[Rondec]

Any benefits you should see out of your 35mm camera should theoretically translate to your APSC, compact, FF, smartphone... m4/3

I've met three highly skilled photographers with m4/3 producing amazing fashion photography. They ditched FF for the weight and nimbleness they get from m4/3 and still get beautiful images.

FF is not the end all be all.it's just a different tool in the bag. Like a surgeon has many different blades... we have that option as photographers. right tool. right job. thats what it comes down too.

Sure. And that is what the OP said. And why he bought a K3 after having a D800. It is a little ironic to me that after the OP said his piece and that he is happier with a K3 than with his D800, there have been multiple folks who have posted that they are happier going the other direction.

[FrankC]

Amen brother! The right tool for the right job. I chose a 645D because it fits my style of shooting, and I feel that it's the best camera FOR ME to do WHAT I DO, the way I DO IT. I would never consider replacing it with a lighter, smaller-format camera - ever. However, there are plenty of situations where it would far more advantageous to have a small DSLR or even a P&S instead of the 645D. Does a farmer only work with a shovel? Does a painter only use one brush? So why would a photographer only have one type of camera? This discussion as to why one uses what they use is interesting, but once it gets to the point of "that sucks, mine is better," then it becomes ridiculous.


Just wondering though, does anyone here think that they could look at a great picture of theirs and honestly say that it would not have been better had you used a FF camera? And of course when I say "better" I mean on a technical side and not necessarily artistically.

[normhead]

there have been multiple folks who have posted that they are happier going the other direction.

Actually they said they are going to be happier, we've had lots of posts explaining how that has worked out for quite a few people. Everything is cool until they realize, for the most part, full frame is bigger, bulkier and not as pleasant over all any experience. On the other hand you have to cut them some slack with the pictures. Ansel Adams said if you get one good picture a month you're doing well. We can't expect people to get an FF , then both learn the system and produce good work, while they still remember there's a Pentax forum.

Just wondering though, does anyone here think that they could look at a great picture of theirs and honestly say that it would not have been better had you used a FF camera? And of course when I say "better" I mean on a technical side and not necessarily artistically.

I get no joy in producing "technical" photography. An image taking with a cell phone used appropriately is just as pleasing as an image taken with an large format camera. Especially if I have to be 8 inches away from the canvas to see the difference, or if the difference is imperceptible. So the image might be technically better, but who cares? You can print 300 DPI, but from 18 inches away, you can't see 300 DPI, and it demonstrably makes no difference if it's printed at 150 dpi or 300 DPI. Maybe one in ten people can even see that.

Technical overkill is way more likely than a lack of resolution on modern cameras.

So then the question becomes, are you willing to pay for way more capacity than you need, given the possibility you may never use it.

[Wired]

So then the question becomes, are you willing to pay for way more capacity than you need, given the possibility you may never use it.

its the possibility I will use it. The same probability that I will use 1/8000" shutter, the same could be said about weather sealing, 1/320" flash sync speed... etc etc

[ElJamoquio]

I love full frame. I can't get over how much smaller, lighter, better colors, sharper and (especially!) cheaper everything is!

Can't wait for the Pentax version!

[FrankC]

I get no joy in producing "technical" photography. An image taking with a cell phone used appropriately is just as pleasing as an image taken with an large format camera. Especially if I have to be 8 inches away from the canvas to see the difference, or if the difference is imperceptible. So the image might be technically better, but who cares?

I agree, if there was only a technical side to photography, it would be largely ignored. In your comment, you seem to be completely discounting the importance of being technically proficient. Anyone who cares about their work, their craft, will care about the technical side of their work.


Oh, and I can assure you that anyone, with the exception of Stevie Wonder, could tell the difference between a competently made iPhone image vs an image from a large format camera at ten feet let alone eight inches. I'd urge you to take the time to visit a gallery or museum showing such work and realize for yourself the incredibly inaccuracy of that statement.

[PJay]

Thanks for your replies. It matters not whether I agree or disagree.

Each to their own and it's horses for courses really.

[mecrox]

Just wondering though, does anyone here think that they could look at a great picture of theirs and honestly say that it would not have been better had you used a FF camera? And of course when I say "better" I mean on a technical side and not necessarily artistically.

It's not all one way, I think. The old adage is that the camera you have with you is the one that takes the shot. There are plenty of pics I've taken which I would not have got with an FF camera. In most cases the reason is that a big camera and lens would have put off people or, simply, I would not have been lugging a big camera around in the first place. Technically, yes, an FF camera might well have produced a finer image but realistically, no - because there would haven been no image to begin with. There is also the question of stability and smearing with high-res sensors. Would I get a better landscape shot with a D800E than with a Ricoh GR? Most likely if a tripod was used. But quick shooting handheld on the street? Quite likely not at ordinary ISOs, I'd guess. This is one reason I've hesitated over the K3. Its high resolution means that careful technique is needed to prevent smearing, at least from what I've read. But the need for that care over each shot in turn limits what the K3 can do compared to a K5.

There are also other considerations, perhaps artistic, however. Someone can have a very fine and very expensive large-sensor system but still end up in a rut with it. Trying out different and perhaps smaller cameras from time to time can present new challenges and get the juices flowing again.

[PJay]

I love full frame. I can't get over how much smaller, lighter, better colors, sharper and (especially!) cheaper everything is!

The Nikon D610 weighs 50 grams more than the K3. (Yeah, I know...the D610 has a front polycarbonate panel - as opposed to a full magnesium alloy body). And you're right about the colours/sharpness...that's why the majority of pro's use Pentax. All of those other FF cameras are just crap.

Hi Rondec

Here's a link advertising the D610 (Body only) for $1679. Given that the K3 is generally about the $1200 mark, that's fairly close to a $500 gap. Prices are in AUD Nikon D610 Body Only Digital SLR Cameras Digital World International

Canon 6d's are selling on line for $1546 AUD (Body only)

A K3 for $1000...that's a good price too. Given that my figure of $500 is a little out, it still goes to show that FF is fast becoming within reach as prices have come down and the availability of used equipment is in abundance, which also makes it relatively inexpensive.

Rondec, thanks for your reply - I've often found your responses to other threads to be quite fair.

Happy shooting.

[Rondec]

The Nikon D610 weighs 50 grams more than the K3. (Yeah, I know...the D610 has a front polycarbonate panel - as opposed to a full magnesium alloy body). And you're right about the colours/sharpness...that's why the majority of pro's use Pentax. All of those other FF cameras are just crap.

Hi Rondec

Here's a link advertising the D610 (Body only) for $1679. Given that the K3 is generally about the $1200 mark, that's fairly close to a $500 gap. Prices are in AUD Nikon D610 Body Only Digital SLR Cameras Digital World International

Canon 6d's are selling on line for $1546 AUD (Body only)

A K3 for $1000...that's a good price too. Given that my figure of $500 is a little out, it still goes to show that FF is fast becoming within reach as prices have come down and the availability of used equipment is in abundance, which also makes it relatively inexpensive.

Rondec, thanks for your reply - I've often found your responses to other threads to be quite fair.

Happy shooting.

Thanks. Looks like it is a little cheaper down under than here in the States. For me personally, I have a pretty good stable of glass in k mount and don't want to start over. Full frame might make a difference in 10 percent of my shots, but probably not most of them; however, if Pentax would release one in k mount, than I would seriously consider it. I think that will happen this year and am just wondering what the price will be, because of course, that will make the difference as to when (or if) I could purchase such a camera. A 645D II might be nice, but at 10,000 and another 5,000 for lenses, there is no way I can afford it in this lifetime.

[Parry]

Thanks. Looks like it is a little cheaper down under than here in the States. For me personally, I have a pretty good stable of glass in k mount and don't want to start over. Full frame might make a difference in 10 percent of my shots, but probably not most of them; however, if Pentax would release one in k mount, than I would seriously consider it. I think that will happen this year and am just wondering what the price will be, because of course, that will make the difference as to when (or if) I could purchase such a camera. A 645D II might be nice, but at 10,000 and another 5,000 for lenses, there is no way I can afford it in this lifetime.

A cabinet full of glass is the problem.

I bottled it in the end on the Nikon FF thing, it was coming to serious money to replace what I've already got in PK less a bunch of lenses.

It's so easy to 'Add to Basket', but then see the tally and figure out how much miserable work (after tax) one has to do to buy it all. Nah. Priorities. I absolutely loathe what I do for a living and do it as little as possible. A system change would just bring much more misery.

[ElJamoquio]

The Nikon D610 weighs 50 grams more than the K3

Nikon + 24-85 is faster, sharper, cheaper, longer, wider, lighter, less expensive than K3+16-50 FWIW.

[FrankC]

There are also other considerations, perhaps artistic, however. Someone can have a very fine and very expensive large-sensor system but still end up in a rut with it. Trying out different and perhaps smaller cameras from time to time can present new challenges and get the juices flowing again.

Yes! Absolutely. I once heard a story of a local photojournalist who just got bored of shooting NFL games the same way over and over again. So he decided to shoot the entire game with a Leica M6 and a wide angle lens. His editor wasn't too pleased, and by his own admission, he wouldn't do it again, but he did get some good images that were published the next day. And I'm sure he learned something in process too.

[justinr]

I really wonder what folks are shooting that the limited options of Pentax aren't adequate. Is it low light photography -- rock bands at iso 12,800? Because I have seen decent shots with Pentax gear in those situations. Is it just all narrow depth of field stuff? Is it that current lenses aren't sharp enough for what you are shooting or auto focus can't keep up?

Honestly, I don't need "limitless" lenses. I need a 15mm and a 55mm (on APS-C) or 20mm and 85mm (full frame). Even if Pentax had a 300mm f2.8 or a 600mm f4, I wouldn't be able to afford it and it would not make the least difference in my shooting. I wish people would post more photos demonstrating the improvement their photography has under gone with the transition to full frame, because I would understand it better.

The K5 was a great little camera for what it was and it's low light level performance was superb for it's position in the market, but the D3 takes it to another level and it reliably gets the shots, I can trust it to do its stuff and I need that faith in it.

The picture of the seed drill below was taken a darkened hall (not sure why, but I wasn't organising the event) with a spot on to this star exhibit. As much as I admire the K5 there was no way that it would have held the picture together so well.




And yes I have taken rock bands with the K5 -




We can argue about the pro's and cons of the respective cameras all night but all I can suggest is that you try it, and then you really will understand. Its worth noting that the top picture was taken on a camera with 'only' 12mp.

[Rondec]

The K5 was a great little camera for what it was and it's low light level performance was superb for it's position in the market, but the D3 takes it to another level and it reliably gets the shots, I can trust it to do its stuff and I need that faith in it.

The picture of the seed drill below was taken a darkened hall (not sure why, but I wasn't organising the event) with a spot on to this star exhibit. As much as I admire the K5 there was no way that it would have held the picture together so well.




And yes I have taken rock bands with the K5 -




We can argue about the pro's and cons of the respective cameras all night but all I can suggest is that you try it, and then you really will understand. Its worth noting that the top picture was taken on a camera with 'only' 12mp.

Sure. 12 megapixels is neither here nor there. I understand the point of full frame -- mostly better dynamic range at given iso and less noise at high iso. I don't do a bunch of high iso photography. What I do is primarily photos of my kids and for web sizes, either the K5 or K3 is adequate. If you are planning to print a photo of that seed drill, you might very well be able to print it a size or two larger than I could with my my APS-C camera. That's fine. It just isn't what I do. In addition, I would say that for stationary objects like your seed drill, I would think a K5/FA 31 would be up to the challenge, considering that you get a stop or two with SR.

In the end, it is more about glass than anything else. Camera bodies are all so good these days that you can take good photos with any of them -- particularly at web sizes.

Iso 1600 on K5 II.