[dtmateojr]

Without cheating, can anyone guess what camera was used to capture this shot? This one looks fantastic printed 1 meter wide:

(link if you want to view it large http://www.flickr.com/photos/dtmateojr/5351862416/sizes/o/)

---

Last edited by dtmateojr; 07-10-2013 at 05:42 PM.

[dtmateojr]

P&S would be at about ISO 2560 or so with your conditions given. I'd say that's quite a sacrifice in IQ even ignoring the ~5x reduction in resolution.

Nope. It would still be ISO 100 at f2.8 and 1/2000 for the same full frame exposure of ISO 100 f11 at 1/125

[Fogel70]

Without cheating, can anyone guess what camera was used to capture this shot? This one looks fantastic printed 1 meter wide:

I doubt it's from a small sensor P&S or a smartphone, and I doubt it's from a FF. Probably something in between these cameras, maybe a Nikon 1 camera?

[dtmateojr]

I doubt it's from a small sensor P&S or a smartphone, and I doubt it's from a FF. Probably something in between these cameras, maybe a Nikon 1 camera?

The image is actually larger than the output of any 35mm full frame camera in existence. Larger than that of a D800. Yet it only costs less than $500 including lens and it fits in my pocket.

[Clavius]

Without cheating, can anyone guess what camera was used to capture this shot? This one looks fantastic printed 1 meter wide:

(link if you want to view it large All sizes | Sydney Blue Hour | Flickr - Photo Sharing!)

The image is actually larger than the output of any 35mm full frame camera in existence. Larger than that of a D800. Yet it only costs less than $500 including lens and it fits in my pocket.

The picture smells like M4/3. If you claim the format is larger then 35mm, then you could have only accomplished that by panorama stitching. What do you want to prove with this?

[Fogel70]

The image is actually larger than the output of any 35mm full frame camera in existence. Larger than that of a D800. Yet it only costs less than $500 including lens and it fits in my pocket.

I you're saying that it's a panorama, then then sensor area used for the picture might be as large as FF (or larger). So want is your point then?
But I believe that if a FF camera had been used, there would have been more details in the shadows.

[dtmateojr]

Smells like M4/3. If you claim the format is larger then 35mm, then you could have only accomplished that by panorama stitching.

It is a stitch from the world's crappiest m43 camera and crappiest lens. E-P1 and 17/2.8 captured after sundown.

[Clavius]

It is a stitch from the world's crappiest m43 camera and crappiest lens. E-P1 and 17/2.8 captured after sundown.

A stitch from the world's crappiest m43 camera and the crappiest lens ends up being a crappy pano. I don't see anything strange about that. You claim this got printed large and looks fine.

May I ask: What did you print this on?


And secondly, pano stitching is far from a solution. There are very few models that can stand perfectly still in my studio for minutes on end whilst I snap ~20 pictures of them. If you only shoot cityscapes, landscapes without wind, or statues then have fun.

I'll ask again: What are you trying to prove with this?

[dtmateojr]

A stitch from the world's crappiest m43 camera and the crappiest lens ends up being a crappy pano. I don't see anything strange about that. You claim this got printed large and looks fine.

May I ask: What did you print this on?


And secondly, pano stitching is far from a solution. There are very few models that can stand perfectly still in my studio for minutes on end whilst I snap ~20 pictures of them. If you only shoot cityscapes, landscapes without wind, or statues then have fun.

I'll ask again: What are you trying to prove with this?

That it's not about the camera. It's how you use it. There will always be limitations even with the "holy grail" full frame.

If you really want a full frame then buy a full frame. Wanting is a perfectly valid reason. Being delusional about the merits of IQ improvements isn't. Spreading misinformation about the benefits of a magical full frame is even worse.

I'm sure there are a lot of forumites here who have full frame cameras. Have a serious look at their galleries. If their shots were crap when they only had Pentax, they would still look crap in a full frame. Those who can take decent shots will continue taking decent shots but I doubt if you can tell the difference in output.

People have created pulitzers with ancient cameras. There's almost nothing that hasn't been done before by inferior equipment. Craving for something that may never happen, a Pentax full frame, is not doing anyone any good.

And with that I'll leave you with mouth watering portrait shots captured with an iphone

http://fstoppers.com/iphone

[Clavius]

That it's not about the camera. It's how you use it. There will always be limitations even with the "holy grail" full frame.

If you really want a full frame then buy a full frame.

My holy grail is MF now, as I already own a 135mm format DSLR.

Wanting is a perfectly valid reason. Being delusional about the merits of IQ improvements isn't. Spreading misinformation about the benefits of a magical full frame is even worse.

The IQ benefit is very noticably there. It's not magical though, and I haven't seen anybody here make such a claim.

I'm sure there are a lot of forumites here who have full frame cameras. Have a serious look at their galleries. If their shots were crap when they only had Pentax, they would still look crap in a full frame. Those who can take decent shots will continue taking decent shots but I doubt if you can tell the difference in output.

People have created pulitzers with ancient cameras. There's almost nothing that hasn't been done before by inferior equipment. Craving for something that may never happen, a Pentax full frame, is not doing anyone any good.

And with that I'll leave you with mouth watering portrait shots captured with an iphone

The iPhone Fashion Shoot By Lee Morris | Fstoppers

When a client of mine tells me to shoot in a certain format, or certain resolution, or even certain brand, they can and will have their way, even if I'm not the one that can provide it for them at that time. Making up stories about pulitzers, Iphone-art and Inztagram isn't going to change that fact. And stating that it's not the size but the technique that counts won't change it either.






Why do I feel like I'm feeding the troll here?

[Nesster]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[dtmateojr]

When a client of mine tells me to shoot in a certain format, or certain resolution, or even certain brand, they can and will have their way, even if I'm not the one that can provide it for them at that time. Making up stories about pulitzers, Iphone-art and Inztagram isn't going to change that fact. And stating that it's not the size but the technique that counts won't change it either.






Why do I feel like I'm feeding the troll here?

Didn't the Chicago Times fire all their photographers so they can use mobile photographers instead? I know that's a bit extreme but that's basically your logic -- client first even if the idea is absurd...even if the argument is completely tangent to the discussion (i.e. TROLLING).

And for the record, I own a medium format and a 35mm full frame camera. Honestly, you'd have to stick your nose in pretty close to notice very minute differences in IQ ... if there is any.

[Class A]

I don't dispute the fact that APS-C demands more centre IQ from lenses to result in good quality images but pixel density being equal and the resolution being proportionally equal between the formats, the result from the same lens would be the same, albeit with more captured in the frame from the FF camera.

Why would you compare two totally different images?

The only "apples to apples" comparison is to take the same images on both cameras and that means different lenses.
In this case, the FF camera wins (all else being equal) because of the lower enlargement factor (requiring less resolution from the lens and less precision from the AF system).

This then opens the lens up to more IQ scrutiny in the edges and corners from the FF camera since most (if not all) lenses have considerable sharpness falloff the further away from the centre you go.

If you make an "apples to apples" comparison, the edges and corners benefit from the lower enlargement factor as well and will be just as good, if not better, than your current APS-C edges and corners.

BTW, if you make an "apples to oranges" comparison, the "bad" FF corners are not even existent in the APS-C image. So they cannot really be worse.

The Tamron 28-75 is not a consumer-grade lens in my mind. It is a professional grade lens with a consumer grade price tag.

I don't think that's the case.
Its build quality isn't that hot.
There are also many copies with inconsistent FF&BF focus across the zoom range.

To my mind it is a consumer-grade lens with a good optical design.

Anyway, I don't see how a K5 is any harder on a lens than a D800. Basically it exactly takes the center portion of the D800 photo, nothing more or less. How can you say that a K5 requires better glass than a D800?

The glass (and AF mechanism) needs to be 1.5 times better because of the higher enlargement factor required for APS-C compared to FF.

Comparing the K-5 sensor to the respective APS-C sized portion of a D800 is not a useful comparison. That's like claiming that FF has no advantage over APS-C if you crop FF images to APS-C dimensions. The latter is obviously true. The comparison is properly made when the same image is projected on both sensors. Even an FF sensor with lower pixel pitch, say both sensors have 16MP, will produce the better equally sized print because the lens was allowed to project a 2.25 times larger image (requiring 1.5 times less resolution) and the AF system was allowed to have a 1.5 times larger tolerance.

[Rondec]

The glass (and AF mechanism) needs to be 1.5 times better because of the higher enlargement factor required for APS-C compared to FF.

Comparing the K-5 sensor to the respective APS-C sized portion of a D800 is not a useful comparison. That's like claiming that FF has no advantage over APS-C if you crop FF images to APS-C dimensions. The latter is obviously true. The comparison is properly made when the same image is projected on both sensors. Even an FF sensor with lower pixel pitch, say both sensors have 16MP, will produce the better equally sized print because the lens was allowed to project a 2.25 times larger image (requiring 1.5 times less resolution) and the AF system was allowed to have a 1.5 times larger tolerance.

There isn't a 16 megapixel full frame sensor available. The D700 was 12 megapixels and I have a hard time believing that you had more cropping capability with a pixel sharp D700 image than you would with a pixel sharp K5 image. It just doesn't make sense.

The issue with cropping is that if I am taking photos of birds, I either need to use a longer lens or I end up cropping to the same dimensions as I would have with the K5 anyway. I don't own a 450mm lens and use 300mm on APS-C.

The problem that I have with all of this discussion is not in saying that full frame is better in many situations. I do believe it is. The problem that I have is in saying that you can somehow print a 16 megapixel full frame image that is pixel sharp bigger than a 16 megapixel APS-C image that is also pixel sharp. It just doesn't make sense. Particularly for low iso, stopped down photos. I don't believe you could tell the difference in any kind of meaningful way.

[siamthai]

Hmm, this thread is named "Would you buy a Pentax Full Frame DSLR?" and not "Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor – What is the difference?". Isn't it better to start a new thread if you want to debate this?

As for me, I'll stay with my K-5 as far as it works and then I'll buy a Pentax FF if there is one at the right price and weight otherwise I'll buy another Pentax APS-C.

This is something I read a few months ago and I think it's worth reading



"

• Use your camera until it dies – reconsider how much bang-for-the buck you might get out of a new upgrade. For some product introductions, you can count on significant new features and functionality – at least by the specs of the new product compared to the previous generation. But how much will you get out of these new features? If you read enough photography forums, you might get the impression that most photographers constantly need an aperture of f/2.8, a minimum of 24 MPs, the need for clean 6400 ISO images, 7-9 frames per second capability, and generous image buffer that will enable them to take nearly unlimited RAW files without a delay. Really? No doubt that some photographers will indeed make use of such capabilities more than others, but being realistic about our shooting needs is the first step in making wise decisions regarding new product introductions. If we are honest regarding our needs, we will be less enticed to jump on the bandwagon and buy more gear than we need.
  
• Don’t pay attention to new product announcements – give the rumor mill a rest and enjoy the equipment you have! It may be interesting to scour the photography forums for the latest gossip, but most of us would likely be better served by learning more about photography, our gear and how to use it effectively, and improving our post-processing software skills. It is entertaining to poke fun at gear junkies at times, since we always think it is the “other guy”, but the truth be told, more of us should look in the mirror! If more of us got off the Internet, spend more time shooting, and getting to know our gear better, we would likely find that we might not feel the need to purchase every new gizmo that comes along.
  
• Shoot and enjoy photography instead of being a gear junky – aren’t you getting tired of all this?
  
• Be willing to change brands – we are all familiar with the proverbial “fan boys” who drone on endlessly about their devotion to a given brand and will defend a company and their products to the point of silliness, despite any evidence to the contrary (even as I write this, there are those in the Nikon camp that continue to deny that the D800 ever suffered from focusing issues). If you talk to some wise pros, however, you may be surprised to find that they are not quite as “religious” as some of the serious amateurs regarding brand loyalty. They buy what they absolutely need and don’t obsess about every minor product distinction of every new piece of gear that is announced. And they are sometimes much more willing to change brands than some of the serious amateur crowd.
  How can you minimize the “pain” of switching? Pair down that collection of gear that you no longer use. Buy and keep only those lenses that you get value from. Many serious amateurs cringe at the idea of switching brands – for a good reason. But if you look behind some of their concerns, part of this fear is that they have to deal with the growing collection of lenses they rarely use. Every now and then, ask yourself “How much value am I getting from this lens, flash, or other piece of equipment?”. If you find that a given piece of gear spends more time on the shelf than on your camera? Sell it. Having a stable of good gear that actually gets used thus serves two purposes: 1) It preserves your hard earned money, and 2) If and when you decide to switch brands because situations change and you are no longer with the products and service of your existing brands, you will have a much easier time."