Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Has the K-5 changed your perspective on Full Frame dSLRs?
I never wanted/needed a FF dSLR 17750.86%
I've changed my mind - I don't want/need a FF dSLR anymore 5916.95%
I've changed my mind - I want/need a FF dSLR now 82.30%
I've always wanted/needed a FF dSLR and still do 10429.89%
Voters: 348. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-22-2010, 06:21 AM   #46
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Pluto
Posts: 75
FF is FF, still

10-22-2010, 06:25 AM   #47
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by Clicker Quote
Pentax has a FF camera in the 645D
Try using any of the 24 million FF K mount lenses out there on it.
10-22-2010, 06:40 AM   #48
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,780
K5 and Kr has certainly re-affirmed my belief that FF is not necessary. There are other more important things to improve (AF, DR, user interface and related features, HDR, ISO performance (including ISO80), etc) and Pentax has done so much of this correct on the K5.
Certainly hope to see more improvements like better in-camera NR algo ( like what JohnBee has done on the ISO 12800 and above picts)
Max flash sync speed would be welcome as well.

So, for me, FF can well wait, if Pentax has limited RnD resources between these improvements vs FF.
10-22-2010, 06:44 AM   #49
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
My 28-300mm and other FF lenses don't have the 1.5x APS-C crop factor to deal with when used on a FF bodies.

10-22-2010, 06:50 AM   #50
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
No.

1. FF gives another possibility of DOF which APS-C can't offer. It's impossible for crop.
No such fast lenses.
2. High ISO is still better with FF camera. The difference is not huge, but still ~ 1 stop for 5D Mk II and ~ 2 stops for D700/D3.
3. FA43 will be 43 mm, FA31 will be outstanding wide-angle lens, not standart,
FA77 will be 77 mm. e.t.c.
1) This is not a factual statement.
2) Yes, but does it matter at this point? APS-C has certainly gotten to the point where the results are virtually indistinguishable from 135 format (which is the correct term for what you are calling FF)
3) Yes, it would be nice so see the 31 and 77 fringing on larger sensor cameras, but they aren't going to sell a lot of 135 format SLRs with a 3 lens line up, and as the local rep told me yesterday, they have holes to fill in APS-C, they have the 645 format to flesh out lenses for, and frankly, the 645 is their answer to every one else's 135 format cameras.
10-22-2010, 06:57 AM   #51
ogl
Banned




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
QuoteOriginally posted by Steelski Quote
I want a Full frame camera because I really like shallow DOF.
I would still buy a cheap FF camera to use with shallow primes.
I now do not need a full frame camera for Noise performance, I have seen my needs surpassed. To me 12800 is the new 1600! and 80-1600 is superb.
So do I. But I plan to buy K-5 now.
10-22-2010, 07:04 AM   #52
ogl
Banned




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
1) This is not a factual statement.
I don't want to upset you. But it's factual. It's physics.
10-22-2010, 07:16 AM   #53
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 52
Seems most people wanting Pentax FF are not pragmatics. Hoya in business not to satisfy every Joe's wish/desire but to make money. How many of you know exactly what percentage FF cameras have in photography market? How much of that market can Pentax FF potentially gain?

The gap between FF and latest APS-C became so marginal that by the time many of you "grow-up" for it there will be even better new APS-C waiting for you. Arguably, bigger sensor is better, so why stuck in FF? By that logic people can "grow" for medium frame. And then they would complain that there is no 20 inch sensor cause they "outgrown" medium frame?

In reality majority of photographic needs, including pros, can be covered by current APS-C. In future the sensors may get even smaller and cell phones will bit them in IQ too.

Many of you complain about DOF. Well, think about lenses which looks like huge dragonfly eyes, lens made of thousands micro lenses which has it's own aperture and DoF. That lens can do "magic" that non of your current super lenses can do. It's for future though.

For now "magic" can be done through software. Imagine this: camera takes the sharpest images of each wall in it's AF sensor points. So you will have one multi-layered image. Then in special software you control which layer you want the sharpest and how smooth you want transition to other layers. Or make all layers sharp. Whatever you feel like doing. "Ow, but it won't be art anymore" some may complain. The same people felt similar when market shifted from film to digital sensors. But seems many are happy now.

There is nothing revolutionary in FF body right now. Industry should come up with super sensor and other significant upgrades from APS-C body to justify production of FF. Till then let Pentax make money as they can. Hoya is corporation first of all and more pragmatic then most of us. Stop complaining about lack of Pentax FF and switch to other brand if you think they satisfy your "needs". Life is too short to complain about FF in forums.

What i WOULD LIKE (not need) from Pentax is better/faster lenses that no competitors can match. But it is just wish.

10-22-2010, 08:38 AM   #54
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
Honestly, with the quality I've seen from the K-5 so far, I don't really need a Pentax FF camera. However, I'd still like to see what my FF K-mount lenses could do on one, and more importantly I'd love a FF viewfinder.

But hey, that's why I have a D700.
10-22-2010, 09:38 AM   #55
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: brussels
Posts: 3
Hi, I'm a newbie. I'm selling my 5d mkII not for a 1d but for a k5. Why? because FF is overrated and have hundred reasons to be attracted by Pentax.
Have a little challenge for everybody : have a look at my site : Stephan Darding - Photography . Some photos were shot with a D90 and others with the 5D mkII. Since we're in a DOF issue, I challenge you which ones were taken by which camera. I'm telling you, FF is overrated...
10-22-2010, 09:43 AM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote

For me, the current high ISO of the K-5 is better than that of the 5D MkII and based on the reports it's better than the D700 too. But only at high ISO, at base ISO I think FF is still at advantage.
This may not be correct. At low ISOs, the K-5 probably has a greater DR than the D700. Looking at some of the many photos that are now available on the web, I am astonished by how much shadow detail is present in scenes where the light is very challenging.

Rob
10-22-2010, 10:45 AM   #57
Veteran Member
cbaytan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Trabzon/Turkey
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,010
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Do you see a lot of landscape pictures with razor thin DoF?
What razor thin DOF? Isn't an FF digital has the same DOF with a film camera? If so I've seen tons of FF landscape photos (film and digital) none of them had razor thin DOF.
10-22-2010, 10:47 AM   #58
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,753
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
This may not be correct. At low ISOs, the K-5 probably has a greater DR than the D700. Looking at some of the many photos that are now available on the web, I am astonished by how much shadow detail is present in scenes where the light is very challenging.

Rob
I stand corrected; indeed, according to GordonBGood on the Dpreview forum the K-5 could have 14 stops of DR at ISO 80. That's indeed remarkable. What's happened with Pentax? They seem to do many things right lately. Very un-Pentax
10-22-2010, 10:53 AM   #59
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by cbaytan Quote
What razor thin DOF? Isn't an FF digital has the same DOF with a film camera? If so I've seen tons of FF landscape photos (film and digital) none of them had razor thin DOF.
I think he meant you don't need the "razor thin" DOF that FF bodies are capable of for landscape work. I don't think that was meant to imply you can't get large DOF with FF.
10-22-2010, 11:42 AM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,420
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I think he meant you don't need the "razor thin" DOF that FF bodies are capable of for landscape work. I don't think that was meant to imply you can't get large DOF with FF.

Thank you! That is what I meant to say.

Neither landscape nor macro work benefit from the thinner DoF of 135mm. Even sports work is better served with more DoF. Commercial photographers and studio photographers usually have complete control over lighting and background so blurring the background is not as important. Even environmental portraits need a good bit of DoF. If you blur out the environment its not really an environmental portrait.

Outside of the high paying field of fine art photography there is not much use for really thin DoF. APS-C and fast glass is more than capable of creating the DoF desired for wedding and portrait work, and if you are not willing to spend the money of fast glass then you wouldn't be buying a 135mm system anyway.

The reason people in these fields chose 135mm is because traditionally APS-C has not been able to offer the SUFFICIENT dynamic range or the high ISO range of 135mm bodies, but that is changing and SUFFICIENT is the key word. There is a point of diminishing returns for high ISO and DR. I know there is someone out there who NEEDs 256,000,000 ISO so he can lock himself in a dark closet and take pictures of his pecker all day, but I hope he is in the minority.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, dslrs, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame sensor for DSLRs aheritage Ask B&H Photo! 1 06-01-2010 07:15 AM
PROJECT 52-2-27 Perspective: Frame-It mithrandir Weekly Photo Challenges 22 01-18-2010 09:18 PM
Your Full Frame is Here!!! Das Boot Pentax News and Rumors 15 04-05-2009 09:02 AM
DA 10-17 on full frame? nixcamic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 09-23-2008 07:12 PM
Why the Obsession with Full Frame (FF) DSLRs fwbigd Pentax DSLR Discussion 31 02-05-2008 08:27 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top