[Trickortreat]

There is no way you can compare IQ by viewing online pictures

But this is the only of the 2 ways to assess the image quality. the other one would be to print it so you can see that yourself when i post the photos.
in the mean time, here are the SOOC JPEGs
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Dont pixel peep, view at normal viewing size or better, print them. Youll see - no major visible difference besides some lens distortion...

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Mistral75]

Yes, legacy lenses were the sole reason that FF DSLRs came to the market. But there arent really any technical reasons for FF DSLRs in modern days except for extremely niche uses.

One of the reasons for 24x36 DSLRs is that the lens mounts of the current APS-C DSLRs are 24x36 mounts, hence not optimised for APS-C.

The situation would be different if the Minolta Vectis had been a success.

Another reason, the most important to me, is the size of the viewfinder.

[Serkevan]

Before looking at the EXIF, the top one is the D750. The faces (in particular on the left) are far less blurred. Detail is much better preserved. Didn't even open the pics. For reference, I'm viewing them on a 1920x1080 24 inch wide monitor.

[Mistral75]

Can you explain why Pentax never made a crop wide angle lens faster than f/2.8, despite not having a full frame digital camera until 2016?

Because the K mount is a 24x36 mount, with a flange back distance able to clear the mirror of a 24x36 camera, hence longer than necessary for an APS-C camera, hence imposing the (ultra) wide-angle APS-C lenses to be more retrofocus than otherwise needed, thus making them bigger than otherwise needed.

[Trickortreat]

One of the reasons for 24x36 DSLRs is that the lens mounts of the current APS-C DSLRs are 24x36 mounts, hence not optimised for APS-C.
The situation would be different if the Minolta Vectis had been a success.

Yes, as I said, the success of FF DSLRs is mostly because of legacy. There arent really any inherent technical reasons for digital FF to be (visibly) superior crop.

Before looking at the EXIF, the top one is the D750. The faces (in particular on the left) are far less blurred. Detail is much better preserved. Didn't even open the pics. For reference, I'm viewing them on a 1920x1080 24 inch wide monitor.

Its because of lenses used, 85 1.8 is a better lens than 50 1.8, but just look at general noise, tonality and DR. Not much difference to see. Print them and there will be none. If the lenses of same quality were used for both photos, youd see no difference at all even when viewing on a PC.

---------- Post added 10-02-19 at 11:04 AM ----------

Because the K mount is a 24x36 mount, with a flange back distance able to clear the mirror of a 24x36 camera, hence longer than necessary for an APS-C camera, hence imposing the (ultra) wide-angle APS-C lenses to be more retrofocus than otherwise needed, thus making them bigger than otherwise needed.

Yes, legacy is impairing the full potential of APS-C. but if focal flange was shorter, things would be pretty much on par.

[Sandy Hancock]

Because the K mount....

Cheers, I kinda knew some of that.
There was only one person I wanted to give me an explanation though, and he's got nothing

[Dan Rentea]

If we compare 2 sensors of same generation (that of Nikon D7200 and D750) that are of same resolution, difference is extremely small - less than half a stop at base ISO and a bit more than half a stop on ISO6400. If we push those photos trough post processing the difference is indistinguishable to human eye.
Yep, I said that legacy lenses are the main reason for FF to exist, but technically, there is really not that much advantage.

Shoot with both systems side by side and in certain circumstances the difference is there in terms of:
- af
- fps
- mettering
- viewfinder
- lenses (put a 11-24mm f4 lens on a full frame and on a crop and shoot at 11mm with both inside a small room)
- high ISO
- DOF
-resolution and bigger sensor (for the one who print large)

As good as a D500 is for tracking for example, there are lot of situations where a D5 will "kill" the D500.

Sure, for travel and for general shooting situations were you have good light and subjects less difficult, a crop camera will do the job just fine, as well as a micro 4/3 camera will do. A flagship APS-C is a very good alternative for the ones who don't have the budget and/or subject that require a full frame. Going full frame is expensive, especially if you need a 11-24mm lens for architecture or a 600mm f4 for birds or a 400mm f2.8 for sport.

[Serkevan]

Its because of lenses used, 85 1.8 is a better lens than 50 1.8, but just look at general noise, tonality and DR. Not much difference to see. Print them and there will be none. If the lenses of same quality were used for both photos, youd see no difference at all even when viewing on a PC

Absolutely not, it is very visibly noisier on the APS-C image, because of the smaller pixel pitch. The colour tonality also takes a beating; the darker greys get mushed to black faster on the D7500.

[Mistral75]

(...)

Yes, legacy is impairing the full potential of APS-C. but if focal flange was shorter, things would be pretty much on par.

Yet it is not, therefore, for manufacturers having a 24x36 mount and enjoying a portfolio of 24x36 lenses, once 24x36 sensors become affordable it's easier to put a 24x36 sensor in their cameras than launch a new mount, optimised for APS-C, together with a complete series of new lenses to take full advantage of the APS-C format.

Add to that the current race towards high-end, expensive cameras to try to maintain margins in spite of declining sales and you pretty much obtain the current situation.

[Trickortreat]

Shoot with both systems side by side and in certain circumstances the difference is there in terms of:
- af
- fps
- mettering
- viewfinder
- lenses (put a 11-24mm f4 lens on a full frame and on a crop and shoot at 11mm with both inside a small room)
- high ISO
- DOF
-resolution and bigger sensor (for the one who print large)

As good as a D500 is for tracking for example, there are lot of situations where a D5 will "kill" the D500.

Sure, for travel and for general shooting situations were you have good light and subjects less difficult, a crop camera will do the job just fine, as well as a micro 4/3 camera will do. A flagship APS-C is a very good alternative for the ones who don't have the budget and/or subject that require a full frame. Going full frame is expensive, especially if you need a 11-24mm lens for architecture or a 600mm f4 for birds or a 400mm f2.8 for sport.

1. AF can be made equal
2. FPS can be made equal
3. metering can be made equal
4. lens focal lengths and light gathering can be made equal
5. high ISO difference is so small that isnt really relevan
6. how much thin DOF do you need? A 85 1.8 on crop is borderline usable
7. there were billboard size prints made with D1, i dont think much more resolution is needed anyway.

Slight advantages of FF are really extreme niche. General use photography is better suited with crop.

[Mike.P®]

while others are along the lines of "Pentax sucks." One was simply "Pentax is dead." It's kinda funny in a morbid way.

My first Pentax body was the K10D which I purchased off this forum in 2008. I also use a large forum here in the UK and when I posted on there what I had just bought I was told much the same thing. 11 years (and a K20D,K-7,K-5,K-5II,K-5IIs,K-3,K-3II, K-1) later both myself and Pentax are still here.

I still read the same old thing but it mostly gets ignored now, I really do just believe that anyone who would sit on a forum all day and run down something they haven't even tried before must have a very sad and lonely life.

[Trickortreat]

Yet it is not, therefore, for manufacturers having a 24x36 mount and enjoying a portfolio of 24x36 lenses, once 24x36 sensors become affordable it's easier to put a 24x36 sensor in their cameras than launch a new mount, optimised for APS-C, together with a complete series of new lenses to take full advantage of the APS-C format.
Add to that the current race towards high-end, expensive cameras to try to maintain margins in spite of declining sales and you pretty much obtain the current situation.

All I'm saying here is from hypothetical POV. If DSLRs were made from ground up with crop sensors in mind, there would really be small chance for users to really consider FF. But marketing got the best of us. Camera companies get bigger margins on FF. And we are sheep

[Serkevan]

Do we push the argument to "Phones are as good as a 645Z" or should we leave it at "while differences are probably irrelevant to a lot of users, they definitely, measurably exist"?

---------- Post added 10-02-19 at 02:20 AM ----------

Camera companies get bigger margins on FF. And we are sheep

Just saying that the price difference between a new K-1 and a new KP in Germany, today, is something like 150€.

[ffking]

And I expect they'll once again apologise for being surprised by an unexpectedly high demand.

Taking to bites of the cherry is definitely the prevailing advertising paradigm - like those annoying 'Whoops!' follow up spam emails.

[Trickortreat]

Just saying that the price difference between a new K-1 and a new KP in Germany, today, is something like 150€.

Lets take the lenses and other gear into consideration also, the price for the kit hits 1000€ difference in no time.