[Docrwm]

The Pentax extended warranty is a good idea but be careful to pick the right one. The MSRP of the KP is still listed as $1096 on B&H so the link provided in an earlier message may not be the correct one for the KP since it is for cameras with an MSRP under $1000. Perhaps someone better informed about this than me can provide confirmation one way or the other.

The $100 option covers $1k+ cameras. Sadly the cost doubles at that point for the same coverage. This is a new development from Pentax as when I bought them for the K5/3 cameras there was 1 dSLR choice.

[Mikesul]

The $100 option covers $1k+ cameras. Sadly the cost doubles at that point for the same coverage. This is a new development from Pentax as when I bought them for the K5/3 cameras there was 1 dSLR choice.

Yes, the old option was a real bargain. I just wish they would make clear which cameras are covered by each warranty. MSRP is such nebulous figure that it would be easy for them to deny coverage in two years because it is the wrong warranty. By nebulous I mean that with MAP pricing it is probably safe to assume that if B&H sells the KP for $696 they are doing so with the permission of Pentax which would seem to me to mean that for that period $696 is the MSRP. I am pretty sure I could convince a jury and most judges of that but who has the time or money to do that? There may already have been decisions covering this point but who would have the time to look for them? Anyway the Pentax warranty is still cheaper than Squaretrade.

[Docrwm]

Yes, the old option was a real bargain. I just wish they would make clear which cameras are covered by each warranty. MSRP is such nebulous figure that it would be easy for them to deny coverage in two years because it is the wrong warranty. By nebulous I mean that with MAP pricing it is probably safe to assume that if B&H sells the KP for $696 they are doing so with the permission of Pentax which would seem to me to mean that for that period $696 is the MSRP. I am pretty sure I could convince a jury and most judges of that but who has the time or money to do that? There may already have been decisions covering this point but who would have the time to look for them? Anyway the Pentax warranty is still cheaper than Squaretrade.

100% agreement. I have had to use the extended warranty once and it went perfectly. None of my cameras are new enough for any of the warranties to be in effect but they were covered for the first 3 years and I had a sense of security as a result. The new scheme is annoying as you stated - perhaps they could go APS-C for $50 and FF for $100 and make it VERY easy to tell which covers which?

[mikesbike]

I believe the controversy came as a result of speculation that the KP would be considered as the replacement model for the outgoing K-3 II, as reh321 has indicated.. As it came around to information from Ricoh, this is not the case, the KP is a unique model in its own category, and there will be a forthcoming K-3 II replacement. So those in need of the above features of the K-3 II will be so addressed.

[ATLphotog]

I cannot speak for the other lenses but the DA* 50-135mm lens is one of my main "go to" lenses along with my DA* 16-50mm lens, I keep them both mounted on my two K3s...

BirdDude007


BirdDude007, thanks! I have heard that, when used on an APS-C, a vintage 50-135 lens (for instance) would have the effective zoom range of a lens with a top end of 200+. I'm having a hard time understanding that, but understand it to be a by-product of the smaller aperture of a Pentax KP.


I ask because the main lens I use with my old Nikon D40 has been a 55-200, and I really like having the ability to zoom at that higher level.

However, I have the opportunity to buy a vintage 50-135. Which I'd like to do - if it indeed can achieve the zoom level of a 200+ lens.

Any info on that would be helpful - thanks!

[Paul the Sunman]

The Nikon D40 is APS-C too, so your experience of 200mm on that camera will be the same as 200mm on a Pentax APS-C camera.

Pentax do make a very cheap DA 50-200, but it's not recommended by most on this site. The DA 55-300 (any version) is a better lens. There's also a DA 18-270 if you really want to go "all purpose", but again, it's not a great lens. The DA* 60-250 is in an altogether different bracket, both quality and price-wise.

[aslyfox]

. . . thanks! I have heard that, when used on an APS-C, a vintage 50-135 lens (for instance) would have the effective zoom range of a lens with a top end of 200+. I'm having a hard time understanding that, but understand it to be a by-product of the smaller aperture of a Pentax KP. . . . Any info on that would be helpful - thanks!

I think what you may be referring to is known as " field of view "

here is my attempt to explain that:

if you use a 50mm lens on a full frame senor camera or 35mm film camera, you get " field of view " A

if you use the same 50mm lens on a APS-C crop sensor camera, you get " field of view " B

________________

" Note that the focal length of a lens (say 50 mm) is an optical property of the lens and remains the same no matter what sensor size camera the lens is mounted on.
In other words, an smc Pentax-A 50mm F1.7 lens as shown to the right is a 50 mm lens when mounted on a Pentax Q7 (1/1.7 inch sensor size), on a Pentax K-3 (APS-C sensor size), or on a Pentax film SLR (aka 24 x 36 mm or full frame). The focal length does not change with the camera. But the field of view which the lens captures does change. And so does depth of field, but that is for another article. "


Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/photo-articles/table-of-equivalent-foc...#ixzz5bPEBujcv

_____________________________
Crop Factor Explained

FOV Tables: Field-of-view of lenses by focal length

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 01-01-2019 at 05:35 PM.

[ATLphotog]

I think what you may be referring to is known as " field of view "

here is my attempt to explain that:

if you use a 50mm lens on a full frame senor camera or 35mm film camera, you get " field of view " A

if you use the same 50mm lens on a APS-C crop sensor camera, you get " field of view " B

________________

" Note that the focal length of a lens (say 50 mm) is an optical property of the lens and remains the same no matter what sensor size camera the lens is mounted on.
In other words, an smc Pentax-A 50mm F1.7 lens as shown to the right is a 50 mm lens when mounted on a Pentax Q7 (1/1.7 inch sensor size), on a Pentax K-3 (APS-C sensor size), or on a Pentax film SLR (aka 24 x 36 mm or full frame). The focal length does not change with the camera. But the field of view which the lens captures does change. And so does depth of field, but that is for another article. "


Read more at: The Crop Factor Unmasked - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

_____________________________
Crop Factor Explained

FOV Tables: Field-of-view of lenses by focal length

Thanks a lot - that was a big help. And the article you referenced above ("The Crop Factor Unmasked - Field of View vs Focal Length on various formats") really helped illuminate the whole concept of full frame vs. APS-C (I wish the latter had a better name - I know I'm going to call it the wrong thing half the time, with the C before the P or S after the C, etc ) and how the lenses interact with each.

[aslyfox]

Thanks a lot - that was a big help. And the article you referenced above ("The Crop Factor Unmasked - Field of View vs Focal Length on various formats") really helped the whole concept of full frame vs. APS-C (I wish the latter had a better name - I know I'm going to call it the wrong thing half the time, with the C before the P or S after the C, etc ) and how the lenses interact with each.

thank you

I always find it amazing what others have explained and how helpful such information may be

I am just glad I was able to find helpful info for you and perhaps others as well

[mikesbike]

Thanks a lot - that was a big help. And the article you referenced above ("The Crop Factor Unmasked - Field of View vs Focal Length on various formats") really helped illuminate the whole concept of full frame vs. APS-C (I wish the latter had a better name - I know I'm going to call it the wrong thing half the time, with the C before the P or S after the C, etc ) and how the lenses interact with each.

The technical explanations, regarding focal length being the same but the different sensor size results in a cropped image for the smaller APS-C, etc. while true, makes the practical application more complicated to predict the resulting image difference than necessary. As has been said, understanding it from the field of view explanation is quite easy. The larger FF sensor will present a larger FOV compared with the smaller APS-C sensor. The concept of the APS sized format actually started with film cameras, that is a film size of 16x24mm instead of the 24x36mm of "35"mm film. Those smaller-format cameras did not do well in the marketplace, eventually failing altogether. The case with DSLRs has been very different. The smaller format has been very successful. The DSLR sensors are likewise 24x36mm for FF and 16x24mm for APS-C.

The difference in FOV with the same lens can be easily calculated for the end result of the image you will get, which is approximately 1.5x (or with Pentax more precisely 1.53x) for APS-C over FF. For example, if using the 1.5x factor as your guide, a 50mm lens on an APS-C Pentax body will produce images that are of similar-appearing size in the frame as an image would be if coming from a 75mm lens on a FF body if shot at the same distance. (using a precise for Pentax 1.53 factor, it would be a 76.5mm lens similarity) The FOV is narrower with the smaller sensor. There are smaller sensors yet on other styles of digital cameras, where this factor is much greater. This allows smaller lenses and smaller cameras to produce more tele-like images using more compact ensembles.

But in taking that principle too far, the disadvantages began to become very evident in terms of higher noise with ISO increase, much greater difficulty in achieving a wide angle FOV, and DOF issues. The APS-C size seems to have arrived as the best compromise with the least disadvantage, as evidenced in the latest camera designs.

So simply using the 1.5x factor will quickly give you a good prediction of what a lens of any FL will look like when viewing scenes through the VF on a camera of APS-C sensor size, vs. that of a FF body. The DA* 200mm f/2.8 lens on the APS-C body will appear similar to having a 300mm f/2.8 on a FF body, at a fraction of the weight, size, and cost. The DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 will again present similarly on APS-C bodies which it is designed for, to having a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on a FF body, again at a fraction of the weight, size, and cost.

[ATLphotog]

The technical explanations, regarding focal length being the same but the different sensor size results in a cropped image for the smaller APS-C, etc. while true, makes the practical application more complicated to predict the resulting image difference than necessary...

Excellent info - it's starting to sink in. By the way, I also have a Mamiya 645M medium format film camera, a beautiful piece. So, with a sensor and FOV even larger than a FF/35mm, it would create the opposite situation - its "Equivalent" Focal Length would be shorter than a FF/35mm. Right?

[Which just reminds me - I need to get a digital back for that Mamiya to put that wonderful machine back into use]

[mikesbike]

Excellent info - it's starting to sink in. By the way, I also have a Mamiya 645M medium format film camera, a beautiful piece. So, with a sensor and FOV even larger than a FF/35mm, it would create the opposite situation - its "Equivalent" Focal Length would be shorter than a FF/35mm. Right?

[Which just reminds me - I need to get a digital back for that Mamiya to put that wonderful machine back into use]

It does create the SAME situation but looking from the other direction. If you think about it, you are then coming from a 35mm/FF to a larger sensor, just like coming from APS-C towards a FF/35mm, so the "equivalent" would be a longer FL for the larger sensor. Look at it this way- an image from a 100mm lens on APS-C "looks like" a 150mm lens image on a 35mm/FF body. 100mm on FF x 1.5= 150mm image size on APS-C. So looking at the same thing in reverse direction, from APS-C towards 35mm/FF, the equivalent image size you get with a 100mm on APS-C would have to be a longer lens on 35mm/FF, a 150mm lens.

I don't know the multiplying factor right off hand for the 645 format to see how much longer the lens would have to be to reach the equivalent FOV to 35mm/FF.

[sutherland]

Assuming you are set on APS-C and intend on buying new, I would identify the lenses first and then let the remainder determine whether that leaves you with the K70 or KP.

I switched from the K-3 II to the D500 as I found myself getting really into wildlife/bird photography and felt that the purpose-built Nikon was the logical next step. After being within the Nikon world for a few months, it's clear that although Pentax lacks a true competitor to the D500, ALL manufacturers (Nikon included) fail to beat Pentax's value/performance proposition with the K70 and KP.

The D7200 is Nikon's higher end, enthusiast DSLR that retailed for approx. $1000. The K70 retails currently $600. Spec-wise, some (myself included) would argue that the K70 is the better camera. You might have predicament on your hands with the D7200 marked down, but I would rather have my hands on the K70.

[ATLphotog]

To all the great commenters here and on other threads on PF - I picked the Pentax KP! It arrived last Friday. I've been testing out the lenses I'm likely to buy from my friend.

It's been a dream so far! Right out of the box, I've been able to capture things in low light I would have had to just pass on in the past. The bokeh is great, and the color tones are excellent without the need for much Photoshop adjustment.

I'm stoked about what I'll be able to capture now... just beginning to play with it, and haven't even read the manual or changed any settings yet, just shooting out of the box. What a lovely piece it is.

Here's a couple of the first shots in very low-light situations. The first shows great detail in the low-light capture, and the second scores on what I've been trying to do for years but couldn't previously - get sharp detail in the foreground (you can see the threads in the lampshade) with buttery bokeh beyond.

[Sandy Hancock]

The KP is a fantastic camera - I'm sure you'll love it! I have taken mine to Italy, Antarctica and New Zealand in the last 18 months and it has preformed beyond expectations.

Of the lenses your mate is looking to offload, the DA12-24, Sigma 30/1.4 and DA*50-135 would make a brilliant, versatile trio. The Tamron 17-50 is also well regarded, but there would be quite a bit duplication with the other three.

Have fun in Pentax land