Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-04-2012, 05:16 PM   #196
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Yes, you could make a *body* that was only a little larger. Lenses are another matter.
I see the body as the issue regarding size. The lenses would run in the range of sizes they did historically for Pentax. It isn't like the FA 43 and 77 or the D FA 100/WR are large lenses. Look at the old FA 28-70/4 and F 35-70/3.5-4.5 and FA* 28-70/2.8. There was also the FA 20-35/4 and F 17-28 Fisheye. Those could be improved upon. The FA* 80-200/2.8 was a lot smaller and lighter than the current DA* 60-250/4, 1500 grams to 4900 grams. In fact, the FA* 250-600/5.6 was only slightly large than the DA*. The body would be the determining factor in the size of the thing. I believe a body the size of the K20d would be as small as they could make one but the SR would be a factor.

Edit: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/long/index.html

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/short/index.html

06-05-2012, 12:42 AM   #197
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Frog-eaters country
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 359
I will surely go with Nikon next year, the D600 is just the camera i need.
And, i begin to be really tired with Pentax quality control, this is unacceptable to paid such high prices for lenses with such terrible quality control !
Just google "Pentax quality control", and cry...
Pentax customers deserve better, and is is just wrong from Pentax to treat their customers like that..
06-05-2012, 11:36 AM   #198
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 573
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Nikon D800. Never had a liking for the layout and viewfinder appearance of the 5D MkII and even now with the MkIII. Even the AF was not as responsive as I'd hoped. Nikon excel in this vital area, and make for very reliable tools overall. I wouldn't even mind a D700, but find the D3X a little too bulky.
If AF is vital to you, why haven't you jumped ship?
06-06-2012, 11:48 AM   #199
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
a constant f4 24-70 zoom should be about the same size weight as a constant 2.8 16-50 (they are pretty much equivalent) and they will likely cost about the same as well
Oh, it's no doubt possible to find *some* types of kits that are not much bigger for FF. But not the type of kits that someone who is concerned about size would be likely to be building. And that pretty much negates constant aperture zooms.

06-06-2012, 11:53 AM   #200
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I have plenty of credibility. But no, I just don't have enough time (actually I do have the inclination)...[
If the cameras and lenses actually existed, it would have taken all of one minute to post the list I requested. Surely less time than it took for you to come up with and type your excuse for why you aren't posting any such list. No, the only reason why you have spent so much time on this and yet failed to produce *even one single example* is all the proof you need to provide. You cannot build a smaller FF kit that matches mine. I know it, you know it, so let's drop it.
06-06-2012, 11:57 AM   #201
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by Couscousdelight Quote
I will surely go with Nikon next year, the D600 is just the camera i need.
And, i begin to be really tired with Pentax quality control, this is unacceptable to paid such high prices for lenses with such terrible quality control !
Just google "Pentax quality control", and cry...
Pentax customers deserve better, and is is just wrong from Pentax to treat their customers like that..
Nikon and Canon both have had their own QC issues (look up D7000 hot pixel for one)
06-06-2012, 02:04 PM   #202
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
If the cameras and lenses actually existed, it would have taken all of one minute to post the list I requested. Surely less time than it took for you to come up with and type your excuse for why you aren't posting any such list. No, the only reason why you have spent so much time on this and yet failed to produce *even one single example* is all the proof you need to provide. You cannot build a smaller FF kit that matches mine. I know it, you know it, so let's drop it.
Sigh.

I'd suggest you start looking at the 24-35mm, or the 80-200, or the 40mm, or the 70mm, or the 15mm to start your case.

Please stop bothering me.
06-06-2012, 02:05 PM   #203
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
If anyone else cares, which I doubt, let me know.

06-06-2012, 03:52 PM   #204
Senior Member
zekewhipper's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 298
I shoot with multiple brands now. However, in the spirit that the topic was intended, (and assuming I had no other gear other than my Pentax), I would go with Olympus.
06-07-2012, 07:22 PM   #205
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I'd suggest you start looking at the 24-35mm, or the 80-200, or the 40mm, or the 70mm, or the 15mm to start your case.
Is that what you are proposing as a FF kit to match mine?You haven't even said which FF 40, 70, or 15 you might mean, much less told me what brand of FF camera you have in mind that provides a weather FF body that doesn't dwarf mine.

My challenge is quite simple, and requires only a one line response, consisting of a specific body and 4 specific lenses that fit the criteria. Either these exist or they don't. Answer: they don't, or you you wouldn't continue waste time with nonsensical replies like the above - you'd name the actual camera and lenses. You can't, because they don't exist.

QuoteQuote:
Please stop bothering me.
I'm sorry that it bothers you so much not to be able to list me an FF kit that matches mine at a smaller size, but you can't blame that on me. Having made an incorrect and indefensible claim is your own fault, not mine.
06-07-2012, 08:32 PM   #206
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
I've named a total of six lenses that could be a basis for the kit, that are generally faster and lighter in equivalent FF kit than in APS-C kit. Do the math. I was going to do the math for you but you really aren't my priority; everyone else seems to either not care or to have read my posts and understood.

Since you've been bugging me so much, riddle me this.

Go to Yosemite. Take the classic picture from the Tunnel View, which IMO needs about a 30mm lens. What's the max resolving power of your kit? Now put the 40mm on the FF sensor. Find the resolving power of the 40mm on FF. Remember that you've incorrectly described something as extrapolation when it's interpolation. What's the max resolving power of your kit? Now put the 20-35mm (sorry about the typo, feel free to act how you want to act about that) on the FF sensor. What's the max resolving power of your kit? Add in the 50mm 1.8. What's the DOF difference at 50mm now?

How much does the 28-300 weigh? How much does the 20-35 and the FA 80-200 weigh put together? How about the F 80-200? Now give those stats again with the FA 100-300mm instead of the 80-200mm. Try it again with the 50mm 1.8 so that you can have superior FF pretty much everywhere. How much does your kit weigh? What does it resolve at 300mm? At each focal length, tell me which has an advantage in terms of SNR at equivalent DOF. Tell me which has an advantage in terms of DR and SNR at equivalent shutter speed. At each focal length, let me know how many stops of advantage the FF kit has in terms of DOF; make sure you re-calculate the DOF for correct cropped picture when using a kit made up of primes. Go ahead and use the D7000/D800 as a surrogate for K-5 and Pentax FF. Figure in equivalent cost of having your kit go out to 12mm instead of 15mm, too, when you're comparing using the 20. And don't forget to add a penalty for the lack of AF past 70mm.

Oh yeah, then do the same thing with the 28-70. And then figure in the cost and weight of upgrading bokeh - with more aperture blades and a little more glass, perhaps. Or perhaps less glass, depending on the design. Because you know you're going to be challenged on it. Do this all for someone on the internet.

If you want a little more time to do it, start harassing yourself and publicly questioning your own credibility.

Thanks.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 06-08-2012 at 09:58 AM.
06-08-2012, 09:41 AM   #207
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 824
I didnt jump ship, just bought 2

Pentax KX + a whole bunch of m42 lenses , various soviet ones ( helios 44 and 40) and a whack of takumars 28,35,50,55,135,200
Leica M8 with a 1964 summicron 50 , 1973 elmarit 135/2.8 and an elmar 90/4 from 1958
06-08-2012, 10:24 AM   #208
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I've named a total of six lenses
If so, they must have been scattered in passing references in unrelated posts, because I have no idea which six *specific* FF lenses you are referring to. I don't even know what *manufacturer* you might be talking about. I want actual model numbers, not guesses that maybe somewhere in the world someone might have produced a lens sort of like one you are describing.

Again, no explanation will be needed. You just spent times longer typing up your reply than it would have taken to make the list. I'm not interested in reading your excuses for why you cannot provide a simple list. I'm interested in seeing your list.

QuoteQuote:
Remember that you've incorrectly described something as extrapolation when it's interpolation.
Depends on which you you run the calculation. I can't believe you wasted time even typing that when you could have just given me the list I keep asking for.

QuoteQuote:
How much does the 28-300 weigh
Twice as most of the lenses I own, and thus not a valid replacement for any of them, even if this could match the IQ. Or did you imagine that caring about weight meant only some sort of "combined" weight in the bag - that people care only about weight when *not* shooting?

Anyhow, no one is denying that FF has its inherent advantages. But claiming that size and weight are among them is just plain wrong.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 06-08-2012 at 10:38 AM.
06-08-2012, 01:14 PM   #209
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Yorkton SK Canada
Posts: 25
QuoteOriginally posted by mrjamesabels Quote
ATM I have a D7000 and the af in low light is much snappier. Comparing a cheap 18-105 to the DA* 16-50. But its all about the right tool for the right job! The K5 pretty much poops on the D7000 in terms of ruggedness and useability. The af aggravated me a few days ago and so I bought a D7000 knowing the upgrade path to FF, affordable f/1.8 lenses and a superior flash system. I bet Pentax now comes out with a vastly improved af system and a FF. I just can't wait anymore. I still wear the Pentaxforums t-shirt.
I just sold the last of my Pentax gear and got my Nikon D7000 Tuesday. I am very happy so far with AF speed and reliability as well as an assist lamp that works when it is supposed to. I have the 18-200 VR and AF-S 35 1.8 and am very impressed especially with the high ISO capability and low light performance of the prime lens. My SB-600 speedlight, Demb flip it/diffuser and AF-D 5o 1.8 are on the way and I can't wait!
06-10-2012, 02:45 PM   #210
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,511
Canon would be a downgrade in most regards... Nikon is pretty decent. But Pentax still has the best ergo for me.

I could deal with having a d800 ;-)
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, canon, company, dslr, jump, nikon, pentax, pentaxian, photography, ship, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jump ship from Canon? Back to my roots? chrisneibauer Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 07-23-2011 11:30 PM
SLR - Pentax/Canon/Nikon/Sony (HELP!) conradcjc Pentax DSLR Discussion 26 05-03-2010 05:00 PM
Why Shouldn't I Jump Ship To The Canon 7D? Christopher M.W.T Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 48 12-26-2009 01:26 PM
Would you jump ship if lurchlarson Photographic Technique 14 11-03-2009 09:48 AM
Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Panasonic…or? benjikan Photographic Technique 25 08-08-2009 05:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top