[Rondec]

You are comparing a 1 year old APS-C to a 3+ year old FF. So yes, APS-C has closed the gap in 3 years.

The Canon 1DX is expected to shoot 12,800 ISO like 1600 on a current APS-C. The 18MP sensor is creating a lot of excitement on the Canon forums.

Remember when the D3s came out? Remember how much better it was over any APS-C on the market AT THAT TIME?

For web use APS-C is more than enough. 4/3 is actually more than enough. For people who print 8x10 or 11x14 with any regularity 4/3 is better than APS-C.

Everyone has an opinion based on their style and final output. I have friend who shoots sports for a college sports service. He is still using Olympus E-5. All of his work is posted on the web. 12MP files and Olympus has one of the best JPEG engines which makes his work flow pretty simple. He has no need for a FF. I have another friend who still shoots 6x6 film in his Hassy 503CW, but he shoots people and makes big prints.

There is no one format/size that works for everyone. They all have a different look, different capabilities, and different challenges.

Of course. There is a leapfrogging in sensor technology (although APS-C never fully catches up). My point is more that APS-C sensors are getting close to the "good enough for most folks" stage. The issues with the K5 to me are not sensor related at this point and hopefully will be fixed in the future, whether or not Pentax releases full frame.

[ogl]

sonyalpharumors | Blog | (SR5) The third mysterious Sony FF camera will be something completely new (Hybrid mount)

From Sony side - The first two Full Frame cameras that will come in 2012 are the A9x SLT camera with 24 Mega-pixel sensor (80% the rumor is true)...

[stanleyk]

But in fact it's not stupid, unless the $300 lens you're talking about is a slow, bad older consumer zoom. My little 20 2.8D, 50 1.8D and 85 1.8D all cost less than $300 and are excellent on the D700. Being able to get great performance out of these lenses is one of the benefits of FF.

(If size really matters most of the time, you may want to forego the large $ uber-lenses, but the D700/D300 form factor isn't as big as some folks think, especially when paired with a smaller lens. K-5 + grip + 31ltd is bigger/heavier than D700 + 50 1.8 - and the combo costs nearly the same )

.

I think grips are kind of overkill. The battery in the camera takes at least 300 photos and I don't have a problem holding a camera sideways. I barely have time to look at 36 much less 300 shots. Plus I generally find I can get the photo I'm wanting with one or two shots. Once you've used a lens a few time you can kind of figure out what it's going to do in most situations. If a shot or two doesn't work out, c'est la vie. My uncle was a professional wedding photographer for years. He marvels at the coverage people say they need now. He shot medium format and managed to make a very good living doing weddings. I just did a portrait session for a friend with her kids. I think I took 30 photos. That 35 was great with the kids and if you haven't looked at the 105 you should. I actually like it better than the 85.

I personally don't like plastic lenses. I'm kind of clumsy so I'm always worried I'm going to break them. I really like the fact you buy the manual focus metal lenses new. That's ultimately what sold me on the D700. I really had a hard time with the 35mm because it's plastic. The image quality is quite good though. The 105 and 200mm macro are much better lenses mechanically than the 35 but what can you do they made it out of plastic. It's really a HUGE rip-off at that price but there isn't another option unless you go with the AI 35mm F1.4 which is not exactly a great lens. At F4 yes at F2 or 2.8 not unless you are cropping.

I suppose it's a moot point for me with Pentax anyway. I've invested in Nikon and will probably be upgrading to their new full frame (D800 I think its called) after it's released. I'm very leery of the giant overkill megapixel sensor, but I tend to trust Nikon with this stuff. I will probably have to do that in 2013 though. My camera budget this year is for the new Fuji interchangeable.

I am curious to see what Pentax will do with mirrorless. That's one I might consider at some point if it was small enough.

I hope Pentax makes one for all the forum members here that have a lot invested in Pentax lenses though.

[Macario]

Of course. There is a leapfrogging in sensor technology (although APS-C never fully catches up). My point is more that APS-C sensors are getting close to the "good enough for most folks" stage. The issues with the K5 to me are not sensor related at this point and hopefully will be fixed in the future, whether or not Pentax releases full frame.

APS-C is already more than good enough for most people, the pixel count at the point is overkill for most.

[Winder]

Of course. There is a leapfrogging in sensor technology (although APS-C never fully catches up). My point is more that APS-C sensors are getting close to the "good enough for most folks" stage. The issues with the K5 to me are not sensor related at this point and hopefully will be fixed in the future, whether or not Pentax releases full frame.

APS-C and 4/3 have both been "good enough" for several years. It is only the gear heads that are complaining about not getting crystal clear 6400. My K-7 produces images that amaze regular people, but people of the forums complain like it is an EOS 10D.

One thing I would like to see is Pentax move to a lighter AA filter. My hope is that the new 24MP APS-C sensor get us closer to no AA filter and handle it with software.

[Anvh]

Anvh do you have and use Leica, or do you only believe on what you say?

What do you mean?

I only said that in general lenses are a better investment then a camera because they hold their value better and last longer.
Doesn't really matter what brand you look at.

[Anvh]

Don't you notice this picture IQ is not on par with one taken with 50@f2 and full frame camera?

But is it good enough, that's the question.

The image looks perfectly sharp to me, it might not hold up in large poster size print when looking close up but it will perfect for most of us.
Isn't that what matters?

And i rather spend €2000 on lenses i will have for decades and spend €1000 on a camera that gets replaced over 4 year than the other way around.

---

Last edited by Anvh; 12-10-2011 at 01:32 PM.

[Anvh]

One thing I would like to see is Pentax move to a lighter AA filter. My hope is that the new 24MP APS-C sensor get us closer to no AA filter and handle it with software.

Isn't the filter on the K5 not already pretty light?

btw Pentax did a great job with that sensor, the D7000 use almost the same one but the preformance is slightly different though.

[Macario]

But is it good enough, that's the question.

The image looks perfectly sharp to me, it might not hold up in large poster size print when looking close up but it will perfect for most of us.
Isn't that what matters?

And i rather spend €2000 on lenses i will have for decades and spend €1000 on a camera that gets replaced over 4 year than the other way around.

and that is the big problem, posters should be looked from a certain distance, and not from upclose and complain that it isn't sharp enough up close. Look at a photo from a normal distance, and the distance increases with the print size

[Winder]

Isn't the filter on the K5 not already pretty light?

btw Pentax did a great job with that sensor, the D7000 use almost the same one but the preformance is slightly different though.

According to Photozone tests the K-5 does not have a light AA filter. If I am not mistaken he said the K-5 and the K10 showed nearly identical resolution. Since he bought the K-5 to test lenses with, I don't think he was happy. He may have updated his review. I have not been over there in a while.

Take a look at DPR's review of the Olympus E-5 and go to high ISO (ISO 3200) shots in RAW. Compare the K-5 to the E-5 on the top label of the Martini vermouth bottle. At ISO 3200 the 4/3 sensor in the E-5 is resolving more detail in the text and the coat of arms. Maybe the in-camera NR is to blame, but the E-5 is showing better detail. Noise is a different issue.

[Quicksand]

Oh FF speculation thread, I wish I knew how to quit you.

[jsherman999]

Oh FF speculation thread, I wish I knew how to quit you.

And it's really only the beginning, because it's renewed now. Curse you, Pete Fang's source!

.

[Class A]

According to Photozone tests the K-5 does not have a light AA filter.

One must not forget that Klaus from Photozone is not a professional. He first grossly underestimated the K-5's resolution but since then learnt that he was wrong.

Bear also in mind that the K10D has an AA filter that has almost no effect in the vertical direction. The K-5's AA filter is definitely not overly strong. One can still see moiré in resolution test shots. One can negate an AA filter's effect easily by capture sharpening. Moiré caused by weak or non-existent filters, on the other hand, is much harder to correct.

Regarding high-ISO test shots: They are typically not fit for resolution comparisons as no special attention was given to obtain consistent focus. One can make all sorts of claims by just choosing the fitting test shots. e.g. from Imaging-resource.

[Smeggypants]

I considered it, but as I said before, not everyone wants to lug a big lump around. That includes me. And I want even performance across the frame. On FF I'm happy with a 50/f2 - I don't need an f1.4 thanks. Currently on APS-C I'm using a 35/f2 'M' and a 35/F2.8 macro Limited, but ideally I'd prefer a 28/f2 DA for general purpose but doubt if they could keep the size down. So I would settle for a F2.8 or maybe f2.4.

So you've no basis to say it's poor performer then. So why say it?

The 30/1.4 does give great performance across the frame when stopped down. Wide open at 1.4 the frames edges are usually bokeh anyway and like I said previously that's why sigma have no doubt optimised the centre region. it's pointless trying to across the frame performance at 1.4 as anyone wanting that wouldn't be shooting wide open anyway.

[Smeggypants]

This is complete bogus argument. 99.99% of all photography is not shot at F:1.4 or wider apertures; just look at any newspaper, magazine or art gallery. Those images that are actually shot at F:1.4, most of them are due to getting fast enough shutterspeed not for shallow DOF. 99.99% of all images that indeed have shallow DOF can be shot on any format used for DSLR's.
The main problem with photography; ie in 99.99% of cases, is getting enough DOF. In fact, larger format provides a limitation; there are images I simply cannot shoot with the 645 system because I can't get enough DOF - whereas 35mm, not to mention APS can. Thats why many photographers used LF over MF due to the DOF issue.

On the contrary many photographers love a shallow DOF. It's more natural as apart from very bright situations where the iris is stopped down the eye has a fairly shallow DOF. Its' just that we don't notice it much as we automatically refocus when looking at different parts of a scene.


"The main problem with photography; ie in 99.99% of cases, is getting enough DOF" - I Disagree. In fact anyone who consistently strives for as much DOF as possible is likely a boring photographer IMO. Wide DOFs destroy depth.

"Those images that are actually shot at F:1.4, most of them are due to getting fast enough shutterspeed not for shallow DOF" - nonsense