[Class A]

I love wacky ideas and anyway plenty of folks could say right now that the ideal combo for all occasions is 645 and an APS-C systems. Why FF? Who knows.

There are plenty of reasons for FF over APS-C ("The true reasons for a full frame camera").

Let's not forget that most APS-C cameras are crippled FF cameras, i.e., are like cars without rear seats without having been reduced in size accordingly.

One may argue the case for a smaller format system for certain reduced requirements but there is little to be said for crop sensor cameras.

[reh321]

One may argue the case for a smaller format system for certain reduced requirements but there is little to be said for crop sensor cameras.

Money for one.

In the days of film, I could buy a reasonably inexpensive camera and then add my own high-quality sensor in the form of Kodachrome 25;
I don't know of anyway to accomplish the same task today, to buy a top-flight sensor without without getting top-cost everything else.

[Rondec]

There are plenty of reasons for FF over APS-C ("The true reasons for a full frame camera").

Let's not forget that most APS-C cameras are crippled FF cameras, i.e., are like cars without rear seats without having been reduced in size accordingly.

One may argue the case for a smaller format system for certain reduced requirements but there is little to be said for crop sensor cameras.

Obviously one of the biggest reasons that camera companies kept legacy mounts was that they hoped that full frame sensors would be in the cards someday. Companies that chose to go with new mounts -- four thirds and Fuji -- have managed to make smaller lenses while keeping quite fast apertures. The whole argument about "not using the whole image circle" goes away on lenses that were designed for crop cameras.

In the end, the biggest reason that APS-C has sold so well is and has been cost. That and the fact that when you start talking to the average person about sensor size their eyes glaze over. They want a camera that takes decent photos (in auto mode) in whatever setting they happen to be in. Whether or not you get more dynamic range out of x sensor or less noise from y sensor doesn't really matter to them as long as the camera is easy to use and gives good results in auto mode (better than their cell phone).

APS-C is a compromise, but it is a nice one that fits a lot of people's budgets. And honestly, it gives better results than many of the films that people seem to be pining for so much.

[JPT]

There are plenty of reasons for FF over APS-C ("The true reasons for a full frame camera").

Let's not forget that most APS-C cameras are crippled FF cameras, i.e., are like cars without rear seats without having been reduced in size accordingly.

One may argue the case for a smaller format system for certain reduced requirements but there is little to be said for crop sensor cameras.

I think there's quite a lot to be said for APS-C cameras. The way I see it, you get 95% of the capability for half the cost and 2/3 of the weight. You might argue about the 95% part but I don't see many situations where printed output from a D750 would be noticeably better than that from a K-3 if both cameras were used correctly.

[Qwntm]

There are plenty of reasons for FF over APS-C ("The true reasons for a full frame camera").

Let's not forget that most APS-C cameras are crippled FF cameras, i.e., are like cars without rear seats without having been reduced in size accordingly.

One may argue the case for a smaller format system for certain reduced requirements but there is little to be said for crop sensor cameras.

The is true for Canikon, but completely wrong for Pentax. The K-3 and LTD primes make for a truly compact APS-C optimized pro kit. I have tried to switch out to a D810 twice now and have always come back to the Pentax APS-C system. The size and weight win over the slight and I mean SLIGHT (almost can't see/can't see) it in practical use increase in IQ every time for me.

---------- Post added 07-09-15 at 10:05 PM ----------

I think there's quite a lot to be said for APS-C cameras. The way I see it, you get 95% of the capability for half the cost and 2/3 of the weight. You might argue about the 95% part but I don't see many situations where printed output from a D750 would be noticeably better than that from a K-3 if both cameras were used correctly.

I think if you actually ever tested that you would be in for a big surprise. The printed output from the K-3 would be equal to or superior to that from a D750 in my experience. I have A:B compared 16x20 prints from the K-3 and the Nikon D810, and can't tell them apart unless I look at the back where I marked them which was which. Prints are a lot more forgiving than computer monitors at 100%. If we didn't have 100% views, FF would be a hard sell!

[Class A]

The K-3 and LTD primes make for a truly compact APS-C optimized pro kit.

It is by no means an "APS-C optimized" kit as the mount size and mirror box are from an FF system.

If you are using FA Ltds then these are FF lenses that will perform better on an FF sensor.

I'm happy for you that APS-C is all you need, but that doesn't mean that crop-sensor cameras (I'm talking about an FF design which uses too small a sensor for cost saving reasons only) are "optimal" and that bigger sensors do not provide an advantage. They do, even if your experiments don't show that. Which is fine, BTW. Again, I'm happy for you, just don't try to extrapolate your finding to general facts.

[rawr]

If we didn't have 100% views, FF would be a hard sell!

There's also the noise/SNR issue.

A 24MP FF like a D610/D750 at ISO 6400 (or ISO 25600 ...) will both look better on screen and print better too, compared to a 24MP K-3/D7100/A6000. Plus work better in Lightroom.

[reh321]

It is by no means an "APS-C optimized" kit as the mount size and mirror box are from an FF system.
If you are using FA Ltds then these are FF lenses that will perform better on an FF sensor.

But I'm not hurt by having them on an APS-C system.
I would gain very little by having an "APS-C optimized" system, and I would lose the flexibility I currently have

I'm happy for you that APS-C is all you need, but that doesn't mean that crop-sensor cameras (I'm talking about an FF design which uses too small a sensor for cost saving reasons only) are "optimal" and that bigger sensors do not provide an advantage. They do, even if your experiments don't show that. Which is fine, BTW. Again, I'm happy for you, just don't try to extrapolate your finding to general facts.

There's also the noise/SNR issue.
A 24MP FF like a D610/D750 at ISO 6400 (or ISO 25600 ...) will both look better on screen and print better too, compared to a 24MP K-3/D7100/A6000. Plus work better in Lightroom.

There is no question that a FF system would give better pictures than my current K-30 system.
There is little question that a K-3ii would give better pictures than my current K-30 system.

I am sure that if I took a picture of a landscape with my K-30 and another of the same scene with a FF Canikon, that you could use a magnifying glass to find a legible sign in the Canikon picture that is illegible in the K-30 picture, and you could use that same magnifying glass to find a spec of noise in the K-30 picture that is not created in the Canikon picture. Don't do that! I don't want you looking at my pictures that way! I want you to look at them as I originally saw them through the viewfinder, looking at themes, not looking for dandruff.

But, guess what.
Either the K-3ii or a FF would cost more, or much more, than my K-30 system
and I have better uses for that money!!

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

It is by no means an "APS-C optimized" kit as the mount size and mirror box are from an FF system.

If you are using FA Ltds then these are FF lenses that will perform better on an FF sensor.

I'm happy for you that APS-C is all you need, but that doesn't mean that crop-sensor cameras (I'm talking about an FF design which uses too small a sensor for cost saving reasons only) are "optimal" and that bigger sensors do not provide an advantage. They do, even if your experiments don't show that. Which is fine, BTW. Again, I'm happy for you, just don't try to extrapolate your finding to general facts.

One of the benefits of FF is that its less taxing on the lens
Being less taxing many times we can use a zoom on FF with very little loss to the fine details that I am looking for in wildlife photography and one can also use a tc on that zoom wide open while keeping that fine detail with less sharpening giving a more natural look.

[Nicolas06]

One of the benefits of FF is that its less taxing on the lens
Being less taxing many times we can use a zoom on FF with very little loss to the fine details that I am looking for in wildlife photography and one can also use a tc on that zoom wide open while keeping that fine detail with less sharpening giving a more natural look.

The issue with wildlife is that you crop... And if you crop your FF you could as well put directly the same lense on an APSC or m4/3 camera and be done.

Your argument work only if you don't crop. And if you don't then the lense give great results alread on an APSC or FF.

[Qwntm]

It is by no means an "APS-C optimized" kit as the mount size and mirror box are from an FF system.

If you are using FA Ltds then these are FF lenses that will perform better on an FF sensor.

I'm happy for you that APS-C is all you need, but that doesn't mean that crop-sensor cameras (I'm talking about an FF design which uses too small a sensor for cost saving reasons only) are "optimal" and that bigger sensors do not provide an advantage. They do, even if your experiments don't show that. Which is fine, BTW. Again, I'm happy for you, just don't try to extrapolate your finding to general facts.

Compared to a Canon 7D or Nikon D7200, the K-3 is optimized for APS-C. I'll trade a smaller mount for backwards and forwards compatibility.


And as far as "extrapolating my findings to general facts," that's better than claiming world camera domination by FF when in reality the increase in IQ is MARGINAL at BEST. And those are "the facts."


And by the way, have you ever owned or shot a FF? Done any testing yourself? If so it might help to mention that so we all can gauge the experience level of your comments...
---------- Post added 07-10-15 at 12:30 AM ----------

I predict there's going to be a lot of people around here that are going to waste a lot of cash and be very disappointed that they gained so little and spent so much in the next 6 months...

[kenspo]

K-3 Mark II is a very good aps-c camera. Is it a pro-camera? Yes and no. In some fields ok, in other fields not good enough compared to FF. I work with a "handicap" now, but i like the challenge. But when i signed for Ricoh, they promised that a FF would come. And they also know, that if not, i go back to Nikon.

But beside that. I dont see the point in the "You dont need the FF" discussion. Some dont need it, but some do. If you dont need or want one, dont buy one! But stop using your time with trying to convince others that they dont need it either. Live by your choice, but let others take theirs.

[JPT]

The is true for Canikon, but completely wrong for Pentax. The K-3 and LTD primes make for a truly compact APS-C optimized pro kit. I have tried to switch out to a D810 twice now and have always come back to the Pentax APS-C system. The size and weight win over the slight and I mean SLIGHT (almost can't see/can't see) it in practical use increase in IQ every time for me.

---------- Post added 07-09-15 at 10:05 PM ----------





I think if you actually ever tested that you would be in for a big surprise. The printed output from the K-3 would be equal to or superior to that from a D750 in my experience. I have A:B compared 16x20 prints from the K-3 and the Nikon D810, and can't tell them apart unless I look at the back where I marked them which was which. Prints are a lot more forgiving than computer monitors at 100%. If we didn't have 100% views, FF would be a hard sell!

Yes. I do know that FF should be better in theory and is indeed better in practice when you examine it. What pulled my chain was the phrase "little to be said for crop sensor cameras", which is a bit provocative to say on a Pentax DSLR forum, seeing as we have mostly bought into that kind of system, having weighed the pros and cons quite carefully.

[fuent104]

I'm not even responding until you price compare comparable models with comparable age technology.

Pay attention. It's about volume. They simply cannot sell a high volume of FF's no matter what price. CaNikon have that blocked. They can only sell a few tens of thousands of units AT ANY PRICE - high, low, doesn't matter.

To make it at least break-even it HAS TO BE RETAIL above $2,600 U.S. including Dealer markup, which means $1,600 factory dock. Since they have zero marketing expense and basically only internet dealers in most western markets they can AFFORD TO offer more features at a price point. But they can't do that AND market AND give good support AND good warranty AND good repair AND on-demand replacement cameras, so we can expect a near D810 camera at a better price and excellent but expensive lenses.

But the body WILL NOT be inexpensive. They simply CANNOT DO IT profitably and I don't think Ricoh is willing to lose money.

So now you know how many units they want/plan/need to sell, and you know what price they need to charge, as well as what the markup will be, and what the marketing expenses are?

For someone who claims to know nothing, you sure claim to know a lot of things.

[Matthew Saville]

I love wacky ideas and anyway plenty of folks could say right now that the ideal combo for all occasions is 645 and an APS-C systems. Why FF? Who knows.

FF sensors do offer a noticeable bump in image quality, without much of a burden increase in either price or weight if you buy the right lenses and bodies.

In other words, sure a Nikon D810 and a Tamron 15-30 2.8 weigh as much as a cinder block, but a Nikon D750 and a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 weigh about the same as a Nikon D7200 and Rokinon 10mm f/2.8. A medium format system cannot claim that level of portability or affordability.

Some others have also touched on one of the things that Nikon guru Thom Hogan has written about many times: sensors don't cost that much. I mean sure, they're a significant portion of the cost of making a camera, but as a percentage of the final MSRP of the camera, it's probably far less than most of us would guess.

Which is why I say, just take the price of the K-3 II and add about $1000. That's all there is to it. Yes, they'll have to contend with lower sales volumes than Canon or Nikon's competing full-frame bodies, and even lower sales volumes than their own APS-C flagship. But ~$1000 is still more than enough to make up for any of that.

Keep in mind I know nothing about economics, marketing, and manufacturing, hahaha...