[Bill Stickers]

This is true - however, sometimes it can be nice to have a deeper depth of field, especially when using faster lenses in low light - when you need to open them up purely to obtain a sane shutter speed.

That's why we have ISO as a set-able function. Coincidentally, from what i've heard, FF offers better high ISO performance so you don't have to worry about cranking up the iso anymore.

And to the people saying "... but you can get the same DOF with a longer lens". Yeh, but it would be nice to not have to stand back 30ft. It would also be nice to be able to get our moneys worth out of our 50 f/1.2 and wide angle lenses.

Personally I'd love to go MF for the DOF advantages. but until they can make one with the advantages of a modern (pentax) DSLR (portable size, Good High ISO, under $10,000(preferably 6 at the most), weather resistant, buttons where you need them, ect) a pentax FF would be a good compromise. Especially since I don't have to buy a whole new set of lenses for it.

EDIT: before anyone points out that the 645d is only going to be $8,000, it still doesn't check off my other criteria. But it is a good start. maybe I'll get the MkII

---

Last edited by Bill Stickers; 05-03-2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason: to ward off evil spirits

[lol101]

You said it, brother. This past weekend, I went shooting with a friend who has a Nikon D700 with a 24-70/2.8 Nikkor lens. Unquestionably, it takes great photos, but perhaps only slightly better than my K10D, which, with a DA*16-50/2.8, covers a slightly greater angle of view and weighs a whole lot less. If it came down to a contest of low light, high ISO shooting, no doubt the D700 would win, but its advantage is counterbalanced by the fact that the K10D is image stabilized and can be hand held at 2 stops slower shutter speed, which translates into 2 stops lower ISO. The K20D probably has 3 stops greater hand holdability, and the K7, possibly even more.

As long as APS-C can deliver great IQ and keeps improving, I see no reason to jump on the FF bandwagon. Give me small size and light weight anyday.

Rob

3 stops greater hand-holdability... but for what?

SR/IS/VR... is only useful if your subject is not moving which seriously restricts its usefulness and cannot really replace two more stops of usable ISO.

I'll give all the stabilization systems in the world for two more stops of usable ISO: much more useful IMO.

[robgo2]

3 stops greater hand-holdability... but for what?

SR/IS/VR... is only useful if your subject is not moving which seriously restricts its usefulness and cannot really replace two more stops of usable ISO.

I'll give all the stabilization systems in the world for two more stops of usable ISO: much more useful IMO.

It is true that freezing motion requires shutter speed to exceed a certain threshold, depending on the speed of the moving object, the focal length of the lens and the distance of the subject from the camera. For this case, it might seem that image stabilization would not be useful, as it does not enhance shutter speed, but rather allows one to hand hold at a slower shutter speed.

But some have demonstrated that the K20D has very acceptable levels of digital noise at ISO 1600, much of which can be removed in post processing. It is highly likely, then, that a motion-stopping shutter speed can be reached in many situations at ISO 1600, whereas a non-stabilized camera might require one or two stops faster shutter speed to allow hand holdability

While it is generally more useful to have a fast shutter speed/higher ISO to freeze motion, the variables of a given situation can make it less straightforward than it might first seem.

Rob

[lol101]

But some have demonstrated that the K20D has very acceptable levels of digital noise at ISO 1600, much of which can be removed in post processing. It is highly likely, then, that a motion-stopping shutter speed can be reached in many situations at ISO 1600, whereas a non-stabilized camera might require one or two stops faster shutter speed to allow hand holdability

Eh?

How can you reach a motion stopping speed and still not be able to hand-hold your camera?

Furthermore, if you're using high ISO to get to that necessary speed, wouldn't it be preferable to have clean high ISO?

While it is generally more useful to have a fast shutter speed/higher ISO to freeze motion, the variables of a given situation can make it less straightforward than it might first seem.

Rob

OK... could you give me some practical examples?

[jay]

i want ff so my fa limiteds are the "right" focal length.

clear enough?

The focal length of the lens is an intrinsic characteristic of the optic -- it has nothing to do with sensor size. A 200mm lens is a 200mm lens -- whether it's for large format, medium format, 35mm, APS-C, or 1/2" -- it's just a 200mm lens.

I don't see why APS-C DA lens owners are so against a FF DSLR.

Because we're not stupid enough to expect our camera's manufacturer to go into bankruptcy trying to produce 4 lens lines.

We had a four- or five-post discussion in the K-7 mega thread about this. I mentioned that technological advances in sensor design are going to make the difference between APS-C and full-frame completely irrelevant.

I mentioned one of my professors has developed a CMOS image pick-up that can detect all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from a single photosite. Instead of transmitting just an intensity, it will transmit variable spectrum data on frequencies and intensities. So, the RGB bayer array will be a thing of the past.

If Samsung gets its hands on that technology, it would blow everyone else out of the water. There's no way a full-frame sensor or anything else could stand up against that. Period.

Sony is experimenting with a redesign of their CMOS sensor to allow light to enter through the rear of the image sensor -- to bypass all the circuit traces and components. This makes the sensor two orders of magnitude brighter than the equivalent-sized conventional sensor.

Fuji has some new stuff in the works, too. For CCD, which may make a comeback.

So, there's a lot of interesting things going on.

And yes, any technology developed for APS-C can be applied to full-frame, but...

This reminds me of the super computer vs desktop computer battle. Mainframes were all built with a LOT of processors (hundreds...). So, they didn't need to be particularly fast or anything; they just needed a lot of them.

Desktop PCs were built with processors that got faster and faster and faster.

Super computer proponents said (and are correct in thinking) "It doesn't matter; if you build a faster processor, we'll just put 100 of them in our computer, and we'll still win"

Or, compare an old gas-guzzling 1960s big-block V8 to a a tiny-ass 1.8 L I-4 BPD-T engine out of a GTI-R -- it pumps out 206 HP, which is astonishing for an engine of its size.

Sure, if the technology from that engine were scaled up into an 8-cylinder design, of course it would put out more horsepower.

Full-frame sensors are like that. They're lazy. They're big and bulky and use lots of power. They rely on sheer size instead of ingenuity. They require huge lenses, huge bodies, and huge pocketbooks.

APS-C sensors are crafty. They're noticeably smaller -- smaller lenses, smaller bodies (Samsung NX) and less expensive. New technology is easier to apply to APS-C sensors (because of the smaller sensor size), and each year, they get better and better.

Smaller is definitely the new black this season.

Some day -- soon -- we'll all be laughing at the full-frame cameras of yesteryear. The big dinosaurs. We'll tell our kids that cameras used to have to be big if you wanted good image quality.

Just like talking to my dad (who's worked in broadcast video for 40 years) about the old 1 1/4 " Image Orthocon camera tubes they used in all the studio cameras.

Why don't they use sensors that big in current studio cameras? Wouldn't they get better image quality? Sure, but who cares? Their 2/3" sensors look good enough. And the benefits from going any larger would become a case of diminishing returns.

[blende8]

you're not taking the more telecentric needs of a digital sensor over film into account.

Isn't this only a lens thing?

People who need/want larger sensors don't want them for resolution (usually) but for FOV and more importantly DoF control.

Agree!
A while ago I tried again my MZ-S.
It is another world DoF wise, much shallower DoF. Very nice.
I want this!

Pentax! Give us FF!

[er1kksen]

Why do you lust after more resolution? Is 15MP truly insufficient for the type of work that you do? If you want more detail from the K20D, try using DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversion. It puts every other RAW converter to shame in this regard.

That said, I may end up buying the K7 myself to replace my K10D, but it would be for features other than resolution. Ten MP with DxO is more than enough.

Rob

I have a tendency to crop a lot. Being able to crop in to 6mp from a K20D image and get a still excellent result is incredibly useful for me, so the 15mp is truly a gift in that regard. However, I also like to print large. I don't do it as often as I'd like due to cost, but there's nothing I love more than a good crisp large print. From normal viewing distances you really don't need more than 10mp to look "sharp," but with higher resolution greater tonalities and subtleties of the image start to come into play. Even downsampled to web sizes you can see some visible differences in the imaging characteristics provided by larger formats.

If pentax never does release a full-frame camera, I'll likely pick up a Sony A900 someday when it's at today's 5D prices, or if I can afford it I'd rather just skip it and get a 645D. I'll probably still do most things with an APS-C camera, as mobility is important to me, but having that option for portraits and landscapes would be great.

[Rondec]

Isn't funny how the golden age is always somewhere in the distant past? I think that film is a little bit like that. Since film was only truly viewed at printing size, it made it a lot harder to pixel peep than it is now on today's dslr.

I have no problem with Pentax making a full frame camera, but I think that the benefits currently are out weighed by the cost. The reality of the market place is that if you make a camera that is ten or even twenty percent better, but costs another thousand (or two?) dollars more, people will not flock to it.

Many younger photographers have never shot with film or full frame and don't real care about the difference between one and the other. In fact, many like the artificial extension that gives to their lenses.

[Bill Stickers]

We had a four- or five-post discussion in the K-7 mega thread about this. I mentioned that technological advances in sensor design are going to make the difference between APS-C and full-frame completely irrelevant.

I mentioned one of my professors has developed a CMOS image pick-up that can detect all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from a single photosite. Instead of transmitting just an intensity, it will transmit variable spectrum data on frequencies and intensities. So, the RGB bayer array will be a thing of the past.

If Samsung gets its hands on that technology, it would blow everyone else out of the water. There's no way a full-frame sensor or anything else could stand up against that. Period.

wow /licks lips

And yes, any technology developed for APS-C can be applied to full-frame, but...

This reminds me of the super computer vs desktop computer battle. we'll still win"

Full-frame sensors are like that. They're lazy. They're big and bulky and use lots of power. They rely on sheer size instead of ingenuity. They require huge lenses, huge bodies, and huge pocketbooks.
...
Smaller is definitely the new black this season.

Some day -- soon -- we'll all be laughing at the full-frame cameras of yesteryear. The big dinosaurs. We'll tell our kids that cameras used to have to be big if you wanted good image quality.

if we extrapolate this argument then we will all be shooting on an camera phone. cause that'll be good enough. It's not IQ we want it's the DOF. Which is a fucntion of aperture and focal length.

Whilst this was taken with a MF it illustrates my point perfectly. There is about 2ft DOF. this was taken with a 50mm f/1.4. If you were to repeat this with an aps-c you'd only have the center 3rd in frame. So you'd walk back another 10 ft to get the rest of it and guess what the buildings in the bg are now twice* as focused and completely ruin the image. but wait you say. you could use a 100mm lens. and i say how many 100 f/1.4's do you know of.

Why don't they use sensors that big in current studio cameras? Wouldn't they get better image quality? Sure, but who cares? Their 2/3" sensors look good enough. And the benefits from going any larger would become a case of diminishing returns.

They live in a world of compromises and settle for good enough. If they want the bg out of focus they move the actors further away from it. You should see movies that have been shot on the 5dmkii. they're stunning.

*MATHS™® may not represent what happens in the real world.

[falconeye]

Smaller is definitely the new black this season.

Everything agreed except:

- FF mount and APS-C sensor don't go together in the long run (a worst of both worlds effect).

- Supercomputers are actually driving the technology and shouldn't be compared to dinosauers. More to race cars. I used to architect those (the former).

[wll]

We had a four- or five-post discussion in the K-7 mega thread about this. I mentioned that technological advances in sensor design are going to make the difference between APS-C and full-frame completely irrelevant.

I mentioned one of my professors has developed a CMOS image pick-up that can detect all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from a single photosite. Instead of transmitting just an intensity, it will transmit variable spectrum data on frequencies and intensities. So, the RGB bayer array will be a thing of the past.

If Samsung gets its hands on that technology, it would blow everyone else out of the water. There's no way a full-frame sensor or anything else could stand up against that. Period.

Sony is experimenting with a redesign of their CMOS sensor to allow light to enter through the rear of the image sensor -- to bypass all the circuit traces and components. This makes the sensor two orders of magnitude brighter than the equivalent-sized conventional sensor.

Fuji has some new stuff in the works, too. For CCD, which may make a comeback.

Or, compare an old gas-guzzling 1960s big-block V8 to a a tiny-ass 1.8 L I-4 BPD-T engine out of a GTI-R -- it pumps out 206 HP, which is astonishing for an engine of its size.

APS-C sensors are crafty. They're noticeably smaller -- smaller lenses, smaller bodies (Samsung NX) and less expensive. New technology is easier to apply to APS-C sensors (because of the smaller sensor size), and each year, they get better and better.

Yep, this was my point, new technology is being developed all the time and there will come a time when the size of the sensor is a moot point.

Sure, the bigger the better, but at what cost. If you can print incredible 30" x 60" prints using a small sensor and do it using a small light camera and lens system ...... that's what I'm going with.




wll

[whatever7]

Isn't funny how the golden age is always somewhere in the distant past? I think that film is a little bit like that. Since film was only truly viewed at printing size, it made it a lot harder to pixel peep than it is now on today's dslr.

You can always switch back to film, I am.

I have no problem with Pentax making a full frame camera, but I think that the benefits currently are out weighed by the cost. The reality of the market place is that if you make a camera that is ten or even twenty percent better, but costs another thousand (or two?) dollars more, people will not flock to it.

Its only 1 grand more. For a camera two stops better, its worth it. You can argue its 1 and 1/3 stop or whatever, but my point is think of how much more you have to pay for your lenses if you havee to upgrade them to 1 stop faster.

Many younger photographers have never shot with film or full frame and don't real care about the difference between one and the other. In fact, many like the artificial extension that gives to their lenses.

It really has nothing to do with film. APS has matched or surpassed the noice of film. Although not matching the the dynamic range. Personally I just like Fuji film color better.

However digital FF is just better People just to need to take a look at other people's work, they don't need to look at film. Go to flickr and search "D700 ISO6400".

[vinzer]

I don't see why APS-C DA lens owners are so against a FF DSLR.

I think it's the standard reaction when one's home brand doesn't currently offer what another company offers. I believe Nikon users had the same negative remarks towards FF up until Nikon announced the D3.

But there really are pros and cons to APS-C and FF. It really becomes a matter of personal preference than a unanimous decision.

[Torphoto]

With all this FF talk, I wonder how many will complain if Pentax does release a FF dslr and it costs $2600 with the same specs as say the 5D MkII, and no better performance. I can see it now oh it's to expensive etc etc etc.

[Art Vandelay II]

You said it, brother. This past weekend, I went shooting with a friend who has a Nikon D700 with a 24-70/2.8 Nikkor lens. Unquestionably, it takes great photos, but perhaps only slightly better than my K10D, which, with a DA*16-50/2.8, covers a slightly greater angle of view and weighs a whole lot less.

The K10D is a whole lot less weight due to construction techniques (plastic vs magnesium), not because the D700 is FF. The D700 is basically the same size as the D300, an APS-C camera. Plus, I personally prefer the size/weight of that D300/D700. I think that line of camera (followed closely by the Sony A900 and Olympus E3) are the best feeling cameras on the market.

I'm not exactly sure why Nikon has chosen to make their fast standard zooms so large, but their DX 17-55mm f/2.8 is pretty close in size to their FX 24-70mm f/2.8. So a D300 with standard zoom is virtually the exact same size as a D700 with standard zoom. Plus, if you do prefer a smaller standard zoom, the new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is almost the the same size as Pentax's 16-50mm f/2.8.

To me the most appealing walk around FF set up is the Sony A900 + their 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5. I was shocked at how small that lens is in person. That set up is no more obtrusive then a K20D with 17-70mm. To me the only real size advantage APS-C offers is for telephoto work. I have no desire to ever carry around a 450mm FF lens, but "consumer 70-300mm zoom" lenses are perfectly manageable, and on APS-C gives you 105-450mm FOV.