I was just scanning through DPR's preview of the 5D Mark II and I was a bit surprised. The IQ is of course incredible through ISO3200 (it better be for $3000), but if their series of high ISO pics at the end of this gallery is accurate I wouldn't use anything over ISO3200. ISO6400 starts to show horizontal banding and the problem just gets out of control over that.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Beta Preview Gallery Gallery: Digital Photography Review

Seeing as how the $1500 Canon 50D is fine through ISO1600 all you get for twice the money is:

• A slightly larger viewfinder
• 1 extra high ISO stop
• Slightly better DOF control
• 850 more horizontal pixels (more on this below)

I would add a couple of stops of dynamic range and the video HD and I would be more generous with the VF difference and the high iso (for what I have seen in samples it seems more like a coupe of stops and better detail), but that is just me. Anyhow, for 95% of the shoots the 50D would be just fine.

[RiceHigh]

[Answer to a question - yes, I wear eyeglasses]

To those who "can't see any advantage" to FF, just stick with what you've got - you're happy with it and that's all that matters. Just kindly stop trying to tell those of us who aren't happy with it that we should be happy with it/should buy another camera maker's product instead/etc. OK?

Well put, Mr. FF Now!

Talk about "resolution" based on pixel counts misses the point. If you're chopping up detail that is poorly resolved due to how small it is, you won't gain any image quality, just noise; the smaller the image you start with, the more the pixels (regardless of quantity) need to be "amplified" to produce a given size print, and the more you will therefore do the same thing to noise and artifacts, which is a further detraction to image quality. You lose image quality by cropping, whether you do so in-camera (as with an APS-C dSLR) or whether you do so after the shot in pp. Just because you place more pixel density on the smaller format doesn't mean it will equal the larger format. When you crop, you demand that detail being resolved by the lens be resolved to a smaller size, which requires more lens sharpness (not to mention making critical focus more imperative). It is in this area that image quality will always be compromised by "crop cameras" that reduce the image format.

Not even to mention the bundle noise it has. In fact, at just 14.6MP of the K20D or 15MP of the Canon 50D, the noisy problem is playing large here. Well, users can stick to ISO 100 or 200 to avoid such, but long time exposure, higher ISO and LiveView (in case of the K20D) etc. are all causing more problems about noise and hot pixels.

If you don't think the difference in image quality is "worth it" then stick with what you're happy with. But again, kindly stop trying to convince those of us not happy with it that we should "settle" for what we're not happy with.

True.

Since I'm going to carry around the same size/weight lenses anyway, I want the full format they cover and I want the decision to crop or not to be left up to me, rather than forced down my throat by a camera whose design is a compromise based on immature/developing technology.

All "original" manufacturers except Pentax knew that the APS-C DSLRs are just transitional period product, as you say, with much compromise. I think you've made a very valid and good point that the current Pentax APS-C offer (bodies and DA lenses) are more or less in the same size or weight (and actually heavier on the wide side, just see the DA 16-45 and the DA 17-70 and compared it against the old FA 24-90). The K bodies are by no means as light and compact, except the latest K-m (but then which is of no any special and latest features).

I see no advantage to APS-C dSLRs other than the sole advantage that motivated their existence: cost. That's it. The rest of the so-called "advantages" constitute nothing more than a well-orchestrated marketing campaign. They may have "sold" you on this concept, but they have not - and will not - "sell" me on it.

Me Neither.

Even Ken Rockwell (in an old piece) sang the APS-C praises and the lack of any advantage of a FF sensor, back when his pet brand, Nikon, didn't have one. Pure rationalization. Now, of course, he sings the praises of the D3 and D700. I suspect when Pentax finally gets around to it, we'll see plenty of the same from the naysayers

The sad and most upset thing by now is officially it seems that Pentax will never give us Full Frame DSLR and system, unless they just wished to keep the secret and then a sudden attack (and surprise)!

[Class A]

1. What I meant was that a DA lens on a APS camera is just as prone to corner problems as a FF lens on an FF camera. Theres no sweetspot when using a DA lens.

Sure, there is no sweet spot using a DA lens with an APS-C sensor. But I don't think you have an argument here as you agree that a DA lens is less challenging to get right than a FF lens.

That manufacturers choose to make DA lenses with corner and fringing issues is a practical fact. In principle, they could offer DA lenses that are superior to FF lenses (w.r.t. to their intended format). When comparing systems, you have to compare what is possible in principle, not what manufacturers choose to offer. However, obviously a system hasn't got an advantage if its potential isn't exploited in practise.

2. DA lenses (used on an APS camera) need to be 50% better than FF lenses used on a FF camera to be "equal". That is because you need to magnify the APS image 50% more to be of equal size to the FF image.

But then it should be easier to get this better resolution in the DA centre because you don't have to serve FF corners. A FF lens has to distribute its sharpness over a larger range and hence a DA lens should have a head start in terms of image quality.

3. It is easier to design a DA lens because it covers a smaller image circle. For that reasons it is not any more immune to corner problems than FF lenses used with FF sensor.

I agree it is not intrinsically more immune but it is less challenging to serve the DA image circle. It is a bit of a shame that current DA lenses aren't a bit more over-engineered in order to better avoid corner problems, right?

And you can put a FF lens on your APS-C sensor camera to get a sweet spot. What will you put on your FF-sensor camera to get a sweet spot?

BTW, I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm just interested in the pros and cons. I can imagine that a FF sensor would be useful but current technology limitations (lens quality, sensor technology, space/speed requirements) seem to push FF to a rather narrow market at the moment.

[Class A]

Here is the proof which verifies what you said again.

I appreciate your "measurebations" (as you call them yourself), but this doesn't proof anything apart from the fact that a DA lens with corner issues exists. So do FF lenses.

Your "proof" doesn't say anything about how much easier it would have been to avoid these problems with a DA lens compared to a FF lens.

[RiceHigh]

I appreciate your "measurebations" (as you call them yourself), but this doesn't proof anything apart from the fact that a DA lens with corner issues exists. So do FF lenses.

Your "proof" doesn't say anything about how much easier it would have been to avoid these problems with a DA lens compared to a FF lens.

Since you are not convinced, I suggest you to check out that:-

1. A F* 17-28 on Full Frame does not have the same huge amount of the DA 10-17 of CAs and purple fringing. You know in Hong Kong, many of we Pentaxians named the lens as "King of Purple Fringing"!

2. A FA 20/2.8 on FF has better corner sharpness and central resolution than a DA 14/2.8 on APS-C but then the former is lighter and more compact.

3. A DA 16-45 has more vignetting, CAs and distortion than what the FA 24-90 does and the DA counterpart is heavier and larger and with shorter range!

4. The DA 17-70 has a comparable range with the FA 24-90 but then it has even worse optical performance as shown in the review test above. Note that it is even heavier and bulkier!

5. And many more examples..

There are just two possibilities for all the above:-

1. APS-C DSLR system is inferior and more difficult to make it good, as what 24x36NOW states;

2. Pentax in recent years designed and made products which are inferior than what they were able to produce before!

3. Or BOTH!

[Class A]

To those who "can't see any advantage" to FF, just stick with what you've got - you're happy with it and that's all that matters. Just kindly stop trying to tell those of us who aren't happy with it that we should be happy with it/should buy another camera maker's product instead/etc. OK?

I believe that many posters here are not trying to proof anyone wrong. I personally am just interested in the discussion. I'm happy for everyone wanting/having FF.

Talk about "resolution" based on pixel counts misses the point. If you're chopping up detail that is poorly resolved due to how small it is, you won't gain any image quality, just noise;

Yes, noise becomes worse the smaller the pixels get. However, sensor technology is evolving fast and I'm convinced we'll have more pixels without increased noise (for instance by reducing the non light sensitive area on the sensor).

You'd have the same advantage for a FF sensor but rather sooner than later your overall resolution will be limited by the lens rather than the sensor. Diffraction limited lenses are very rare and others do not need a full frame sensor to exploit their (aberration spoiled) resolution.

Just because you place more pixel density on the smaller format doesn't mean it will equal the larger format.

Not automatically, however when you manage to keep the noise levels the same, you should be good and have a less challenging task to design a fitting lens, right?

I'm no expert but from what I've read it is harder to make a lens perform well/consistently over a large area than to make it exceptionally sharp for a small (center) area.

The rest of the so-called "advantages" constitute nothing more than a well-orchestrated marketing campaign.

I think you are oversimplifying here. Isn't it a disadvantage that with a FF sensor you are faced with potential sensor vignetting in addition to lens vignetting?

As described in FullFrame WARS! this problem was counteracted for the Leica M8 but addressing the problem for a large range for focal lengths isn't that easy, or is it? (This is a genuine question).

Aren't there are more challenges to read out a FF sensor as quickly and deal with the massive amount of data in and outside the camera?

I'm not trying to be exhaustive as I don't want to win an argument. However, I don't think that labelling those who are not sold to the FF format as being blinded by marketing is neither necessary nor appropriate.

[Class A]

There are just two possibilities for all the above:-

1. APS-C DSLR system is inferior and more difficult to make it good, as what 24x36NOW states;

2. Pentax in recent years designed and made products which are inferior than what they were able to produce before!

So if it is possibility #2 what does that contribute to the APS-C vs FF debate? Nothing. Have a look at the MTF charts at FullFrame WARS! In this case the DA lens wins hands down (which doesn't proof anything either w.r.t. a systematic advantage; the latter may only be demonstrated using physics).

As usual, there are more possibilities than spring to mind immediately. It could also be the case that Pentax could produce (were able to build) higher quality DA counterparts but deliberately choose not to because of business considerations (quality vs cost deliberations for a changing market).

BTW, why are you calling yourself a Pentaxian when you seem to use every opportunity to bash Pentax? I really do admire your measurbations but I find it kind of sad that you are using a lot of energy in a negative way rather than being more positive (perhaps with a different brand?).

[ogl]

Since you are not convinced, I suggest you to check out that:-

1. A F* 17-28 on Full Frame does not have the same huge amount of the DA 10-17 of CAs and purple fringing. You know in Hong Kong, many of we Pentaxians named the lens as "King of Purple Fringing"!

2. A FA 20/2.8 on FF has better corner sharpness and central resolution than a DA 14/2.8 on APS-C but then the former is lighter and more compact.

3. A DA 16-45 has more vignetting, CAs and distortion than what the FA 24-90 does and the DA counterpart is heavier and larger and with shorter range!

4. The DA 17-70 has a comparable range with the FA 24-90 but then it has even worse optical performance as shown in the review test above. Note that it is even heavier and bulkier!

5. And many more examples..

There are just two possibilities for all the above:-

1. APS-C DSLR system is inferior and more difficult to make it good, as what 24x36NOW states;

2. Pentax in recent years designed and made products which are inferior than what they were able to produce before!

3. Or BOTH!

It's senseless examples....
Dont' you really know such simple things that it's not correct to compare lenses with different focal length

Pentax has no FF digital camera and you can't know how FA20 could work at digital FF. If you want to compare you should use FA and DA lenses with APS-C Pentax camera - for example DA14 and A15/3.5 or DA21 and FA20. I can say that DA21 is better than FA20.

DA14 has 14 mm focal lenght, FA20 has 20 mm focal lenght.
The focal lenght changes of crop-factor, but optician-engineer develops lens with 14 mm, first of all, not 21 mm for APS-C camera.


If Pentax has FF camera, welcome...Please, compare and discuss...

[nosnoop]

To those who "can't see any advantage" to FF, just stick with what you've got - you're happy with it and that's all that matters. Just kindly stop trying to tell those of us who aren't happy with it that we should be happy with it/should buy another camera maker's product instead/etc. OK?

On the contrary, I see it the other way round. I kept hearing FF advocates telling me that my APS-C camera is not good enough and it is deficient. In addition, I was constantly bombarded by the prediction of Pentax's imminent demise and the dire consequences of not getting a FF camera out soon. :ugh:

[whatever7]

I think people just have to realize FF belongs to such a small group of high end users that you won't have more than 2 profitable ecosystem within the niche. In other word, you can join the FF race, but you don't make money in it.

You can make a case like that in other pro equiptment markets. As for FF trigle down to the semipro market that's bigger than 10%, I don't think the IQ improvment can justify the increased weight and cost to the mid range users.

[Art Vandelay II]

To those who "can't see any advantage" to FF, just stick with what you've got - you're happy with it and that's all that matters...instead/etc. OK?

Talk about "resolution" based on pixel counts misses the point. If you're chopping up detail that is poorly resolved due to how small it is, you won't gain any image quality, just noise; the smaller the image you start with...immature/developing technology.

That's a sliding scale. If you're talking about a 1/2.3 12mp sensor then you have a point. However the difference in blowing up a 15 megapixel APSC-C image and a 21megapixel FF image is so minimal that 95% of people wouldn't notice a single difference in the final print.

I see no advantage to APS-C dSLRs other than the sole advantage that motivated their existence: cost.

I think you are really underestimating the importance of size, especially in the telephoto end. There is a reason m4/3's has so much interest...finally a small interchangeable lens camera.


All that aside. Do you have any actual photographs where APS-C clearly let you down and FF would have produced superior results? As they say, the proof is in the pudding. I'd love to see some actual cases (not lab tests) of photos you have taken where APS-C was clearly the cause for you missing a shot.

I asked the same thing of you when you were complaining that you can't get a 14mm eqv. APS-C lens. I'd love to see your gallery of 14mm shots. However you just ignored that request.

I'm sick of reading about all of this, I want to see some examples of photos that you or even RH have taken where APS-C has failed you. You guys complain about the most asinine technical details of lens design, camera construction, sensor technology, but I never, ever, see in real life examples where these "problems" have effected either of you.

[thibs]

I see no advantage to APS-C dSLRs other than the sole advantage that motivated their existence: cost. That's it. The rest of the so-called "advantages" constitute nothing more than a well-orchestrated marketing campaign.

I still think you miss the FOV point which either bad or good, being good for most users. People usually do not care much for DOF (being good or bad isn't the point) and so will be delighted to use a small 200/2.8 to get the FOV of a 300/2.8. And this use of a 200mm to get 300mm has very direct cost consequences as well as weight/compactness consequences.

WA users on the opposite are of course annoyed by the crop factor but IMO most people are happier shooting tele rather than WA.

Now, of course, he sings the praises of the D3 and D700. I suspect when Pentax finally gets around to it, we'll see plenty of the same from the naysayers here.

That's defenitely a given.

[Class A]

I still think you miss the FOV point which either bad or good, being good for most users. ... use a small 200/2.8 to get the FOV of a 300/2.8.

That's not a point in favour of APS-C, AFAIC. You can always achieve the APS-C FOV with a FF just by cropping.

FF can simulate APS-C but not the other way round.

That's assuming that a FF lens has the same performance in the relevant APS-C image circle, which it probably doesn't have, but this issue aside, the FF has the edge regarding FOV.

[thibs]

That's not a point in favour of APS-C, AFAIC. You can always achieve the APS-C FOV with a FF just by cropping.

FF can simulate APS-C but not the other way round.

That's assuming that a FF lens has the same performance in the relevant APS-C image circle, which it probably doesn't have, but this issue aside, the FF has the edge regarding FOV.

Again it depends on the point of view.
If I needed a FOV of 300mm on FF, I'd be very happy to pay a 200mm and be happy with that as a 200mm 2.8 is much more affordable than a 300.

Same with bigger teles... my old 300mm acts as a 450mm on a APS-C. Saying that this is negligable would be stupid.

But again, it depends on each uses and it all comes down to costs in the end.

BTW the solution of cropping heavily depends on the envisoned FF sensor, if you need 12+Mpix and FOV of 300mm on FF, cropping a 12Mpix D3 just won't cut it.

I think this all debates heavily depends on use, money budget and cometing cameras you *might* buy instead of your current cameras.
IMO there are almost as many answers as there are users.

[Class A]

my old 300mm acts as a 450mm on a APS-C. Saying that this is negligable would be stupid.

I don't get this. I believe the best way to compare the two formats is to assume that when cropping an APS-C area from an FF sensor, you'll get as many pixels as the corresponding APS-C sensor has. It'll be odd to just exploit higher sensitivity and not increase the resolution.

With that assumption you can buy your 300mm lens, shoot an FF image, crop it to APS-C size and have your 450mm point of view. You only pay more for a true 450mm FF lens if you actually get more (resolution).