[normhead]

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

So what you're saying is this is dated information?

My professors never cared what we shot with.. how times have changed. If we wanted to sign out school equipment it was either a Pentax or an 8x10 view camera, but if we were using our own equipment, nobody cared.

[Nesster]

So what you're saying is this is dated information?

My professors never cared what we shot with.. how times have changed. If we wanted to sign out school equipment it was either a Pentax or an 8x10 view camera, but if we were using our own equipment, nobody cared.

The better profs would understand Pentax, but many don't. Daughter took some summer courses, including one at Parsons, where they didn't know how to get her K-x to work with the studio flashes. (I probably would have been able to). Otherwise, she's got lot of envy from the Canon/Nikon lower end student users. But she had the same complaint as Benjamin Kanarek: especially with the K-x the point of focus wasn't reliable. We will see how she likes the K-30 in that respect.

But back to the FF need... and let's understand we're all more or less crazy here... so it is more a matter of degree and direction, rather than sanity. I think it really comes down to what lenses you own or think you'll afford for the purposes you will put the camera to. And unless you're either a monomaniac or overly wealthy paying these kinds of dollars for a single purpose camera is silly.

[opening this up to a possible long technical theory diversion] One thing that occurs to me - the smaller the sensor, the smaller the lines per millimeter captured thereon, and therefore the better the lens needs to be. So conceivably the same lens with a larger sensor has an easier time resolving detail. [now I'll duck for cover]

[Shanti]

I guess the question is how much you crop, how big you print, and how much you want to spend. A D800 will allow you to print bigger than a K3, but for a cost. I shoot a lot of landscape photography and honestly, I get plenty of detail, even at 16 megapixels to print up to 36 inches on the long side. I am sure that a D800 would do better, but for a cost. With regard to wildlife, a 24 megapixel APS-C probably has an advantage over full frame, because you are struggling to get extra length anyway.

There are plenty of reasons to want full frame, but usually if you have to ask, you don't "need" it.

I ask as have not had possibility to try them
for this task i will use only WA or UWA say 12-24mm, I want edge to edge sharpness,and detail in the trees,leaves etc.. of course with a tripod,remote etc... say prints up to A2 in size
I have the K5II,which when sharpened a bit is the same K5IIS from tests I've seen..not a Big difference
I have the DA70, DA*300, 50mm 1.8 & kit lens(no so good I know) in Pentax mounts, with Oly I had very good corner sharpness on WA,but missing detail & too much noise, so I wonder will a 12-24 WA on FF give me much more detail than I can get on APS-C even the new K3

[normhead]

Depends on what you mean by much. A 24 APs-c probably tops out around 3000 lw/ph (line width per picture height) , a D800 or A7r probably top out somewhere at around 4000lw/ph. So you're talking another 33% more resolution.

So if you picked 100 lines per inch as a your definition of sharpness, then you could go 40x30 on a K-3 and 52x40 on a D800. I picked 100 lw/ph as an educated guess. What is acceptably sharp to you, or anyone else is probably pretty subjective. Some have suggested from a normal viewing distance people can't tell the difference between 50 lines per inch and 100 lines per inch.

But if you look D610 and K-3, you're getting less than 5%. Any FF not a D800 or A7r wouldn't be worth your while if you sole goal was higher resolution in your prints. ANd even with a D800 or A7r, it's never been established exactly what the point is, where a K-5 starts being insufficient and where you have to go to a D800. One forum member posted that there is no significant difference between a K-01 and D800 at A2. ( He said in some areas the K-01 image looked better, in some areas the detail in the D800 was better and looked better. And he actually made two prints to compare. So it's really subjective. We can tell you what we think, but ultimately, you're going to have to try out some gear and see what you can get away with.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-12-2013 at 07:31 PM.

[jsherman999]

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.

Landscape and in-studio portraiture are two areas where there's just not a lot of reason to crop, because you have more time to set up the frame and choose exactly what FL you want.

I was talking more about walkabouts, or street shooting, or family snaps where your FL range may be more limited and/or you may not have time to change lenses. It's especially nice when you like to use primes, when getting the perfect composition otherwise would require human teleportation. In those cases you either forget about the shot, wishing you had brought a longer FL, a longer zoom... or you crop. Cropping is much nicer with 24 or 36MP to work with.

(I actually have a lot of examples of cropping-to-frame, but I don't have many 'before' (uncropped) versions uploaded...)


(not better composition in this case, just showing how there's no fear in cropping a lot of MP)



(50mm, cropped to something like 100 - pretty useful for sports, or wildlife-out-the-car-window .)





.

[Digitalis]

ust to play devils advocate, (I like doing that) I say that a larger format camera DOES make up for bad technique.

ohh yeah if you can't master 35mm I reccomend trying 67 format or even 8X10 - you can just point and shoot with that format all day and never get anything wrong..

(/Morning sarcasm self test complete)

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?

As mentioned before the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 ASPH is an excellent choice for wide angle photography, I use one myself. Many full frame lenses in the 12-24mm category have soft corners, even the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G has field curvature that isn't at all dissimilar to what you get from the DA15 - and if you don't compensate for it properly the corners of your images will be soft. The canon 24mm f/1.4L isn't that great in the corners - which is why the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 is so popular for canon wideangle shooters. FX format may be seen as "better" than APS-C but you still have to deal with the same annoying lens issues, so I really don't see much point in switching if you aren't working commercially.


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 ASPH

[Rondec]

Landscape and in-studio portraiture are two areas where there's just not a lot of reason to crop, because you have more time to set up the frame and choose exactly what FL you want.

I was talking more about walkabouts, or street shooting, or family snaps where your FL range may be more limited and/or you may not have time to change lenses. It's especially nice when you like to use primes, when getting the perfect composition otherwise would require human teleportation. In those cases you either forget about the shot, wishing you had brought a longer FL, a longer zoom... or you crop. Cropping is much nicer with 24 or 36MP to work with.

(I actually have a lot of examples of cropping-to-frame, but I don't have many 'before' (uncropped) versions uploaded...)


(not better composition in this case, just showing how there's no fear in cropping a lot of MP)



(50mm, cropped to something like 100 - pretty useful for sports, or wildlife-out-the-car-window .)





.

You realize of course, that a 24 megapixel camera would have given you more "pixels" in both your images, after the crop?

[jsherman999]

You realize of course, that a 24 megapixel camera would have given you more "pixels" in both your images, after the crop?

You mean a 24MP aps-c camera? Of course. But then, that has the potential drawback of being too tight with that zoom or prime



.

[Shanti]

As mentioned before the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 ASPH is an excellent choice for wide angle photography, I use one myself. Many full frame lenses in the 12-24mm category have soft corners, even the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G has field curvature that isn't at all dissimilar to what you get from the DA15 - and if you don't compensate for it properly the corners of your images will be soft. The canon 24mm f/1.4L isn't that great in the corners - which is why the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 is so popular for canon wideangle shooters. FX format may be seen as "better" than APS-C but you still have to deal with the same annoying lens issues, so I really don't see much point in switching if you aren't working commercially.


my original plan was to get the DA 12-24,as it seems the best WA in the range I want,but if I use it on FF will corners still be soft? like if Pentax comes with FF soon or adapted on SonyA7r
I am trying to find what will give me max detail say from 1m to infinity on landscapes with trees,fields in the background..basically something close(ish) to phase 1 cameras ,if its possible

[pinholecam]

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.

I think I know what Jay means about having more megapixels.
Its an additional option for perhaps an additional photo out of one shot.
So from an environmental shot of my girl playing at the playground, I'd also get a close up half body portrait because I have the option to crop to that.
Its not about poor composing, its about an additional option.

But personally, I've never found that big a need to crop that much out of landscape photos.
If I need an longer shot, I'd have used a longer lens.
For my kids shots, maybe a bit more often... somehow... (maybe they those are more spontaneous shots with less time to compose and frame)


IMO, what we are discussing here is not what the OP was looking out for...

[Digitalis]

my original plan was to get the DA 12-24,as it seems the best WA in the range I want,but if I use it on FF will corners still be soft?

The Pentax SMC 12-24mm f/4 is a DA lens, meaning it really isn't designed to be used on FX format. There is a thread on which DA lenses will be usable on a FX format sensor.

I am trying to find what will give me max detail say from 1m to infinity on landscapes with trees,fields in the background..basically something close(ish) to phase 1 cameras

On APS-C format that is really quite easy to do*, most medium format photographers like myself who use phase one medium format gear either use these camera backs with a view camera that allow us to exploit the scheimpflug effect ** - and thus avoid diffraction inducing small apertures. There are also some photographers who cameras with fixed focus planes and focus stack their images.

*Though achieving the same kind of image quality that you get from a phase one camera with an anything less than a Medium format sensor isn't really possible. Medium format is Medium format, there is no substitute.

** This is actually my preferred method, as I hate wasting time in front of my computer stacking images when you can get the same effect in one shot.

[Barry Pearson]

my original plan was to get the DA 12-24,as it seems the best WA in the range I want,but if I use it on FF will corners still be soft? like if Pentax comes with FF soon or adapted on SonyA7r
I am trying to find what will give me max detail say from 1m to infinity on landscapes with trees,fields in the background..basically something close(ish) to phase 1 cameras ,if its possible

I tested that lens on a 35mm camera and had the results scanned in. They are published here.

Here is my summary of the images at that page: "It vignettes badly at wide angles, but appears to be plausible at the longer focal lengths. The vignetting largely disappears when used with a teleconverter, but it looks rather soft in the corners. I suspect that even if it were initially usable in some circumstances, I would sooner or later replace it in order to get the quality I expect at wide angles."

[civiletti]

Everyone needs full frame - they just have not realized it yet.

[Digitalis]

Everyone needs full frame - they just have not realized it yet.

Everyone needs medium format - they just haven't realized it yet.

[KL Matt]

Hi Digitalis,

sent you a PM.

Thanks,

Matt