[normhead]

I want a Canon 5d mark iii with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens but I want it produced by Pentax hehe.

Find the lens you love and buy the camera it goes on. Pentax is not going to make this lens. It's incompatible with their design philosophy, which is essentially, the best you can do in a small light package. But what experience do you have with this combo? Rent one... see if it's what you want. Hopefully you can rent from a place that will give you credit for your rental if you decide to buy.

If that's the lens that best suits you, you're a fool sitting around waiting for Pentax to make one. Personally carrying a 2.8 wide angle would be over the top crazy for me. I shoot 100 ISO and ƒ5 and never have a problem. Lots of guys on the site shoot astrophotography, without using 2.8 glass. I'm not sure why we're all beating around the bush on this though. If you've determined the Canon 5d mark iii with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is what you want go for it. Far be it from me to talk you out of it. Pentax is not going to make an FF, and also isn't going to make that lens even if they do. You're wasting time thinking they might. Get your preferred gear and get busy.

If what you're looking for specific advice on accomplishing photographic goals, you need to ask people who are doing what you want to do. There are people using the GPS astro-tracker thingy that turns your shake reduction mechanism and camera into a tracking telescope. IN other words, maybe you don't even need ƒ2.8. There's knowledge here, but crying that you have to have a Canon probably isn't the way to go about tapping into it. And speculating on what Pentax might release in the future is a total waste of time. I'm happy when they get around to releasing things they've already put on the road map, forget about things that aren't even on the road map.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-02-2014 at 05:31 AM.

[jsherman999]

So come on and let me know.

M

This indecision's buggin' me

[monochrome]

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.

Yeah, they went back to shoulder mount Sonys - but I'm not talking about Studio length takes. I'm talking about Remotes - and I'm not stating hypothesis - all the Networks tried dSLR's. The color profile was gorgeous and the visual people loved the look - but - Operations Producers had trouble editing Broadcast Quality B-Roll from the video files because so much footage was soft. They rarely (never) have a 15+ minute take to edit - it's all short cuts. When it is good it is great, but it isn't easy for the Camera Operators to make it good.

When regular people make claims about wanting a 5D to shoot 'Broadcast Quality' video that's fine - but it isn't easy and the skill doesn't transfer well from traditional VidCams. Even though News isn't Feature (well, some News is Feature) I just thought it was information the OP should have in his decision set.

[ElJamoquio]

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

I agree that the reviews hype the A7S that much. But it's not THAT good. It's good though. What ISO do you usually use? Do you have the GPS for the K-5?

[dtmateojr]

As I am getting more and more in to photography. I find myself wanting more. As we are all aware, more means, more money!



I am an avid Pentaxian and loyal to remain with the Pentax brand, however if I remove money from the conversation (I wish I could do this!!!!) what is Pentax doing to keep me as a customer? I want a Full-Frame Camera! Yet Pentax refuses to even keep us updated on how this is evolving. Would it not be better to say that they are not currently working on a Full-Frame Camera? No of course it wouldn't, to do this would encourage those waiting around to bleed off to disparate brands and get what they have wanted for sometime. Equally if they are working on something, to keep quiet only add's to frustration within the Pentax world.



I look for new gear to do things I can't presently do and find myself being tempted by other brands who offer much more, admittedly at more cost. Despite the cost, the offering's available like better video recording, full-frame, own brand lenses that give me what leave me questioning my loyalties. I still want to stay with the Pentax brand........That said.......Unless I can see that there is more coming from Pentax (at the early stage that I am at) within the Photography world would it not make sense to jump ship now before I've bought more and more equipment?



The K-3 is a leap forwards and certainly shows that Pentax is developing what they have, but I still think we have a right to know whether things are moving in a direction that this "Pentax Full Frame" thread appears to want to go.



So I ask two questions:

1. Is a Full-Frame Camera actually in development?

2. Is Pentax developing more lenses to cater or compete with there competitions third party lenses?



If no lenses are in development for the current sensors then I would have thought this suggests that Pentax is developing a Full-Frame and shifting there lens development to cater for a new breed of Pentax DSLR.



All this has started as I have spent the day trying to find good glass in the 10-24mm (16-35mm FF) range. Third party lenses can do this but the reviews, don't exactly endear me to spend the money on something that so many have declared as "not very good".



This is a little rant from me, which I must apologies. However I'm frustrated as so many other brands give me what I want, yet the brand I like so much appears to refuse to even acknowledge that the consumer wants something they don't appear too keen to put out in the public domain. Maybe it for fear that aliens will steal it who knows. Either way all comments are welcome :-)

True story.

There is this Pentaxian landscape photographer that I truly admire. He is "just" using ordinary Sigma lenses for his shots. I don't want to name names but he moved to a full frame Nikon a while ago. To be honest, that did not do anything to his images and in fact his "full frame" shots were not the same powerful images as before. Not sure why. I noticed the degradation of his shots and that's when I realised that he has "upgraded" his camera. Probably he was still learning the new brand but even until now there's nothing that really differentiates from his fantastic images when he was "just" using a Pentax.

[ElJamoquio]

Everybody knows that Sigma lenses are green. Maybe it was just the greeness.


I do claim to see more saturation or something in Pentax images. Internal processing? Different micro-lenses? Who knows.

[dtmateojr]

Everybody knows that Sigma lenses are green. Maybe it was just the greeness.


I do claim to see more saturation or something in Pentax images. Internal processing? Different micro-lenses? Who knows.

He was using Sigma with the Pentax. I bet he is using full blown Nikon lenses now with his D800.

[DeadJohn]

I agree that the reviews hype the A7S that much. But it's not THAT good. It's good though. What ISO do you usually use? Do you have the GPS for the K-5?

I usually use ISO 1600 with my K5. I have the O-GPS but find accuracy unreliable even with precise calibration. 2 consecutive images can give one crisp result and another with noticeable trails.

A7s is allegedly good all the way to ISO 51000. I haven't found a direct K5 to A7s comparison yet, taken through the same telescope and same light pollution and weather.

[ElJamoquio]

The major advantages in the A7S were found at very high ISO.

At ISO1600, the K-5 has about as much noise as the A7S at ISO4500. So that's about a stop and a half.

There's more to it than just SNR of course but it isn't anywhere near ISO51000 IMO.

However if you're into 'wide angle' astrophotography, you can get much faster lenses for the Sony. At 14mm you can get F/2.8 for a few hundred dollars, whereas at 8 or 9 mm on APS-C the best you'll do is about 4.5 excluding some fisheyes I think. So there's another stop of performance, a bit more, for a total of a bit less than three stops.

Definitely an improvement though.

[jsherman999]

True story.

There is this Pentaxian landscape photographer that I truly admire. He is "just" using ordinary Sigma lenses for his shots. I don't want to name names but he moved to a full frame Nikon a while ago. To be honest, that did not do anything to his images and in fact his "full frame" shots were not the same powerful images as before. Not sure why. I noticed the degradation of his shots and that's when I realised that he has "upgraded" his camera. Probably he was still learning the new brand but even until now there's nothing that really differentiates from his fantastic images when he was "just" using a Pentax.

dtmajeor's brilliant conclusion from his "true" story is one of the following:

1) Pentax aps-c cameras and lenses make better landscape pictures than Nikon (or maybe any) FF can!
2) FF makes photographers worse!
3) Nikon makes photographers worse!

[ElJamoquio]

He was using Sigma with the Pentax. I bet he is using full blown Nikon lenses now with his D800.

Nikon lenses are crap.

[jsherman999]

Nikon lenses are crap.

Terrible wastes of glass and metal.

[dtmateojr]

dtmajeor's brilliant conclusion from his "true" story is one of the following:

1) Pentax aps-c cameras and lenses make better landscape pictures than Nikon (or maybe any) FF can!
2) FF makes photographers worse!
3) Nikon makes photographers worse!

Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

If you are a full frame fan boi then I would understand if that's everything that you got from a true story. Those of us who have a few more brain cells will conclude that FF isn't really going to change your photos that much. In some cases it would even make them worse.

I'm not really sure why this particular photographer is doing what he is doing. Back when he was shooting Pentax he was going f/8 or f/11 but now with FF he is shooting f/5.6 or f/2 with landscapes. Is it because he realised that at f/8 or f/11, a 36Mp is just a waste of disk space? Quite mysterious.

Back when he was shooting Pentax he made very moody images with fog and mist ... interesting weather conditions. Now with Nikon FF I can not find anymore harsh weather shots. Is he scared that his 3x more expensive equipment is now more fragile and not worth risking? Very curious indeed.

[ElJamoquio]

Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

If you are a full frame fan boi then I would understand if that's everything that you got from a true story. Those of us who have a few more brain cells

"Friendly Pentax Camera Forum"

Is it because he realised that at f/8 or f/11, a 36Mp is just a waste of disk space?

Doubt it. There's misinformation everywhere though, perhaps he was misled.

[jsherman999]

Doubt it. There's misinformation everywhere though, perhaps he was misled.

Sounds like a wendyb story to me.