[Rondec]

It's not a problem.

Video: I've not used other brands, but from reading lots of reviews Pentax falls short, in quality, compression, features. If I'm honest the fact that another brand is so good that it can be used for broadcast, that a pulling factor.

Full-Frame: I want the extra quality that FF brings, included within the video realm. Also from what I can fathom, FF generally helps in lower light and I want to do a lot of golden hour landscape and astro so I hope i think that helps.

I've been looking at the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 for landscape, alongside the Pentax 12-24 F4 (which I'm leaning towards). I also liked the Samyang 10mm F2.8 but as I would be unable to use my Lee Filter system I've ruled this out. The Pentax 12-24 is likely the winner if I don't decide to go elsewhere. Then again the primes like the DA15 is another choice.

---------- Post added 09-01-14 at 02:18 PM ----------

The DA 15 does indeed look superb! I might have just been turned hehe, would anyone suggest the DA 14mm F.2.8 over the DA 15??

I have considered waiting until the next rendition of Pentax is released, the predecessor of the K-3 be that a mark 2 version of another model completely. The main hope of this option is that the next model has the video I'm looking for :-)

I think the question is what you are shooting with your wide angle. I don't shoot much wide angle stuff where I need f2.8, most of the time I am stopped down to f8 and on a tripod. If you think you need a faster lens, then the DA 14 might be a decent lens, or even the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens.

[mdshooting]

I want to shoot various landscapes. So a ultra wide zoom would give me the flexibility I want.

Having something that f2.8 or better would enable be to do some astro too :-) thats the only reason I want something that will cater for both otherwise I'd buy two lenses for the two different jobs :-)

[6BQ5]

I want FF just as much as anyone but I don't feel it's holding me back from anything. The sensor is just one part of the image making chain and by itself the sensor is meaningless. Along with the surrounding electronics and firmware, all the sensor does is record the image that is presented to it. If I use a macro lens I can scan negative film and slides just as well as I can record a close up of an insect. The camera sensor doesn't care. I think the real secret sauce is in the lens. There are plenty of lenses for us Pentaxians to choose from but I understand that there may be some designs which are not available. Others are available but simply too expensive.

I used to obsess about the gear until I realized how blessed I am to have what I have. The less I worried about the gear, the more I enjoy taking pictures. Nowadays I barely think about gear. If it's convenient then I buy something. Otherwise, I forget about it. I'm just as happy to use my iPhone as I am my Q as I am my K-30 as I am my Spotmatics. In all cases I make do with what I have and I do so in my own style.

I don't know what kind of lenses you have now. If you listed it then I missed it and I apologize. If the current wide angle lenses from from Ricoh, Sigma, Samyang, etc don't work for you then I think you need to rationalize why they don't. Make a giant print of the image you think failed. Try big, like 16" x 24". Stare at it. Then start picking it apart with a wax pencil. Circle the specific areas that failed in your mind. Then ask yourself what would it take to "fix" it. Is there something you could have done like recomposing the shot? Maybe adding a filter? What about some simple post processing? I assume you're shooting RAW and you have access to Aperture, Lightroom, etc. Then go out and try it again. Otherwise, your chasing gear emotionally. Save your emotions for your composition and subject matter selection. That's where the passion should be. If a print is never your final destination and you do this on a monitor then I have a very strong feeling that every lens and camera will fail you in some regard.

Photographers like Gordon Parks and Eugene Smith did some phenomenal work in 135 film. I believe that our current APS based cameras exceed the capabilities of their FF systems. Yet, their photographs exceed anything I can create.

I understand that gear can be an inspiration. It can drive someone through its attraction and if that's what you need to shoot then follow it as long as you have the money to do so. If you want a FF system and if you want to jump from the Pentax DSLR ecosystem then please do so by all means. Canon, Nikon, and Sony all have FF systems and a whole line of lenses they would love to sell to you. Put your current gear up for sale somewhere and I'm sure someone will happily buy it.

Whatever you do never lose sight of the joy of simply taking pictures.

[Kozlok]

would anyone suggest the DA 14mm F.2.8 over the DA 15??

Only if they hate you.

[clackers]

MDS, while I don't have a FFF (Full Frame Fetish) I'm thinking of getting one to supplement my APS-C stuff.

If a Pentax FF doesn't appear, I'd happily do a Sony A7 and reuse K mount glass as I do currently with my NEX 3 and NEX 7. You won't be able to do that with Canon (hits the mirror), don't know about Nikon.

I have an adapter with aperture ring so the DAs work. You would lose auto focus, auto aperture and the TTL flash system, but you say you're a tripod-landscape guy anyway, not a social event or action shooter.

You're chasing an UWA zoom?

For a native lens, the 10-18mm E-mount zoom was designed for cropped factor but according to Trey Ratcliff is just fine except at its very widest lengths.

A really low cost way to try FF?

Someone in the forum pointed out you can pick up a Canon 5D Mk1 for $500. The modern nifty fifty to go with it is both cheap and very good, but if LBA gets hold of you, L series glass could have you selling your car or even your kids. :-D

[6BQ5]

If you really want to go "cheap" and get to FF then go with film. Get your negatives developed and scanned. You can always camera scan them with your APS camera. Since the negative image will already have the FF effect baked into it the APS sized sensor will just de-magnify it so to speak.

[Tesla]

Only if they hate you.

Yep the 14mm was the biggest mistake I made.

[jsherman999]

If you go there could be trouble
But if you stay it might be double

[Rondec]

I want to shoot various landscapes. So a ultra wide zoom would give me the flexibility I want.

Having something that f2.8 or better would enable be to do some astro too :-) thats the only reason I want something that will cater for both otherwise I'd buy two lenses for the two different jobs :-)

If you want something fast, I would choose the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 over any of the lenses mentioned. If you want something wide, I would probably choose either the 15 or the 12-24. The Sigma would work quite well for astro photography.

[monochrome]

The 5d Mark iii was used to record some US TV

Video: I've not used other brands, but from reading lots of reviews Pentax falls short, in quality, compression, features. If I'm honest the fact that another brand is so good that it can be used for broadcast, that a pulling factor.

PBA if you plan to manually pull focus for broadcast quality TV with a 5D it is a special technique. I understand from a well-placed source many professional camera operators have difficulty making the change. One broadcast news network completely returned to Sony traditional remote broadcast vidcams after their 5D experiment failed because only one operator could reliably focus the Canon.

FWIW, they loved the color profile but the video was often barely useable. Made the Operations Producers crazy.

[clackers]

If you go there could be trouble
But if you stay it might be double

Lotta love for The Clash! :-)

[Miguel]

If you go there could be trouble
But if you stay it might be double

So come on and let me know.

M

[DeadJohn]

Having something that f2.8 or better would enable be to do some astro too :-) thats the only reason I want something that will cater for both otherwise I'd buy two lenses for the two different jobs :-)

If you want something fast, I would choose the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 over any of the lenses mentioned. If you want something wide, I would probably choose either the 15 or the 12-24. The Sigma would work quite well for astro photography.

The Sigma 18-35 might not be great for astro. It has a fair amount of coma distortion wide open, which can give a weird shape to stars away from the center. Lenstip is the only site I know that regularly tests for coma Sigma A 18-35 mm f/1.8 DC HSM review - Coma, astigmatism and bokeh - Lenstip.com. Coma becomes a problem when you process an astro image to bring out more shadow detail in the Milky Way. My guess is that f1.8 will be okay for screen viewing, but stopping down will give better astrophotography prints.

@mdshooting, I realize astro is not your main motivation for wanting full frame, but the Sony A7s is a very tempting camera. Samples and reviews have left me with the impression that the A7s can get equivalent astro images to my K-5 with a 30x improvement in exposure time: a 30 second K-5 image can be done in a mere 1 second with the A7s! I'm tempted to rent an A7s to test it out but then I'd be too tempted to buy if it's really that good The A7s might also meet your video needs with the ability to do 4K video with ab external recorder. The A7s is a special purpose full frame camera, and not so good for landscape because it only has 12mp. K-3 for stills plus A7s for video and astro would be amazing if you can justify the cost and don't mind 2 systems.

I want to shoot various landscapes. So a ultra wide zoom would give me the flexibility I want.

Having something that f2.8 or better would enable be to do some astro too :-) thats the only reason I want something that will cater for both otherwise I'd buy two lenses for the two different jobs :-)

If I lost my DA 12-24, I'd be in trouble until I found a replacement. Landscape for me is occasional, the rare bit of travel. Events and dance, it a must have.

[easyreeder]

PBA if you plan to manually pull focus for broadcast quality TV with a 5D it is a special technique

The 5D isn't really a television machine. It delivers a filmic look and has limitations that make it problematic for television. More than fifteen minutes of recording, for example, and you want a dedicated video camera.