On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 07:19:45PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:00 PM, J.C. O'Connell<[email protected]> wrote: > > huh, pentax doesn't have a FF sensor. If they did > > it would around $2K like Sony, no? > > > > How many much cheaper non-DA lenses would it take to make > > up the extra $800 or so for the FF Penatx body > > vs the APS body? > > > > Answer - not many at all. A few at most. > > -- > > J.C. O'Connell (mailto:[email protected]) > > The question is 'how many of these cheaper non-DA lenses exist' and > the response is none. Nor do they exist in the three systems that > offer both APS-C and FF bodies. Nor will they exist anytime soon. The > reality is you're going to pay around double for FF lenses which do > not restrict FF sensor performance with current sensors than you will > for APS-C lenses which do not restrict current APS-C sensor > performance, this applies to normal and wide zooms as well as wide > primes (there are plenty of normal and longer primes and telephoto > zooms which are up to both APS-C and FF sensors, but there's no money > to be saved there either since the ones which can perform adequately > on only one type of sensor are doing so on APS-C).
Plus, for telephotos, the "crop factor" works to the advantage of APS-C. It's a lot cheaper to buy a 200mm/f2.8 or 400mm/f5.6 than it is to buy a 300mm/f2.8 or 600mm/f5.6. -- 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.
