[paulusje]

Very Well Said

+1

I find myself wishing for FF for the following reason. I shoot full body street portraits and I want to have the option of having a nice and blurred background. I also don't want to stand too far away from the subject because I need to be able to communicate without having to scream.
If I use a 50mm ƒ1.4 lens on APS-C I can only get a little bit of blur in the background.
If I use a 50mm ƒ1.4 lens on FF I can get a nice and creamy soft background.
I'd have to use a 85mm ƒ1.4 lens on APS-C to get a similar effect but then I'd have to stand farther back to get the whole person in the frame

So just saying that there are plenty of valid reasons why people may want FF.

[Medium FormatPro]

Realisticly speaking, an FF DSLR can never be as small as the K5. An FF sensor is huge, twice the size of APSC, and the mirror, that has to swing up and down, is also twice as large. The only way an FF camera is going to be compact is if it has no mirror.

When you mean a full frame slr; that would also mean a digital image sensor of (about) 24x36mm - exactly the size of 35mm film. So please feel welcome to compare either the existing (oops - former, as in phased out) K-5, or the other two new K--5's to any film camera to see exactly what type of camera can fit into that 24x26 sensor.

Plus there are also cameras such as the Sony's - which also have the same near 24x36 sensor - and look at how large those ones are.

A possible (someday??) Pentax 24x36 sensor could easily be made to fit into either of the new versions of the K-5 and even the K-01. There is plenty of room for t in any of those three cameras - and many others

[Clavius]

When you mean a full frame slr; that would also mean a digital image sensor of (about) 24x36mm - exactly the size of 35mm film. So please feel welcome to compare either the existing (oops - former, as in phased out) K-5, or the other two new K--5's to any film camera to see exactly what type of camera can fit into that 24x26 sensor.

Plus there are also cameras such as the Sony's - which also have the same near 24x36 sensor - and look at how large those ones are.

A possible (someday??) Pentax 24x36 sensor could easily be made to fit into either of the new versions of the K-5 and even the K-01. There is plenty of room for t in any of those three cameras - and many others

Having seen the famous split-in-half K5, it's very hard to believe that there's plenty of room.

There's plenty of room allright: In the huge empty space where that big mirror bounces up and down.

Why would the other brands issue bulkier machines then neccesary? They would make those smaller if they were able to.

[Blue]

Having seen the famous split-in-half K5, it's very hard to believe that there's plenty of room.

There's plenty of room allright: In the huge empty space where that big mirror bounces up and down.

Why would the other brands issue bulkier machines then neccesary? They would make those smaller if they were able to.

How much thicker would a ff sensor be than an aps-c sensor? The length and width of it will not be the issue. The wildcard is the SR.

[Clavius]

How much thicker would a ff sensor be than an aps-c sensor? The length and width of it will not be the issue. The wildcard is the SR.

But why then are the FF bodies from the competitors MUCH larger then the K5? Canon and Nikon don't even have SR in the body. I doubt that they deliberately increase the size of those to make them more impressive.

[Giklab]

Thinks of full frame camera
/drool

Thinks of price
Sees """"compact""" RX1
/reality check

Buys K-5II

[Eric Auer]

I can not believe the amount of FF v APSC that goes on in these forums. They all have there Pros and Cons. Who cares what who uses ? The best format is the one thats best for the individual. Anyone claiming that one format is better than the other for anyone but themselves is simply an idiot. Between the three main contenders of Four thirds, APSC and FF , I prefer APSC format and would choose four thirds even over FF. Thats just me though. I spend more time after more DOF than less. Its not difficult to get shallow DOF with APSC either. Surely to god everyone is well aware of the differances by now between the formats. Im going have to stop reading posts lol.

+1 and Liked!

[stevebrot]

Very Well Said

So why did you post? Trolling?

[stevebrot]

The best format is the one thats best for the individual. Anyone claiming that one format is better than the other for anyone but themselves is simply an idiot. Between the three main contenders of Four thirds, APSC and FF , I prefer APSC format and would choose four thirds even over FF. Thats just me though. I spend more time after more DOF than less. Its not difficult to get shallow DOF with APSC either.

This is so true. If you shoot on the long side of things, APS-C or M4/3 is a godsend. More reach with your long glass in a lighter and more compact package and more DOF to boot.

I am curious though, how do you get truly shallow DOF with a normal or wide angle lens with APS-C? You can spare the reader's of this thread and PM me with your trick.


Steve

[i83N]

So why did you post? Trolling?

Did you read it the comment on which i wrote that i well said? Main thought is, that APS-C or FF is just the mater of what you used to.
This post is about, maybe better wait than rush to FF?

[Blue]

But why then are the FF bodies from the competitors MUCH larger then the K5? Canon and Nikon don't even have SR in the body. I doubt that they deliberately increase the size of those to make them more impressive.

Why is the 60d and 7d bigger than the K-5? You are getting into the rhetorical stuff here. Pentax has historically made smaller bodies whether it was the film era or digital. The K-5 has SR and is sealed, the 6d isn't even sealed. The *istD was actually made for a ff sensor and even has a large enough mirror and box granted it doesn't have the SR.

[THoog]

Pentax has historically made smaller bodies whether it was the film era or digital. The K-5 has SR and is sealed, the 6d isn't even sealed. The *istD was actually made for a ff sensor and even has a large enough mirror and box granted it doesn't have the SR.

Good points. Pentax' emphasis on small size helps to explain some "strange" design decisions, like leaving off AF points in the K-m / K-x, or the viewfinder on the K-01. That said, could the incredibly high ISO performance of today's sensors make SR obsolete, or at least of secondary importance to a FF design?

[Unsinkable II]

Good points. Pentax' emphasis on small size helps to explain some "strange" design decisions, like leaving off AF points in the K-m / K-x, or the viewfinder on the K-01. That said, could the incredibly high ISO performance of today's sensors make SR obsolete, or at least of secondary importance to a FF design?

No (have to type more...)

[Blue]

Good points. Pentax' emphasis on small size helps to explain some "strange" design decisions, like leaving off AF points in the K-m / K-x, or the viewfinder on the K-01. That said, could the incredibly high ISO performance of today's sensors make SR obsolete, or at least of secondary importance to a FF design?

The idea is that SR allows you to use slower shutter speeds than you can without it. I guess you could jack up the iso instead. However, SR adds versatility just like fast lenses.

[THoog]

The idea is that SR allows you to use slower shutter speeds than you can without it. I guess you could jack up the iso instead. However, SR adds versatility just like fast lenses.

Oh, I agree, and I love SR. It's just a "what-if" thought, given the space requirements and Pentax' proven willingness to sacrifice key features in order to keep the size down.