[Na Horuk]

I'll tell you when FF will die out.. as soon as Pentax makes one! Remember, Pentax is always doomed.

[normhead]

I'll tell you when FF will die out.. as soon as Pentax makes one! Remember, Pentax is always doomed.

Finally, something I can relate to.

[Rondec]

That, plus the strawman that there are people who say 'FF is great but 645 is no improvement'. No one actually says that.

Honestly, I haven't shot either camera, just played with the RAW files. I do see one person who is flogging the idea that the 645D is worthless compared to his Sony A7r, but I won't name any names.

[normhead]

Honestly, I haven't shot either camera, just played with the RAW files. I do see one person who is flogging the 645D is worthless compared to my Sony A7r, but I won't name any names.

I shot one at Henry's ESPOsure a few years ago... all I can say is "sweeeeet". I just missed one on Kijiji, sold for $3500 with a DFA 55mm. I might have had to sell it eventually, even $3500 is a lot of money, but I would have run off a 10 thousand images first, if it came to that.

[jsherman999]

I guess the folks who claim you can see a difference between APS-c and FF, but can't see a difference between FF and MF aren't the one's talking out both sides of their face?...How you can argue APS-c is different from FF but FF isn't different from MF... absolutely astounding. "Size of sensor matters when I say it does, but it doesn't when I say it doesn't." Honestly, no one can take you seriously when you do stuff like that.

Two linked points on this:

1) The difference in sensor area between aps-c and FF is greater than the difference between FF and MFD (645D)
2) The price difference between mid-aps-c and lower-end FF is much, much smaller than the price difference between mid-FF and lower-end MFD (645D), especially when you factor in even a small lens kit

Therefore it's hard to make the case for an 'upgrade' to MFD, when the IQ delta isn't as much and the price delta is much higher.

Get it? That's all. Diminishing returns hits like a wall, and you have to really have a specific need (or deep want**) for the format to make a strong case for it.

** and there's nothing wrong with 'want'

[ElJamoquio]

Two linked points on this:

1) The difference in sensor area between aps-c and FF is greater than the difference between FF and MFD (645D)
2) The price difference between mid-aps-c and lower-end FF is much, much smaller than the price difference between mid-FF and lower-end MFD (645D), especially when you factor in even a small lens kit

Therefore it's hard to make the case for an 'upgrade' to MFD, when the IQ delta isn't as much and the price delta is much higher.

Get it? That's all. Diminishing returns hits like a wall, and you have to really have a specific need (or deep want**) for the format to make a strong case for it.

** and there's nothing wrong with 'want'

I'm really agreeing with you, but would state it as such:

1) APS-C to FF is over twice the % sensor area gain than FF to 645D.
2) FF+ normal zoom is often cheaper than APS-C + normal zoom... so not much downside
3) 645D + newer-ish primes are much more expensive than most FF kits
4) In equivalent speed, top-notch FF gear often beats top notch 645D gear

Nevertheless, if you sat down a D800 or a 645D on the table I pick up the 645D in a heartbeat. I'm not sure how I'd justify the lenses though.

[normhead]

Honestly, I haven't shot either camera, just played with the RAW files. I do see one person who is flogging the idea that the 645D is worthless compared to his Sony A7r, but I won't name any names.

Here's the thing, a lot of people buy cameras on size, not on spec, a friend of mine growing up had one of those little Minoxes. IQ didn't bother her, size did. The Sony A7rs have the size thing going for them. When I look at my old Program plus, it's a little smaller than my K-3 and lighter. I think that was kind of an optimum size. APS-c is closer to that size than most FFs are. Maybe you can get a camera down to that size and weight. If you can do that with FF maybe it has a shot. But right now, APS-c fills that spot, especially if you look at cameras like the Nikon D3200.

Everyone thinks IQ is the thing, personally, I think most people live with the IQ they get from what carries in their comfort zone. I can see the Sony A7 getting to that point, if it can be a product as good technically as a camera with an OVF. But when I see the lack of quality in the D800 and A7r reds in the images posted above, I'm also suspecting that those cameras have are suffering from diffraction in the red spectrum. Having a 50 Mp MF camera and a 30 MP FF may well be the optimum full spectrum use of those sensor sizes. Sure you can go over 100MP in the blue spectrum, but is it really any use pushing the resolution in Blue when Red, Yellow and Green are diffraction limited? Is the effect of that going to be an image that looks sharp or an image that looks blotchy and uneven?

The 645D and D800 images should be close to identical in Resolution... but, in the red spectrum and even in the green patch, they clearly aren't...


D800e and A7r


For the most part APS-c cameras occupy the old FF size factor. The 645D is still the same size, the modern FF before the A7r are a sort of orphan hybrid, maybe more like the old F4 with motor mount. FF will always be there for the portable pro. I think MF will shortly be making a comeback among the more serious pros. But APS-c will be the MEs and Program pluses and cameras of that class. It's the form factor that will kill current FF cameras, unless they can shrink them back to Program plus size.

After all, that program plus has an FF mirror assembly and shutter in there. That is when I would worry about FF taking over, when it moves into the APS-c size slot. APS-c could be smaller of course but many of us don't want smaller. APS-c is currently the size we want.

But for many pros and especially landscape artists, the 645D offers a much truer representation in the colours in the example above, and those who seek resolution in the red and green spectrums will be going that way. My K3 could conceivably be the camera that turns back the Mp race . The camera where people say, there's no point in increasing resolution in the blue spectrum, if our red spectrum is getting fuzzy.

The same patch shown above on the D800 and 645D... taken with the K-3


If this isn't reds becoming diffraction limited by smaller pixel sizes, maybe some one else can hazard another explanation. That's my best guess. You almost feel like saying, sure you can use a K-3 for anything as long as you don't need resolution in your reds. And if you do need resolution in your reds, you might want to grab a 645D before they bump up the pixel density, who knows what another 10 Mp is going to do.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-23-2014 at 06:37 AM.

[Parry]

Okay, here's what a protog (40 years in the business, Vietnam War tog, Reuters/AFP/Sports Illustrated) said to me in a thread on another forum about MF, direct copy 'n paste . . .

Medium format cameras such as the Hassie are great if the photography you do
requires the size of the sensor. Hassies used to start at 30MP & went up to 60MP.
I had their H4D-50...with a 50MP sensor, hence the "50" designator of the name.
The bodies are very expensive...the lenses you will need are more expensive.
Back in November I sold my H4D plus lenses and am happy with the $$$$ I
received and even happier with the lad who bought it as he mainly does
product photography.
Would I buy another one? No. I say that because my D800 & 800e at 36 MP
is good enough for the mainstay of my work which is mostly news-current affairs
and editorial...plus I still like to use APS-C for that stuff too.

However.....should somebody hand me a Phase One....ahhhhh...me mind may
change...Hah!

Phase one info below....
http://www.phaseone....ra-Systems.aspx

If you reckon 13K quid is expensive....get a quote from Phase One
on their 645DF+....hold on to your chairs folks!

[Parry]

I guess the folks who claim you can see a difference between APS-c and FF, but can't see a difference between FF and MF aren't the one's talking out both sides of their face? I guess who's talking out both sides of their face depends on what your bias is. How you can argue APS-c is different from FF but FF isn't different from MF... absolutely astounding. "Size of sensor matters when I say it does, but it doesn't when I say it doesn't." Honestly, no one can take you seriously when you do stuff like that.

Can you post the Imaging Resources test shots taken with the K-3 and the D800e, both at ISO3200 please? Focus on the red cloth.

There's a massive difference . . . but only really when you get much past base ISO.

The difference between FF and MF is not worth the dollars, as I've shown from the post above, but the difference between APS-C and FF is becoming so. Perhaps not quite there yet, but the gap is closing regards costs.

[formercanuck]

I suspect that Pentax is holding their line on APS-C vs. FF for many reasons.
How many people do you actually see purchasing / using FF these days.
I'd expect 'some' high end professionals that
a) Shoot for someone else (i.e. given the gear and shoot) - journalists, magazines.
b) Shoot for medium/large prints (own your own gallery) - where it is critiqued.
c) Shoot for sports events (high/fast frame - quick zoom
d) Those that have a lot of nice full size glass that they know they won't get any return on, and can't use on a crop sensor (Canon?)

Many professionals use APS-C these days - and I don't mean just our friends at Photouniverse. I was on a cruise ship recently - all shots were taken using one of many Nikon D300's.
On land - D3100's even! APS-C cameras can take VERY good shots - assuming that your camera has features/modes that allow you to do it, and you have some decent glass.

You Tube

You Tube

[Uluru]

These talks about FF vs APS-C are tedious and boring as old HiFi talks; this system must be better because it uses a component A, or speaker B is better because it has this veneer and not that. Or, the sound cannot be good if the wire is not this one. And such nonsense.

Almost all conversation is babble in absolutes, yet when you ask what is to be listened on such systems and where (the quality of the ear and talent behind it we shall leave alone for a moment) it comes down to choices of recordings and listening spaces in the same league as cat shots in the laundry in terms of photography.

Money and time wasted on pretentiousness and pompous talk without real artistic substance, and in the end all end up listening to iPods.

[RonHendriks1966]

A few days back, i asked what percentage of ILC sales would FF be at in January 2015 - 12 months from now.

These were the estimates:

phil (me): 15%

Clavius: 17%

mecrox: 12%

Rondec: 10%

northcoastgreg: 10.5%

The average of these 5 is 12.9%

I think that number is about right, in other words a slow increase in FF percentage numbers in the next 12 months.

In my more rural area, we don't have dedicated camera stores anymore, they've all died out. Seattle/Tacoma - the closest large cities, have a few camera shops, but fewer than i would have expected a few years back.

In my more limited area, the only ILC cameras i can find are in these big box stores: Costco, Best Buy and Staples. None of these big box stores in my area have FF cameras. Thats one of the reasons i think the above average estimate of 13% is about right. Its all online ordering of FF in my area, if one chooses to go that way.

wow talking about being out off the loop!!!

So what percentage do you thing Pentax has of those 12,9 % that is shared amongst 16 cameramodels currently on the market with a Full Frame sensor?

[Clavius]

These talks about FF vs APS-C are tedious and boring as old HiFi talks; this system must be better because it uses a component A, or speaker B is better because it has this veneer and not that. Or, the sound cannot be good if the wire is not this one. And such nonsense.

How true! And I always wonder what all these forum gearheads do when they finally go shopping for gear? If I'm honestly speaking as a consumer (or as a boy that likes toys) when I want to upgrade then I'm going to upgrade. I don't care if I really NEED it, or if it actually IS better. If I really like the looks and features of a toy then only very disastrous performance to cost ratio (or my budget) is going to avoid me from buying it. And I don't think I know ANY modern day high end cameras that have a disastrous performance to cost ratio. That's why this is such a fun era to live in.

If it works the same way with other people as well, then I can't imagine that FF will die out anywhere in the perceivable future. Neither will MF.

[jogiba]

Honestly, I haven't shot either camera, just played with the RAW files. I do see one person who is flogging the idea that the 645D is worthless compared to his Sony A7r, but I won't name any names.

645D vs A7r shows that it is not worthless but not worth the much higher price IMHO.

2560x1600 size :
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2848/12076653706_8d685fe1da_o.jpg

[Parry]

How true! And I always wonder what all these forum gearheads do when they finally go shopping for gear? If I'm honestly speaking as a consumer (or as a boy that likes toys) when I want to upgrade then I'm going to upgrade. I don't care if I really NEED it, or if it actually IS better. If I really like the looks and features of a toy then only very disastrous performance to cost ratio (or my budget) is going to avoid me from buying it. And I don't think I know ANY modern day high end cameras that have a disastrous performance to cost ratio. That's why this is such a fun era to live in.

If it works the same way with other people as well, then I can't imagine that FF will die out anywhere in the perceivable future. Neither will MF.

This is right. Absolutely right.

These are toys. But it's so much fun and far more imaginative and creative than all that fancy showy motor car nonsense (I hate that) or look at my fancy boring watch.

I'm 40 soon and I'd never even had a hobby before. Never had anything fancy at all. No interests, just solid work for twenty years in a miserable business.

This togging lark does bring me deep, deep joy even though I'm not very good at it.

Let's not take it all too seriously. It's just a laugh.