Pentax Roadmap

That may not be completely true Nigel, the claim that 35mm is better in low light depends on the photosites being larger, which actually means that a 35mm camera which is "better in low light" has a lower spatial resolution than an APS-C camera.


The problem users of a Pentax 35mm are likely to hit is one of vignetting with wide angle lenses. Film is very forgiving of angle of incidence, digital sensors less so.

The lens technology is there, so as and when we get a Pentax FF camera I'm sure there will be a set of new lenses to go with it.

I don't really see the thought as a good thing for our pockets, but if there's a demand then fair enough.

Actually sensor size does change DOF in the sense that if the sensor is smaller then the diameter of the acceptable 'circle of confusion' must also be correspondingly smaller. This in fact reduces DOF for smaller sensor cameras. However for a given angle of view the decreased focal length required by the smaller sensor increases DOF much more than the decrease caused by requiring a smaller circle of confusion.

So, about this Pentax Roadmap, this is what we are talking about right?

I was thinking there may be glimmers about new lenses....

See, Smeggy, you've had to spell it out so why not do so in the first place

I like it, it's a good example of where APS-C has the advantage IMHO. It's possibly easier to achieve than with a similarly priced FF (if you can find one at the K-3 price level).

I don't think I'll ever buy a FF DSLR, whoever makes them.

I was just saying that there's a clear road-map for 'Crop' lenses, but the options for any future bigger sensor models are less clear. Of course, there are loads of suitable lenses to put onto a FF camera, but they're a 'mish-mash' of legacy 35mm glass, a small number of current premium primes if I'm right, and again a mish-mash of independant offerings, like my Samyang 14mm.

Planning for it is no easy task. I decided not to buy any new DA crop lenses as I'd like to think about FF one day, but apart from the Samyang (which on FF will be super wide & super high res) none of my old lenses will be up to the task on FF I fear.

'cos most people know what it means like they do with LOL, IIRC, AFAIK, ROFLMAO and other standard Net acronyms and I'm trying to reduce getting RSI again.

Sorry, you're losing me there - what have any of these 'net acronyms' got to do with the Isle of Wight?

It's helpful if the first time we use the proper phrase and thereafter an abbreviation.

For example, I might want to discuss depth of field (DOF) and then, having defined it, I can use DOF for the rest of a post. If that expanded to DOF and depth of focus then a new problem of clarity arises...

'cos most people know what it means like they do with LOL, IIRC, AFAIK, ROFLMAO and other standard Net acronyms and I'm trying to reduce getting RSI again. [/quote]I don't know what any of those mean either

You are in elevated company: at the Leveson enquiry, our Prime Minister was himself a bit of befuddled by LOL, which to press amusement he thought signified 'lots of love'.

Doesn't it?

As a native of the isle of wight, may I correct the assumption that IOW stands for Isle of Wight.

It is generally more shown as IoW. At least, for us inhabitants.

IOW could simply refer to being i'm over weight. Knowing smeggy's humour this is more to the mark. LOL.

Come on, smeggy, put out of our confusion. What do you mean?

Thoramay.

Bookmark the Urban Dictionary, e.g. AFAIK - link - it will tell you what they mean.

Philip