Hi! >> 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. :-)
Of course it is not ;-). > - 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 hear what you're saying. I really loved my FA 50/1.7 on film so that FA 43 is very natural for me on digital though of course it is ever so slightly narrow. > - 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. I decided to buy FA 31 for exactly the same reason - rumor of stopping the production. It is difficult to say whether it was right decision or not. I don't use this lens all to often, but whenever I do use - I get consistently excellent results. >>> 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. No, I don't want anything to become a reality here. It could be you misunderstood me or I mis-expressed myself. But dwelling further in this point would be silly. >> 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. Good ;-). > 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. Oh yes of course. It is just a term I am using to *denote* a certain thing so that I would be understood correctly. Indeed you're right that image circle is what it is - it covers exactly the area it was designed to cover - there is no reduction here. Perhaps using terms FA and DA would be better. > 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. I would agree with you and accept what you're saying. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
