[Wheatfield]

The biggest things that full frame brings to the table are the ability to manipulate depth of field and bigger viewfinder.

The DOF thing is a canard.
One could just as easily say that APS-C brings more DOF potential to the table, hence it is the better choice.
If you look at the DOF numbers in terms of photographic possibilities rather than with an eye to measurebating, there really isn't enough to say that 135 format is at an advantage.
The viewfinder is a big deal though. I had forgotten how small the APS-C finders were until last week when I used a 645D.

[Rondec]

The DOF thing is a canard.
One could just as easily say that APS-C brings more DOF potential to the table, hence it is the better choice.
If you look at the DOF numbers in terms of photographic possibilities rather than with an eye to measurebating, there really isn't enough to say that 135 format is at an advantage.
The viewfinder is a big deal though. I had forgotten how small the APS-C finders were until last week when I used a 645D.

I actually agree with you completely. I normally shoot at f4 to f5.6 on APS-C and only open the aperture wider in really dark settings. The struggle is normally finding more depth of field, not less. At the same time, there are some fine art photographers, etc who really do love tiny depth of field.

The big thing to me is for Pentax to continue releasing good cameras -- hopefully pressing into the professional level. The K5 is a good start. If further improvements require full frame, so be it, but the size of the sensor isn't that important as compared to the features available on the body.

[johnmflores]

Well, 280 votes in and the results have stabilized:

~51.5% never wanted/needed FF
~16.5% don't need FF anymore since the announcement of the K-5
~2.5% want a FF now since the announcement of the K-5
~30% always wanted FF and still do

The first and last percentages are more or less in line with previous surveys here, perhaps skewed away from FF a bit as a result of the K-5. That's part of that 16.5% I'd imagine.

[Wheatfield]

I actually agree with you completely. I normally shoot at f4 to f5.6 on APS-C and only open the aperture wider in really dark settings. The struggle is normally finding more depth of field, not less. At the same time, there are some fine art photographers, etc who really do love tiny depth of field.

I'd question for those photographers if they wouldn't be better off with a medium format camera.
One thing that I'm not sure if it's ever been mentioned, but DOF between APS-C and 135 is about 1 stop.
This unto itelf doesn't mean much, but you will hit the sweet spot on the aperture ring with less DOF on 135 than you will with APS-C.

[jsherman999]

This unto itelf doesn't mean much, but you will hit the sweet spot on the aperture ring with less DOF on 135 than you will with APS-C.

.

It actually means a lot to me, and it's something I never even considered before I shot FF, and don't even remember anyone mentioning it as a plus.

If you want a certain DOF for a given FOV, shooting for example a 35mm at f/1.8 (or f/2 if you're shooting the FA 35,) on aps-c compared to a 50mm at f/2.8 or 3.2 on FF - the 50mm at f/2.8-3.2 will have greater sharpness/acuity, tad less CA, and better contrast than the wide-open 35 on aps-c - for the same FOV & DOF.

I mention these focal lengths and apertures because I spend a lot of time there with indoor people/kid shots, and I notice it a great deal.



.

[jsherman999]

.

I have to say that in the past couple days, my mind has changed again - a couple weeks ago I was pretty certain I was going to get a k-5 in early 2011, but now I'm wondering if my money might not be better spent on one of the FF cameras Nikon's going to be announcing in March. Rumors are flying that they're going to be setting the bar very high, and if the D7000/k-5 performance is any indication, I wouldn't doubt it....

But my DA 15 wants a K-5. It usually wins most arguments.


.

[falconeye]

don't even remember anyone mentioning it as a plus.

FF ... will have greater sharpness/acuity, tad less CA, and better contrast than the wide-open 35 on aps-c - for the same FOV & DOF.

Actually, I kept repeating saying this. I thought to a point it started to be annoying in itself Interesting you missed it. My usual synopsis is that eventually, FF is less expensive than APSC. Because high resolution at a wide aperture is expensive -- look at Olympus. Or that price wise, camera technology has a sweet spot which moved from TF to APSC and will continue to move to FF.

[Boris]

The viewfinder is a big deal though. I had forgotten how small the APS-C finders were until last week when I used a 645D.

I am shooting with Pentax MX now. This is really a welcome change viewfinder quality-wise from my APS-C cameras...

[Pål Jensen]

. My usual synopsis is that eventually, FF is less expensive than APSC. Because high resolution at a wide aperture is expensive -- look at Olympus. Or that price wise, camera technology has a sweet spot which moved from TF to APSC and will continue to move to FF.

It isn't. If you compare lenses with same max aperture and angle of view, which is how people buy lenses, FF is massively more expensive; not to mention heavier and larger. The sweet spot is APS and regardless of progress in sensor technology and sensor prices lenses will continue to be expensive.

[30v iPentax]

Ristiriitanen kysymys minulle, Olen kuvannut yli 30 vuotta Pentaxilla. Olen odottanut täydenkoon kuvaa Pentaksille, sentakia roikun tässä K-5 paremmassa tulevaisuuden toivossa. Nämä jotka ovat tämänpäivän alottelioita eivät ole nähneet ikinä minkäkainen kuvan pitää olla. Mutta 645 ei ole kuitenkaan se mitä itse havittelen se on liikaa ammattilaiselle suunnattu tuote.

[rparmar]

The Finnish translator is producing surrealist poetry. But I think I get the gist.

[jsherman999]

Actually, I kept repeating saying this. I thought to a point it started to be annoying in itself Interesting you missed it. My usual synopsis is that eventually, FF is less expensive than APSC. Because high resolution at a wide aperture is expensive -- look at Olympus. Or that price wise, camera technology has a sweet spot which moved from TF to APSC and will continue to move to FF.

.

I guess it's one of those things that you see to be true in the numbers, and then forget it, because it seems somewhat inconsequential. Then, after you spend time shooting, you see that it does matter and is a real benefit.



.

[ovim]

Ristiriitanen issue for me, I have photographed over 30 years, Pentax. I've been waiting for a full-size image Pentaksille, Because of this, I hang in this K-5 in the hope of a better future. These are the days of alottelioita is not never seen a picture of the long minkäkainen & # 228; s to be. But the 645 does not, however, it is what you aspiring to become professionals, it is too much directed to the product.

A little better translation from finnish:
Contradictory issue for me, I have photographed over 30 years, Pentax. I've been waiting for a full-frame Pentax, because of this, I hang in with this K-5 in the hope of better future. Todays newbies have never seen what an image should look like. But the 645 is not, however, what I'm aspiring for as it is too much directed to the professionals.

Toivottavasti et pahastu 30v iPentax kun käänsin nuo kohdat joita foorumin kielenkääntäjä ei osannut. Terveisin "tämänpäivän aloittelija"

[knumbnutz]

Actually, I kept repeating saying this. I thought to a point it started to be annoying in itself Interesting you missed it. My usual synopsis is that eventually, FF is less expensive than APSC. Because high resolution at a wide aperture is expensive -- look at Olympus. Or that price wise, camera technology has a sweet spot which moved from TF to APSC and will continue to move to FF.

Hi Falconeye,
I would say, that if you buy a full frame then you would eat your words.

Here are two kits, virtually same lens line up with FOV and best quality level available.

Prices are AUD

Pentax K20D $1200
DA12-24 F4 $1000
DA*16-50 F2.8 $1200
DA*50-135 F2.8 $1500

Nikon D700 $3400
14-24 F2.8 $2000
24-70 F2.8 $2000
70-200 VR2 $3000

They were the best prices I could find at the time I bought 2yrs ago for the K20D and 6months ago for the D700.

And you dont get SR on 2 of the FF lenses.

Whats cheap about FF ?

Cheers Neil

[falconeye]

Hi Falconeye,
I would say, that if you buy a full frame then you would eat your words.

Here are two kits, virtually same lens line up with FOV and best quality level available.

Prices are AUD

Pentax K20D $1200
DA12-24 F4 $1000
DA*16-50 F2.8 $1200
DA*50-135 F2.8 $1500

Nikon D700 $3400
14-24 F2.8 $2000
24-70 F2.8 $2000
70-200 VR2 $3000

They were the best prices I could find at the time I bought 2yrs ago for the K20D and 6months ago for the D700.

And you dont get SR on 2 of the FF lenses.

Whats cheap about FF ?

Cheers Neil

I may eat my words, but not with your line up. You did not select equivalent lenses like jsherman999 did. The equivalent line up would be 18-36/5.6, 24-70/4, 70-200/4 with in-body SR. It's already cheaper today as far as it exists (Canon has offers closer to this, with good and affordable 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L where the latter is a gem). If you redo your math, you'll see that the FF lenses are well below $3000 (combined) and you're saving $700+ on lenses. And there are good offers for a 5D2. Of course, Pentax would be more interesting, with in-body SR and many legacy FF lenses.

I don't say buy FF. I only say that the days where APSC was cheaper are counted...