[mecrox]

In summary...

You would be better off getting a camera with no AA filter, like the K5IIs and a high quality prime lens like the FA31,FA43,FA77* - use them with a tripod with good technique and at apertures below the diffraction limit and you will have plenty of detail to work with.

* the DA*55mm f/1.4 and the DA limiteds from 35mm ~ 70mm range, as well as the D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR and DA*300mm f/4 are all excellent choices.

At the risk of making Mr Cat even grumpier, you don't including any APS-C wide angles in this list. Soft corners and edges on the APS-C lenses I have really bugs me (that's the DA 15mm, the DA 21mm and the short end of the DA 16-50mm). The distortion can be tiresome, too, when photographing buildings. I've often thought that a benefit of moving to an FF would be to get shot of this weakness. But maybe it will be the same on FF?

The other argument in favour of FF might be less noise, certainly above base ISO? It's not all about detail, I'd have thought.

[Clavius]

Fact is, we don't even need APS-C. We don't need any of these gadgets, we just wanted them. So the real question is: Do you want, and can you afford, an FF camera?

[mrNewt]

Yea... you need FF only just "because" - which I have to admit I do want just for that reason.
I doubt is a huge difference unless we talk about 24 an up - as others said... or if we talk about large print format.

I still believe that THE best solution for FF is to grab your old, trusty, small, light 35mm and go out and take pics.

<<< All you need is one of these (my avatar).

[Rondec]

At the risk of making Mr Cat even grumpier, you don't including any APS-C wide angles in this list. Soft corners and edges on the APS-C lenses I have really bugs me (that's the DA 15mm, the DA 21mm and the short end of the DA 16-50mm). The distortion can be tiresome, too, when photographing buildings. I've often thought that a benefit of moving to an FF would be to get shot of this weakness. But maybe it will be the same on FF?

The other argument in favour of FF might be less noise, certainly above base ISO? It's not all about detail, I'd have thought.

Have you considered the Sigma 8-16mm? It is better with regard to distortion and probably sharper than any of the other lenses on your list (except maybe the 16-50, my copy is pretty sharp at f4, very sharp from f5.6 at the wide end).

[jsherman999]

Of course camera makers "want people" to believe that they need 24mp because they can sell more cameras.
.

There's one very real reason for more MP that can directly affect even casual, upload-to-Facebook users: cropping.

With more MP, you can take a tight crop of a person or group of people (or animals, cars, etc) and upload/share on your social media - the more MP, the more you can crop while keeping very good quality.

I'd prefer that my extended family and friends download my full-sized shots from flickr or dropbox or whatever, but I'm even increasingly having people download my Facebook uploads and print them, or save them. When I upload a iphone shot, it looks like crap printed, and I can't really crop it - while a 50% crop from my D800 looks fantastic even printed at 8x10.



Crop of above:

.


More megapixels is never bad, and if they're taken from a FF-sized sensor, all the better - Even if your usage and output requirements don't sound very demanding, you'll find you can benefit from the MP more often than you think in a lot of small ways.

.

[jsherman999]

Fact is, we don't even need APS-C. We don't need any of these gadgets, we just wanted them. So the real question is: Do you want, and can you afford, an FF camera?

Very good point that sounds like a cliche but it's one of the biggest truths we need to keep in mind:

The question of "Do I need FF" is meaningless because 99% of people do not need FF - it's always about want. (and there's nothing wrong with want.)

I'd go so far as to say that 90% of people don't need DSLRs in the first place, m43, aps-c or FF... and that was even before cell phones got so good. Almost any DSLR purchase for any non-pro is always about want anyway.

.

[Nesster]

I wanted a FF, so I got a Nikon. Now that I have a FF, I see I didn't need one.

[RobA_Oz]

I wanted a FF, so I got a Nikon. Now that I have a FF, I see I didn't need one.

That comment needs framing, somewhere!

However, the concomitant question is: was it just CBA, or do you do anything different (or differently) with it?

[Eagle94VT]

I am still very happy with my K-5. I have acquired a number of cameras over the years - started with the Nikon FM2 which I still use with primes. Felt the Canon EOS 3 was the best camera ever in my hand (everyones hand is different) - still use it a lot along with its big brother, the EOS 1v. But for digital I went with the K-5 and never looked back. I still probably shoot 50-50 film and digital. I could easily get something full frame, but I am happy with what I have. I have a lot of respect for the weight of a FF system. If I lug around my EOS 1v with the Tamro 24-70 I feel it.

What I really want is the new K-3.

What Pentax / Ricoh really needs to do, instead of fancy color options, is an awesome "K-5" decal (or versions of the K-3 with 'K-5' on it) that we can put on the new K-3 before my wife sees it! I doubt the subtle bump over the microphone would be a giveaway!

[Clavius]

Just to play devils advocate, (I like doing that) I say that a larger format camera DOES make up for bad technique. Having as much MP's on as big a sensor as possible enable the bad composer more flexibility to compose during post process.

[jsherman999]

Having as much MP's on as big a sensor as possible enable the bad composer more flexibility to compose during post process.

... and it can allow good composers to get even better output. (In fact I think the better composer, the better cropper, because the same skills that go into it before the shutter click can be applied afterward.)

It can also simply make up for not having a long-enough FL handy. You don't always leave home with enough glass to handle every conceivable situation.

[Nesster]

That comment needs framing, somewhere!

However, the concomitant question is: was it just CBA, or do you do anything different (or differently) with it?

Well.
1) I had free money from work, a 25 year anniversary thing. Without that my cheapness wouldn't allow such an expensive purchase.
2) Then, daughter is a photo major, she was shooting digital with a K-x, which isn't the champ of focusing. She wanted to try a Nikon, and also her school has Nikon lenses for use.
3) I'm a manual focus kind of guy, with some Nikkors, and ageing eyes.

So, I bought a K-30 figuring it to be the optimal APS-C camera (I just could not see getting a D7000) and a reconditioned D600. Daughter and I will swap these back and forth.

For most purposes I don't see a quality difference between the K-30 and D600, lenses being of approximately equal quality, but the Pentax feels better made and has SR. We didn't have them in the same house long enough for me to reach any definitive conclusions about autofocus -- though in general things seem consistent with what Adam writes in the K-3 review vs D610 in that respect.

I do know that after shooting a couple of months with the Nikon, when I put a FA 43 on the K-x I experienced the wonders of focus hunt etc.

The AF thing of course has nothing to do with FF, though it does have a photographic impact.

[normhead]

Well.
1) I had free money from work, a 25 year anniversary thing. Without that my cheapness wouldn't allow such an expensive purchase.
2) Then, daughter is a photo major, she was shooting digital with a K-x, which isn't the champ of focusing. She wanted to try a Nikon, and also her school has Nikon lenses for use.
3) I'm a manual focus kind of guy, with some Nikkors, and ageing eyes.

So, I bought a K-30 figuring it to be the optimal APS-C camera (I just could not see getting a D7000) and a reconditioned D600. Daughter and I will swap these back and forth.

For most purposes I don't see a quality difference between the K-30 and D600, lenses being of approximately equal quality, but the Pentax feels better made and has SR. We didn't have them in the same house long enough for me to reach any definitive conclusions about autofocus -- though in general things seem consistent with what Adam writes in the K-3 review vs D610 in that respect.

I do know that after shooting a couple of months with the Nikon, when I put a FA 43 on the K-x I experienced the wonders of focus hunt etc.

The AF thing of course has nothing to do with FF, though it does have a photographic impact.

You should have tried a K-3.

Just to play devils advocate, (I like doing that) I say that a larger format camera DOES make up for bad technique. Having as much MP's on as big a sensor as possible enable the bad composer more flexibility to compose during post process.

You're talking composition now, I was talking about errors in technique that cause a loss of resolution. After all the biggest thing you get from 24 MP or 36 for that matter is more resolution… but yes, more MP gives you more room to alter the way you've framed your image… as long as you're smart enough to shoot with a slightly wider lens than you did before. If you shoot and crop the way you always did before, shooting 36 MP gets you no more cropping room than you had before, because you're shooting with the same field of view.

So, even with crop ability, it's not definite, and needs training. Right now I'm trying to train myself to go out with my 60-250 instead of my A-400, shooting my porch birds… I tell myself to do it, but it hasn't worked out yet… old habits die hard.

I'd love to have bit of head room over this bird… the fact that I shot 24 MP instead of 16 isn't helping me.

[Nesster]

You should have tried a K-3.

Wasn't out yet. Neither was the D610

For art major purposes, we'll see, it seems that the professors will understand Nikon, the studio equipment will understand Nikon, and the lenses/flashes they have for lending understand Nikon.

I'm glad she didn't go to SVA, as SVA is a Canon shop. I do have some standards

[Rondec]

There's one very real reason for more MP that can directly affect even casual, upload-to-Facebook users: cropping.

With more MP, you can take a tight crop of a person or group of people (or animals, cars, etc) and upload/share on your social media - the more MP, the more you can crop while keeping very good quality.

I'd prefer that my extended family and friends download my full-sized shots from flickr or dropbox or whatever, but I'm even increasingly having people download my Facebook uploads and print them, or save them. When I upload a iphone shot, it looks like crap printed, and I can't really crop it - while a 50% crop from my D800 looks fantastic even printed at 8x10.



Crop of above:

.


More megapixels is never bad, and if they're taken from a FF-sized sensor, all the better - Even if your usage and output requirements don't sound very demanding, you'll find you can benefit from the MP more often than you think in a lot of small ways.

.

I just don't buy that megapixels make that much of a difference if you are framing well. Particularly not, if you are comparing landscape photos, shot with good lenses, at the sweet spot on 24 megapixel cameras (D610 versus K3). If, you go up to a D800 (much pricier than either of those two cameras), you will see a difference, but once again, it will be most noticeable if you are not framing well.

There are certain types of photo where you will see a clear difference, those would particularly be with regard to narrow depth of field and high iso. But the OP did not mention either of these as a goal of his.