[Zebooka]

rawr, you are comparing cameras with FOUR years difference in their birth date.
This is not correct. Compare K-x with 5DmkII

[rawr]

rawr, you are comparing cameras with FOUR years difference in their birth date.
This is not correct. Compare K-x with 5DmkII

There was also the comparison K-x <>D700 - same MP, almost same age camera.

And eg even with something like the new Nikon D3s you get an amazing boost to low-light ISO sensitivity, but color depth and dynamic range is still about the same as the K-x.

Ditto with the 5D2 - except for low-light high ISO, the D3s and 5D2 are both just within 10% of the performance characteristics of the K-x. Not worth all the extra $$ and fuss, IMHO.



The 5D vs K-x age issue also illustrates one point very well - that it is not an INHERANT feature of FF that it outperforms smaller sensors. Sensor performance is heavily dependent on the tech that goes into the sensor chip and supporting systems too. Sensors and camera hardware keep improving, innovations keep arising etc that make the difference between FF and other sensors IQ harder to plot.

[youky63]

There was also the comparison K-x <>D700 - same MP, almost same age camera.

And eg even with something like the new Nikon D3s you get an amazing boost to low-light ISO sensitivity, but color depth and dynamic range is still about the same as the K-x.

Ditto with the 5D2 - except for low-light high ISO, the D3s and 5D2 are both just within 10% of the performance characteristics of the K-x. Not worth all the extra $$ and fuss, IMHO.



The 5D vs K-x age issue also illustrates one point very well - that it is not an INHERANT feature of FF that it outperforms smaller sensors. Sensor performance is heavily dependent on the tech that goes into the sensor chip and supporting systems too. Sensors and camera hardware keep improving, innovations keep arising etc that make the difference between FF and other sensors IQ harder to plot.

You can believe DxOMark, or you can just compare shoots from serious photographers. This software, as any benchmark, must be used carefully since good mathematical results doesn't mean good real life results. For example, the K20D sensor is supposed to be one of the best sensors for shadows (DR), but I can tell you it is pretty noisy, so... useless. Even in very low iso.
I don't know about Canon files, but I know a little bit more about Nikon. Some other tests also concluded to a poor DR for the D700. Which is surprising for a 14bits sensor with so big pixels. It appeared it was just a conservative setting from Nikon. If you use RAW images and push them with the appropriate sofware, you can get amazing DR results (cf here for details: Nikon D700 Review: 20. Photographic tests (DR): Digital Photography Review. I also saw it by myself, in some situation an APS-C camera would never have been able to compete.

[Aristophanes]

The 5D vs K-x age issue also illustrates one point very well -

Yes, a staggering price/performance difference.

K-x = phenomenal value.

[rawr]

I like DXO - it's useful data. I like data over anecdotes.

If you use RAW and push it with the appropriate software, you can also probably get amazing results with the K20D or K-x. Even LR3 and to a lesser extent DXO Optics Pro can do amazing things to the output of something like the K20D or other crop bodies. As others have observed in this thread, powerful PP tools start to make the value of any distinction between FF and APS-C less compelling.

Powerful PP can benefit crop as much as FF output.

[Miserere]

I still don't fully get the enthusiasm for FF I pick up here.

Maybe I need educating, but my take on FF is that it indisputably has virtues for low-light high ISO, and therefore whoever needs that needs FF. People who like or need their wides to be wides also need FF.

But FF doesn't also automatically provide the same scale of benefit for other important parameters of IQ as it does for low-light high ISO. Colour depth and dynamic range are hardly any different on FF as on crop, viz:

[...]

So what am I getting if I move to FF, if not better IQ? Not much, it seems.

[...]

FF is still not adding up for me.

Rawr, yes, you need educating. To begin with, you need to drink a lot more FF Kool-Aid, OK? Once you've done that, you need to start requesting a FF camera from Pentax as the only solution to all the problems in the World. You must also demand that your wide angle lenses become wide angle again, disregarding the existence of the 12-24mm, 14mm, 15mm, 16-50mm, 17-70mm, 18-55mm and 21mm lenses currently in production. And whatever else you forget to do, don't forget to demand the control of DoF that FF gives you, and which APS-C is robbing you of. Oh, and a FF Pentax should retail for $1,399.

Report back once you understand all this, Rawr.

...

[Pentaxor]

why I need FF? because I want to receive the full benefits of using a 35mm specialty lenses on a 35mm dslr, not a cropped sensor. moving back and forth and cropping is not even as compromise solution as it will change everything in the image as well.

FF has the potential for a much cleaner image, much detail, higher pixel count that doesn't affect IQ negatively and potential for cropping images which retain and show image detail much better than any existing APS-C dslr (Canon 7D which is 18MP).

4/3 system also can also use the same alibi that APS-C aficionados are using. can we then say why do I need APS-C?

[nosnoop]

4/3 system also can also use the same alibi that APS-C aficionados are using. can we then say why do I need APS-C?

You are absolutely correct, sir.
Olympus and Panasonic users who are perfectly happy with 4/3 would ask why they would need APS-C.... they don't!
In the same token, those happy APS-C users would ask why they would need FF.

[nosnoop]

rawr, yes, you need educating. To begin with, you need to drink a lot more ff kool-aid, ok? Once you've done that, you need to start requesting a ff camera from pentax as the only solution to all the problems in the world. You must also demand that your wide angle lenses become wide angle again, disregarding the existence of the 12-24mm, 14mm, 15mm, 16-50mm, 17-70mm, 18-55mm and 21mm lenses currently in production. And whatever else you forget to do, don't forget to demand the control of dof that ff gives you, and which aps-c is robbing you of. Oh, and a ff pentax should retail for $1,399.

Report back once you understand all this, rawr.
...

+1
lol!

[rawr]

...4/3 system also can also use the same alibi that APS-C aficionados are using. can we then say why do I need APS-C?

Of course, that's true. Ultimately we could end up arguing that no-one needs a bigger sensor than that of a camera phone, so there are limits on how far one would want to take this argument. And no one is arguing the optical characteristics of FF re DOF, let alone stuff like the fact that FF bodies are usually bigger and built to pro levels of quality, which are also desirable attributes in their own right.

But as you step down to 4/3, at least for the moment, you do seem to notice a bigger relative decline in sensor IQ across all of the IQ parameters, not just high ISO sensitivity, eg something like this:


But having said that, there are many APS-C bodies that perform about the level of a 4/3 system like the GF1, so 4/3 performance overlaps APS-C to an extent, in the same way that APS-C performance overlaps FF. (And some FF performance overlaps MF too).

Which once again this shows how sensor performance is influenced by the march of technology as much as the simple relative physical size of the sensor.

And how complex camera buying decisions have become. FF used to be a guarantee of improved IQ across the board, I guess, but I don't see how one can say it is nowadays.

[Pentaxor]

Of course, that's true. Ultimately we could end up arguing that no-one needs a bigger sensor than that of a camera phone, so there are limits on how far one would want to take this argument. And no one is arguing the optical characteristics of FF re DOF, let alone stuff like the fact that FF bodies are usually bigger and built to pro levels of quality, which are also desirable attributes in their own right.

But as you step down to 4/3, at least for the moment, you do seem to notice a bigger relative decline in sensor IQ across all of the IQ parameters, not just high ISO sensitivity, eg something like this:


But having said that, there are many APS-C bodies that perform about the level of a 4/3 system like the GF1, so 4/3 performance overlaps APS-C to an extent, in the same way that APS-C performance overlaps FF. (And some FF performance overlaps MF too).

Which once again this shows how sensor performance is influenced by the march of technology as much as the simple relative physical size of the sensor.

And how complex camera buying decisions have become. FF used to be a guarantee of improved IQ across the board, I guess, but I don't see how one can say it is nowadays.

I understand your argument is more on how technology nowadays affect IQ regardless of sensor size. if you are only after IQ at a certain extent, then this would work out for you. the sensor size however, will be instrumental in giving you more versatility with your images which can affect IQ and the manner of how a shot is taken. in my case, it would be to use certain specialty lenses which I see and feel quite shorthanded or crippled in certain situation and not be able to produce the effect or shot that I'm really after. can I take a great image with other sensor size cameras? YES. Am I able to get the result that I was really after, with or without compromises? NO. was I able to use that certain lens which I intended it to be used? NO.

those are the questions and situations that I have to ask myself before I realized that I sure do missed shooting with a FF.

[Angevinn]

Why is the Nikon D700 missing from the comparison? The FX sensor in the D700 (and it's being updated!) drinks the milkshake of all the other cameras posted. The Sony FullFrame sensor was never a great performer.

There is an old saying, "There is the truth people tell you, then there is the real truth." Olympus was rumored to be showing a large format (APS-C or FullFrame) camera at Photokina. Olympus has been complaining about the lack of profits with the M 4/3 and 4/3 format. This could be a loose threat from Olympus to get Panasonic to open up its wallet to help Olympus in some way. The same with the rumors from Thom Hogan of Sony withdrawing from the FullFrame sensor market. It's not going to happen. Sony is probably floating this rumor to get Nikon (Sony's #1 sensor buyer) to pony up more cash for sensors or help defer development costs in some way.

It really comes down to who writes the checks. I have the money and desire for a FullFrame DSLR so I will purchase one in the future. I shot film cameras for close to 30 years and can't stand the APS-C format. I'm much more comfortable with the 24x36 (FullFrame) format. I shouldn't have to apologize for that or keep defending my interest in the format.

If the FullFrame format is such a narrow slice of the market why was the Nikon D700 such a big success for Nikon? Furthermore, both Canon and Nikon are working on introducing less expensive Full Frame models that will have rumored MSRP's between $1800-$2000. Why would I pay want to pay for a full fledged APS-C camera when a nicely featured FullFrame camera will only be a few hundred dollars more?

The FullFrame format has many positives. I don't feel the need to go int that whole argument though.

Someone posted earlier that people are drinking FullFrame Kool-Aid. Perhaps it's APS-C Kool-Aid they have been drinking.

If Pentax doesn't have a FullFrame camera in 2011 I will be leaving the Pentax camp and purchasing the Nikon D700 replacement which will be released this fall.

There's an old adage in sales & marketing, "Give the customer what they want."
If Pentax isn't offering what I want in a camera I'll move to another camera system.

It's a shame because Pentax makes some great camera bodies and lenses. Pentax has to do something to offer more choices to customers and offer some premium products (where the real profits are). Competing on the cheap hasn't worked out for Pentax. Hopefully Hoya is fixing this, the release of the 645D was a promising start.

[rawr]

..those are the questions and situations that I have to ask myself before I realized that I sure do missed shooting with a FF.

I guess this is exactly the conclusion people should come to about FF. It solves some photographic problems, ergo if you need to solve those problems, get FF. But if you don't have those requirements, FF may not be for you. Horses for courses. FF doesn't automatically open the door to superior IQ.

[rawr]

Why is the Nikon D700 missing from the comparison? The FX sensor in the D700 (and it's being updated!) drinks the milkshake of all the other cameras posted. The Sony FullFrame sensor was never a great performer.

See the previous page. There was a Kx and DXO D700 comparison there

The D700 is of course an excellent box, but only in specific image parameters. Otherwise it's technically in the ball-park of the K-x on dynamic range, colour depth, and even on resolution. Amusing, but true.

[Angevinn]

The Nikon D700 is capable of shooting at ISO 12,800 and delivering useable images. Through Nikon software the D700 can reach ISO 25,600.

The Pentax K-X cannot come anywhere near this performance.

This is the truth.

See the previous page. There was a Kx and DXO D700 comparison there

The D700 is of course an excellent box, but only in specific image parameters. Otherwise it's technically in the ball-park of the K-x on dynamic range, colour depth, and even on resolution. Amusing, but true.