Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-08-2014, 07:44 AM   #16
Veteran Member
oxidized's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: USA - Delaware
Photos: Albums
Posts: 434
Personally I understand where you are coming from. I mainly want it for the added DOF and 'look' of the pictures. Just like medium format has a certain look compared to full frame so does full frame over APSC. there is no doubt about it. regardless of how many pixels you cram into a k-3 its still cropped sensor. however i am already invested in pentax and i love my glass. especially a lot of m42 lens. If i were to go with canon/nikon many of those will not work because the mirror would hit the lens. my only real option is a7r which to me is an incomplete system that was rushed to the market with light leaks/mirror vibrations. if Pentax doesnt release a FF by the time the next generation of a7 comes out i think I might just go for the sony. one can only be patient for so long. your situation may be different however, depending on the number of lenses you have and what you plan to use. To me it sounds like nothing is holding you back to Pentax. If you really want FF, just go for it. Life is too short to sit around and debate instead of going out and taking pics

03-08-2014, 08:59 AM   #17
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,877
QuoteOriginally posted by oxidized Quote
Personally I understand where you are coming from. I mainly want it for the added DOF and 'look' of the pictures. Just like medium format has a certain look compared to full frame so does full frame over APSC. there is no doubt about it. regardless of how many pixels you cram into a k-3 its still cropped sensor. however i am already invested in pentax and i love my glass. especially a lot of m42 lens. If i were to go with canon/nikon many of those will not work because the mirror would hit the lens. my only real option is a7r which to me is an incomplete system that was rushed to the market with light leaks/mirror vibrations. if Pentax doesnt release a FF by the time the next generation of a7 comes out i think I might just go for the sony. one can only be patient for so long. your situation may be different however, depending on the number of lenses you have and what you plan to use. To me it sounds like nothing is holding you back to Pentax. If you really want FF, just go for it. Life is too short to sit around and debate instead of going out and taking pics
Here's the thing... say you want FF for the narrow DoF and less distortion in UWA..both legitimate reasons for going FF. I'm not convinced you want to sell your APS-c gear for that. You keep the APS-c for telephoto, macro and wider DoF, and the FF for WA and narrow DoF. What APS-c is good at... FF doesn't do, what FF is good at, APS-c doesn't do. Unless you're saying you don't appreciate what APS-c does (in that it just doesn't figure into your shooting style) then I don't see how buying an FF negates the need for APS-c. Unless you are one of those stop gap shooters who should have bought FF right from the get go, but didn't have the funds.

If you look at equivalency for DoF...

FF 1.4, 2 , 2.8, 4 , 5.6 , 8 , 11, 16, 22, 32
APS-c 1.4, 2 , 2.8, 4 ,5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22,

There are 10 functional F-stops on FF.
There are 9 functional f-stop on APS-c (IMHO, ƒ32 is too diffraction limited to be of much use on AP-c)

FF gives you a stop narrower DoF at the extreme wide end... (APS-c gives you a stop more DoF wide open.)

So let's say you are one of those people for whom that stop of narrower DoF is important to you... APS-c will still do 90% of what FF will do, in terms of managing narrower DoF.

My observation would be, if you don't already have some kick ass narrow DoF images taken with APS-c, you have no business thinking you're suddenly going to start producing them just because you buy an FF. There's technique involved...and you can master the technique on APS-c and then extend it when you get your FF.

Personally, to go FF for landscape I'd want a D800 with a Nikkor 14-24 and 24-70. Anything longer than that the advantage switches to APS-c. Anything less Mp than that the advantage switches to APS-c. SO if you're shooting APS-c 10-50mm in most of your shots... then FF has the potential to give you "the look". Once you go over 70mm FF, you may as well be shooting APS_c, for a lot less money. And if you aren't shooting 1.4 wide open, you haven't even explored your APS-c possibilities.

(Once you go over 70mm FF that becomes approx. 50mm APS-c and things like distortion etc. become less of an issue.)

The fact that you admire the "FF look" doesn't mean you'll achieve it just because you buy an FF camera. And the fact that you have one stop better narrow DoF on FF doesn't mean you can't produce some pretty darn good narrow DoF images on APS-c.

Pinch yourself, you might be dreaming.

Last edited by normhead; 03-08-2014 at 09:17 AM.
03-08-2014, 09:08 AM   #18
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,874
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Here's the thing...
I stopped reading at DoF and hit the boriscleto button.
03-08-2014, 09:19 AM   #19
Pentaxian
fgaudet's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ontario
Posts: 726
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If it costs the same as APS-c, you'll get roughly the same results as APS-c in a bigger package.
+1 What he says ^^^

03-08-2014, 09:19 AM   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,877
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
I stopped reading at DoF and hit the boriscleto button.
Ya, well I felt like practicing my typing. Most of these guys don't listen, but, some come back afterwards having discovered that the advantages to APS-c out weight the advantages to FFdespite "the look". We probably are getting close to the number of D800 users back in Pentax land after selling their FF gear as we have totally content FF users, who switched from Pentax to FF. The fact that you think you can take advantage of what FF has to offer doesn't mean you can. I'd say for 50% it's a pipe dream, although those who do take advantage of what FF has to offer would never give it up once they've tried it. Take the plunge if you choose, but take it with your eyes open.

Last edited by normhead; 03-08-2014 at 09:30 AM.
03-08-2014, 09:27 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Dear God I've figured it out.

The OP has been reading and believing Ken Rockwell.

Run away! Run away!




OP, Ken Rockwell espouses his site as 'comedy'. It's tough to figure out when he's doing comedy and when he's doing actual reviews... a cynical observer <cough> might just say that he's trying to dismiss the numerous times his articles are demonstrably wrong.

Like the ISO performance of Canon cameras.

The ISO performance of Canon sensors are behind the state-of-the-art by a generation. Do not purchase a Canon camera for high ISO performance. In those rare instances you need ISO 50,000 (when is that, exactly?) underexpose a stop and correct in post.



Feel free to buy anything you want - FF's are cheaper, lighter, sharper and much less expensive (as you've found!) than APS-C cameras at ~FF F/6 and below, so they're the best cameras for a lot of people. Pentax doesn't have one right now.

A couple of articles on why you might want FF, if you need to justify your purchase...

http://drcameraphd.blogspot.com/
03-08-2014, 10:24 AM   #22
Veteran Member
oxidized's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: USA - Delaware
Photos: Albums
Posts: 434
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The fact that you admire the "FF look" doesn't mean you'll achieve it just because you buy an FF camera. And the fact that you have one stop better narrow DoF on FF doesn't mean you can't produce some pretty darn good narrow DoF images on APS-c.
Please, make no assumptions by my skill level, abilities, images that I take, or the benefits I could have. You really dont need to "educate" me on the benefits of FF vs APSC. I am well aware of them. I am not into birding. I never use focal lengths greater than 135mm. I know the FF DOF benefits are marginal however never the less visible. I actually do believe I could benefit from them. FYI, the little equivalence table only shows that you dont quite understand them. For instance Just because F2.8 on Medium format looks the same as F1.4 on Full frame (if measured by a chart), that in no way means that if you "compose" the shot on both cameras the same way the "look" of the image and the depth of field characteristics will be the same if the MF is at 2.8 and FF is at 1.4. For instance, take a look here:
A Camera Diary: Field comparison: medium format VS a modern full frame DSLR and premium prime lens.
Compare the D600 at F1.2 vs Mamiya RZ67 II 110mm 2.8 @ 2.8
Roughly the same depth of field. The medium format has the whole face in focus, the eyes are increadibly sharp. THe micro contrast in the pixels is amazing. The depth of the shot is spectacular. The bokeh is smoother and has no harshness to it compared to the D600. This is exactly the same as if you were to compare a FF to APSC. I repeat: Large sensor is a large sensor. There is no way to fake that look. Especially not by cramming 24MP into an APSC sensor.
03-08-2014, 10:41 AM - 1 Like   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,877
QuoteOriginally posted by oxidized Quote
Please, make no assumptions by my skill level, abilities, images that I take, or the benefits I could have. You really dont need to "educate" me on the benefits of FF vs APSC. I am well aware of them. I am not into birding. I never use focal lengths greater than 135mm. I know the FF DOF benefits are marginal however never the less visible. I actually do believe I could benefit from them. FYI, the little equivalence table only shows that you dont quite understand them. For instance Just because F2.8 on Medium format looks the same as F1.4 on Full frame (if measured by a chart), that in no way means that if you "compose" the shot on both cameras the same way the "look" of the image and the depth of field characteristics will be the same if the MF is at 2.8 and FF is at 1.4. For instance, take a look here:
A Camera Diary: Field comparison: medium format VS a modern full frame DSLR and premium prime lens.
Compare the D600 at F1.2 vs Mamiya RZ67 II 110mm 2.8 @ 2.8
Roughly the same depth of field. The medium format has the whole face in focus, the eyes are increadibly sharp. THe micro contrast in the pixels is amazing. The depth of the shot is spectacular. The bokeh is smoother and has no harshness to it compared to the D600. This is exactly the same as if you were to compare a FF to APSC. I repeat: Large sensor is a large sensor. There is no way to fake that look. Especially not by cramming 24MP into an APSC sensor.
Getting a little testy are we? I actually encouraged you to go for FF if you're the type of shooter you say you are... just the fact that you never shoot over 135 mm or macro, makes you an excellent candidate for FF. And if you'd provided that information in your original post, my post could have been a lot shorter. It kills me how many people don't tell you what they shoot and then jump all over you if you provide too general an answer, as you just did. Next time, save us some time, put your parameters in your original post, so we don't have to cover all the bases.

The only question that remains is, how did you end up on APS-c in the first place? I've got buddies that have been shooting Canon 5ds for years and have no plans to upgrade. And they've been pretty cheap for years. They don't mind the 12 mp, so if you wanted "the look", why didn't you go for "the look?" Kinda sad coming on a public forum saying you bought the wrong camera don' you think?

I've shot 8x10 film by the way. You're lecturing the wrong guy if you think you're telling me about larger sensors. As for your "fake that look" thought, there's nothing fake about it, as i said, 90% of the DoF options available on FF are available on APS-c. If you live in that 10% that APS-c can't touch, then more power to you. That's your shooting style. Shoot away. But my post still is what it is and says what it says, and nothing you "answered" changes a thing.

03-08-2014, 10:47 AM   #24
Veteran Member
oxidized's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: USA - Delaware
Photos: Albums
Posts: 434
No I'm not getting testy. I just found your post a little offensive. Thats all. I didn't include any parameters simply bcs I was advising the op something. I started w pentax on 2009 bcs it was the best for what I needed at the time. When I was getting started I certainly didn't value ff the way that I do now. Eventually you grow out of your equipment and want to take your hobby to the new level. If I were to enter in the market from scratch right now, I'll prob get a used 5d mk2.
03-08-2014, 10:53 AM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,418
Like the OP, I have ceased buying K-mount lenses. This is what stagnation looks like, Ricoh.
03-08-2014, 10:58 AM   #26
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,877
QuoteOriginally posted by oxidized Quote
No I'm not getting testy. I just found your post a little offensive. Thats all. I didn't include any parameters simply bcs I was advising the op something. I started w pentax on 2009 bcs it was the best for what I needed at the time. When I was getting started I certainly didn't value ff the way that I do now. Eventually you grow out of your equipment and want to take your hobby to the new level. If I were to enter in the market from scratch right now, I'll prob get a used 5d mk2.
Hey , well all the best with that, honestly I've considered the same option myself, It's just in my end of the photographic spectrum at this time in my life, wildlife has to be a large part of my portfolio, so, I have to go with the best compromise.

QuoteOriginally posted by civiletti Quote
Like the OP, I have ceased buying K-mount lenses. This is what stagnation looks like, Ricoh.
I don't have my 15, my 31, my 77 or my FA* 250-600 yet... how can I quit?
03-08-2014, 12:01 PM   #27
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 541
This is going to sound ridiculous . . . but . . .

I've found a K-3, a bunch of old M42's (especially the 135mm's like the Tair 11A, Meyer Orestor and Jupiter 11A) and learning to expose the K-3 properly at higher ISO's then using effective noise reduction like Topaz DeNoise in CS6 or just LR5 . . .

. . . well it's doing it for me right now. Really enjoying using the K-3 with these old Soviets, more fun than my FA Limited's. The noise thing isn't perfect, far from it, but it's manageable.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56053365@N07/
03-08-2014, 12:22 PM   #28
Site Supporter
severalsnakes's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Shawnee, KS
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,500
K-mount 4 lyfe, son.

I'm gonna get a personalized license plates for my car...

But, seriously, OP was asking for an argument, so no getting butt-hurt about anyone else criticizing your (potential) decision. If you didn't want to be critiqued/reprimanded/discouraged/schooled, you should not have said a word. Typing out a post and clicking the "submit" button is very conscious and intentional, so let's all just have a conversation and not take it personally.

Personally... ;-) I see no reason for me, at my skill level, and so happy with my APS-C sensor camera, to lust after FF. As far as I'm concerned, there is a lot to learn and master on the system I have now. Why switch? Granted, when my K30 dies and I need a new camera, I have proven to myself that this hobby is very rewarding to me and I will spend the big bucks on RICOH's greatest K-mount offering, whether it is a full-frame sensor or APS-C. I think the argument for one over the other is on slippery footing at best.
03-08-2014, 01:19 PM   #29
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 541
Here's an example. The Meyer Optik Gorlitz Orestegor 200/4 on the K-3.

Now, I payed around 80 for this lens. It's mint. It's tricky to use and it takes a bit of a push in post-processing to extract the contrast mostly, but it's okay once you understand each other.



The 135mm's are way way better than that.
03-08-2014, 03:08 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 541
QuoteOriginally posted by oxidized Quote
Personally I understand where you are coming from. I mainly want it for the added DOF and 'look' of the pictures. Just like medium format has a certain look compared to full frame so does full frame over APSC. there is no doubt about it. regardless of how many pixels you cram into a k-3 its still cropped sensor. however i am already invested in pentax and i love my glass. especially a lot of m42 lens. If i were to go with canon/nikon many of those will not work because the mirror would hit the lens. my only real option is a7r which to me is an incomplete system that was rushed to the market with light leaks/mirror vibrations. if Pentax doesnt release a FF by the time the next generation of a7 comes out i think I might just go for the sony. one can only be patient for so long. your situation may be different however, depending on the number of lenses you have and what you plan to use. To me it sounds like nothing is holding you back to Pentax. If you really want FF, just go for it. Life is too short to sit around and debate instead of going out and taking pics
I actually agree with all of this entirely. Especially about that 'look'.

Me same. But like you, I'll make the most of what I've got now. Which is a lot. A lot of glass. Some of it was expensive too. Some of it. Not all of it.

I had looked at going the Nik FF route with minimal lenses. But then I thought the consequences a couple of bouts of Nikkor LBA would have would be far more serious than buying a few more old M42's . . . I'm rambling now . . . and opening them up wide and doing my best in post.

Seems to be working. Good enough. Why put oneself under a load more pressure? Hell I want to retire at some point and the kids need new shoes.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, aperture, camera, canon, d610, ff, film, frame, fuji, full-frame, glass, im, kit, lens, lenses, money, nikon, pentax, performance, sensor, store, system, vs, zeiss
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
I just got my pentax full frame.. olimatt Pentax Film SLR Discussion 19 04-08-2013 04:41 PM
Why I don't care if Pentax goes full frame. JJJPhoto Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 03-01-2013 01:13 AM
Am I confused about DOF and full frame lenses? bc_the_path Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 12-13-2008 03:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top