[IchabodCrane]

And you know what, one must be at least 50% better photographer than an average to yield good results with an APS-C system.

Enthusiast photographers who are still inexperienced and frustrated with different APS-C systems, switch to FF because they suddenly experience a whole new level of achievements. 135 format isn't called a gold standard for no reason: compared to an APS-C camera, an FF camera is generally much easier to use, easier to focus with, allows more keepers even to a poor to mediocre hobby photographer, and pictures always look more sharper. An APS-C system, in terms of photographic merits, has advantages in overall smaller size and for its telephoto reach. It is also cheaper to manufacture. But in everything else, it is harder to use, requires more skill. An FF camera is generally a much better choice.

To make it really work well for a range of different users, an APS-C camera must have a really, really good AF — even better than its FF counterpart – and I can comfortably say that in the universe of Pentax DSLRs, only the AF inside the K5II has merits to be called an adequate AF for a today's APS-C camera. In reality, it needs to be better.

There is a genuine, well-founded and quite rational need for an FF solution — believe it or not. It isn't all just a hype.

Uluru, I'm not following your line of reasoning because, by extension, it should be nearly impossible to take a good photo using a Pentax Q.

[normhead]

Uluru, I'm not following your line of reasoning because, by extension, it should be nearly impossible to take a good photo using a Pentax Q.

My photography teacher used to advise keeping a 110 camera in the glove compartment of your car..and showed us some amazing pictures he took with it. I never leave the house without one, although sometimes these days it is my cell phone. I also have an Optio W90 I can slip into a pocket. Believe it or not, of our top 10 selling images, 2 of them were taken with a Optio W90 and IMHO , they would not have been better, taken with an FF. They are printed on 20x30 canvas by the way, and it's a 12 MP camera, so don't even get me started on the need for MP.

The thing that just keeps getting lost, is, composition is more important than format.
When capturing a moment.. the fact that the picture would have been more detailed taken with an 8x10 film camera in no way influences the effect or enjoyability of that picture. If the moment is competently captured, resolution is probably the least important factor in determine it's worth or value. (With the exception of large format shooters using scanning backs to produce files over 120MP, where the images literally jump off the paper. There isn't enough difference between APS-c and FF to make that an advantage, in (just a guess) 95% of images.

Of all the things that make a great picture great, format is probably the least important. There are very few images where you can say straight up, that image would be better taken with FF than APS-c. If your shooting style demands it, and FF works for you, I have no problem with that. Congratulations on finding your system. But to assume, everyone else is the same as you, that everyone needs FF because you do, that's just wrong, really really wrong. Without a blink I can tell you, I value wide DoF images over narrow DoF images, I value images shot at 100 ISO and the full dynamic range of the sensor over degraded images shot at ISO-s other than the optimum. And I can comfortably shoot my K-5 right to 1600 ISO without using dedicated noise reduction software... when capturing an image is more important than capturing a full DR image. For me, the trade off of carrying a larger camera, needing a heavier tripod etc. isn't worth it.

I'm willing to concede at this point that the FF guys will keep making outrageuos statements and for the most part unfounded arguments until the cows come home.. so maybe I'll leave the fray with the observation. You don't have to buy into the FF reality distortion field. It's a market driven movement pushed by people who want you to spend more money on cameras and the innocent folks who can't see through the mis-information.

There is only one reason for buying an FF. It suits your style.
There is only one reason to buy an APS-c. It suits your style.
The numbers, the hype (it will instantly make you a better photographer), the outright BS (Pentax will fail if they don't make an FF), don't buy into it. Buy into your creative process and what makes you comfortable as a shooter. If it's a Q that's good, you get pictures when FF shooters don't even have their camera with them. If you're an APS-c shooter you'll get images FF shooters would have to invest a fortune in equipment to get from off the shelf lenses. If your an FF shooter, you'll get that narrow DoF look you crave, and better images from low light. There is nothing "wrong" with any of these "shooting styles" but I gotta say , telling Q shooter he'd get better images with a D800 is the height of ignorance, as is telling an APS-c shooter he'd be better with an FF. Live and let live. Look at the images posted and enjoy, whatever the format. There aren't many photographers that exel at everything. Make the most of your system, matched to your shooting style, and don't listen to these "my favourite format" is always better clowns. Some day they'll realize that while the system they've selected is the best for what they do, a different set of compromises will be better for what others do. That's just maturity the maturity it takes to understand life. Photography is just a small part of it.

[dadipentak]

This is way better than "Mad Men"!

[normhead]

And all because Pentax put put an ad telling people why they should by a Pentax...

Do you suppose we could get a "reality" show?

But just to get things back on track

1. Tough construction
2. Lens Selection
3. Light weight lenses
4. Color variations
5 Shake reduction

Woooooo hooooooo Pentax.

[thornburg]

My photography teacher used to advise keeping a 110 camera in the glove compartment of your car..and showed us some amazing pictures he took with it. I never leave the house without one, although sometimes these days it is my cell phone. I also have an Optio W90 I can slip into a pocket. Believe it or not, of our top 10 selling images, 2 of them were taken with a Optio W90 and IMHO , they would not have been better, taken with an FF. They are printed on 20x30 canvas by the way, and it's a 12 MP camera, so don't even get me started on the need for MP.

This is classic advice -- "The best camera for the shot is the one you have with you." It is absolutely true.
OTOH, having a better camera does improve your chances of getting a usable shot. See below.

There is only one reason for buying an FF. It suits your style.
There is only one reason to buy an APS-c. It suits your style.

This goes too far.

What if you've arrived upon something that would make a great picture, and all you have is your cell phone, and it's really dark out? You won't get a usable picture.
Same scene, but all you have is a small sensor P&S. You may get something that can be post processed into something vaguely resembling a usable picture.
Same scene, but all you have is an APS-C DSLR or mirrorless. You might get a usable picture.
Same scene, but you've got an FF DSLR or mirrorless(*1). Your best chance of getting a usable picture with something that is reasonable to carry with you outside a studio.

APS-C devotees can say all day long that they prefer the advantages of APS-C (size, weight, crop factor--telephoto), but that doesn't remove the advantages of FF (low light, wide angle).

It's a matter of what you prefer. The only reason the argument is vehement here is because Pentax doesn't make a full-frame camera, and hasn't stated any interest in doing so.

If you go to Canon, Nikon, or Sony forums, there will be threads about what the advantages and disadvantages of full frame are, but there is not nearly as much vitriol on either side of the argument as here.

Some people here are upset that Pentax doesn't make a FF camera. Other people here feel the need to argue that Full Frame isn't necessary.

Does that matter? There are people who want it. Lots of them. Some of them have $2500 sitting in the bank in a folder labeled "Pentax FF" (*2).

If you prefer APS-C, why does it matter to you whether or not Pentax makes an FF camera?

(*1) AFAIK, there is no FF mirrorless yet.
(*2) Not me.

EDIT: normhead's previous post was made while I was writing my reply to the one before.

[normhead]

EDIT: normhead's previous post was made while I was writing my reply to the one before.

I hate it when that happens....

[mikeSF]

...
If you prefer aps-c, why does it matter to you whether or not pentax makes an ff camera?
...

+1

.

[normhead]

If you prefer APS-C, why does it matter to you whether or not Pentax makes an FF camera?

Exactly, for most Pentax users it doesn't, and for those for whom FF is essential, most of them have already migrated to other brands, because if it's essential, you have to do it right? Brand in such cases means nothing.

[Aristophanes]

Only if people actually prefer FF over APS-c. The flaw in your logic that just won't go away. If the first argument in your logic is flawed, everything that follows is false. Your argument that Pentax cannot make a go of it without an FF is just too crazy to even contemplate. Your argument in support of this is well nothing... you just make up S%$t.

You seem to relate all this to a preference over sensor size as if comparing an SUV to a sports car. In reality, the difference i cameras and features is equal and the only defining feature difference is/will be sensor size.

FF is eating APS-C price points. So if you are not making FF your competitor who is is both taking money that used to be yours and taking long-term customers.

Putting the preference for sensor size ahead of what one can get at a price point is simply wrong under these circumstances and in most business models.

Almost 60 million dedicated cameras are sold every year. It's a commodity market. This is retail product from household disposable incomes; pricing is everything.

It's equally possible that if Pentax sinks a lot of money into FF, it'll end up sucking up all their resources for no return. Thanks to the D800 there are not a lot of FF users out there waiting for a camera. If I had any desire to own an FF camera, I would have bought a D800 last year. Because real photographers, weigh functionality and cost, brand doesn't make a lot of difference to them.

You are kidding, right?

The whole point of proprietary lens mounts is to lock in your customers to the drug of buying new, better, longer, wider, faster, zoomier, glass.

It makes zero difference your "desire" for an FF camera. All that matters in the bigger, commodity market is what camera is available at your price point. If FF takes away APS-C's high-end that will leave Pentax with no high-end APS-C customers, and eventually no high-end APS-C cameras, and eventually no customers.

By far the biggest knock against FF cameras is size. Yet it is a fractured camera market and many don't mind or even prefer larger cameras. An astounding # of enthusiasts have both large FF's and smaller mirrorless. But if you are Pentax, you have none of that market, do you?

Style. Preference. it's all voodoo. That's adspeak. This is all about raw economics.

I do agree that Pentax takes a huge risk going FF. Mostly because of the lens ramp-up. Not with the body. But that risk must be balanced against losing massive chunks (as in over 50%) of the revenue stream as FF from the competition slides down into APS-C territory.

IMO the separation between FF and APS-C will eventually be only a single price point, of about $500. In a few years APS-C will not exist above $1,000. The FF sensor price curve will eliminate that possibility, especially if the Sony/Canon sensor duopoly is broken. All those customers with more than $1,000 in their pockets for a camera body will be buying FF. Rumour has it that Canon is looking into even larger sensors. Why? To preserve the 1D price point and keep revenues and share prices up.

All I am doing is matching household buying power to what the market can provide at a historic price. A guy with $1,500 for a camera is going to buy the most IQ and largest sensor for that money regardless of "preference". If they preferred something they would budget less, but you know what? People who have $1500 to spend, spend $1500!!! If they have $60k to spend on a car they'll get an Acura SUV and not a Mazda5 even if all they really need is a Mazda5. That is how consumer choice works and why companies need to be active at multiple price points to survive.

The question is not if Pentax gets into FF. It is when. To me, this ad structure is laying the foundation. This ad clearly distinguishes between APS-C and FF product lines. That tells me they are putting one foot in the risk pool by even going there, inviting comparison. If you are happy with APS-C, then great. You will get cheaper product.

[monochrome]

The question is not if Pentax gets into FF. It is when. To me, this ad structure is laying the foundation. This ad clearly distinguishes between APS-C and FF product lines. That tells me they are putting one foot in the risk pool by even going there, inviting comparison. If you are happy with APS-C, then great. You will get cheaper product.

Yes - it took a long time to get here.

Pentax is the alternative to Canon./ Nikon / (Sony/Oly/Fuji) - not a "ME, Too!" brand.

1. Establish the 5 distinguishing factors
2. Develop a customer-binding brand ethos
   1. Firmware updates
   2. Demonstrations
   3. High-Q, High-IQ, lens tech, kind of limited to those who know about us
3. Then . . . .
   1. If you need Pentax values with a bigger sensor, here's our (K-1, LX-d or whatever()
   2. If you need Pentax values in a true professional camera system, here's our 645 platform
   3. If you need Ricoh cutting edge thinking with Pentax values, here's our (product)

[Rondec]

This is classic advice -- "The best camera for the shot is the one you have with you." It is absolutely true.
OTOH, having a better camera does improve your chances of getting a usable shot. See below.



This goes too far.

What if you've arrived upon something that would make a great picture, and all you have is your cell phone, and it's really dark out? You won't get a usable picture.
Same scene, but all you have is a small sensor P&S. You may get something that can be post processed into something vaguely resembling a usable picture.
Same scene, but all you have is an APS-C DSLR or mirrorless. You might get a usable picture.
Same scene, but you've got an FF DSLR or mirrorless(*1). Your best chance of getting a usable picture with something that is reasonable to carry with you outside a studio.

APS-C devotees can say all day long that they prefer the advantages of APS-C (size, weight, crop factor--telephoto), but that doesn't remove the advantages of FF (low light, wide angle).

It's a matter of what you prefer. The only reason the argument is vehement here is because Pentax doesn't make a full-frame camera, and hasn't stated any interest in doing so.

If you go to Canon, Nikon, or Sony forums, there will be threads about what the advantages and disadvantages of full frame are, but there is not nearly as much vitriol on either side of the argument as here.

Some people here are upset that Pentax doesn't make a FF camera. Other people here feel the need to argue that Full Frame isn't necessary.

Does that matter? There are people who want it. Lots of them. Some of them have $2500 sitting in the bank in a folder labeled "Pentax FF" (*2).

If you prefer APS-C, why does it matter to you whether or not Pentax makes an FF camera?

(*1) AFAIK, there is no FF mirrorless yet.
(*2) Not me.

EDIT: normhead's previous post was made while I was writing my reply to the one before.

I think it is very easy to say the full frame is "better." However, it isn't as much better, if Pentax is unable to put SR in a full frame body, then it becomes more difficult. The size thing and cost thing are both big deals as well. While you can make full frame cameras smaller, they never seem to get down to the kx or k50 size.

All in all, I believe that the difference in formats has more to do with cost than with anything else. The cheapest APS-C cameras have sold in the 300 dollar range (K-01, etc). Full frame is unlikely to match such pricing for a long time.

[Aristophanes]

Of all the things that make a great picture great, format is probably the least important.

Not if you are Pentax.

Defending their current, invested ASPS-C format is PRECISELY why they are advertising their "optimized" lenses in the context of referring specifically to FF.

Everything else falls into the airy fairy subjectivity of photography as a passion, an art form, a hobby, an experience, an education, etc.

Format: m4/3 as in 4:3, megapixels and resolution, FF vs. APS-C, 135 vs APS, 110 vs Minox, 645 vs 6x7 vs. 6x6, 4x5 vs 8x10, have all been the guts of photographic product lines revolving around the camera.

Format is the one aspect of photo technology that tells the optical designers what they have to do; the one area where the camera rules over the optics.

That is baked into the fundamentals of the photography market from screen size to paper size, to sensor size, to film size, to file size. The sole reason 120 film survived was because it was uniquely capable of being multi-format.

It doesn't matter what your mentor says. All of the economic development of the photographic industry says otherwise, that format is critical to being able to make, market, differentiate, and use the camera. We would not be having this discussion if that were not a fundamental truth.

[thornburg]

I think it is very easy to say the full frame is "better." However, it isn't as much better, if Pentax is unable to put SR in a full frame body, then it becomes more difficult. The size thing and cost thing are both big deals as well. While you can make full frame cameras smaller, they never seem to get down to the kx or k50 size.

All in all, I believe that the difference in formats has more to do with cost than with anything else. The cheapest APS-C cameras have sold in the 300 dollar range (K-01, etc). Full frame is unlikely to match such pricing for a long time.

I didn't say FF was better. I said FF has some advantages, which are well documented and indisputable. APS-C also has indisputable advantages.

It's a matter of preference, or which things are most important to you. If low light performance is critical, you want FF. Even the 645D can't come close to Nikon FF low light performance.

If you want small/light, you want APS-C (or m4/3).

There are also some factors that are sensor-format agnostic. If ergonomics are most important to you, you'll try out a bunch of different cameras, because each person has different hands, fingers, and thought processes, so a different size or layout of controls will be "best" for each person. I admit some control schemes are, on the whole, better than others, but each person will have unique requirements.

[tuco]

(*1) AFAIK, there is no FF mirrorless yet.

What category is a Leica M9 and Sony RX1 then? BTW, Norm is all for larger senors and larger files. He is wanting a 645D

[normhead]

Not if you are Pentax.

Defending their current, invested ASPS-C format is PRECISELY why they are advertising their "optimized" lenses in the context of referring specifically to FF.

Everything else falls into the airy fairy subjectivity of photography as a passion, an art form, a hobby, an experience, an education, etc.

Format: m4/3 as in 4:3, megapixels and resolution, FF vs. APS-C, 135 vs APS, 110 vs Minox, 645 vs 6x7 vs. 6x6, 4x5 vs 8x10, have all been the guts of photographic product lines revolving around the camera.

Format is the one aspect of photo technology that tells the optical designers what they have to do; the one area where the camera rules over the optics.

That is baked into the fundamentals of the photography market from screen size to paper size, to sensor size, to film size, to file size. The sole reason 120 film survived was because it was uniquely capable of being multi-format.

It doesn't matter what your mentor says. All of the economic development of the photographic industry says otherwise, that format is critical to being able to make, market, differentiate, and use the camera. We would not be having this discussion if that were not a fundamental truth.

What are your qualifications for suggesting you know what "all of the development of the photographic industry" is about? I could argue with every point, but what would be the use?

Defending their current, invested ASPS-C format is PRECISELY why they are advertising their "optimized" lenses in the context of referring specifically to FF.

Your english comprehension skills are sorely lacking. How you could read that into that ad is scary.

If you are looking for an APS-C sensor camera, we recommend PENTAX SLRs, which have a diverse range of lenses optimized for APS-C sensors.

The ad is very clear, this sentence recognizes that you may not be looking for an FF sensor. It makes no attempt to say, you shouldn't like like FF sensors. It doesn't say if you're thinking of an FF sensor you should look at APS-c first. IN fact it makes it very clear, the advertisement is only for those interested in APS-c sensors. It then goes on to espouse the benefits of Pentax cameras. If you need the ad further explained PM me, I'll go through it with you line by line if you want. But don't keep posting the BS as if no one but you can read. No one cares what you say the ad says. We can all read for ourselves.

It doesn't matter what your mentor says. All of the economic development of the photographic industry says otherwise, that format is critical to being able to make, market, differentiate, and use the camera. We would not be having this discussion if that were not a fundamental truth.

My mentor had an MA in photography form the University of Rochester, 15 years of commercial experience and taught at Ryerson Poli-tech, at the time the foremost photography program in Canada. Who the heck are you?