Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-13-2012, 12:04 PM - 1 Like   #31
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,208
i will give up my will for FF the day they will do APS-C with VF as big as those in FF

09-13-2012, 12:48 PM   #32
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
Well Im happy with APSC. It provides outstanding quality. Ive even used four thirds. Ive yet to have a client complain about quality lol. Four thirds has its pros and cons as do all formats. Ive used both full frame and medium format. Medium format is just too cumbersome. I chose APSC because it has qualitys of four thirds and FF. It sits nicely in the middle. I have my own studio and shoot just about anything from weddings to glamour. There are pros and cons in all of them, but quality is certainly not one of them.
09-13-2012, 01:18 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Denver
Photos: Albums
Posts: 570
QuoteOriginally posted by tkj365 Quote
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.
The high price of any digital medium format is far, far out of reach for me. A FF, on the other hand, could be had after some savvy saving on my part. The advantage for FF with regards to landscape photography is quite debatable since fast wide angle lenses aren't really needed and you can get greater depth of field with APS-C. The big advantage of FF for me would be in the area of portraits and low light settings. If I were to use my FA77 on FF I could take super sharp portraits at f/4 but with the DOF of f/2.8 on APS-C, and I could have a closer working distance, which is often times advantageous, than if I were to use the FA77 on APS-C. Shooting in dimly lit situations would also be better on FF thanks to being able to shoot at higher ISOs with less noise. I hardly ever need long telephoto reach so when that advantage does show up for APS-C it doesn't matter to me much. My style keeps me in the wide to medium telephoto range. I would really like to have a fast wide angle option as I'm sure I would exploit the composition possibilities that would allow often enough to make it worthwhile.
09-13-2012, 01:26 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Denver
Photos: Albums
Posts: 570
Some other advantages of FF cameras, not related to the sensor size, is that you will generally get more advanced metering and auto focus in FF bodies than in APS-C. Plus, if you were to shoot FF on Canon, Nikon, or Sony you would get the faster 1/250 flash sync speed. The D600 that was just officially announced bucks these trends though as it appears to have the same metering and AF as the D7000, and it has a slower flash sync speed of 1/200.

09-13-2012, 01:34 PM   #35
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,657
QuoteQuote:
Why do compact digital cameras keep moving up in sensor size?
Because sensors keep getting cheaper?

QuoteQuote:
Why did companies release a digital medium format?
The perspective change based on the distortion characteristics of lenses means sometimes you want an 85 mm lens to shoot what you'd shoot with a 40 on APS-c. Not all the time, but sometimes you might want that. It give you a different sort of perspective. It's not an IQ issue per se, but as in DoF, where also sometimes you want more sometimes you want less... sometimes one format gives you a distinct advantage over another. But there isn't any system that gives you an advantage over others all the time. (If only life were so easy.) SO there are advantages and disadvantages to different systems, but IQ isn't one of them. Sometimes you just want the unique perspective of an MF camera to differentiate yourself. But if everyone used FF cameras, you'd use APS-c to differentiate yourself.

QuoteQuote:
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.
Taken on that basis, I'd say go by an FF camera. It will impress your rich uncle. I don't have a rich uncle. No need to impress with anything but my pictures.
09-13-2012, 02:32 PM   #36
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,066
Why would I be interested in a FF? The images just look nicer. I prefer the look of narrower dof on a normal lens. My exploits in 35mmmm film recently have only confirmed my preference. BUT, APSC is fine for a lot of things, and is an excellent compromise, especially when I can shoot Ektar to get 'the look'...
09-13-2012, 02:35 PM   #37
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,066
That '35mmmm' was a predictive text typo of course, but I kind of like it...

35mmmmmm.....
09-13-2012, 03:14 PM   #38
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 838
FF is good because you can have cheaper wide-angles, better viewfinders, more DoF control and can extract a little more low ISO performance. A Pentax FF would be particularly interesting because of the amount of compatible lenses from 35mm era.

Realistically, though, APS-C is the optimal size for DSLR because it's the middle ground between size, ergonomics, quality and cost. So I understand Pentax's point on not releasing a FF, at least not until you can make one that is comparatively cheap and that remains compact. Until then, FF is a niche for pros - and even not all pros are happy having to lug around a 5D plus a bunch of crap. Mainstream market will always orbit around the optimal balance between size, price and quality, which today is APS-C.

09-13-2012, 03:23 PM   #39
Veteran Member
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
Theory aside, the other reasons for FF is the reality that, say, Nikon have much better AF, faster focusing lenses, better flash system and third party lens support.
09-13-2012, 03:24 PM   #40
Pentaxian
cmohr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,488
ON 135 film I shot mostly with a 12-24, 17-28, 20-35, and my 85 as a portrait (standard lens for me) well before Pentax digital was released, When I aquired my *istD, the crop factor was "dis-appointing" to say the least.

Yes, there are now equivelent AoV lenses for crop, but the extra barrell distortions are unpleasent, distracting and don't create the image I want.

I personally have zero problems and I see no real difference in DoF between the pictures I take on the two formats using the same lenses (135 film and APS-C digital), people can quote maths on that till the cows come home, but, when it comes to an actual Picture I take, I have no problem getting a thin Dof on crop just as I do on 135.

I want a FF for my wide angles.
09-13-2012, 03:26 PM   #41
Veteran Member
NickLarsson's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,390
For that "35mm look"
09-13-2012, 03:59 PM   #42
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
Its swings and roundabouts. You do not get more DOF control with full frame than either four thirds or APSC. Shallower yes but not more control. It just sits in a different place. Even low ISO ability is sumwhat overblown these days. Take four thirds for example. Set a scenario... Bride n groom at the alter.... your using full frame.... to get enough DOF you need to set say F5.6 to ensure both are in focus. 60th sec speed and lets say this needs an ISO setting of 6400 ISO. Enter the four thirds Olympus md 5.... because of the extra DOF you can get away with F2.8 and will give the same DOF as F5.6. Yes the full frame is going give better results at 6400 ISO but the olympus only needs to use 1600 ISO for the same pic. I find more use for extra DOF more often than I need shallow DOF. Each to there own I guess. It certainly sits with your style and taste. I think choosing your format can be very important. Its all swings and roundabouts ! No format is better than the other.... simply different and all have there pros and cons depending on there use.
09-13-2012, 04:05 PM   #43
Veteran Member
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
SO there are advantages and disadvantages to different systems, but IQ isn't one of them.
what? last time I checked, my K-x destroyed my girlfriends S100 IQ in terms of sharpness and clarity. and the IQ of the 645d shat on my K-x. Somehow, I don't think people are paying 10k more for a bit shallower DOF,
09-13-2012, 04:39 PM   #44
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by ironlionzion Quote
what? last time I checked, my K-x destroyed my girlfriends S100 IQ in terms of sharpness and clarity. and the IQ of the 645d shat on my K-x. Somehow, I don't think people are paying 10k more for a bit shallower DOF,
When you talk of image quality in todays modern cameras.... lets face it... they are oustanding. It will boil down to how much IQ is enough. Those photographers using medium format bought them for a reason. That reason is there clients. Its normaly a case of clients either wishing for giant file sizes or they want or need pics like billboard pics. Its more about size rather than actual image quality. The old Olympus E1 which was just 5 million pixel was capable of producing a good sharp A3 print. Image quality is not really much of an issue anymore. Things like better high ISO ability and good autofocus etc are genraly far more important considerations unless you have a specific reason for mega pixels. Some agencies for example, will state minimum file sizes. As long as your camera covers the requirements for the end use then that is all the quality you need. For me the 12 milion pixel D300 gives more than enough quality wise. The K5 gives me better high ISO though. I simply would not benefit at all from paying out money for any extra perceivable quality. I see more pixels as a drawback. They just fill my PC and cards faster. So I understand what normhead means in this respect.
09-13-2012, 06:34 PM   #45
Veteran Member
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
It's definitely not about the number of pixels or the file size. Smaller sensors put a higher demand on the lens system. Attach an old medium format lens to a APS-C and you'll be disappointed, because you are essentially using a small cropped portion of the entire image projection. Attach that 50 yr old medium format lens to it's proper medium format body and...what do you know....a sharp image!

And people keep saying that on the long end you lose out with FF. That's false, since APS-C is just a cropped FF, you could just crop your FF photo and get the exact same "reach" as your cropped sensor. Assuming same pixel pitch and lens of course.

I agree with you Westmill; I have no doubt that APS-C is "good enough" for mostly everyone but the most demanding professionals. Smaller point and shoot sensors are so good now that many people don't even take full advantage of them! Going back to the car analogy, I'm sure all of us can do with 50 hp VW bugs. But, year after year, the industry offers stronger cars and we upgrade. I have a 200hp GTI. Do I take full advantage of it's power and handling? Nope. Do I enjoy it? Yup! Of course, if VW didn't offer a compact sports car, I wouldn't blame VW and spend my time on forums complaining and begging. I'd just buy one from another company!
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 01:25 PM. | 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