[dgaies]

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.

While testing the K5 at high ISO, I did try a closet/pecker shot at ISO 51200 and it didn't turn out too great. But I'm certainly looking forward to the day when I have ISO 256,000,000 and can really nail the shot properly.

[johnmflores]

While testing the K5 at high ISO, I did try a closet/pecker shot at ISO 51200 and it didn't turn out too great. But I'm certainly looking forward to the day when I have ISO 256,000,000 and can really nail the shot properly.

Was the 1.5 crop factor useful in this case?

ducking...

[telfish]

You do us Pecker Peepers a disservice

[dgaies]

Was the 1.5 crop factor useful in this case?

ducking...

Is this the part where I suggest that it (1.5x) made it more difficult and say that I was thankful to have the DA15 mounted to the K5 to make sure I got it all in the same frame without having to stitch together a panoramic?

[Winder]

I hope the macro shooters don't start chiming in.

[redpigeons]

have not tried the K-5 yet

but to me it will always be about an alternative to my FA 31mm
if Pentax wants to stay with crop frame I hope that they will give us a better 20mm lens that is as fast and as amazing as the 31 mm

[iCrop]

Still want one...

[cbaytan]

There are two assumptions under this subject I disagree with some other posters,

1-FF cameras have unacceptably narrow DOFs. On the contrary my opinion is FF cameras have standard DOF's as in film cameras, as I am used to that.

2-People wants FF cameras just because they have FF sensors. Not for me, the only thing I care is IQ, if a camera gives me a better IQ, I don't give a damn about sensor size. and I'll try to get better lenses as much as I can for that system.

Ok, what is the measure for IQ really? For me, which camera gives a closer appearance to Kodak E100VS or better Kodachrome 64 look on the slide projector or in prints, that one has a better IQ. It's that simple. I also believe digitals will be better than those in the near future.

[robgo2]

So what you are saying is at High ISO the K-5 beats FF cameras? oh boy can't wait for the reviews, and I won't believe it until people start to show comparisons.

You make a good point. What we have seen so far are some very impressive examples of high ISO shots from the K-5 that have been skillfully treated with NR software. So, one conclusion that we can safely draw at this time is that noise from this camera cleans up very readily and beautifully. This means that clean, detailed images are easily obtainable with the K-5, regardless of how it comes out in head-to-head comparisons with FF cameras. Isn't that what matters most in real world shooting?

FWIW, John Bee, who is the one responsible for many of the best high ISO examples, owns a D700, and it is his opinion that the K-5 has less high ISO noise. I am sure that he will perform careful comparisons once he gets a K-5 in his hands.

Rob

[SpartanWarrior]

You make a good point. What we have seen so far are some very impressive examples of high ISO shots from the K-5 that have been skillfully treated with NR software. So, one conclusion that we can safely draw at this time is that noise from this camera cleans up very readily and beautifully. This means that clean, detailed images are easily obtainable with the K-5, regardless of how it comes out in head-to-head comparisons with FF cameras. Isn't that what matters most in real world shooting?

FWIW, John Bee, who is the one responsible for many of the best high ISO examples, owns a D700, and it is his opinion that the K-5 has less high ISO noise. I am sure that he will perform careful comparisons once he gets a K-5 in his hands.

Rob

I will agree that we have seen impressive high ISO from the K-5, but in dpreview a few days ago someone asked John Bee if he could send him some 5D II high ISO so he can compare and John hasn't posted them yet, or maybe the other guy decided not to send them, hey I have a 7D and a 5D II I will be more than willing if John asked me to send him a few samples to compare.

[robgo2]

I will agree that we have seen impressive high ISO from the K-5, but in dpreview a few days ago someone asked John Bee if he could send him some 5D II high ISO so he can compare and John hasn't posted them yet, or maybe the other guy decided not to send them, hey I have a 7D and a 5D II I will be more than willing if John asked me to send him a few samples to compare.

I don't think that John has anything to hide. Perhaps he has an actual life outside of running NR tests.

It would appear that the gap between FF and APS-C is getting smaller, at least in terms of what the vast majority of photographers actually need in their work. I expect that more than a few full framers will be thinking very hard about unloading their bulky, expensive FF systems and moving down to APS-C. I recognize that there are occasions when ISO > 100,000 would be great to have, but they do not occur very frequently. Photographers who do encounter such situations regularly, or even occasionally, will require FF. Almost no one else will, although there will be those who want it just because they think it's cool. They can spend their money however they choose.

Rob

[falconeye]

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.

Somebody asked what FF can do the K-5 cannot and your post makes a perfect template to reply.

As I said, it is more an emotional rather than a rational thing anyway, at least considering my friends who did the switch.

But back to the question: In the list of "other more important things", all of them can improve significantly with FF (sometimes depending on more expensive glass though):

AF: improves because APSC uses an effective f/8.4 phase shift measurement base where FF uses f/5.6 and sometimes (with a twin center sensor) even f/2.8. AF on FF simply is more accurate and/or faster, depending on priorities. Add to this that you can stop down more (for the same light and DoF), then you have both better lens performance and better focus leading to overall sharper images.

DR: Given the same read-out noise (same technology), 1.2 stops better (current FF sensors are a bit old to show it).

user interface and related features: Brighter OVF.
But I agree that current FF cameras are ridiculously bulky and overall, loose in ergonomy over APSC. IMHO, this could be a perfect Pentax battleground.

HDR: ok, not improved

ISO performance: Given the same read-out noise, 1.2 stops better.

including ISO80: The full well capacity of a sensor grows with its surface. Therefore, ISO80 on FF looks better than on APSC.


Everything combined, gives FF a significant edge. It's another league if the FF camera isn't crippled to protect upward sales. If people say the 645D is another league, then it must be true for FF as well. In #stops, FF is 1.2 stops above APSC and 645D is 0.7 stops above FF. Therefore, FF is two-thirds down the road from APSC to 645D. If FF makes no difference, then please, accept that a 645D makes no difference either.

[iCre]

I am going to sell my D700 and pick some nice Ltds and the K5. K5 High Iso looks great. If ever Pentax should come out with a full frame body I for sure will take that.

[garyk]

I am not a fan of full frame period. I like the crop factor. I will not buy another Pentax body this time around unless the price really drops. But the next generation I will for sure. I think the k-5 is a stepping stone for the next generation of action cameras to come. 5 years behind dslr technology, 5 years in lens technology. Not bad for a third rate company now. I think they will be around for a long time to come.

[Wheatfield]

I don't want to upset you. But it's factual. It's physics.

Actually it's horsehockey. The size of the sensor is meaningless for cropping, what matters is the number of pixels.