[Rondec]

This is an inspired amount of run-around just to deny recognizing that over 2x the surface area of current gen sensor technology is appreciably better than less than half of it.

I understand the desire for full frame, but I don't really understand the belittling of APS-C. The K5 II/IIs, the D7000 are as good cameras as photographers have had at their disposal up till the last three or four years. The issue for most photographers when it comes to creating good images, is not a lack of a decent sized sensor, it is lack of an eye for light and composition and even an interesting subject. For certain applications (wildlife, macro, even sports) APS-C has no disadvantage as compared to full frame, except in that Canon and Nikon purposefully cripple their APS-C sensored cameras to get pros to purchase full frame bodies.

I hope Pentax does release a full frame camera. I will probably even get one, but i don't pretend that my images will change significantly with regard to quality with one format versus the other.

And to me, the K5IIs looks awfully good and certainly will give the D600 a run for its money.

[mecrox]

Why are you speculating on what someone might say? And how is that relevant to the topic. Who made you the god of camera evaluation to the point where you should come into a thead evaluating the K-5 images. MF is higher resolution than FF. 8x10 film out -resolved them all. None of that is relevant to a discussion of the K-5 IIs images.

Here's what is relevant in my opinion..

Given an FF sensor, the second highest sensor on the planet rated by DxO, for the area covered by the APS-c sensor the K-5 IIs has better IQ for that selected area of the images, than the FF sensor does...

D600 crop on the left - K5 IIs crop on the right. 1:1 crops of full size images. What's your explanation?



What's your explanation. Who cares if you get more resolution, if the IQ isn't as good. IQ is more than resolution. And you could do this same evaluation with possibly every FF camera other than possibly the D800. And I guarantee you the K-5 IIs would do very well in every comparison.

My explanation is that this is the internet where anything is possible. You make a very strong point here but (strictly imho) it would be better if you would supply details like raw vs jpeg, lenses, ISO, etc. Maybe they are already mentioned elsewhere and I haven't noticed, if so apologies. I think it's quite important to know what playing field we are on. For example, some of the test shots showcasing the K5IIs I've seen use settings that aren't all that common in daily photography, e.g. a 100mm manual macro lens set to f11 in one example on another forum whereas a more typical example might be a zoom or DA 40mm set to f5.6. The result here was both sharp and no moire. Revealingly, a different shot using a DFA 77mm at f5.6, a more mainstream setting, on yet another forum is also very sharp but does show moire.

I'm bound to say, looking at the FF thread in the other brands forum on this site, that what leaps out at me from the many shots posted is "that's FF", regardless of whether I like the shot. It's a kind of generic look and it's not just DOF but also detail and, yes, sharpness quite often. I think if you pixel peep or become embroiled in equivalance and the like you can vanish away a distinction that is more apparent in day-to-day shooting which is what interests most of us, I guess. The advantage of FF, if you like, is that it's not APS-C. Usually, though not always, it simply looks different. Whether that matters is up to the individiual.

In any case, the arbiter in the end will be the market. Trying to put up a 16mp sensor and (in much part) three-year-old electronics against a 24mp or 36mp new-generation FF cam is perhaps a rather brave thing to do. It's good, very good indeed by all accounts, but whether good enough only time will tell. The K5IIs is not yet launched here so we'll see.

[ihasa]

And if you need to discuss FF, you need to start your own thread, not hijack this one.

Norm, I agree. This is not the thread to discuss FF vs APSC. FF was brought into the equation by someone saying 'who needs a D600 now?' and from that point on it snowballed. From now on, please divert all FF comments to a more relevant thread.

And please - no more 'I don't give a rats ass about your FF nonsense' and similar fighting talk. This subject is definitely not worth getting so bunched up over. Even if for some reason you find yourself seeing red over someone else's comment, please take a deep breath and attempt to respond with a little more moderation.

[ElJamoquio]

Hey ElJ, you haven't answered my question..

How could it pooissbly happen that in the above posted images the k-5 IIs image is clearly better than the d600 image of the same thing, despite the K-5 image having less resolution and not being FF? I'm really waiting for your explanation... it outlines the whole conmundrum for you FF guys. FF compared to APS-c, same subject, higher FF resolution... lower IQ. Because until you have that figured out, you really have nothing to contribute.



And if you need to discuss FF, you need to start your own thread, not hijack this one.

Please see the above two posts and your own quote.

[illdefined]

Here's what is relevant in my opinion..

Given an FF sensor, the second highest sensor on the planet rated by DxO, for the area covered by the APS-c sensor the K-5 IIs has better IQ for that selected area of the images, than the FF sensor does...

D600 crop on the left - K5 IIs crop on the right. 1:1 crops of full size images. What's your explanation?

What's your explanation. Who cares if you get more resolution, if the IQ isn't as good. IQ is more than resolution. And you could do this same evaluation with possibly every FF camera other than possibly the D800. And I guarantee you the K-5 IIs would do very well in every comparison.

not sure why you're banking your argument on this, like you said, this is just your opinion, and "better IQ" in this comparison is very debatable. the additional resolution of 8 more mp (diagonal stitch pattern in the blue square) on the left is not. downsize the D600's file and process it a little and you'll likely get a very similar result, only without the moire apparent in the K-5IIs file.

these sensors are all based on the same technology (Sony Exmor), there's nothing uniquely "magic" about Pentax's APS-C's implementation, and even if there was (NR on RAW, AA filter removal), what's preventing them from adding it to an FF version of the sensor? there's no sense in getting emotional or philosophical about the fact that the OPTION of getting ~150% more of this great technology we're currently enjoying could only be a good thing.

wonder what the conjured up arguments would be here if there was a D600E. I am personally very glad Pentax recognized the benefit of getting rid of the AA filter with the K-5IIs, but this was still very much a move both reacting to, and following, Nikon's lead.

[rawr]

was still very much a move both reacting to, and following, Nikon's lead.

Kudos to Nikon, of course. But maybe only partly true.

Pentax were probably just as much following their own lead, based on positive user feedback on the 645D. They may have thought - 645D users appreciated the feature, lets do it with the K-5.

There are also, I think, some thriving after-market businesses people can use to have the AA filters removed from their DSLR's. Pentax and Nikon may have thought - why let guys like them take the money? We can do that too.

[rawr]

FF was brought into the equation by someone saying 'who needs a D600 now?'

I think that was me. I should have known better than to lob in a grenade like that. Sorry.

[garyk]

The pixel density of the k-5 ll and k-5 lls compared to a FF d600 is why you see better resolution. Very simple really. No magic there. Using the finest glass available you will always reveal more info recorded on a crop sensor. Except for the D800 which is approaching the crop sensor pixel density. When the FF camera reaches the density of 46mp. equal to a 18 mp. 1.6 crop camera then I will be in for FF. The electronics and processing power is not there yet. But it will be in 5 years. Until then I am buying the new Pentax k-5 lls.
It will be a very good camera? Hopefully..... I still have a bad taste in my mouth with the Pentax K-5.

IMHO all the talk of Pentax going FF is just that talk. If it comes about it will be only because of the whiners. Ricoh knows they cannot and will not have the glass the technology. IMO a very poor business decision.
If they had a fairly good crop sensor pro camera then they would be in the hunt and people would consider changing systems. NOT because of FF.

[ironlionzion]

The pixel density of the k-5 ll and k-5 lls compared to a FF d600 is why you see better resolution. Very simple really. No magic there. Using the finest glass available you will always reveal more info recorded on a crop sensor. Except for the D800 which is approaching the crop sensor pixel density. When the FF camera reaches the density of 46mp. equal to a 18 mp. 1.6 crop camera then I will be in for FF. The electronics and processing power is not there yet. But it will be in 5 years. Until then I am buying the new Pentax k-5 lls.

There must be only fools buying the 645D if you are correct.

[garyk]

There must be only fools buying the 645D if you are correct.

That has nothing to do with the facts. Pixel density and lens resolution will always resolve more detail.
People buy the FF and 645D for field of view. The D800 is getting there now where it is resolving DETAIL of a crop camera with a 1.5 18MP with TWICE the field of view sensor. Why ( pixel density )

What is your point? Pentax just cannot compete at this point in FF my opinion. Canon and Nikon have the edge by miles.
FF will never replace a medium format camera. So in my opinion the 645 is a good tool for those who need it.

[Rondec]

There must be only fools buying the 645D if you are correct.

Medium Format is a completely different animal. Cameras with slow frame rates, poor auto focus, and high resolution. And high price tags that those who need medium format are willing to pay. But the people buying them aren't looking for the same things that the people buying full frame cameras are.

[ironlionzion]

You stated higher pixel density equals better resolution. And that a crop sensor with higher pixel density than FF necessarily equals higher resolution. The 645D has a lower pixel density than the K5. APS-C is essentially a crop of the 645D. So therefore, the 645D has lower resolution than the K5.

and high resolution

yeah, I think people agree that the 645D has a very high resolution. my point exactly.

[ironlionzion]

This is too off topic, my bad. Garyk we can continue this debate on PM if you'd like.

[NVSteve]

It will be a very good camera? Hopefully..... I still have a bad taste in my mouth with the Pentax K-5.

Why is that? I'm just hoping that if I do wind up with the IIs, that the shutter release button never pops off. That would really get my knickers in a twist. It seems that the low light focusing problems will be fixed, and I can't recall any other major complaints, thus the question about your experience with the K-5. You would think that, being aware of numerous returns/reports of certain problems with the K-5, they will have straightened out all the little niggles on the upcoming II and IIs. Having no experience with Pentax whatsoever, I don't know if this is too much of an optimistic assumption on my part or not.

[rawr]

Having no experience with Pentax whatsoever, I don't know if this is too much of an optimistic assumption on my part or not.

Relax. Things will be fine. Pentax have been making cameras for quite a while. The 'classic' K-5 was a good camera and the new K-5's will be great cameras.

For every problem report with any camera, there are many more no-problem experiences that you just never hear about, because who posts on forums etc when there are no problems?