[Ash]

This is a great read ! I have an opportunity to upgrade my k30 to a k3 but I've also been thinking about spending a little more and getting the Nikon d610 . I been doing lot of pregnant belly shots in my home studio with an Alien Bees setup. I've also been doing a lot of pet photography and have been itching to get a better camera. At the higher ISOs the k30 gets a little grainy so id like to get rid of that about my images. I do dominate my k30 and love the interface on it so I'd hate to loose that. I'll keep checking on this section for more input.

The high ISO performance between the K30 and the K-3 may not be a significant enough improvement but then again how much ISO do you need?

[FrankC]

My initial thought after reading your post was that maybe you're just being intimidated by the complexity of the camera. Then I thought about my Mamiya RZ67, which I bought in 1990 and haven't really done much with it. The design of the RZ67 is basically like taking a cinder block and mounting a 2 lbs lens on to it. If there was ever a camera that said don't touch me, this was it! I have never had the desire to use it because of it being so heavy (13 lbs) and so awkward to hold. The camera has very few bells and whistles on it, so it's definitely not about it being too complicated. I never felt that it was too much camera me or I wasn't good enough to use (as you had felt about your D800). Sure I was and will never be a photographer like Annie Leibovitz, but knowing that never bothered me. The plain and simple reason is that the tactile feeling with the RZ67 wasn't a pleasant one.
Now on the other hand, I once had the opportunity to shoot with a Leica M6. As far as features go, the M6 and RZ67 are fairly similar: meter, aperture ring, shutter speed dial, ASA/ISO dial and a shutter button – that's about it. However, the tactile feeling of holding the M6 was like a religious experience; it sent shivers up my spine. The form factor, weight and the simplicity of it generated an emotional attachment that was just pure photographic nirvana. I LOVED that camera the first time I held it. You see, up to that point I was using a Canon EOS-1 film camera. The EOS-1had auto focus, digital read outs and an LCD screen, TTL, heck it even had a mode where it hyper-focal focused for you. It had so much automation that I had unknowingly become numb to the experience of making a photograph. But the Leica was pure, simple, and unobtrusive and it put all of the decision making into my hands. Its simplicity removed all of the emotional and tactile barriers that existed with the EOS. It felt like an extension of my eye.
I have a feeling that your negative experience with the D800 was due to a variety of things that when we add you to the equation, it all equated to a negative emotional reaction.

[normhead]

Or maybe the camera just sucks.

[pinholecam]

This is a great read ! I have an opportunity to upgrade my k30 to a k3 but I've also been thinking about spending a little more and getting the Nikon d610 . I been doing lot of pregnant belly shots in my home studio with an Alien Bees setup. I've also been doing a lot of pet photography and have been itching to get a better camera. At the higher ISOs the k30 gets a little grainy so id like to get rid of that about my images. I do dominate my k30 and love the interface on it so I'd hate to loose that. I'll keep checking on this section for more input.

I dabble with a home studio on a strobist setup.

There is no free lunch for it between aps-c and FF.

On FF, I need to stop down f5.8, f8 to get adequate DOF.
When I do that, my flash recycling times increase, decreasing the number of shots that can be done in a sequence.
However, FF allows use of a longer lens indoors (I know you guys in the US have rooms the size of my living room, so YMMV )

On aps-c, f4, f5.6 is often enough due to more DOF for the same FOV.
As such, flash power is a comfortable 1/4 or 1/8, so I can easily fire off a few shots if there are a nice chain of poses from my children.
I dislike the limited lenses I can use indoors though (mainly only 35mm 43mm, 50mm, 77mm at a push)


Look at a photographer like Bill Gekas.
http://www.billgekas.com/
Mostly on APS-C with the DA16-45.
Sensor size does not matter as much for this sort of photography

[tuco]

... The plain and simple reason is that the tactile feeling with the RZ67 wasn't a pleasant one.

That's a studio camera intended to live on a tripod. If you wanted a handhold 6x7, there are plenty of other choices. The Mamiya 7II, for example. It's very light for a medium format. Or perhaps one of the 645 variants.

[clostoyo]

I dabble with a home studio on a strobist setup.

There is no free lunch for it between aps-c and FF.

On FF, I need to stop down f5.8, f8 to get adequate DOF.
When I do that, my flash recycling times increase, decreasing the number of shots that can be done in a sequence.
However, FF allows use of a longer lens indoors (I know you guys in the US have rooms the size of my living room, so YMMV )

On aps-c, f4, f5.6 is often enough due to more DOF for the same FOV.
As such, flash power is a comfortable 1/4 or 1/8, so I can easily fire off a few shots if there are a nice chain of poses from my children.
I dislike the limited lenses I can use indoors though (mainly only 35mm 43mm, 50mm, 77mm at a push)


Look at a photographer like Bill Gekas.
Bill Gekas Photography
Mostly on APS-C with the DA16-45.
Sensor size does not matter as much for this sort of photography

Thanks for the reply, you have brought up some very good points. I do lovs shooting with my K30 and I can imagine how much more I'd love it if I had a K3. So it looks like most of the Photographers Here would prefer a k3 or k3 with some good sharp lenses over a Nikon d600 or d610 . I would like to shoot at iso 800 and still have sharp non grainy images . I'm going to check out this article that you sent and see what I come up with. I have till the end if February to make decision , thanks.

[justinr]

I to did the dirty deed and switched to FF, I hated having to trade the K5 in as it was a quite excellent camera but times moves on and much to my dismay Pentax haven't.

I now have a Nikon D3 and the image quality I am now working with has once more leapt forward. The Nikon is as easy to use as the K5, easier is some respects, but neither matches the straightforward simplicity of the K10's menu. 12mp FF can indeed be better than 16mp half frame but we all know that pixel count is not the whole story.

So, to those who will get all small minded and insist that I am some sort of deluded troll let me assure you that I had waited long enough for the company to stop messing about and go FF, I even seriously contemplated hanging on a bit longer by upgrading to the K3 but the dealer over here told me he couldn't get a wholesale price from Pentax for that model that was any lower than online prices in the UK. If they are going to mess the dealers about as much as the customers then good riddance, that clinched it for me.

It's a shame, but there you go, and I smile a little as I see various people here try and keep the Pentax FF torch alight. You'll learn my friends, you'll learn.

BTW, I still have the ESII which I keep promising myself I'll use again!

[normhead]

"I used to have a $1,000 camera now I have an $8000 camera. Oh and by the way, it's better" (duh). Well lucky you. You seem to want to give Pentax the finger on the way out the door. The only problem is we aren't Pentax, we are Pentax users, so save the finger for someone who cares. The vast majority of us aren't waiting for FF, and could care less if it ever comes. Do you know how silly that post looks to the Pentax user that's happy with their system?

As a person interested in the advantages of a larger format, the possibility of getting the original 645D at a clear out price is way more interesting than thinking about a D3x.

[Wired]

But the nutshell version is that I just haven't bonded with the Nikon as I had with my K5. Where the K5 urged me to pick it up and play with it, use it, and basically not leave it alone. I just dont get that from the Nikon

I agree with that 100%. The K5, and K3 are much more enjoyable cameras to use than the D800. I too had a very hard time parting with one of my K5's (I had 2 at one point), but I parted with it to get the K3. Glad I did. the K3 and D800 complement each other very well playing off of each others weaknesses. The one thing I'm learning is that the Pentax DA and FA Limited lenses really are special and hard to replace...they could singularly keep me with Pentax until the end of time. The Pentax seems to evoke an emotional connection...D800 not so much.

[Paul MaudDib]

Or maybe the camera just sucks.

Yeah, exactly. The RB/RZ67 is basically a studio camera. While it's certainly possible to go out and shoot with it handheld, the camera isn't designed for that. And if you think that's a big camera, try a GX680.


(not my image)

As a person interested in the advantages of a larger format, the possibility of getting the original 645D at a clear out price is way more interesting than thinking about a D3x.

Yeah, I can't wait for used 645Ds to hit the market. I'm thinking it should drive the price of used 645Ds to equal or below the price of new midrange full frame cameras (D800, 5D Mark III, etc).

And that new wide-zoom sounds pretty tasty too. Hopefully it won't be $5k like their last modern lens.

[FrankC]

That's a studio camera intended to live on a tripod. If you wanted a handhold 6x7, there are plenty of other choices. The Mamiya 7II, for example. It's very light for a medium format. Or perhaps one of the 645 variants.

No doubt, the Mamiya 7 & 7II are very capable cameras. However they're rangefinders and I wanted to look through the lens for use with polarizers and Split NDs too. All I wanted was something that was more portable than a 4x5 and that gave me a big-ass chrome. I was also working at a camera shop and was able to get the RZ67 kit at an employee discount and have all of the free promo stuff thrown in too: Body + Lens + 120 Back + Polaroid Back with Polaroid and Agfa 120 film + AE Finder + Auto Winder for $2,600 in the late 1980s. If I had could do it over again, I'd buy a used Hasselblad or see if I could an employee discount with Pentax.

[justinr]

"I used to have a $1,000 camera now I have an $8000 camera. Oh and by the way, it's better" (duh). Well lucky you. You seem to want to give Pentax the finger on the way out the door. The only problem is we aren't Pentax, we are Pentax users, so save the finger for someone who cares. The vast majority of us aren't waiting for FF, and could care less if it ever comes. Do you know how silly that post looks to the Pentax user that's happy with their system?

As a person interested in the advantages of a larger format, the possibility of getting the original 645D at a clear out price is way more interesting than thinking about a D3x.

Yep, that's right.

Except it isn't of course. Who said anything about a D3X or spending 8K? Come to that if you are not interested in FF then why does my post bother you anyway.

Have a nice day!

[TomE]

Exactly, and by the way the D3X is a 24.5 megapixel camera, not a 12 megapixel like a D3.

The post had good points and the nasty response from normhead was rude at best considering the justinr was simply explaining why he switched to FF.

[Rondec]

Exactly, and by the way the D3X is a 24.5 megapixel camera, not a 12 megapixel like a D3.

The post had good points and the nasty response from normhead was rude at best considering the justinr was simply explaining why he switched to FF.

Funny how this thread, which began as one guy posting about how he tried full frame and didn't connect with it has turned into people arguing about the same stuff they argue about everywhere else on the forum. I wish there was more posting of photos and less animosity between the APS-C and full frame camps.

I am guilty as well as anybody, but I do feel like there are way too many photographer deficiencies blamed on gear. Full frame or not, isn't the goal really to take photos -- to capture the beauty (and the ugliness) of the world around us?

[tuco]

...
I am guilty as well as anybody, but I do feel like there are way to many photographer deficiencies blamed on gear. Full frame or not, isn't the goal really to take photos -- to capture the beauty (and the ugliness) of the world around us?

I agree. But it must be because this is a gear forum. I wonder if it is like that in other gear forums. But one forum I visit people post pictures from all kinds of cameras. Big ones, small ones, old ones and new ones from all sorts of brands. Rarely does the gear matter there. It is more about the pictures you are taking. I like that.