Originally posted by northcoastgreg That's true, and the D600 is an important step in getting FF cameras to a more reasonable size. However, $2,100 is still a lot of money for a camera, particularly when very capable APS-C and m43 cameras can be bought for a third to a quarter that price.
Indeed.
Originally posted by northcoastgreg I find this equivalency argument to be specious on a number of levels. Most people do not think of equivalency in terms of DOF, but only in FOV and aperture. For most photographers, the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is "equivalent" to the Canikon 24-70/2.8s, even though there's more than two stops difference in DOF.
'Most people' are wrong.
Originally posted by northcoastgreg Furthermore, even when lenses are "equivalent" in DOF and FOV, this does not mean they're equivalent in quality. The Nikon 24-85 may be (roughly) equivalent to the DA* 16-50/2.8, but are these lenses really "equivalent" in terms of the images they produce?
The bokeh, contrast, etc., depend on the lens design. In terms of resolution (not everything by any means), the D600 will be roughly 1.5x better. I'd hope that Nikon trade off some of that 'extra' resolution to make sure the other lens characteristics are better, but I can't say. I just hope Pentax gets the tradeoff correct, and I'm confident they will, because they rarely seem to go after test-chart wins.
For the record I'm not that enamored with the DA* 16-50, so you'd get further with me by arguing with a different lens.
Originally posted by northcoastgreg But even if they were equivalent, so what? Why would anyone move to FF for equivalency? Isn't FF supposed to be "better"? Isn't that the whole point of FF, the better IQ? I wouldn't buy a $2,000+ camera only to skimp on the glass.
Neither would I. But at some point it becomes cheaper, for a given IQ, to go FF. Right now it seems like that kit price is ~$3k.
Let's say you want a portrait camera. Add in some lens stuff from above... you're far better off, IMO, to go with the D600+85mm f/1.8 than the K-5 II + DA* 55. And I even like the DA* 55.
Cost more? Sure. Better system? Nikon.
Originally posted by northcoastgreg I don't do narrow DOF stuff at normal or wide angle FOVs, so the advantage that FF has in that respect is irrelevant to me (as it is to many other photographers). So the only advantage of FF for me is the added resolution.
And the fact is that FF lenses at f/4 are cheaper and lighter than APS-C at f/2.8. You could argue that the F/4 lenses are few and far between, and you're correct. So maybe now isn't the best time for you. But for Pentax, with the knowledge that FF sensors and presumably cameras are becoming cheaper, should seize upon this trend and offer something for a couple of different price ranges.
Originally posted by northcoastgreg However I'm already getting stunning resolution at 18 x 12 print sizes from my K-5. At 18 x 12, you wouldn't be able to visually perceive the difference in resolution between the K-5 and any camera with any camera with a larger sensor and more MP.
I'm probably not as good a photographer as you, then, but I can tell the difference between my stiched-pics and my non-stiched pics, even at 18x12.
Originally posted by northcoastgreg Larger sensors tend to lead to larger glass;
That's a fundamental disagreement, that I don't think we'll agree on. In the 'normal' range of glass (say 24-200), APS-C equivalent glass is larger. I've had this argument about five times with people, every time I go look up the lenses and list them down, so I should probably make a personal-sticky - but I encourage you to look for *equivalent* glass that is smaller and lighter with APS-C.
Originally posted by northcoastgreg So attempts to argue that FF doesn't necessarily cost more than APS-C are misleading, particularly for those of us who are not true believers in the religion of narrow DOF.
Narrower DOF is always more expensive. The only question I find relevant is, is it more or less expensive than the same level of narrow-DOF on APS-C?