I agree with everything that you said, Mark. I could only add that
personally I prefer wide angle to tele, and for me to shoot K/A 24/2.8
on FF body would be far easier (both in terms of size/weight and in
terms of price) than to shoot 16/2.8 (probably from some big zoom lens)
on APS-C.
Obviously by now Pentax has very solid and complete lens line as far as
APS-C goes, but there some interesting things that I could have done
with film bodies that I couldn't immediately do with APS-C...
But no matter, I'm collecting the Leica M prime lenses now. I find that
I like them more on my APS-C Ricoh GXR-M than anything else, really.
On 4/13/2014 8:09 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Why would anyone want a 24 x 36 Pentax?
• To be able to use existing full-frame lenses
• To have access to smaller/lighter (and Med format) lenses
• To be able to use lenses for the full-frame on both full-frame and
APS-C bodies
• To avoid needing to buy expensive full-frame glass
• To have a *vastly* wider selection of lenses available (fisheye,
ultra-wide and super telephoto)
• To be able to use affordable lenses on occasion
• To have the option of third-party glass
• To have in-body image stabilization
• To have smaller/lighter kit than medium format
• For faster frame rate when necessary
Full-frame 35mm and Med format are very different type systems with
relatively little overlap.
--
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.
