[cali92rs]

Really high ISO? I think most people can tell a difference at 1600 without pixel peeping, which is hit pretty regularly indoors (not even really dark, just dim)

[Kunzite]

Could you please move this discussion to the dedicated FF section? Even if I'm waiting for (news about) a Pentax FF, too many threads are deviating in that direction.
Thank you.

[rawr]

Sigh. Always the sensor size arguments. Disregarding everything else.

If you miss focus, or miss a critical moment (bride and grooms first kiss), or have too much camera shake, or take a poorly composed shot (microphone obscuring the face of the lead singer, with no opportunity to re-shoot), or get the exposure horribly wrong, or simply place yourself in the wrong spot at a venue or sporting event because you didn't plan properly, it doesn't matter whether you have a f4 or f2.8 lens, or shoot a 645D, FF or a micro-4/3. The sensor size debate is like focussing on what size hammer you need to build a whole house.

[ElJamoquio]

Assuming (a) that most lenses are sharpest stopped down one stop, regardless of format and (b) you are not printing 48 inches on a side, you won't notice the difference in formats in the situation where you are shooting with a 70-200 f4 lens on a 5D MK III and a DA *50-135 on a K5 II.

Differences in format will become evident in two situations and I repeat -- printing very large (or really aggressive cropping) or, in really high iso situations.

I think 48 inches on a side is a bit of an exaggeration. If you had said 24 inches I would agree with you. Your list of 'differences in format' also doesn't include the ability to carry less primes, for instance.

[mee]

Always this...

[ElJamoquio]

The sensor size debate is like focussing on what size hammer you need to build a whole house.

Indeed. One of the great reasons to use FF is that nailing the focus is easier.

[normhead]

You'd think there would be one section forum devoted to the APS-c vs FF argument... Surely we could have a section entitled "What should I switch to?" or something like that. Tell us what your problem is as a Pentax shooter, and we'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

There has to be some way to stop every discussion of anything Pentax from turning into a discussion of FF.

It's not complicated, if you get the results you want using a Pentax, you don't need FF. If you need more of something, give MF, FF, 4/3, Q, whatever a look but please stop invading every thread with FF drivel.

[StrasburgBarry]

This whole discussion is Pentax's effort to stir up interest in and sales of a FF format camera. Period.

[Kunzite]

Right when they're preparing to launch a new APS-C flagship?

[mee]

This whole discussion is Pentax's effort to stir up interest in and sales of a FF format camera. Period.

Do you really believe this?

[Rondec]

I think 48 inches on a side is a bit of an exaggeration. If you had said 24 inches I would agree with you. Your list of 'differences in format' also doesn't include the ability to carry less primes, for instance.

I don't know. I have photos that I have printed at 36 inches on the long side that do not show any pixelation on examination. Would a D800 print be noticably different? Maybe, but certainly not at normal viewing distance.

As to number of primes, I normally carry the DA 15 and DA 55 on two cameras when I go out. If I had a full frame, I would carry a 20-ish prime and an 85mm. Not a big difference there, although they would likely be larger than my current lenses.

I will just say that some of the strongest proponents of full frame on the forum don't post many photos. It would be lovely to see some nice full frame D600 versus K5 II comparisons that demonstrate clearly the obvious differences in these formats. My experience is that such demonstrations usually end up being more about the glass than the format.

[RonHendriks1966]

I don't know. I have photos that I have printed at 36 inches on the long side that do not show any pixelation on examination. Would a D800 print be noticably different? Maybe, but certainly not at normal viewing distance.

I just ordered 11 posters sized A1, so that is 33 inch. Pictures made with K-7, K-5 and K-01, so I'm curious how they turn out. It was on offer to print cheaper. Some made at base iso, but also going up to iso6400.

[MarkJerling]

And now, another leaked image, seen at Pentax K-3 another leaked image ? | Camera News at Cameraegg
Bump is there, and every other corresponding item with the first leaked image.
New button visible too.
Different lens with this leaked image too.

Pity, no photo yet of other side or rear!

[ElJamoquio]

I don't know. I have photos that I have printed at 36 inches on the long side that do not show any pixelation on examination. Would a D800 print be noticably different? Maybe, but certainly not at normal viewing distance.

Heck I have a P&S from about 8 years ago printed at 36 inches on a side, it doesn't show any pixelation. It's soft but that's OK for me, for that pic. If I could make it five times as sharp I would though.

As to number of primes, I normally carry the DA 15 and DA 55 on two cameras when I go out. If I had a full frame, I would carry a 20-ish prime and an 85mm. Not a big difference there, although they would likely be larger than my current lenses.

I often carry just two primes, usually either the 15 and the 35 or the 15 and the 40. I still find the quality of, for instance, '30 mm' pics to be lacking.

I will just say that some of the strongest proponents of full frame on the forum don't post many photos.

I'm OK with that. Internet pics are awesome for showing great composition but don't really indicate that being translated to 'the best' prints IME. Itt'll still be a good pic, don't get me wrong.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't know. I have photos that I have printed at 36 inches on the long side that do not show any pixelation on examination. Would a D800 print be noticably different? Maybe, but certainly not at normal viewing distance.

Heck I have a P&S from about 8 years ago printed at 36 inches on a side, it doesn't show any pixelation. It's soft but that's OK for me, for that pic. If I could make it five times as sharp I would though.

As to number of primes, I normally carry the DA 15 and DA 55 on two cameras when I go out. If I had a full frame, I would carry a 20-ish prime and an 85mm. Not a big difference there, although they would likely be larger than my current lenses.

I often carry just two primes, usually either the 15 and the 35 or the 15 and the 40. I still find the quality of, for instance, '30 mm' pics to be lacking.

I will just say that some of the strongest proponents of full frame on the forum don't post many photos.

I'm OK with that. Internet pics are awesome for showing great composition but doesn't indicate they'll print 'great' if you ask me. It'll still be a good pic, don't get me wrong.