Or maybe they could spec. a sensor like the Kodak sensor optimized for corner and edge light capture that Leica is using in the M8 without the mistake they made in cover plate/filter stage which is causing so much fun... (It is possible to learn from others mistakes).
DagT wrote: > Just a small comment: > My A*135mm 1.8 and FA100mm 2.8 macro are not as good on my dslrs as > they are on film. This is not because of the smaller sensor size but > because they are optimized for film, not sensors. If Pentax made a > FF camera they would have to make new lenses that were optimized for > the new, large sensors as the problems the old lenses show on APS > sensors would be even more evident on the large ones. > > DagT > > Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 08.31 skrev J. C. O'Connell: > > >> these lenses are not really "superb" or "better" >> lenses in terms of overall image quality capability, >> the DA lenses are actually worse I would venture >> to say, they just work >> better on the limited size APS format that's all. If you had >> a full frame camera that matched what the full >> frame lenses can do and were designed for, you would reverse which >> ones you are calling superb and which ones >> you are calling not performing as well. I dont >> think its fair or show's much understanding >> to describe them that way when you are using >> DA lenses optimized for APS on APS with FF lenses >> which are optimized for FF but not using >> them FF and are only using them on APS. Sure >> there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera at this point >> but dont mistakenly blame the FF lenses for not perfoming >> well on APS, blame pentax for the lack of a FF DSLR body >> that would allow them to outperform the best DA lenses. >> >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of >> Godfrey DiGiorgi >> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:02 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> >> >> On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >> >> >>> It must be nice to be able to spend large sums of money to >>> >> replace >> >>> perfectly function lenses for a marginal increase in performance and >>> functionality. Mandated deprication (read: loss of aperture coupler) >>> aside, obtaining 95% of the optical performance for 10% of the >>> expense >>> >>> sounds like a winning proposition to me. That is why I shoot pre-AF >>> lenses.... I would rather get 10x the lenses producing 95% the >>> performance of newer varieties. >>> >> It's not a matter of 'being able to spend large sums of money'. I >> depend upon these tools to produce my work and make my living. I want >> the best tools that exploit *all* the features of the body which I >> paid for. >> >> When I started with Pentax, I knew little about the line and bought a >> bunch of older lenses, all in pretty good condition, inexpensively. I >> used them for a while to sort out what I wanted for the kit, and sold >> them all at a fair price, which turned out to make a small profit. I >> took that money and bought the new lenses which I found did the job >> for my work. >> >> I only use five or six lenses total, and mostly just three. I rarely >> hang on to equipment I don't actually need. I'd rather have three >> superb lenses producing the best possible performance than thirty old >> lenses which don't perform quite as well. >> >> G >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > DagT > > > > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
