[normhead]

Ricoh (still, AFAIK) currently offers the FA 35mm f/2.0 and FA 50mm f/1.4, the latter of which goes for somewhere around US$200 used. The lack of an 85 is admitted, but neither of the other lenses is THAT hideously expensive, is it? And very soon many of us will be able to see for ourselves where the DA 35mm/2.4 and DA 50mm/1.8 really stand with regard to FF coverage.

The problem with Nikon or Canon is that to go full-frame with them can cost so much more for the body alone that it makes up for a lot of the lens price, especially used. The difference between the K-1 and the D810 (the nearest comparable Nikon) is sufficient to have paid for my FA28/2.8, FA50/1.4 and FA135/2.8, all of which I bought used and which work quite well, thank you very much. With that kit, I can do almost everything I would want a K-1 to do - except macro, and I have a D-FA 100 WR macro for that (which I originally bought to go on my *ist-DL).



For a while I heard a faint siren song in that direction, but then I took an ME around the world in my vest pocket. FULL FRAME BY PENTAX , and it's really no bigger than most of the Oly mirrorless bodies. That was enough to cure me of micro 4/3 forever. (Yes, it's film, but you can digitise that and IMHO home development of C41 isn't beyond the realm of the possible.)

They used to make desktop units to process C41 that would sit on a coffee table, everything automated, warm up the machine stick the film in one end, and it comes out the other 20 minutes later, pretty much done. They must not have caught on, they weren't in the photo stores for very long. But, if you could find a lightly used one, it would be just a matter of finding the chemistry.

[tvdtvdtvd]

Yes, it's film, but you can digitise that

Seems not all that long ago that many were trying to do the exact opposite, (disguise digital as film).

[reh321]

For a while I heard a faint siren song in that direction, but then I took an ME around the world in my vest pocket. FULL FRAME BY PENTAX , and it's really no bigger than most of the Oly mirrorless bodies. That was enough to cure me of micro 4/3 forever. (Yes, it's film, but you can digitise that and IMHO home development of C41 isn't beyond the realm of the possible.)

I moved from film to digital only once I had convinced myself by having my own slides scanned that digital would provide at least as much detail as I'd been getting from Kodachrome; recently I used the 50mm f/1.7 "A" lens from my film daze on my K-30 and convinced myself that it is a good sharp lens, so those fiim-vs-digital results were not a result of my using a kit lens back then. Digital has seriously progressed in the past ten years, so if someone goes through the bother of using film again, it certainly won't be for the quality of the images {and I really like the convenience of digital!}

[Winder]

Digital has seriously progressed in the past ten years, so if someone goes through the bother of using film again, it certainly won't be for the quality of the images {and I really like the convenience of digital!}

When my Minolta Multi-Scan Pro film scanner went out on me I pretty much decided to go all digital and sell the Contax 645. I just can't justify the cost of shooting any type of event work on film anymore and the cost of a new scanners is higher than the K-1. I do use DxO Film Pack from time to time. The speed, quality, and cost of digital has made film more of a novelty for anything other than large format, but large format is a novelty itself.

[osv]

I think I've proved my point with the several examples I've provided.

no, what you've done is admitted that you were wrong, by calling their failure to deliver the minivan that you ordered an "upgrade"

when a company doesn't give you what you paid for, it's NOT an "upgrade", lol

i suspect that if you ever get a 36mp ff camera, you might begin to understand what the term "upgrade" really means... it's miles ahead of the k3ii.

---------- Post added 03-23-16 at 10:38 AM ----------

Digital has seriously progressed in the past ten years, so if someone goes through the bother of using film again, it certainly won't be for the quality of the images {and I really like the convenience of digital!}

this ^^^ i wish that somebody would tell the film guys that, because a lot of 'em still don't get it

[bxf]

it's miles ahead of the k3ii

Sorry, but there are too many people who, although acknowledge the (sometimes) superiority of FF, quite clearly state that the difference IS NOT "miles ahead".

As to whether or not a given change is an upgrade, consider going from a full featured APS-C vs to a very basic FF. Would this necessarily be an upgrade?

[tvdtvdtvd]

no, what you've done is admitted that you were wrong, by calling their failure to deliver the minivan that you ordered an "upgrade"

Now you're baiting. Can you actually illustrate that statement in a logical argument, without moving the peg again?

when a company doesn't give you what you paid for, it's NOT an "upgrade", lol

I'm quite confident in the logic of my argument. Let me remind you that you were the one to first proffer the the rental car analogy, which
I refuted. Heck, I even left off the 12 passenger van analogy as redundant though it is itself another example of change of format.

i suspect that if you ever get a 36mp ff camera, you might begin to understand what the term "upgrade" really means... it's miles ahead of the k3ii.

Never fear, I >do< know the advantages of changing format when need, though I appreciate your well wishes. However, that doesn't mean
I've extrapolated a conclusion that a change of format represents a natural upgrade path, as the APS-C > FF myth suggests.

[pathdoc]

As to whether or not a given change is an upgrade, consider going from a full featured APS-C vs to a very basic FF. Would this necessarily be an upgrade?

Depending on the exact contents of the original prototype Full Frame's mirror box (i.e. did it still retain the aperture arm?), my M lenses might consider going from the K-5 to said FF an upgrade. In all other respects, I would sooner keep my K-5.

[RobA_Oz]

Seeing as he's actually living there, and given the general utility of the greenback, I've got no issue with that. Would you be making an issue of it if it were a Swede using the word "kroner"?

If you kept that phrase in context, you might realise that I was pointing out that people can nit-pick about anything. I wasn't lodging a complaint about it.

[GeneV]

The place where the author lost me was when he listed "wildlife" among the subjects where FF was an upgrade. I now shoot with both, but unless I can get really close, wildlife is a big stronghold for APS-C. A DA*300 + TC gets me a very portable rig capable of outstanding quality on the K3. Packing the 630mm or more of glass needed for the same FOV on a FF sensor is much more of a challenge.

I really do not understand why people get so worked up about this. If you are driving the Autobahn, a Porsche is a huge upgrade over a jeep. If you are going up a dirt trail on the side of a mountain, not so much.

[osv]

I'm quite confident in the logic of my argument.

we can see that your exact words were: "Always presented as an upgrade. "Sorry, we don't have the minivan you reserved, but we're going to upgrade you to
an SUV."

you ordered a minivan, they failed to deliver the minivan that they were contracted to deliver, and you called it an "upgrade".

that was no "upgrade" it was you getting screwed over by the rental company.

Let me remind you that you were the one to first proffer the the rental car analogy, which
I refuted.

no, you proved yourself wrong, because the only upgrade for an 8-passenger minivan is a 12-passenger van.

Never fear, I >do< know the advantages of changing format when need, though I appreciate your well wishes. However, that doesn't mean
I've extrapolated a conclusion that a change of format represents a natural upgrade path, as the APS-C > FF myth suggests.

i bet that you've never owned a 36mp ff camera, so you really don't have any idea what this upgrade is.

hint: pentax isn't going to screw you over like the rental car company did

i hate rental car companies!

---------- Post added 03-23-16 at 02:34 PM ----------

If you are driving the Autobahn, a Porsche is a huge upgrade over a jeep. If you are going up a dirt trail on the side of a mountain, not so much.

You Tube

You Tube

[RobA_Oz]

… i wish that somebody would tell the film guys that, because a lot of 'em still don't get it

A friend of mine, who's a hard-core "film guy", is, for the first time, quite excited about digital, with the arrival of the K-1. He "gets" the advantages of digital, and not just because of one camera: he loves the process of shooting with film, and various formats. It's a bit like taking the winding B-road instead of the expressway because you love driving, not because you want to get somewhere. I don't think a lot of "digital guys" get that. I do, and I suspect you do, too, even though I mostly shoot digital these days.

[tvdtvdtvd]

we can see that your exact words were: "Always presented as an upgrade. "Sorry, we don't have the minivan you reserved, but we're going to upgrade you to
an SUV."

you ordered a minivan, they failed to deliver the minivan that they were contracted to deliver, and you called it an "upgrade".

that was no "upgrade" it was you getting screwed over by the rental company.

Wow, you really aren't getting this debate. Once again, you disavow the use of the word 'upgrade' for this instance....

no, you proved yourself wrong, because the only upgrade for an 8-passenger minivan is a 12-passenger van.

Then reintroduce the term here, even though both situations have the same exact context. Peg moved again, twice.

I'll give you a hint about the minivan vs 12 passenger van discrepancy. Car chassis vs truck chassis. Those two vehicles are
two entirely separate beasts, with different markets and very different driving characteristics. Different formats.

i bet that you've never owned a 36mp ff camera, so you really don't have any idea what this upgrade is.

Irrelevant? Yes, irrelevant. I have plenty of other experience with changes in camera formats to understand what's going on.

hint: pentax isn't going to screw you over like the rental car company did

Now here's a point we agree upon!

[osv]

Sorry, but there are too many people who, although acknowledge the (sometimes) superiority of FF, quite clearly state that the difference IS NOT "miles ahead".

you mean people like normhead, who have never owned a ff digital camera? lol

we don't yet know what pentax has done to the k-1 sensor, but if you look at how sony has tweaked the a7rii, vs. the 645z, you'll see that they are neck-in-neck throughout most of the range, while the d7200 isn't playing in the same league at all: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

it's dr vs. iso... you can plug in older tech like the d810/a7r, they fall somewhere in between, i couldn't find a pentax crop sensor camera for that graph.

there is no pq parameter where the k3ii will be comparable to the k-1; the k-1 af performance should be much better, k-1 has 5-axis ibis, etc... so yes, it's going to be miles ahead.

---------- Post added 03-23-16 at 03:56 PM ----------

Wow, you really aren't getting this debate. Once again, you disavow the use of the word 'upgrade' for this instance....

in all instances that you've claimed it applied, lol

I'll give you a hint about the minivan vs 12 passenger van discrepancy. Car chassis vs truck chassis.

no, the 12-passenger vans are ford transit vehicles, which are unibody construction, they don't have a chassis, and neither do the minivans.

the reason that it's an upgrade is because no suv is rated by the rental companies to carry 8 passengers.

hint: Should You Choose a Body-On-Frame SUV or a Car-Based Crossover? - Autotrader

[Winder]

he loves the process of shooting with film, and various formats. It's a bit like taking the winding B-road instead of the expressway because you love driving, not because you want to get somewhere.

I love working in the darkroom and printing B&W. No, digital is not the same, but for any kind of volume of work, you just can't justify (I can't justify) shooting film. If I could justify it, I would still be using a 67II. I never cared for the 4x5.