[*isteve]

The way I see it, the "APS-C is all you need" fanboys have their heads up their ____ (fill in blanks). Somehow, there is the perception that development of a FF Pentax camera would disenfranchise them is some way. Fragile egos I guess...

Nikon might be the way to go. Several highly talented forum members have already moved to that camp.

Its quite dangerous to accuse other people of having their heads up their ***s before checking the location of your own. All I can say is, dont light a match....

Of course they would be disenfranchised - development of an FF camera and lens range would drastically reduce resources on the APSC camera line, and for those with a major investment in APSC lenses, Pentax are the only company seriously investing in their future, or had that thought not penetrated yet?

Most FF fans want to use their existing glass. Well, thats nice but thats not going to help Pentax financially. None of that glass is in production, and very few people have any of it, so as a business argument it does not stack up.

And why not go to Nikon if they make what you want? I'm sure there will be enough "talent" left behind for the rest of us. Luckliy the only one with any talent who left, kept his K20D and pops in from time to time.

---

Last edited by *isteve; 05-06-2009 at 06:56 AM.

[*isteve]

first of all, you're an idiot.

Gooshin, there is nothing quite as dumb as someone who thinks everyone else is an idiot "because they dont understand".

Sometimes its not that at all. Sometimes we do understand your argument, we just think its pointless and overstated.

"A little less DOF" is just that, "a little". Its not enough to make a boring photo into an artistic tour de force. If you want your background OOF, it just as often comes down to the quality of the bokeh.

And as for your diagram, why would I try using the same focal length? The diagram makes no sense.

And sadly, Takumars are hard to come by these days and they wont help Pentax's bottom line.

[Gooshin]

Most FF fans want to use their existing glass.

i think people cling to this statement too much.

i want as large a format as they can fit into a compact body, everything else is icing.

everyone has their needs, a birder would prefer APS-C over a FF, but i'm not gonna bash the birder for his choice of gear.

yet you guys have no problem bashing us for our desires for a FF, something almost every other camera manufacturer has done.

[Gooshin]

I really liked this clear, constructive, charming and unbiased opening of your post

I am looking forward to a discussion we all can only learn from

Popcorn, more popcorn !!

well, beating around the bush is for dykes and gardners, i just get straight to the point.

[*isteve]

i think people cling to this statement too much.

i want as large a format as they can fit into a compact body, everything else is icing.

Why does every statement starting with "I want" always lead to such an uninteresting conclusion?

[Gooshin]

Why does every statement starting with "I want" always lead to such an uninteresting conclusion?

says someone with an I in his name

[Gooshin]

Gooshin, there is nothing quite as dumb as someone who thinks everyone else is an idiot "because they dont understand".

one's ability to understand is usually a pretty good measure of ones intellect

Sometimes its not that at all. Sometimes we do understand your argument, we just think its pointless and overstated.

then why do you bother?

"A little less DOF" is just that, "a little". Its not enough to make a boring photo into an artistic tour de force. If you want your background OOF, it just as often comes down to the quality of the bokeh.

again, if you think its "little", then you dont shoot these images enough, and consequently should have no say in the matter.

you say little, i see lots.

And as for your diagram, why would I try using the same focal length? The diagram makes no sense.

the diagram illustrates that focal length is focal length but the end result (the photo) will be different when you start taking into account subject distances and formats.

and that substitution of one lens with another lens, particulary on the wide end, is rather troublesome.

i use my FA31 on both film and digital, and get great results, but i will never get the type of shot on my digital that i get on my film, because there is only one lens for pentax that can even come close, and its not even a pentax lens.

often time i just have to deal with it, and i do, but it sure is nice to have that option, since its much easier to close a lens down than to open it up.

And sadly, Takumars are hard to come by these days and they wont help Pentax's bottom line.

my takumar bit was not really meant for anything, he questioned the size and weight of full frame lenses, my takumars, even though all metal, are rather compact and light.

[robgo2]

Genuine question: could you give examples of what kind of subjects you shoot that requires SR so often?

No need to post samples. I usually shoot with the DA*16-50 and often at 50mm focal length at f5.6-8, where it is sharpest. By the old 35mm standard of hand holding at a shutter speed of at least 1/focal length, that would require a shutter speed of at least 1/75sec. In overcast or moderately dim light, the shutter speed is often slower than that, even if I open the aperture to 2.8. That is where SR comes into play; it allows me to shoot a 1/25sec or even slower if I am really steady and keeps me from having to raise the ISO to 800 or 1600, where the K10D is not ideal. Up to ISO 400, it is just fine.

Genuine question: Do you never do the same if you want to keep your ISO low?

Rob

says someone with an I in his name

I thought it's pretty obvious that his nick here is a combination of his first name and the *ist(whatever) a camera I suspect he owned. I also think it's possible that he was on various fora from the time he actually had that camera and kept the same nick as he joined this forum too. I may be wrong though ...

Gooshin, I was wondering when the old you will reemerge but now that he did I guess a couple more decades of waiting would of been far more preferable. The choice of gear is a personal one and no amount of insults or diagrams will ever change that.

Radu

[Gooshin]

I thought it's pretty obvious that his nick here is a combination of his first name and the *ist(whatever) a camera I suspect he owned. I also think it's possible that he was on various fora from the time he actually had that camera and kept the same nick as he joined this forum too. I may be wrong though ...

Gooshin, I was wondering when the old you will reemerge but now that he did I guess a couple more decades of waiting would of been far more preferable. The choice of gear is a personal one and no amount of insults or diagrams will ever change that.

Radu

thats exactly my point! Only the other camp doesnt seem to get it.

why must there be "FF Fanboys or APS fanboys", why cant people come to terms that both formats have their place, and that some people would prefer one format over another, to a greater degree than others.

and why is demanding that pentax, a company deeply rooted in the photography world, make a FF camera is "taboo", damn right they should make one, and cater to a wider customer base.

2000 dollars, no problem! Pro gear, pro prices, i think its fair (even if my wallet doesn't agree)

APS-C is not "the future", its just another format, with its own advantages and limitations.

there is no right answer.

my insults are for the idiots, and my diagrams are to showcase the pro/cons of each format.

[lol101]

No need to post samples. I usually shoot with the DA*16-50 and often at 50mm focal length at f5.6-8. By the old 35mm standard of hand holding at a shutter speed of at least 1/focal length, that would require a shutter speed of at least 1/75sec. In overcast or moderately dim light, the shutter speed is often slower than that, even if I open the aperture to 2.8. That is where SR comes into play; it keeps me from having to raise the ISO to 800 or 1600 where the K10D is not ideal. Up to ISO 400, it is just fine.

Genuine question: Do you never do the same if you want to keep your ISO low?

Rob

Well that's the point, except for landscapes (without wind) I have found that most of the pictures I take greatly benefit of never getting much lower than 1/125s, even with a wide angle.

I have no problem getting to ISO 800 or 1600 as I find noise much more manageable than lack of sharpness due to subject movements (OK, I am helped a bit by the 5D in this but even the 5D isn't noiseless above ISO 1600).

I recently reviewed a series of portrait of my lovely wife taken at sundown with a superb light with the K10 + 50-135 and I must confess than with SR, I felt confident enough to let the shutter speed go down to the 1/30s-1/60s territory (ISO was 400): bad idea, in most shots, the subject is significantly blurred. I first thought it was an AF error (I used to get lots of them with my K10) but no, you can clearly see the "directional blur" due to subject motion...

I discovered that most of what I am doing involve some kind of movement (even low light portraits where I get much better results using ISO 3200 and 1/125s than ISO 800 and 1/30s) so I cannot really find a wide use for SR/IS, except when I want to suggest movement and use intentional blur and even then, it usually request speeds lower than 1s that are not in SR/IS territory.

From what I have seen, SR/IS has been useful to me in less than 5% of my shots and even "detrimental" in some instance because of my overconfidence and lack of reasoning about possible subject movement.

Net result: I paid an handsome amount of money to get the IS version of my 70-200f4 and usually set the IS switch to "off"... way to loose €400!

I suppose someone doing almost exclusively steady subjects (posed portraits, quiet landscapes) would have much more use for it but then again, what are tripods for?

[ManuH]

and why is demanding that pentax, a company deeply rooted in the photography world, make a FF camera is "taboo", damn right they should make one, and cater to a wider customer base.

For a small company (the camera division anyway) like Pentax is now, diverting scarce ressources for a prestige camera like Sony did with the A900 would probably not be a wise decision right now. It doesn't mean that in the future it wouldn't be possible. Especially if the FF sensor prices come down.

Now if a FF Pentax camera was released I would seriously consider it but I also realize that in order to keep 14.6MP in crop mode, the camera would need a 34MP FF sensor!

[robgo2]

Well, your shooting style and subjects are different than mine; I usually do not find subject motion to be a problem. But I find it hard to believe that any camera looks as good at ISO 1600-3200 as it does at ISO 100-400. So, it would seem that you are making compromises as well.

Rob

[Gooshin]

For a small company (the camera division anyway) like Pentax is now, diverting scarce ressources for a prestige camera like Sony did with the A900 would probably not be a wise decision right now. It doesn't mean that in the future it wouldn't be possible. Especially if the FF sensor prices come down.

Now if a FF Pentax camera was released I would seriously consider it but I also realize that in order to keep 14.6MP in crop mode, the camera would need a 34MP FF sensor!

truth be told we can only assume what the real deal is.

pentax has a small market share, but they have no problems churing out 1-2 new cameras per year!

they are steadily introducing new lenses, some slower than others, but still at a steady pace

and with the recent price hikes across the board, they just may be able to price it at a competetive point and not worry about losing money.

now if only they stopped bothering to redesign the body and just focus on changing the internals, they might save even more money (personal opinion)

so really, IS pentax doing "bad" ??

on the other hand, with all the 645D rumors, perhaps their strategy will be to just skip the whole FF phase, i dunno.

we'll see.

[lol101]

Well, your shooting style and subjects are different than mine, and I usually do not find subject motion to be a problem. But I find it hard to believe that any camera looks as good at ISO 1600-3200 as it does at ISO 100-400. So, it would seem that you are making compromises as well.

Rob

Absolutely true, it's a compromise and, as I said, even the 5D only give you 1 to 1 1/2 more stop noise wise so indeed, ISO 1600 looks clearly noisier than ISO 400 on a K10/K20.

That is why I can never have enough of clean high ISOs! Maybe I'll stop when we get pristine ISO 25600!

Somehow I have found that noise is less objectionable than motion blur on prints I guess... plus the fact that it's easier to remove noise to a degree (here again, compromise...).

But we are largely digressing from the main subject (APS-C vs FF) here...

Thanks for the conversation!

And now back to our regular programs.... so why is it again than APS-C is better than FF...? ... or was it the other way around...?

I thought it was just a question of basic economics and not of IQ, DoF, DR or noise...?