[GeneV]

The answer to the original question reminds me of our cat. Whatever she can't have, that is what she wants most in life and she will yowl forever about it.

[Winder]

I think the countervailing argument is that if you actually need more depth of field, then full frame does you little good, as once you stop down to APS-C equivalence, you lose your benefit of full frame. That is to say, if you shoot at f2.8 on APS-C and iso 1600 and f4 and iso 3200 on full frame, you will have similar dynamic range, noise and of course depth of field. The only way you get a real benefit is if you are willing to tolerate less depth of field.

Any yet most of the high end professional landscape photographers are using larger sensors. Why do they spend the money? Because the results are worth it.

The larger the sensor, the more depth you get in the image at a given output size. If I'm printing at A3+ and I take a picture with both a D810 and a K-3.
A3+ is 158,907mm^2
D800E sensor size is 864mm^2
K-3 sensor size is 370mm^2

To print at A3+ the image from a D800E has to be enlarged 183 times.
To print at A3+ the image from a K-3 has to be enlarged 430 times.

The more magnification you apply to an image the flatter the final image. You magnify all of the flaws in the lens, all the distortion, all of the noise. The advantages are not simply about resolution or DR. Obviously for Flickr or Facebook 4/3 or APS-C is way more than enough to showcase images. Start printing everything at A3+ and you will see a lot of the images that looked good on your screen start to look pretty average in print.

Most landscapers that I know are using a tripod, so when they stop down for more DoF, they aren't increasing ISO as you say. They are switching to a slower shutter speed. In studio, you control the light so there is no reason to use anything but base ISO. Your shutter speed is set to sync, and ISO at base. All you change is you aperture or strobe power. I can get what ever DoF I want without increasing ISO.

[osv]

I think the countervailing argument is that if you actually need more depth of field, then full frame does you little good, as once you stop down to APS-C equivalence, you lose your benefit of full frame. That is to say, if you shoot at f2.8 on APS-C and iso 1600 and f4 and iso 3200 on full frame, you will have similar dynamic range, noise and of course depth of field.

i think that refers to putting the same ff lens on both apsc and ff, so it's not an equivalence scenario, it's overly simplistic and totally misleading.

with true equivalence, the format advantage can go either way, depending on the scenario:

"Another situation to be considered is when there is enough light to achieve the desired DOF at base ISO without adverse affects due to motion. For example:

• 6D at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 100
• D7100 at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/500, ISO 100
• 60D at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/500, ISO 100
• EM5 at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/800, ISO 100

The IQ advantage, all else equal, will go to the larger sensor systems in this case since they will record more total light as well as usually put more pixels on the scene. On the other hand, the IQ differential in this situation is often going to be the least significant in that all systems are often well past "good enough" for most purposes.

Next up is when noise and/or a more shallow DOF matters more than captured detail:

• 6D at 50mm, f/1.4, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D7100 at 33mm, f/1.4, 1/200, ISO 1600
• 60D at 31mm, f/1.4, 1/200, ISO 1600
• EM5 at 25mm, f/1.4, 1/200, ISO 1600

The same f-ratio on all systems results in wider aperture diameters for the larger sensor systems (50mm / 1.4 = 36mm, 33mm / 1.4 = 24mm, 31mm / 1.4 = 22mm, 25mm / 1.4 = 18mm) which results in a more shallow DOF for the larger sensor systems as well as more total light falling on the sensor for the larger sensor systems, resulting in less noise for equally efficient sensors (or, at least, close to equally efficient).

However, it is more than likely that at such wide apertures, the lens will suffer greater aberrations for the larger sensor systems. Thus, even for the portions of the scene within the DOF, we may find that the smaller sensor system records a more detailed photo (of course, this has to be taken on a lens-by-lens basis). In any case, we would only compare the same f-ratio on different formats if DOF and/or noise mattered more than sharpness."
Equivalence

[Rondec]

Any yet most of the high end professional landscape photographers are using larger sensors. Why do they spend the money? Because the results are worth it.

The larger the sensor, the more depth you get in the image at a given output size. If I'm printing at A3+ and I take a picture with both a D810 and a K-3.
A3+ is 158,907mm^2
D800E sensor size is 864mm^2
K-3 sensor size is 370mm^2

To print at A3+ the image from a D800E has to be enlarged 183 times.
To print at A3+ the image from a K-3 has to be enlarged 430 times.

The more magnification you apply to an image the flatter the final image. You magnify all of the flaws in the lens, all the distortion, all of the noise. The advantages are not simply about resolution or DR. Obviously for Flickr or Facebook 4/3 or APS-C is way more than enough to showcase images. Start printing everything at A3+ and you will see a lot of the images that looked good on your screen start to look pretty average in print.

Most landscapers that I know are using a tripod, so when they stop down for more DoF, they aren't increasing ISO as you say. They are switching to a slower shutter speed. In studio, you control the light so there is no reason to use anything but base ISO. Your shutter speed is set to sync, and ISO at base. All you change is you aperture or strobe power. I can get what ever DoF I want without increasing ISO.

I have no idea why photographers do what they do. There was an article in Outdoor Photographer in which one landscape photographer mentioned that her favorite lens was a Nikon 28-300. I'm sure it's a fine lens, but you don't really think about magazine published landscape photographers shooting with a zoom lens. Another guy was on Creative Live last week and mentioned that he shoots all of his landscapes stopped down to f22 whenever possible.

I don't disagree with you that there is a bump in image quality going from APS-C to full frame -- there is one without a doubt. I just don't know how much benefit you see shooting landscapes at f8 on APS-C and f11 on full frame, if both cameras are 24 megapixels. I've printed bigger than A3 with the K3 and the results are pretty good.

Certainly there is a place for full frame. I just don't know that the average hobby photographer is going to truly see a big difference in his images.

[Winder]

I don't disagree with you that there is a bump in image quality going from APS-C to full frame -- there is one without a doubt. I just don't know how much benefit you see shooting landscapes at f8 on APS-C and f11 on full frame, if both cameras are 24 megapixels. I've printed bigger than A3 with the K3 and the results are pretty good. Certainly there is a place for full frame. I just don't know that the average hobby photographer is going to truly see a big difference in his images.

The average photographer isn't going to see an improvement. I see "professional" wedding photographers who's work is pathetic compared to many of the images posted by some of enthusiasts here. You have to be shooting with good glass and you output has to be just as good. A friend of mine jokingly make a set of "prints" on a dot matrix printer as a joke, but it demonstrated a point. When I upgraded to a Ezio 2560 x 1440 monitor a couple of years ago I realized how much detail I was capturing and missing on my old monitor. It changed how I processed images an applied sharpening and that improved my prints. The vast majority of photographers aren't working with 2560 x 1440 calibrated monitors or printing at a high enough quality to ever see the benefit of going to a FF body.

[noelpolar]

As I've aged, my hearing is not what it use to be, but I can now afford the best speakers and sound system..........my sight's going the same way.....so it's inevitable I'll be going FF or better. Life's all back the front that way! (50+" TV's are gods gift to the elderly)

[patarok]

it will not be behind... (yep maybe depends on what your preferences are)...EVERYBODY WILL SEE THE DIFFERENCE... Just compare film shots to aps-c DSLR shots. ONE DOES SEE THE DIFFERENCE! professional or not. easy as that. believe it or not. if you do not see the difference you may need some sleep. Despites: No one gets a special eye from buying an EIZO Monitor! (it may be good for getting the right colors from your screen to the final print... but . c'mon !)
And Full-Frame does not mean 36MP... If we are lucky, the fullframe will have 24.5MP that is more than enough and will bring us high framerates and more clear and crisp looking pictures... I saw photos from the new Canon Megapixel-machine...(posted by Canon ltd; not by some fan or so...) and when you zoom in, you will see abberations even with the finest optics. One does not need that.
Even for prints on 5x10m a 14MP camera is sufficient... it depends on enlarging algorithms and print technique that the company which prints your photos uses.(CMYK Halftone)....

[Kunzite]

"more than enough" for whom?
And your approach is incorrect: by "zooming in" on the higher resolution image, you were "enlarging" it more than a lower resolution image. The only thing you can prove this way is that doubling the MP can't give you double the detail - i.e. the law of diminishing returns. But you do get more detail.

[Rondec]

it will not be behind... (yep maybe depends on what your preferences are)...EVERYBODY WILL SEE THE DIFFERENCE... Just compare film shots to aps-c DSLR shots. ONE DOES SEE THE DIFFERENCE! professional or not. easy as that. believe it or not. if you do not see the difference you may need some sleep. Despites: No one gets a special eye from buying an EIZO Monitor! (it may be good for getting the right colors from your screen to the final print... but . c'mon !)
And Full-Frame does not mean 36MP... If we are lucky, the fullframe will have 24.5MP that is more than enough and will bring us high framerates and more clear and crisp looking pictures... I saw photos from the new Canon Megapixel-machine...(posted by Canon ltd; not by some fan or so...) and when you zoom in, you will see abberations even with the finest optics. One does not need that.
Even for prints on 5x10m a 14MP camera is sufficient... it depends on enlarging algorithms and print technique that the company which prints your photos uses.(CMYK Halftone)....

I don't know that I agree with most of what you say. I do want more megapixels. If you have more megapixels, the only down side is needing more hard drive space. But with memory/hard drives as cheap as they are, that isn't a big deal. As to worse quality with more megapixels, it certainly won't be worse than with lower megapixels. If you zoom in to 100 percent, you will see more problems from poor technique or lens aberrations, sure, but if you print the same size, the higher megapixel image will still tend to look better or, at the minimum the same as the lower megapixel image.

As to the difference between APS-C and full frame, it isn't as big as you say. I shoot both film and APS-C digital and there is less difference in many types of shooting than most people seem to indicate based on this thread.





(for what it is worth the top shot was with the DA *16-50 on a K-01, the bottom with the FA 31 on a *ist film camera. Obviously not the same framing, but both taken the same morning very close in time to each other).

[plooksta]

The average photographer isn't going to see an improvement. I see "professional" wedding photographers who's work is pathetic compared to many of the images posted by some of enthusiasts here. You have to be shooting with good glass and you output has to be just as good. A friend of mine jokingly make a set of "prints" on a dot matrix printer as a joke, but it demonstrated a point. When I upgraded to a Ezio 2560 x 1440 monitor a couple of years ago I realized how much detail I was capturing and missing on my old monitor. It changed how I processed images an applied sharpening and that improved my prints. The vast majority of photographers aren't working with 2560 x 1440 calibrated monitors or printing at a high enough quality to ever see the benefit of going to a FF body.

I agree with you. When top photographers were shooting on the D2X (12mp, APS-C), there was never a question that the quality was not good enough. Even now, who really needs 50MP full frame images. Even if you are printing billboard size, the viewing distance required makes fine detail less relevant. Ultimately, it's still the soul of the image that is the most important.

[Kunzite]

How many MP do we really need, how many do we want and how many are needed by Pentax/Ricoh are 3 separate things. IMO a low MP count might only answer the first question. The second comes down to:
- people might want a clear improvement over the K-3 (and not only at high ISO), since they're asked to pay double or more for the FF.
- the competition has it, Pentax/Ricoh should keep up.
The 3rd is related to the last point; Pentax/Ricoh will compete with either:
- low resolution cheap FF DSLR (i.e. compete on price, and they're not in a position to do that)
- mid-range, higher resolution FF DSLRs like the D810
- high end monsters sacrificing MP for sheer speed (but entering that market is very, very expensive)

[Winder]

How many MP do we really need, how many do we want and how many are needed by Pentax/Ricoh are 3 separate things. IMO a low MP count might only answer the first question. The second comes down to:
- people might want a clear improvement over the K-3 (and not only at high ISO), since they're asked to pay double or more for the FF.
- the competition has it, Pentax/Ricoh should keep up.
The 3rd is related to the last point; Pentax/Ricoh will compete with either:
- low resolution cheap FF DSLR (i.e. compete on price, and they're not in a position to do that)
- mid-range, higher resolution FF DSLRs like the D810
- high end monsters sacrificing MP for sheer speed (but entering that market is very, very expensive)

I shoot the K-3 and the A7II side by side. 31mm on the K-3 and the Sony/Zeiss 55mm on the A7II. I don't really push the ISO of either, so noise is not an issue. The K-3 just doesn't handle handle the skin tones as well. Lips get a magenta cast and the RAW files require more work to get the look that I want. Some of this might be the lenses, but the 31mm is an excellent lens. With the A7II my RAW files are much easier to work with and the transitions between light to shadow areas is much smoother. My x-rite color passport is getting a lot less use with the Sony. Maybe my K-3 is defective, but getting the right skin tones has been a challenge with it.

I don't think the MPs are nearly as important as excellent AF and really good RAW files. There are no bad Sony sensors on the market.

[osv]

As to the difference between APS-C and full frame, it isn't as big as you say. I shoot both film and APS-C digital and there is less difference in many types of shooting than most people seem to indicate based on this thread.

i looked at the biggest versions of those shots on flickr, i see your point about lens abberrations and such... lovely compositions, tho... technically speaking, the first shot fails along the tree line on the left in particular, it's blurry, but it's better than the film shot, which is weak and grainy, imho film doesn't belong in a conversation about pq.

i can't help but think that given your skills as a photographer, 36mp would up your landscape game... i wish that you could just take a few 36mp test shots, and process what you shot.

[Kunzite]

I don't think the MPs are nearly as important as excellent AF and really good RAW files. There are no bad Sony sensors on the market.

A higher MP count and excellent AF aren't exclusive. On the contrary, I'd say - going for the "mid-range" option should allow Pentax/Ricoh to include a more complex (thus expensive) AF module. But a D610 competitor might just reuse the K-3's AF.

[Winder]

A higher MP count and excellent AF aren't exclusive.

I didn't say they were. I said the MP count was not that important given the current quality we get from sensors. The 12MP Sony and 16MP Nikon sensors give really good RAW files and excellent IQ. I'm sure the new 42MP Sony sensor is amazing. Sensor quality is a given at this point. It is the support technologies like AF speed & accuracy, OVF quality, that will determine the user experience and ultimately how successful the product is. The processing power that will determine how responsive the camera is.

Ricoh has some very good in camera RAW processing. I use to think it was a gimmick, but there have been several times when I was shooting a band that wanted that immediate image for social media. Their manager was posting images to social media as I was working. Ricoh needs to expand on its connectivity and in-camera processing capabilities. A friend of mine shoots all of his wedding work with a Fuji X-T1 set to Classic Chrome JPEG. Some people are really surprised by that, but all of his work has a consistent look to it and that gives him advantage over a lot of people. What if you could create your own film presets for your camera? Download other peoples presets for HDR , film, or whatever and install them on you camera. Create a series of presets in Lightroom and upload them to you camera. Maybe Ricoh develops a collection like VSCO and implements them in the camera. I think processing power is going to play a big role in the next generation of cameras. Allow users more creativity without being tied to Adobe or DxO, or C1.