Pentax Full Frame Poll

builttospill · 08-16-2011, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

? FF sensor is smaller than 645D's

I wouldn't want a 60 mp FF. A 20-30 mp max would be perfect. In my opinion they're pushing mp too high for APS-C. Just look at all the threads along the lines of "Why do images from my K100D, etc. look so much better than from my K-5, 7, etc.?" I can do perfect 30" x 45" prints from my K10D now.

Originally posted by twitch

I'd buy a Pentax FF. Having a FA31 & FA77 I'd rather they operated with the FOV they were designed for.

Me too. I love the FA Limited focal lengths on film.

Originally posted by eddie1960

uncrippled KAf mount

I'd be all over that one

There's the best idea I've heard yet. I'd jump on that one too!!!

Blue · 08-16-2011, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by hyyz

I voted "No". For my use, I don't care. Actually, I don't want to get one if FF is bigger & heavier than its APS-C counterpart.

Also, I don't see how an FF lens can be as compact as its APS-C counterpart, i.e. with same FOV. For example, I like my 50-135mm F2.8 and I would guess an 80-200mm F2.8 for FF would be much heavier than it.

APS-C image quality is good enough for my use. If I am after ultimate image quality, I guess even FF falls short.

IMHO, photographic equipment for general users is all about balance point. In old days, 35mm is the balance point. Now for digital interchangable lens camera, it appears APS-C (or maybe even 4/3) being the balance point. Camera manufarturers are just on their way of settling on one like they did during film days. Time will tell. They don't care too much about what lenses you currently have but what you're going to buy.

Actually, there are/were plenty of compact full frame Pentax lenses. The FA 43/1.9, FA 77/1.8 ltd are very compact especially for their speed and focal length. The D FA 100 WR is even more compact than the FA and F 100 macro. The F 35-70/3.5-4.5 zoom was one of the most compact zooms I have seen and doesn't extend much during zooming. F2.8 zooms are big regardless if they are on aps-c or 36x24. The FA 50/1.4, FA 35/2, F 28/2.8 and FA 28/2.8 are all nice compact lenses. That's just some examples. Even the A 50/1.2 is small for its genre. The ltd lenses and FA 35/2 have Ghostless Coating. It would be nice to see it added to the 50/1.4 and one of the 28mm lenses when the ff digital body is released.

abacus07 · 08-16-2011, 09:42 PM - **1 Like**

the problem with reintroducing a full frame camera is the endless complaints we would hear from the buyers and would be buyers on this forum.

Why don't they bring back or design X lens? There are already enough of these and Pentax is only focused on one lens lineup right now.

Blue · 08-17-2011, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by abacus07

the problem with reintroducing a full frame camera is the endless complaints we would hear from the buyers and would be buyers on this forum.

Why don't they bring back or design X lens? There are already enough of these and Pentax is only focused on one lens lineup right now.

That is going to happen anyway. Only now, we will have the Q tips complaining about lens for their micro-sensors and those that want a bigger sensor.

abacus07 · 08-17-2011, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Blue

That is going to happen anyway. Only now, we will have the Q tips complaining about lens for their micro-sensors and those that want a bigger sensor.

I don't claim to like or understand the logic behind the Q (yet) but the lens requests made by that group are a tiny fraction compared to what a full frame usergroup would want. And each lens on the wishlist would be $1000+.

Blue · 08-17-2011, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by abacus07

I don't claim to like or understand the logic behind the Q (yet) but the lens requests made by that group are a tiny fraction compared to what a full frame usergroup would want. And each lens on the wishlist would be $1000+.

Actually, I believe you are incorrect. The FA 31 is @ ~ $999, the FA 43 @ $569, the FA 77 @ ~ $750. The D FA 100 WR is under 700. The DA* 200, 300, abd 60-250 for example are already in that price range. Furthermore, the aps-c DA* 16-50 is 899-999 at BH and Adorama respectively. The FA 50/1.4 got bumped up to ~ $350. Point I am making is the prices aren't going to be any different for aps-c lenses than they are for ff. Look at the DA* 55/1.4.

Besides, the Q is a pricey setup for what it is. Most of the current lens lineup has the designation 'toy' on them.

abacus07 · 08-17-2011, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Blue

Actually, I believe you are incorrect. The FA 31 is @ ~ $999, the FA 43 @ $569, the FA 77 @ ~ $750. The D FA 100 WR is under 700. The DA* 200, 300, abd 60-250 for example are already in that price range. Furthermore, the aps-c DA* 16-50 is 899-999 at BH and Adorama respectively. The FA 50/1.4 got bumped up to ~ $350. Point I am making is the prices aren't going to be any different for aps-c lenses than they are for ff. Look at the DA* 55/1.4.

but the lenses that Pentax chooses to produce aren't the ones that you're requesting for APSC. here are the results from the poll:

DA 24/2.0 WR
DA* 85/1.4
DA* 135/2.0

the next high vote getters: DA 135-400/4-5.6WR, DFA 200/4MacWR, DFA* 500/5.6, DA* 135-270/2.8, DA400/5.6, DFA 50/1.0

A couple of these are in the 500-700 dollar range but there are a lot of really expensive lenses here. But more importantly there would be requests to develop/bring back a full lens lineup for full frame. I don't see how that's a good idea for Pentax. Just my two cents.

Blue · 08-17-2011, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by abacus07

but the lenses that Pentax chooses to produce aren't the ones that you're requesting for APSC. here are the results from the poll:

DA 24/2.0 WR
DA* 85/1.4
DA* 135/2.0

the next high vote getters: DA 135-400/4-5.6WR, DFA 200/4MacWR, DFA* 500/5.6, DA* 135-270/2.8, DA400/5.6, DFA 50/1.0

A couple of these are in the 500-700 dollar range but there are a lot of really expensive lenses here. But more importantly there would be requests to develop/bring back a full lens lineup for full frame. I don't see how that's a good idea for Pentax. Just my two cents.

The ones I posted are from reality. However, a DA* 24/2 WR wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility and the WR could be dropped because DA* implies that. The FA* 24/2 was a nice lens. The DA 400/5.6 could be based off of the old FA* 400/5.6. However, the A 400/5.6 (manual focus) and the FA* af version weren't cheap when new. I know because I have the A 400/5.6 for a long time. Same story with the 85/1.4 and 200 macro. What I am pointing out here is that these are some of the better optical designs in Pentax's vault. Some of the zooms ideas would be pricey but guess what, it isn't really because of ff or aps-c. Remember, a ff lens will work on aps-c! The price * lenses bring, the should be full frame anyway.

The other point you failed to grasp is that there are ALREADY expensive lenses in the current lineup. The DA* 16-50, FA 31 ltd, DA*300, DA* 200 for example. and the DA* 60-250/4 is the most expensive.

**hyyz** · 08-17-2011, 09:11 AM

Generally speaking, the larger the format, the bigger the lenses. Hence the cost.

If Pentax is to consider offering a lens line for FF, they have to weigh in the fact that in general, FF lens prices will inevitablly be higher than APS-C lens prices. They have to think about how many users will buy the new FF lenses to make Pentax profitable. IMO, Pentax doesn't seem to be able to justify this. It seems to imply that the improvement in IQ from APS-C to FF might not be able to convince users to spend extra money on FF.

Assume they do offer FF, then as soon as they offer, the users will complaint about:
Where's DA 14mm F2.8 or DA 15mm F4 couterpart in FF?
Where's DA* 16-50mm F2.8 couterpart in FF?
Where's DA* 50-135mm F2.8 couterpart in FF?
Where's DA* 55mm 1.4 couterpart in FF?
Where's DA 12-24mm F4 couterpart in FF?
Where's DA 18-55mm couterpart in FF?
Where's DA 55-300mm couterpart in FF?
Where's DA* 200mm 2.8 couterpart in FF, i.e. 300mm 2.8 (I guess)?
......

A lens line can not be considered a lens line without these lenses. But the questions are:
Can they be made not larger and not more expensive than their APS-C counterparts at the same quality?
How many people are willing to buy if they've got to be larger and more expensive?

I think Pentax must have debated something similar among themselves many years.

Of course, if you already have a lot of old lenses, you may not care too much about these questions. You can just get a FF body to try your old lenses and go back to APS-C whenever you want. But Pentax has to care. Like I said, manufacturers don't care too much about what lenses you have (they care a little bit) but what lenses you're going to buy.

Finally, IMO, nowaday APS-C IQ is already superior to 35mm film in many areas. Gerneral users are already pretty happpy. It is all about balance. Unless there's new compelling reason, FF DSLR system may not generate a lot of profit for manufacturers.

abacus07 · 08-17-2011, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Blue

The other point you failed to grasp is that there are ALREADY expensive lenses in the current lineup. The DA* 16-50, FA 31 ltd, DA*300, DA* 200 for example. and the DA* 60-250/4 is the most expensive.

the point that you've failed to grasp is that pentax only has so many resources to release new lenses every year especially high end lenses. So the gaps that are currently in the DA lineup will remain and it will take a lot of time to have a full FA lineup. And then there might not even be high enough demand to justify putting many of these lenses into production.

builttospill · 08-17-2011, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by hyyz

Finally, IMO, nowaday APS-C IQ is already superior to 35mm film in many areas. Gerneral users are already pretty happpy. It is all about balance. Unless there's new compelling reason, FF DSLR system may not generate a lot of profit for manufacturers.

But isn't this the point of FF? If so many users are content with APS-C, imagine their delight with the incredible IQ and resolution of a new FF camera. It would obviously be superior to APS-C.

Also, Pentax is still producing the 645D, superior to all cameras below it. Just as lens line gaps have been discussed there is a huge gap from APS-C to 645D, especially if they put a full-size 645 sensor in the next camera update. A FF body would fill this gap and many people would find a happy home in that filling.

Blue · 08-17-2011, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by hyyz

Generally speaking, the larger the format, the bigger the lenses. Hence the cost.
. . .

Generally speaking, no ff lenses don't have to be bigger. Get out an FA 50/1.4 and take a look at it. Get out a FA 35/2 and take a look at it. Get out an FA 43/1.9, FA 77/1.8 and take a look at them. Get out the FA 28/2.8 or F 28/2.8 and take a look at them. Take a look at the D FA 100 WR. Zooms tend to be large because they are zooms and making them fast makes them bigger. However, The F 35-70/3.5-4.5 and FA 38-70/4 were very nice little affordable full frame zooms.

Blue · 08-17-2011, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by abacus07

the point that you've failed to grasp is that pentax only has so many resources to release new lenses every year especially high end lenses. So the gaps that are currently in the DA lineup will remain and it will take a lot of time to have a full FA lineup. And then there might not even be high enough demand to justify putting many of these lenses into production.

Actually, what you are failing to grasp (

) is the fact that full frame lenses don't have to cost a premium i.e. the FA 50/1.4 compared to the DA* 55/1.4. Furthermore, ff lenses can fill in the line of the aps-c lineup as well as the full frame line. These lines can be complimentary whereas the Q is off by itself.

eddie1960 · 08-17-2011, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Blue

Actually, what you are failing to grasp (

) is the fact that full frame lenses don't have to cost a premium i.e. the FA 50/1.4 compared to the DA* 55/1.4. Furthermore, ff lenses can fill in the line of the aps-c lineup as well as the full frame line. These lines can be complimentary whereas the Q is off by itself.

exactly, a lot of the lenses that would come about for FF would be really appealing for me shooting apsc (until I could afford the FF)

as for the other comment above about needing a DA55 1.4 equivalent for FF well it exists already it's called an FA77

, not too mention it wouldn't take much to relaunch the FA* 85 which many people would be happy to see for sale again in either format

Blue · 08-17-2011, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

exactly, a lot of the lenses that would come about for FF would be really appealing for me shooting apsc (until I could afford the FF)

as for the other comment above about needing a DA55 1.4 equivalent for FF well it exists already it's called an FA77

, not too mention it wouldn't take much to relaunch the FA* 85 which many people would be happy to see for sale again in either format

Actually, I think the DA* 55 is full frame compatible. My comparison comment was actually intended about price and size. On another note, I use the FA 77 on my K20d, K200d and MZ-3.

View Poll Results: Will there be a Pentax Full Frame camera on PhotoKina 2012?
YES	66	25.78%
NO	190	74.22%
Voters: 256. You may not vote on this poll

08-17-2011, 09:11 AM	#39
hyyz Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Michigan Posts: 478	Generally speaking, the larger the format, the bigger the lenses. Hence the cost. If Pentax is to consider offering a lens line for FF, they have to weigh in the fact that in general, FF lens prices will inevitablly be higher than APS-C lens prices. They have to think about how many users will buy the new FF lenses to make Pentax profitable. IMO, Pentax doesn't seem to be able to justify this. It seems to imply that the improvement in IQ from APS-C to FF might not be able to convince users to spend extra money on FF. Assume they do offer FF, then as soon as they offer, the users will complaint about: Where's DA 14mm F2.8 or DA 15mm F4 couterpart in FF? Where's DA* 16-50mm F2.8 couterpart in FF? Where's DA* 50-135mm F2.8 couterpart in FF? Where's DA* 55mm 1.4 couterpart in FF? Where's DA 12-24mm F4 couterpart in FF? Where's DA 18-55mm couterpart in FF? Where's DA 55-300mm couterpart in FF? Where's DA* 200mm 2.8 couterpart in FF, i.e. 300mm 2.8 (I guess)? ...... A lens line can not be considered a lens line without these lenses. But the questions are: Can they be made not larger and not more expensive than their APS-C counterparts at the same quality? How many people are willing to buy if they've got to be larger and more expensive? I think Pentax must have debated something similar among themselves many years. Of course, if you already have a lot of old lenses, you may not care too much about these questions. You can just get a FF body to try your old lenses and go back to APS-C whenever you want. But Pentax has to care. Like I said, manufacturers don't care too much about what lenses you have (they care a little bit) but what lenses you're going to buy. Finally, IMO, nowaday APS-C IQ is already superior to 35mm film in many areas. Gerneral users are already pretty happpy. It is all about balance. Unless there's new compelling reason, FF DSLR system may not generate a lot of profit for manufacturers. Last edited by hyyz; 08-17-2011 at 09:22 AM.

08-17-2011, 10:33 AM	#43
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by abacus07 the point that you've failed to grasp is that pentax only has so many resources to release new lenses every year especially high end lenses. So the gaps that are currently in the DA lineup will remain and it will take a lot of time to have a full FA lineup. And then there might not even be high enough demand to justify putting many of these lenses into production. Actually, what you are failing to grasp () is the fact that full frame lenses don't have to cost a premium i.e. the FA 50/1.4 compared to the DA* 55/1.4. Furthermore, ff lenses can fill in the line of the aps-c lineup as well as the full frame line. These lines can be complimentary whereas the Q is off by itself.

08-17-2011, 10:57 AM	#44
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Blue Actually, what you are failing to grasp () is the fact that full frame lenses don't have to cost a premium i.e. the FA 50/1.4 compared to the DA* 55/1.4. Furthermore, ff lenses can fill in the line of the aps-c lineup as well as the full frame line. These lines can be complimentary whereas the Q is off by itself. exactly, a lot of the lenses that would come about for FF would be really appealing for me shooting apsc (until I could afford the FF) as for the other comment above about needing a DA55 1.4 equivalent for FF well it exists already it's called an FA77 , not too mention it wouldn't take much to relaunch the FA* 85 which many people would be happy to see for sale again in either format

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The full frame Pentax that never was	dj_saunter	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame	oppositz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	03-18-2011 09:39 AM
Full frame pentax	cem.kumuk	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame...	Shutter-bug	Photographic Technique	60	11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame	aegisphan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-28-2010 04:16 PM

08-16-2011, 02:03 PM	#31
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by Andi Lo ? FF sensor is smaller than 645D's I wouldn't want a 60 mp FF. A 20-30 mp max would be perfect. In my opinion they're pushing mp too high for APS-C. Just look at all the threads along the lines of "Why do images from my K100D, etc. look so much better than from my K-5, 7, etc.?" I can do perfect 30" x 45" prints from my K10D now. Originally posted by twitch I'd buy a Pentax FF. Having a FA31 & FA77 I'd rather they operated with the FOV they were designed for. Me too. I love the FA Limited focal lengths on film. Originally posted by eddie1960 uncrippled KAf mount I'd be all over that one There's the best idea I've heard yet. I'd jump on that one too!!!

08-16-2011, 04:27 PM	#32
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by hyyz I voted "No". For my use, I don't care. Actually, I don't want to get one if FF is bigger & heavier than its APS-C counterpart. Also, I don't see how an FF lens can be as compact as its APS-C counterpart, i.e. with same FOV. For example, I like my 50-135mm F2.8 and I would guess an 80-200mm F2.8 for FF would be much heavier than it. APS-C image quality is good enough for my use. If I am after ultimate image quality, I guess even FF falls short. IMHO, photographic equipment for general users is all about balance point. In old days, 35mm is the balance point. Now for digital interchangable lens camera, it appears APS-C (or maybe even 4/3) being the balance point. Camera manufarturers are just on their way of settling on one like they did during film days. Time will tell. They don't care too much about what lenses you currently have but what you're going to buy. Actually, there are/were plenty of compact full frame Pentax lenses. The FA 43/1.9, FA 77/1.8 ltd are very compact especially for their speed and focal length. The D FA 100 WR is even more compact than the FA and F 100 macro. The F 35-70/3.5-4.5 zoom was one of the most compact zooms I have seen and doesn't extend much during zooming. F2.8 zooms are big regardless if they are on aps-c or 36x24. The FA 50/1.4, FA 35/2, F 28/2.8 and FA 28/2.8 are all nice compact lenses. That's just some examples. Even the A 50/1.2 is small for its genre. The ltd lenses and FA 35/2 have Ghostless Coating. It would be nice to see it added to the 50/1.4 and one of the 28mm lenses when the ff digital body is released.

08-16-2011, 09:42 PM - 1 Like	#33
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	the problem with reintroducing a full frame camera is the endless complaints we would hear from the buyers and would be buyers on this forum. Why don't they bring back or design X lens? There are already enough of these and Pentax is only focused on one lens lineup right now.

08-17-2011, 07:18 AM	#34
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by abacus07 the problem with reintroducing a full frame camera is the endless complaints we would hear from the buyers and would be buyers on this forum. Why don't they bring back or design X lens? There are already enough of these and Pentax is only focused on one lens lineup right now. That is going to happen anyway. Only now, we will have the Q tips complaining about lens for their micro-sensors and those that want a bigger sensor.

08-17-2011, 07:34 AM	#35
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	Originally posted by Blue That is going to happen anyway. Only now, we will have the Q tips complaining about lens for their micro-sensors and those that want a bigger sensor. I don't claim to like or understand the logic behind the Q (yet) but the lens requests made by that group are a tiny fraction compared to what a full frame usergroup would want. And each lens on the wishlist would be $1000+.

08-17-2011, 07:42 AM	#36
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by abacus07 I don't claim to like or understand the logic behind the Q (yet) but the lens requests made by that group are a tiny fraction compared to what a full frame usergroup would want. And each lens on the wishlist would be $1000+. Actually, I believe you are incorrect. The FA 31 is @ ~ $999, the FA 43 @ $569, the FA 77 @ ~ $750. The D FA 100 WR is under 700. The DA* 200, 300, abd 60-250 for example are already in that price range. Furthermore, the aps-c DA* 16-50 is 899-999 at BH and Adorama respectively. The FA 50/1.4 got bumped up to ~ $350. Point I am making is the prices aren't going to be any different for aps-c lenses than they are for ff. Look at the DA* 55/1.4. Besides, the Q is a pricey setup for what it is. Most of the current lens lineup has the designation 'toy' on them.

08-17-2011, 08:09 AM	#37
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	Originally posted by Blue Actually, I believe you are incorrect. The FA 31 is @ ~ $999, the FA 43 @ $569, the FA 77 @ ~ $750. The D FA 100 WR is under 700. The DA* 200, 300, abd 60-250 for example are already in that price range. Furthermore, the aps-c DA* 16-50 is 899-999 at BH and Adorama respectively. The FA 50/1.4 got bumped up to ~ $350. Point I am making is the prices aren't going to be any different for aps-c lenses than they are for ff. Look at the DA* 55/1.4. but the lenses that Pentax chooses to produce aren't the ones that you're requesting for APSC. here are the results from the poll: DA 24/2.0 WR DA* 85/1.4 DA* 135/2.0 the next high vote getters: DA 135-400/4-5.6WR, DFA 200/4MacWR, DFA* 500/5.6, DA* 135-270/2.8, DA400/5.6, DFA 50/1.0 A couple of these are in the 500-700 dollar range but there are a lot of really expensive lenses here. But more importantly there would be requests to develop/bring back a full lens lineup for full frame. I don't see how that's a good idea for Pentax. Just my two cents.

08-17-2011, 08:29 AM	#38
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by abacus07 but the lenses that Pentax chooses to produce aren't the ones that you're requesting for APSC. here are the results from the poll: DA 24/2.0 WR DA* 85/1.4 DA* 135/2.0 the next high vote getters: DA 135-400/4-5.6WR, DFA 200/4MacWR, DFA* 500/5.6, DA* 135-270/2.8, DA400/5.6, DFA 50/1.0 A couple of these are in the 500-700 dollar range but there are a lot of really expensive lenses here. But more importantly there would be requests to develop/bring back a full lens lineup for full frame. I don't see how that's a good idea for Pentax. Just my two cents. The ones I posted are from reality. However, a DA* 24/2 WR wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility and the WR could be dropped because DA* implies that. The FA* 24/2 was a nice lens. The DA 400/5.6 could be based off of the old FA* 400/5.6. However, the A 400/5.6 (manual focus) and the FA* af version weren't cheap when new. I know because I have the A 400/5.6 for a long time. Same story with the 85/1.4 and 200 macro. What I am pointing out here is that these are some of the better optical designs in Pentax's vault. Some of the zooms ideas would be pricey but guess what, it isn't really because of ff or aps-c. Remember, a ff lens will work on aps-c! The price * lenses bring, the should be full frame anyway. The other point you failed to grasp is that there are ALREADY expensive lenses in the current lineup. The DA* 16-50, FA 31 ltd, DA300, DA 200 for example. and the DA* 60-250/4 is the most expensive.

08-17-2011, 09:20 AM	#40
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	Originally posted by Blue The other point you failed to grasp is that there are ALREADY expensive lenses in the current lineup. The DA* 16-50, FA 31 ltd, DA300, DA 200 for example. and the DA* 60-250/4 is the most expensive. the point that you've failed to grasp is that pentax only has so many resources to release new lenses every year especially high end lenses. So the gaps that are currently in the DA lineup will remain and it will take a lot of time to have a full FA lineup. And then there might not even be high enough demand to justify putting many of these lenses into production.

08-17-2011, 09:58 AM	#41
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by hyyz Finally, IMO, nowaday APS-C IQ is already superior to 35mm film in many areas. Gerneral users are already pretty happpy. It is all about balance. Unless there's new compelling reason, FF DSLR system may not generate a lot of profit for manufacturers. But isn't this the point of FF? If so many users are content with APS-C, imagine their delight with the incredible IQ and resolution of a new FF camera. It would obviously be superior to APS-C. Also, Pentax is still producing the 645D, superior to all cameras below it. Just as lens line gaps have been discussed there is a huge gap from APS-C to 645D, especially if they put a full-size 645 sensor in the next camera update. A FF body would fill this gap and many people would find a happy home in that filling.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2011, 10:31 AM	#42
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by hyyz Generally speaking, the larger the format, the bigger the lenses. Hence the cost. . . . Generally speaking, no ff lenses don't *have* to be bigger. Get out an FA 50/1.4 and take a look at it. Get out a FA 35/2 and take a look at it. Get out an FA 43/1.9, FA 77/1.8 and take a look at them. Get out the FA 28/2.8 or F 28/2.8 and take a look at them. Take a look at the D FA 100 WR. Zooms tend to be large because they are zooms and making them fast makes them bigger. However, The F 35-70/3.5-4.5 and FA 38-70/4 were very nice little affordable full frame zooms.

08-17-2011, 11:03 AM	#45
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by eddie1960 exactly, a lot of the lenses that would come about for FF would be really appealing for me shooting apsc (until I could afford the FF) as for the other comment above about needing a DA55 1.4 equivalent for FF well it exists already it's called an FA77 , not too mention it wouldn't take much to relaunch the FA* 85 which many people would be happy to see for sale again in either format Actually, I think the DA* 55 is full frame compatible. My comparison comment was actually intended about price and size. On another note, I use the FA 77 on my K20d, K200d and MZ-3.