Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Tom Simpson]

Hi:

Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that 
the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? 
Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue 
is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 
35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of 
lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am 
hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to 
work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic 
range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an 
either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.

TIA
-Tom in SC

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[David Savage]

The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D,
wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected
image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor.

As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's
their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream.

Time will tell.

Cheers,

Dave

P.S. Welcome.

On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi:
>
> Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that
> the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR?
> Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue
> is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a
> 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of
> lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am
> hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to
> work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic
> range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an
> either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.
>
> TIA
> -Tom in SC
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Bronek Kozicki]

Quoting Tom Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that
> the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR?
> Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue
> is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a
> 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of
> lens, it would all work out just peachy.

only if light from lens is perpendiular to sensor. If it is not, as is the case
with most wide-angle lenses, light is partialy lost. You can actually see this
in Canon 5D (search for vignetting). In other words : it will work only with
long lenses. This is also why Leica has choosen crop 1.3 (for price this high,
they could surely afford 24x36mm sensor). Also, to accommodate shake reduction,
imagining circle must be several mm bigger than sensor size. This is also why (I
believe) some DA lenses actually work on 36mm (film) cameras without strong
vignetting.

> Why not? I hope not, as I am
> hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to

I do not know what quantum physicists have to do with it, but 48x36mm sensor is
twice as big as 24x36mm, thus they shouldn't have reasons to complain . Even
though it is actualy cropped (by factor 1.3), from 645.


B.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Bob Sullivan]

I'm having trouble with identifying Shake Reduction as a problem for
full frame sensor cameras.  Everybody is talking like the shake
reduction movement is centimeters of travel.  Look at some of the side
by side comparisons.  Remember some of the old time discussions about
'circle of confusion' at 1/1000th of an inch.  Shake reduction is
going to be a movement of very tiny proportions.  1 to 3 pixels on a
sensor that is 3000+ pixels wide.  If our full frame lenses can't deal
with that small amount of moving or miss positioning, I would be
really surprised.  Bring on the full frame!
Comments or corrections to this logic???
Regards,  Bob S,

On 12/21/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D,
> wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected
> image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor.
>
> As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's
> their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream.
>
> Time will tell.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> P.S. Welcome.
>
> On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that
> > the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR?
> > Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue
> > is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a
> > 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of
> > lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am
> > hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to
> > work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic
> > range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an
> > either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.
> >
> > TIA
> > -Tom in SC
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[P. J. Alling]

There's an unfounded belief based on psuedo science that you need a 
really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper 
illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving 
the lens.  Based on the performance of many  of Canon's WA lenses, 
(zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of 
any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or 
Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage.  
Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear 
elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it 
has more to do with proper sensor design.

Tom Simpson wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that 
> the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? 
> Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue 
> is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 
> 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of 
> lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am 
> hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to 
> work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic 
> range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an 
> either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.
>
> TIA
> -Tom in SC
>
>   


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Perry Pellechia]

On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi:
>
> Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that
> the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR?
> Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue
> is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a
> 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of
> lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am
> hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to
> work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic
> range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an
> either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.
>
> TIA
> -Tom in SC

Hello Tom, from a fellow South Carolinian (transplant).  What part of
the state are you in?  I work at USC and live in Columbia.  I have
been mostly a lurker here for about three years.

Welcome to the group.  There are a lot of helpful people here.

Perry.

-- 
<>
Perry Pellechia

Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry
<>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[P. J. Alling]

There's an unfounded belief based on pseudo science that you need a 
really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper 
illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving 
the lens.  Based on the performance of many  of Canon's WA lenses, 
(zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of 
any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or 
Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage.  
Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear 
elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it 
has more to do with proper sensor design.

Tom Simpson wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that 
> the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? 
> Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue 
> is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 
> 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of 
> lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am 
> hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to 
> work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic 
> range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an 
> either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.
>
> TIA
> -Tom in SC
>
>   


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Adam Maas]

Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR 
wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Leica SLR 
lenses actually have one of the longest register distances and Canon one 
of the shortest. And Leica couldn't go FF on the M because of the issue 
of corner illumination, but this was due to the very close distance 
between the rear element of some M lenses and the sensor (this is also 
the reason for the thin and less effective IR filter on the M8) and even 
then they had to do some magic (offset microlenses) to get it to work right.

Also there's the issue that Canon's ultra-wide lens designs aren't the 
greatest. They're competent but not up to the better designs from the 
competition.

That said, I suspect K mount won't have severe issues on full frame, 
given how well adaptor-mounted wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Contax 
perform on the 5D and 1Ds's (C/Y mount and F mount both have similar 
throat sizes and longer registers than K mount).

-Adam

P. J. Alling wrote:
> There's an unfounded belief based on psuedo science that you need a 
> really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper 
> illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving 
> the lens.  Based on the performance of many  of Canon's WA lenses, 
> (zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of 
> any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or 
> Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage.  
> Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear 
> elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it 
> has more to do with proper sensor design.
> 
> Tom Simpson wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that 
>> the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? 
>> Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue 
>> is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 
>> 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of 
>> lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am 
>> hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to 
>> work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic 
>> range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an 
>> either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.
>>
>> TIA
>> -Tom in SC
>>
>>   
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[K.Takeshita]

On 12/21/06 11:45 AM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR
> wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs.

Yes, but hearing stepping of EVF coming close.  I understand that next tide
is the elimination of mirror box from DSLR, and people are expecting it
happening sooner than we anticipate.  EVF resolution and refresh rate are
being significantly improved and it won't be long before somebody comes up
with and incorporate acceptable EVF.  It will probably be done by those who
do not have any particular sentiment to optical viewfinder but have ability
to develop good EVF.  Sony or Panasonic?
If mirror box could be eliminated from DSLR, all sorts of innovations become
possible.

Ken 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[P. J. Alling]

Pentax showed one of these as a concept at the last Photokina

http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/

I still don't think I'd want to use one even with significant 
improvements.  (Hell I still manually focus 99% of the time even with 
auto focus lenses).

K.Takeshita wrote:
> On 12/21/06 11:45 AM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR
>> wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs.
>> 
>
> Yes, but hearing stepping of EVF coming close.  I understand that next tide
> is the elimination of mirror box from DSLR, and people are expecting it
> happening sooner than we anticipate.  EVF resolution and refresh rate are
> being significantly improved and it won't be long before somebody comes up
> with and incorporate acceptable EVF.  It will probably be done by those who
> do not have any particular sentiment to optical viewfinder but have ability
> to develop good EVF.  Sony or Panasonic?
> If mirror box could be eliminated from DSLR, all sorts of innovations become
> possible.
>
> Ken 
>
>
>   


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Gonz]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR 
> wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Leica SLR 
> lenses actually have one of the longest register distances and Canon one 
> of the shortest. And Leica couldn't go FF on the M because of the issue 
> of corner illumination, but this was due to the very close distance 
> between the rear element of some M lenses and the sensor (this is also 
> the reason for the thin and less effective IR filter on the M8) and even 
> then they had to do some magic (offset microlenses) to get it to work right.
> 
> Also there's the issue that Canon's ultra-wide lens designs aren't the 
> greatest. They're competent but not up to the better designs from the 
> competition.
> 
> That said, I suspect K mount won't have severe issues on full frame, 
> given how well adaptor-mounted wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Contax 
> perform on the 5D and 1Ds's (C/Y mount and F mount both have similar 
> throat sizes and longer registers than K mount).
> 

I agree, even with SR the worst you are going to get is some vignetting 
in longish lenses, due to greater movement of the SR mechanism, and the 
whole optical path problem.

> -Adam
> 
> P. J. Alling wrote:
> 
>>There's an unfounded belief based on psuedo science that you need a 
>>really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper 
>>illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving 
>>the lens.  Based on the performance of many  of Canon's WA lenses, 
>>(zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of 
>>any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or 
>>Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage.  
>>Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear 
>>elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it 
>>has more to do with proper sensor design.
>>
>>Tom Simpson wrote:
>>
>>>Hi:
>>>
>>>Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that 
>>>the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? 
>>>Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue 
>>>is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 
>>>35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of 
>>>lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am 
>>>hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to 
>>>work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic 
>>>range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an 
>>>either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.
>>>
>>>TIA
>>>-Tom in SC
>>>
>>>  
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I 
was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's 
a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man?
- Mitch Hedberg

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

The primary issue is that digital sensors are more sensitive to the  
light path than film. As the angle of incidence increases,  
diffraction around the edges of photosite wells: chromatic aberration  
and moire effects become a problem, as does total illumination at the  
photosite causing darkening at corners and edges. This effect is less  
pronounced with SLR lenses than with RF camera lenses because SLR  
lenses have already been formulated to accommodate the mechanical  
obstruction of a swinging mirror, moving the nodal point forwards  
relative to the focusing plane, but it remains an issue as you get to  
the ultrawide range shorter than 24mm in focal length.

To solve this really requires a different approach to lens design for  
the digital sensor with short focal length lenses in particular,   
overall a wider lens mount diameter relative to the format size helps  
a lot as it gives more leeway for lens design to produce optimized  
lenses. A shorter mount register, relative to format size, also helps  
as it allows room in the lens design for additional collimating  
elements to the rear of the primary lens groups.

Both Canon and Leica, in producing 24x36mm sensors and in  
accommodating RF lens designs respectively, have both opted for a  
compromise sensor with offset microlenses to help reduce the  
diffraction/lightloss/CA issues, and with in-camera image processing  
to massage the data as well. Olympus, with Kodak and other vendors,  
designed the 4/3 system specifications from the ground up with these  
notions in mind. Note the diameter and register of the lens mount  
relative to the format in that system: this is a near-ideal,  
optimized relationship of these components: regardless of whether  
they've achieved other performance goals, they suffer very little  
moire, chromatic aberration and corner light falloff. But of course  
they also started afresh with lens designs and ignored backwards  
compatibility with OM system lenses other than through adaptation  
with reduced functionality.

The smaller format 16x24 sensor ameliorates a good number of these  
issues for legacy lens systems while still maintaining a great deal  
of quality and compatibility.

The secondary issue is that Pentax has elected to go with in-body  
image stabilization rather than in-lens stabilization. This addresses  
three concerns: first was the notion of the cost/bulk/weight  
compromise in lens design, second was the issue of lens quality and  
durability with constantly moving elements, and third was the notion  
of compatibility/applicability for older lenses. To achieve good  
image stabilization this way with long lenses requires movement of up  
to 5mm off the null position center, which means that lenses which  
barely cover the 24x36mm image circle would no longer be able to take  
advantage of image stabilization with this schema.

---

For my uses, the 16x24mm sensor format has worked well, allows  
suitable quality and sensitivity as well as adequate wide angle  
coverage with exceptional quality, such that I am happy to have the  
smaller size optics required for my desired field of view range as  
well as adequate/satisfactory compatibility with older lens designs.  
Good noise and quality at ISO 1600 and 10Mpixel is good enough for my  
work.

I also look forward to the larger, higher quality results with medium  
format sized sensors ... and I expect prices in that market to remain  
pretty steep for a while to come.

24x36mm sensors ... well, for me it's mostly irrelevant now as I have  
tailored my kit to the 16x24mm format, but if they do come out with a  
price/quality sensible alternative in that size that provides  
compelling advantage AND is compatible with all my current lenses, it  
really requires that I buy just one more slightly longer focal length  
lens and I'll be ready for it.

Godfrey


On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:01 AM, Tom Simpson wrote:

> Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is  
> that
> the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame  
> DSLR?
> Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the  
> issue
> is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size  
> of a
> 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm  
> frame of
> lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am
> hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to
> work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic
> range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an
> either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Christian]

Christian wrote:
> P. J. Alling wrote:
> 
>> Pentax showed one of these as a concept at the last Photokina
>>
>> http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/
> 
> 
> That thing is 4 years old.

oops, almost 10 years old. (1997)

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Christian]

P. J. Alling wrote:
> Pentax showed one of these as a concept at the last Photokina
> 
> http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/

That thing is 4 years old.

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Cotty]

On 21/12/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:

>>> http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/
>> 
>> 
>> That thing is 4 years old.
>
>oops, almost 10 years old. (1997)

Sigh.







-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Tom Simpson]

A lifelong Columbian, USC grad and ex-employee, now living out towards 
Lexington. Small world, eh? :-)

-Tom

Perry Pellechia wrote:
> On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> Hi:
>>
>> Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that
>> the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR?
>> Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue
>> is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a
>> 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of
>> lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am
>> hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to
>> work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic
>> range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an
>> either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.
>>
>> TIA
>> -Tom in SC
>> 
>
> Hello Tom, from a fellow South Carolinian (transplant).  What part of
> the state are you in?  I work at USC and live in Columbia.  I have
> been mostly a lurker here for about three years.
>
> Welcome to the group.  There are a lot of helpful people here.
>
> Perry.
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[Digital Image Studio]

On 22/12/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR
> wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Leica SLR
> lenses actually have one of the longest register distances and Canon one
> of the shortest. And Leica couldn't go FF on the M because of the issue
> of corner illumination, but this was due to the very close distance
> between the rear element of some M lenses and the sensor (this is also
> the reason for the thin and less effective IR filter on the M8) and even
> then they had to do some magic (offset microlenses) to get it to work right.
>
> Also there's the issue that Canon's ultra-wide lens designs aren't the
> greatest. They're competent but not up to the better designs from the
> competition.
>
> That said, I suspect K mount won't have severe issues on full frame,
> given how well adaptor-mounted wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Contax
> perform on the 5D and 1Ds's (C/Y mount and F mount both have similar
> throat sizes and longer registers than K mount).

Spot on Adam, well said. All the naysayers are beleaguered by FUD
injected by marketeers knowing that they simply have no FF products to
sell or others touting why they do and others don't.

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?

[P. J. Alling]

But first shown at Photokina 2006, your point?

Christian wrote:
> P. J. Alling wrote:
>   
>> Pentax showed one of these as a concept at the last Photokina
>>
>> http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/
>> 
>
> That thing is 4 years old.
>
>   


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net