Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-13-2012, 04:17 AM   #16
Veteran Member
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
Compare lenses like
K50/1.2 vs FA77/1.8
DA50-135 vs Canon 70-200/4
FA24/2 vs FA35/2 (>1 stop equiv faster!)
FA35/2 vs FA50/1.4 (>2 stops equiv faster!)
DA200 vs FA300 (this time APSC wins)
DA55/1.4 vs M85/2 (prob not fair but hard to find eqiv)
DA14/2.8 vs FA20/2.8 (>1 stop equiv faster)

These were the ones I could think of, in 6/7 cases FF is lighter

09-13-2012, 04:23 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Niagara
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 793
OVF, so I can manually focus my primes like I used to.
09-13-2012, 04:37 AM   #18
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by calsan Quote
FF Camera:
Pros: Better Wide-Angle ...if you're prepared to stop down to f/16.

To Full-Frame or Not To Full Frame?
My Zeiss 21/2.8 is sharp wide open so I don't know where your F/16 concept fits here.
09-13-2012, 05:09 AM   #19
Senior Member
Pontax's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bornholm
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 160
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
The viewfinder is really huge compared to APS-C
The viewfinder on APS-C sucks. I really miss the viewfinder on my Contax, the huge "ParaVision" is great. Why can a similar viewfinder be installed in APS-C's. The viewfinder have nothing to do with the sensor, or am I wrong??

09-13-2012, 05:27 AM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 142
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
Prize, size and weight of both body and lenses considered, together with the shallow DOF leading to unwanted OOF subject matter (unless diffraction-creating small apertures are used) and the use of the qualitatively weaker extreme edges of the lens leave me solidly and with both feet in the APS-C field.

Law of physics: the weight of an object increases by the third power of its dimensions.
Law of physics: the larger the lens, the more critical and difficult/costly its manufacturing will be
Law of physics: when the size of the shutter curtain increases, the whole mechanism that moves and controls it becomes more sensitive
Law of Economics: dollar for dollar, I can buy more IQ with an APS-C than with FF
NewMikey - Thank you. Apparently I am not the only one that has actually read the technical specifications and done the math. The only advantage I see to FF is the potential advantage to landscape and architecture, and I just don't see it worth the investment over APS-C. I MIGHT consider the Medium Format over FF if I were to consider FF over APS-C.
09-13-2012, 05:28 AM - 1 Like   #21
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,684
You guys are too funny. Same old BS. SO tell me, if you have an image that is as sharp as you could ever want, with as high IQ as you could ever want taken with an APS-c camera, how would that be improved by taking it with a FF. Sharp is just sharp. APS-c is just as sharp as FF, just smaller. If you need bigger, you need FF. If you don't need bigger, APS-c is exactly the same sensor technology with exactly the same lens technology. WIthin that limit (i.e.. you don't need real big) APS-c is superior in that you're only using the sharpest part of the lens, and you have more depth of field in the sharpest F-stop.

There is probably more double speak around this issue than anything else I've seen.

Keep it in perspective.

Same sensor technology - same lens technology. FF is bigger. Do you need bigger? Most of us don't.
09-13-2012, 06:01 AM   #22
Veteran Member
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Same sensor technology - same lens technology. FF is bigger. Do you need bigger? Most of us don't.
Why do compact digital cameras keep moving up in sensor size? Because, all else equal, sensor area is one of the major limiting factors of image quality. Why did companies release a digital medium format? Were they just scamming people out of 10-30k? Nah, some people are just willing to shell out the extra cash for that extra quality that medium format has over APS-C and FF. IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING MOVING FROM APS-C to FF. If you don't need or want the extra IQ, then for you it's case closed.

Sure, many people don't NEED FF. Does everyone NEED Aston Martins, Ferraris, Lambos? Hell no. But people want them, people buy them, and people enjoy them.
09-13-2012, 06:11 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,183
I want FF just so people shut up about it.
The other brands are all "haha, Pentax has no FF!" and the Pentax people are all "Its coming! Any day, you'll see!" and then they turn to Pentax "Come ooon, do it! Do it so we feel big!"
I know I won't be buying FF for a couple years at least and in that time, who knows what will happen.

09-13-2012, 06:23 AM   #24
Pentaxian
calsan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,464
Hi Bossa -
That article I quoted mentioned that lens as being an exception (of sorts), if you read it. But it's also $1,800, made in small numbers by hand, manual focus and (obviously) has no zoom range, requires an 82mm filter, weighs 600g, so if it's an exception - then it's really the exception that proves the rule.

Hi Twitch -
I did say 'designed for digital'. All the FF lenses you mentioned (although I don't know about the Canon lens) were 'designed for film' - I'm pretty confident that many, if not all, of those lenses will prove disappointing on digital sensors, due to the light path needing to be as close to perpendicular to the sensor as possible.

Bossa's Zeiss 21 shows that while a 20mm was once a small lens on film (FA20 2.8), on digital it's a 600g lens that costs $1,800. Also - many of Twitch's photos taken with the DA15 and DA21 on Flickr in my mind prove that APS gets the job done and does it very well...
For example - exactly what would FF bring to this image, taken by Twitch, that it's currently missing?


I think that FF is a system that's much better when you're comparing the specifications side by side on paper, but is it really better when you're lugging it around? I was in a cave in Yallingup a few weeks back - couldn't help but notice a tourist with a FF Canon and 24-70L. It was gigantic, but he couldn't get it to shoot in total darkness. Trusty K-7 and (super cheap) 18-55 worked fine. Sure, i popped up the built in flash and at ISO2000 it was a bit noisy, but hey, it worked and I didn't have 3.5kilos and $5000++ carried down hundreds of stairs and then have to buy the postcard on the way out.

Last edited by calsan; 09-13-2012 at 06:40 AM.
09-13-2012, 06:35 AM - 1 Like   #25
Veteran Member
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,105
Because my clients demand that I use FF or they will hire someone else. I can not sell them a big fat "NO!" like Pentax does to us. So I use a 5D instead.
09-13-2012, 07:07 AM   #26
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
Dynamic range/shallower depth of field/more options with lens choices eg my FA 31 becomes a wide lens on a FF and a normal on the APSC- if you throw my Q into the mix you have alot of flexibility creativity wise. Larger viewfinder would also be nice.

Also having a FF in the ranks means more people will use Pentax which is good for the company which is therefore good for me in regards to future developments.

With the advent of entry level and high end MILC both 4/3 and APSC and the introduction of more compact and affordable FF DSLRs the days of the high end APSC may be numbered except maybe in the field of wildlife and sports shooting where the crop gives added reach and the less processing required equals better RAW burst rates.

Personally I am getting into event photography so will be carrying around a two camera setup anyway so FF body with a 24-75 and a APSC body such as the K5 with a 50-135 would be a fantastic duo- add in triple FF compatible Primes of 31 50 and 77(or 85 such as a samyang) and thats a fantastic system right there.
If I was doing the pro studio/landscape thing with big prints and lots of PP I wouldn't hesitate on a d800 or a Pentax 645D the difference being what the lenses would set me back.
I can honestly see myself buying a 645N within the year anyway for a unique format to take a few B+W film 'takes' of the same subject.
For a doing everything pretty damn well with one camera while keeping the size/price down with and quality up then thats where the K30/K5II(s) lies which is why Pentax has SO much potential.
09-13-2012, 07:31 AM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Niagara
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 793
QuoteOriginally posted by ironlionzion Quote
Why do compact digital cameras keep moving up in sensor size? Because, all else equal, sensor area is one of the major limiting factors of image quality. Why did companies release a digital medium format? Were they just scamming people out of 10-30k? Nah, some people are just willing to shell out the extra cash for that extra quality that medium format has over APS-C and FF. IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING MOVING FROM APS-C to FF. If you don't need or want the extra IQ, then for you it's case closed.

Sure, many people don't NEED FF. Does everyone NEED Aston Martins, Ferraris, Lambos? Hell no. But people want them, people buy them, and people enjoy them.
Amen brother!
09-13-2012, 07:39 AM - 1 Like   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Because my clients demand that I use FF or they will hire someone else. I can not sell them a big fat "NO!" like Pentax does to us. So I use a 5D instead.
Now, tht I can imagine as being a strong motivator to use FF as the customer is always right - no arguing with that. Besides that, using a 5D (or any other brand that has FF models in its lineup) is no shame whatsoever. There will be people like you, for whom this is a business decision that has to be dealt with in a business-like way - no doubt about it.

I understand it would be cool(er) for you to be able to use a Pentax FF, but whether that should be a strong business motivator for Pentax/Ricoh remains to be seen.

Let's be absolutely clear here: I have absolutely no issue with people who depend on photography for their livelihood making the argument for FF, I simply doubt whether 99% of those aren't using Canon or Nikon already anyway and I doubt they can be won back. For the rest of the photographers, for whom photography is a serious hobby, a passion even, the need for FF is highly overestimated exactly like the need for overweight, overpriced software. Most of those are simply responding to a marketing vibe or moved by pure equipment-greed; they just want it because it's available.

For that latter group, a FF Pentax may not be the ticket, quite the opposite actually. Forcing Pentax to sink development funds into the release of an FF might end in the early demise of the brand as such. Would that be disastrous? Not really, we're all used to writing off our equipment over the course of a few years - the old days of owning and using one camera and one set of lenses for 30 years are gone forever. Would it be a pity? You're darned right it would - I happen to like Pentax and think the world of the brand - but that's what it is: a brand. Brands come and go all the time. The technology behind them never disappears.
09-13-2012, 07:46 AM   #29
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,413
Curiosity mainly. I have a bunch of FF glass which I want to extend to full capacity, and I'm too impatient to wait for film to be developed.....
Apart from that, APS-C rocks.
09-13-2012, 08:00 AM   #30
Veteran Member
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,105
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
Let's be absolutely clear here: I have absolutely no issue with people who depend on photography for their livelihood making the argument for FF, I simply doubt whether 99% of those aren't using Canon or Nikon already anyway and I doubt they can be won back.
I know a pro that is already using multiple platforms now: Canon, Nikon and Leica. He currently uses his Pentax 50mm f1.2 on the Canon. He has stated multiple times that he would instantly buy a Pentax FF camera, because "that excellent lens belongs on a Pentax FF." Just to mount his one and only Pentax lens!

It's just one example of course, but it shows how different pro's react to hardware. They don't need to switch, like budget-limited hobbyists. It's tools to them. A Pentax FF DSLR that has the edge over the other brands in any area (WR/SR/?) will surely end up in the "toolboxes" of countless pro's.
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, cons, cost, dof, ff, lens, macro, photo industry, photography, pros, telephoto
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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