Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-22-2013, 08:13 AM   #181
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,000
IIUC, the real advantage of a FF camera over a top-end APSc camera is limited to the UWA boundary of an APSc for a given UWA lens, and the DoF boundary of an APSc for a given very fast lens.

If I rarely or never need to shoot outside the APSc boundaries, all other things being equal, I really don't need a FF camera to produce a similar or even an identical print.

02-22-2013, 08:17 AM   #182
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,644
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
IIUC, the real advantage of a FF camera over a top-end APSc camera is limited to the UWA boundary of an APSc for a given UWA lens, and the DoF boundary of an APSc for a given very fast lens.

If I rarely or never need to shoot outside the APSc boundaries, all other things being equal, I really don't need a FF camera to produce a similar or even an identical print.
The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. I don't expect I'll ever want anything but APS-C as my main camera, but a compact FF MILC would be interesting for casual use.
02-22-2013, 08:34 AM   #183
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L is bigger than the Tamron 16-50mm f/2.8 DX format lens - this is a fact.
A full-frame 16-35 f/2.8 on canon will make the same pictures as a 10mm-22mm F/1.9 or so on APS-C.
02-22-2013, 08:35 AM   #184
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,880
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
IIUC, the real advantage of a FF camera over a top-end APSc camera is limited to the UWA boundary of an APSc for a given UWA lens, and the DoF boundary of an APSc for a given very fast lens.

If I rarely or never need to shoot outside the APSc boundaries, all other things being equal, I really don't need a FF camera to produce a similar or even an identical print.
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. I don't expect I'll ever want anything but APS-C as my main camera, but a compact FF MILC would be interesting for casual use.
Good discussion, thanks, I am not convince that FF will take over the APS-C. It may sound more significant to those who know very little about the pro-and-cons. Even if the FF becomes a main stream dslr or milc, I still want to keep the APS-C. My last on-stage shooting event convinced me more that I don't need a FF equivalent to get the job done better. I used my k-5 and DA* 50-135mm combo and I got more than satisfactory results - I don't want to lug around a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 with a FF body. Also, the argument about the ability to crop with FF sensor is not really an attractive point. However, WA and UWA shots will definitely be an advantage with the FF camera.

02-22-2013, 08:37 AM   #185
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise.
That's fine. If you don't care about the shallower depth of field or desire shallower depth of field then you're all set with FF.
02-22-2013, 08:41 AM   #186
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by aleonx3 Quote
I don't want to lug around a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 with a FF body.
IIRC Canon's 24-105 F/4 (on FF) is sharper, slightly faster, slightly wider, slightly cheaper, and much longer than the 17-50 F/2.8.

I could be off on a couple of stats but, from a lens perspective, it was no contest in my mind. Camera bodies historically have been heavier on the FF side, but the penalty doesn't have to be much... the 6D/D600 are changing that.

I don't feel like looking up the Canon 70-200 f/4 and comparing it to the slower, slightly less wide, slightly longer pentax 50-135. The differences might be less than you think... often the FF lens is lighter.
02-22-2013, 09:31 AM   #187
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
That's fine. If you don't care about the shallower depth of field or desire shallower depth of field then you're all set with FF.
The differences with regard to depth of field are primarily noticed on the wide end. There isn't really an APS-C equivalent of something like the FA 31 limited on full frame. That said, I don't really use shallow depth of field with wide angles. For most landscape photographers, the goal is to having things in focus, not blurred out.
02-22-2013, 09:39 AM   #188
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The differences with regard to depth of field are primarily noticed on the wide end. There isn't really an APS-C equivalent of something like the FA 31 limited on full frame. That said, I don't really use shallow depth of field with wide angles. For most landscape photographers, the goal is to having things in focus, not blurred out.
Let's say I'm doing a 31 limited on full frame, say, a late sunset. I don't want any noise, so I'm shooting it wide open.
Hyperfocal is 60 something feet. Things are in 'acceptable focus' from 30 feet to infinity.


My friend is using a 21mm f/3.2 on APS-C. Hyperfocal is 24 feet. Everything is in 'acceptable focus' from 12 feet to infinity.

The APS-C/21mm has more things in focus but also has roughly 3 stops worse noise (or slower shutter duration), and only 65% of the sharpness (assuming both lenses are ideal, or at least equivalently flawed).

A lot of the time... maybe even MOST of the time, the landscapes I'm taking a pictures of are WAY past 50 feet away from me. The other times, I can go to F/5 on my FF, still have 1.5x better sharpness and lose nothing in DOF or SNR.


Last edited by ElJamoquio; 02-22-2013 at 10:16 AM.
02-22-2013, 10:02 AM   #189
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Niagara
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 792
QuoteOriginally posted by WillWeaverRVA Quote
They have the K-3 and K-3s listed in April. Don't tell me they ran with the silly April Fools' joke too.

Of course, if it's true then I'll be telling Pentax to shut up and take my money.

Also, it makes me wonder if they'll make a K-300 to replace the K-r...
who are "they"
02-22-2013, 10:19 AM   #190
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The only real FF attraction for me is one stop less noise. I don't expect I'll ever want anything but APS-C as my main camera, but a compact FF MILC would be interesting for casual use.
+1

A very compact MILC. Lots smaller then the 6D. Look how close in size the FF Canon 6D is to the APSC-C Pentax K5: Compare camera dimensions side by side

If it could also be more affordable, it would be a giant success.
02-22-2013, 10:22 AM   #191
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,840
Note to Pentax: people would want a MILC only if it's cheaper, preferably below production cost
02-22-2013, 10:49 AM   #192
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,644
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
A lot of the time... maybe even MOST of the time, the landscapes I'm taking a pictures of are WAY past 50 feet away from me. The other times, I can go to F/5 on my FF, still have 1.5x better sharpness and lose nothing in DOF or SNR.
Sounds like you need a tripod.
02-22-2013, 10:52 AM   #193
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Note to Pentax: people would want a MILC only if it's cheaper, preferably below production cost
From what do you draw that conclusion? I think anyone would understand that a lower tier MILC is to be priced accordingly, and a pro level MILC accordingly.
02-22-2013, 11:18 AM   #194
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Let's say I'm doing a 31 limited on full frame, say, a late sunset. I don't want any noise, so I'm shooting it wide open.
Hyperfocal is 60 something feet. Things are in 'acceptable focus' from 30 feet to infinity.


My friend is using a 21mm f/3.2 on APS-C. Hyperfocal is 24 feet. Everything is in 'acceptable focus' from 12 feet to infinity.

The APS-C/21mm has more things in focus but also has roughly 3 stops worse noise (or slower shutter duration), and only 65% of the sharpness (assuming both lenses are ideal, or at least equivalently flawed).

A lot of the time... maybe even MOST of the time, the landscapes I'm taking a pictures of are WAY past 50 feet away from me. The other times, I can go to F/5 on my FF, still have 1.5x better sharpness and lose nothing in DOF or SNR.
As Dan says, you need a tripod. I shoot at iso 80 when shooting landscapes as much as possible, primarily due to the significantly better dynamic range you get there. In addition, I am usually stopped down at f8 to f11 and prefer to have something relatively close in foreground that I can focus on, while keeping background sharp. An FA 31 at f1.8 on full frame is just not going to cut it for for most landscape photography.
02-22-2013, 12:12 PM   #195
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 809
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
+1

A very compact MILC. Lots smaller then the 6D. Look how close in size the FF Canon 6D is to the APSC-C Pentax K5: Compare camera dimensions side by side

If it could also be more affordable, it would be a giant success.
Recently I shot nearly 200 Photos with the Canon 6D / L-Glass f4/24-105 at a sports event in a sports hall. The 6D worked great and for me the ergonomics were ok. Size and weight are not that different compared with the K5. To me the image quality of the 6D seems to be similar the K5's (I always develop jpegs from raw). The reason I would like to have a FF camera:

- big bright view finder (pentaprism based - I shoot a lot of macro photos)
- image quality above ISO 3200
- wide and ultra wide photography

So I hope Pentax will offer a FF camera within two or three years. But before I would like to see a great sharp fast FF WR alround zoom lens - something like f2.8/16-85 - with high resolution from the center to the edges over the hole zoom range, no PF, no distorsion and with high build quality at a not too high price tag. This would fit for both: my K5 and a Pentax FF camera in the future

acoufap
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax cameras, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Minikina 2013 vsl 01/02.06.2013 in Wiesbaden veraikon General Talk 9 05-27-2013 10:37 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #251 27 Jan 2013 through 10 Feb 2013 Dr Orloff Weekly Photo Challenges 54 02-10-2013 11:59 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #250 20 Jan 2013 through 3 Feb 2013 Douge Weekly Photo Challenges 43 02-03-2013 09:45 PM
PENTAX Introduces New K-5 II & K-5 IIs DSLR Cameras Versatile cameras feature newly d Adam Homepage & Official Pentax News 18 09-13-2012 07:14 AM
NEW Pentax Lens Roadmap 2012/2013 oddesy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 331 04-07-2012 02:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top