What's with the FF Postings - Why ?

wll · 05-03-2009, 08:56 AM

Today's APS-C sized sensors are getting better and better and in a few short years the sensor technology will probably change and make APS-C and FF and MF a moot point.

Ben shoots very high profile images in the finest fashion magazines in the world and I'm sure his clients are very exacting in how they want their products shown .... I'll bet my life if his image quality was sub par using APS-C sized sensors he would switch in a NEW York minute !

I have shot my catalog for two years and images are fantastic using a K10D and even my little DS.

I personally want a small and maneuverable system ..... that's why I went to Pentax in the first place. As a matter of fact, the Panasonic GH1 looks like a very cool take anywhere system.

Looking at the leeks the last week or so, I'm very happy with the new compact size of the K-7, as a matter of fact the K10D was a big camera for me and I was not thrilled about toting that thing around. Look at the lens size difference, those C and N lenses are very big and heavy - If I wanted to lug around a boat anchor I would have gotten a C or N - (I'm talking about their higher quality cameras, not their intro models).

For me and me alone, I'm thrilled that Pentax got back to a "small is beautiful" philosophy. If some day I need more resolution (I can't see why) then maybe a MF for studio work would be in the future, but I don't think so.

So much for my tirade, what are your thoughts.

wll

Andrew Faires · 05-03-2009, 09:24 AM

FF, APS-C, a pin-hole camera with 4x5 sheet film.....I'll use what I can

Seriously, before I switch from my k10d I want things like higher fps, better AF, the k20d sensor, metal body. After having a weather-sealed body, I won't go back to one that doesn't have seals. If there was a FF in the line-up I might get one, but first and foremost I want all the other stuff I've listed. I don't need FF and to be perfectly honest, the lack of it isn't going to and hasn't stopped me from taking pictures

**Hannican** · 05-03-2009, 09:29 AM

Agree with both of the above posters.

I don't need FF either, even though I do plan on selling photos someday, I think that our APS-C sensors are plenty good. I'm not doing billboard work...

I won't upgrade though, until there is a marked difference in performance from one model to the next, and I didn't see that between K10D and K20D.

My biggest complaint is the slow focusing on the K10D, especially in poor light, but really, everywhere.

I want video too- I think it could be an incredibly useful feature, even if it's very basically implemented.

er1kksen · 05-03-2009, 09:31 AM

Well, there are quite a few users who wouldn't mind if their old limited primes gave them the same field of view they fell in love with back in the film days...

Personally, given unlimited funds, my ideal camera would be the K20D (or probably the K7 but we don't know much about that) with a FF sensor with the same pixel density and imaging characteristics as those on the K20D. I love the "look" of the samsung sensor, I just always wish for more resolution. And then you could use DA glass the same way you would with the K20D with no real loss. I wouldn't mind if they knocked off the built-in flash to make room for the larger prism. And if we could keep the video from the K7 that'd be cool too.

Given limited funds and the nonexistence of such a camera, I'll probably get a K7 around christmas next year and be thrilled with a camera that does everything I love about my K20D and then a little, in a smaller package. I don't own any FA limiteds, and the FOV with my old 50s on APS-C is my personal focal-length sweet spot.

er1kksen · 05-03-2009, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Hannican

I don't need FF either, even though I do plan on selling photos someday, I think that our APS-C sensors are plenty good. I'm not doing billboard work...

You only need a couple megapixels for billboard work, really.

If you think about it, the distance you see them from gives them the same apparent size as your average VGA monitor...

filorp · 05-03-2009, 09:40 AM

i do not need FF either, maybe because i didn't use any FF camera since analog age... nobody showed me an advantage of FF really, apart from really slight better performance reg noises and something peopple calls 'plasty of the image' what is really hard to proof (apart from softness of the corners especially at wide angle FF lens

) I do not see any advantage at all....

falconeye · 05-03-2009, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by wll

Today's APS-C sized sensors are getting better and better and in a few short years the sensor technology will probably change and make APS-C and FF and MF a moot point. [...]

I see what you are saying. And speaking for 2009, you are right.

However, in the mid term (where digital doesn't impose a size overhead at all) this isn't quite correct.

The K mount system is a full frame camera system (always has been) and there is no reason a digital K mount FF camera has to be any bigger than Pentax MX. Canon, Nikon, Sony only fail miserably to do it now but we all know that this is Pentax land anyway

A dedicated APS-C would have to be much smaller than any of the current FF mount / APS-C sensor bodies allow. A market niche. Probably to be filled by the Samsung NX, though ...

BTW, Olympus with their 0.5x sensor (which is about 110 film format!) has miserably failed to turn the massive size benefit into a significantly smaller camera system. The Pentax 110 SLR system was a case study what the FourThirds system ought to be. Chance missed...

One last word ... the technological progress in sensor technology won't last forever. We're approaching physical limits here. A reasonable (i.e., usable) 100 MPixel sensor most likely requires a FF sensor. And OLED photo walls will require the resolution ...

So, for now I agree to what you say. But it shall change in the future ...

illdefined · 05-03-2009, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

I see what you are saying. And speaking for 2009, you are right.

However, in the mid term (where digital doesn't impose a size overhead at all) this isn't quite correct.

The K mount system is a full frame camera system (always has been) and there is no reason a digital K mount FF camera has to be any bigger than Pentax MX. Canon, Nikon, Sony only fail miserably to do it now but we all know that this is Pentax land anyway

A dedicated APS-C would have to be much smaller than any of the current FF mount / APS-C sensor bodies allow. A market niche. Probably to be filled by the Samsung NX, though ...

BTW, Olympus with their 0.5x sensor (which is about 110 film format!) has miserably failed to turn the massive size benefit into a significantly smaller camera system. The Pentax 110 SLR system was a case study what the FourThirds system ought to be. Chance missed...

One last word ... the technological progress in sensor technology won't last forever. We're approaching physical limits here. A reasonable (i.e., usable) 100 MPixel sensor most likely requires a FF sensor. And OLED photo walls will require the resolution ...

So, for now I agree to what you say. But it shall change in the future ...

you're not taking the more telecentric needs of a digital sensor over film into account.
it's why the Leica M8 is thicker than it's analog counterpart and is still forced to use a smaller sensor. they had to do tricks like tilting the microlenses on the edges of the sensor up to get that off-angle light that film took for granted. it's why we don't all have 35mm point&shoots.

the Samsung NX and Panasonic G1 are dedicated APS-C cameras but their much coveted thinness is primarily due to the removal of the mirror box and not their sensor size.

RawheaD · 05-03-2009, 11:48 AM

People who need/want larger sensors don't want them for resolution (usually) but for FOV and more importantly DoF control. It is simply an impossibility for one to take a photo like this:

on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

With a full frame sensor, let alone an APS-C. That's because if you want this FoV, you will have to use a much wider lens than an 180mm, which means you'll lose DoF as well as the compression. That is why I went from a compact digital to APS-C dSLR to FF dSLR to a film MF cam (not that my K20D won't always be my main man ;-).

and · 05-03-2009, 11:52 AM

This attempt to give that poor old dead horse another beating just about boils down to trolling does it not. All this faulty logic and selective mentioning of pros and cons. Well since the d3 and d2x are the same size then that has to mean FF cameras are no bigger than aps c ones right? Thats the level of logic these debates tend to have

Someone should make a FF vs APS-C entry in the knowledge base.

dave sz · 05-03-2009, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by wll

in a few short years the sensor technology will probably change and make APS-C and FF and MF a moot point.

never gonna happen. APS-c will not have the FOV of FF at the same focal lengths, it won't have the same DR, will not have the same DOF at same aperture as FF...

jsherman999 · 05-03-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by dave sz

never gonna happen. APS-c will not have the FOV of FF at the same focal lengths, it won't have the same DR, will not have the same DOF at same aperture as FF...

APS-C could very well eventually have the same DR. As far as having the same FOV or same DOF at same aperture... I have to ask: so what?

The paradigms change, as do the lenses you use. There is nothing magical (or un-reproduceable) about the FOV/FL or DOF/aperture ratios of Full Frame.

.

falconeye · 05-03-2009, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by illdefined

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

I'm aware of the issue. It drove Olympus into a spec where the mount opening is much bigger than the sensor ... People have been paranoid about the issue in the early days of digital photography.

But I also observe the progress being made on the issue. Already, most top notch analog lenses are top notch digital lenses again.

I assume that with back illumination and further progress on the microlens side, this problem will go away alltogether.

falconeye · 05-03-2009, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by RawheaD

It is simply an impossibility for one to take a photo like this:

Whatever be the sensor size, a lens with an aperture of 64mm and a focal length matching the FoV of this image will give exactly this DoF.

Of course, as we approach a focal length of 64mm, it will become hard to buy such a lens, let alone a sharp one

But 85/1.4 may be close ...

jake123 · 05-03-2009, 01:47 PM

I agree that all these FF postings are unnecessary.

Which part of aps-c does it not serve you? Full frame is a lot of money and that's just to gain that one stop. Just look at how aps-c is serving you. It does everything you need.

I am talking about non-pro's. If pro's need full frame they can justify it easily.

05-03-2009, 08:56 AM	#1
wll Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mission Hills, CA Posts: 773	What's with the FF Postings - Why ? Today's APS-C sized sensors are getting better and better and in a few short years the sensor technology will probably change and make APS-C and FF and MF a moot point. Ben shoots very high profile images in the finest fashion magazines in the world and I'm sure his clients are very exacting in how they want their products shown .... I'll bet my life if his image quality was sub par using APS-C sized sensors he would switch in a NEW York minute ! I have shot my catalog for two years and images are fantastic using a K10D and even my little DS. I personally want a small and maneuverable system ..... that's why I went to Pentax in the first place. As a matter of fact, the Panasonic GH1 looks like a very cool take anywhere system. Looking at the leeks the last week or so, I'm very happy with the new compact size of the K-7, as a matter of fact the K10D was a big camera for me and I was not thrilled about toting that thing around. Look at the lens size difference, those C and N lenses are very big and heavy - If I wanted to lug around a boat anchor I would have gotten a C or N - (I'm talking about their higher quality cameras, not their intro models). For me and me alone, I'm thrilled that Pentax got back to a "small is beautiful" philosophy. If some day I need more resolution (I can't see why) then maybe a MF for studio work would be in the future, but I don't think so. So much for my tirade, what are your thoughts. wll

05-03-2009, 09:40 AM	#6
filorp Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Aberdeen Scotland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 398	i do not need FF either, maybe because i didn't use any FF camera since analog age... nobody showed me an advantage of FF really, apart from really slight better performance reg noises and something peopple calls 'plasty of the image' what is really hard to proof (apart from softness of the corners especially at wide angle FF lens) I do not see any advantage at all....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
View Previous postings - Help	mickeyobe	Site Suggestions and Help	2	11-26-2008 12:25 PM
Photo Postings and CR on this forum	and	Photographic Technique	3	07-03-2007 04:44 AM

05-03-2009, 09:24 AM	#2
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	FF, APS-C, a pin-hole camera with 4x5 sheet film.....I'll use what I can Seriously, before I switch from my k10d I want things like higher fps, better AF, the k20d sensor, metal body. After having a weather-sealed body, I won't go back to one that doesn't have seals. If there was a FF in the line-up I might get one, but first and foremost I want all the other stuff I've listed. I don't need FF and to be perfectly honest, the lack of it isn't going to and hasn't stopped me from taking pictures

05-03-2009, 09:29 AM	#3
Hannican Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 485	Agree with both of the above posters. I don't need FF either, even though I do plan on selling photos someday, I think that our APS-C sensors are plenty good. I'm not doing billboard work... I won't upgrade though, until there is a marked difference in performance from one model to the next, and I didn't see that between K10D and K20D. My biggest complaint is the slow focusing on the K10D, especially in poor light, but really, everywhere. I want video too- I think it could be an incredibly useful feature, even if it's very basically implemented.

05-03-2009, 09:31 AM	#4
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Well, there are quite a few users who wouldn't mind if their old limited primes gave them the same field of view they fell in love with back in the film days... Personally, given unlimited funds, my ideal camera would be the K20D (or probably the K7 but we don't know much about that) with a FF sensor with the same pixel density and imaging characteristics as those on the K20D. I love the "look" of the samsung sensor, I just always wish for more resolution. And then you could use DA glass the same way you would with the K20D with no real loss. I wouldn't mind if they knocked off the built-in flash to make room for the larger prism. And if we could keep the video from the K7 that'd be cool too. Given limited funds and the nonexistence of such a camera, I'll probably get a K7 around christmas next year and be thrilled with a camera that does everything I love about my K20D and then a little, in a smaller package. I don't own any FA limiteds, and the FOV with my old 50s on APS-C is my personal focal-length sweet spot.

05-03-2009, 09:33 AM	#5
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by Hannican I don't need FF either, even though I do plan on selling photos someday, I think that our APS-C sensors are plenty good. I'm not doing billboard work... You only need a couple megapixels for billboard work, really. If you think about it, the distance you see them from gives them the same apparent size as your average VGA monitor...

05-03-2009, 10:33 AM	#7
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by wll Today's APS-C sized sensors are getting better and better and in a few short years the sensor technology will probably change and make APS-C and FF and MF a moot point. [...] I see what you are saying. And speaking for 2009, you are right. However, in the mid term (where digital doesn't impose a size overhead at all) this isn't quite correct. The K mount system is a full frame camera system (always has been) and there is no reason a digital K mount FF camera has to be any bigger than Pentax MX. Canon, Nikon, Sony only fail miserably to do it now but we all know that this is Pentax land anyway A dedicated APS-C would have to be much smaller than any of the current FF mount / APS-C sensor bodies allow. A market niche. Probably to be filled by the Samsung NX, though ... BTW, Olympus with their 0.5x sensor (which is about 110 film format!) has miserably failed to turn the massive size benefit into a significantly smaller camera system. The Pentax 110 SLR system was a case study what the FourThirds system ought to be. Chance missed... One last word ... the technological progress in sensor technology won't last forever. We're approaching physical limits here. A reasonable (i.e., usable) 100 MPixel sensor most likely requires a FF sensor. And OLED photo walls will require the resolution ... So, for now I agree to what you say. But it shall change in the future ...

05-03-2009, 11:26 AM	#8
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by falconeye I see what you are saying. And speaking for 2009, you are right. However, in the mid term (where digital doesn't impose a size overhead at all) this isn't quite correct. The K mount system is a full frame camera system (always has been) and there is no reason a digital K mount FF camera has to be any bigger than Pentax MX. Canon, Nikon, Sony only fail miserably to do it now but we all know that this is Pentax land anyway A dedicated APS-C would have to be much smaller than any of the current FF mount / APS-C sensor bodies allow. A market niche. Probably to be filled by the Samsung NX, though ... BTW, Olympus with their 0.5x sensor (which is about 110 film format!) has miserably failed to turn the massive size benefit into a significantly smaller camera system. The Pentax 110 SLR system was a case study what the FourThirds system ought to be. Chance missed... One last word ... the technological progress in sensor technology won't last forever. We're approaching physical limits here. A reasonable (i.e., usable) 100 MPixel sensor most likely requires a FF sensor. And OLED photo walls will require the resolution ... So, for now I agree to what you say. But it shall change in the future ... you're not taking the more telecentric needs of a digital sensor over film into account. it's why the Leica M8 is thicker than it's analog counterpart and is still forced to use a smaller sensor. they had to do tricks like tilting the microlenses on the edges of the sensor up to get that off-angle light that film took for granted. it's why we don't all have 35mm point&shoots. the Samsung NX and Panasonic G1 are dedicated APS-C cameras but their much coveted thinness is primarily due to the removal of the mirror box and not their sensor size.

05-03-2009, 11:48 AM	#9
RawheaD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: MA, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 831	People who need/want larger sensors don't want them for resolution (usually) but for FOV and more importantly DoF control. It is simply an impossibility for one to take a photo like this: on Flickr - Photo Sharing! With a full frame sensor, let alone an APS-C. That's because if you want this FoV, you will have to use a much wider lens than an 180mm, which means you'll lose DoF as well as the compression. That is why I went from a compact digital to APS-C dSLR to FF dSLR to a film MF cam (not that my K20D won't always be my main man ;-).

05-03-2009, 11:52 AM	#10
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	This attempt to give that poor old dead horse another beating just about boils down to trolling does it not. All this faulty logic and selective mentioning of pros and cons. Well since the d3 and d2x are the same size then that has to mean FF cameras are no bigger than aps c ones right? Thats the level of logic these debates tend to have Someone should make a FF vs APS-C entry in the knowledge base.

05-03-2009, 01:16 PM	#11
dave sz Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: carpentersville, IL Posts: 693	Originally posted by wll in a few short years the sensor technology will probably change and make APS-C and FF and MF a moot point. never gonna happen. APS-c will not have the FOV of FF at the same focal lengths, it won't have the same DR, will not have the same DOF at same aperture as FF...

05-03-2009, 01:22 PM	#12
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by dave sz never gonna happen. APS-c will not have the FOV of FF at the same focal lengths, it won't have the same DR, will not have the same DOF at same aperture as FF... APS-C could very well eventually have the same DR. As far as having the same FOV or same DOF at same aperture... I have to ask: so what? The paradigms change, as do the lenses you use. There is nothing magical (or un-reproduceable) about the FOV/FL or DOF/aperture ratios of Full Frame. .

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-03-2009, 01:39 PM	#13
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by illdefined you're not taking the more telecentric needs of a digital sensor over film into account. I'm aware of the issue. It drove Olympus into a spec where the mount opening is much bigger than the sensor ... People have been paranoid about the issue in the early days of digital photography. But I also observe the progress being made on the issue. Already, most top notch analog lenses are top notch digital lenses again. I assume that with back illumination and further progress on the microlens side, this problem will go away alltogether.

05-03-2009, 01:45 PM	#14
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by RawheaD It is simply an impossibility for one to take a photo like this: Whatever be the sensor size, a lens with an aperture of 64mm and a focal length matching the FoV of this image will give exactly this DoF. Of course, as we approach a focal length of 64mm, it will become hard to buy such a lens, let alone a sharp one But 85/1.4 may be close ...

05-03-2009, 01:47 PM	#15
jake123 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 130	I agree that all these FF postings are unnecessary. Which part of aps-c does it not serve you? Full frame is a lot of money and that's just to gain that one stop. Just look at how aps-c is serving you. It does everything you need. I am talking about non-pro's. If pro's need full frame they can justify it easily.