Originally posted by Angevinn All this curmudgeonry against Fullframe is silly. There are many advantages to the Fullframe format over APS-C.
Goodness. I don't think I'm being "curmudgeonly". I'm certainly not hammering the 36x24 format. If I could justify the expense, I'd own a D3s already. If I could afford it, I'd buy and enjoy using a medium format digital camera. I might even occasionally take a photo with the expensive cameras that was a little better than what I can take with my K20D and my good lenses.
I'm simply trying to argue the position that many serious photographers could continue with APS-C sensors for a good while, taking great photos. I have never denied there are "differences" between cameras. Heck, there are differences between the Nikon D300 and the Pentax K-7 (both APS-C) but those differences apparently don't drive all the serious Pentax photographers to buy D300s.
APS-C was a technical compromise from the get go. So what? 35mm film was a technical compromise, too. But it worked. APS-C has apparently worked very well for almost a decade now.
I watched the video and read the article you linked to. Thanks for the links. But look at the video and read the article yourself, again. Although both photographers are admittedly trying to make the case for 36x24, both are honest enough to acknowledge that comparisons are difficult, that some of the advantages of the 36x24 are less than overwhelming, and that APS-C has some advantages of its own—not the least of which is price. The video grades the two formats in (if I recall) 11 or so different areas. It's a pretty subjective grading system; for example, he gives the viewfinder advantage to full-frame because he finds using a full-frame finder "more enjoyable." Even so, at the end of his video, APS-C and 36x24 are nearly tied—and then he admits that people will weight the various factors differently. Precisely. It's nearly a toss-up on the technical merits. But APS-C continues to enjoy a very significant price advantage: By his own estimates, the full-frame cameras cost THREE TIMES as much as the APS-C cameras. Do they take three times better photos?
The web article uses graphs and charts and numbers. Woof. As soon as a photographer brings out the charts, I know I'm in for some special pleading.
A real test
I really need to find a friend who has a 36x24 camera and go out for a side-by-side shoot. We'll do some morning shots at the lake, some wide angle panos and some telephoto shots of egrets and cormorants. We'll do some early evening shots inside a church. We'll do a studio portrait, too. As much as possible, we'll try to take the same photos, from the same perspectives; but of course we get to use the lenses that are appropriate for our cameras. I think we should occasionally take individual photos that aren't taken by both cameras, just to mix things up a little, so not every photo has a twin in the collection.
In the end, we'll agree to post our photos all together, but not side by side, and without any clues outside the photos themselves about which camera took which pictures. Heck, I'd be willing to go further than that. Let's make good prints, say, at 8" x 10" or 8" x 12". Then we'll let some discerning friends view the images and try to guess which camera took which photos. No microscopes or magnifying glasses allowed. No viewing images on the computer screen at 100%. I'd be willing to bet serious money that nobody could identify, most of the time, which camera took which.
Be different!
As I said, I have no idea what Pentax is thinking. None. So I won't be surprised whatever they do. My personal feeling—if I were king of Pentax—is that the company would do itself a favor by trying to distinguish itself clearly in some area. Adding a 36x24 camera to their line-up will not, in my opinion, do this. Making the best APS-C camera anywhere might. Building their future systems around a collection of awesome, lightweight APS-C optimized primes, would be even better. They need to be DIFFERENT.
There was a time when I thought Pentax was a bit like Apple Computer—a company with a small market share, making outstanding products. Increasingly, alas, I realize that Pentax is more like Dell. A company making pretty good products but staying in the game mainly by being cheaper than the competition. I like my Pentax cameras and I'm writing this on a Dell computer that I like very much too. But I don't mean the comparison as a compliment.
Will