[Class A]

If not for the solemnity of the occasion, I would have been tempted to place a small original next to the portrait with a little placard saying, "Pentax did this!"

I think the Pentax engineers would be the first to give almost all credit to SONY that designed and produced the sensor.

The main difference between the K-7 and the K-5 is the SONY sensor. And what a difference it is.

[Kunzite]

Just like almost all the credit was given to Fuji, Kodak etc, in the film's days? Except that no one was able to get an image without a camera

[bossa]

'To be fair'?

To be fair if I or someone else wants a 20x30" print I'll print it out in 20x30. No one is going to pay more for a pic just because I handicapped myself with APS-C.

That has nothing to do with the original issue.

Format has an effect on outocomes but cannot be used to compare optics.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I follow the FF/APS-C debate with great interest. If I'm honest, there is very little that FF can do for me that APS-C (or possibly mft, though I've never tried it) can't. So, why did I buy a D800? Simply because it has 36 million pixels, which gives incredible detail for landscape photography (I can't afford the 645D). But I hate carrying the darn thing around. It's not that FF lenses can't be small and light: Pentax has proven that. It's just that Nikon don't make them that way.

I realise others may need the better high ISO performance that you can get from current FF cameras (I don't), or shallower depth of field. On that subject, I feel a lot of nonsense is talked about wafer-thin DOF. Mostly, it's a disadvantage for my type of photography. How many good photographs would have been great if only the DOF was a few millimetres shallower? Wasn't it Peter Adams who said "a great photograph is about depth of feeling, not depth of field"? Oh, and contrary to what some say, the same lens on FF and APS-C does not give exactly the same DOF at the same subject distance, because the APS-C image is magnified more for the same size print, so the circles of confusion are larger, ergo DOF is a little shallower. The difference really comes from either using a wider angle lens to get the same field of view as the FF, or moving further away to preserve the subject size.

Anyway, rant over, and back to thread. I'm very excited about the prospect of the new K-3 (if it arrives and if the specs are correct). Rather than a slight improvement on the already excellent K-5 series, it seems to offer improvements in many areas - definition, focus speed/accuracy, flash and a lot of other things. I shall be buying one!

[snake]

I follow the FF/APS-C debate with great interest. If I'm honest, there is very little that FF can do for me that APS-C (or possibly mft, though I've never tried it) can't. So, why did I buy a D800? Simply because it has 36 million pixels, which gives incredible detail for landscape photography (I can't afford the 645D). But I hate carrying the darn thing around. It's not that FF lenses can't be small and light: Pentax has proven that. It's just that Nikon don't make them that way.

I realise others may need the better high ISO performance that you can get from current FF cameras (I don't), or shallower depth of field. On that subject, I feel a lot of nonsense is talked about wafer-thin DOF. Mostly, it's a disadvantage for my type of photography. How many good photographs would have been great if only the DOF was a few millimetres shallower? Wasn't it Peter Adams who said "a great photograph is about depth of feeling, not depth of field"? Oh, and contrary to what some say, the same lens on FF and APS-C does not give exactly the same DOF at the same subject distance, because the APS-C image is magnified more for the same size print, so the circles of confusion are larger, ergo DOF is a little shallower. The difference really comes from either using a wider angle lens to get the same field of view as the FF, or moving further away to preserve the subject size.

Anyway, rant over, and back to thread. I'm very excited about the prospect of the new K-3 (if it arrives and if the specs are correct). Rather than a slight improvement on the already excellent K-5 series, it seems to offer improvements in many areas - definition, focus speed/accuracy, flash and a lot of other things. I shall be buying one!

This also neglects the fact that the only other way for Pentax to get fast wider angles, including a fast 35, which every other company has and companies like Fuji and Sony have been capitalizing on with their fixed lens cams, is to go FF. We've just about lost all hope that Pentax will make a fast 24 for APSc, so the only other alternative is FF, so we can use our FA31, 35, or Sigma's 35 for that purpose.

[deus ursus]

yeah, good point. isn't there an faq or something already?

Or an FDT - Frequently Discussed Topics?

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

This also neglects the fact that the only other way for Pentax to get fast wider angles, including a fast 35, which every other company has and companies like Fuji and Sony have been capitalizing on with their fixed lens cams, is to go FF. We've just about lost all hope that Pentax will make a fast 24 for APSc, so the only other alternative is FF, so we can use our FA31, 35, or Sigma's 35 for that purpose.

I'm wondering how my post neglected fast wide angles, as it wasn't about them. But, if "every other company" has fast wide-angles, what is stopping Pentax making them? I'm sure it's possible to make fast APS-C wide-angle primes, though it may not be easy or cheap. I have no idea, of course, being pretty ignorant on optical design, but perhaps Pentax's focus (no pun intended) on small and light has something to do with it. In any case, they do make a 16-50 f2.8 which covers the 24 mm equivalent focal length in FF terms. I do understand where you're coming from, but I really don't need a fast wide angle (by fast, I am assuming you mean f1.4 or f1.8), I just up the ISO or lengthen the shutter speed and use a tripod. Your needs may differ. But there is one thing we definitely agree on: I, too, want to use my 31mm Limited as a wide-angle, even though it makes a stunning "normal" lens on APS-C. I want Pentax to produce a FF as much as anyone on this forum (I just need a reason to dump my Nikon gear), but I will be happy if the predicted K-3 is APS-C and is as good as it seems.

[starbase218]

Oh, and contrary to what some say, the same lens on FF and APS-C does not give exactly the same DOF at the same subject distance, because the APS-C image is magnified more for the same size print, so the circles of confusion are larger, ergo DOF is a little shallower. The difference really comes from either using a wider angle lens to get the same field of view as the FF, or moving further away to preserve the subject size.

True if you blow up an APS-C image to the same size as a fullframe image. But this also assumes the megapixel count is the same, which it may not be, in which case a) you may not want to blow up the APS-C image that far, and b) if you do, the pixels are not small enough to actually show the difference in circle of confusion (e.g. you would see pixelation, not DOF). Also, if the megapixel count is the same, it assumes the lens itself is capable of outresolving the APS-C sensor with its smaller pixels. So this demands a lot more from the lens.

[nanok]

True if you blow up an APS-C image to the same size as a fullframe image. But this also assumes the megapixel count is the same, which it may not be, in which case a) you may not want to blow up the APS-C image that far, and b) if you do, the pixels are not small enough to actually show the difference in circle of confusion (e.g. you would see pixelation, not DOF). Also, if the megapixel count is the same, it assumes the lens itself is capable of outresolving the APS-C sensor with its smaller pixels. So this demands a lot more from the lens.

if you are not assuming you will print the entire frame (full frame, sic), from both the aps-c and the 35mm sensor at the same final size, discussing depth of field is meaningless. if you don't settle on some reference output (usualy described by circle of confusion, which is the "ellegant term" to describe something like "printing at the same reference size, without cropping, looking at the result from the same reference distance with the same pair of reference eyes in the same light"), depth of field is meaningless (read: it does _not_ exist). Depth of field is an aproximation (an expression of what we cannot see/distinguish), strictly speaking, there is no depth of field, and the focus point is only one.

btw, megapixel count has nothing to do with how big you print the picture, that seems to be a common misconception (it can help, but it doesn't dictate it); hint: have you ever seen a billboard print (those huge highway ones) from up close? what do you think it will look like seen from 2-3m (4-6 feet)?

[StrasburgBarry]

Field of view, focal length, depth of field and f-stop have been discussed into the ground. The theory and exact science to explain it are indisputable BUT there is also the practical side. The fact of the matter is, almost no one pays any attention to the actual focal length they're at when using an auto-focus, auto-exposure coupled zoom lens. They're looking at nothing more than image size in the viewfinder, which translates to angle of view. All other things being equal, the same image at the same f-stop when comparing two photographers, one using FF, the other APS-C will provide less effective depth of field for the FF. When the FF photographer and the APS-C photographer are using different focal lengths to achieve the same effective photo, the FF photographer WILL achieve less effective depth of field at the same f-stop.This is the same reason the a 4 X 5 camera negative appears to give you far less depth of field than 35mm. At the same f-stop you are using a longer focal length lens to achieve the same angle of view as 35mm.

No one even knows what kind of price Ricoh/Pentax will be asking for this supposed, hypothetical K-3. My point was and still is, is it practically and financially feasible for everyone to jump to FF.

Strasburgbarry

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

No one even knows what kind of price Ricoh/Pentax will be asking for this supposed, hypothetical K-3. My point was and still is, is it practically and financially feasible for everyone to jump to FF.

Sure it is.......

I rest my case (and my back)

[snake]

Sure it is.......

I rest my case (and my back)

A fast, 85mm FF lens vs. a wide angle, slow and heck APS-c dedicated lens with no drive mechanism to drive the point home, eh?

[Sleepy]

The K3 isn't looks like the pictures. It's a little bigger, and heavier than the K5.
The body will be the same as the FF Pentax in 2014.
The k3 grip is not the same as K7-K5 grip.
The new AF is incredibly better than K5.
Double Sd slot, and many more improvements.
Less than two weeks......

I am wondering if Pentax would mention anything about the 2014 FF Pentax camera in the announcement two weeks later.
I don't know the reason, but I always believe what you said about Pentax's rumors.
If you know more things (which are sharable) about Pentax FF, please let us know.
Thanks a million!

[redrockcoulee]

Field of view, focal length, depth of field and f-stop have been discussed into the ground. The theory and exact science to explain it are indisputable BUT there is also the practical side. The fact of the matter is, almost no one pays any attention to the actual focal length they're at when using an auto-focus, auto-exposure coupled zoom lens. They're looking at nothing more than image size in the viewfinder, which translates to angle of view. All other things being equal, the same image at the same f-stop when comparing two photographers, one using FF, the other APS-C will provide less effective depth of field for the FF. When the FF photographer and the APS-C photographer are using different focal lengths to achieve the same effective photo, they WILL achieve less effective depth of field at the same f-stop.This is the same reason the a 4 X 5 camera negative appears to give you far less depth of field than 35mm. At the same f-stop you are using a longer focal length lens to achieve the same angle of view as 35mm.

No one even knows what kind of price Ricoh/Pentax will be asking for this supposed, hypothetical K-3. My point was and still is, is it practically and financially feasible for everyone to jump to FF.

Strasburgbarry

Most, but not all large format photographers use their lens and camera movements to increase not decrease depth of field. My wife uses almost only her 16-45 and 10-20 lenses so moving to FF means either she loses the FF advantage or she needs to buy new lenses and that is a waste of money which we may or may not have. She has been waiting for 20 years for new kitchen cabinets as the 100 year old ones are showing their age. When she did need to make large prints (60 by 80 inch) she borrowed a FF D3 with a 14-24 lens and a 30 year old medium format film camera whoses images were the only ones she used. So medium format film is practical and financially feasible for everyone to go to except for John who would not have room in his motorcycle bag for a Fuji GX680

My point is so many feel that their desire for large prints or shallow depth of field images is universal and it is not. I love that my K-r is so small especially after using D1X, D2X and D200 cameras however others think the K5 is too small. Camera size preference is also not universal. Many talk about the need to print large however I normally print my MF images onto 8X10 paper, not because that is as large as the quality will go or that it is the largest my equipment will cover as neither of those is true but because I like to view them in my hands as a portfolio. I have actually made larger images from my cropped sensor images than from my 4X5 only due to a desire for a certain image to be large. The need or desire to print large is also not universal.

My point is that all this FF or more megapixel arguements are always based on "if I want or need something then everyone wants or needs the same thing". Shallow depth of field often looks gimmickey I understand that I might not be in the majority for what my wants or needs are but I do not think that most of the arguements for or against are anything other than people extrapolating thier own preferences to the rest of us.

[northcoastgreg]

My point was and still is, is it practically and financially feasible for everyone to jump to FF.

It's neither practically or financially feasible for me. It's not just the body (although that's a big expense in itself), it's the glass, it's the computing infrastructure, it's the cost of big prints (which would be the only justification I could have for FF, as the low noise and DOF control of FF would be largely useless for me). APS-C is the more economical choice. Things that are less expensive tend not to be "equivalent" to things that cost more, so any talk of "equivalence" misses the point. All that equivalence establishes is that DOF control at wide and normal focal lengths is expensive, regardless of the format. If you don't need that DOF control, there's no reason to pay the big bucks for it. And if you can't afford it in any case, there are work arounds for those who are bit more flexible-minded.

I rest my case (and my back)

I did not realize that the D800 was that much bigger than the K-5. I've sometimes wondered if I the necessary funds, whether that D800, which is terrific landscape camera, would tempt me. But seeing the size of that thing compared to the K-5, I think not. Imagine if Pentax could make an FF DSLR not much bigger than the K-5. Surely that would awaken at least a few Canikon FF users from their dogmatic slumbers!