[krebsy75]

It may be interesting to skim through this thread 3 years from now.

Then again, maybe not.

[PentaxMom Felua]

It's quite simple, there are those willing to carry heavier glass, heavier systems for one extra stop of DoF, and those that don't think it's worth it. Conflicting opinions apparently. But neither side is going to change because of the values of the others, nor should they. Peace will be obtained, when folks stop pimping their photographic preferences as if there are some "facts" that will alter others perceptions of the issue. Facts have nothing to do with it. it's personal preference. It's all about respecting other people's choices.

The obnoxious pimping of one system focusing on it's advantages and ignoring it's disadvantages is by nature confrontational. And what we have here with a bunch of FF proponents (and 4/3 proponents, and NEX proponents etc. etc. ) is the inability to process the fact that many people here, have experience with both systems, and 8x10 view and medium format, and 110 and 6x6 and practically every other type of camera, who will tell you the difference between FF and APS-c in the grand things is relatively insignificant, as is the difference between 4/3 and APS-c. Like almost every other aspect of photography, you need to skip a step for meaningful difference. But that's just my take.

Some folks have a finer sense of "difference". And there's nothing wrong with that, until they assume that others need their guidance on the issue, are somehow less informed than themselves, and start preaching a doctrine to the crowd.

There is nothing wrong with anyone, who decides to shoot only with a Q, 4/3, APS-c , FF and MF or 4x5 scanning back..or any combination there of. It is quite possible for anyone to know everything there is to know about photography and intelligently choose any one of those options, to all of them, and any combination thereof. It's is not up to other to criticize their choice or point out it's limitations.

Criticizing the limitations of others choices is not a sign of intelligence. Believe it or not, there are a great number of us who completely understand the limitations of APS-c, and still choose to use it 90% of the time. I have 6x6 , 645 and 35mm film cameras at my disposal, and access to a very good scanner. We don't need lectures on the benefits of FF. In front of a class, I'd be happy to give lectures on the benefits of FF, and every other system on the planet. It's important that learning photographers understand and explore the options. So, having some impertinent know it all come on hear and constantly harp on the advantages of one system or the other like they are the be all and end all of knowledge about photography is truly annoying.

There is one point in the development of photographers, when they discover for themselves that system that is best for their style. And they may even start to work with that system almost exclusively. I don't mean to temper anyone's enthusiasm. Finding your system is a wonderful thing. But there's no reason to assume that the system that's right for you is right for everybody. And posting pictures and quoting selected facts that support your choice isn't necessary. They will always be lacking for everyone aware of all the facts. Emphasizing some facts, just means you don't value others.

Until you can take joy in your choice while at the same time respecting the choices of others, your knowledge is incomplete, and emotionally, you're immature and confrontational. Supporting one format, doesn't mean you're smarter than anyone else. it just means you've figured out what's good for you. And personally, I think a lot of the push back against formats that aren't your favourite, is the insecurity you have about the choice you're made. Trying to stamp out the niggling little doubts about the absolute utility of one system or another, by converting others to the system, instead of examining your own work and choices.

As a former teacher, I cannot imagine launching into the kind of one sided diatribe favouring one format or another, you see here all the time. When I see one sided propaganda, I often try to present some balance, but I'm not advocating one system or another.

If you were in my class, you'd use every format available in on appropriate assignments. I've had students do narrow DoF on point and shoots. SO when I see people say you have to have FF for narrow DoF, my second year students would be laughing at you. But deciding what camera was best for an individual is an individual decision.

Listen to the one format blow hards if you choose, but balance what they say with a practical understanding of all relevant formats, practical in the sense of using every system and finding out what you resonate with. Listening to the blow hards pushing one format or another on the forum is next to worthless. That's why they have schools for photography. And that's why so many of us who post a lot of images and can enjoy our photography without reference to format etc. stay out of this type of discussion. (I have some personality flaw that keeps me from being able to do that.) It is just so hard to explain to those with extremely narrow points of view, just what they are missing without eliciting one of these diatribes of outrage.

I think a lot of the time, some of the more belligerent format enthusiasts think I stop posting in a thread, because they are right and i am wrong, more often it's just I've grown tired of the insolence, belligerence and ignorance. I'm getting to be too old for this baloney. But over 1000 students went through my High School photography program, the one I built from scratch, and 4 or 5 of them went on to do post secondary work in photography, and many others found jobs in the industry or in related industries, or use photography as part of their duties in other jobs, so I can't be doing anything too wrong.

Sometimes I think those pushing one system over others are like proselytizers seeking religious converts. I hate Jehova's witnesses and format proponents. They are pretty much the same thing. Just show me pictures, and maybe a few examples of pictures you'd like to learn how to take and tell me how much money you have to spend, , and I'll tell you what you need to take them. Prejudging, and saying one system is better than all the others for everything and everyone is for the mentally challenged, who can't see the big picture. And for them, it doesn't matter what you say, they will never understand the big picture.

And I bet 99% of the site doesn't give a crap about this whole issue. They just like the pictures they take and camera they have and might like to learn to do a little bit more, take advantage of a few features they don't know about, gain a bit of incremental knowledge, using the system they have. Some knob coming on with a bunch of FF propaganda is a total geek. We tolerate them, because, it just might happen, that there might actually be one person on the site from time to time, who actually would be a candidate to use an FF camera as their only camera. I have a number of friends who are like that. So having a few people helping beginners understand what FF has to offer, is not such a bad idea. It would be nice if they weren't so damed obnoxious about it.

When hanging out with other photographers, the goal is to assimilate as much of what they know that you don't. Because believe it or not, no matter how much you've learned, others have gotten into niches where they know different stuff that might help you in what you do. A confrontational attitude doesn't help that, neither does a one sided promotion of a specific format.

----- Thanks.

... And all want to be crowned golden servants in the kingdom of the only king, but diversions and faltering self-confidence distract and lead away.
I hide in silence to overcome my lack of means and ability: I glorify in my own realm and use my joy of all that I can see to fight to translate into images the story I saw. Within those limitations, the golden servants matter no more. Only the joy and fight for reproducing just that.

Oh well. I liked your post.

[Rondec]

Ron over these last weeks I think you've hit on (or started posting, or I've started noticing) the erudite response to the general question of format as well as the "reason" for Pentax; these are tools, they have purposes, one is often better for a purpose than another; Pentax has a place where it shines or is at least the equal of another so that we who prefer the aesthetic character of a Pentax need not compromise.

I wish this message could be shouted from the mountaintops, burned into the psyche of the photographic community, accepted as the reason one would shoot with Pentax, so that on the "Are we really that rare?" thread people could start to post someone said, "Oh, you have a Pentax - do you shoot (Birds or Landscapes or whatever it is)? and we could reply, "Yeah, it's a great camera for what I do." and they would get it.

We're not there yet, but I hope that's part of the plan.

Thanks for the kind words. I think that in a perfect world, where I had more money than I know what to do with, I would own a 645D and a DA 25mm (as well as a bunch of other lenses). But, I don't.

As I shoot more, I have a better understanding of the limitations and strengths of various camera bodies and lenses and I realize that for my purposes, a K3 works really well, particularly when combined with lenses like the DA 15 limited, the FA 31 limited and the FA 77 limited.

I wish there was more posting of photos in these threads. I used to think that I was limited by my gear, but I realize more and more that I am the limiting factor in the equation. My ability to achieve my "vision" is seldom limited by my camera.

I also believe that there are a number of folks who post based on years old experience with Pentax gear. If your most recent camera was a K20 or a K7, then I can understand your pain, but things have changed since then and the K3 is nice gear. End of story.

[falconeye]

As for my source: it is DxOmark data itself. ... By plugging DxO data into a spreadsheet I have been able to extrapolate that the Sony 70-400mm is a "better" lens than the Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm.

It is an OT discussion, so in all brevity. I already gave Sony a slight advantage at 400/5.6 above. You may be right, of course, but it is difficult to do a cross system analysis at DxO. I used D610/A99 which have similiar sensors (SLT disadvantage granted). It seems like the Nikon is slightly sharper at its sweet spot while Sony is slightly sharper at the long end.

Overall, I think both lenses are decent, although the Nikon is pricey.

I don't think the Nikon was crippled to protect the fast tele primes or the 200-400. IMHO, there is no evidence. And that was my entire point I wanted to contribute to the discussion.

[ElJamoquio]

having some impertinent know it all come on hear and constantly harp on the advantages of one system or the other like they are the be all and end all of knowledge about photography is truly annoying.

Especially if they're wrong!

[MJSfoto1956]

I don't think the Nikon was crippled to protect the fast tele primes or the 200-400. IMHO, there is no evidence. And that was my entire point I wanted to contribute to the discussion.

fair enough. But it is clear that both Canon and Nikon, having thrown their lot into full frame, (unlike Pentax) only offer a paucity of pro-level lenses for their DX gear (in fact Nikon offers precisely ZERO pro-level DX lenses. For me that is telling). As near as I can make out, Canikon are primarily using their DX cameras as "stepping stones" to encourage buyers to upgrade FX where the real profits are. As such, they are clearly making lenses to address marketing concerns and they are not above adjusting the behaviors and specifications of their systems to maximize profitability.

Given that DxO rates "systems" then it would stand that were the Pentax 60-250mm lens to deliver "only" the same overall quality as the Nkkor AF-S 80-400mm lens then my comparison system shots should have (in theory) clearly demonstrated such an IQ difference having used the K-3 sensor (after all, there is little contention that the D800 sensor is superior to the K-3 sensor as per DxO). Instead, what my un-scientific tests between K-3 + 60-250mm vs D800 + AF-S 80-400mm show are that 20"x30" prints produced from each system are of similar or equal overall IQ. In other words, the prints I have produced so far are basically indistinguishable at arms length. If my tests are any indication, then it strongly suggests that the 60-250mm lens must be therefore overall superior in order to deliver a similar overall system IQ versus a Nikon system whose D800 sensor is clearly superior to the K-3. Consequently, it is not a stretch to make the claim that the Nikkor AF-S 80-400m is likely not as good as Nikon *could* have made it (without a doubt, Nikon is one of the premiere lens manufactures in the world and they have the ability to do just about anything they set their hearts to). The obvious reason they might not go overboard with the 80-400mm would be to protect their "cash cows" which include the classic 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and 200-400mm lenses; all superb and carrying a premium price. That is my contention. While there is some evidence to support my contention, I will admit there is no way to prove it. But I'm standing by it -- at least until Nikon proves me wrong.

In the meantime, companies like Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony are pushing the envelope and seem to be delivering better value as of late. Gotta love competition to keep you honest!

YMMV

M

[jsherman999]

in fact Nikon offers precisely ZERO pro-level DX lenses.

Not entirely true, there's the 17-55 f/2.8.

I don't know why this is surprising, though, when Nikon sells two tiers - DX and FX. Pentax lumps their new 'pro' level gear in at one level (aps-c) because that's all they have. Nikon is marketing DX to entry to mid level enthusiast, and FX to mid to upper end enthusiast and pro.

At one time they did offer what many consider 'pro' level sports/wildlife DX - the D200/D300 - but they haven't really chosen to continue with that, for the time being, although they claim the D7000/7100 fills that niche. I'm assuming that's because that niche was relatively small, and they want to move them on up to FX, if possible - and are willing to lose the folks who 1) don't want to shoot FX, and 2) don't want to shoot the D7100 or it's replacement.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 01-05-2014 at 08:09 PM.

[philbaum]

fair enough. But it is clear that both Canon and Nikon, having thrown their lot into full frame, (unlike Pentax) only offer a paucity of pro-level lenses for their DX gear (in fact Nikon offers precisely ZERO pro-level DX lenses. For me that is telling). As near as I can make out, Canikon are primarily using their DX cameras as "stepping stones" to encourage buyers to upgrade FX where the real profits are. As such, they are clearly making lenses to address marketing concerns and they are not above adjusting the behaviors and specifications of their systems to maximize profitability.......

In the meantime, companies like Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony are pushing the envelope and seem to be delivering better value as of late. Gotta love competition to keep you honest!

YMMV

M

This is congruent with what Thom Hogan was writing some months back. It continues to amaze me. It being the situation. Nikon apparently considers that FF will soon be 90% of the dslr market, and i believe currently they are only at 9% of the DSLRs. I would note in fairness that the Df camera has been the most popular on dpreview for a few weeks, only in the last day or two to be supplanted by Samsung NX30, an aps camera. (some irony there :-))

Yet there are many knowledgeable photographers on this forum who don't think FF is going to be the majority sensor DSLR anytime soon. Are the Canikon CEOs and managers delusional or did they just misread the tea leaves?

So what percentage of the new DSLRs sold will have FF sensors by 1/1/2015?????

My guess is 15%, no higher.

In any case, it will be an interesting year.

[SyncGuy]

Ah... My dream has always been an APSC+MF or m4/3+FF combo... Dang! :P

[bossa]

How about these?

Bradshaw rock paintings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are not portraits.. they are "generic" figure panintings

[Rondec]

This is congruent with what Thom Hogan was writing some months back. It continues to amaze me. It being the situation. Nikon apparently considers that FF will soon be 90% of the dslr market, and i believe currently they are only at 9% of the DSLRs. I would note in fairness that the Df camera has been the most popular on dpreview for a few weeks, only in the last day or two to be supplanted by Samsung NX30, an aps camera. (some irony there :-))

Yet there are many knowledgeable photographers on this forum who don't think FF is going to be the majority sensor DSLR anytime soon. Are the Canikon CEOs and managers delusional or did they just misread the tea leaves?

So what percentage of the new DSLRs sold will have FF sensors by 1/1/2015?????

My guess is 15%, no higher.

In any case, it will be an interesting year.

There is no way that a thousand dollar plus camera will ever supplant the 300 to 500 dollar segment of the market. And for now and at least the next couple of years, that is APS-C territory (and four thirds) exclusively.

However, Canon/Nikon have decided that they would like to get every one they can into a full frame camera, because they make more money on the bodies and the glass. The best way to do this is to limit options with regard to glass and also, to limit specs on your top end APS-C camera.

The thing is that if the market doesn't go where the big players want, Sony or Samsung or even Ricoh could end up stealing their lunch.

[MJSfoto1956]

The thing is that if the market doesn't go where the big players want, Sony or Samsung or even Ricoh could end up stealing their lunch.

Agree completely. I have a hunch that Nikon's future will be with replaceable sensors. They could then sell a handful of different kinds of bodies all (re)using Nikon sensors cum "film":

• a high-speed body (a la D4)
• a water-proof body (a la AW1)
• a small body (a la DF)
• a mirrorless body (a la Sony A7)
• etc.

and for sensors:

• a low-light sensor
• a high pixel count sensor
• a B&W sensor
• a sensor optimized for underwater (More red, less green)
• etc.

Disentangling the sensor from the body could be a goldmine for Nikon in that they could reduce the number of bodies they need to build and support (I certainly would be VERY interested). They have the patents for it. Let's see if they execute on it.

Michael

[ElJamoquio]

However, Canon/Nikon have decided that they would like to get every one they can into a full frame camera, because they make more money on the bodies and the glass. The best way to do this is to limit options with regard to glass and also, to limit specs on your top end APS-C camera.

Sigma/Tamron/Tokina will be there to take up the slack, then.

And if Canon doesn't sell a cheap FF then Nikon (or Pentax) will.

Sensor prices always come down. Of course, by definition FF sensors can't get smaller, so they won't go to exponentially-cheap as quickly... but people here a couple of years ago were making claims that FF would not be in K-5 launch territory (then $1600 or $1700).

Who knows? Maybe right now the industry wags saying 'overproduction' will be seen as true. Maybe instead (older) FF will hit $1k. It's not out of the realm of possibility... Canon 6D was intro'd at $1900, $200 more than the K-5... and I think the K-5 was selling for $650 or so at it's cheapest. Heck right now the K-5II is less than $800.

[Rondec]

Sigma/Tamron/Tokina will be there to take up the slack, then.

And if Canon doesn't sell a cheap FF then Nikon (or Pentax) will.

Sensor prices always come down. Of course, by definition FF sensors can't get smaller, so they won't go to exponentially-cheap as quickly... but people here a couple of years ago were making claims that FF would not be in K-5 launch territory (then $1600 or $1700).

Who knows? Maybe right now the industry wags saying 'overproduction' will be seen as true. Maybe instead (older) FF will hit $1k. It's not out of the realm of possibility... Canon 6D was intro'd at $1900, $200 more than the K-5... and I think the K-5 was selling for $650 or so at it's cheapest. Heck right now the K-5II is less than $800.

But the odd thing is that even with Nikon/Canon cutting full frame SLRs to the bone, they still haven't budged full frame percentage of the market up very much. The only thing they have done is cut down the price of upper end APS-C to about a thousand dollars.

I think the question is still out as to whether or not someone would prefer an upper end APS-C camera (like the K3) or, a bare bones full frame model (like the 6D). I think I would prefer a K3, between those two, but obviously opinions differ.

[thibs]

What I'm certain is that getting the FF into 'budget' arena there were compromises made. Some think this is a revolution to provide an FF for a low price whatever the body. Some others think that offering an FF sensor in a so-so body with lower end AF, lower end VF (etc.) is certainly a welcomed choice but surely no revolution.

I (strictly personal feeling) do not like that 6D/D600 phylosophy. YMMV