The Unicorn has Finally Appeared - Pentax Announces its FF camera at CP+

[pinholecam]

Looks some some guys beat me to it with better photoshop skill to superimpose the images.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/287921-body-comparison.html#post3144805

 

[obfuscate]

One thing I will say is if you're onto FF, it is really important to get the best lenses out there. I'm afraid the older Pentax FF lenses might just not hack it with today's sensors. I not entirely sure think Pentax will offer that great value, as this is a new flagship product, but hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Would it be sufficient to test the older Pentax lenses on a A7 or A7r via a decent adapter i.e. Novoflex or Voigtlander?

 

[chipvn]

...
One thing I will say is if you're onto FF, it is really important to get the best lenses out there. I'm afraid the older Pentax FF lenses might just not hack it with today's sensors. I not entirely sure think Pentax will offer that great value, as this is a new flagship product, but hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

You probably right! For example on the A7 FF sensor, the FA31 is the lowest resolution and sharpness follow by the FA43 and the best is the FA77! I don't really know why.

 

[Tiredofallthese]

You probably right! For example on the A7 FF sensor, the FA31 is the lowest resolution and sharpness follow by the FA43 and the best is the FA77! I don't really know why.

Once pentax buy over the sensor and made some modification....another super sensor i guess pentax know their lenses well

 

[pinholecam]

A7/A7r shots with Pentax lenses will be the closest thing that there is.
The only potential diff is the sensor stack thickness that is used.
The one used by A7 series is rather thick and causes edge issues with some lenses (esp RF ones with recessed rear elements).

IMO, 24mp FF, still ok for a lot of legacy lenses.
36mp it gets even more critical and even Nikon had to release a list of recommended lenses that would work better on the D800.

Problem is the off center, edges and corners.
The old lenses either strike the sensor at an acute angle or have a different focus point to the center.

Old UWA are usually not as good as new UWA.
28mm and above, generally no issues. (plenty of good examples of all sorts of legacy lenses on A7r)

FA Limiteds are fine.
So are most FA*
In fact most 28mm and up are fine.

Some did surprise me though like the FA*24 which I find is optimized as a larger aperture close-people distance type lens rather than a lens catered for infinity landscape work.
Wider stuff, field curvature is common (not uncommon for old wides of any brand and even on some modern ones).


All said, that does not mean the lenses are that bad (YMMV)
Firstly, the composition is usually not on the corners.
The human attention is also usually not on the corners or edges (so long as they are not so bad)
Neither are most compositions placed on the corners (though off center in the thirds area, I feel it needs to be good enough)
Very often, we go for other aspect ratios (5x7; 8x10; etc) and those edges/corners are left out as well.
The famous Canon 17-40/4 L is rather well known also for the poor edges and corners, but its been a great workhorse for Canon for so long with so many great photos taken with it too.
So lens review numbers is not always an absolute, in the field.


I have shot quite a few legacy lenses on the A7.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1475299
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1488003
My Flickr album for Pentax Lenses on A7 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/29329237@N07/sets/72157639381818034/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/29329237@N07/sets/72157639220201684/ - this one I did initially, then gave up as I realized that a lot of the PF ppl in the FF section were only interested in the 'big theories' and 'conspiracies' talking about a FF and not on the facts. Anyway, I found shooting the stuff in sequential f2-f8 format rather boring
This one has full sized jpgs.

 

[SyncGuy]

I think ultimately, most photographers takes picture for non-photographers.

And non-photographers look at images unlike photographers. Which then leads to the best outcome; non-photographers appreciate photographs as it was intended (art) unlike photographers (technical).

Lenses might not perform well enough on modern sensors (kinda bullshit considering SO many awesome photographs has been made to date with Pentax legacy lenses), but who are we kidding? Let's not mix art with technical concerns much. I would rather pander my "art" to 100 appreciative pair of eyes over 10 technical judges.

PS: Each time you think your equipment cannot "perform", I plead with you to take the same photo with whatever mobile device you have to compare. Then say again whether your real camera is really that horrible.

Note: above opinion is for me, and I don't print anything bigger than A3, and not so often at that, so I guess it doesn't apply to those who does? Which is....a.....lot??

 

[obfuscate]

Good point about the sensor stack.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/sensor-stack-thickness-part-iii-the-summary

 

[chipvn]

...

IMO, 24mp FF, still ok for a lot of legacy lenses.
36mp it gets even more critical and even Nikon had to release a list of recommended lenses that would work better on the D800.

...

Totally agreed!

If I remember correctly, a very good 35mm film has around 16-20Mp equivalent to Digital sensor (that's where most of the legacy lenses were designed for). Therefore, anything higher than that actually stretch the resolution limit of many lenses. Sure, we still can use them in most cases cause we don't look at lens at only resolution and look at the photos at 100% zoom in, but the limit is still there!

 

[SyncGuy]

Totally agreed!

If I remember correctly, a very good 35mm film has around 16-20Mp equivalent to Digital sensor (that's where most of the legacy lenses were designed for). Therefore, anything higher than that actually stretch the resolution limit of many lenses. Sure, we still can use them in most cases cause we don't look at lens at only resolution and at 100% zoom in, but the limit is still there!

Problem is, most people limit themselves when they think of that limitation which they never even come close to, in the first place. LoL!

 

[chipvn]

Problem is, most people limit themselves when they think of that limitation which they never even come close to, in the first place. LoL!

It's true! But there will be in the comparison table between different FF boats when Ricoh/Pentax launch their own boat!

 

[pinholecam]

Totally agreed!

If I remember correctly, a very good 35mm film has around 16-20Mp equivalent to Digital sensor (that's where most of the legacy lenses were designed for). Therefore, anything higher than that actually stretch the resolution limit of many lenses. Sure, we still can use them in most cases cause we don't look at lens at only resolution and look at the photos at 100% zoom in, but the limit is still there!

Problem is, most people limit themselves when they think of that limitation which they never even come close to, in the first place. LoL!

Personally, I think we should be happy FF is coming.
Not generating all the self doubts.
We have waited a long time and come a long way.

I'm sure we've had enough of all the "I've jumped ship, my new stuff is great and all you guys are losers" talk (esp common on PF).
My picts are to tell ppl here that the lenses work well (mostly), in fact many work great and coupled with the smallish size of the lenses, they do make a very nice smallish FF system.
Rather than look down and feel small, I do hope everyone will look up and be proud of what they have.

 

[simon6z]

You probably right! For example on the A7 FF sensor, the FA31 is the lowest resolution and sharpness follow by the FA43 and the best is the FA77! I don't really know why.

FA 43 and FA 77 was created by a japanese lens engineer after he left, pentax created the FA 31 as better than the two

 

[pinholecam]

You probably right! For example on the A7 FF sensor, the FA31 is the lowest resolution and sharpness follow by the FA43 and the best is the FA77! I don't really know why.

This should be thecase right?
The wide can't possibility be sharper than the normal or tele.

 

[Tiredofallthese]

Personally, I think we should be happy FF is coming.
Not generating all the self doubts.
We have waited a long time and come a long way.

I'm sure we've had enough of all the "I've jumped ship, my new stuff is great and all you guys are losers" talk (esp common on PF).
My picts are to tell ppl here that the lenses work well (mostly), in fact many work great and coupled with the smallish size of the lenses, they do make a very nice smallish FF system.
Rather than look down and feel small, I do hope everyone will look up and be proud of what they have.

Thumbs up....fully agreed 😀

 

[PhilipKr35]

Also New GR ? http://photorumors.com/2015/02/05/rumors-of-a-ricoh-gr-camera-replacement/

 

[easyFinger]

it's tempting to get the latest and the best, like the A7s to satisfy FF craving but I'm one of those who's glad that I waited for the Pentax version.. hope it really arrives before next Christmas below $1600 price point... reasonable expectations?

 

[fengwei]

Also New GR ? http://photorumors.com/2015/02/05/rumors-of-a-ricoh-gr-camera-replacement/

Yeah, read about this for a while. Hope it's true. I guess Pentax/Ricoh is coming back very strong this year

 

[obfuscate]

it's tempting to get the latest and the best, like the A7s to satisfy FF craving but I'm one of those who's glad that I waited for the Pentax version.. hope it really arrives before next Christmas below $1600 price point... reasonable expectations?

Doubt so. I think it has to be closer to $2K and above.

 

[obfuscate]

Also New GR ? http://photorumors.com/2015/02/05/rumors-of-a-ricoh-gr-camera-replacement/

Where is the rumoured 40mm equivalent GR? :angry:

 

[oceanpriest]

I think ultimately, most photographers takes picture for non-photographers.

And non-photographers look at images unlike photographers. Which then leads to the best outcome; non-photographers appreciate photographs as it was intended (art) unlike photographers (technical).

Lenses might not perform well enough on modern sensors (kinda bullshit considering SO many awesome photographs has been made to date with Pentax legacy lenses), but who are we kidding? Let's not mix art with technical concerns much. I would rather pander my "art" to 100 appreciative pair of eyes over 10 technical judges.

PS: Each time you think your equipment cannot "perform", I plead with you to take the same photo with whatever mobile device you have to compare. Then say again whether your real camera is really that horrible.

Note: above opinion is for me, and I don't print anything bigger than A3, and not so often at that, so I guess it doesn't apply to those who does? Which is....a.....lot??

you underestimate the non-photographers hor :nono: chef cooks food for non-chef, but to think that non-chef doesn't appreciate technical stuffs is naive.


i agree with you on complaining about your equipments. john stanmeyer already published a book using cheapo 30 bucks holga, while rest of us with better equipments can only talk and argue on online forum :sticktong

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/postcard-from-bali-john-stanmeyers-plastic-camera