[RonHendriks1966]

I'm summarizing the FF user as someone who for some quirk of artistic vision, needs something most people don't. Not something that is very likely to actually improve their photography. But you tell me. Are most of the 30,000 FF users, all intelligent educated in photography type users that have determined that for their photographic needs an FF is better. Hell there are a pile more educated photographers than I ever suspected.

I don't think so, but looking around: Canon 5D Mark III is laying on the shelf in shops and Nikon D800 is sold out at the time.

[TomTextura]

My argument is that there are a lot more people who think they need it than actually need it.

Again with calling it need? Well, maybe I don't think you need your K-5 because you could just as well get by with a K-7 but I don't post that non stop now. Who are you to keep jumping in and judging other people's needs and desires?! Those are their wants/needs, not yours, so really aren't up for debate. The math shouldn't be up for debate either but your way around that is just to dismiss it. Anyone who wants a FF camera should be able to want it without having to listen to you repeat over and over again how their wants are unfounded and amount to insanity!

No doubt you know this, but have asserted that no-one needs this extra IQ

WHere did I say that?

You have pretty much said this, in the same post actually, with the statement I just quoted at the top of this here post. You said that more people think they need FF than actually do. Again, it's usually not need but desire. Maybe I'm being insubordinate but I believe your position as comptroller of people's camera needs and desires is purely a self appointed one.

What I did was I offered a few simple tests to give yourself a chance to decide if you need it.

You mean the test where you say that even if the results did prove an advantage for FF they would be meaningless. See your quote below.

I'm not going to argue that an FF user couldn't contrive situations where they could meet this challenge. But it would demonstrate how meaningless this line of thought is.

But I feel at times obligated to point out that what's being tossed out there isn't really informative, and there are much better ways to determine if you'd like FF than reading through a bunch of math problems.

Math actually does help inform some people, like it or not. That you're not one of them because you dismiss the math is your own deal. I've appreciated and benefited from other member's math filled contributions. Knowing some of the math helps me gain a firmer understanding of the equipment I'm using or considering purchasing and it can help with previsualization of an image I want to capture. I suppose you would rather suggest your test that per your own assertions would ultimately be meaningless.

I got to give it to you Norm, trying to follow your logic has me all twisted up in a perfect pretzel, an impressive feat in its own right.

[jsherman999]

Ash

That is what my question was all about; I am well aware of the advantages of a larger sensor or larger piece of film. We found out that a puny 12 Megapixel full frame image is insufficient in making large prints, at least compared to a Fuji GX680. I also know from using both film and the K-r together about the lack of fast wide angle lenses. I seldom crop my medium format images and do not even print them large but I can if I want to and for even larger ones I have a 4X5 and larger film cameras. But it has never been my practice to shoot medium format or large format or even borrow the D3 or D4 simply because shallow depth of field is the ultimate goal.

My biggest concern and perhaps the only concern about Pentax coming out with a full frame is no matter what the camera is it will be too big too small not enough megapixels and too expensive and therefore the company will have less resources to invest in what they are currently doing. A full frame needs to be at least 36 megapixels or it will fail compared to the D800 however it must be as robust and as fast as the D4 and cheaper than a D600 or even the D400 or whatever Nikon has out. And better weather sealing that is currently available. And fully supported with new and inexpensive fast zooms and primes.

Can Pentax pull off a full frame camera that will satisfy those who are claiming that anything else is inadequate will still coming out with new and better APS-C ones? .

These are all legit concerns. The problem for Pentax, IMO, is that not doing anything in this space is perhaps going to be more risky than doing something - at least with regard to K-mount's long-term survival. And that's more a fear than a prediction.... but it's inching toward a prediction. How Nikon prices that D600 is going to be very telling abut what's going to happen to upper-end aps-c DSLR.


.

[Alizarine]

New Pentax K-3 full-frame coming at Photokina? | News | TechRadar

Here comes another one! 100 more pages, will this be? lol.

[jsherman999]

Nice you brought that up. Back when in the day you used to say the pixel density on a K5 meant you couldn't get as good noise control. Now that a D800 has the same pixel density, you've changed your tune. .

I don't recall what you're referring to, but the noise control is going to be related to the sensor size (primarily.)
Because the K-5 has the same pixel density as the D800, that doesn't mean they perform equally well with
regard to noise.

So which is it? The D800 sucks at noise control, or the K-5 could be as good as many FFs

The K-5 approaches the 2008 Canon 5D II (DxO scores for low-light ISO: 1162 vs. 1815. Still lags a bit behind
the D700 (score: 2303) and now the D800 (2853)) That performance is related to sensor size and sensor QE.

Pentax has proven with the K-5 that they can take what Sony gives them and wrench every last bit of light, DR,
and color out of it. I'd love to see what they could do with a new 24 or 36MP FF sensor.

I'm summarizing the FF user as someone who for some quirk of artistic vision, needs something most people don't. Not something that is very likely to actually improve their photography.

I can tell you that the low-light capability combined with the AF improves my photography; simply makes getting
good shots easier. 'Artistic vision' can be satisfied with an iphone, that shouldn't be part of your criteria, unless
you consider increased subject isolation capability something esoteric and always unnecessary.

But you tell me. Are most of the 30,000 FF users, all intelligent educated in photography type users that have
determined that for their photographic needs an FF is better. Hell there are a
pile more educated photographers than I ever suspected. Next you'll tell me everyone who buys a Hummer needs it.

Wants. You keep getting confused about this want vs. need thing, and are effectively telling folks
their wants are not legitimate.

Norm, why are you shooting aps-c and not micro 4/3? Do you really honestly need aps-c? Three weeks ago
on T.O.P. ctein sold hundreds of copies of a limited-edition bridge shot taken with a m4/3 camera. He said he
found the detail incredible, and the print he sold was said to be of stunning quality. Who needs aps-c? I think
these aps-c fanatics are just in denial about the benefits of m4/3!

And I would argue that you aren't going to noticeably improve on the IQ of a K-5 for the vast majority of the pictures you post, and the pictures you print. When you take a K-5 image and reduce it to 2400 pixels wide and take a D800 image and reduce it to 2400 pixels wide, you're going to have essentially the same image.

Wrong. Especially at higher ISOs.

Both of the crops below are from full-frame cameras, ISO 6400, one a crop of a native 12MP image, the other a crop
of a 36Mp image downsampled to 12MP. Which one do you lke better, and which would look better in print, based on
these crops?

The scene:

Crop #1:

Crop #2:


Note the text, but also the details in the $10 president's kerchief, the definition of the page crease in the shadow,
the text in the shadow above the $10, etc.

The K-5 would have about a stop more noise than that 12MP FF shot, and the very slight difference between 12Mp
and 16MP in resolution would be negated by that. A 24 or 36MP FF image from a K-3 would give you incredible
downsampling potential on top of it's native-resolution capability for large prints.

Regarding your 'challenge'... Here's a shot taken at 28mm f/2.8 on FF. It would require around an 18mm f/1.8 lens
shot wide-open to recreate this exact shot on aps-c, so please do not say 'that shot could be taken with an aps-c
camera', because it couldn't, unless there's an 18mm f/1.8 lens I'm not aware of.




You could get close to that by shooting a zoom at 18mm f/2.8, but that extra 1.2 stops is going to define the background
just a bit more, leaving the subject (the girls) with a bit less 'pop'. trust me, I've put thousands of shots through my
Tamron 17-50 2.8 on the D90 and 16-50 f/2.8 on the K20D, and I can't quite get that look at f/2.8 with those
lenses from a distance like that.

Now, because there's no contextual aps-c shot of the same scene from the same position to use for reference, I know
you'll probably try to say you can get that same exact shot, yadda yadda yadda... but you can't. Not from that position,
with that FOV, with the apertures available on the lenses available. And it was a simple, quick snap with a $280 Tamron
28-75. And I love the look.

Here's what I always use for a 'reference' comparison, because I happened to have a K20D + D700 with equivalent FL's
handy at that moment:

(both f/2.8 from same position, one 50mm on FF, the other 35mm on aps-c)


You can decide which one you like better, but as a photographer, that extra DOF control should be something you covet.
It's another tool in the toolkit, something you can use if you want to.



.

[ElJamoquio]

Because if you can't do that you can't prove you need FF.

"need"


Personally, I WANT a FF camera. I want to be able to use a 24mm f/2.8 instead of a 15mm f/2... oh wait, a two stop worse IQ 15mm f/4. I like wide DR and great IQ and better results with cheaper lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

you can accomplish in APS-c by changing lenses.

How many lenses should I carry? How many lenses can I afford? I love primes, I love the bokeh and the small size, and I want to be able to use them across a broader range than I'm able to right now.

Right now I can purchase a 50mm f/1.7 or 1.8 for $200 or something and have IQ and DOF (that you don't care about, fine by me) of a 31mm f/1.2.

---

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 06-26-2012 at 09:01 PM.

[wjjstu]

Honestly in the pictures of the bookshelf, it almost looks like camera shake in the second set.

[Williunck]

Norm, why are you shooting aps-c and not micro 4/3? Do you really honestly need aps-c? Three weeks ago
on T.O.P. ctein sold hundreds of copies of a limited-edition bridge shot taken with a m4/3 camera. He said he
found the detail incredible, and the print he sold was said to be of stunning quality. Who needs aps-c? I think
these aps-c fanatics are just in denial about the benefits of m4/3!

I actually think there is something to this, Im not saying someone who wants a full frame shouldn't get to have one, but why are the companies going with micro 4/3rds in there mirrorless camera bodies? And this is suposed to be the future of interchangable lens cameras. Being able to shoot 130 fps video and then just pull a still from it... so what, everyone buys 4/3 lenses and then a year or two later they say, hey how about a ff mirrorless cause its better - sorry about all those lenses they are obsolete now. lol, actually that sounds like the computer industry and dvds. Anyway, FF, 4/3rds whatever works for you use it. My only gripe about a FF dslr is that it will be in the 36 megapixel range, which is a silly large file in my opinion.

Oh @jshermann, that fair shot has amazing DOF for f2.8... and its sunny out. just saying. anyway, who would have thought photo threads about cool stuff could get people so worked up.

[maxfield_photo]

New Pentax K-3 full-frame coming at Photokina? | News | TechRadar

Here comes another one! 100 more pages, will this be? lol.

I swear, interent journalism, not one source cited. I'm still taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude.

[richard balonglong]

Here's a thread I made about the difference of Full Frame and APS-C sensor.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography-industry/190654-diffe...-c-sensor.html
A lot of other photographer may be happy and contempt with APS-C sensor cameras for their photography needs, but still a lot of photographers needed and/or wanted a full frame cameras, not just because it's a bigger sensor but it's because of the ability of more control for their images.
And for me, yeah I can create good photographs with my APS-C DSLR and can produce large prints with it, but I still need a full frame DSLR in order for me to have a much better control for my photographs. Jsherman999 is right, Pentax should take the risk of doing something rather than risking of doing nothing.

[pinholecam]

I don't recall what you're referring to, but the noise control is going to be related to the sensor size (primarily.)
Because the K-5 has the same pixel density as the D800, that doesn't mean they perform equally well with
regard to noise.



The K-5 approaches the 2008 Canon 5D II (DxO scores for low-light ISO: 1162 vs. 1815. Still lags a bit behind
the D700 (score: 2303) and now the D800 (2853)) That performance is related to sensor size and sensor QE.
Pentax has proven with the K-5 that they can take what Sony gives them and wrench every last bit of light, DR,
and color out of it. I'd love to see what they could do with a new 24 or 36MP FF sensor.



I can tell you that the low-light capability combined with the AF improves my photography; simply makes getting
good shots easier. 'Artistic vision' can be satisfied with an iphone, that shouldn't be part of your criteria, unless
you consider increased subject isolation capability something esoteric and always unnecessary.



Wants. You keep getting confused about this want vs. need thing, and are effectively telling folks
their wants are not legitimate.

Norm, why are you shooting aps-c and not micro 4/3? Do you really honestly need aps-c? Three weeks ago
on T.O.P. ctein sold hundreds of copies of a limited-edition bridge shot taken with a m4/3 camera. He said he
found the detail incredible, and the print he sold was said to be of stunning quality. Who needs aps-c? I think
these aps-c fanatics are just in denial about the benefits of m4/3!



Wrong. Especially at higher ISOs.

Both of the crops below are from full-frame cameras, ISO 6400, one a crop of a native 12MP image, the other a crop
of a 36Mp image downsampled to 12MP. Which one do you lke better, and which would look better in print, based on
these crops?

The scene:

Crop #1:

Crop #2:


Note the text, but also the details in the $10 president's kerchief, the definition of the page crease in the shadow,
the text in the shadow above the $10, etc.

The K-5 would have about a stop more noise than that 12MP FF shot, and the very slight difference between 12Mp
and 16MP in resolution would be negated by that. A 24 or 36MP FF image from a K-3 would give you incredible
downsampling potential on top of it's native-resolution capability for large prints.

Regarding your 'challenge'... Here's a shot taken at 28mm f/2.8 on FF. It would require around an 18mm f/1.8 lens
shot wide-open to recreate this exact shot on aps-c, so please do not say 'that shot could be taken with an aps-c
camera', because it couldn't, unless there's an 18mm f/1.8 lens I'm not aware of.




You could get close to that by shooting a zoom at 18mm f/2.8, but that extra 1.2 stops is going to define the background
just a bit more, leaving the subject (the girls) with a bit less 'pop'. trust me, I've put thousands of shots through my
Tamron 17-50 2.8 on the D90 and 16-50 f/2.8 on the K20D, and I can't quite get that look at f/2.8 with those
lenses from a distance like that.

Now, because there's no contextual aps-c shot of the same scene from the same position to use for reference, I know
you'll probably try to say you can get that same exact shot, yadda yadda yadda... but you can't. Not from that position,
with that FOV, with the apertures available on the lenses available. And it was a simple, quick snap with a $280 Tamron
28-75. And I love the look.

Here's what I always use for a 'reference' comparison, because I happened to have a K20D + D700 with equivalent FL's
handy at that moment:

(both f/2.8 from same position, one 50mm on FF, the other 35mm on aps-c)


You can decide which one you like better, but as a photographer, that extra DOF control should be something you covet.
It's another tool in the toolkit, something you can use if you want to.



.

Jay thanks for your samples, I've seen those on the other thread in the non-Pentax section.

I'm just thinking that a longer lens would have given the same DOF and more or less same FOV, but at a further focus distance of course.
That shot of the fair ride could have been done at twice the focus distance with a 50mm at f2??


So perhaps if the user sees/composes and uses focal lengths differently between FF and APS-C, that practically they are getting the same thing?
This can be a reason why some folks see the APS-C/FF DOF argument as no consequence, while others do. (ie. they worked around it somewhat)

Of course there are downsides. Its never too practical to use a 200/2.8 on APS-C to shoot for the same that can be done with a 100/2.8 on FF, but for many normally used focal lengths, some users may be more 'focal length+sensor size' agnostic than others.

[parsons]

Jay thanks for your samples, I've seen those on the other thread in the non-Pentax section.

I'm just thinking that a longer lens would have given the same DOF and more or less same FOV, but at a further focus distance of course.
That shot of the fair ride could have been done at twice the focus distance with a 50mm at f2??


So perhaps if the user sees/composes and uses focal lengths differently between FF and APS-C, that practically they are getting the same thing?
This can be a reason why some folks see the APS-C/FF DOF argument as no consequence, while others do. (ie. they worked around it somewhat)

Of course there are downsides. Its never too practical to use a 200/2.8 on APS-C to shoot for the same that can be done with a 100/2.8 on FF, but for many normally used focal lengths, some users may be more 'focal length+sensor size' agnostic than others.

I don't think you have understood that correctly. To start with it would be more like 300 (not 100) on ff is the same as 200on apsc.

The difference in DOF that people are on about is the difference between the OOF areas produced by a 77/1.8(on ff) and a 50/1.8(on apsc). Both these set ups will have the same field of view. BUT the 77/ff image will have thinner DOF. (both setups would be in the exact same place)

I think that some people are deluded that the wider ff frame will make the bokeh better. It won't. The difference is made by using a different (longer) lens for the same shot. Thus producing a thinner DOF. Because we all know that the shorter the focal length is, the larger the DOF is. (as an example, a 15mm/f4 will have much more in focus (longer DOF) than a 300/f4). And to take a particular fov image on FF requires a 1.5ish-times longer focal length lens.

[RonHendriks1966]

New Pentax K-3 full-frame coming at Photokina? | News | TechRadar

Here comes another one! 100 more pages, will this be? lol.

And then another 100 pages for the upcoming Full Frame mirrorless:

Pentax to introduce 'cheap' full-frame mirrorless camera?

[eddie1960]

dead link leads to a search page Ron

Techrumors is just reposting the rumors from other sites though

I love reading them because almost all of them look like they have been mined from the threads here. not one looks to have any basis in reality