[Pål Jensen]

hold on, if FF sensor is bigger than APS-C, which then gives you both the ability to crop to APS-C for longer distance, and for high res, how is it advantageous over MF digital, which, given it has a bigger sensor than FF, means you can crop to FF for reach?

Price factor not withstanding

Price is one important issue. Another issue is the fact that a MF sensor will not have the pixel density making it viable to crop to APS size and maintain quality. Size and weight is another; FF and APS use the same lenses. MF is a different beast. MF lenses are slower than their K-mount equivalent. Their optical quality is significantly lower for the most part, so that cropping to APS size will yield magnifications that the lenses cannot sustain. In short; FF and APS is basically the same system. MF is not.

[nakey]

I find it absurd that you are comparing a Pentax 200mm f/2.8 versus a Nikon 300mm f/2.8? There is obviously going to be a noticeable difference in size and weight(not to mention price) when making the jump between a 200mm and a 300mm lens.

that's exactly the point.

He's talking about FOV. the FOV crop of pentax's bodies is 1.5X. so the lighter and cheaper 200mm F2.8 on APS-C is going to get the same FOV as the heavier 300mm on FF

To compare like with like, the Pentax FA* 300mm f/2.8 weighs 2680 grams, which is close to the weight of the Nikon 300mm.

FOV like for like means you're comparing it to a Nikon 450mm (don't know if they exist). Which, i assume, would be far heavier as an F2.8

Remember, Field of view, not focal length. I don't care what focal length i need, as long as my field of view gets me what i want.

[philmorley]

Sensor/film areas:
Full frame: 864 mm^2
APS film: 504 mm^2
APS-C Pentax sensor: 369 mm^2

if aps-c = 15mp,
same pixel density as k20d would give a full frame of about 35mp
and mf would be, um lots

[Art Vandelay II]

I find it absurd that you are comparing a Pentax 200mm f/2.8 versus a Nikon 300mm f/2.8? There is obviously going to be a noticeable difference in size and weight(not to mention price) when making the jump between a 200mm and a 300mm lens.

What exactly is absurd about it? It's the basic APS-C vs FF debate. 200mm on APS-C = 300mm on FF. Yes, DOF is different, but once you get over 200mm the difference DOF is inconsequential. At least to me anyway.


Plus, I keep seeing a lot of people defending FF. Yes, it's IQ is better than APS-C for obvious reasons, but I hear very few people actually say they need it. I'll ask it again; who on here have maxed out the abilities of APS-C? I've looked at lots of galleries and to be perfectly honest I don't see any that have suffered from using lowly APS-C. Benji K is one of the few people on here that could actually use the extra resolution for magazine covers, but I don't see too many other people shooting fashion mag covers or nat geo covers, or any other kind of ultra high resolution work on here.

[RiceHigh]

What exactly is absurd about it? It's the basic APS-C vs FF debate. 200mm on APS-C = 300mm on FF. Yes, DOF is different, but once you get over 200mm the difference DOF is inconsequential. At least to me anyway.

Many people don't see the difference doesn't mean differences don't exist!

To me, the differences are obvious: higher ISO with less noise AND more resolution (yes, all at the *same* time!). More 3d look pictures and more DoF control. Are those already MORE THAN ENOUGH??

Plus, I keep seeing a lot of people defending FF. Yes, it's IQ is better than APS-C for obvious reasons, but I hear very few people actually say they need it. I'll ask it again; who on here have maxed out the abilities of APS-C? I've looked at lots of galleries and to be perfectly honest I don't see any that have suffered from using lowly APS-C. Benji K is one of the few people on here that could actually use the extra resolution for magazine covers, but I don't see too many other people shooting fashion mag covers or nat geo covers, or any other kind of ultra high resolution work on here.

The "need" argument is the most absurd thing I have been seeing for decades. The "need" argument are usually brought out by people who actually don't "need" NEW STUFF just solely because they have no access to those things, for whatever reasons, very frankly.

Just say back to 2003, most people (more than 95% of SLR shooters) did not "need" a DSLR, just because by that time DSLRs were not quite affordable. So, what does this tell about? "Need" is not about actual need, but just desires and if what people could afford! Just remember, desires are unlimited! Unless people have no desires, there will be no "need"!!

[Art Vandelay II]

Many people don't see the difference doesn't mean differences don't exist!

To me, the differences are obvious: higher ISO with less noise AND more resolution (yes, all at the *same* time!). More 3d look pictures and more DoF control. Are those already MORE THAN ENOUGH??

I didn't say there were no differences, but for the vast majority of users the minimal differences aren't worth the bulk and price. All of those items you listed are very minor IMO. Again, how many people do you know make prints larger than 20x30? The K20D can easily do that. As far as FF looking more 3D...who the hell knows, I enjoy looking at subject matter and composition more than I do whether or not the image looks like it's "3D".

The "need" argument is the most absurd thing I have been seeing for decades. The "need" argument are usually brought out by people who actually don't "need" NEW STUFF just solely because they have no access to those things, for whatever reasons, very frankly.

I'm simply saying people should get their desires under control and realize they simply can't take advantage of the extra IQ bonuses FF offer. You can give me the 5D Mark II and David La Chapelle a Pentax K100D and he will get a better shot than me every single time. People should focus more on becoming better photographers and less on minor DOF or dynamic range advantages FF offer. If you are one of the few people that are advanced enough to get that extra bit of juice out of a FF camera then more power to you. However 99% of photographers on this earth will produce no better pics with FF than they currently do with APS-C.

So to say the need argument is absurd when technology has reached the level it currently has is just flat out wrong. If this were still 2003 and pro level SLR's were 6 megapixels and consumers were stuck using the Canon G5's of the world then yes, you could say their was a need for camera's such as the Pentax K200D. However we now have "consumer level" SLR's that are far more capable then the people using them.

If people would simply say they want a FF SLR instead of need one then I wouldn't care so much, however most people come off implying that APS-C is beneath their abilities. On the rare occasion when one of these people have an actual gallery to look at (not photos of gray swatches and brick walls) I always laugh.

I simply don't see why Pentax should waste it's time and resources catering to such a small and delusional market segment. There is much more money to be made making quality and affordable APS-C SLR's...and hopefully APS-C/MFT's EVIL cameras. If they do want to make a flagship camera to tell the rest of the industry that they are still a "serious" manufacturer then release the Digital 645 as their trophy camera.

[Pål Jensen]

So to say the need argument is absurd when technology has reached the level it currently has is just flat out wrong. .

The level we have reached is stone age. The room for improvement in image quality is massive.
Have you ever tried film?

[Art Vandelay II]

The level we have reached is stone age. The room for improvement in image quality is massive.
Have you ever tried film?

Yep, I learned to shoot using a Pentax K1000 and a Sinar 4x5 view camera for studio work. And you know what? In a capable photographer hands those two tools will still blow away what I could produce with a Canon EOS 1Ds.

As far as the stone age...we currently have $800 cameras that can produce 30" prints. What exactly are you trying to get out of a camera that they can't currently do? Yes, camera's will continue to get better, and that's great, but at some point the technology will outpace the people using it. I feel like that time is now. Outside of high quality pocket cams there are currently camera's on the market that suit virtually every need. If Pentax doesn't make the 50megapixel monster you "need" then go to Leica.

Are you a billboard photographer? If so, you are using the wrong brand.

[24X36NOW]

What exactly are you trying to get out of a camera that they can't currently do?

1. Enjoy looking through a dSLR viewfinder that hasn't been chopped in half.

2. Be able to easily focus manual focus lenses by looking through a nice, big, bright viewfinder, instead of squinting through a puny APS-C viewfinder that has been chopped in half.

3. Take the same image on a dSLR with the same lens that I can take on film with my LX's, instead of having more than half of that image chopped off.

4. Use extreme wide angle lenses (rectilinear) that couldn't even be made for APS-C dSLRs, since they are built on a FF lens mount/registry distance, etc. (Got a 12-24mm APS-C equivalent "field of view" lens? A 14-24? Nope, nor will you)

5. When I take photos I'm extremely pleased with, be able to make extremely large prints with extremely high quality from them. The fact that I may not "need" to do this with every shot doesn't mean I don't want the ability to do so. I don't want to wish I had taken them with a camera with better IQ after the fact, since the pics I take are often not repeatable (I'm not taking pictures of fixed objects that I can re-shoot at will, as a rule).

6. Not feel like I have to take steps backwards in order to move from film to digital, which is exactly what I'm doing if I have to "settle" for a smaller format.

Quite frankly, I see little "I NEED" sentiment from those desiring a FF Pentax, rather "I want it, because (fill in the blank)." It's the "APS-C is good enough for me and therefore it should be good enough for you" crowd on this forum that is telling those of us that want FF that we don't "need" it. Sad that so many are so zealous about opining about why Pentax shouldn't produce what others want, which would broaden the appeal of the brand (as opposed to shrinking it by turning those customers away); is it just the subsequent "buyers remorse" regarding your APS-C only lenses that you're afraid of?? I suspect so.

As for medium format, I have never been interested, not because image quality wouldn't be better, but because the available tools are extremely limited. The lens assortment available in 35mm format is tremendous, and provides so much more possibility. The size/weight/image quality balance of 35mm is just "right." APS-C digital is by contrast a compromise, since it is built around the 35mm size lens mount and register distance. As a result, there is no significant size/weight reduction to make a loss of image quality (not to mention the loss of more than half of your image, if you are using your 35mm lenses as are many) acceptable. Further, beyond simply cropping, if I want a "crop factor" with the same lens, I can just slap a teleconverter on it.

[lbam]

Err... have you tried a viewfinder magnifier?

[24X36NOW]

Err... have you tried a viewfinder magnifier?

Those create as many problems as they solve, since for eyeglass wearers they make part of the already too small viewfinder invisible; not to mention, I could use one on a FF finder as well, if it were not for that issue, so that wouldn't really level that playing field anyway.

[lbam]

Do you wear glasses?

[jsherman999]

.......
Just say back to 2003, most people (more than 95% of SLR shooters) did not "need" a DSLR, just because by that time DSLRs were not quite affordable. So, what does this tell about? "Need" is not about actual need, but just desires and if what people could afford! Just remember, desires are unlimited! Unless people have no desires, there will be no "need"!!

RH, you actually make a cogent point here. I made the observation earlier that, when it comes to photography, 'want' and 'need' are actually just two points on the same sliding scale.


.

[Art Vandelay II]

1. Enjoy looking through a dSLR viewfinder that hasn't been chopped in half.

2. Be able to easily focus manual focus lenses by looking through a nice, big, bright viewfinder, instead of squinting through a puny APS-C viewfinder that has been chopped in half.

Your first two points are the same. Yes, FF view finders are larger. So are lenses with a 300mm FOV. Both system take and give.

3. Take the same image on a dSLR with the same lens that I can take on film with my LX's, instead of having more than half of that image chopped off.

If you're shooting standard primes 35mm to 105mm there is a cool trick you can do called moving. I view APS-C as a bonus for telephoto. Wide angles will be better on FF. If you're shooting zooms then I shouldn't need to explain how you can get the same shot with the same lens.

4. Use extreme wide angle lenses (rectilinear) that couldn't even be made for APS-C dSLRs, since they are built on a FF lens mount/registry distance, etc. (Got a 12-24mm APS-C equivalent "field of view" lens? A 14-24? Nope, nor will you)

Got any good shots in the 14mm FF range? I'd like to see them if so. I like wide angle pics too, I'm always up for looking at some.

5. When I take photos I'm extremely pleased with, be able to make extremely large prints with extremely high quality from them. The fact that I may not "need" to do this with every shot doesn't mean I don't want the ability to do so...

I understand the desire that if you get the perfect shot one day you might want to make a wall mural out of it...but unfortunately reality always brings me back down. Besides, I used to work as a graphic artist at a large format printing company. I know a thing or two about enlarging photos and what you can and can't do. We regularly had to take 35mm film scans and blow them up to fit on semi trailers. You'd be surprised out just how large a 14mp image can go if need be. Large enough for any photography exhibit I've ever been too, that's for sure.

6. Not feel like I have to take steps backwards in order to move from film to digital, which is exactly what I'm doing if I have to "settle" for a smaller format.

I can think of as many pros as cons for APS-C.

is it just the subsequent "buyers remorse" regarding your APS-C only lenses that you're afraid of?? I suspect so.

I own exactly 1 APS-C lens. The kit lens that came with my K10D. So no.

[Art Vandelay II]

Do you wear glasses?

Nice pics in your Flickr page. Love the portraits. I kept expecting the good ones to stop after the 3rd or 4th page of your photostream, but nope. They just kept on coming. Nice.