'Digital only' lenses - are they a good investment


Ammonyte

Link Posted 10/04/2006 - 20:15
No problem Pete, that's what these forums are for (I hope). My printed Optio manual was in french (came with a CD which did have an english pdf version on it)


Tim a.k.a
Tim the Ammonyte
--------------
K10D & sundry toys
http://www.ammonyte.com/photos.html

George Lazarette

Link Posted 10/04/2006 - 22:11
McBrian wrote:
Quote:
Including the fish-eye, Pentax now has four DA lenses with an AOV (at the wide end) equal to or wider than 24mm on a 35mm film camera

George, what about the DA12-24 and the DA14, that equivelant to 18-36 and 21 in 35mm format, pretty damn good as far as wide angle goes is it not. How many of us had wider that 18 or 21 with our ME's, P's, SF's......?

Those are two out of the four I mentioned, the other two being the 10-17mm fish-eye and the 16-45mm.

There is now a 21mm DA Ltd on the way.

Personally, I never had a wider lens than 28mm when I shot film.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Mannesty

Link Posted 11/04/2006 - 19:36
True to their word, Park Cameras delivered my shiny new 16-45mm DA lens today, the day after ordering, with English paperwork too.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/04/2006 - 21:04
I bought my second *ist D from Park. Very good service, and worth a little extra.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Arthur Dent

Link Posted 12/04/2006 - 11:33
With my MX cameras (and a few other odd K-mount film bodies) 20mm was the widest I ever needed.

The 12-24 covers that wide end and more on the APS-C sensor. It's a great lens, too. I also use the 16-45 as a general "walkabout" lens. It's a great lens.
42

bretbysteve

Link Posted 12/04/2006 - 14:54
Hi,

Re Grey imports and Pentax UK honouring the warranty:

My understanding is that any grey or unofficial import will not have any warranty that is valid in the UK and so Pentax UK would be under no legal obligation of any sort to touch any grey imports..hence the risk in buying grey imports...as with most 'cheap' deals, something usually has to give somewhere.

Cheers Steve.

fleetwoodjazz

Link Posted 21/08/2007 - 11:00
Now 2 years have gone since the first post! Let's sum up something after viewing recent product developement!

Come on! Canon is realeasing its new full frame 1Ds mark 3- 21 mega pixels. Check out this link:
http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS-1Ds_...
What does this tell you?

I should also mention that the coming Nikon D3 is rumoured to be full frame or at least come out very close at 1.1 cropping factor. Again, what does this tell you?

It means photographers are eager for a full frame camera that they can afford. What ever you reason is, simply it is finance that keeps many of us here away from the full frame digital camera....admit it!

I also find it unreasonable to compare cameras with computers which getting smaller and stronger with time. Why don't you compare cameras with TVs? They only get bigger, bigGER and BIGGER and of course, more affordable. Everything has its own scope!

Not to stir any controversy but I think it is wrong to dismiss full frame cameras. IMHO, APS cameras have the potential to replace point-shot cameras in every household and in the near future, APS and full-frame will co-exist with full frame no longer a luxury spending for professional and enthusiastic.

I should mention that I chose FA limited lenses over DA limiteds not only because I expect Pentax to realease a full frame soon but to be able to use my film cameras. It may seem pointless to mention but I only want to point out that the film era have set many standards that I can't wait to see digital to follow. I like the mechanical feel, manual focus and most of all, to use the lenses as what they are intended to be.

Sadly, film era was the golden time of Pentax! I do hope they can catch Canon and Nikon very soon.
Just my fews thoughts, don't necessarily to be true.

Pwynnej

Link Posted 21/08/2007 - 12:08
fleetwoodjazz wrote:

I should also mention that the coming Nikon D3 is rumoured to be full frame or at least come out very close at 1.1 cropping factor. Again, what does this tell you?

This rumour has been circulating around for a very long time, even before the D40 was announced.....

I see no reason for this debate about the physical size of the sensor, the Nikon F-mount and the K-mount as limited because of the throat size, and I guess any movement from Pentax to a larger size might necessitate a completely new mount...

We should focus on the actual image quality itself; if you can obtain a decent A3 print from an APS-C, and consign all the flaws like VPN to history then the APS-C format can be the new full-size format. The 36 x24 mm like MF will be for specialists...

bretbysteve

Link Posted 21/08/2007 - 12:37
Hi,

"I see no reason for this debate about the physical size of the sensor"

Just to say that many thousands of people disagree with this point of view. That is why Canon sell so many full frame cameras. They have distinct advantages over smaller sensor cameras (as well as some downsides)

Not only from an image quality point of view, which is well documented (and why so many 5D's are sold) but also because of other reasons..from my own point of view, I want to use ultra wide prime lenses and really the only option here is a full frame camera. I do not want zooms, which is what I am lumbered with if I have an APS sensor camera.

The other consideration which is not so often mentioned is the viewfinder. I really hate the small poky viewfinders of smaller formats. I want a larger viewfinder and the only way to do this properly is increase the format size...hence full frame.

I would also mention that a full frame DSLR has already been made with the same throat size as the Pentax K mount. This was the Contax N digital...and over time the Contax users have overcome it's problems and produced brilliant images from it.

cheers Steve.

fleetwoodjazz

Link Posted 21/08/2007 - 12:59
bretbysteve wrote:

I would also mention that a full frame DSLR has already been made with the same throat size as the Pentax K mount. This was the Contax N digital...and over time the Contax users have overcome it's problems and produced brilliant images from it.

cheers Steve.

Will you be able to tell what are the problems with the current throat size if used on full frame? I'm a bit confused

Cheers
Duc

niblue

Link Posted 21/08/2007 - 13:19
Despite having bought a few digital specific lenses which I enjoy using (Sigma 10-20mm, Pentax 10-17 and Pentax 16-45) I'd still be quite happy to see a return to the full 35mm equivalent frame. To that extent I'm still keeping hold of one lens (Tokina ATX-Pro 20-35mm F2., which more or less useless, with APS-C "just in case" although I've offloaded several others (24mm F2, 35mm F2, 28mm F1..

I mostly shoot wide angle and while there are several digital specific lenses available now that cover it (both the Sigma 10-20 and Pentax 10-17 are wider than I ever had with film) they are quite expensive considering they are also fairly slow plus there are very few wide or ultra-wide angle primes available.

bretbysteve

Link Posted 21/08/2007 - 14:47
Hi,

"Will you be able to tell what are the problems with the current throat size if used on full frame? I'm a bit confused"

I think various people have tried to say that the Pentax K mount is simply too small to accomodate a successful installation of a full frame digital sensor and I was simply pointing out that Contax/Kyocera have already proved that the assumption is wrong. I believe the problems with the Contax N digital were not actually anything to do with the restrictions of the size of the mount at all, but issues with the battery power consumption and other related issues, some to do with quality issues of the sensor itself. Also technology has moved on greatly since that camera was introduced.

cheers Steve.

viewfinder

Link Posted 21/08/2007 - 16:32
Obviously I must be missing something here....

If the pentax 'K' mount was large enough for the full 35mm frame, and it was, then why would it be too small for a digital sensor the same size....??

johnriley

Link Posted 21/08/2007 - 16:38
Why indeed. The Pentax K mount is a very generous size, larger than the Nikon F mount that's for sure.
Best regards, John

fleetwoodjazz

Link Posted 21/08/2007 - 19:28
viewfinder wrote:
Obviously I must be missing something here....

If the pentax 'K' mount was large enough for the full 35mm frame, and it was, then why would it be too small for a digital sensor the same size....??

That's what initially confused me. Thanks for everybody's clarification.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.