On Dec 31, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > Now, I can argue that you already admitted you prefer 77 and 43 to 70 > and 40 respectively, but that would be plain silly.
And it's not much of an argument, Boris. :-) - I have not purchased a 43 Limited. I sold the FA31 Limited because I didn't like it very much and bought the FA35 to replace it. I was never interested in 40 to 43mm at all, other than that I like the size and weight of the 43. I'm hoping that the DA35 is an f/2 or faster and remains about the same size and weight as the FA35 to FA43. 40-43mm focal length was one of my favorites with 35mm film cameras, but is a little odd with 16x24 format. I'd MUCH prefer a DA28mm f/2 Limited. - I bought the FA77 before the DA70 became available: first because I knew it to be excellent and second because I wanted the option to choose between them. It has long been rumored that the FA77 and other FA series lenses might be unavailable in the very near future, so buying one and using it for a while is about the only way to ensure that I have the option to choose. I haven't bought the DA70 yet, but that's purely a matter of economics... Once I have both, I'll make a decision as to which one I prefer and sell the other. >> Beyond that, I don't share your belief that the 16x24 format is >> "temporary". Nor do I see any particular need for 24x36 format, >> either film or digital. That format choice is arbitrary, based on >> historical accident. There are certainly gains to be had in some >> cases, but based on what I've seen so far they're not particularly >> significant to my photography. > > Well, the belief's main purpose is either to be shared or not, right? > Thus it is only natural that you and I believe in different things > ;-). I don't know that this belief has any 'purpose' at all. You and others seem to want to share this belief rather often, and from that I infer that you want it to become a reality. That does not give the belief a purpose, but it ascribes a purpose to the sharing. > I humbly suggest that you and > I agree that we disagree on this very matter of DA vs FA limited > lenses or more generally reduced circle vs full circle. I think it > would be advantageous for other people if we have your opinion and my > opinion available to the list. This way we can always present two > alternatives which in turn (see diversity above) I trust to be a very > good thing. I agree that we'll disagree in our opinions. I have no problems with that. But there's no such thing as "reduced circle" or "full circle" with regard to a lens' image circle. Pentax DSLRs are cameras with a different capture format from Pentax 35mm film SLRs, they are not the same thing. Lenses designed for the DSLR format cover the format. The boon is that Pentax' older lens designs originally specified for 35mm film cameras work well on the new format in most cases. Continued use of nomenclature to try to make the DSLR format seem 'reduced' is evidence of prejudice, not an acceptance of diversity. I see nothing wrong with 24x36 mm format digital cameras, nor with 16x24 mm nor with any of the dozen or so other formats in use today or the ones to come in the future. Each has its unique qualities, advantages and disadvantages. I do not belittle any of them with negative connotation, although I'll discuss possible limitations and disadvantages as appropriate to a discussion. That's my acceptance of diversity. > Cheers and of course Happy New Year! :-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
