldn't be taken with a K5 and APS-C lens (at least at web size) and most of the guys posting there took similar great shots with APS-C gear when they owned that.

Yup. All the equivalence people saying repeatededly is that any camera can take any picture. Certainly at web sizes there's no difference if you're willing to spend the money for APS-C stuff.

[normhead]

As I've said before, I would like the full frame body for it's larger viewfinder, faster wide-angle lenses, shallower depth-of-field, lesser high-ISO noise but I would also like some fast, high performance D-FA primes (with "conventional" focal-lengths) to go with it.

APS is fine as well, even if I find acurate manual focus almost impossible to achieve on such a small and dim viewfinder.
And I could use a high quality DA 24mm f2 or even f2,8 (36mm equiv. FOV) and DA 35mm f1,4 (52mm equiv. FOV)…21mm just doesn't work for me and f2,4 for a normal lens is much too slow.

R

Sounds like you're a guy who really shouldn't be shooting APS-c. You are working with half the light in an APS-c viewfinder, but it was never any other way. I've seen so many D6100 or 6D cameras on sale for great prices with a kit lens, what's holding you back? I actually focus with APS_c by starting with focus on one side of the subject, running through until it's out of focus on the other side and then blindly and inaccurately splitting the difference. Not the best solutions,and certainly not the quickest, but if you like the rest of APS-c, size DoF etc. then it's a solution.

To me, "APS-c is fine" is a bit of a defeated kind of statement. For what i do, APS-c is the best. I wouldn't settle for "fine".

A splitting the difference image.
A-400 focussed on the front bird... it can work.


But admittedly a split image viewfinder on an FF would be easier. But then I'd need a 600mm lens instead of my A-400. These things, larger viewfinder etc. don't happen in a vacuum. There's always a trade off. In tis case, for me, an unacceptable tradeoff.

[Iberia]

You are correct: from that perspective APS favors short-FOV users while FF is more adequate for the wide-enders.

R

[jsherman999]

My car is designed to go about 100 miles an hour, yet I rarely drive much more than 60. For some reason, that doesn't bother me at all. I still enjoy driving at 60 mph, more than I'd enjoy 100.

But I'm supposed to enjoy my FA 50 less because it could cover a bigger sensor size? If you want to ruin your life with that kind of thinking, fine, it's a choice. I choose to enjoy using what I have the way I can, leaving the impossible for others. The crazy thing is, most on the forum will enjoy their FA 50s and DA 35s etc without ever using them on FF. It's a tortured soul who can't enjoy what he does , because of what he thinks he should be able to do.

I feel sorry for those souls, never happy in the moment, always regretting what might be that isn't. The ghost of the future clouding their past and present.

But I digress.

Do 'happy' aps-c shooters haunt the FF forums?

[Rondec]

Do 'happy' aps-c shooters haunt the FF forums?

I guess I'm guilty. I like the give and take of it. I certainly don't show up commenting on full frame photos saying that photos would be better if they were taken with an APS-C camera. On the other hand, I don't go into nikon/canon sections on DP Review or, elsewhere to attack them. But Pentax Forums feels like home -- even the full frame section.