Pentax Full Frame - An official statement from Pentax (they listened!)

jsherman999 · 11-04-2011, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by gtl

I am guessing

D90
D700
D90
D700
D90
D700

Pretty sure about the first 2 though. The 2nd pic just looks amazing.

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

I'm guessing the exact opposite. First shot is tricky though, can't really see enough background to make a determination.

.

You both have hits & misses.

.

MrPetkus · 11-04-2011, 07:44 AM

9,7,7,9,9,7 ?

jsherman999 · 11-04-2011, 08:37 AM

D90 f/2.8

D700 f/2.8

D90 f/1.8

D700 f/1.8

D700 f/1.8 (!)

D90 f/4

MrPetkus · 11-04-2011, 08:47 AM

Clearly I did a great job of guessing which camera...

gtl · 11-04-2011, 08:55 AM

Ah. I see that I got the last 2 shots wrong. Those were the hardest for me. I guess it really shows that skill trumps whatever sort of camera!

**Rondec** · 11-04-2011, 09:07 AM

I think it shows clearly that the difference between full frame and APS-C is often not clear.

jsherman999 · 11-04-2011, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I think it shows clearly that the difference between full frame and APS-C is often not clear.

Much like the difference, say between the FA 50 1.7 and the FA 77ltd

Or the difference between the 16-45 f4 and the 15ltd.

The IQ differences are small in small samples, but add the experience up over thousands of shots and the shooter starts to form a true preference. And even in these samples, you should be able to see what I'm talking about.

(And this doesn't address the FOV/DOF difference, noise, or perf differences between the bodies (AF), but that's not what we're talking about here.)

Last edited by jsherman999; 11-05-2011 at 06:15 AM.

**maxfield_photo** · 11-04-2011, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I think it shows clearly that the difference between full frame and APS-C is often not clear.

It's clear as crystal when you have a wall behind you, and you can't back up to frame your shot, ask a wedding photographer.

RBellavance · 11-04-2011, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

It's clear as crystal when you have a wall behind you, and you can't back up to frame your shot, ask a wedding photographer.

A wedding photographer using the wrong lenses for his camera's format, you mean ? Because a wedding photographer with a 16-50mm on APS-C, and another with 24-70mm on "full-frame" will face the same problem at the same spot.

A photographer using a 24-70mm on an APS-C camera may encounter problems like the one you mention more often, but that's entirely his fault.

jsherman999 · 11-04-2011, 12:16 PM - **1 Like**

Keep in mind those shots weren't meant to address FOV/DOF differences, noise differences, etc, but to (try to) address fuent104's fair "show me what you mean" request regarding how the same lens can just 'look' better to you on FF. Ben and I have just noticed that some of our lenses seem sharper on the FF body.

I think some folks were trying to guess what body was which by trying to judge DOF or whatever, and you can't, because those images share no common FOV, subject distance, or distance to background; they are not contextually linked enough. You really should just look at them and determine which looks better, less digital (hate that term, but..) and maybe sharper, smoother, crisper in a natural-looking way. That's what we were talking about. My 50 & 85 were good on the D90 - on the D700, they seem to show themselves at their best.

This is why I'd really love to shoot the 43 and 77 on a FF body - not just because of the different FOV and DOF control I'd have available,

.

**maxfield_photo** · 11-04-2011, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by RBellavance

A wedding photographer using the wrong lenses for his camera's format, you mean ? Because a wedding photographer with a 16-50mm on APS-C, and another with 24-70mm on "full-frame" will face the same problem at the same spot. A photographer using a 24-70mm on an APS-C camera may encounter problems like the one you mention more often, but that's entirely his fault.

Well, it depends on how you look at the situation. You can argue that he brought the wrong lens for the job (or not enough lenses to cover a variety of situations he may encounter), or you can argue that he brought the right lens, and the wrong body. I don't know many brides who would like to be photographed with a 16mm lens close up. "Did you see the schnoz on her?"

I'll admit, I've been in a situation (not a wedding) where I was shooting in tight quarters, my potato masher was drained, so I was shooting with available light, and I had to choose between proper framing, and proper exposure (i.e. I could either use my fast lens or my wide lens). It was my fault, I should have brought extra batteries, doesn't change the fact that I missed those shots. A full frame sensor would have saved me. The DA*16-50 would have saved me too, except I don't care for that lens, I'd much rather put that money towards a body.

And that brings up a point. I see folks with 50 lenses in their collection complaining that $3000 is too much to spend on a body? What up wid dat? I guess LBA is a hell of a drug.

Chex · 11-04-2011, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

And that brings up a point. I see folks with 50 lenses in their collection complaining that $3000 is too much to spend on a body? What up wid dat? I guess LBA is a hell of a drug.

I think it's because they are ok nickle and diming their funds on LOTS of little things, instead of saving up for ONE great thing.. As of today I'm (other than my mortgage) officially debt free.. NOW the money can be saved for a FF body! (probably a UWA before that though!)

jsherman999 · 11-04-2011, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Chex

I think it's because they are ok nickle and diming their funds on LOTS of little things, instead of saving up for ONE great thing.. As of today I'm (other than my mortgage) officially debt free.. NOW the money can be saved for a FF body! (probably a UWA before that though!)

Good job on the debt!

A FF K-1 + a 24 or 28mm, an AF 50 1.7 & maybe a MF 135mm would be a simple but great starter kit for many enthusiasts. I know about LBA, but keeping it simple is really fun too, it causes you to really master the stuff you have. My most-used lens on the D700 is the $110 50 1.8D.

It would be exciting to be able to pick up used K-1's a few years after introduction, also.

Winder · 11-04-2011, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Keep in mind those shots weren't meant to address FOV/DOF differences, noise differences, etc, but to (try to) address fuent104's fair "show me what you mean" request regarding how the same lens can just 'look' better to you on FF. Ben and I have just noticed that some of our lenses seem sharper on the FF body.

It is not that the lens is sharper. It is that the image from an APS-C sensor has to be enlarged more which CAN make the image look softer. IF Pentax is going to stay an APS-C company then they need to develop lenses that are capable of higher resolution so that their images can be enlarged more without degradation. They need a line of lenses like the Olympus SHG where size and cost is not as important as overall IQ. A 17-50mm f/2.0 and a 50-135mm f/2.0. Lenses that are sharper at wider apertures and peak sharpness is achieved by F/4.0.

I am definitely guilt of spending way too much time worrying about gear/sensor size/tech specs, but some people seem to be a little too obsessed. The K-5 performs as well as my Canon 5D, and hundreds of thousands of professional images ($$$$) has been made with a Canon 5D. The K-5 AF is on par with the Canon 5D (which is not great), but more than adequate for thousands of working pros.

I'm not 100% sure Pentax needs a FF camera. They do need to improve several aspects of their product offering if they want to attract more pro-business. Their top of the line camera needs to be better than the 7D or D300s in terms of AF, and the SR needs to be much faster and provide at least 4-stops to be competitive with OIS systems.

Give me a K-5 Super with 2 image processors, 2 SD card slots, 21-point (faster more accurate) AF, and an SR system that is active as long as my eye is looking through the VF or Live-view is on (like Sony), and a bigger VF with better magnification.

Emacs · 11-04-2011, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Winder

It is not that the lens is sharper. It is that the image from an APS-C sensor has to be enlarged more which CAN make the image look softer. IF Pentax is going to stay an APS-C company then they need to develop lenses that are capable of higher resolution so that their images can be enlarged more without degradation. They need a line of lenses like the Olympus SHG where size and cost is not as important as overall IQ. A 17-50mm f/2.0 and a 50-135mm f/2.0. Lenses that are sharper at wider apertures and peak sharpness is achieved by F/4.0.

Decent lenses are quite near the limit already. It's just practically impossible to do this. It's clearly seen at wide angles, where the details are critical.

11-04-2011, 08:37 AM	#903
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	labels D90 f/2.8 D700 f/2.8 D90 f/1.8 D700 f/1.8 D700 f/1.8 (!) D90 f/4

11-04-2011, 11:34 AM	#909
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by maxfield_photo It's clear as crystal when you have a wall behind you, and you can't back up to frame your shot, ask a wedding photographer. A wedding photographer using the wrong lenses for his camera's format, you mean ? Because a wedding photographer with a 16-50mm on APS-C, and another with 24-70mm on "full-frame" will face the same problem at the same spot. A photographer using a 24-70mm on an APS-C camera may encounter problems like the one you mention more often, but that's entirely his fault. Last edited by RBellavance; 11-04-2011 at 11:54 AM.

11-04-2011, 12:16 PM - 1 Like	#910
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Keep in mind those shots weren't meant to address FOV/DOF differences, noise differences, etc, but to (try to) address fuent104's fair "show me what you mean" request regarding how the same lens can just 'look' better to you on FF. Ben and I have just noticed that some of our lenses seem sharper on the FF body. I think some folks were trying to guess what body was which by trying to judge DOF or whatever, and you can't, because those images share no common FOV, subject distance, or distance to background; they are not contextually linked enough. You really should just look at them and determine which looks better, less digital (hate that term, but..) and maybe sharper, smoother, crisper in a natural-looking way. That's what we were talking about. My 50 & 85 were good on the D90 - on the D700, they seem to show themselves at their best. This is why I'd really love to shoot the 43 and 77 on a FF body - not just because of the different FOV and DOF control I'd have available, . Last edited by jsherman999; 11-04-2011 at 12:51 PM.

11-04-2011, 03:59 PM	#914
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by jsherman999 Keep in mind those shots weren't meant to address FOV/DOF differences, noise differences, etc, but to (try to) address fuent104's fair "show me what you mean" request regarding how the same lens can just 'look' better to you on FF. Ben and I have just noticed that some of our lenses seem sharper on the FF body. It is not that the lens is sharper. It is that the image from an APS-C sensor has to be enlarged more which CAN make the image look softer. IF Pentax is going to stay an APS-C company then they need to develop lenses that are capable of higher resolution so that their images can be enlarged more without degradation. They need a line of lenses like the Olympus SHG where size and cost is not as important as overall IQ. A 17-50mm f/2.0 and a 50-135mm f/2.0. Lenses that are sharper at wider apertures and peak sharpness is achieved by F/4.0. I am definitely guilt of spending way too much time worrying about gear/sensor size/tech specs, but some people seem to be a little too obsessed. The K-5 performs as well as my Canon 5D, and hundreds of thousands of professional images ($$$$) has been made with a Canon 5D. The K-5 AF is on par with the Canon 5D (which is not great), but more than adequate for thousands of working pros. I'm not 100% sure Pentax needs a FF camera. They do need to improve several aspects of their product offering if they want to attract more pro-business. Their top of the line camera needs to be better than the 7D or D300s in terms of AF, and the SR needs to be much faster and provide at least 4-stops to be competitive with OIS systems. Give me a K-5 Super with 2 image processors, 2 SD card slots, 21-point (faster more accurate) AF, and an SR system that is active as long as my eye is looking through the VF or Live-view is on (like Sony), and a bigger VF with better magnification. Last edited by Winder; 11-04-2011 at 04:34 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Full frame pentax	cem.kumuk	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame...	Shutter-bug	Photographic Technique	60	11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame	aegisphan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-28-2010 04:16 PM
News Regarding Advertising on PentaxForums.com: An Official Statement	Adam	Site Suggestions and Help	5	03-24-2010 07:37 PM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning!	RiceHigh	Pentax News and Rumors	78	08-04-2008 06:18 PM

11-04-2011, 06:04 AM	#901
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by gtl I am guessing D90 D700 D90 D700 D90 D700 Pretty sure about the first 2 though. The 2nd pic just looks amazing. Originally posted by maxfield_photo I'm guessing the exact opposite. First shot is tricky though, can't really see enough background to make a determination. . You both have hits & misses. .

11-04-2011, 07:44 AM	#902
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387	9,7,7,9,9,7 ?

11-04-2011, 08:47 AM	#904
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387	Clearly I did a great job of guessing which camera...

11-04-2011, 08:55 AM	#905
gtl Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 349	Ah. I see that I got the last 2 shots wrong. Those were the hardest for me. I guess it really shows that skill trumps whatever sort of camera!

11-04-2011, 09:07 AM	#906
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	I think it shows clearly that the difference between full frame and APS-C is often not clear.

11-04-2011, 09:19 AM	#907
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Rondec I think it shows clearly that the difference between full frame and APS-C is often not clear. Much like the difference, say between the FA 50 1.7 and the FA 77ltd Or the difference between the 16-45 f4 and the 15ltd. The IQ differences are small in small samples, but add the experience up over thousands of shots and the shooter starts to form a true preference. And even in these samples, you *should* be able to see what I'm talking about. (And this doesn't address the FOV/DOF difference, noise, or perf differences between the bodies (AF), but that's not what we're talking about here.) Last edited by jsherman999; 11-05-2011 at 06:15 AM.

11-04-2011, 09:22 AM	#908
maxfield_photo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,216	Originally posted by Rondec I think it shows clearly that the difference between full frame and APS-C is often not clear. It's clear as crystal when you have a wall behind you, and you can't back up to frame your shot, ask a wedding photographer.

11-04-2011, 01:28 PM	#911
maxfield_photo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,216	Originally posted by RBellavance A wedding photographer using the wrong lenses for his camera's format, you mean ? Because a wedding photographer with a 16-50mm on APS-C, and another with 24-70mm on "full-frame" will face the same problem at the same spot. A photographer using a 24-70mm on an APS-C camera may encounter problems like the one you mention more often, but that's entirely his fault. Well, it depends on how you look at the situation. You can argue that he brought the wrong lens for the job (or not enough lenses to cover a variety of situations he may encounter), or you can argue that he brought the right lens, and the wrong body. I don't know many brides who would like to be photographed with a 16mm lens close up. "Did you see the schnoz on her?" I'll admit, I've been in a situation (not a wedding) where I was shooting in tight quarters, my potato masher was drained, so I was shooting with available light, and I had to choose between proper framing, and proper exposure (i.e. I could either use my fast lens or my wide lens). It was my fault, I should have brought extra batteries, doesn't change the fact that I missed those shots. A full frame sensor would have saved me. The DA*16-50 would have saved me too, except I don't care for that lens, I'd much rather put that money towards a body. And that brings up a point. I see folks with 50 lenses in their collection complaining that $3000 is too much to spend on a body? What up wid dat? I guess LBA is a hell of a drug.

11-04-2011, 01:32 PM	#912
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Originally posted by maxfield_photo And that brings up a point. I see folks with 50 lenses in their collection complaining that $3000 is too much to spend on a body? What up wid dat? I guess LBA is a hell of a drug. I think it's because they are ok nickle and diming their funds on LOTS of little things, instead of saving up for ONE great thing.. As of today I'm (other than my mortgage) officially debt free.. NOW the money can be saved for a FF body! (probably a UWA before that though!)

11-04-2011, 01:57 PM	#913
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Chex I think it's because they are ok nickle and diming their funds on LOTS of little things, instead of saving up for ONE great thing.. As of today I'm (other than my mortgage) officially debt free.. NOW the money can be saved for a FF body! (probably a UWA before that though!) Good job on the debt! A FF K-1 + a 24 or 28mm, an AF 50 1.7 & maybe a MF 135mm would be a simple but great starter kit for many enthusiasts. I know about LBA, but keeping it simple is really fun too, it causes you to really master the stuff you have. My most-used lens on the D700 is the $110 50 1.8D. It would be exciting to be able to pick up used K-1's a few years after introduction, also.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-04-2011, 04:34 PM	#915
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by Winder It is not that the lens is sharper. It is that the image from an APS-C sensor has to be enlarged more which CAN make the image look softer. IF Pentax is going to stay an APS-C company then they need to develop lenses that are capable of higher resolution so that their images can be enlarged more without degradation. They need a line of lenses like the Olympus SHG where size and cost is not as important as overall IQ. A 17-50mm f/2.0 and a 50-135mm f/2.0. Lenses that are sharper at wider apertures and peak sharpness is achieved by F/4.0. Decent lenses are quite near the limit already. It's just practically impossible to do this. It's clearly seen at wide angles, where the details are critical.