[Imcalfin]

You need both flour and sugar to bake a cake.


You need both professional-level support and professional-level equipment to have a significant presence in the professional market.

Of course. My point was that the support and multitude of options is a bigger reason for their current dominance (that dates from the film era) than any technical qualities their current equipment possesses. In my opinion of course. Considering the enormous inertia caused by their established userbases makes the current situation even more understandable. Thousands of euros worth of lenses and accessories are a powerful incentive to remain faithful.

Sony has made pretty decent 24x36 sensor dslrs for a while now but don't seem to threaten the big two much.

Whether the high-end professional DSLR market is something that makes any financial sense for Ricoh/Pentax is a much more interesting question.

[Rondec]

Why do all of these arguments degenerate into narrow depth of field? I understand that you can get one stop less stop of depth of field with APS-C versus full frame, assuming equivalent focal length and the same aperture. That just doesn't mean much to me. Narrow depth of field is more about positioning your subject relative to the background and using the right focal length. There are some photos that aren't able to be taken with APS-C as compared with full frame (particularly with the selection of lenses available from Pentax), but you certainly can get narrow depth of field with APS-C...

[normhead]

Why do all of these arguments degenerate into narrow depth of field? I understand that you can get one stop less stop of depth of field with APS-C versus full frame, assuming equivalent focal length and the same aperture. That just doesn't mean much to me. Narrow depth of field is more about positioning your subject relative to the background and using the right focal length. There are some photos that aren't able to be taken with APS-C as compared with full frame (particularly with the selection of lenses available from Pentax), but you certainly can get narrow depth of field with APS-C...

The issue as I see it is not that you can't get the narrow DoF you want, most of the time, it's that you might want narrower. For my use, I wouldn't buy an FF for that. For me, it's the possibility of more resolution for bigger prints that would be the issue. I expect any photographer to understand how to induce narrow DoF be it on a point and shoot or a 8x10 film camera. That's just part of knowing your craft. You just have to accept that there are folks who live in the narrow DoF niche, for whom the absolute narrowest is essential. Or the psychological boost they get from knowing they have the highest level of control of DoF. Perhaps it's a confidence thing. My whole life I've been more concerned about getting more DoF not less. It's just this strange part of my make up. That's what I worry about. maximum DoF and sharpness. That doesn't mean I don't take narrow DoF images. It just means for some psychological quirk, I don't worry about being able to take them. Every one has their own quirks, and some really have become masters at narrow DoF photography, and that's a good thing, just maybe it's not for everyone.

[Rondec]

The issue as I see it is not that you can't get the narrow DoF you want, most of the time, it's that you might want narrower. For my use, I wouldn't buy an FF for that. For me, it's the possibility of more resolution for bigger prints that would be the issue. I expect any photographer to understand how to induce narrow DoF be it on a point and shoot or a 8x10 film camera. That's just part of knowing your craft. You just have to accept that there are folks who live in the narrow DoF niche, for whom the absolute narrowest is essential. Or the psychological boost they get from knowing they have the highest level of control of DoF. Perhaps it's a confidence thing. My whole life I've been more concerned about getting more DoF not less. It's just this strange part of my make up. That's what I worry about. maximum DoF and sharpness. That doesn't mean I don't take narrow DoF images. It just means for some psychological quirk, I don't worry about being able to take them. Every one has their own quirks, and some really have become masters at narrow DoF photography, and that's a good thing, just maybe it's not for everyone.

Yes, but full frame proponents aren't even about getting more narrow depth of field in most situations, as APS-C has a lot of capability in that regard in the 50 to 300mm range. The issue is if you want wide angle and narrow depth of field (say, a 31mm f1.8 equivalent for APS-C). The thing is, for me personally, when I am shooting wide-ish angle lenses, I don't usually care a whole lot about narrow depth of field, so I don't really care that there isn't a 20mm f1.2 lens available for my K5. I still would probably buy a full frame camera if the price, features and sensor were the right ones, but it wouldn't be to get more narrow depth of field.

[normhead]

Yes, but full frame proponents aren't even about getting more narrow depth of field in most situations, as APS-C has a lot of capability in that regard in the 50 to 300mm range. The issue is if you want wide angle and narrow depth of field (say, a 31mm f1.8 equivalent for APS-C). The thing is, for me personally, when I am shooting wide-ish angle lenses, I don't usually care a whole lot about narrow depth of field, so I don't really care that there isn't a 20mm f1.2 lens available for my K5. I still would probably buy a full frame camera if the price, features and sensor were the right ones, but it wouldn't be to get more narrow depth of field.

It's another camera. I'd probably buy one because, can you ever really have too many different cameras?

[jogiba]

I used 35mm SLRs for 39 years before I purchased my Pentax *ist DS2 in 2005 and the first thing I noticed was my 28-300 Tamron zoom lost it's wide angle FOV and from that day on I always desired to get back to a full frame. I made good money in the 70's and 80's shooting drag racing with the 6x7 Pentax and that made 35mm look tiny by comparison. I don't understand why some people have a problem with others wanting to use their legacy PK mount lenses in their native FOV.

[jcdoss]

I find the larger viewfinder and lower noise (vs similar resolution APS-C format) arguments to be fairly compelling, and perhaps enough for me to justify moving to a FF camera some day in the future. As long as there's a 1.5x user controlled crop mode on any future Pentax FF DSLR.

[TropicalMonkey]

I like the view finder of Pentax ME Super vs Pentax K-5 while using the same Pentax-A 50mm. Not sure if you can achieve that same clarity with an additional magnifier. As far as the output is concerned, while using that same lens, you will get a wider field of view with the 50mm with normal perception. Most importantly, most people are so used to the 35 mm size, its angle of view and perception compared to APS-C.

APS-C is not bad, it is good enough. it is much better than cell phone and P&S cameras.

If FF adds no value then why do people go for Medium Format and why is there such a Pentax camera?

[tclausen]

If FF adds no value then why do people go for Medium Format and why is there such a Pentax camera?

Humm, can't answer generally, but for myself....APS-C and 35mm "full frame" are really close, in most ways. Again, this is just for ME....they're, for ME, for all intents and purposes identical. Not for everybody, for ME. It may be that I'm the only person in the world feeling like that, and that the reason I feel that is that I am the worst photographer since light was invented...I can live with that

Now, again to ME, the difference, the step up, from either APS-C or 35mm "full frame" to medium format is huge - at least, that's how I perceive it.

So, if I was to win the lottery, it's much more likely that I'd keep shooting APS-C and get a 645Dii (assuming such a beast comes out), than that I would get a 35mm "full frame". Especially as both a 35mm "full frame" and a 645Dii would require me to acquire new lenses (many of my current DA Ltd and DA* won't work well on either), I'd be more inclined to spring on the MF bandwagon.

Now, as to how to win the lottery, I'm open to suggestions

(PS: the writing of "full frame" in scare-quotes is intentional....I find it hard with a straight face to talk about 35mm as "full frame" in the same sentence as I am talking about medium format....)

[tuco]

Why do all of these arguments degenerate into narrow depth of field?

That image would look different with a 35mm lens on a FF with similar OOF than the 200mm used. If, for example, your shooting a wedding, you may want shallow DOF and a wider lens (multiple people shot). You don't always get to move back and stick on a really long lens.

[Rondec]

That image would look different with a 35mm lens on a FF with similar OOF than the 200mm used. If, for example, your shooting a wedding, you may want shallow DOF and a wider lens (multiple people shot). You don't always get to move back and stick on a really long lens.

My wife shoots weddings (with K5 cameras) and she obviously doesn't shoot groups with a 200mm lens. But when you are shooting multiple people shots, you don't want narrow depth of field anyway, or half the people will be out of focus. My point is merely that if your whole goal is to shoot narrow depth of field (no other prerequisite), then you can do it with APS-C.

[johnmflores]

Why do all of these arguments degenerate into narrow depth of field?

When you pay that much money for a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Or something like that.

[tuco]

My wife shoots weddings (with K5 cameras) and she obviously doesn't shoot groups with a 200mm lens. But when you are shooting multiple people shots, you don't want narrow depth of field anyway, or half the people will be out of focus. My point is merely that if your whole goal is to shoot narrow depth of field (no other prerequisite), then you can do it with APS-C.

Right, but its the focal lengths you have to use is the difference. Maybe you don't want the telephoto look, for example.

[Rondec]

Right, but its the focal lengths you have to use is the difference. Maybe you don't want the telephoto look, for example.

Sure. But my point initially was that between 50mm and 300mm (30mm and 200mm APS-C) there are a lot of options that will give fairly narrow depth of field. Wider than that, Pentax APS-C doesn't have nearly as many options.

[normhead]

Sure. But my point initially was that between 50mm and 300mm (30mm and 20mm APS-C) there are a lot of options that will give fairly narrow depth of field. Wider than that, Pentax APS-C doesn't have nearly as many options.

There's the Sigma 300 and 500 and lots of legacy glass. But your point is well taken... if you are a DoF freak, you shouldn't be shooting Pentax, and smart Pentaxians like jsherman etc. have moved on and purchased more appropriate systems. But the simple truth is Pentax can make a living without catering to those guys. But, if you don't already own any of the myriad of 1.4 lenses out there for APS-c, you probably aren't a narrow DoF freak. Having options is usually a moot point. If you're going to buy a 300 2.8 a 500 4.5 then Sigma has you covered, and you don't need anymore options. It's not until you actually exceed what's available and want more, that the lack of options is an issue. Until you reach that point you could be blissfully un-aware that you have no options, and it could make not even the smallest difference to your life.