I've owned Sony apsc and then Sony full-frame, and now I'm switching back to apsc and getting a Pentax because it's so wonderfully compact a system. I did a wedding with a 100/f2 on my apsc. And I've done a family shoot with the 100/2 on full-frame. At the end of the day, I just don't really notice the difference, nor do I bother to sit around look for a difference, nor do I really care. I love that my new FA43 is less than half the size and one third the weight of the Minolta 100/2 (which I will miss but will get over) cuz I'll take the K5 and tiny 43 with me everywhere I go and won't just have to pull out my iPhone because it was too much bother to bring a real camera long. There's gorgeous bokeh in each of my apsc and full-frame shots. That's the lens doing its thing. So, more importantly, how did I handle the subjects? How did I use the lighting?

(Whats-his-name Roookwell is a really funny guy and probably would be great to have a beer with. He will argue black on Tuesday and white on Wednesday, and is indeed cartoon-like and entertaining. And he's smart. And he has high readership of his blog and gets advertising revenue from it and has a great career. I applaud that business model. What was the question again?)

[jstevewhite]

I've owned Sony apsc and then Sony full-frame, and now I'm switching back to apsc and getting a Pentax because it's so wonderfully compact a system. I did a wedding with a 100/f2 on my apsc. And I've done a family shoot with the 100/2 on full-frame. At the end of the day, I just don't really notice the difference, nor do I bother to sit around look for a difference, nor do I really care. I love that my new FA43 is less than half the size and one third the weight of the Minolta 100/2 (which I will miss but will get over) cuz I'll take the K5 and tiny 43 with me everywhere I go and won't just have to pull out my iPhone because it was too much bother to bring a real camera long. There's gorgeous bokeh in each of my apsc and full-frame shots. That's the lens doing its thing. So, more importantly, how did I handle the subjects? How did I use the lighting?

(Whats-his-name Roookwell is a really funny guy and probably would be great to have a beer with. He will argue black on Tuesday and white on Wednesday, and is indeed cartoon-like and entertaining. And he's smart. And he has high readership of his blog and gets advertising revenue from it and has a great career. I applaud that business model. What was the question again?)

Yeah, I quite enjoy reading Mr. Rockwell's site, whether I agree with his current rant or not. He's a lot of fun.

And I'm with you, generally, but I can't help pixel-peeping; I'm the guy that had the 25x aerial grain focuser comparing 6cm negs from different lenses and camera bodies. Way back in the day, I had a Mamiya RB-67. I took a lot of shots with it, had my own darkroom, and did some commercial work here and there. Then a friend handed me a 500ELM and said, "Take this out for a test drive." I did, and I was hooked as soon as I looked through the grain focuser. The next week I traded my full kit for Hassy gear, and I never regretted it. You could clearly see the difference between images done with the Hassy, and those done with the RB, even though the RB was nearly twice the negative area. Furthermore, it showed in my day-to-day work. There was no single thing you could point to and say, "There it is! That's the difference, right there!", but you could see the cutover in my portfolio. And I got a lot more commercial work after, even though no one knew what kind of equipment I used until I showed up (or they did).

So I try not to get lost in measurebating and pixel-peeping, but I think it offers me valuable information that affects the quality of the images I produce in a general fashion.

Yeah, I quite enjoy reading Mr. Rockwell's site, whether I agree with his current rant or not. He's a lot of fun.

And I'm with you, generally, but I can't help pixel-peeping; I'm the guy that had the 25x aerial grain focuser comparing 6cm negs from different lenses and camera bodies. Way back in the day, I had a Mamiya RB-67. I took a lot of shots with it, had my own darkroom, and did some commercial work here and there. Then a friend handed me a 500ELM and said, "Take this out for a test drive." I did, and I was hooked as soon as I looked through the grain focuser. The next week I traded my full kit for Hassy gear, and I never regretted it. You could clearly see the difference between images done with the Hassy, and those done with the RB, even though the RB was nearly twice the negative area. Furthermore, it showed in my day-to-day work. There was no single thing you could point to and say, "There it is! That's the difference, right there!", but you could see the cutover in my portfolio. And I got a lot more commercial work after, even though no one knew what kind of equipment I used until I showed up (or they did).

So I try not to get lost in measurebating and pixel-peeping, but I think it offers me valuable information that affects the quality of the images I produce in a general fashion.

I hear your point. As a commercial photographer, it sounds like you fit the profile of someone who should care about the format size and what it does for photos. I don't disagree. And as a creative director myself to pro photogs, I agree that when you see a clean, sharp image (often medium format), it shows. That said, the last two photo shoots I did with commercial photographers, they were both shooting apsc and it worked fine for the billboards and posters we needed to design and produce from them. I guess it may be the difference between violins one hears played; to most it doesn't make a difference to their ear; to others they think they can hear something different but aren't sure what it is (like the OP here); and to a few, they know. I guess that's why the stock photography houses care about resolution and format.

[dylansalt]

Maybe you should research the article where Ken Rockwell compares the D300 with the D700 and finds virtually no advantage to the FF in most situations. Other than DOF for certain photos, he challenged his readers to pick which camera took which shot.
So I have to ask....which Ken showed up for your example? The FF Ken or the Cropped Ken? With Ken, he is like a box of Crackerjacks, the Prize is different every time.
Personally, my feeling is that the K5 has "stung" a lot of Nikon and Canon shooters, and we are now hearing them squeal. Sounds good to me!
Best Regards!

Why would the K5 "sting" Nikon??

The D7000 has the same sensor and I could argue that the Nikon from a functional point of view (think flash as one of them) fairs bit better than the K5.

Most Canon users don't even know Pentax exists

Although not to everyones tastes the 5DMK11 can produce sublime files with a certain creamy look and it does produce a cleaner file at higher iso's.

The Sony sensor is a huge step forward in DR only imho - Canon started the aps-c high iso capability with the 7D, so Sony has only just caught up re: high iso noise performance, even the Nikon D90 was ahead re: noise at high iso.

Having shot with the Canon 60D it can produce the same performance as the Sony sensor wrt high iso noise BUT with 18mp;-)

The Nikon D800 FF will probably have a higher MP count but with the same ISO capability of the D3s (the high iso king) and excellent DR up in the higher iso range.

[aurele]

Most Canon users don't even know Pentax exists

Although not to everyones tastes the 5DMK11 can produce sublime files with a certain creamy look and it does produce a cleaner file at higher iso's.

The Sony sensor is a huge step forward in DR only imho - Canon started the aps-c high iso capability with the 7D, so Sony has only just caught up re: high iso noise performance, even the Nikon D90 was ahead re: noise at high iso.

Having shot with the Canon 60D it can produce the same performance as the Sony sensor wrt high iso noise BUT with 18mp;-)

The Nikon D800 FF will probably have a higher MP count but with the same ISO capability of the D3s (the high iso king) and excellent DR up in the higher iso range.

Be honest man, we arrived at a point where more iso are not needed. I mean, i have a k-x, i do some sport shooting (Climbing and bouldering) and i shoot sometime up to 3200 iso during sunset, and thus i can take some 1/250 -1/500 f4 shots. And i know that the K-r and K5 can do a little better in high Iso ...

Why need more iso than that ? And don't tell me that 51 200 iso can be usefull, because i would say "are you a stalker ?!"

My other point is : 18 Mpx, why do you need it (i don't take in consideration pro photogs that want to produced those giant street adds ...) ? With my tiny 12Mpx i can do some 40*60cm using 200dpi print.
Except if you need bigger prints, most people won't ever notice the difference between a 8 or 12 or 18 Mpx sensor ...

Cheers !


And by the way Canonist don't know that there is a whole world appart there 5DmkII :P

[Rondec]

Why would the K5 "sting" Nikon??

The D7000 has the same sensor and I could argue that the Nikon from a functional point of view (think flash as one of them) fairs bit better than the K5.

Most Canon users don't even know Pentax exists

Although not to everyones tastes the 5DMK11 can produce sublime files with a certain creamy look and it does produce a cleaner file at higher iso's.

The Sony sensor is a huge step forward in DR only imho - Canon started the aps-c high iso capability with the 7D, so Sony has only just caught up re: high iso noise performance, even the Nikon D90 was ahead re: noise at high iso.

Having shot with the Canon 60D it can produce the same performance as the Sony sensor wrt high iso noise BUT with 18mp;-)

The Nikon D800 FF will probably have a higher MP count but with the same ISO capability of the D3s (the high iso king) and excellent DR up in the higher iso range.

Not sure how the D90 factors in there. That is a Sony sensor, isn't it? Unless you have drunk the kool aid of those who believe that Nikon designs all of their sensors from the ground up...

[30v iPentax]

Kyllä oli ennen helppoa Kinofilmi aikaan. Filmi kameraan mittarilla mitattiin arvot ja otettiin kuva. Aina onnistu. Oli meinaan MF ja muutenkin manuaaliset kaikki toiminnot. Kaikki oli luovaa toimintaa ei turhia räpsimisiä.

[garyk]

This is kinda funny. I shoot with guys with the Nikon d3s all the time and i really think Pentax has them beat in IQ. Pentax renders some wonderful wildlife pic's. Personally i think the best in the field for wildlife. The K-5 and even the k-x is better I think.

This is not full frame but:
I shot with a guy this week that was shooting a new Mark 4 before, and this weekend he was shooting with a 7d. ( neither a full frame sensor ) I asked him where the mark 4 was and he said at home. And sure enough he said the 7d is much sharper than the mark 4. Which everyone knew already i think. For fine detail the 7d is the cats meow.

Things change with the industry so fast. You need to do your homework on what your interest is. Which i didn't do but anyway. I lucked out with the K-5 for sure. For the next year anyway. LOL, i have no idea what is in store next round but it will be interesting.

[Aristophanes]

Talkin' apples and oranges.

Pretty much all cameras have excellent IQ, and the "pro" lines (D7000, K-5, etc.) have pushed the ISO, MP's, and DR into realms where there are diminishing returns in quality going much further.

FF cameras and wildlife shooting = not big glass, but massive glass. This is where crop sensors excel.

The IQ issue is mostly moot when it comes to sensors and glass. All manufacturers make terrific systems and have excellent glass. All have a few lens duds and some that are compromised (possibly like the DA 18-135), but those are known and discussed.

The real issue is not the IQ but getting there. Yes, the K-5 is ergonomically excellent and has WR, but its flash, tethering and especially AF capabilities cannot touch Nikon, or Canon. Pentax has as good or better prime selections if that's your thing. Canikon cover the zooms better. QC has been a Pentax problem, but Canon especially has not been immune. Nikon has better warranties than anyone.

Frankly, the Nikon AF substantially wipes the floor with the the K-5. And the D7000 is cheaper to boot. Pentax has a very difficult, technical challenge trying to keep up.

Rockwell is a fun read, occasionally very insightful.

[Rupert]

Why would the K5 "sting" Nikon??

The D7000 has the same sensor and I could argue that the Nikon from a functional point of view (think flash as one of them) fairs bit better than the K5.

Most Canon users don't even know Pentax exists

Although not to everyones tastes the 5DMK11 can produce sublime files with a certain creamy look and it does produce a cleaner file at higher iso's.

The Sony sensor is a huge step forward in DR only imho - Canon started the aps-c high iso capability with the 7D, so Sony has only just caught up re: high iso noise performance, even the Nikon D90 was ahead re: noise at high iso.

Having shot with the Canon 60D it can produce the same performance as the Sony sensor wrt high iso noise BUT with 18mp;-)

The Nikon D800 FF will probably have a higher MP count but with the same ISO capability of the D3s (the high iso king) and excellent DR up in the higher iso range.

Well, Nikon Corp. may not feel "stung", however anyone of any brand other than Nikon that sells a DSLR means one less that they will sell....that can't make them happy, can it? I hear the K5 is selling briskly.

Nikon Users....Sting it did! The DPR (and many others) review stung them like a hornet, you only have to check out the various Forums after the K5 review was posted. Squealing was plentiful!

As for comparison to FF, if you have not used a K5 I suggest you give it a try, you might be pleasantly amazed. For wildlife, it is just superb....or anything else for that matter. I sometimes wonder if FF admirers are like a friend of mine....he craves Big Fat women.......I have never understood why, but he says they are better all the way around. If he was a photographer, no doubt he would like a Big Fat FF camera. We are all different, I concede, and he is my friend regardless of his taste ...but when I take my small and petite Mrs Rupert dancing, I have never needed a forklift to parade her around on the dance floor.

Best Regards!

[garyk]

Hummm. I didn't know Pentax made any big primes.. I don't even own a pentax lens?
And the D-7000, k-5, etc are surely not pro line cameras by a loooong shot.

All i shoot are birds and the prosummer 7-D will kill the pro line - D3S and the prosumer K-5 and the Mark 4 in detail for what i have seen.

Pentax is sucking hind tit. But with good glass and seasoned people shooting it, the K-5 aint all that bad. The AF sucks bad in low light though. Not fixed with the 1.03 in my body. But still it is fast and accurate most of the time.

And i really think Nikon IQ sucks for wildlife anyway. Yuck.

I really like the K-5. More than Nikon for sure.

[dlacouture]

And the D7000 is cheaper to boot.

Not in Europe, where they are a match, at around 1000€...

[Emacs]

I dont know what it is but Full Frame portraits have a certain look to them. They look very nice and clean. Whenever I see pictures that look the way I'm trying to describe, they usually are full frame shots. I can live without the field of view difference (which would prevent me from moving closer to the subject to get less dof) but I'm wondering how the K5 portrait photos compare to a full frame like a 5D mark II any other FF's since the K5 sensor is one of the most advanced ever.

The bigger sensor uses longer focusing length lenses for the similar FOV, i.e. lenses having greater magnifying factor (usually ≥ 1.5). It means they provide overall better (up to these ≥ 1.5 times) resolution.

[aurele]

Yes, the K-5 is ergonomically excellent and has WR, but its flash, tethering and especially AF capabilities cannot touch Nikon, or Canon

Concerning tethering :

Supprisingly, the solution might not come from Pentax, but from Pentaxian

Let me introduce you, ladys and gentlemen, mister Tomasz Kos. He produce a Tethering program for k-x, K7, K5, k-r, K20D, K10D, K200.
I tried it, and he's good, always improving it.

PK_Tether | Tethering and remote control software for Pentax DSLR cameras

Give a try

[Winder]

Thanks all.

I wonder how the K5 would compare to these 5D images. The full frame looks to have a lot of advantages besides shallower DOF.

The Full-Frame Advantage

The same issue that applies to film format applies to digital. If you view both images at the same size (final output) you have to enlarge the APS-C image 50% more and it will degrade the image.

The reverse of that is if I take my 5D with a 135L and take a shot and then put my 135L on a 7D take the shot. Now I crop my 5D shot to equal the FoV (200mm) of the 7D image the 5D image stats to fall apart compared to the 7D. The 7D looks better than a 5D image cropped to equal FoV.

MTF charts are tied to sensor height so MTF charts will always favor larger sensors even if there is not visible difference. MTF comparisons only work for equal sized sensors.

Higher pixel density improves image resolution which is why Canon is racing down that path. The 18MP 7D should be able to match the 12MP 5D at lower ISO when it comes to image quality.

Go look at the reviews at DPR or SLRgear for the Olympus 50mm f/2 macro and the Olympus 150mm f/2. These lenses produce images that are stunningly sharp on a 4/3 sized sensor.

Ken Rockwell is probably not the best source for any type of technical information or photographic inspiration. He is really good and making random predictions and generating web traffic to his site.

As far as "the look" goes..... FF cameras have long had a big advantage in DR which has lead to the images looking richer and having more detail. DR does not just impact the shadows and highlights. DR & effective bit depth impacts to tones of the entire image.

"the look" is more lens dependent than anything. The reason the 85L is such a popular lens for creating "the look" is that it is really sharp even at f/1.4 and by f/2 it produces very clear/sharp images with a background that has melted away. Pentax has made lenses like this in the past (A* lenses), but how much of a market does Pentax have for $2,000.00 lenses these days. It will take a couple of year and a couple of more bodies like the K-5 to build a user base that needs that quality of glass...... and an improved SDM.