What gets lost in discussions of 135 format (what is incorrectly referred to
as "full frame") vs. APS-C is what are the real usability benefits.
People get hung up on resolution numbers, like as if that is the most
important thing in the world, or, like some idiot on PentaxForums, proved in
a roundabout way that there is no high ISO noise advantage to the current
top performing full frames because the lenses have to be stopped down more
on 135 format to get the same depth of field.
Like since when did DOF trump all else in low light photography?
But this is the mentality of the apologist brigade. Find some straw to grasp
and hold it up as something important.
Consider what we used to look through before the days of the toilet roll
viewfinders that we get now.
Go and pick up an ME-Super or an LX or an MX.
Spend some time looking through it's viewfinder.
Now pick up your Pentax DSLR and see how woefully small and inadequate it
is.
A 135 camera gives you a 135 sized viewfinder.
To me, this is worth going after.
Because Pentax got lazy and didn't change the registration distance of their
DSLR cameras, they are stuck with a flange to focal plane distance that
isn't well suited to the format.
This is, in part, why we can't get really wide angle lenses.
Shorten the register distance to ~30mm and all of a sudden lenses
rectilinear lenses in the 8mm focal length range become more viable.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
