Perntaxian wrote:

Are they rally?

The following two pictures of my grandchildren where taken at F6.3.
This was the largest opening this 90mm lens had.

Regards, Horst








I think less dof would not show up the nice greenery in the back ground.

Fair comment. I suppose it was somewhat selfish of me.

Regards, Horst

Also if Pentax would get rid of the useless inbuilt flash, then the whole contraption would be somewhat smaller.

The 40mm M pancake lens is FF and very small.

Regards, Horst

bwlchmawr wrote:

When Nikon released the Photomic F, It was a lot larger and heavier than the Spotmatic or the equivalent Minolta and other cameras.
However this didn't stop people buying the Nikon's.
Especially the professionals.
Some of the Nikon and Canon FF are relatively old developments.
I am sure Pentax will be able to make a FF the same size and weight as the K3.

Regards, Horst

I can see, why one would use a super fast lens for a portrait to reduce the dof.
But otherwise there is really no need to.

Lets assume in the Film days the fastest lens you had was a f1.4 lens.
you used a 100ASA film. There was not much you could do for available light, but use your lens wide open, or use a tripod, or get 1 more F-stop by pushing it in the development stage. This you could only do, if all the frames on the film had to be pushed.

Today with digital however , if you have a f4 lens, you just crank up the ASA setting on your camera . so 200 ASA give you f2.8, 400ASA=f2, 800 ASA = f1.4, 1600 ASA=f1. with modern cameras ASA settings of 1600 ore more are still noise free. If you go further, you may get some more noise, but faster films had the same problem.

So really especially with non portrait lenses. Speed is not that the main factor.

Regards, Horst

I believe the lenses made for APS-C only are a great big con.

Why should a lens which has do do less work on the edges cost as much or more than a FF lens?

I really think the whole APS-C business was OK, when Digital started.
But this days, I can not see why a FF sensor should really be so much more expensive. I believe Pentax and some of the other manufacturers release more APS-C lenses and then suddenly, a FF camera is on the marked and the user is expected to buy FF lenses which should have been made all along.

Regards, Horst

gartmore wrote:

Why would you need a faster lens for FF than for APS-C?

Regards, Horst

Gartmore wrote:

.

There is no reason why lenses for FF should be larger or heavier.
Most lenses until just recently where full frame lenses. they where not bigger than the DA lenses.

There is also no reason why a FF camera should be much bigger than a K5 or K3 and definitely no reason why it should be heavier.

Look at the new K-S1, It has the same size sensor APS-C as the other Pentax SLR's but it is quite smaller.
So if you then take the K-S1 and enlarge it for a FF sensor , you probably end up with a K3 size.

Regards, Horst

Hi, I had paid for the Pentax plus. But this seems to have been canceled after my return from being banned for 7 days.

I suppose I will get a refund. Or maybe not?

Regards, Horst

It would have a FF sensor.

Regards, Horst