How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...

ElJamoquio · 04-15-2014, 10:04 AM

The gain between aps-c and ff is almost twice the gain between ff and 645d.

If one gain is marginal than the other one is marginal*1.3.

In practice the 645 will be sharper but slower and much more expensive. Surely worthwhile to some, but not a broad solution.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 04-15-2014 at 10:09 AM.

Photodana · 05-09-2014, 01:59 PM

My two cents...he
I just ordered a Pentax Full Frame Camera - the 645D.
I've been shooting with the K-3 for a month now. Brillinat camera - the best Pentax DSLR ever. Brilliant IQ. But for low light shots, the APS-C sensor is still too small/too noisy.
Being a recently retired architect I aim to make a bit of money by photographing. So I consider getsmall business. I never tried the 645D, so I'm really looking forward to giving it af good testdrive one of these days :-)
Regards
Jens

markac · 05-10-2014, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by Photodana

My two cents...he
I just ordered a Pentax Full Frame Camera - the 645D.
I've been shooting with the K-3 for a month now. Brillinat camera - the best Pentax DSLR ever. Brilliant IQ. But for low light shots, the APS-C sensor is still too small/too noisy.
Being a recently retired architect I aim to make a bit of money by photographing. So I consider getsmall business. I never tried the 645D, so I'm really looking forward to giving it af good testdrive one of these days :-)
Regards
Jens

The 645D isn't full frame it's cropped. It doesn't have a full frame MF sensor

**Pepe Guitarra** · 05-10-2014, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by markac

The 645D isn't full frame it's cropped. It doesn't have a full frame MF sensor

33mm x 44mm sensor is cropped? Uhmmm.

Isn't the FF sensor the one that measures 24mm x 36mm?

Fogel70 · 05-11-2014, 12:28 AM

Full frame 645 format = 56x41.5 mm
Full frame 135 format = 36x24 mm

SkilakDeZoo · 05-14-2014, 05:19 AM

I have noticed that some people rave about FF because they think that MF is something in between APS-C and FF

So, from my point of view FF refers to the coverage of a frame in the film era and as far as I remember 35mm (so called FF in digital) was called as Small Picture (translating from my native tongue). I think there was something even smaller called "Karat" by ORWO? or something similar, what was half of the 35mm but can be wrong. With no doubt a "FF" would be a nice addition to the Pentax sable but not a must.

lytrytyr · 05-14-2014, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by SkilakDeZoo

So, from my point of view FF refers to the coverage of a frame in the film era and as far as I remember 35mm (so called FF in digital) was called as Small Picture (translating from my native tongue).

In the industrial context, Zeiss now calls it "Large image format"!

F-Mount Lenses | ZEISS United States

Originally posted by SkilakDeZoo

I think there was something even smaller called "Karat" by ORWO? or something similar, what was half of the 35mm but can be wrong.

"Karat" was the AGFA name. ORWO used "Penti" later.
There were various lengths with the standard 24mm height: 36mm, 24mm, or 18mm.

SL System - Camerapedia

SkilakDeZoo · 05-14-2014, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

In the industrial context, Zeiss now calls it "Large image format"!

I guess, if Zeiss wants to call it as a Larg format then I think they can call it whatever they want

but then it sounds that Medium Format is something in between

.. and adding, if a matrix covers the full frame of a Karat frame, then it should be called as well as a full frame, should not? I do not see the link FF=35mm?

Pioneer · 05-18-2014, 06:05 PM

I think it is a bit disingenuous to call larger than full frame "cropped."

Lets see now...24x36 vs 33x44. Which one did you say was "cropped?"

People have been trying to downplay 6x4.5 for years saying it was only a "little" larger than 35mm. Now they are trying to downplay the digital version.

Ah well...in this case I think that "cropped" is a lot better than "full" frame.

Clavius · 05-19-2014, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Pioneer

People have been trying to downplay 6x4.5 for years saying it was only a "little" larger than 35mm. Now they are trying to downplay the digital version.

The difference between 35mm and 645D is about just as little as the differnce between APS-C and APS-H.

Crop:
APS-C: 1.5
APS-H: 1.29
35mm: 1.0
645D: 0.78

So, whilst I don't agree, I can understand the reasoning of those people.

But the difference between APS-C and 645 is substantial. So as long as Pentax refrains from a 35mm and that gap remains, upgrading to 645 remains worthwhile.

markac · 05-19-2014, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Pioneer

I think it is a bit disingenuous to call larger than full frame "cropped."

Lets see now...24x36 vs 33x44. Which one did you say was "cropped?"

People have been trying to downplay 6x4.5 for years saying it was only a "little" larger than 35mm. Now they are trying to downplay the digital version.

Ah well...in this case I think that "cropped" is a lot better than "full" frame.

It's 'cropped' because it isn't full frame 645 Medium Format. If it was full frame 645 it would be 56x41.5 which is quite a bit larger than 33x44. So in effect you you get a similar situation using 645 film lenses on a Pentax 645 digital camera as you get using 35mm full frame lenses on an APS-C camera. Both instances can be undesirable.

Pioneer · 05-22-2014, 09:09 PM

I understand that the 645D sensor is not as large as the original 120 film frame. It is still 145 square centimeters of sensor to capture light. The full frame sensor is 86 square centimeters. It may not be quite as much as the film size was but it is still a considerable amount of additional sensor real estate. IMHO it is well worth it.

Of course, YMMV

ElJamoquio · 05-22-2014, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Pioneer

I understand that the 645D sensor is not as large as the original 120 film frame. It is still 145 square centimeters of sensor to capture light. The full frame sensor is 86 square centimeters. It may not be quite as much as the film size was but it is still a considerable amount of additional sensor real estate. IMHO it is well worth it.

Of course, YMMV

I think you mean 8.6 cm^2 and 14.5 cm^2, or the same as a 1.3 crop factor. Better, yes, assuming the lenses you want are available in 645.

Pioneer · 05-22-2014, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

I think you mean 8.6 cm^2 and 14.5 cm^2, or the same as a 1.3 crop factor. Better, yes, assuming the lenses you want are available in 645.

Thanks for the correction, I must be about ready for bed.

And it certainly looks to me like the full frame is clearly the cropped sensor in this scenario, not the other way around.

ElJamoquio · 05-22-2014, 09:39 PM

I'd be happy just calling them out by sensor area. Certainly would be better than arbitrary film sizes from 50-100 years ago.

05-19-2014, 02:04 AM	#1421
markac Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Adelaide Posts: 84	Originally posted by Pioneer I think it is a bit disingenuous to call larger than full frame "cropped." Lets see now...24x36 vs 33x44. Which one did you say was "cropped?" People have been trying to downplay 6x4.5 for years saying it was only a "little" larger than 35mm. Now they are trying to downplay the digital version. Ah well...in this case I think that "cropped" is a lot better than "full" frame. It's 'cropped' because it isn't full frame 645 Medium Format. If it was full frame 645 it would be 56x41.5 which is quite a bit larger than 33x44. So in effect you you get a similar situation using 645 film lenses on a Pentax 645 digital camera as you get using 35mm full frame lenses on an APS-C camera. Both instances can be undesirable. Last edited by markac; 05-19-2014 at 02:27 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The full frame Pentax that never was	dj_saunter	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame	oppositz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	03-18-2011 09:39 AM
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

04-15-2014, 10:04 AM	#1411
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	The gain between aps-c and ff is almost twice the gain between ff and 645d. If one gain is marginal than the other one is marginal1.3. In practice the 645 will be sharper but slower and much more expensive. Surely worthwhile to some, but not a broad solution. Last edited by ElJamoquio; 04-15-2014 at 10:09 AM.*

05-09-2014, 01:59 PM	#1412
Photodana Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Greater Copenhagen Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 161	My two cents...he I just ordered a Pentax Full Frame Camera - the 645D. I've been shooting with the K-3 for a month now. Brillinat camera - the best Pentax DSLR ever. Brilliant IQ. But for low light shots, the APS-C sensor is still too small/too noisy. Being a recently retired architect I aim to make a bit of money by photographing. So I consider getsmall business. I never tried the 645D, so I'm really looking forward to giving it af good testdrive one of these days :-) Regards Jens

05-10-2014, 02:41 AM	#1413
markac Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Adelaide Posts: 84	Originally posted by Photodana My two cents...he I just ordered a Pentax Full Frame Camera - the 645D. I've been shooting with the K-3 for a month now. Brillinat camera - the best Pentax DSLR ever. Brilliant IQ. But for low light shots, the APS-C sensor is still too small/too noisy. Being a recently retired architect I aim to make a bit of money by photographing. So I consider getsmall business. I never tried the 645D, so I'm really looking forward to giving it af good testdrive one of these days :-) Regards Jens The 645D isn't full frame it's cropped. It doesn't have a full frame MF sensor

05-10-2014, 02:43 PM	#1414
Pepe Guitarra Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,223	Originally posted by markac The 645D isn't full frame it's cropped. It doesn't have a full frame MF sensor 33mm x 44mm sensor is cropped? Uhmmm. Isn't the FF sensor the one that measures 24mm x 36mm?

05-11-2014, 12:28 AM	#1415
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Full frame 645 format = 56x41.5 mm Full frame 135 format = 36x24 mm

05-14-2014, 05:19 AM	#1416
SkilakDeZoo Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 136	I have noticed that some people rave about FF because they think that MF is something in between APS-C and FF So, from my point of view FF refers to the coverage of a frame in the film era and as far as I remember 35mm (so called FF in digital) was called as Small Picture (translating from my native tongue). I think there was something even smaller called "Karat" by ORWO? or something similar, what was half of the 35mm but can be wrong. With no doubt a "FF" would be a nice addition to the Pentax sable but not a must.

05-14-2014, 06:58 AM	#1417
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by SkilakDeZoo So, from my point of view FF refers to the coverage of a frame in the film era and as far as I remember 35mm (so called FF in digital) was called as Small Picture (translating from my native tongue). In the industrial context, Zeiss now calls it "Large image format"! F-Mount Lenses \| ZEISS United States Originally posted by SkilakDeZoo I think there was something even smaller called "Karat" by ORWO? or something similar, what was half of the 35mm but can be wrong. "Karat" was the AGFA name. ORWO used "Penti" later. There were various lengths with the standard 24mm height: 36mm, 24mm, or 18mm. SL System - Camerapedia

05-14-2014, 08:09 AM	#1418
SkilakDeZoo Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 136	Originally posted by lytrytyr In the industrial context, Zeiss now calls it "Large image format"! I guess, if Zeiss wants to call it as a Larg format then I think they can call it whatever they want but then it sounds that Medium Format is something in between .. and adding, if a matrix covers the full frame of a Karat frame, then it should be called as well as a full frame, should not? I do not see the link FF=35mm?

05-18-2014, 06:05 PM	#1419
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	I think it is a bit disingenuous to call larger than full frame "cropped." Lets see now...24x36 vs 33x44. Which one did you say was "cropped?" People have been trying to downplay 6x4.5 for years saying it was only a "little" larger than 35mm. Now they are trying to downplay the digital version. Ah well...in this case I think that "cropped" is a lot better than "full" frame.

05-19-2014, 12:45 AM	#1420
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Pioneer People have been trying to downplay 6x4.5 for years saying it was only a "little" larger than 35mm. Now they are trying to downplay the digital version. The difference between 35mm and 645D is about just as little as the differnce between APS-C and APS-H. Crop: APS-C: 1.5 APS-H: 1.29 35mm: 1.0 645D: 0.78 So, whilst I don't agree, I can understand the reasoning of those people. But the difference between APS-C and 645 is substantial. So as long as Pentax refrains from a 35mm and that gap remains, upgrading to 645 remains worthwhile.

05-22-2014, 09:09 PM	#1422
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	I understand that the 645D sensor is not as large as the original 120 film frame. It is still 145 square centimeters of sensor to capture light. The full frame sensor is 86 square centimeters. It may not be quite as much as the film size was but it is still a considerable amount of additional sensor real estate. IMHO it is well worth it. Of course, YMMV

05-22-2014, 09:14 PM	#1423
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pioneer I understand that the 645D sensor is not as large as the original 120 film frame. It is still 145 square centimeters of sensor to capture light. The full frame sensor is 86 square centimeters. It may not be quite as much as the film size was but it is still a considerable amount of additional sensor real estate. IMHO it is well worth it. Of course, YMMV I think you mean 8.6 cm^2 and 14.5 cm^2, or the same as a 1.3 crop factor. Better, yes, assuming the lenses you want are available in 645.

05-22-2014, 09:23 PM	#1424
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by ElJamoquio I think you mean 8.6 cm^2 and 14.5 cm^2, or the same as a 1.3 crop factor. Better, yes, assuming the lenses you want are available in 645. Thanks for the correction, I must be about ready for bed. And it certainly looks to me like the full frame is clearly the cropped sensor in this scenario, not the other way around.

05-22-2014, 09:39 PM	#1425
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	I'd be happy just calling them out by sensor area. Certainly would be better than arbitrary film sizes from 50-100 years ago.