[clackers]

a) You are assuming that a person would definitely go to full frame. If one doesn't, then you are paying more for lenses that are larger, and bulkier.
b) The selection of modern, auto focus, full frame lenses for the Pentax K mount is, to be charitable, rather small.[

??

Almost all the modern, autofocus primes are full frame compatible, Canuck_West.

Whar is expensive, larger and bulkier about the DA35 f2.4, for instance?

[stevebrot]

Having the K-3, and knowing that a Ricoh/Pentax full frame is coming, has put me in a quandary. I don't know as if I really 'need' the full frame

Are you unhappy with APS-C? If not, there is no issue unless you feel that APS-C is somehow more pedestrian than FF.

Why wouldn't you invest in lenses that work on both full frame and APS-C?

That is a reasonable idea, though sort of strange unless one is definitely wanting to switch over completely to FF.

The selection of modern, auto focus, full frame lenses for the Pentax K mount is, to be charitable, rather small.

B&H currently stocks 23 FF AF lenses in Pentax K. The selection includes some very reputable long glass, zooms to cover the range from wide to 500mm, some very excellent primes at appropriate focal lengths along with reasonable number of true macro options. What is missing is a selection of cheap glass and a decent medium fast tele prime.

The assumption that lens development for FF would be difficult is speculation that has little basis. It is generally easier to design for a larger format and Pentax is hardly a newcomer to that space. It has not been that long since Pentax quit making film cameras and the lenses to fit them. On launch of the FF body, I would expect:

• D FA 28-70/2.8
• D FA 50/1.4
• D FA 28/2.8

Of the above, only the zoom is on the current road map, but the primes should not present a huge challenge. Such a selection would be adequate in conjunction with currently available FA and D FA glass. Back fill with a wider zoom along with 20mm and 24mm primes would come later.


Steve

[BennyBoy]

I for one am not really excited about FF, as I find it totally unnecessary, and feel folks just want it because they feel that 35mm is the correct size for photography. I've found that the C sensor does everything I need, and has already left film in the dust. I will stick with Pentax as long as they support APS-C. I won't buy a FF unless I'm forced to. Same reason I won't replace my 720p 50" Plasma, unless it fails. They just work, and do everything I need of them.

[Zephos]

I for one am not really excited about FF, as I find it totally unnecessary, and feel folks just want it because they feel that 35mm is the correct size for photography. I've found that the C sensor does everything I need, and has already left film in the dust. I will stick with Pentax as long as they support APS-C. I won't buy a FF unless I'm forced to. Same reason I won't replace my 720p 50" Plasma, unless it fails. They just work, and do everything I need of them.

I think FF is only necessary if you are blowing stuff up really big.

[biz-engineer]

I for one am not really excited about FF, as I find it totally unnecessary

Practically, we appreciate differences compared to what we are used to.
As Ernest Richter (marketing guru of the 70s or 80s) stated, creating the demand is made through making consumers constructively discontent. For example, when you listen music from magnetic tapes (if you are old enough to have know that), you were happy, but when the CD came out you would still think that audio tapes are good enough for you until someone pointed out that white background noise that you here from the tape and that you can't hear anymore with the CD.

I think FF is only necessary if you are blowing stuff up really big.

Hummm... just looking at online images (display size...) from A7r+Zeiss prime lenses ( Bokeh Dreams from 21mm to 135mm with Sony A7 & A7R ) . Can you do this with a K30, K50, K5 or K3 ?

[clackers]

Bokeh Dreams from 21mm to 135mm with Sony A7 & A7R[/URL] ) . Can you do this with a K30, K50, K5 or K3 ?

Just look at the Lens Clubs, Biz-engineer, wherever there are nice backgrounds ... especially lenses like the FA77, FA31, DA 35, 50mm f1.2, 85mm et al.

[biz-engineer]

ahhhhrrr I don't have the FA limited, they are so expensive in Europe.

[aurele]

a lot of people here still use film compared to the average people with DSLR. I feel that a big portion of those user just want FF for the practical aspect of using only one size of film/sensor : when you go on vacation no need to take two lens for the same FOV.

[BennyBoy]

Can you do this with a K30, K50, K5 or K3 ?

Yes! Absolutely! I could and have. I would be very disappointed if I shelled out that sort of money, and got that sort of CA from that system, and I'm sure they cleaned up the images a bunch in PP.

[BrianR]

ahhhhrrr I don't have the FA limited, they are so expensive in Europe.

If you can't afford the FA limiteds, then you probably can't afford most of the lenses from that "Bokeh Dreams" link either, let alone the camera to go with them.

[wtlwdwgn]

One thing I've learned about FF is that you need to fill the frame to get the maximum benefit. If you crop FF images you might as well shoot APS-C. Just my $0.02.

[monochrome]

Can you do this with a K30, K50, K5 or K3 ?

Why do you ask? Why are you here? Is biz-engineer the first User Name you've ever had here?

[biz-engineer]

Why do you ask? Why are you here? Is biz-engineer the first User Name you've ever had here?

Sorry, I'm rather new here, I do have a lot of Pentax equipment and I like Pentax very much. I asked " Can you do this with a K30, K50, K5 or K3 ? " referring to the difference of DOF that exists between APS-C and FF. Since K30,K50,K5,K3 are all APS-C, I don't think they can render like a full frame. Here we are talking about FF upgrade path.

But honestly, shall Pentax forum be a religion, you have to tell me if we have to deny technical differences between different format or types of lenses or cameras.
Also in the case that Pentax forum is a religion, I don't understand why there are reviews of sigma lenses on this forum, they should be banned because Sigma are taking sales away from Pentax.

I have a friend from Canon who behave like this: for him, Canon is the best and all the rest is shit. I don't want to be like him, I want to be an open minded photographer.

Please clarify what should be said and not said on Pentax forum, I'll respect the policy.

[monochrome]

Sorry, I'm rather new here, I do have a lot of Pentax equipment and I like Pentax very much. I asked " Can you do this with a K30, K50, K5 or K3 ? " referring to the difference of DOF that exists between APS-C and FF. Since K30,K50,K5,K3 are all APS-C, I don't think they can render like a full frame. Here we are talking about FF upgrade path.

But honestly, shall Pentax forum be a religion, you have to tell me if we have to deny technical differences between different format or types of lenses or cameras.
Also in the case that Pentax forum is a religion, I don't understand why there are reviews of sigma lenses on this forum, they should be banned because Sigma are taking sales away from Pentax.

I have a friend from Canon who behave like this: for him, Canon is the best and all the rest is shit. I don't want to be like him, I want to be an open minded photographer.

Please clarify what should be said and not said on Pentax forum, I'll respect the policy.

Simple questions, understandable answers. Some former posters were here only to sow discord and declare the Doom pf Pentax at the iris of Sony. I showed my density not seeing yours was a traditional equivalence question.

[Nicolas06]

To me FF seen as an intended upgrade path is rationnalization. The upgrade path exist because it was too complex/costly to make APSC sensor back in time and to ease the transition to digital it was easier to keep the same line-up of lenses. I think the manufacturers where also quite disapointed to fail in providing good FF from the start and always seen FF as the target.

But I mean, this is history, a modern APSC DSLR provide much more quality than film FF. A good digital FF matches or surpass old MF in quality.

There no much need for FF in fact from a quality perspective, this is more a refinement we like to take and now the manufacturer try to convince us as it bring them more money. There a niche is ultra thin deph of field, better high iso performance and the rendering. The most visible thing is more bulk and heavier bag more so than better pictures.

But at the stake of great rendering and ultimate performance digital MF is still superior and film camera in larger format are quite accessible and give more interresting rendering. But the big guys with shitload money spent on marketing doesn't make digital MF and doesn't want people to buy used film camera...

One should really wonder if he want an FF because he really see some issues in his current camera that he is sure would be solved by an FF, because he is nostalgic or because he has been told so.

Now to me it is kind of strange to want FF but buy an APSC body while used FF bodies are quite readily available and not that expensive. Anyway when the K3 was new one could have picked a D610 for almost the same price range and I think an used 5D is not that expensive.

If we admit we have choice, even for unexpensive FF gear, we should then know why we did buy an APSC to begin with... Ignorance? Size/weigth? by looking at the price of new gear in shops?

There clearly a path included upgrade etc by starting from the begining on an old FF or APSC body depending what you are after, what the best compromize for you. One should think of that and go directly where he want to be instead of paying more for perfect FF lenses and getting bigger lenses in the sake of "upgrade" that they may decide to never realize anyway. Choose the lense because it suit you now and is a good compromize, not because of what it could do on a totally different body. By then if you are that interrested into gear you might have changed the lense 3 time for different models.