[Qwntm]

I'm not sure I need every lens to be ƒ1.2, but it would be nice to have at least one or two. It does bring something to the table.

Here's some of my reasoning, and this only applies to what I got going on regarding having to shoot 20-30 weddings this upcoming year.




So there is some merit in the argument that FF and fast lenses allow for a shallow depth of field and this is particularly evident and applicable to wedding photography.


There are a lot of pro wedding photographers that shoot FF for just this reason.


Also, there are a lot of pro wedding photographers that are adopting the Fuji X system (Kevin Mullins, Colin Nicholls to name 2) mainly because A.)their backs can't carry the FF gear for 8-10 hours at a wedding and B.)Fuji makes fast prime lenses that allow for shallow enough depth of field to get the job done in a professional and creative manner.


So, Fuji proves that APS-c with fast lenses is good enough for creative and expressive wedding photography, and I would rather shoot my Pentax K3's than Fuji, but alas, no fast primes in Pentax land.


Thus I am frustrated. I have no use for ANOTHER heavy FF camera regardless of who makes it. All I need are a few fast aps-c Pentax wide angles.


I was thinking the FA 35mm F2.0, though it's not APS-c specific. Or Sigma 30mm 1.4. Or even maybe try the 21/35/70 LTD's. Though the depth of field at F4 on a crop camera is probably pretty far from F1.4 on a FF! Pentax really only needs 2 lenses to make this happen: the 16 F1.4 and 23 1.4. We already have the 55 1.4. Icing on the cake would be a 35 1.4 Aps-c. Those 4 lenses would make a lot of pro's sit up and take notice. It did for Fuji. The 23mm is probably the most important. I could get by with just a 23mm 1.4 and 55 1.4.


I'm not saying Fuji is great and Pentax sucks, I am saying Pentax could be greater.




So what we are going to do this summer is shoot the Pentax's with the 16-50 and 50-135, and shoot the Fuji's with the fast primes. Who knows, this may work out to be the best of both worlds.

---

Last edited by Qwntm; 01-24-2016 at 03:10 PM.

[johnmflores]

It's why I bought a Fuji X-T1 and 16, 23, 35 and 56 instead of Pentax lenses.


I would think that Pentax themselves would find that pretty bad from their perspective as well. That's $4900 USD that went to Fuji instead of Pentax. And that's just me. I would have RATHER bought more Pentax.


So, not a weak argument at all.[COLOR="Silver"]

The fact that you bought a Fuji system is a nice and all but it doesn't support your assertion that Fuji makes pro gear and Pentax doesn't. So yes, still a weak argument.

[Imp]

Pentax could have done something unique and made a complete pro based APS-c DSLR system

I think you missed the word "complete". The way I saw it, the only thing Ed is saying is that Pentax has a solid APS-C lineup... but they failed to go the extra step to attract Professionals to the pentax aps-c system as a viable alternative...
Please don't take this as an absolute, i'm not saying it isn't a viable alternative, etc. etc... just try to understand that point.

[johnmflores]

I think you missed the word "complete". The way I saw it, the only thing Ed is saying is that Pentax has a solid APS-C lineup... but they failed to go the extra step to attract Professionals to the pentax aps-c system as a viable alternative...
Please don't take this as an absolute, i'm not saying it isn't a viable alternative, etc. etc... just try to understand that point.

You are misattributing that quote. I didn't say it. Ed did.

[Imp]

You are misattributing that quote. I didn't say it. Ed did.

sorry, because I quoted it from your quote of ed's statement

@Ed, unless I missed something, it seems that you're disregarding the FA limiteds? You also put down the 35/2 because its Full Frame. Why does it have to be an aps-c specific lens? Because the focal lengths aren't optimal? I'm curious.
If you include the FA limiteds, a 31 f/1.8 can replace the 35 f/1.4. The 43 and 77 don't have direct comparisons... I guess they're a little funny on aps-c, but with the 77/1.8 you've got a fast portrait lens FASTER than the Fuji equivalent, the 90 f/2...
Then, as you said, the 55 f/1.4 would replace the 56 f/1.4

But no wide angle solution, as you said before. And granted, the Pentax "equivalent" to what you want in Fuji is sort of patched together. FA 31, 77, DA55...
Why not two cameras - Fuji with your choice of the 16/23, pentax with your choice of the 31/55/77

[clackers]

Qwntm, I have the Samyang 24mm f1.4, Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art, DA50mm f1.8, FA77mm f1.8 and Samyang 85mm f1.4.

They do everything I want them to.

The Samyangs are MF but I'm sure present no problem to someone of your skills.

[rawr]

Those f1.2 and f2.0 images look rather flat. No crisp 'snap' evident, thin contrast and colour. Shooting wide-open, in low-light, and with the Fuji sensor, is not working miracles.

Perhaps related - what low-light EV is the auto-focus of the X-T1 capable of handling? I have never been able to find any data on that. K-3/D7200/D750/6D etc do -3EV AF, but Fuji never appear to publish info on the low-light performance specs of their AF (and metering). Maybe the softness in the images is partly a Fuji low-light AF and metering issue.

---

Last edited by rawr; 01-24-2016 at 07:00 PM.

[Qwntm]

The fact that you bought a Fuji system is a nice and all but it doesn't support your assertion that Fuji makes pro gear and Pentax doesn't. So yes, still a weak argument.

Please point me to where I said specifically that "Pentax doesn't make pro gear..."


When you do I will freely admit it's a weak argument.


Thank you.

---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 07:17 PM ----------

I think you missed the word "complete". The way I saw it, the only thing Ed is saying is that Pentax has a solid APS-C lineup... but they failed to go the extra step to attract Professionals to the pentax aps-c system as a viable alternative...
Please don't take this as an absolute, i'm not saying it isn't a viable alternative, etc. etc... just try to understand that point.

Someone who actually understands English. Amazing.


I always find it interesting how I say one thing and then people attach all their insecurities onto something I NEVER SAID, and throw it back at me.


Pentax has a solid APS-C lineup... but they failed to go the extra step to attract Professionals to the pentax aps-c system as a viable alternative...


Does that work? All I could add is:


Instead we got a FF that won't attract any professional because they already have Canon, Nikon or Sony FF's already.


Imp, I'm going to hire you as an interpreter!





---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 07:26 PM ----------

Those f1.2 and f2.0 images look rather flat. No crisp 'snap' evident, thin contrast and colour. Shooting wide-open, in low-light, and with the Fuji sensor, is not working miracles.

Perhaps related - what low-light EV is the auto-focus of the X-T1 capable of handling? I have never been able to find any data on that. K-3/D7200/D750/6D etc do -3EV AF, but Fuji never appear to publish info on the low-light performance specs of their AF (and metering). Maybe the softness in the images is partly a Fuji low-light AF and metering issue.

Great, a web image critic...


The Bride was THRILLED with the 12x12 Album, in which the prints were: punchy and crisp with tons of snap, loads of micro-contrast and beautiful rich color. All from the out of camera jpegs. What's your monitor? What did you calibrate it with? What's your Gamma set to?


I could blow any of those images up to 20x30 and they would make beautiful prints. Fuji doesn't need to publish any low light performance specs. If you got a K-3, just add another stop of performance, i.e. if your happy with your K3 at iso 3200, you would get the same quality or better results with the X-T1 at iso 6400. And that's based upon my real world experience. I shoot available light at weddings with auto iso and the k3 set to 3200 top iso and 6400 on the X-T1. But if you have real world experience shooting both systems and have a different opinion, I would love to hear about it.

---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 07:40 PM ----------

sorry, because I quoted it from your quote of ed's statement

@Ed, unless I missed something, it seems that you're disregarding the FA limiteds? You also put down the 35/2 because its Full Frame. Why does it have to be an aps-c specific lens? Because the focal lengths aren't optimal? I'm curious.
If you include the FA limiteds, a 31 f/1.8 can replace the 35 f/1.4. The 43 and 77 don't have direct comparisons... I guess they're a little funny on aps-c, but with the 77/1.8 you've got a fast portrait lens FASTER than the Fuji equivalent, the 90 f/2...
Then, as you said, the 55 f/1.4 would replace the 56 f/1.4

But no wide angle solution, as you said before. And granted, the Pentax "equivalent" to what you want in Fuji is sort of patched together. FA 31, 77, DA55...
Why not two cameras - Fuji with your choice of the 16/23, pentax with your choice of the 31/55/77

Well, I have tried and have spent A LOT of time thinking about it... but it is a patch work mess no matter what and at the end of the exercise I just bought the 4 Fuji lenses on sale and they all work the same, etc. etc.


BUT, as I love to talk SOS, (System Optimization Syndrome,) The problem with the FA limited, although they are beautiful Pro glass jewels, they are FF lenses and are bigger and heavier then what their DA counterparts would be if they made them. Same holds true for the FA 35mm, (though it is small and light for a FF lens.) I think a DA 35mm 1.4 would be about the same size as the FA 35 F2, so not optimized. (The Fuji 35mm F2.0 is like shooting a Leica Summicron F2, it's that small, but mirrorless skews that as well... so not a fair comparison.) So my APS-c specific lens requirement is arbitrary but based upon optimizing size and weight for the APS-c camera. Nikon and Canon do not do this. If I'm going to shoot a small compact K-3 APS-c camera and then stick FF lenses on why not then just shoot a 7D2 or D500 and then I could have any FF lens I could wish for, right?


The DA* 55 1.4 is perfect just the way it is, 1 out of the holy 3 of traditional fast primes is there already.


The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is definitely an option. That would cover the fast Normal. So 2 out of 3. The Sigma's not a Pentax, but it's also not that much of a compromise either.


Now for the real missing link: the FF fast 35mm equivalent. Hmmm... As John says, Samyang makes some really interesting lenses here, but I just don't want to sacrifice the AF. But that's just me. If Fuji didn't exist, I would probably be doing just that, though.


And that of course leads to: Fuji for fast primes and Pentax with fast zooms. At least for this summer and we will see where we're at. I might get the Sigma 30mm and see if the 15 and 21 LTD will do the trick for the wide. That actually is really appealing if it works.


Of course Pentax for ALL my Pro Landscape work...

---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 07:50 PM ----------

Qwntm, I have the Samyang 24mm f1.4, Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art, DA50mm f1.8, FA77mm f1.8 and Samyang 85mm f1.4.

They do everything I want them to.

The Samyangs are MF but I'm sure present no problem to someone of your skills.

Yes, the Samyang's are GREAT lenses, no doubt.


I think I detect a bit of sarcasm in your comment, and if I have offended you, I apologize. But maybe not...


Although I spent MANY years shooting manual focus lenses with film medium format cameras, and yes I do have the "skills" to do so, it's not something I'd actually like to do at 25 weddings this summer, and particularly if it's a penalty for shooting Pentax. I could very easily shoot the SDM 16-50mm, and have AF. But that's about a 4.5 pound camera rig with flash and bracket. If I had a Pentax (or someone's) AF 21-23mm for Pentax, I could shoot a 2.5 pound rig instead and switch lenses a few times. MUCH more appealing.

[johnmflores]

Please point me to where I said specifically that "Pentax doesn't make pro gear..."

When you do I will freely admit it's a weak argument.

Here you go, post #38

There is only 1 totally APS-c based pro level system, and that's Fuji AND it's mirrorless.

[noelpolar]

In the end, for the odd wedding I've done/do, I'm looking forward to the FA31 becomeing a 21ish with the Pentax FF......which then would take care of the missing lens.....the pentax FF isn't going to be that much bigger then a K3....... so in a way the argument for Fuji becomes moot..... K3's with smaller zooms, pentax FF with a couple of Limiteds..... one lot of spare batteries etc.... brain only computing one camera layout etc. Just because you have a FF doesn't mean big lenses.... in Pentax world...... you will have choice!

[Imp]

Imp, I'm going to hire you as an interpreter!

I think its just that people like to read what they want to read... not necessarily what is written

Here you go, post #38 QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote There is only 1 totally APS-c based pro level system, and that's Fuji AND it's mirrorless.

Again, you missed a word, this time it was "Totally" - Ed's just saying that in HIS opinion, Pentax is not a TOTALLY pro system, and for HIS uses, Fuji has a MORE complete pro lens lineup
Granted, perhaps the phrasing was wrong, but that is what I think Ed was saying... and even if the phrasing is wrong, taken in context with everything else he's said in this thread, that is definitely what it means.



---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 10:38 PM ----------

Instead we got a FF that won't attract any professional because they already have Canon, Nikon or Sony FF's already.

I wouldn't make such a set-in-stone statement - We don't really know. What we do know, is that Kenspo has switched from being a Nikon ambassador to being a Pentax ambassador, so there is one pro, at least, who has switched...

---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 10:39 PM ----------

Also, a random thought - why doesn't Pentax release a modern set of extension tubes? That's what i'd like

[bertwert]

Also, a random thought - why doesn't Pentax release a modern set of extension tubes? That's what i'd like

Many people would like that...
They just need to remove glass from the 1.4 teleconverter...

[rawr]

Fuji doesn't need to publish any low light performance specs.

Actually, it has recently. Buried in the X-T1 site they say that before the latest X-T1 firmware, the AF was only rated down to a minimum +2.5 EV light-level - ie daylight only. After the latest firmware, they now claim +0.5 EV. Which is still rather poor, considering even the K-x AF system does -1 EV. No wonder Fuji felt the need to produce all those fast primes for their system - otherwise the camera AF will usually not have enough light to work reliably.

[Qwntm]

Here you go, post #38

Where does that say that Pentax isn't a pro level system? It says that Pentax isn't a complete APS-c based pro system. It says that Fuji is a completely APS-c based Pro system. It DOES NOT SAY that "Pentax IS NOT a Pro system."


Try again...

---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 10:38 PM ----------

In the end, for the odd wedding I've done/do, I'm looking forward to the FA31 becomeing a 21ish with the Pentax FF......which then would take care of the missing lens.....the pentax FF isn't going to be that much bigger then a K3....... so in a way the argument for Fuji becomes moot..... K3's with smaller zooms, pentax FF with a couple of Limiteds..... one lot of spare batteries etc.... brain only computing one camera layout etc. Just because you have a FF doesn't mean big lenses.... in Pentax world...... you will have choice!

Well, that would be cool. Guess you could run the FF (if it's small and light enough) with the primes, (still need a fast 24mm,) and run a Aps-c with the 50-135. That could be a solution. Price would be the factor there.


We'll see...

---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 10:47 PM ----------

Actually, it has recently. Buried in the X-T1 site they say that before the latest X-T1 firmware, the AF was only rated down to a minimum +2.5 EV light-level - ie daylight only. After the latest firmware, they now claim +0.5 EV. Which is still rather poor, considering even the K-x AF system does -1 EV. No wonder Fuji felt the need to produce all those fast primes for their system - otherwise the camera AF will usually not have enough light to work reliably.

Have you shot a K-3 and an X-T1 side by side in low light conditions?


F1.2 at 1/125th at iso 6400 is ev 7. If you have F1.2/1.4 lenses and a camera that gives you clean iso 6400, who cares if it can focus at ev -3? I'll trade ev-3 for ev-1 and 3 or 4 fast primes any day. But that's just me.

---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 10:52 PM ----------

I think its just that people like to read what they want to read... not necessarily what is written



Again, you missed a word, this time it was "Totally" - Ed's just saying that in HIS opinion, Pentax is not a TOTALLY pro system, and for HIS uses, Fuji has a MORE complete pro lens lineup
Granted, perhaps the phrasing was wrong, but that is what I think Ed was saying... and even if the phrasing is wrong, taken in context with everything else he's said in this thread, that is definitely what it means.



---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 10:38 PM ----------



I wouldn't make such a set-in-stone statement - We don't really know. What we do know, is that Kenspo has switched from being a Nikon ambassador to being a Pentax ambassador, so there is one pro, at least, who has switched...

---------- Post added 01-24-16 at 10:39 PM ----------

Also, a random thought - why doesn't Pentax release a modern set of extension tubes? That's what i'd like

Don't like what is said, attack the messenger.... People know what I'm saying... they just don't like it.


We don't know what the Pentax FF is, this is true. (Sad, but true.) I would be very happy to eat crow on this one and be shooting a Pentax FF with the fast primes (such as they are) this summer with an APS-c 50-135. There's about a 20% chance of that happening from all I've seen so far.


Add modern extension tubes to the list...

[rawr]

who cares if it can focus at ev -3?

I suspect if Fuji had a camera that could work at -3EV, let alone 0 EV, they would make it sound like a very attractive camera feature indeed.

Aside from general low-light domestic/ walkabout/ sports/ weddings ...decent EV sensitivity also helps a camera work with long lenses and teleconverters. Not surprisingly, telephoto is an area Fuji hasn't shown much interest in until recently.

Aside from AF, I wonder at what light level Fuji's exposure metering stops working? Just like the AF, I'd wager that it probably also dies at +1 EV or something (compared to -3EV for the K-3). That's not going to be good for delivering good tonality in failing light, or when using long, slow lenses.

Swings and roundabouts. X-T1 is no doubt a super little camera, but there seem to be important gaps in Fuji's tech. As a K-3 backup it could probably work OK, I guess.