[Blue]

It would depend on what I was going to be using the lens for. I agree that the 43mm is an excellent lens (on APS-C). I have never seen results from a FF digital so I can only speculate about its performance.

It is excellent on aps-c and 24x36 film, enough so there was a Leica L mount version made. So why would anyone draw a conclusion it would perform badly on a ff digital sensor? It has Ghostles Coatings on the rear element.

News Flash. It was designed for FILM which is a lot more forgiving that digital. CA is not an issue with film. Film can deal with light striking the focal plane at a much greater angle than a digital sensor. Vignetting can be handled in post pretty well with modern processing, but it is still an issue. Some of these lenses are showing a 1 stop difference in exposure in the corners of an APS-C sensor. How much of a loss would we have on a 50% larger sensor? 2-stops? If you are already pushing 6400 and you have to boost the corners 2-stops you are going to see some serious image degradation. Will it effect all types of photography and all shooters? NO, but I'm not going to pay $1,000 for a LTD lens to use on a FF if I can't use the entire frame. If you like the soft edges and lots of vignetting by a Lens Baby.

There are going to be certain focal lengths that do very well on digital sensors, and there are going to be a lot of other that don't. Lenses that are already showing problems in the outer 25% of the image on APS-C are going to show even more problems on a 50% larger sensor.

Well the 135 film format is what ff cameras try to emulate fov wise. Additionally, it is still going to be an f1.9 lens, period. Also, focal length isn't what matters with resolution, ca etc, but optical formula so consequently focal length isn't going to determine which lenses perform poorly or well. Otherwise, everyone would be using acme lenses. Lastly, the thought ca and flare isn't a problem on film. Sure certain film types are effected more so than other. Film has characteristics for things like resolution as well. BTW, it is a $569 lens, not $1K

---

Last edited by Blue; 07-09-2011 at 05:46 PM.

[Spare Tire]

Only in rangefinder lenses does the light strike the sensor in highly oblique angles. In SLRs, because of the mirror box, lens formula has to pull the rear of the lens much farther from the sensor and the light path is pretty straight.

[Aristophanes]

Looking at Photozone's review of the FA 43, it sure looks like it would have quite a bit of vignetting wide open. Probably not a big deal for portraits, but on full frame, you wouldn't use it shoot portraits, would you?

It would depend on what I was going to be using the lens for. I agree that the 43mm is an excellent lens (on APS-C). I have never seen results from a FF digital so I can only speculate about its performance.

Maybe not on FF digital, but it certainly has a quality on 35mm:

000014 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I will concur that digital FF is far less forgiving than film of any type. I suspect that light falloff on the FA Limiteds will be more noticeable to pixel peepers and that the FA Limiteds would need new coatings. That said, images from the FA Ltd's on film look pretty awesome. Vignetting? Get a loupe and get back to me. I doubt many of the scans are seriously corrected.

I cannot fathom why someone thinks 43mm is not a good FL. 42-45mm is closer to the normal eye view than the arbitrary accident of the 50mm "normal". That's why so many street RF's form the 1960's and 70's were made in a 45mm or near format. I own 2 myself.

Someone in Moscow needs a heating pad wrapped around their head.

I think a lot of wishful legacy glass owners, especially those with the K,M, and A series collections would be disappointed with lens performance on FF digital. Paying $3,500 for a body to put an A50/1.7 on it only to have the performance be sub-par is really not in Pentax's best interest. Those lenses were made for film. They translate OK to digital, for the saving grace of APS-C being a sweet spot size for a 135 lens system. I could see Pentax writing software for each lens and keeping a database of Pentax brand in the camera to compensate for known flaws, but that is a lot of effort.

[jsherman999]

Maybe not on FF digital, but it certainly has a quality on 35mm:

000014 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I will concur that digital FF is far less forgiving than film of any type. I suspect that light falloff on the FA Limiteds will be more noticeable to pixel peepers and that the FA Limiteds would need new coatings. That said, images from the FA Ltd's on film look pretty awesome. Vignetting? Get a loupe and get back to me. I doubt many of the scans are seriously corrected.

I cannot fathom why someone thinks 43mm is not a good FL. 42-45mm is closer to the normal eye view than the arbitrary accident of the 50mm "normal". That's why so many street RF's form the 1960's and 70's were made in a 45mm or near format. I own 2 myself.

Someone in Moscow needs a heating pad wrapped around their head.

I think a lot of wishful legacy glass owners, especially those with the K,M, and A series collections would be disappointed with lens performance on FF digital. Paying $3,500 for a body to put an A50/1.7 on it only to have the performance be sub-par is really not in Pentax's best interest. Those lenses were made for film. They translate OK to digital, for the saving grace of APS-C being a sweet spot size for a 135 lens system. I could see Pentax writing software for each lens and keeping a database of Pentax brand in the camera to compensate for known flaws, but that is a lot of effort.

My most-used lens on the D700 is the $109 50 1.8D, basically a flash-friendly-chipped version of a mid-80's lens. It produces really nice results on that relatively-forgiving 12mp FF sensor....

f/1.8




Couple years ago I did some informal tests with that 50 on a D90 vs an FA 50 1.7 on a K20D, and the FA looked a bit sharper wide-open. (informal because there's a resolution difference between those cameras you have to take into account) But I definitely preferred the FA/K20D combo's output.

I think you're right in that there are probably a good many older lenses that would start to show their age with a new, higher-MP FF sensor, but I think the 50 1.7 variants would do very well. And I think the FA Limiteds' few age spots would be forgiven when folks stated to see their results with those lenses, which I maintain would be incredible. If they didn't exist, I probably wouldn't even care too much about a Pentax FF possibility.


.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 07-09-2011 at 07:26 PM.

[loveisageless]

I currently use a Nikon D700. Good enough ergonomics and good glass (some of it even affordable:-) I would love it if Pentax came out with K20D sized FF body. Pentax glass and colors would be a knock out. Short of that, I wish there were an adapter that would allow Pentax K mount autofocus lenses to be used on a Nikon FF body. The K5, even with its issues, tells me Pentax could make a gorgeous (ergonomically and IQ) FF camera body. I am not giving up hope, just waiting:-) Maybe Ricoh will give it a try?

[Aristophanes]

When it comes down to it, we are debating with our opinions as evidence. So I don't think we can come to any type of agreement here, but I'll try to prove my point again.

I don't understand what you mean by "The K-5 and K-r are pretty much as small as one can go."... Than what?

For an APS-C DSLR.

The tech is reaching its limits in terms of form factor:

1) AF phase is bulky and cannot be reduced in size without taking away points etc. You can go all the way and get rid of it and be Leica. Phase detect AF systems have, in fact, been getting larger to accommodate more information because the software can do more with more data. That's why Nikon's AF is so much better than Pentax's.

2) SR is very bulky and for mechanical reasons cannot be shrunk much. Sony and Olympus have the exact same problem. Canikon saw that coming and put VR/IS in the lens. if you want to move your sensor around, you need room to move. Film 135 cameras did not need that space on the film plane. You've just made the sensor's space demands larger than 135 film's ever was.

3) FPS is necessary for high-end DSLR's and the extra bulk necessary to withstand extreme shutter activations cannot be made smaller (unless you move to an all-plastic shutter which Minolta did in one of their models and had warranty issues). Not to mention some serious circuitry which has to be on separate channels to prevent data loss due to circuit noise. This was never a concern with film where most electronics were for meter, shutter, and AF only. They did not have to power and download discrete data from every frame on a separate channel to prevent contamination. This is why current FF DSLR's resemble a Nikon F6 in size and weight.

4) Power and cooling and video and rear LCD all take up space. Lots. Add in video and you need some serious cooling.

The FF DSLR can never approach the size of a legacy M series Pentax film body.

To get smaller than a K-5/K-r, you need to take stuff away and substitute with disruptive tech. This is the M43/NEX approach. They take away the mirror and box, shrink the shutter to a smaller sensor's needs, reduce power overall so smaller batteries, no VF, contrast not phase AF, and so on.

They had to get rid of the DSLR product and change their mount to do so.

If you want a Pentax FF k-mount you will be looking at a camera physically as big as something like the D300/D700 for comparison. I should also mention that the big glass will require a balanced, full hand body with strengthened mount. Or you can abandon k-mount (or have a costly, bulk-adding adapter) and start from scratch. But all that legacy glass designed for film and prism manual focus will not have that optical system anymore. It's like designing a Porsche for driving up and down a back alley.

It's pretty obvious when you look at the way the DSLR industry has arranged itself APS-C came to dominate over FF because they needed space inside the body for supporting systems, and there are real, unavoidable technical limitations to how small those systems can get. The original MZ-D was never going to be small:



So APS-C made sense from a sensor cost perspective, and it allowed for roughly the same form factor as 135 bodies (MZ-5n for example) which was successful in the market.

- Pentax APS-C SLRs are smaller than the competition, yet have more internal features such as SR.

Not true. My Nikon D40x was a touch smaller than the K-r and the D3100 is about the same size.

The Sony A33/A55 are thicker because of the EVF extension and rotating LCD, but they weigh less than the K-r and in the hand feel about the same size.

They are all in the same category and roughly equivalent. If they were cars they would all be classed the same.

The old mindset where the Olympus OM series and Pentax M series of cameras were the small prosumer/enthusiast kit while Canon, Nikon and Minolta made big stuff (plus RF's) is gone. There is far less difference now and clinging to an ancient standard when the numbers say otherwise is unwise. The schism now is between mirrorless and DSLR.

- The K-5 has many similarities to a 7D for example, yet is smaller and has internal SR.

Yes. So what? The Canon sells about 8x as many. Marginal size differences have little to do with sales. People buy the bigger cameras more than the smaller ones, so the sales data says.

- Pentax will soon be releasing the Q camera/system. This is the smallest interchangeable lens system ever released from one of the major companies. The extending flash in the Q is a Pentax feat of engineering that disproves a general "it can't be done" mindset.

Nonsense. Extending flash units have been around since the 1980's (Canon had a model or 2, as did Konica) and one of the recent Olympus models has a scissor one prior to the Q. The reason for not having extended flash is durability and warranty servicing. It has nothing to do with a"feat of engineering" save as marketing hype.

While from your point of view you might feel they need a stable of f2.8 zooms, I don't. If I wanted 35mm full-frame for the sake of it, I'd buy into one of the other systems. I currently own many more prime lenses than zooms. Just look at the president of Pentax USA's blog posts to see a similar style of photographer. I think there is a shift back to primes lenses in all camps. Look at how successful and popular the Fuji x100 is with a fixed prime lens, it's major selling point is that optical viewfinder. Let's even talk about the 645D and it being released successfully with a single 55mm prime lens, where most of the initial sales came from 645 film users.

You're arguing at cross-pusposes. The Fuji is a high-end, single style camera and the 645D is extremely high-end.

There's no value brand at those price points.

And the Fuji VF is a hybrid; it has to be for AF. It's a great ida, but a dumb ma's Leica.

Pentax FF would need to be as all encompassing as any other brand to make a dent in market share and pay back the investment. That means it must have the big zooms as well as the primes. They did the same for APS-C, didn't they? Where would Pentax be now if there was no DA* 16-50, 50-135, 60-250. Nowhere. Probably 25% of the base would be gone and 40% of the margins.

In other words, no Pentax.

There seems to be a flawed logic in that Pentax can make a smaller FF system without giving up something like SR or an OVF, by which point you're not longer making a k-mount. Or that Pentax engineers can make things smaller with fairy dust. Ironically, it was Nikon, Canon ,and Minolta that had trouble in the 1970's and 80's making smaller systems precisely because they wanted to retain backwards compatibility. It was Olympus from scratch and Pentax abandoning screwmount that allowed for smaller systems. Now many Pentaxians want to repeat that history and have Pentax make a brand new FF digital system so they can play with 30 year-old lenses designed for film!

[fuent104]

"

It's nice how you just dismissed other people's photographic efforts as "playing."

Those of us who think ff can be achieved in a smaller body don't believe so due to the presence of fairy dust. We believe that engineers are intelligent, creative people.

[Winder]

It is excellent on aps-c and 24x36 film, enough so there was a Leica L mount version made. So why would anyone draw a conclusion it would perform badly on a ff digital sensor? It has Ghostles Coatings on the rear element.




Well the 135 film format is what ff cameras try to emulate fov wise. Additionally, it is still going to be an f1.9 lens, period. Also, focal length isn't what matters with resolution, ca etc, but optical formula so consequently focal length isn't going to determine which lenses perform poorly or well. Otherwise, everyone would be using acme lenses. Lastly, the thought ca and flare isn't a problem on film. :Hysterical: Sure certain film types are effected more so than other. Film has characteristics for things like resolution as well. BTW, it is a $569 lens, not $1K

When I went from film to a Canon 5D I found a good number of my film lenses really failed to provide the IQ I was looking for. I currently only own my 135L from that group of lenses. I have sold or gave away all of the film era EOS lenses. Even an small 8x10 print taken with some of those was unacceptable.

I know Pentax users think their Limited lenses have the magic pixie dust and are not subject the the same optical limitation of other brands.

If Pentax thought they could make money with a FF body......... They would have done it. If Pentax has plans of producing a FF body they never would have stopped production on their FF glass.

[jsherman999]

The FF DSLR can never approach the size of a legacy M series Pentax film body.

Probably not, but aside from possibly the limitations of the SR mechanism, I don't think anything else you listed would necessarily keep a body from being in between, say, the K-5 and D700 in size.

Keep in mind that smallest was never a D700 design goal. There are folks in the Nikon camp who are convinced that the sizing of each tier is by design, and that smaller = cheaper was the traditional mantra that came straight out of focus group research. D3 had to be bigger than D700/300, which had to be bigger than the D80 which had to be bigger than the D40 - because (they thought) that's what people expected. Tastes change, ideas about value and desirability change, and I think you'll see a push for smaller now, even in the upper-end DSLR tiers.

It's pretty obvious when you look at the way the DSLR industry has arranged itself APS-C came to dominate over FF because they needed space inside the body for supporting systems,

I don't see how you can possibly say that after all the sensor cost/yield/area talk we've just been through in this thread alone - aps-c dominated because early on, there was no way they could put out a good FF camera the masses could afford.

and there are real, unavoidable technical limitations to how small those systems can get. The original MZ-D was never going to be small:

I think it's careless at best to use as an example something that was not much more than a prototype, what, 10 years ago?


.

[jackseh]

I think Fuji as a potential owner would have been more inclined to release a Pentax FF lineup than current owner, Ricoh.

[RioRico]

I think Fuji as a potential owner would have been more inclined to release a Pentax FF lineup than current owner, Ricoh.

Ricoh doesn't own Pentax yet. Hoya still does; the deal won't be done till 1 October.

I know Pentax users think their Limited lenses have the magic pixie dust and are not subject the the same optical limitation of other brands.

I read that old Taks are grabbed by Canonites. How about Ltd's? Do we have reports of the FA43-Ltd being used on Canon FF? Does its IQ measure-up there?

[Rondec]

Maybe not on FF digital, but it certainly has a quality on 35mm:

000014 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I will concur that digital FF is far less forgiving than film of any type. I suspect that light falloff on the FA Limiteds will be more noticeable to pixel peepers and that the FA Limiteds would need new coatings. That said, images from the FA Ltd's on film look pretty awesome. Vignetting? Get a loupe and get back to me. I doubt many of the scans are seriously corrected.

I cannot fathom why someone thinks 43mm is not a good FL. 42-45mm is closer to the normal eye view than the arbitrary accident of the 50mm "normal". That's why so many street RF's form the 1960's and 70's were made in a 45mm or near format. I own 2 myself.

Someone in Moscow needs a heating pad wrapped around their head.

I think a lot of wishful legacy glass owners, especially those with the K,M, and A series collections would be disappointed with lens performance on FF digital. Paying $3,500 for a body to put an A50/1.7 on it only to have the performance be sub-par is really not in Pentax's best interest. Those lenses were made for film. They translate OK to digital, for the saving grace of APS-C being a sweet spot size for a 135 lens system. I could see Pentax writing software for each lens and keeping a database of Pentax brand in the camera to compensate for known flaws, but that is a lot of effort.

I think emacs comment was directed at using the FA limiteds on APS-C, no on film/35mm. He thinks that the 43mm and 77mm focal lengths are not useful, while the 31mm is on a crop sensor camera. If I read correctly, he would very much like a full frame sensor to shoot all of them on and would enjoy the experience a lot.

[Emacs]

I think emacs comment was directed at using the FA limiteds on APS-C, no on film/35mm. He thinks that the 43mm and 77mm focal lengths are not useful, while the 31mm is on a crop sensor camera. If I read correctly, he would very much like a full frame sensor to shoot all of them on and would enjoy the experience a lot.

Exactly.
I miss the 31Ltd equivalent the most, since it's my favourite focal length.
Although Distagon 21 is wonderful replacement IQ wise and I love it, but it is too huge.
I would love to have K-mount FF in order to utilize all these wonderful FA Ltds, the Distagon and magnificent 50 f1.2

[TaoMaas]

I have sold or gave away all of the film era EOS lenses. Even an small 8x10 print taken with some of those was unacceptable.

Sorry, but I think you're seeing what you want to see. I don't think an 8X10 is large enough to really see a difference except maybe in the dynamic range of the cameras.

[TaoMaas]

I think a lot of wishful legacy glass owners, especially those with the K,M, and A series collections would be disappointed with lens performance on FF digital....They translate OK to digital, for the saving grace of APS-C being a sweet spot size for a 135 lens system.

I could be wrong, but isn't the ability to get very shallow depth of field one of the big arguments for FF? If a film lens gives good center performance on an APS-C camera, it ought to work equally well on FF. If a person is really worried about the edge sharpness of their lenses (which would assume that they are going for max depth of field), wouldn't they be better off with an APS-C system which excels at depth of field? I was at an opening of an exhibit by one of the better photographers in our state. I had been talking to this photographer about his recent switch to a FF Canon. (He used to be a die-hard Pentax 6X7 guy in the film days.) A guy from my camera club came up and started quizzing this photographer about edge sharpness on FF and whether he'd found certain lenses to have fall-off when used with FF. The photographer listened politely for a while, then said, "I couldn't care less about that (expletive deleted)! More than likely, I'm going to crop that off anyway."