All Forum Comments
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Will Pentax (and everyone else too) go Full Frame? at 15/02/2012 - 23:42
Jules - welcome back! What a journey. The economy needs more people like you!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Can I come Home Please??? at 15/02/2012 - 16:47
You put it so much more succinctly though
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Will Pentax (and everyone else too) go Full Frame? at 15/02/2012 - 15:42
walkeja wrote:
Am I right in thinking that if(!) Pentax brought out a full frame sensor, we would not have a lot to worry about as all Pentax lenses would work on it. Unless, that is, Ricoh have changed the Pentax philosophy.
I'm sure all Pentax lenses would work on it. Some of the DA lenses are designed for the reduced imaging circle of APSC, but there's no reason why you couldn't use them and just crop the images (Nikon cameras have the facility to do this automatically, and I believe the viewfinder is even cropped so you know what you're getting).Am I right in thinking that if(!) Pentax brought out a full frame sensor, we would not have a lot to worry about as all Pentax lenses would work on it. Unless, that is, Ricoh have changed the Pentax philosophy.
Lenses like the DA35mm, FA50mm, FA77mm would all work fine without any such issues.
wvbarnes wrote:
I'm happy with the APS-C Sony sensor in my KR. I don't want to lug huge fat lenses around like my pro friends
I'm not sure APSC vs FF has much impact on lens size - all the wide zooms designed for APSC seem bigger than the FF equivalents, because they need to start at 16 or 17mm rather than 28mm - they also need to have a wider aperture to deliver comparable dof wide open, and because ISO noise is worse on APSC.I'm happy with the APS-C Sony sensor in my KR. I don't want to lug huge fat lenses around like my pro friends
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Will Pentax (and everyone else too) go Full Frame? at 15/02/2012 - 15:36
I would guess the Mark 1.
You may also come across the 18-55mm WR lens. That one is the same as the MkII but is weather sealed. Although your camera itself is not weather sealed, if you find one at a good price, i.e. under 50 quid, you should go for it as it will provide some moisture / dust protection, and would come in useful if you bought a weather sealed camera in the future. It's also a rather smart looking lens.
You may also come across the 18-55mm WR lens. That one is the same as the MkII but is weather sealed. Although your camera itself is not weather sealed, if you find one at a good price, i.e. under 50 quid, you should go for it as it will provide some moisture / dust protection, and would come in useful if you bought a weather sealed camera in the future. It's also a rather smart looking lens.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on 18-55 - AL vs AL II at 15/02/2012 - 11:26
Now CSCs with APSC sized sensors are available, and APSC sensors begin to reach/exceed the limits of their useful resolution, the case for FF DSLRs get stronger. At the moment though that market is a playground for professionals, dominated by Canon/Nikon, and I can't see Pentax going there. But things might change. Either way, I'm sure your APSC lenses will remain supported by Pentax bodies (DSLR or mirrorless) so I wouldn't worry too much...
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Will Pentax (and everyone else too) go Full Frame? at 15/02/2012 - 09:31
It's quite handy to have a yardstick for comparing across systems, especially if you have limited experience of them. 35mm equivalent focal length seems a sane starting point - hence you see point and shoot cameras with tiny sensors marketed as '28-200mm lenses' (meaning they provide an angle of view equivalent to those focal lengths on 35mm film). If I was contemplating moving to medium format, I would also probably appreciate knowing the angle of view I was to expect from a given lens, and the easiest way of doing that is to state what focal length would provide the same angle of view on 35mm.
Having used APSC cameras for a while I am still not quite as used to what focal lengths look like with different lenses, compared to 35mm cameras. It's a bit like thinking of distance in km vs miles; it just involves a quick mental adjustment....
Having used APSC cameras for a while I am still not quite as used to what focal lengths look like with different lenses, compared to 35mm cameras. It's a bit like thinking of distance in km vs miles; it just involves a quick mental adjustment....
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Confused on equivalent focal length at 14/02/2012 - 16:10
They did the right thing - DP forums are horrible to use, PF is much better!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on What's missing here? at 14/02/2012 - 14:31
It gets confusing, because the DA-L (which came with the K-x) IS the same optically as the SMC DA F3.5-5.6 ALII version.
The SMC DA F3.5-5.6 ALII was bundled with the K20D and K200D. It is exactly the same as the DA-L version which came with the K-x, but has a metal mount rather than plastic.
Both lenses supersede the original 'mark 1' version which came with the K10D and previous cameras, and have (slightly) improved optics. The DA-L or SMC DA F3.5-5.6 ALII versions would be better choices.
Stretching to the DA 16-45mm would be even better, if you like wide angle shots!
The SMC DA F3.5-5.6 ALII was bundled with the K20D and K200D. It is exactly the same as the DA-L version which came with the K-x, but has a metal mount rather than plastic.
Both lenses supersede the original 'mark 1' version which came with the K10D and previous cameras, and have (slightly) improved optics. The DA-L or SMC DA F3.5-5.6 ALII versions would be better choices.
Stretching to the DA 16-45mm would be even better, if you like wide angle shots!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on 18-55 - AL vs AL II at 14/02/2012 - 14:17
I've always consulted dpreview on prospective camera purchases (among other sources of course), and always ended up getting/remaining with Pentax, so they can't be that biased. The istDL2 was 'recommended' and I remember it's viewfinder and build quality being praised. The K200D was 'highly recommended if you shoot RAW' and the K7 was 'highly recommended' - I quote
Quote:
The final word
The Pentax K-7 manages to combine superb build quality, comprehensive customization options, excellent ergonomics and an extensive feature set with (for a camera in this class) very compact dimensions. This makes it a more than viable alternative for those (but not only for those) who like to work with semi-pro equipment that still leaves some space in the gear bag. JPEG output at high sensitivities is not quite on the same level as some of the competitors but if you revert to shooting RAW things are pretty much evened out.
I mean, that sounds really positive to me! It had me sold anyway... The final word
The Pentax K-7 manages to combine superb build quality, comprehensive customization options, excellent ergonomics and an extensive feature set with (for a camera in this class) very compact dimensions. This makes it a more than viable alternative for those (but not only for those) who like to work with semi-pro equipment that still leaves some space in the gear bag. JPEG output at high sensitivities is not quite on the same level as some of the competitors but if you revert to shooting RAW things are pretty much evened out.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on What's missing here? at 14/02/2012 - 13:04
Of course, I do realise that all these 135ers will take MUCH better pictures when they have a 135-format body. It's just the APS-C format that's holding them back from realising their full potential. Poor dears.
For me, the disadvantages of cost and size are prohibitive, but that doesn't mean I am going to pretend that FF has no benefits...