[Gooshin]

you guys want cheap full frame


Used Canon 5D, ~$ 1300-1600 (depending on your bargaining ability)

1 bag full of takumars ~$400-1000

1 adapter - ~$20-30

ta da!!

you dont have autofocus or shake reduction but ohh well.

[poco]

Every DA* should have great IQ because they are only pro-lenses. Is that correct?

Does Pentax have a professional body? Then why would it make professional lenses?

[dan aron]

Does Pentax have a professional body?

Better start to produce those pro bodies if they are going to hang there.

Then why would it make professional lenses?

If the DA* series is not one then we know there wont be pro bodies coming in near future, right?

edit.. The Pentax 645, I didn't know there is medium format. Isn't this pro body?

[MPrince]

Does Pentax have a professional body? Then why would it make professional lenses?

Depends on your definition of professional. Mine begins and ends with the person, not the equipment.

If Hank Aaron gave me one of his bats, I could swing it all day and never hit a homerun. The bat doesn't matter. The person swinging it does.

Eric Clapton and I could trade guitars (not likely since I'm a lefty) and you would have no trouble determining which one of us you were listening to. Doesn't matter that he'd be playing a lower-end Ovation and I'd be playing a Martin. The guitar doesn't matter. The guitarist does.

Oh, and by the way, superior glass is superior glass regardless of the body it is attached to.

[Gus]

I think for the hobbyist the full frames are priced out of reach for most of us right now. It would be nice to own but i'm quite happy with what I have. I'm getting lots of good pictures and still learning to use the K10D. Buying a full frame for me right now makes as much sense as buying 150 HP bass boat to fish on a 5 acre pond.

It's true, the prices for full frame cameras aren't hobbyist friendly at all. But if full frame was more commonplace and the manufacturing processes were more efficient we would definitely see a lot more FF cameras at the entry level (of course we're disregarding the extra cost of full frame lenses here).

[stevebrot]

I don't really get why the size of a 35mm film frame is some sort of magical, holy grail, standard by which a digital sensor should be measured and compared. Why not 110 film? Why not 19th century glass plates? Why not just accept digital sensors for what they are?

But that's just me.

There is nothing particularly sacred about the 35mm format except for it being larger than APS-C. The pros/cons of a larger sensor have been discussed (almost to death) on other threads.

Oh, maybe there is an additional advantage for some of us...I already own a full quiver of lenses made for the 35mm format. Most of them would produce much nicer results with a larger sensor.

Steve

[stevebrot]

you guys want cheap full frame


Used Canon 5D, ~$ 1300-1600 (depending on your bargaining ability)

1 bag full of takumars ~$400-1000

1 adapter - ~$20-30

ta da!!

you dont have autofocus or shake reduction but ohh well.

My point exactly! Many of us already own the glass. What we need is a truly compatible body.

AF is extra baggage for my style of shooting and the need for shake reduction is reduced with a larger sensor.

Steve

[egordon99]

And it's a pretty remarkable lens for the price too! FAST autofocus, excellent image quality (with great contrast and sharpness wide open, becomes jaw-dropping by f/2.8) it's only nemesis is purple fringing in harsh lighting and larger apertures. IMNSO there is NO need to upgrade to the $1600 85mm f/1.2.

My 85mm and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 pretty much live on my 40D and Xsi.

Had no idea the EF 85/1.8 was that cheap.

Love my Pentax gear, but wouldn't turn down a 5d Mk II with that lens, 50/1.4 and some form of wide angle zoom.

[egordon99]

Excellent point! Now that Sigma has an HSM 70-200mm f/2.8 for Pentax, Pentaxians only have to pay $700 for a stablized 70-200. Canikonians have to spend $1600

I split the difference and went with the 70-200mm f/4 IS.

Pentax as a system has come a long way since I jumped ship last March and I'm glad to see the lens selection continue to grow, and the sensors/bodies continue to improve.

Today I was at a race track and a friend of mine was also there shooting with a Nikon D300 and Nikkor 70-200/2.8 Zoom.

He lamented that his lens didn't have IS and that the IS version was so much more expensive. I just laughed a bit inside and kept from making the obvious comment.

IMHO Canon and Nikon do have better options for budget-unlimited buyers. For hobbyist shooters like us it's just overpriced equipment.

I currently have no desire for a FF camera. Maybe in 5 years if they become affordable.

[raider]

Pardon my ignorance...

I understand that with FF you get less sensor noise at high ISO, u get better of everything thing but why would we want this when

1. u will lose the range of using APC-S glass. i mean that expensive 70-200 we buy when on the APC-S body is really a 105-300mm lens on a FF body. On a FF body, that 70-200 is well, a 70-200. Isn't the extra range something?

2. the ultrawide lens like 14mm and 12-24mm (which to me seems to be wide enuf) on a FF body will be well, 14mm and 12-24mm respectively, which would also mean it is necessary to invest in more expensive filters to avoid vignetting issues? Cokin X-Pro series are very expensive. With APC-S body, we can still stick to Z-Pro series for the 12-24 or some people even use the P-series with some minor modifications. Isn't the cost savings worthwhile?

I would welcome the move to FF but at what cost?

[egordon99]

APS-C has a "advantage" when you want to go long. I would not be happy using my 100-400mm on a full-frame body. On the other hand, my 70-200mm f/4 IS would probably be more useful for me on FF as I find 70mm on a crop a bit too long for people shooting (I LOVED my DA* 50-135mm).

Obviously, crop has the cost advantage as well. A Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 goes for around $500, the Canon (full frame) 16-35mm f/2.8 over $1000. BUT if you don't need f/2.8, the 17-40L f/4 is much less expensive. If you NEED full-frame, then cost is non-issue. If you're not sure why you want it (because you've read it's "better") you don't need it. I would LOVE a 5DMKII, but I was only able to find about $1.50 under my couch cushions.

[Gooshin]

Pardon my ignorance...

I understand that with FF you get less sensor noise at high ISO, u get better of everything thing but why would we want this when

1. u will lose the range of using APC-S glass. i mean that expensive 70-200 we buy when on the APC-S body is really a 105-300mm lens on a FF body. On a FF body, that 70-200 is well, a 70-200. Isn't the extra range something?

2. the ultrawide lens like 14mm and 12-24mm (which to me seems to be wide enuf) on a FF body will be well, 14mm and 12-24mm respectively, which would also mean it is necessary to invest in more expensive filters to avoid vignetting issues? Cokin X-Pro series are very expensive. With APC-S body, we can still stick to Z-Pro series for the 12-24 or some people even use the P-series with some minor modifications. Isn't the cost savings worthwhile?

I would welcome the move to FF but at what cost?

i wont bother turning this into another "why FF post" except for this,

go and buy yourself a cheap pentax film camera (any of the ME series will do, or a K1000) and shoot a couple rolls of film, and try to keep in mind what sort of shots you are doing with your lens library on your digital vs film.

if you lack a lens library.. my best suggestion would be to hook up with local pentax buddies and rent out their primes for a bit.

this is the best way to understand it, since conceptually people just dont get it.

its only when you use the two systems side by side with the same lens library do you get it, and once you get it, and try a MF camera, you will get it even more

[NickC]

you are not quite right.
2.8 on FF is like 1.8 on APS crop. I mean depth-of-field.

True and that's a negative point against FF when shooting Macro insects.

Not true for exposure of course.

Nick

[lol101]

In another thread I happened to tally up what it would cost someone to get into Pentax at the highest level, assuming they wanted shake-reduction and weather-sealing on all components.

K20D
DA* 16-50mm f/2.8
DA* 50–135mm f/2.8 : €2,000
DA* 300mm f/4 : €1,000
DA* 55mm f/1.4 : €500
TOTAL : €3,500

Just for fun I thought "Hmmm... what if someone insisted on full-frame and wanted to build the same kit in the Nikon system?" Here's what you'd need, assuming matching FOV (no, let's not have that debate again). All prices from the same vendor.

Nikon D3 (only 12.1 MP but close enough) : €4,200
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S N (not VR) : €1,700
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR : €1,870
Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR N : €8,500
Nikkor 85/1.4 AF D IF (not sealed, not VR) : €1,100
TOTAL : €17,370

Of course you could improve on your telephoto speed one stop by getting instead:
Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR N : €9,650

Or keep the same speed and improve your reach somewhat:
Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR N : €10,200

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you can buy five Pentax systems for the price of a single Nikon full-frame system. Is the grass greener? Looks more like a scorched earth policy!

Errr, OK you're wrong, let me correct you...

First off, do you really think the K20 and D3 are comparable cameras? If so, please, try a D3 for 5 minutes...


Furthermore, your list of "equivalent" FF lense is deeply flawed to say the least, let's try this one, from the Canon camp (part of which I own):

K20D ==> 5D: 1699€
DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ==> 24-105f4L IS: 939€ (equiv. 16-70f2.6)
DA* 50–135mm f/2.8 : €2,300 ==> 70-200f4L IS: 1049€ (equiv. 46-133f2.6)
DA* 300mm f/4 : €1,100 ==> 400f5,6L: 1200€ (equiv. 266f4)
DA* 55mm f/1.4 : €500 ==> 85f1.8: 370€ (equiv. 56f1.2)
TOTAL : €3,900 ==> TOTAL: 5255€

(I took the liberty of taking all the prices from the same online store for the sake of coherence give or take 100€ if you take kits).

So the FF equivalent kit comes up just under 35% more than the K20D kit... hardly 500%!


These setups are the closest you can get from an equivalence point of view and I can guarantee you that the 5D setup stil ends up with some advantages in AF speed and (and that's the most important, at least to me) IQ at all ISO.

More expensive? Yes but not by the margin you stated.

Worth it? For some people it might... for some others no.

[poco]

Depends on your definition of professional. Mine begins and ends with the person, not the equipment.

That is a pretty silly argument when we ARE talking about equipment.

Pentax themselves say the top of the line Pentax digital cameras are aimed for the enthusiast/hobbyist. The top of the line lenses will be for the same market, not one above, especially when not priced accordingly.

This doesn't mean the IQ of the camera or lenses isn't professional, it means that if Pentax where to come out with professional tools, it would be a step above what is currently being offered. I think that would be pretty good, as I think the current top of the line is already pretty exceptional, but it would be different and priced out of my reach.

As a side note, my definition of professional equipment would be all around performance, durability, access to goods, service and a complete system for offer.