What if you got a person who needed their emotional support spider, and an arachnophobe on the same flight?

If I recall a previous thread correctly, one does not have to be taking shots of swans or sunsets for that, only to be suspiciously tall

True, with a sword the answer "if mine's so inferior, how did I hit you?" usually works quite well.

Interestingly, I've never had a corresponding conversation in my other hobbies.

I'd discussed why I prefer Leon Paul blades over Allstar ones for fencing, but no one ever makes a comment along the lines of the Nikon user mentioned above. We just observe that different blades suit different styles and go on trying to hit each other.

In pistol shooting I use an Aeron Brno B96 when recieved wisdom is that the Stehr is the "best" match air pistol made, yet even then I never get "why didn't you buy a Stehr?" , or if I do a simple explanation of the merits of the B96 ends the discussion.

I wonder why it does happen with photography.

Nope, APS-C does everything I need it to do, I'd rather see Pentax spend their time and money making really top notch high end amateur/semi-pro cameras which I can actually afford.

If Pentax ever did produce a 135 format body I have no doubt it would be fantastic, but I will never be able to afford a camera of that type baring significant reductions in the cost of sensors.

discounting the fact that by the time I bought my first DSLR I already had a number of K fit lenses, it was because at the time the Pentax entry level model had the best viewfinder of any entry level DSLR.

I'm not sure luddite is quite the right word when you're advocating using new technology rather than old!


FWIW I love my CZJ 35 to bits but I wouldn't buy one at the prices they are now either. The single main reason I havn't sold mine is that I suspect I'd regret it, and wouldn't be able to justify the cost of getting another one.

In the case of this particular thread, we seem to have achieved a sort of eliptical orbit around the subject of booze. Every so often we swing away from it, only to come back again at high speed!

another thumbs up for the CZJ 35 f/2.4, you'll never catch me parting with mine unless the price gets to the point where I can swap it for an FA31 limited or a DA35 macro.

I'm not going to wade into the FF debate, it's been done too many times before. Felt I should set the OP straight on this point though as no-one else seems to have done.

You seem to be mistakenly assuming that what happens when you mount a DA series lens on a 135 format camera is akin to the slightly dark corners often called vignetting in reviews. This is not the case.

In fact it's much more like the corners of an image taken with a circular fisheye, eg http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/lens/sunset-fish-circular.jpg.

You can't correct it in post processing, bracketing or no, because there is no light hitting the corners of the sensor to record.

It will go a bit wider on a 135 camera than on APS-C, but not a lot. Some zooms will cover 135 at their longer seeings (eg the 16-45 will from about 24 or so out to 45) but as a general rule only from roughly their "equivalent" widest setting. That is, the 16-45 on APS-C is equivalent to a 24-70 on 135, and indeed will cover 135 from about 24 onwards. I've not tried this with a 12-24, it might cover 135 from 18 onwards, but I'd be surprised and impressed if it'll go much wider than that.

Just wanted to make sure that if Pentax ever do make a 135 format DSLR you'll know what you are getting before spending what is likely to be a large quantity of cash on it.