[Ash]

What about the extra stop of high iso performance? Seems pretty useful to me if you shoot a lot in low light or want to keep your shutter speed fast.

As Norm's mentioned, sensor technology has easily managed with higher ISO performance. What FF would theoretically provide is greater DR from a combination of larger image circle/resolution (given the same sensor pixel density and performance between an APS-C and FF sensor). It's becoming less relevant now with the excellent performance we are getting with APS-C sensors. The K-5 sensor alone has amazing DR even put against some FF cameras. That just pushes the envelope further for having even higher DR in FF sensors in future. But at what cost and for what practical gain?

Better results on FF? Only if you're comparing the same lenses.
An APS-C with FA Limited will outperform a FF with FAJ zooms in any application.
Of course, that's an unfair comparison, but unless there are DFA* rated lenses available, the practical advantage of a FF K-mount camera is limited and no better than what APS-C can produce with DA* and DA Ltd lenses, the biggest advantage in FF coming from the finest primes.

[robgo2]

That is exactly my feeling about FF - it would be nice for my old glass to work as designed (especially as they are usually a lot smaller than modern lenses), but it's not that big a deal to me, nor would I be willing to spend thousands of dollars or use a honkin' big body to do it.

I have to wonder how much of it is leftover resentment from when crop-sensor DSLRs first came out and our lens lineup didn't work the same any more. I'll admit to being annoyed at first, and then I got over it.

Shallow DOF is only one benefit of a FF sensor, and sometimes it is a detriment. A greater advantage is the larger size pixels that you get for any given resolution. There are many owners of both the 24MP FF Sony RX1 with 35mm Zeiss lens and the 24MP APS-C Sony Nex 7 with 24mm Zeiss lens, and every last one of them will tell you that the RX1 wins by miles. Same resolution and same angle of view but very different IQ.

Rob

[FrancisK7]

Imho, a FF sensor is worth it just for the viewfinder. Plus, I like to work with a 35mm in FF and Pentax doesn't have an equivalent to a 35mm 1.4G. The 31mm behaves more like a 50mm on APS-C, and what else is there?

Getting used to a big, bright VF and then going back to APS-C, it's night and day. Anytime I work with a D800 and come back to a K5, I feel my balls drop 1/10 of a inch in disappointment as soon as I look through the VF again.

However, this is more a convenience matter than anything else. Only reason I haven't switched to a D800 yet is I can't afford it AND 4-5 lenses all at once without selling my Pentax gear, and I am way too attached to get rid of it. Besides, for trips or getaways, I would much prefer the compact K5 even if its not FF to something like a bulky D700/D800. Ever compared a gripless K5+15mm to even a naked D800? It's eye opening.

[cali92rs]

As Norm's mentioned, sensor technology has easily managed with higher ISO performance. What FF would theoretically provide is greater DR from a combination of larger image circle/resolution (given the same sensor pixel density and performance between an APS-C and FF sensor). It's becoming less relevant now with the excellent performance we are getting with APS-C sensors. The K-5 sensor alone has amazing DR even put against some FF cameras. That just pushes the envelope further for having even higher DR in FF sensors in future. But at what cost and for what practical gain?

Better results on FF? Only if you're comparing the same lenses.
An APS-C with FA Limited will outperform a FF with FAJ zooms in any application.
Of course, that's an unfair comparison, but unless there are DFA* rated lenses available, the practical advantage of a FF K-mount camera is limited and no better than what APS-C can produce with DA* and DA Ltd lenses, the biggest advantage in FF coming from the finest primes.

It's not just DR its being able to get the same noise at 12800 on FF that you would at 6400 on aps-c. Look at the DXO numbers...yes APS-C is close in dynamic range but it still gets trounced in low light ISO which is critical for stopping motion. Compare the cheapest FF cameras with the most expensive APS-C cameras and see if you think crop sensor cameras have closed that gap.

Edit: Look at The top of the heap APS-C camera, the D7100 and compare it to last generations FF, like the 5d MK2 and the D700. You will see that Yes, DR is on par with FF. But still not really close when it comes to low light ISO.
That is where the advantage still lies, and it still exists when comparing old vs new.

---

Last edited by cali92rs; 07-08-2013 at 08:31 PM.

[jsherman999]

Better results on FF? ...
An APS-C with FA Limited will outperform a FF with FAJ zooms in any application.

Hmmm, I don't know if I can agree with this ^^. What particular FAJ zoom vs what particular FA Limited I guess would be the question, and then what application?

I've found that even unsung lenses can start to look great and feel more 'useful' on FF, at least for my uses. I'd make a bet that a good percentage of FA 31ltd fans would start to prefer a simple F/FA 50 1.7 on a 24 or 36 or 54MP FF sensor to the 31ltd on any aps-c. (and that 31ltd on FF - hoo boy! )



.

[jsherman999]

If your needs require the capability of DOF so shallow that if you focus on a freckle the skin it's on is out of focus, then you certainly need an f1.2 lens and a 24x36 sensor.

This is the constant refrain, and it's just wrong, it doesn't describe anything close to a majority of situations FF shooters find themselves in.

Think of it this way - does micro 4/3 give you all the DOF control you'd ever need or want, or do you see the greater FOV/DOF versatility of aps-c as a useful thing, a noticeable thing that might cause you to buy aps-c over m4/3? Or for that matter, does the extra control over noise with the typical lenses help give aps-c an edge? If you think so, exactly the same conclusions can be drawn one tier up - and even more so, as the difference tends to be a bit greater between aps-c and FF vs m4/3 and aps-c.

It's never about razor-thin DOF. It's about finding more use and utility and control with common lenses, where you can realize some FOV/DOF and sharpness combinations that aren't quite as easily available with aps-c combos.

And if you think that's bogus, then I have to ask - why do you shoot with aps-c and not m43?

.

[cali92rs]

And if you think that's bogus, then I have to ask - why do you shoot with aps-c and not m43?

.

+1...
I chose APS-C because it was the largest digital format I can afford. If FF and APS-C were the same price I would not hesitate for one second and get the FF.

[Tord]

Nope, don't think so. Not even the wife, even after returning to Pentax (K-30 + 55-300 is a lovely mix!).

I have a 35mm Pentax SLR, a K-x, and a full-frame Nikon, that's enough!

[Ash]

Hmmm, I don't know if I can agree with this ^^. What particular FAJ zoom vs what particular FA Limited I guess would be the question, and then what application?

I've found that even unsung lenses can start to look great and feel more 'useful' on FF, at least for my uses. I'd make a bet that a good percentage of FA 31ltd fans would start to prefer a simple F/FA 50 1.7 on a 24 or 36 or 54MP FF sensor to the 31ltd on any aps-c. (and that 31ltd on FF - hoo boy! )



.

Feeling 'useful' is different from gaining an IQ advantage. I agree that the FA 31 would be a very useful lens for wide angle applications, and it would suit it very nicely given its FF capability, but that wasn't my point. Images from DA 21 on APS-C vs images by the FA 31 on FF (at apertures giving equivalent DoF) would have reasonably comparable results - notwithstanding all that extra DoF capability of the FA 31 on the FF format.

To me there's not much point going for FF citing a need for IQ if all that is being put in front of the FF sensor is consumer level glass. I have seen the difference in what FAJ and FA Ltd glass can produce, and having a FF sensor doesn't make the FAJ glass magically better than what comes out from an APS-C sensor.

[Ash]

yes APS-C is close in dynamic range but it still gets trounced in low light ISO which is critical for stopping motion. Compare the cheapest FF cameras with the most expensive APS-C cameras and see if you think crop sensor cameras have closed that gap

Technology does get to a point where smaller formats are meeting more and more of the consumers' desires in terms of DR, resolution and low light ISO. Of course, the smaller the sensor, the less overall performance there will be, innately from size limitations. The K-5 IIs isn't best for sports, but it's not a write off either for that application. The D800 certainly rules that arena in the FF world. But it wasn't long ago that the best FF offerings from either brand were beaten in most parameters by the newer APS-C cameras like the K-5 IIs, D7100 and the 70D.

I get your point, though. And I do agree - the virtues of FF remain, but mostly only for the generation they remain current in.

[Nesster]

At some point, unless the manufacturers give up on the MP race, the cost of achieving performance @ high MP starts to favor full frame sensors. I.e. stuffing more into an APS-C size gets progressively more expensive. IF a large enthusiast / quality market still exists (a la the 70's - 80s film SLR golden era) at some point full frame will rule, while APS-C will be nipped at by cell phones.

[Rondec]

Absolutely, and you could achieve the same effect on APS-C by altering the working distance slightly. That was my point. The single, virtually only argument I see for a FF requirement in any of these threads is shallow DOF.
If a person knowing nothing about photography were to read the FF threads, and ONLY the FF threads, he would be convinced that the single biggest factor that makes a photo a good one is getting as close to zero DOF as possible.

Nesster's reason in the post above is probably the actual reason behind most everybody's desire for FF; he's just one of the few who will admit it.

It sure does seem like narrow depth of field gets thrown around an awful lot in these discussions. Having a better viewfinder, an just the itch to have a full frame camera to put my FA limiteds and other full frame compatible lens on. For me, depth of field just isn't an issue on APS-C -- I'm usually shooting at f4 anyway, so I would likely have to shoot at f5.6 to get enough depth of field to satisfy me.

What about the extra stop of high iso performance? Seems pretty useful to me if you shoot a lot in low light or want to keep your shutter speed fast.

The problem with this, is that an extra stop of high iso is only there "if" you shoot with less depth of field. If I have f2.8 zooms on my APS-C camera and go out and buy f4 zooms for my full frame camera, my extra stop of high iso is gone right there. What this means for me, is that full frame would be expensive, looking at f2.8 zooms in addition to a full frame body -- probably a minimum of 6000 dollars outlay in cash for the lot.

[cali92rs]

The problem with this, is that an extra stop of high iso is only there "if" you shoot with less depth of field. If I have f2.8 zooms on my APS-C camera and go out and buy f4 zooms for my full frame camera, my extra stop of high iso is gone right there. What this means for me, is that full frame would be expensive, looking at f2.8 zooms in addition to a full frame body -- probably a minimum of 6000 dollars outlay in cash for the lot.

I never said it was cheap...what was said was that there was no practical reason to go to full frame besides prinfing large. If that was the case, why do these sideline photographers use full frame cameras?

[normhead]

I never said it was cheap...what was said was that there was no practical reason to go to full frame besides prinfing large. If that was the case, why do these sideline photographers use full frame cameras?

Ask them and get back to us. You could just as easily ask, why do so many professional photographers use APS-c? The fact is, there are reasons to use both systems. It's all a matter of which system works for you.

[dtmateojr]

...there was no practical reason to go to full frame besides prinfing large.

I do not understand this. A 12Mp image is a 12Mp image. Be it from a full frame or a point-and-shoot. They should print equally well.