What's with the FF Postings - Why ?

Sean Nelson · 05-07-2009, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

This attitude ignores the very real advantages of a full frame sensor. Pentax makes a pretty decent camera body, I really don't understand why there is this infantile resistance towards people who would like to see them make a better Pentax.

Ken, I totally agree that FF sensors have advantages. I'm not resisting an FF camera from Pentax, I just wouldn't be interested in buying one. And I don't understand why people such as yourself keep harping on Pentax for not having one when they keep sending pretty clear signals that they have no immediate intentions of making one. It's time to face reality, either make do with an APS-C Pentax or switch to some other manufacturer which will give you what you want.

*isteve · 05-07-2009, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by zplus

Exhibit A.

Sorry were you trying to make a point?

*isteve · 05-07-2009, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by zplus

Exhibit B.

Looks like I'm going to have to take pictures to prove my point.

Sorry, but there is no point at issue - its basic optics. Now, if you want to go and take some pictures, be my guest.

redpigeons · 05-07-2009, 03:26 PM

At the end all of my friends switched to FF this year.

Non of them a pro photographer, and as anointing as it is that amateurs are getting a FF cameras.... the reality is that they are.

I still believe that Pentax will have a FF and only for that reason.

Out side of the pentax world FF is the thing for advanced amateurs today not just professionals.

I am buying FF lenses.. as hard as it is... just in case. luckily pentax have the ltds in digital and film version still

cousinsane · 05-07-2009, 03:52 PM

I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body?

On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf

redpigeons · 05-07-2009, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by cousinsane

I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body?

On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf

This is how the 31mm should look like . its a great picture but obviously lots of pp work.

And just for argument sake if you include PP to the mix the deference become slimmer.

still yes this wideness is shocking !

jeffkrol · 05-07-2009, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by cousinsane

I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body?

On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf

Certainly need more to go on than that BUT w/ a 35mm lens at f2 on a k20 you have 4.54ft DOF.....
all my rough approx. of equivalency to that photo. (no clue how close this is)
At 24mm 10ft away at f2 you have 4.39ft DOF.....
Give me an image where you know the distance, f stop and lens.....
then use this to see if it can be done...
Online Depth of Field Calculator
16mm at 5ft f/2 7ft you get 5.2ft dof...equiv to 31mm f2.84 @10ft (5.73 DOF)....
Not saying any of these numbers are right of course. Anyone good at these estimations?
24mm @ f1.8 @ 7ft...... 1.86ft

to use your picture and some assumptions you have the 35mm f2 at let's say 8ft.. DOF on FF is 1.91ft
w/ a K20 35mm f2 at 10 feet 1.99
28@f2 8ft 2ft dof. at 2.8 2.87ft
how about a sigma 24 f1.8??
@7 ft... 1.86ft DOF
Sigma EX Wide-angle lens - 24 mm - F/1.8 - Pentax K

And personally you don't really even have to go that wide for effect... personal opinion.
See this (will be removed shortly)
http://www.qualiteitems.com/images/resample5.jpg
to be fair there are images impossible to get w/ APS-C vs FF but much fewer then is usually assumed...

Last edited by jeffkrol; 05-07-2009 at 04:48 PM.

cousinsane · 05-07-2009, 04:23 PM

Seems the exif is stripped, so I should add that it was taken with a 35/1.4L + Canon 5D.

Originally posted by redpigeons

This is how the 31mm should look like . its a great picture but obviously lots of pp work.

And just for argument sake if you include PP to the mix the deference become slimmer.

still yes this wideness is shocking !

whatever7 · 05-07-2009, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by cousinsane

I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body?

On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf

Don't get into that kind of fight. You have no obligation to justify it. You just want FF, and make your voice heard.

The APS camps already have gotten their wish and gotten complete set of APS primes and zooms (save the damn 11-16mm 2.8) They got nothing to complain, they are no in a position to make opposite noice. Now its time you and us ask for what we want. just make your voice heard. Pentax is doing viral marketing now they may pay proper attention to enthusiast forums.

*isteve · 05-07-2009, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by cousinsane

I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body?

On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf

Why not? Sorry, but without any EXIF data its not really possible to tell. If you can tell me the distance and F stop used, then I could tell you.

Looking at it I would guess about 14 ft subject distance and at least 6 ft DOF (judging by the sleepers in focus). That would need an F stop of 2.0.

On an APS camera, if I used a 24mm lens at F 2.0, I would get a DOF of 9 ft. Do you really think that would make much difference? The far focus only extends about 20" more. In this scene I dont think it would matter as the background is so far away.

If I used a Canon 24mm F1.4 I could reduce the DOF as far as 6 ft, though generally shooting wide open with either lens is not going to leave a very sharp subject.

I should point out that in the UK, the 35mm F1.4 cost £1200, and the 24mm f1.4 costs £1400. Not sure how relevant this is unless you have that sort of money.

Even if I could not have done this in the camera, I could easily have done it in photoshop. In fact this looks like it was PS enhanced, to be honest.

24X36NOW · 05-07-2009, 08:51 PM

I think that all of the:

"FF posts are unnecessary"

"Sensor technology will make the IQ differences between FF and APS-C moot"

"FF is too expensive"

"Pentax shouldn't make a FF"

"Pentax lacks the resources to make a FF system"

"If you want FF, go buy a Nikon/Canon/Sony"

"If you want FF, you're in the wrong camp"

"APS-C is good enough"

"The difference between FF and APS-C is insignificant/not worth the additional cost"

"Only pros need FF"

"Those who want FF are only satisfying gear lust"

"Pentax doesn't have FF lenses in production, so they shouldn't make a FF dSLR"

"645D makes FF moot"

"FF bodies are big and heavy"

"Format size doesn't matter"

"You don't NEED a FF camera"

"If you want a bigger format, just go with the 645D"

"You need better lenses to use with a FF dSLR"

"FF lenses are big and heavy"

"If you compare the K20D with a D700, you can see how much bigger/heavier a FF camera is"

...posts are (a) unnecessary, (b) annoying, (c) for the most part the rationalizations of those who have bought deeply into the APS-C(ompromise) system and have to justify it in their mind repeatedly.

Some additional thoughts/comments for the record (for those who can't seem to grasp why many want Pentax to make a FF dSLR):

APS-C viewfinders SUCK A$$ - and Pentax has some of the best of the crop (no pun intended!) and they STILL SUCK A$$ - because they're TOO SMALL - and they're TOO SMALL because the SENSORS are TOO SMALL.

"Sensor technology" will NEVER ERASE THE IQ DIFFERENCE between FF and APS-C, because SMALLER formats place GREATER DEMANDS ON THE OPTICS, NOT the other way around. First, improvements will be incorporated into BOTH formats, and are MORE likely to appear in FF FIRST (new technologies don't tend to "trickle UP"). Second, APS-C (Pentax version) is about 42% of the size of FF, which means you're asking the lenses to resolve the SAME DETAILS in a photo framed the same way down to 42% of the size the lens would have to resolve those details to on FF. This basic problem will never be swept aside by anything they do to SENSORS, because it is an issue of OPTICS, and doesn't change whether you put film or a sensor behind the lens! Like it or not, larger formats are always going to improve IQ.

And some additional comments as to oft-repeated misconceptions:

APS-C dSLRs are NOT "thicker" than film SLRs to address the need for "telecentric" light paths to the sensor. The sensor is THE SAME F---ING DISTANCE FROM THE LENS AS THE FILM PLANE - if it weren't, NOTHING WOULD BE IN FOCUS. The additional "thickness" is there to house all of the additional electronics and storage a dSLR contains, and that's it.

Comparisons between a K20D and a Nikon/Canon/Sony FF camera ARE MEANINGLESS and tell you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the relative size/weight of FF vs. APS-C. Compare apples to apples (i.e., cameras with similar construction, feature content, etc.) and you will see that the size/weight difference is MINISCULE and certainly nothing to whine about. (See Nikon D300 APS-C vs. Nikon D700 FF size comparison here: D300 vs D700 - size compared - Nikon D700 ).

Plenty of us ALREADY HAVE a full array of FF Pentax mount lenses and would like to use them on a PENTAX FF dSLR. Believe it or not, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN A NIKON/CANON/SONY product, because that basically means STARTING OVER.

When people talk about the supposed "deficiencies" of older lenses due to the "need" for more "telecentric" light paths to the sensors, they are talking about SENSOR TECHNOLOGY DEFICIENCIES, NOT LENS DEFICIENCIES. Further, most telephoto lenses are ALREADY "telecentric" by design, hence the supposed "issue" only arises in short focal length lenses and is mostly FUD to sell you new lenses.

Oh, and for those that think they can "do anything with APS-C that you can do with FF," kindly show me the APS-C lens that provides the same (rectilinear) FOV of the Sigma 12 - 24 lens @ 12mm. No? Didn't think so.

I'm sure there's more, but my brain is too tired. Bed time!

cousinsane · 05-07-2009, 09:08 PM

IMHO the DOF in that picture is far less than 6 feet.

And frankly, I'm not all that interested in DOF calculations. I would love to be able to emulate the wide angle & shallow DOF effect of that picture with my APS body, but I've never seen an example of that being done with an APS body.

Originally posted by *isteve

Why not? Sorry, but without any EXIF data its not really possible to tell. If you can tell me the distance and F stop used, then I could tell you.

Looking at it I would guess about 14 ft subject distance and at least 6 ft DOF (judging by the sleepers in focus). That would need an F stop of 2.0.

On an APS camera, if I used a 24mm lens at F 2.0, I would get a DOF of 9 ft. Do you really think that would make much difference? The far focus only extends about 20" more. In this scene I dont think it would matter as the background is so far away.

If I used a Canon 24mm F1.4 I could reduce the DOF as far as 6 ft, though generally shooting wide open with either lens is not going to leave a very sharp subject.

I should point out that in the UK, the 35mm F1.4 cost £1200, and the 24mm f1.4 costs £1400. Not sure how relevant this is unless you have that sort of money.

Even if I could not have done this in the camera, I could easily have done it in photoshop. In fact this looks like it was PS enhanced, to be honest.

vinzer · 05-07-2009, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by 24X36NOW

Plenty of us ALREADY HAVE a full array of FF Pentax mount lenses and would like to use them on a PENTAX FF dSLR. Believe it or not, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN A NIKON/CANON/SONY product, because that basically means STARTING OVER.

Actually, this is where Pentax would have a problem. You may think there are many of you who have a full line of FF lenses, but there really aren't. I reckon more people who uses a Pentax now don't have the luxury of owning a lot of FA lenses like you do.

And even if there are a number of you with lenses, Pentax wants *more* customers and not just those who already have lenses, and this is where the problem lies. I'm glad that you have gone Pentax when a lot of us were still into Atari or some such, but the newer generation doesn't have the full set of lenses you guys do. And even those who do have FA*s aren't even sure to buy FF in the near future.

So without the FF lenses for the new generation of Pentax users, a Pentax FF DSLR will have little traction to go on. And they won't be cheap either, owing to the fact that Pentax has a far smaller user base than Canon and Nikon. Sony was brave to enter the fray because they have huge capitals and Nikon is indirectly funding some of the FF R&D.

Believe me, I really don't think anyone here will complain much if Pentax releases an FF DSLR. We would all welcome it (maybe some won't, but I reckon that will only be a few people). I know I would. But looking at the feasibility of such a venture, it becomes more and more of a haphazard venture now. I'd rather Pentax be a laggard again and wait until FF sensor costs and yields have gone down and up, respectively, and prepare a full FF lens line-up in the meantime than go full tilt on it and possibly bring company operations down to its knees if it fails to sell.

ilya80 · 05-07-2009, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by cousinsane

This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body?
On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf

Wonder what was the aperture set to?

I recently have been trying my FA31 on ME Super and got stunned by the new possibilities.

gnaztee · 05-07-2009, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by 24X36NOW

"If you want FF, go buy a Nikon/Canon/Sony"

"If you want FF, you're in the wrong camp"

Aren't these true? As has been repeated ad nauseum, Pentax has said they have no imminent plans for FF. This is a rough analogy, so bear with me, but if you want a Whopper it doesn't really make sense to hang around McDonald's every day demanding they make one because you like McDonalds' fries. You just move on to Burger King and get a whopper and learn to like their fries. As far as having to switch systems, it may be a bit of a pain in the ass, but there is a market for Pentax lenses and selling them off can't be any more maddening for you folks than checking Pentax rumors every week to find they still aren't making a FF camera.

Originally posted by 24X36NOW

APS-C viewfinders SUCK A$$ - and Pentax has some of the best of the crop (no pun intended!) and they STILL SUCK A$$ - because they're TOO SMALL - and they're TOO SMALL because the SENSORS are TOO SMALL.

This is only true if you have poor eyesight. APS-C viewfinders are bright enough for me when street shooting at night. Again, some people don't see as well, they need the bigger VF of a FF. Pentax doesn't make one. So, now what?

05-07-2009, 11:24 PM	#208
vinzer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philippines Posts: 1,399	Originally posted by 24X36NOW Plenty of us ALREADY HAVE a full array of FF Pentax mount lenses and would like to use them on a PENTAX FF dSLR. Believe it or not, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN A NIKON/CANON/SONY product, because that basically means STARTING OVER. Actually, this is where Pentax would have a problem. You may think there are many of you who have a full line of FF lenses, but there really aren't. I reckon more people who uses a Pentax now don't have the luxury of owning a lot of FA lenses like you do. And even if there are a number of you with lenses, Pentax wants more customers and not just those who already have lenses, and this is where the problem lies. I'm glad that you have gone Pentax when a lot of us were still into Atari or some such, but the newer generation doesn't have the full set of lenses you guys do. And even those who do have FAs aren't even sure to buy FF in the near future. So without the FF lenses for the new generation of Pentax users, a Pentax FF DSLR will have little traction to go on. And they won't be cheap either, owing to the fact that Pentax has a far smaller user base than Canon and Nikon. Sony was brave to enter the fray because they have huge capitals and Nikon is indirectly funding some of the FF R&D. Believe me, I really don't think anyone here will complain much if Pentax releases an FF DSLR. We would all welcome it (maybe some won't, but I reckon that will only be a few people). I know I would. But looking at the feasibility of such a venture, it becomes more and more of a haphazard venture now. I'd rather Pentax be a laggard again and wait until FF sensor costs and yields have gone down and up, respectively, and prepare a full FF lens line-up in the meantime than go full tilt on it and possibly bring company operations down to its knees if it fails to sell. Last edited by vinzer; 05-07-2009 at 11:31 PM.*

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

05-07-2009, 01:43 PM	#196
Sean Nelson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 353	Originally posted by Wheatfield This attitude ignores the very real advantages of a full frame sensor. Pentax makes a pretty decent camera body, I really don't understand why there is this infantile resistance towards people who would like to see them make a better Pentax. Ken, I totally agree that FF sensors have advantages. I'm not resisting an FF camera from Pentax, I just wouldn't be interested in buying one. And I don't understand why people such as yourself keep harping on Pentax for not having one when they keep sending pretty clear signals that they have no immediate intentions of making one. It's time to face reality, either make do with an APS-C Pentax or switch to some other manufacturer which will give you what you want.

05-07-2009, 03:09 PM	#197
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by zplus Exhibit A. Sorry were you trying to make a point?

05-07-2009, 03:11 PM	#198
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by zplus Exhibit B. Looks like I'm going to have to take pictures to prove my point. Sorry, but there is no point at issue - its basic optics. Now, if you want to go and take some pictures, be my guest.

05-07-2009, 03:26 PM	#199
redpigeons Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 943	At the end all of my friends switched to FF this year. Non of them a pro photographer, and as anointing as it is that amateurs are getting a FF cameras.... the reality is that they are. I still believe that Pentax will have a FF and only for that reason. Out side of the pentax world FF is the thing for advanced amateurs today not just professionals. I am buying FF lenses.. as hard as it is... just in case. luckily pentax have the ltds in digital and film version still

05-07-2009, 03:52 PM	#200
cousinsane Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: madison Posts: 239	I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body? On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf

05-07-2009, 04:15 PM	#201
redpigeons Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 943	Originally posted by cousinsane I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body? On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf This is how the 31mm should look like . its a great picture but obviously lots of pp work. And just for argument sake if you include PP to the mix the deference become slimmer. still yes this wideness is shocking !

05-07-2009, 04:16 PM	#202
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by cousinsane I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body? On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf Certainly need more to go on than that BUT w/ a 35mm lens at f2 on a k20 you have 4.54ft DOF..... all my rough approx. of equivalency to that photo. (no clue how close this is) At 24mm 10ft away at f2 you have 4.39ft DOF..... Give me an image where you know the distance, f stop and lens..... then use this to see if it can be done... Online Depth of Field Calculator 16mm at 5ft f/2 7ft you get 5.2ft dof...equiv to 31mm f2.84 @10ft (5.73 DOF).... Not saying any of these numbers are right of course. Anyone good at these estimations? 24mm @ f1.8 @ 7ft...... 1.86ft to use your picture and some assumptions you have the 35mm f2 at let's say 8ft.. DOF on FF is 1.91ft w/ a K20 35mm f2 at 10 feet 1.99 28@f2 8ft 2ft dof. at 2.8 2.87ft how about a sigma 24 f1.8?? @7 ft... 1.86ft DOF Sigma EX Wide-angle lens - 24 mm - F/1.8 - Pentax K And personally you don't really even have to go that wide for effect... personal opinion. See this (will be removed shortly) http://www.qualiteitems.com/images/resample5.jpg to be fair there are images impossible to get w/ APS-C vs FF but much fewer then is usually assumed... Last edited by jeffkrol; 05-07-2009 at 04:48 PM.

05-07-2009, 04:23 PM	#203
cousinsane Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: madison Posts: 239	Seems the exif is stripped, so I should add that it was taken with a 35/1.4L + Canon 5D. Originally posted by redpigeons This is how the 31mm should look like . its a great picture but obviously lots of pp work. And just for argument sake if you include PP to the mix the deference become slimmer. still yes this wideness is shocking !

05-07-2009, 05:38 PM	#204
whatever7 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 278	Originally posted by cousinsane I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body? On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf Don't get into that kind of fight. You have no obligation to justify it. You just want FF, and make your voice heard. The APS camps already have gotten their wish and gotten complete set of APS primes and zooms (save the damn 11-16mm 2.8) They got nothing to complain, they are no in a position to make opposite noice. Now its time you and us ask for what we want. just make your voice heard. Pentax is doing viral marketing now they may pay proper attention to enthusiast forums.

05-07-2009, 06:33 PM	#205
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by cousinsane I posted one of my own film shots earlier trying to show the advantage of FF. I've then been told that I could have achieved better results using an APS body. This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body? On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf Why not? Sorry, but without any EXIF data its not really possible to tell. If you can tell me the distance and F stop used, then I could tell you. Looking at it I would guess about 14 ft subject distance and at least 6 ft DOF (judging by the sleepers in focus). That would need an F stop of 2.0. On an APS camera, if I used a 24mm lens at F 2.0, I would get a DOF of 9 ft. Do you really think that would make much difference? The far focus only extends about 20" more. In this scene I dont think it would matter as the background is so far away. If I used a Canon 24mm F1.4 I could reduce the DOF as far as 6 ft, though generally shooting wide open with either lens is not going to leave a very sharp subject. I should point out that in the UK, the 35mm F1.4 cost £1200, and the 24mm f1.4 costs £1400. Not sure how relevant this is unless you have that sort of money. Even if I could not have done this in the camera, I could easily have done it in photoshop. In fact this looks like it was PS enhanced, to be honest.

05-07-2009, 08:51 PM	#206
24X36NOW Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: CT, USA Posts: 498	I think that all of the: "FF posts are unnecessary" "Sensor technology will make the IQ differences between FF and APS-C moot" "FF is too expensive" "Pentax shouldn't make a FF" "Pentax lacks the resources to make a FF system" "If you want FF, go buy a Nikon/Canon/Sony" "If you want FF, you're in the wrong camp" "APS-C is good enough" "The difference between FF and APS-C is insignificant/not worth the additional cost" "Only pros need FF" "Those who want FF are only satisfying gear lust" "Pentax doesn't have FF lenses in production, so they shouldn't make a FF dSLR" "645D makes FF moot" "FF bodies are big and heavy" "Format size doesn't matter" "You don't NEED a FF camera" "If you want a bigger format, just go with the 645D" "You need better lenses to use with a FF dSLR" "FF lenses are big and heavy" "If you compare the K20D with a D700, you can see how much bigger/heavier a FF camera is" ...posts are (a) unnecessary, (b) annoying, (c) for the most part the rationalizations of those who have bought deeply into the APS-C(ompromise) system and have to justify it in their mind repeatedly. Some additional thoughts/comments for the record (for those who can't seem to grasp why many want Pentax to make a FF dSLR): APS-C viewfinders SUCK A$$ - and Pentax has some of the best of the crop (no pun intended!) and they STILL SUCK A$$ - because they're TOO SMALL - and they're TOO SMALL because the SENSORS are TOO SMALL. "Sensor technology" will NEVER ERASE THE IQ DIFFERENCE between FF and APS-C, because SMALLER formats place GREATER DEMANDS ON THE OPTICS, NOT the other way around. First, improvements will be incorporated into BOTH formats, and are MORE likely to appear in FF FIRST (new technologies don't tend to "trickle UP"). Second, APS-C (Pentax version) is about 42% of the size of FF, which means you're asking the lenses to resolve the SAME DETAILS in a photo framed the same way down to 42% of the size the lens would have to resolve those details to on FF. This basic problem will never be swept aside by anything they do to SENSORS, because it is an issue of OPTICS, and doesn't change whether you put film or a sensor behind the lens! Like it or not, larger formats are always going to improve IQ. And some additional comments as to oft-repeated misconceptions: APS-C dSLRs are NOT "thicker" than film SLRs to address the need for "telecentric" light paths to the sensor. The sensor is THE SAME F---ING DISTANCE FROM THE LENS AS THE FILM PLANE - if it weren't, NOTHING WOULD BE IN FOCUS. The additional "thickness" is there to house all of the additional electronics and storage a dSLR contains, and that's it. Comparisons between a K20D and a Nikon/Canon/Sony FF camera ARE MEANINGLESS and tell you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the relative size/weight of FF vs. APS-C. Compare apples to apples (i.e., cameras with similar construction, feature content, etc.) and you will see that the size/weight difference is MINISCULE and certainly nothing to whine about. (See Nikon D300 APS-C vs. Nikon D700 FF size comparison here: D300 vs D700 - size compared - Nikon D700 ). Plenty of us ALREADY HAVE a full array of FF Pentax mount lenses and would like to use them on a PENTAX FF dSLR. Believe it or not, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN A NIKON/CANON/SONY product, because that basically means STARTING OVER. When people talk about the supposed "deficiencies" of older lenses due to the "need" for more "telecentric" light paths to the sensors, they are talking about SENSOR TECHNOLOGY DEFICIENCIES, NOT LENS DEFICIENCIES. Further, most telephoto lenses are ALREADY "telecentric" by design, hence the supposed "issue" only arises in short focal length lenses and is mostly FUD to sell you new lenses. Oh, and for those that think they can "do anything with APS-C that you can do with FF," kindly show me the APS-C lens that provides the same (rectilinear) FOV of the Sigma 12 - 24 lens @ 12mm. No? Didn't think so. I'm sure there's more, but my brain is too tired. Bed time!

05-07-2009, 09:08 PM	#207
cousinsane Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: madison Posts: 239	IMHO the DOF in that picture is far less than 6 feet. And frankly, I'm not all that interested in DOF calculations. I would love to be able to emulate the wide angle & shallow DOF effect of that picture with my APS body, but I've never seen an example of that being done with an APS body. Originally posted by isteve Why not*? Sorry, but without any EXIF data its not really possible to tell. If you can tell me the distance and F stop used, then I could tell you. Looking at it I would guess about 14 ft subject distance and at least 6 ft DOF (judging by the sleepers in focus). That would need an F stop of 2.0. On an APS camera, if I used a 24mm lens at F 2.0, I would get a DOF of 9 ft. Do you really think that would make much difference? The far focus only extends about 20" more. In this scene I dont think it would matter as the background is so far away. If I used a Canon 24mm F1.4 I could reduce the DOF as far as 6 ft, though generally shooting wide open with either lens is not going to leave a very sharp subject. I should point out that in the UK, the 35mm F1.4 cost £1200, and the 24mm f1.4 costs £1400. Not sure how relevant this is unless you have that sort of money. Even if I could not have done this in the camera, I could easily have done it in photoshop. In fact this looks like it was PS enhanced, to be honest.

05-07-2009, 11:47 PM	#209
ilya80 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia Photos: Albums Posts: 410	Originally posted by cousinsane This time, I will just link to a better picture taken by some one I know. Can anyone honestly say that similar results can be achieved with APS body? On Black: Nadine by NNBB & Alf Wonder what was the aperture set to? I recently have been trying my FA31 on ME Super and got stunned by the new possibilities.

05-07-2009, 11:59 PM	#210
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Originally posted by 24X36NOW "If you want FF, go buy a Nikon/Canon/Sony" "If you want FF, you're in the wrong camp" Aren't these true? As has been repeated ad nauseum, Pentax has said they have no imminent plans for FF. This is a rough analogy, so bear with me, but if you want a Whopper it doesn't really make sense to hang around McDonald's every day demanding they make one because you like McDonalds' fries. You just move on to Burger King and get a whopper and learn to like their fries. As far as having to switch systems, it may be a bit of a pain in the ass, but there is a market for Pentax lenses and selling them off can't be any more maddening for you folks than checking Pentax rumors every week to find they still aren't making a FF camera. Originally posted by 24X36NOW APS-C viewfinders SUCK A$$ - and Pentax has some of the best of the crop (no pun intended!) and they STILL SUCK A$$ - because they're TOO SMALL - and they're TOO SMALL because the SENSORS are TOO SMALL. This is only true if you have poor eyesight. APS-C viewfinders are bright enough for me when street shooting at night. Again, some people don't see as well, they need the bigger VF of a FF. Pentax doesn't make one. So, now what?