[tuco]

...
i ll add it for some interesting lenses like 14.28 or sigma long tele. but ccd for me is the winner at base iso. is simply another look.
...

for me is the sum of my feeling between the camera. not about resolution is about a difference quality not measurable.
but you can be happy with the sony. it will produce great photo for sure.

So we are comparing a MFD to a small, take most anywhere camera?

Back in the film days, an 8x10 view camera took way sharper and rich-tone pictures than the smaller formats. But very few of the may people taking pictures used one. Why? Perhaps the 10 minutes to set the camera up and shoot it was a problem for many scenes. You had to make a compromise with quality and the type of shots you could take.

Today, a MFD is much faster to use and covers more photographic diversity but still has areas it is just well suited for that a lesser quality cameras can do. So if you gave everyone a 645D today for free, I bet many would still be shooting their other camera after the honeymoon wears off. Right tool for the right job kind of thing even if you don't get the best image possible. And if your image needs sharpness and superb tonality to make it work, perhaps it's not that great of a capture.

[philbaum]

Sony has released an exciting new product that a lot of people have wanted. I don't see what's wrong with a little enthusiasm. What's with the backlash? Obviously people are excited to be able to use their Pentax lenses, because they appreciate Pentax glass. I suppose early adopters might be disappointed if Pentax releases a FF camera soon, but FF rumors have been going on since 2008 or before. M42, K and M users aren't likely going to get much better compatibility from a Pentax branded camera. This is an exciting time for all camera enthusiasts. When one camera company breaks the mold, the rest are soon to follow, hopefully, with more innovation.

Well said! Many makes have this legacy lens situation where there is clearly a trend of some sort towards smaller cameras, but how to do that with registration distances fixed for mirror cameras. Well, like it or hate it, Sony worked on a solution and got it out there for folks to look at in the form of these A7 cameras. What drew folks to Pentax, IMO, was a quality product in a small package at a reasonable cost. Sony's cameras resonate with Pentax fans for some of the same reasons. Of course the fact that many if not all Pentax lenses can be mounted on these new bodies may be a factor :-)

Or we could talk about the lack of news or rumors from Pentax - now there's a boring topic if ever i saw one. Give Sony their day - they worked hard on these cameras and i suspect they will motivate other camera makers in some unpredictable way.

[normhead]

Or we could talk about the lack of news or rumors from Pentax - now there's a boring topic if ever i saw one. Give Sony their day - they worked hard on these cameras and i suspect they will motivate other camera makers in some unpredictable way.

Now this is what I can't understand... why can't you promote Sony cameras without trashing Pentax? I know I could. But the simple fact is, look at what you'll be able to do with a K-3 right off the shelf, can you honestly say you'll be able to do all those same things with a Sony camera, even in two years, if they do everything they said they'd do? How about track and lock focus on a moving subject in -2 EV? How about macro with AF? Sony worked hard and produced not the lenses, but the promise of 5 lenses that will fully take advantage of it's capabilities. Pentax has more than 100 lenses available commercially that fully take advantage of their camera bodies. The Sony lenses are news, and new, the Pentax lenses are not new, but still in many cases very good to excellent. So which is better, the choice of 100 fully functional lenses in various price ranges and qualities, or 5 fully functional lenses? This is so easy, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[philbaum]

Now this is what I can't understand... why can't you promote Sony cameras without trashing Pentax? I know I could. But the simple fact is, look at what you'll be able to do with a K-3 right off the shelf, can you honestly say you'll be able to do all those same things with a Sony camera, even in two years, if they do everything they said they'd do? How about track and lock focus on a moving subject in -2 EV? How about macro with AF? Sony worked hard and produced not the lenses, but the promise of 5 lenses that will fully take advantage of it's capabilities. Pentax has more than 100 lenses available commercially that fully take advantage of their camera bodies. The Sony lenses are news, and new, the Pentax lenses are not new, but still in many cases very good to excellent. So which is better, the choice of 100 fully functional lenses in various price ranges and qualities, or 5 fully functional lenses? This is so easy, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I "trashed" Pentax - how did i do that? All i said was that there are no current rumors or news from Pentax. Unless i missed it. It is what it is. This "tribalism" to corporations is so misplaced IMO. To religions or cultures, i can get that. But to a corporation who only cares about us because we send them money once in a while? Really? If you or I died tomorrow, do you think Pentax would send a rep or a flower perhaps to our funeral?

I'm "promoting Sony" because i exchange comments with others about their new camera? Really? To me their new camera is an intellectual curiosity, like the K3. I may buy one or the other, or none at all. Canon's 70D with its split sensor pixels sounds interesting, Sure wish i could have a camera with Olympus's 5 axis stablization, I really like Nikon's flash system - whoops, did i promote those companies too?

---

Last edited by philbaum; 10-18-2013 at 10:50 AM.

[kenafein]

Now this is what I can't understand... why can't you promote Sony cameras without trashing Pentax? I know I could. But the simple fact is, look at what you'll be able to do with a K-3 right off the shelf, can you honestly say you'll be able to do all those same things with a Sony camera, even in two years, if they do everything they said they'd do? How about track and lock focus on a moving subject in -2 EV? How about macro with AF? Sony worked hard and produced not the lenses, but the promise of 5 lenses that will fully take advantage of it's capabilities. Pentax has more than 100 lenses available commercially that fully take advantage of their camera bodies. The Sony lenses are news, and new, the Pentax lenses are not new, but still in many cases very good to excellent. So which is better, the choice of 100 fully functional lenses in various price ranges and qualities, or 5 fully functional lenses? This is so easy, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Why can't you promote Pentax without trashing Sony?

[normhead]

Why can't you promote Pentax without trashing Sony?

The title of this thread is FULL FRAME PENTAX by Sony. This thread brought up Sony and Pentax in the same sentience I didn't. I can and do talk about Pentax without ever mentioning Sony unless someone else injects them into the thread. I have absolutely no need to talk about Sony. But I'm not likely to stand by while bunch of Sony promoting shills post mis-information about Pentax to promote Sony product. Take the words Pentax out of the thread and promote the virtues of Sony cameras, and you'll get no comment from me. To me they are kind of like Nikon and Canon. If you have unlimited amounts of money, you can get a very nice set up and pretty good value it would seem. But it's not the best investment if you're a Pentax user, for a huge variety of reasons, which are just facts. If you consider these facts trashing... well that doesn't necessarily make it so.

[x-country]

I have been using the FA43mm f/1.9 Special on my Leica M9 and monochrom for years....

Now you can do it with the A7

[Kunzite]

The title of this thread is FULL FRAME PENTAX by Sony. This thread brought up Sony and Pentax in the same sentience I didn't. I can and do talk about Pentax without ever mentioning Sony unless someone else injects them into the thread. I have absolutely no need to talk about Sony. But I'm not likely to stand by while bunch of Sony promoting shills post mis-information about Pentax to promote Sony product. Take the words Pentax out of the thread and promote the virtues of Sony cameras, and you'll get no comment from me. To me they are kind of like Nikon and Canon. If you have unlimited amounts of money, you can get a very nice set up and pretty good value it would seem. But it's not the best investment if you're a Pentax user, for a huge variety of reasons, which are just facts. If you consider these facts trashing... well that doesn't necessarily make it so.

The title is indeed an "in your face, Pentaxians!". As if a Pentaxian would be unable to see the difference between a Pentax and a Sony.
There's a Non-Pentax cameras section where they could talk about Sony... if the purpose isn't to made as many people jump ship, of course. Then, no rule applies.

[Digitalis]

Now you can do it with the A7

I don't want, or need a Sony A7r....let me put it for this way: even if SONY gave me an A7r and paid me to use their new camera commercially I would decline. I already own a Nikon D800E,Nikon D4, Canon 1Ds MK III, Leica S2, Leica M9 & Monochrom, Pentax 645D and Pentax K5IIs* - besides the FA43mm f/.1.9 special doesn't focus as closely as the FA43mm f/1.9 limited SLR lens design does.


*these are all cameras that I use for paid commercial work - there are many, many other cameras I own. To list them all would take too long.

[civiletti]

Taking revenge and trying to hurt Pentax as much as possible is indeed a constructive way of getting them to make a FF camera... right?

It will be at least as effective as all other efforts have been.

[Class A]

The microlenses are just tuned to avoid making non-retrofocus wide angle lenses a complete mess. And its not new, the Leica M does the same.

The Leicas apparently also appear to benefit from thin optical layers in front of the sensor, causing less refraction (towards image borders) than regular layer stacks.

Dr. Hubert Nasse discusses this in his excellent "A fascinating trio: Distagon, Biogon and Hologon" article (cf. p. 11 of the PDF document).

If the figures I read elsewhere are correct then the thickness of the optical layers of digital Leicas can be up to only 1/5 of a regular layer stack.

[kenafein]

The title of this thread is FULL FRAME PENTAX by Sony. This thread brought up Sony and Pentax in the same sentience I didn't. I can and do talk about Pentax without ever mentioning Sony unless someone else injects them into the thread. I have absolutely no need to talk about Sony. But I'm not likely to stand by while bunch of Sony promoting shills post mis-information about Pentax to promote Sony product. Take the words Pentax out of the thread and promote the virtues of Sony cameras, and you'll get no comment from me. To me they are kind of like Nikon and Canon. If you have unlimited amounts of money, you can get a very nice set up and pretty good value it would seem. But it's not the best investment if you're a Pentax user, for a huge variety of reasons, which are just facts. If you consider these facts trashing... well that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Facts:
Number of FF Pentax cameras capable of mounting K-mount lenses: 0
Number of FF Sony Cameras capable of mounting K-mount lenses: 3

I know you don't see the need for FF cameras, but some people are excited. I don't see the problem with that. As many have speculated, it's probably not in Pentax's best interest to deliver a FF camera. They're excited to use their Pentax glass in a different angle of view. Phil wasn't attacking Pentax, we're all Pentaxians. As for Sony's lens lineup, I bet a large percentage of buyers will never even buy a Sony FE lens.

The mods could have moved this thread, they may yet, but it's their decision. Does the title really bother you all that much?

[Sperdynamite]

Wow I didn't realize this thread was going to be controversial.

Listen, you can choose to use or not use this camera, and both a reasonable choices. Sony has created the easiest way to shoot legacy Pentax glass as intended. Do it or don't, no one cares. It's nice to have options. Now we have another option.

I say this as a Pentax user. I just shot yet another wedding with the Pentax 67II.

[Kunzite]

Facts:
Number of FF Pentax cameras capable of mounting K-mount lenses: 0
Number of FF Sony Cameras capable of mounting K-mount lenses: 3

Today, that is correct; except that you'll lose functionality (AF, SR) with those Sony cameras.
And this comes directly from Pentax (thanks to lensroar for translation):
"we are discussing development of FF SLR. We are touching base with a sensor manufacturer and proceeding the process of development towards production."
Should we run to the caves?

I know you don't see the need for FF cameras, but some people are excited. I don't see the problem with that.

We have a Non-Pentax cameras area, perfect for talks about the new Sony/Nikon/whatever cameras.

As many have speculated, it's probably not in Pentax's best interest to deliver a FF camera. They're excited to use their Pentax glass in a different angle of view. Phil wasn't attacking Pentax, we're all Pentaxians. As for Sony's lens lineup, I bet a large percentage of buyers will never even buy a Sony FE lens.

Yet Mr. Kitazawa said they're working on full frame - who's right, the speculations or the Head of Business Development?

[repaap]

Today, that is correct; except that you'll lose functionality (AF, SR) with those Sony cameras.
And this comes directly from Pentax (thanks to lensroar for translation):

We have a Non-Pentax cameras area, perfect for talks about the new Sony/Nikon/whatever cameras.

This is one good point. Why this thread now needs to be under Pentax FF section? There is actually a proper place for a tread like this. Maybe this makes some ones agony but this seems so far pointless.

It is so rasy to bash pentax for it's AF and shortcomings on K-3 thread and yet at sametime brace A7 for just about it's FF and ability to take shots with pentax FF glass(too). With out any help for AF or SR as Kunzite said. This has absolutelly no sense in it. I hope that it makes someone feel better, but I'm waiting to see what is left after dust settles. In my opinion fokes needs AF and some more practncal things too. So you will end up with lenses which are compactible with that too. So how good does it sound in Bang for buck in that case. 1600€ for digital back just for your vintage glass + lenses for AF, ect. Sounds like jumping for another system more likelly.

There is some points that I'd like some moderators to consider of movibg this thread to non pentax section. Thank you, and peace.