Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-01-2016, 02:22 PM   #76
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
All is in what you consider similar or different.
For purposes here, what I think is different is: as small, light, and "affordable" as possible, while still retaining high image quality.

Look at the current FF zooms. (5 of them. The remaining 10 current FF lenses are primes). Only the 28-105mm lens fits that description.
Anyone looking at the current FF lens line-up would have to conclude that Pentax simply does not have an "affordable" FF zoom range. Not even close!

Just two more zooms, as small, light, and "affordable" as possible, added to the 28-105mm, while still retaining high image quality, would transform the Pentax FF lens line-up.
Hence transform the price-performance attractiveness of the total Pentax FF system. (Having a relatively cheap camera isn't enough).

The important questions are "what are the small, light, "affordable" zooms that (between them) cover the range between (say) 18mm and 28mm, and between 105mm and (say) 300mm".
As I said earlier: "Perhaps an 18-30mm or 18-36mm variable aperture zoom and a 100-300mm variable aperture zoom".

I am not suggesting those lenses because I want them. I am suggesting them because, in my opinion, Ricoh and its broad potential FF customer base needs them.

Note: I assert that Ricoh must provide those lenses. It would be very bad business to rely on legacy lenses, 2nd-hand lenses, 3rd-party lenses, or Pentax non-FF lenses. I doubt if Ricoh will be that stupid.

(Edit: I think there are 19 current Pentax zoom lenses available for Pentax APS-C cameras. They cover the range from 10mm to 450mm. A number are "affordable". Just 5 of them are FF lenses, and only 1 of those is "affordable").


Last edited by Barry Pearson; 08-01-2016 at 03:05 PM.
08-01-2016, 10:30 PM   #77
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,065
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
For purposes here, what I think is different is: as small, light, and "affordable" as possible, while still retaining high image quality.
Having a relatively cheap camera isn't enough.
This was obvious enough (but not Nicholas?).... anyway, as you outline Barry, some more reasonably priced complimentary zooms are clearly missing...... one of the reasons I point most people to Nikon over Pentax (DSLR wise)
08-02-2016, 02:03 AM   #78
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,386
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The things are not there yet. There no ways around that. I don't feel going MF an upgrade. I don't feel having to spend month on ebay an ideal neither. I don't think I am alone there.
You are not alone. I came to exactly the same conclusions.
08-02-2016, 03:47 AM   #79
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,113
If Pentax had a high quality D-FA* 24-105/4 that was not too heavy I might have considered the K-1 seriously. As it is now the K-3 + a few lightweight DA lenses is simply too attractive for trekking....

08-02-2016, 04:26 AM   #80
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,065
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
If Pentax had a high quality D-FA* 24-105/4 that was not too heavy I might have considered the K-1 seriously. As it is now the K-3 + a few lightweight DA lenses is simply too attractive for trekking....
I still travel light with the K-1 50% of the time....... it's not mutually exclusive! K-1 fits in the spot my K3 does in all my camera bags.

Last edited by noelpolar; 08-02-2016 at 04:31 AM.
08-02-2016, 06:34 AM   #81
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
If Pentax had a high quality D-FA* 24-105/4 that was not too heavy I might have considered the K-1 seriously. As it is now the K-3 + a few lightweight DA lenses is simply too attractive for trekking....
I'm learning to treat the 36 megapixels of the K-1 as a luxury that enables me to do extra things as long as I am prepared to discard lots of them.

Consider your example: Suppose you put the D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 on the K-1. Then obviously, (apart, perhaps, for the weight), the 24mm end of your requirement is satisfied.

Now go to the 70mm end. If you take a photo, and then crop so that the result has the same number of pixels as the K-3-series, (which you appear to accept), the field of view will then be the same as that of an 85mm lens on the K-3-series.

So the D FA 24-70mm lens on a K-1 can do anything that a 24-85mm lens can do on a K-3-series, plus a bit more at the 24mm end.
It can be thought of as a 24mm (36MP) to 85mm (24MP) f/2.8 lens.

Cropping further to get the same field of view from the K-1 as a 105mm lens on the K-3-series, 16MP of the K-1's sensor are now being used.
It can be thought of as a 24mm (36MP) to 105mm (16MP) f/2.8 lens.

(I hope I got my sums right! But the point I'm making is that, if you are prepared to have an image of just 24MP, you can think of a lens on a K-1 as being a longer lens than it is, because you can crop it down if you get too much in the frame).
08-02-2016, 11:22 AM   #82
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
I'm learning to treat the 36 megapixels of the K-1 as a luxury that enables me to do extra things as long as I am prepared to discard lots of them.

Consider your example: Suppose you put the D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 on the K-1. Then obviously, (apart, perhaps, for the weight), the 24mm end of your requirement is satisfied.

Now go to the 70mm end. If you take a photo, and then crop so that the result has the same number of pixels as the K-3-series, (which you appear to accept), the field of view will then be the same as that of an 85mm lens on the K-3-series.

So the D FA 24-70mm lens on a K-1 can do anything that a 24-85mm lens can do on a K-3-series, plus a bit more at the 24mm end.
It can be thought of as a 24mm (36MP) to 85mm (24MP) f/2.8 lens.

Cropping further to get the same field of view from the K-1 as a 105mm lens on the K-3-series, 16MP of the K-1's sensor are now being used.
It can be thought of as a 24mm (36MP) to 105mm (16MP) f/2.8 lens.

(I hope I got my sums right! But the point I'm making is that, if you are prepared to have an image of just 24MP, you can think of a lens on a K-1 as being a longer lens than it is, because you can crop it down if you get too much in the frame).
This is true and practical, no reason to not do it. I do that often on my K3 too because even 24MP is overkill for most situations. 12-16MP is enough.

But it will not work at high iso because cropping will only enlarge noise and because the lens also a bit less sharp wide open... It will also affect picture quality, obviously.

The whole argument for buying FF is you want more quality. Otherwise there not that much reason to spend more to get something heavier bigger. If you consider you have already more than needed with that K3, you'll not be that senssible to the quality argument.... And if you think you really need it, you'll not want to do cropping that will compromize the quality... Like the noise advantage for events, weddings, sports.

The cropping has value, but this is not a strong argument when you try to convince people they need to upgrade so they can discard the added quality just after.
08-02-2016, 12:12 PM   #83
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,529
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
K1: Definitely cream of the crop. Excellent camera. I just returned form Yellowstone and the K3 stayed mostly in the bag. The 28-105 was used the most. The 150-450 was the only other lens I used on it. The level of detail in each shot is amazing. I as still very happy with my K3, but the K1 is just so much better.
Those two lenses make a lot of sense for the basic K-1 kit. Add 135mm lens of your choice and contemplate how often an ultrawide is needed & you're done.

08-02-2016, 01:36 PM   #84
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The cropping has value, but this is not a strong argument when you try to convince people they need to upgrade so they can discard the added quality just after.
It was just an argument for cropping at one end of the focal length range for a particular lens!
08-02-2016, 02:09 PM - 1 Like   #85
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,500
I hope no one is talking anyone into buying gear they don't want. If Nicolas is happiest with his FA 77 on a K3, then good for him. He has just saved 1800 dollars (or whatever the K-1 costs in France right now).

The biggest reasons to buy full frame are if you need better high iso, better dynamic range at low iso, or wider angles (with fast apertures). This last thing is probably the biggest thing. If you need a 30mm f1.8 equivalent lens on APS-C or, a 15mm f2.8 equivalent, you are stuck. The reality is that with a K-1, you have two cameras -- a K5 and a K1. If you want your FA 77 to be an APS-C version of a FA 77 you can just stick your camera in crop mode and shoot away. Or you can take two steps closer and shoot with it in full frame mode.

I guess that is the biggest thing I have seen with shooting a K-1 is that generally speaking, APS-C does not make your lenses longer, it just crops them. In a perfect world, a K3 will have a little more magnification than a K1 because of having more pixel density, but in my experience, once you get beyond iso 200 or certainly 400, that extra length is lost due to noise. I liked my K3 better than my K5 II, but mainly because of other features like faster frame rate and better responsiveness, not because the lenses had more length on the K3 than the K5 II.
08-02-2016, 03:18 PM   #86
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,065
Most of the polarised debates of K-1 v's K3 revolved around a specific aspect or type of photography, when truth be told most of us use our cameras in a number of different ways over their life span. In addition, both high end modern FF and APSC cameras are at such a high standard that in the sceme of things we are splitting hairs mostly.

Anyway, one pretty convincing take out of the K-1 v's K3 debate is the overall satisfaction of the people who have bought a K-1. It sort of ends there for me.

Last edited by noelpolar; 08-03-2016 at 02:39 AM.
08-02-2016, 10:11 PM   #87
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I hope no one is talking anyone into buying gear they don't want. If Nicolas is happiest with his FA 77 on a K3, then good for him. He has just saved 1800 dollars (or whatever the K-1 costs in France right now).
No one needs to justify going for the FF range or the APS-C range. It is their business, and besides, both ranges are capable of supporting superb photography.

Problems often arise when they do try to justify their planned purchases. The justifications sometimes appear to have holes or flaws, and well-meaning people may point out what appear to be solutions in case that person has made a wrong decision.

It isn't about talking people into buying what they don't want. It is really a matter of ensuring that the person has the best information available to make an informed decision, that may be different from an earlier decision that was less well informed.

(There is an important difference between "I'm going to do X because of reason Y" and "I did X because of reason Y"!)

---------- Post added 3rd Aug 2016 at 06:23 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
Most of the polarised debates of K-1 v's K3 revolved around a specific aspect or type of photography, when truth be told most of us use our cameras in a number of different ways over their life span. In addition, both high end modern FF and APSC cameras are at such a high standard that in the sceme of things we are splitting hairs mostly.
Yes!

Another thing the debate sometimes revolves around (but perhaps implicitly) is what accompanying equipment, such as lenses, people already possess.

Example: I had ordered the two recent Pentax long FF zooms for use on APS-C cameras long before I had decided to buy the K-1. So I already knew that the K-1 would make those lenses more effective, and they reduced the additional further cost of going for a comprehensive FF range.

At one extreme is deciding whether to buy a complete FF range including lenses. At the other extreme is simply deciding whether to buy a K-1 or a K-3II.

Last edited by Barry Pearson; 08-02-2016 at 10:24 PM.
08-02-2016, 11:17 PM   #88
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
Anyway, one pretty convincing take out of the K-1 v's K3 debate is the overall satisfaction of the people who have bought a K-1. It sort of ends there.
Interresting, and what the take of the K3 owners? They are not overall satisfied?
08-02-2016, 11:37 PM   #89
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteQuote:
Another thing the debate sometimes revolves around (but perhaps implicitly) is what accompanying equipment, such as lenses, people already possess.

Example: I had ordered the two recent Pentax long FF zooms for use on APS-C cameras long before I had decided to buy the K-1. So I already knew that the K-1 would make those lenses more effective, and they reduced the additional further cost of going for a comprehensive FF range.

At one extreme is deciding whether to buy a complete FF range including lenses. At the other extreme is simply deciding whether to buy a K-1 or a K-3II.
Yep, if you have spent a lot on lenses, big one even, then they not much argument against size/weight anymore and there no argument against the amount of money to invest. You may not care honestly.

If you have less than $3000 total equipment for photography and don't want to increase that, current FF price doesn't necessarillly make it the best choice. What will you need to sell to acquire K1? Will you be able to really leverage it with a total of $1200 in lenses? Maybe half that? You may have to rely on MF lenses get unwanted holes in focal ranges... Have to do with slower apperture than you'd like...

Bellow $2000 invested in photography gear, it is simply not possible. but if you have $5000 or more, then it may make more sense to go for that FF... The cost of the body is not that big in proportion anymore and you can ensure you acquire key lenses and cover a wide variety of shooting conditions.
08-03-2016, 02:13 AM   #90
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If you have less than $3000 total equipment for photography and don't want to increase that, current FF price doesn't necessarillly make it the best choice. What will you need to sell to acquire K1? Will you be able to really leverage it with a total of $1200 in lenses? Maybe half that?
I agree! That is why I said:

"Just two more zooms, as small, light, and "affordable" as possible, added to the 28-105mm, while still retaining high image quality, would transform the Pentax FF lens line-up.... Perhaps an 18-30mm or 18-36mm variable aperture zoom and a 100-300mm variable aperture zoom."
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, car, da18-55, details, dslr, experience, fa31, ff, gear, home, k1, k3, k3 to k1, kit, lack, lens, lenses, ltd, pentax, people, photography, post, review, shots, upgrade, weight, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is upgrade worth it to Pentax 16-85 lens for K-3. Themdragons Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 07-18-2016 05:03 PM
Is it worth going from my K5 to the K3? VoiceOfReason Pentax DSLR Discussion 26 08-11-2014 12:49 PM
Is it worth it to upgrade from kit lens to DA16-45 ? Ben E Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 05-26-2013 12:36 PM
Is it worth trying to fix a kr or upgrade? Kricket Pentax K-r 13 07-15-2011 10:29 PM
k10D Is an upgrade worth it? emptydam Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-11-2007 04:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:36 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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