Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-23-2013, 11:56 AM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
I saw someone on another forum post that Pentax FF is the Duke Nukem Forever of cameras. I thought it funny. For those that don't know, it took 15 years to create the sequel to the Duke Nukem 3D game and is symbolic of vaporware.

05-23-2013, 12:01 PM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
Except it can't possibly be vaporware.
05-23-2013, 12:02 PM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
Extrapolate!
05-23-2013, 12:27 PM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
"Vaporware is a product [...] that is announced to the general public but is never actually released nor officially cancelled" - Wiki
"Our" Pentax FF:
a. is not a product (but an abstract concept, or an internal project - depending who you're asking)
b. was not announced (Pentax barely admitted they are working on internal FF projects)
c. it didn't pass any due date (and it have to do it by a significant margin).
So, it fails on every defining characteristics.

The old MZ-D prototype, which was actually announced, was also officially cancelled; so it doesn't count as vaporware either.

05-23-2013, 12:34 PM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
We need a rolling your eyes Smilie.
05-23-2013, 12:53 PM   #36
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,995
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
Real advantages of a 35mm DSLR:
  • Turns lenses that are a "meh" focal length on APS-C (e.g. 20mm, 24mm) into the (ultra) wide-angle lenses that they were designed to be
  • Bigger, brighter viewfinder (since the size of the OVF roughly correlates with the sensor size; not always though - an Olympus E-5 has same size viewfinder as a Pentax K-5)
  • Typically one stop advantage for low light performance, dynamic range, etc. over an APS-C sensor of the same generation
  • Slight to moderate increase in resolution, again only true when considering the same generation
  • Typically very high-end bodies so have high-end features unrelated to the sensor size.
Illusionary advantages of a 35mm DSLR:
  • More bokeh!
It is true that there are no constant F2.8 ultra-wide zooms for APS-C, while every manufacturer of 35mm DSLRs offers at least one model. However, I think the laws that make this so are economic rather than physical, APS-C users being more cost conscious / weight conscious than their 35mm-toting counterparts. You can, however, get a constant F4 ultrawide for any mount you care to mention and Sigma make a constant F3.5 model for a number of mounts, including K-mount. Besides which, I can't really see the point of constant F2.8 when your use case is more like F8. There is no ultrawide focal length range for a 35mm sensor that does not have an equivalent for a smaller sensor (e.g. Panasonic 7-14mm for mft and Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C).
You forgot a couple:

+ friends and strangers look upon you with wonder and have to wear sunglasses due to your shiny awesomeness.
- you now have to take photos worthy of all of that extra sensorness. And no, cat pictures with a lot of bokeh does not count.
05-23-2013, 01:22 PM - 4 Likes   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 191
Is it "holy grail" or not, it's personal taste. There are certainly some advantages in some situations but of course not always. It is up to personal taste and need. Do I see advantages in my use? Yes. Would it replace APS-C in my shooting? No. These are the kind of shots where I see advantage of FF in my shooting (better subject isolation with wider FoV):







Here I don't see any advantage:







Here I see advantage on APS-C:







And my FF is Canon 5D with Pentax manual focus lenses. So it's not "holy grail" but gives bit more possibilities in some situations. I do not care about better low light performance as K-5 is already good enough (for me at the moment; I don't shoot black cats in a coal mine but I shoot horses in a riding ring). I don't care about better dynamic range as K-5 has already enough for my use (I have never needed more, I can already expose wrong and save the image in post processing). I don't really need more megapixels either as I can already crop quite a lot and get good enough results when printing. So for me it's basically bit better subject isolation with wider lenses. So not much "holy grail" for me But just a little bit more in some situations than APS-C can do.
05-23-2013, 01:29 PM   #38
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
Real advantages of a 35mm DSLR:
  • Turns lenses that are a "meh" focal length on APS-C (e.g. 20mm, 24mm) into the (ultra) wide-angle lenses that they were designed to be
  • Bigger, brighter viewfinder (since the size of the OVF roughly correlates with the sensor size; not always though - an Olympus E-5 has same size viewfinder as a Pentax K-5)
  • Typically one stop advantage for low light performance, dynamic range, etc. over an APS-C sensor of the same generation
  • Slight to moderate increase in resolution, again only true when considering the same generation
  • Typically very high-end bodies so have high-end features unrelated to the sensor size.
Illusionary advantages of a 35mm DSLR:
  • More bokeh!
It is true that there are no constant F2.8 ultra-wide zooms for APS-C, while every manufacturer of 35mm DSLRs offers at least one model. However, I think the laws that make this so are economic rather than physical, APS-C users being more cost conscious / weight conscious than their 35mm-toting counterparts. You can, however, get a constant F4 ultrawide for any mount you care to mention and Sigma make a constant F3.5 model for a number of mounts, including K-mount. Besides which, I can't really see the point of constant F2.8 when your use case is more like F8. There is no ultrawide focal length range for a 35mm sensor that does not have an equivalent for a smaller sensor (e.g. Panasonic 7-14mm for mft and Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C).
Show me an APS-C F1.4 superwide .

05-25-2013, 12:40 AM   #39
Pentaxian
adwb's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bristol UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,631
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jpyykonen Quote
Is it "holy grail" or not, it's personal taste. There are certainly some advantages in some situations but of course not always. It is up to personal taste and need. Do I see advantages in my use? Yes. Would it replace APS-C in my shooting? No. These are the kind of shots where I see advantage of FF in my shooting (better subject isolation with wider FoV):


And my FF is Canon 5D with Pentax manual focus lenses. So it's not "holy grail" but gives bit more possibilities in some situations. I do not care about better low light performance as K-5 is already good enough (for me at the moment; I don't shoot black cats in a coal mine but I shoot horses in a riding ring). I don't care about better dynamic range as K-5 has already enough for my use (I have never needed more, I can already expose wrong and save the image in post processing). I don't really need more megapixels either as I can already crop quite a lot and get good enough results when printing. So for me it's basically bit better subject isolation with wider lenses. So not much "holy grail" for me But just a little bit more in some situations than APS-C can do.
Ahhh, after several days an answer to my question that (while the others expressed opinions and some facts) actually showed why you might want to spend the sort of money a ff is available for.
05-25-2013, 02:20 PM   #40
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
We need a rolling your eyes Smilie.
Like this ?

05-25-2013, 06:54 PM   #41
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Two reasons, the second reason broken into two sub-reasons

.

To the general question, "Why Full Frame", you can take your personal answers for "why I choose aps-c over micro-4/3" and just repeat those answers, adding about 20% more validity/juice to each answer.

To the general question, "Why Pentax Full Frame", the answer gets more muddled, but breaks down into two distinct themes, which may overlap for some people:

1) K-mount may not survive/thrive with mirrorless now slowly eating the lower end and value-FF eating the upper end of what was their aps-c market. Pentax without K-mount is just some other camera company.

2) Folks want to shoot their K-mount lenses at their original/designed FOV/DOF.
05-25-2013, 08:14 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 666
For me it isn't about abandoning aps-c, but I want ff so I can take advantage of the best of two systems with a single set of lenses. I like that aps-c lets me have that crop factor at the long end. I want ff to be able to shoot wide on my 28 and 31 like they were developed to be used. I could do this now with Pentax and a Nikon, but I don't want to have 2 sets of lenses. I can photographically do what I want to do with 2 aps-c cameras, but I would prefer to be working with both.

I also feel that ff is a good business move for Pentax. They could easily move into 3rd in terms of popularity, because their lenses and color rendition is so outstanding. I have always believed it is the photographer and not the gear that makes art...but the fa limiteds pushed me to another level of artistry. I know when I shoot film, I am thinking again abou how to take my art a step farther. I really do believe that shooting in both ff and aps-c would take me to a new level in my photography.
05-26-2013, 02:01 AM - 2 Likes   #43
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,772
Its not a holy grail.
But because older users since film want back the same FOV from their old lenses, they have wailed about it for a long time and this has passed on into a sort of self created legend.
With all formats, there are advantages/disadvantages.

I took this on Friday with a Soligor 17/4.
This lens was quite pointless to use on APS-C, being not too wide being about the FOV of a kit 18-55 but the size of a Sigma 10-20 and the weight of 2 hand grenades.
But on FF, its totally transformed to wide and worth the trouble.


The same can be said of other wides like 15 and 20mms (and maybe 24mm)

But, then, my friend who shot with me had a K01+10-20 and he shot this :
Vesak Dawn | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Pano stitch of course, but nice shot (and better than mine, imo).
Basically, he got the job done on aps-c and a 'non-true FL' for all it was worth.
So to me, landscapes, no big deal, aps-c with the modern UWA lenses, do the job fine.


This sort of thing (studio type portraits), its a matter of trade offs too.

Often stopped down for more DOF, rather than less.
And on a strobist setup (ie. less powerful), aps-c stops down less for the same DOF, meaning I use a lower power setting on the flash (eg. 1/4; 1/2) and get better recycle times.
The advantage to FF for the same shot would be a shorter working distance for the same FOV and less DOF if needed.

Low light, depends and user standards too.
I don't have too high a requirement.
Shot this in a very dim night market in Indonesia with the K5+FA35.

For this who are not familiar with less developed countries, the street lamps are as good as none and the market either has its own weak light or an oil lamp or none.
For me, don't think I need much better ISO performance since I don't plan to shoot a documentary about mammal mating habits in the dark

DOF (less of)
Now, here's were I think FF does have an advantage.
Especially so as the working distance is also shorter for the same FOV as the same lens on aps-c.
The humble 50mm gives a nice wide FOV while giving less DOF and can often convey a sense of subject isolation that is harder to achieve on aps-c

With the A50/1.7 at f2 on FF (at the working distance we'd associate with a 31/1.8)



This (wider FOV and less DOF) applied on lenses like the FA ltds and many of the nice small Pentax lenses.... I think it will be SUPER.



Then there are shallow DOF shots too with short tele lenses, but nearer working distances that we are used to on aps-c
S.Tak 85/1.9 on FF (at about the working distance we'd associate with the 50mm on aps-c)

though I may comment that since this was a candid, I might have preferred the longer working distance.


S.Tak 135/2.5 on FF (standing the distance that I would have using a 85mm)



But not all is black and white cause I've shot rather 'like' (not not 1:1 similar) stuff too on aps-c, just maybe a longer working distance (usually more problematic) and maybe more expensive or longer lens. (and sometimes in portrait orientation)

31ltd


M85/2


Revuenon 55/1.2




But often on a tour, I find that I want to retain environmental context and FF/APS-C matters not that much.
I doubt the following few shots would have benefited with even less DOF. (my back and legs certainly benefited from it being Pentax aps-c though)









this one, certainly the smaller than aps-c sensor helped

Pentax Q+100mm macro

Last edited by pinholecam; 05-26-2013 at 02:08 AM.
05-26-2013, 07:08 AM   #44
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Pano stitch of course, but nice shot (and better than mine, imo).
I like yours better.

QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
The humble 50mm gives a nice wide FOV while giving less DOF and can often convey a sense of subject isolation that is harder to achieve on aps-c
Exactly.

There is no APS-C 28/1.4 normal lens that can take images as well as an FA 50/1.4 on FF.

As you said, the FA Ltds will be great on an FF camera.

Thanks for the many great shots.
Just a minor disagreement regarding the following:
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
this one, certainly the smaller than aps-c sensor helped
What helped was the high pixel-density, not the smaller sensor.

If the pixel-density doesn't change (say as it doesn't between a K-5 and a D800) then switching to a larger format is not a disadvantage (because you can just crop without losing resolution).
05-26-2013, 08:47 AM   #45
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,584
QuoteOriginally posted by tclausen Quote
Maybe I should start crying that Pentax hasn't made an 135/1.8 Limited yet
Oh but they have.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, aps-c, benefit, depth, ff, field, filter, frame, frame pentax, fuji, full-frame, goldilocks, iq, iso, noise, pentax, picture, resolution, sensor, terms
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing? LFLee Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 11-02-2012 12:55 PM
Why is the K7 so terrible? or rather why am i having such a problem with it? runslikeapenguin Pentax DSLR Discussion 60 05-01-2012 01:16 PM
Why do people want a Full Frame sensor? RobG Pentax DSLR Discussion 98 02-15-2012 09:12 AM
Is there such a thing as a decent superzoom (for Pentax)? DanielT74 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 06-21-2011 05:57 AM
Full-Frame Image Sensor Holy Grail - Why? stewart_photo Pentax DSLR Discussion 82 10-10-2007 03:00 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:02 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top