[TomB_tx]

I guess comparing the Pentax 21 to the Cosina Voitlander 21 and the 35 to the Pentax 40 wouldn't have proved your point.

I can only show the lenses I have, but my point was that FF lenses do not need to be "bricks". And I don't mean to criticize Pentax lenses, just show that there are also tiny, very well built (all metal mounts) FF lenses that are still reasonably priced. The Pentax 40 is indeed tiny, but doesn't have the reputation of a great performer. Pentax has made great, small FF lenses in the past (M series), and could no doubt produce good and small FF lenses in the future as well. FF doesn't need to be huge.

[kenyee]

My Leica FF lenses are much smaller and lighter than APS-C dSLR lenses and are faster as well. While all of my Leica lenses were bought in the '60s-'70s when they were affordable, here are my new Cosina-Voigtlander Full-Frame 35 f1.4 ($629) and 21 f4.0 ($419) compared to the "tiny" Pentax-DA 35 f2.4 APS-C ($220)
Attachment 140846

But aren't those manual focus?
Motors make them bigger, though a lot of Nikon users are griping that their primes only have cheap screw drive motors instead of the ultrasonic ring motors :-)

[TomB_tx]

But aren't those manual focus?
Motors make them bigger, though a lot of Nikon users are griping that their primes only have cheap screw drive motors instead of the ultrasonic ring motors :-)

Sure - manual focus is so easy I've never understood why people want autofocus anyway. However, camera makers have believed that people are impressed with BIG lenses, so I think a major reason today's lenses are large is so people can look like "pros." If Pentax made a decision to make them smaller - like they did back in the M-series days, I'll bet they could.
Now that FF dSLRs are moving to smaller size I expect the lenses will also.

[Alizarine]

Yes, there are some designs that don't end up being enormous (FA LTDs) but most of the lenses are ptetty large.

I think this is because the FA Limiteds did not employ using sonic-drive AF motors inside them, unlike most Nikon lenses now.

I'm pretty sure this trend will continue in the years to come; entry-level FF will become cheaper. But will APS-C fade? The high-end ones probably not. Entry-level FF will always be crippled in some way, but high-end APS-C will always have awesome features, sans the bigger sensor.

The one in danger are entry-level APS-C's, as large-sensor compacts are catching up as well as MILCs, and I think the release of the Nikon D3200 and K-30 (obviously not an entry-level, but mid) marks the beginning of its slow death. IMO, Pentax released a mid-level camera instead of a K-300/K-z because they've seen ahead; I am not sure of their vision but Pentax always does something else the more advertising-inclined brands did not.

---

Last edited by Alizarine; 09-17-2012 at 08:31 PM.

[GlennG]

I'm pretty sure this trend will continue in the years to come; entry-level FF will become cheaper. But will APS-C fade? The high-end ones probably not. Entry-level FF will always be crippled in some way, but high-end APS-C will always have awesome features, sans the bigger sensor. The one in danger are entry-level APS-C's, as large-sensor compacts are catching up as well as MILCs, and I think the release of the Nikon D3200 and K-30 (obviously not an entry-level, but mid) marks the beginning of its slow death. IMO, Pentax released a mid-level camera instead of a K-300/K-z because they've seen ahead; I am not sure of their vision but Pentax always does something else the more advertising-inclined brands did not.

I like your thinking here. Makes sense. I had not thought about it this way before.

[pinholecam]

I think this is because the FA Limiteds did not employ using sonic-drive AF motors inside them, unlike most Nikon lenses now.

I'm pretty sure this trend will continue in the years to come; entry-level FF will become cheaper. But will APS-C fade? The high-end ones probably not. Entry-level FF will always be crippled in some way, but high-end APS-C will always have awesome features, sans the bigger sensor.

The one in danger are entry-level APS-C's, as large-sensor compacts are catching up as well as MILCs, and I think the release of the Nikon D3200 and K-30 (obviously not an entry-level, but mid) marks the beginning of its slow death. IMO, Pentax released a mid-level camera instead of a K-300/K-z because they've seen ahead; I am not sure of their vision but Pentax always does something else the more advertising-inclined brands did not.

Agree.
The real threat to APS-C DSLRs will be MILC.
The XE-1 is a prime example of this.
APS-C, smaller, lighter. Able to mount other lenses with an adapter.
No known flange distance issue unlike the NEX.
Smallish lenses that are fast and designed from ground up for APS-C with shorter flange distance.
Quiet and perhaps designed for faster CDAF.
The EVF is a step up from older MILCs (2.3mp like the NEX7, A77). Its good enough to get the job done (and then some).
The EVF will improve more over time, to be generally good enough over OVF (it actually is pretty close as it is already)


FF is still that big juggernaut to carry around as a system.

[sjwaldron]

sjwaldron

mirco 4/3 does not address those who still shoot 35mm film for example. That was one of the main reasons that I bought a Pentax over Nikon, the ability to use one set of lenses for the most part. Does not address those who might consider a FF in the future or to have both APS-C and full frame. A buddy has both the D4 and the D7000 for example.

If Pentax switched to only FF and micro 4/3 they would get some new customers and lose some existing ones. Fuji seems to use the APS-C sensor as well on their cameras.

I for one do not want to have to replace all my lenses just because some one else thinks that FF and micro 4/3 are the only formats needed for consumers. Might be the only ones you want but we are happy with what we have now for formats. I can see a FF Pentax in the future but most likely not for me, not needed and no argument that has been presented by others has changed my mind, if the only reason to change it is due to the stopping of production of that format I will cross that hurdle when or if it comes, same as what happens if film production stops. I would like to make the choice myself. Others can choose what they want or need and which manufacture suits them best.

The F and FA 28-80s were not as small as the 18-55 but your point of the lenses at that range the size difference is not that great. Larger lenses I bit more though.

It is nice to use one set of lenses. However, a lot of the debating in the original was talking about APS-C only lenses, which would be poor or more likely unusable on film cameras. To span things like that, FF capable lenses are needed. (which I intended to do with Pentax based on the lenses I bought and kept for a long time, and now with what I decide to use in the future). I agree with you there that having one set of lenses for as many camera styles as possible is ideal.

I have a silver FA 28-80 and it is a bit longer than the DA 18-55.

[redrockcoulee]

It is nice to use one set of lenses. However, a lot of the debating in the original was talking about APS-C only lenses, which would be poor or more likely unusable on film cameras. To span things like that, FF capable lenses are needed. (which I intended to do with Pentax based on the lenses I bought and kept for a long time, and now with what I decide to use in the future). I agree with you there that having one set of lenses for as many camera styles as possible is ideal.

I have a silver FA 28-80 and it is a bit longer than the DA 18-55.

While that is true it is also true that not all DA lenses cannot be used, the 16-45 for example from about 21 on which is wider on a 35mm then I was ever able to afford when I started and until digital the 17-28 FE was the only lens I did own that was wider. Even when I take my wife's two most widely used lenses which are the 16-45 and the 10-20 Sigma most of my bag can go both ways whereas with the micro 4/3 and its lenses there is no using on the film camera that I am aware of. If starting from scratch perhaps a micro 4/3 for general use and travel and a full frame for events etc would make more sense and have a film camera if you wish for the full frame. But that option is already available, heck you can go micro 4/3 and medium format if you want however eliminating APC-S and forcing a person to go either of those routes is not an option I would like and my point was do not take away my options just because you do not want to use it.

If Pentax makes a full frame and drops the existing format my choices are 1) keep using the existing cameras and never upgrade 2) buy a full frame Pentax and stop using the DA lenses or 3) the FF and micro 4.3 route. My response is why not the fourth option of continuing APS-C cameras bodies as long as there is a market for them. obviously if it is only my wife and myself and one person in Boston or London who would buy it then of course discontinue that segment but as long was we are willing to buy them and do so then it makes no sense to cease doing so. And especially just because some one else does not see the reason some of us wish to continue using them. They have choices already and eventually Pentax will provide the FF option as well, go for it if that is what you want. It may not be for me and some others at least not at the present time

[vascofr]

I have no need for a FF. The only thing strange is that my 24mm now is 37 and the smc PENTAX-DA 15mm F4 AL Limited, get over here to ask me for $ 800

[civiletti]

since APS-C will never disappear FF will never dominate today like 35 did in the past.

Half-frame 35mm disappeared. It's a matter of cost/benefit ratio.

[Lowell Goudge]

Half-frame 35mm disappeared. It's a matter of cost/benefit ratio.

half frame never penetrated into the SLR market., it was a consumer P&S format largely, look today at P&S it is usually 8 x 10mm chips. sort of like comparing a kodak disk camera with sub 16mm frame, to a 35 mm SLR

APS C will be here because for 99% of the shooters ( no not shhooters, actual shots) it is all that is needed.

But again, if thjey made a full frame camera, with a non crippled K mount, flash support for both TTL and P-TTL, because there are times when one is better than the other, and a sensor with 50% of the high ISO noise of a K5D, and at least the saame pixel density (hence a 35MP camera) and a shutter like the PZ-1 with 1/250 sync, 1/8000 max shutter, a big bright view finder and 6-8 FPS, I might be interested, but lets see what the can do. As I said somewhere, if I really need an full frame, I take out my PZ-1 and load film. I can do a lot of shots that are full frame only type shots, for what a full frame body will cost me.

[elliott]

Half-frame 35mm disappeared. It's a matter of cost/benefit ratio.

110 film was pretty popular for a while though, it didn't really disappear until well after digital came around. Pentax even had an SLR that took 110.