I was first motivated to buy DA lenses for the same reason. I had to have wide glass to shoot room and car interiors. The DA 16-45 was a partial solution, and it turned out to be an excellent all-around lens as well. The DA 12-24 has proven to be an even better lens and an optimum solution for interiors. Now, I'm feeling that lenses designed for the APS-C image circle will generally outperform the older full frame lenses, all else being equal. And I'm more concerned with getting the results I want and need right now, rather than what I might want to do if and when different hardware becomes available. Today's photo is always the most important one. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I too was getting excellent results from my non-digital-optimized > lenses. Only problem was, non of them were wide enough. I looked all > over the place, but couldn't find a rectilinear lens wider than 15mm > in the Pentax stable. > Of course, once I bought one DA lens, it was easier to buy a second > one, and then a third, etc. > > William Robb > > On 10/15/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't feel cheated, but... well maybe. Recall that we were expecting a FF > > DSLR camera from Pentax, first one out the door. OK, that's water under the > > bridge, but the technology existed then (albeit likely implemented > > incorrectly) for a FF DSLR. Four - five years later things have changed. > > > > In my mind the reason for going less than FF was purely > > sales/marketing/profit driven. That's understandable, one must make a > > product to sell a product, sell a product to make a profit, make a profit to > > survive. > > > > Back to the main point. Since I seem to be getting excellent results from > > my non-digital-optimized lenses, I have no need or desire to buy an > > APS-sized lens when I fully expect Pentax to either produce a FF camera when > > the time comes, or throw in the towel if they don't. In either case, I'm not > > going to throw money away on a lens form factor I don't anticipate > > surviving, and if it does will likely be applicable to the bottom feeder > > cameras on the market. > > > > Tom C. > > > > >From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >Yes. But ultimately, eventually, it's sensor size, whether they're chemical > > >or electronic photon catchers, that determines maximum obtainable image > > >quality. Having a camera whose physical size is pefect for the hand and > > >can/could accommodate a full frame but has an APS sized sensor really feels > > >like a cheat to me and hat disgusts me. > > > > > >Screw Nikon, Canon and the rest. There are limits to how efficient you can > > >make a sensor, any sensor. There is a reason, and or me, valid, why I will > > >NOT purchase a lens that will not fill a full frame - and that be 24x36mm > > >or > > >there abouts. > > > > > >When I get the time, I'll derive the maximum performance limits (but never > > >actually achievable) for both APS and full frame sensors. > > > > > >Regards, > > >Bob... > > >-------------------------------------------------------- > > >"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." > > > -Jean Luc Godard > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > Bob Blakely wrote: > > > >>>From my point of view... > > > >> > > > >> Only so many photons are captured by a sensor element (pixel, if you > > > >> will) > > > >> of a given size and that to a certain efficiency. There is an upper > > > >> limit. > > > >> Further, everything that has a temperature generates noise in > > >proportion > > > >> to > > > >> that temperature. There is a lower limit. > > > >> > > > >> The upper limit can only be expanded by increasing the element size to > > > >> capture more photons per element. Maintaining the effective resolution > > > >> then > > > >> means increasing the overall sensor size (to full frame?) The lower > > >limit > > > >> can only be pushed further down by operating the sensor at a lower > > > >> temperature. Currently, the K10D shows noise beginning on the side > > >where > > > >> most of the hotter the electronics is located. Red pixels light up > > >first, > > > >> then green, then blue. Noise temperature can be further reduced by > > > >> active > > > >> cooling. I suspect that this is not likely to happen with digital > > >cameras > > > >> any time soon, sensors for astrophotography and other scientific > > >purposes > > > >> excepted. Everybody knows this, and ultimately the larger sensors will > > > >> prevail. When this happens, lenses with APS size image circles will > > > >> become > > > >> as useless, practically speaking, as 8 tracks. > > > >> > > > >> Have you noticed that the upper ISO limits for digital sensors and film > > > >> are > > > >> about the same, 1600 and sometimes 3200? Tere is a reason for this and > > > >> ultimately it is the physics of noise that produce thes limits. > > > >> > > > >> Noise power, N = k*T*B*Nf, where: > > > >> > > > >> k = Boltzmann's constant; > > > >> T = Absolute temperature; > > > >> B = Noise Bandwidth of the sensor or film; > > > >> Nf = Noise figure, a measure of sensor efficiency. > > > >> > > > >> Bottom line... there are rules and nature enforces them. > > > >> > > > >> So... where's my effecient full frame sensor? > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Bob... > > > > > > > > In the Nikon D3. Improvements in fill factor (reducing the wasted space > > > > between sensor sites) have significantly increased sensor performance by > > > > increasing the effective area of the sensor sites by a fair margin. The > > > > current crop oof 10/12MP APS-C sensors are capable of ISO6400 with > > > > quality superior to the old ones at 1600-3200, and can match a 5D at > > > > 1600-3200. The D3, which is unique in being a low-density sensor with > > > > the new sensor tech, is capable of natve ISO 6400 (the cropped bodies > > > > achieve it in Boost) and boost up to ISO 25,600. From the posted samples > > > > 6400 on the D3 looks as good as 1600 on the similar-density 5D did, with > > > > similar amounts of detail. > > > > > > > > >-- > > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >[email protected] > > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > >follow the directions. > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow > the directions. > > > > > -- > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
