[normhead]

When I bought my K-3 it was supposed to be the APS-c advantage camera, and it still will be. 24 MP give me very close to a 36 MP D810 or K-1, plus I still ge maximum resolution on cropped wildlife images. Since I never went for the D810, I'm not sure what it would take in a K-1 to get me off the fence. For me K-1 or no K-1 the K-3 is still my main shooting camera. The K-1 should i purchase it will be an expensive add on.

Maybe a good price second hand 3 years from now when the K-2 comes out. Meanwhile if I can get a Panasonic Lumix DCM FZ1000 on boxing day, what a great good light camera that appears to be. Built in 400mm equivalent lens on a 20 MP camera, with no lens changes and capable of the same MTF ratings as a K-3 at 80 or 125 ISO. I'm thinking "why am I carrying all this APS_c stuff?" forget about moving up to FF. The only downside is dynamic range for sunrises and sunsets. It is about K20D level, and that wasn't adequate. But for a nice hike in the woods on a sunny day, leave the APS-c home if you own that camera.

This swing hiking up Manitou Mountain, I got lazy and just took the point and shoot.

I can't tell you how much better this picture would have been with a FZ1000 because i didn't have one, but it would have been lights out better.



It is surprising to me that with the advances in sensor technology, it seems most people are trying to add capability they probably don't need, as opposed to lightening the load, and maintaining currently acceptable quality. When I was in school 50 years up, the goal was always to carry the smallest system you could use to get the job done. There are two words for that many camera enthusiasts ignore. System efficiency.

Carrying more than you need is just as bad as carrying less than you need. The trick is to figure out what you need. Not to keep buying the most expensive you can afford without regard to what output you need. That's just crazy.

Yet it's exactly the attitude recommended by many FF advocates.

What the heck happened? Now we have people pressing for IQ they have absolutely no need for, just because they can. I'n guessing, they are suckers for the more IQ thing, because they have no idea what they actually need, so any Tom, Dick and Harry type salesman, can convince them they need more than they have.

The big thing for my with the FZ is K-3 type resolution, with 4 times the DoF I'd get with my K-3 and 60-250 and TC at the same f-stop. Wide open, the FZ at ƒ4 will give me 8 times the DoF of the k-3 + TC FF with my A-400 @ƒ5.6.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-25-2015 at 03:31 PM.

[Simen1]

One advantage using the FF camera in APS-C mode versus a APS-C camera, with long tele lenses is that its easier to find the target since you can see a larger field in the viewfinder then the imaged field.

And if the subject moves closer then you can frame with ASP-C and the lens, you can still get the whole bird, lion, bicyclist or whatever by using the non crop mode. Without changing lenses, in possibly a lens changing hostile environment. I often hear that a crop factor gives you more tele (narrower field of view). I would like to turn that around and say if you have to crop anyway (max tele is often limited by budget), large sensors will give you a wider wide end of the lens you could afford, better quality up to a certain focal length and the same long end with the same quality (cropping).

[reh321]

It is surprising to me that with the advances in sensor technology, it seems most people are trying to add capability they probably don't need, as opposed to lightening the load, and maintaining currently acceptable quality. When I was in school 50 years up, the goal was always to carry the smallest system you could use to get the job done. There are two words for that many camera enthusiasts ignore. System efficiency.

Carrying more than you need is just as bad as carrying less than you need. The trick is to figure out what you need. Not to keep buying the most expensive you can afford without regard to what output you need. That's just crazy.

Yet it's exactly the attitude recommended by many FF advocates.

What the heck happened? Now we have people pressing for IQ they have absolutely no need for, just because they can. I'm guessing, they are suckers for the more IQ thing, because they have no idea what they actually need, so any Tom, Dick and Harry type salesman, can convince them they need more than they have.

The big thing for my with the FZ is K-3 type resolution, with 4 times the DoF I'd get with my K-3 and 60-250 and TC at the same f-stop. Wide open, the FZ at ƒ4 will give me 8 times the DoF of the k-3 + TC FF with my A-400 @ƒ5.6.

I have no idea how most amateurs thought 30 years ago when I bought my Super Program - there was no Internet on which they could pontificate, and only a few letters were published in magazines. Today, however, so many guys (and perhaps some gals) recoil at the thought of not doing the absolutely best you can do, and usually they don't accept the concept that "best" is open to interpretation (when comparing Nikon to Canon, is "best" measured by MP or by Dynamic Range, for example). I'm not sure how many of these guys (and gals) really do examine each image with a magnifying glass and how many simply need the security of knowing that "my specs can beat your specs". In any case, I agree 100% with your comments.

[starjedi]

I have no idea how most amateurs thought 30 years ago when I bought my Super Program - there was no Internet on which they could pontificate, and only a few letters were published in magazines. Today, however, so many guys (and perhaps some gals) recoil at the thought of not doing the absolutely best you can do, and usually they don't accept the concept that "best" is open to interpretation (when comparing Nikon to Canon, is "best" measured by MP or by Dynamic Range, for example). I'm not sure how many of these guys (and gals) really do examine each image with a magnifying glass and how many simply need the security of knowing that "my specs can beat your specs". In any case, I agree 100% with your comments.

Agree.

[pathdoc]

30 years ago the sensor was not intrinsic to the camera. Setting aside the 110 and Pen F, all film SLR users enjoyed a level playing field in that regard. Indeed all photographers did, as the 12 year old beginner with his secondhand camera bought with paper run money could easily be holding yesteryear's flagship model, and if the lens had been cared for too, his equipment was as capable of capturing a prizewinner as anyone else's. Nowadays IMO it would not be fair to expect an *istDL to produce the same image quality as a K3-II.

[Danaher Dempsey]

Agree ..... and ....

So with the K3 ii current features and resolution .... how big will I need to print to where I would see a noticeable improvement from the new Pentax FF?
[Disregarding Bokeh, low light and really wide landscapes where FF may excel, do I really see an FF in my future? ]

Perhaps Nikon 1 system may have had it correct for the long haul. As sensors improve and more folks are content to be Facebook photographers and with smaller residences few folks will be printing larger than 12 x 18. Perhaps the 1" sensor is where we are headed. At least if I reach age 85 in 16 years, I might be able to carry a large Nikon 1 kit..... or will i need to go to a Pentax Q?

[derekkite]

Agree ..... and ....

So with the K3 ii current features and resolution .... how big will I need to print to where I would see a noticeable improvement from the new Pentax FF?
[Disregarding Bokeh, low light and really wide landscapes where FF may excel, do I really see an FF in my future? ]

Perhaps Nikon 1 system may have had it correct for the long haul. As sensors improve and more folks are content to be Facebook photographers and with smaller residences few folks will be printing larger than 12 x 18. Perhaps the 1" sensor is where we are headed. At least if I reach age 85 in 16 years, I might be able to carry a large Nikon 1 kit..... or will i need to go to a Pentax Q?

Facebook photographers use their phone and won't be buying this offering. If Ricoh had their satisfaction as the goal they will be out of the camera business by next year.

I'm tired of this argument. The amount of effort I go to for another stop. I learned noise reduction techniques that gained me a stop. Flash techniques and money spent on WR flash units and modifiers. An expensive tripod and head. Both gain me a couple stops in the right circumstances. An expensive fast long lens, and hours of usage to learn the techniques, to chase down sources of vibration, to find the sweet spots in it all.

The other day I had a situation, deer close, low light. To get nose to tail focus I needed another stop aperture, but was at the highest iso I dare. Oh for another stop.

I don't know if this particular offering will give me what I want. Maybe better AF will gain the shot I miss, but less magnification will lose me others.Maybe all the goodness in an apsc body next year. Or as a friend, Canon shooter told me the other day, really we need one of each.

But good heavens, many if not all of us here use the advanced capabilities of our modern bodies. And increased capabilities allow us to get shots we wouldn't otherwise.

[RockvilleBob]

The replacement criteria for my K3 is a camera with much better AF.C performance. If could be the Pentax FF provided the AF.C was superb AND the resolution in crop mode was better than 24MP. For example the EOS 5DS has about 30MP in crop mode. That much resolution in crop mode is probably an unrealistic expectation for the Pentax FF so I will probably just wait for the Pentax follow-on to the K3 series and keep my fingers crossed for much improved AF.C performance for tracking. The K3 offers me all the resolution and IQ my skills are capable of using.

[monochrome]

Today, however, so many guys (and perhaps some gals) recoil at the thought of not doing the absolutely best you can do, and usually they don't accept the concept that "best" is open to interpretation (when comparing Nikon to Canon, is "best" measured by MP or by Dynamic Range, for example).

'We' collectively cannot agree on what is universally good. 'Good' must be a subjective judgement of each individual. Since best is the superlative of all measured candidates, ordered in a rank by how well they exhibit 'Good' characteristics - 'Best' then also must be a subjective judgement of each individual.

Comparison and contrast have little to no value other than to rank individual characteristics. DXO measurements, for instance, are fine as far as the individual characteristics are ranked. It is their subjective judgement of what combination of characteristics is considered good and how they are weighted to label one camera 'Best' that strike me as a false constructs.

[clackers]

. For example the EOS 5DS has about 30MP in crop mode.

How did you calculate that, Bob?

Try about 22Mp.

[UncleVanya]

How did you calculate that, Bob?

Try about 22Mp.

That's what I was thinking. I was under the impression that you needed at least 54mp to get a 24mp APSC crop from it.

[Alizarine]

So this increases the range of our lenses.. in a way..

That is, as example. a 55-300 almost becomes a 55-450 if the lens supports the FF image circle?

Nope, the DA55-300 takes on a field of view of 36.67mm-200mm, not the other way around. (Climbing up from APS-C to FF, the FoV widens, and narrows v.v.)

Wonderful news from Ricoh, this cropping thing. At least they acknowledge that some DA lenses can actually cover the FF image circle and leave you to decide whether to use them in that mode or not. Good job! Now they mentioned the OVF, let's see what other surprises lie there...

[UncleVanya]

Nope, the DA55-300 takes on a field of view of 36.67mm-200mm, not the other way around. (Climbing up from APS-C to FF, the FoV widens, and narrows v.v.)

Wonderful news from Ricoh, this cropping thing. At least they acknowledge that some DA lenses can actually cover the FF image circle and leave you to decide whether to use them in that mode or not. Good job! Now they mentioned the OVF, let's see what other surprises lie there...

I think the point originally made is you get true 55mm using full FF image (assuming the 55-300 is FF capable which I think someone indicated but I can't confirm) and by switching to Crop mode you get effectively 450mm coverage. So the lens on that body covers a wider range than we are used to by engaging the crop mode when you need the reach. The reality is that you can always just crop in post from the FF size and get the same results - that's often lost in these discussions.

[RockvilleBob]

How did you calculate that, Bob?

Try about 22Mp.

Sorry if I made an error - thanks for catching it.
I saw it posted somewhere and just used the number - but at 22MP with better AF.C I would buy the Pentax FF - it would be about my K3 with hopefully much improved AF.C which I really want - I still feel 22 MP for a Pentax FF in cropped mode is probably wishful thinking.

[mee]

I think the point originally made is you get true 55mm using full FF image (assuming the 55-300 is FF capable which I think someone indicated but I can't confirm) and by switching to Crop mode you get effectively 450mm coverage. So the lens on that body covers a wider range than we are used to by engaging the crop mode when you need the reach. The reality is that you can always just crop in post from the FF size and get the same results - that's often lost in these discussions.

Precisely. I'm glad someone understood as to what I was saying.

Though, I've seen crop in post mentioned several times lately. I'd say I agree that suffices to a degree. However, that might be considered extra, unnecessary work to others. Hence, why those who feel this way might be happy to see the sensor mode(s) available in body. It is favorable to have options.