[Rondec]

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.





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'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.

But what percentage of folks print anything? If that is the reason to get a full frame camera, then maybe 0.5 percent of photographers would benefit from one. The vast majority of photography today is about facebook, photobucket, flickr and instagram.

[-Linus-]

# Ron Hendriks
Mine from Webprint.nl Oldenzaal where OK, But I used the K5 only on Base ISO.

-Linus-

[ElJamoquio]

But what percentage of folks print anything? If that is the reason to get a full frame camera, then maybe 0.5 percent of photographers would benefit from one. The vast majority of photography today is about facebook, photobucket, flickr and instagram.

Very few people print anything, I agree.

There's advantages in lighter lenses, smaller lenses, less lenses, less heavy lenses, faster lenses, in having a full frame. Maybe none of those apply to someone. Maybe they all do.
There's an advantage in sharper lenses. Maybe someone cares, maybe they don't.
There's an advantage in low light SNR, if you're willing to accept or desire a smaller DOF. Maybe that applies. Maybe it doesn't.
There's an effective advantage in viewfinder size and AF capability in FF. Maybe that applies. Maybe it doesn't.


The vast majority of photography today isn't with a 'camera'. Of course I'm targetting my arguments to not only photographers who are 'enthusiastic enough' to lug around a DSLR, but who are also enthusiastic enough to spend a bunch of time on an internet forum dedicated to one particular brand of cameras.

[Rondec]

Very few people print anything, I agree.

There's advantages in lighter lenses, smaller lenses, less lenses, less heavy lenses, faster lenses, in having a full frame. Maybe none of those apply to someone. Maybe they all do.
There's an advantage in sharper lenses. Maybe someone cares, maybe they don't.
There's an advantage in low light SNR, if you're willing to accept or desire a smaller DOF. Maybe that applies. Maybe it doesn't.
There's an effective advantage in viewfinder size and AF capability in FF. Maybe that applies. Maybe it doesn't.


The vast majority of photography today isn't with a 'camera'. Of course I'm targetting my arguments to not only photographers who are 'enthusiastic enough' to lug around a DSLR, but who are also enthusiastic enough to spend a bunch of time on an internet forum dedicated to one particular brand of cameras.

I guess I don't even really see the smaller lenses on full frame, if you are talking equivalent lenses. A 60mm f4 lens on a D800 is going to be smaller than a 40mm f2.8 lens on the K5, the same with a 135mm f3.5 lens on a full frame versus a 70mm f2.4? Equivalent lenses are at a minimum equivalent in size on one format versus the other. A 50-135 f2.8 should be almost exactly the same size as a 70-200 f4 (if there is no IS involved) and it is.

[Wired]

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.

Because it's a PENTAX forum. I know for myself I try not to invade the PENTAX forum with photos from my NIKON camera, I invade with my PENTAX photos. There is a thread in the non-PEntax make section that showcases FF Nikon./Canon.


but because you asked:









one was shot with D800 one with Pentax K5

If you goto Flickr you can actually see which one produced which photo.

For the record, I don't think either camera trumps the other one. What I do know is that I enjoy working with the D800 files more, and I also enjoy doing portraiture and people with the D800 more. I'm trying to get my feet wet by being a second shooter with a local pro and I shoot the D800 primarily with him on hired shoots, unfortunately he gets all the images I produce and I can't use them in my flickr page. But for that setting the D800 and FF is the way to roll.

But it's not even the FF element that makes the D800 more enjoyable to use than my K5 for my hired work. It's the abilities of the camera.

Now if the K3 matches some of the abilities I use, mostly flash system and AF system, then maybe the D800 will get left at home more often.



P.S. I print almost everything.

[monochrome]

Now if the K3 matches some of the abilities I use, mostly flash system and AF system, then maybe the D800 will get left at home more often.

IMHO this is a valid argument against a Pentax body for those applications where these are necessary attributes. We'll see if the rumors are true next week.

[Winder]

I shoot the D800 primarily with him on hired shoots, unfortunately he gets all the images I produce and I can't use them in my flickr page.

Most professionals (that I know) will allow you to use work you created for your personal portfolio, just not for commercial sale. If you have older work that you have done with him (Work that he has already sold to his customer) then he should have no issue with you taking the RAW files that you shot and processing them in your style and adding them to your portfolio.

[StrasburgBarry]

Do you really believe this?

There are many good, technical things being discussed here, but yes, if you don't believe that Pentax wants to stir up interest in and sell FF, K-3 cameras, you're pretty naive.

[mee]

There are many good, technical things being discussed here, but yes, if you don't believe that Pentax wants to stir up interest in and sell FF, K-3 cameras, you're pretty naive.

That isn't what you said initially.


Initially, you said:

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

Which means:

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

and not

if you don't believe that Pentax wants to stir up interest in and sell FF, K-3 cameras, you're pretty naive.

Of course they want interest in their next product (aka 'K-3'). However, implying they are the root of the entire discussion of Full Frame format cameras here at the Pentax Forums seem a touch ridiculous and paranoid. At this point it is looking as if this camera is APS-C regardless.



The whole FF debacle here is similar to wanting a cookie. Yes, a cookie.

Mom said no cookies before dinner.

Now you weren't, at the time, thinking of a cookie. You were busy playing cars in the dirt or annoying your siblings. But you overheard her sternly saying, 'NO COOKIES before dinner!' through the open kitchen windows.

Now you are starving for a cookie.

[Qwntm]

Now if the K3 matches some of the abilities I use, mostly flash system and AF system, then maybe the D800 will get left at home more often.

Yep. But the K-5IIs AF is much better than the K-5 AF in low light. The Pentax TTL flash however, is abysmal by any standard. Last wedding we shot the Metz 58 AF-2 on the "A" setting and it worked fine. Which is a full indictment of Petax's TTL right there. I have not bought another 58 AF-2 because we don't do that many weddings anymore and the Vivitar 285's work almost as well (better than?) Pentax's TTL...

The K-3 could change all that. What fun!

[Ash]

We're yet to see whether the FGZ II series flashes perform their P-TTL functions better than their predecessors. It may be impressive to see if these flashes do well on existing Pentax dSLRs.

[Wired]

Yep. But the K-5IIs AF is much better than the K-5 AF in low light. The Pentax TTL flash however, is abysmal by any standard. Last wedding we shot the Metz 58 AF-2 on the "A" setting and it worked fine. Which is a full indictment of Petax's TTL right there. I have not bought another 58 AF-2 because we don't do that many weddings anymore and the Vivitar 285's work almost as well (better than?) Pentax's TTL...

The K-3 could change all that. What fun!

one reason why I was contemplating the iis for a while. I was gonna buy one in the new year if the "K3" didn't come out, but now that its almost here the plan is changing.

[ElJamoquio]

I guess I don't even really see the smaller lenses on full frame, if you are talking equivalent lenses. A 60mm f4 lens on a D800 is going to be smaller than a 40mm f2.8 lens on the K5, the same with a 135mm f3.5 lens on a full frame versus a 70mm f2.4? Equivalent lenses are at a minimum equivalent in size on one format versus the other. A 50-135 f2.8 should be almost exactly the same size as a 70-200 f4 (if there is no IS involved) and it is.

It's not much, I've done several comparisons but it's usually there. I agree it's close to irrelevant, but it's definitely not bigger, and FWIW, the equivalent of F/2.8 is F/4.5, which makes a difference - the 70-200 F/4 is, say, Canon/Canon, slightly smaller, slightly lighter, slightly faster, much more sharp, and can go to '300' mm with cropping. Small advantages? Sure, but they add up.

[Kunzite]

There are many good, technical things being discussed here, but yes, if you don't believe that Pentax wants to stir up interest in and sell FF, K-3 cameras, you're pretty naive.

Wrong. Pentax currently has no interest in selling FF, because they have no FF camera, and won't have any this year.
Unless you think they want to make us buy Canon and Nikon FF cameras...

[StrasburgBarry]

That isn't what you said initially.


Initially, you said:


Which means:


and not



Of course they want interest in their next product (aka 'K-3'). However, implying they are the root of the entire discussion of Full Frame format cameras here at the Pentax Forums seem a touch ridiculous and paranoid. At this point it is looking as if this camera is APS-C regardless.



The whole FF debacle here is similar to wanting a cookie. Yes, a cookie.

Mom said no cookies before dinner.

Now you weren't, at the time, thinking of a cookie. You were busy playing cars in the dirt or annoying your siblings. But you overheard her sternly saying, 'NO COOKIES before dinner!' through the open kitchen windows.

Now you are starving for a cookie.

Thanks for boiling this all down to being "ridiculous and paranoid," and wanting a cookie. Childish comments are always appreciated. This IS a Pentax forum AND their objective IS to sell Pentax cameras. I never said or implied there was anything wrong with that. Only that THAT IS their objective. Once again, anyone who doesn't believe that IS being naive.