Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-23-2014, 08:45 AM   #136
Veteran Member
fretlessdavis's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Benson, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 496
QuoteOriginally posted by pericombobulation Quote
As a hobbyist I have a few goals - a few things I want to get out of my hobby. Chief among these is a few large (LARGE) prints, both for my home and office. Hey, I've got a lot of empty wall space and big blowups are always impressive, right? I shoot all kinds of photos, but I want my giant blowups to be landscapes.

I've been to a few photo galleries over the past year or so and have seen some giant prints (or aluminum or other media) which knocked my socks off. Giant panoramas, gosh I don't even know how big - 40x60 at least, and even bigger. Or great big triptychs with each panel probably 3 feet on a side. Or long skinny panos that stretch the length of a couch. I want that. :-)

With my K-01 and K-30 I can print to about 20x30 without any significant loss of detail. I want to go bigger. So I've been experimenting with longer focal lengths and pano stitching to gain more pixels. This technique works great when all the stars are aligned and I've done a good job in the field. But it's difficult and success is not always guaranteed. And sometimes I screw up. :-)

So someone please tell me... do I need a FF camera?
The larger the files, the more difficult and time consuming they are to work with, and the more resources they take to store. getting pin-sharp 20x30's out of APS-C is a feat, and getting getting larger with FF using the same technique would work great.

As to the question of needing it or not... no you don't. I've seen great large prints from 35mm Tri-X. Definitely not landscapes, and they were mush and grain up close, but they were still excellent.

If you aren't going to be selling any of these, it comes down to whether or not you want to drop a few grand on a new body and lenses just for a handful of prints.

There are a lot of naysayers out there of film on this forum, but 4x5 still hands down trounces APS-C when you look at print size, and matches or beats the top end FF cameras out there. If you want to get even crazier, 8x10 is still the king. If it were for just a handful of photos where you wanted to get the largest possible prints, why not just snag a used view camera or rent one? They're done deprciating, so the investment won't kill you, nor will you have to worry about losing thousands to depriciation. Yes, it will cost you $15-$20 a shot to shoot, develop and scan for color, but you have a lot of catching up to do before the cost gets out of hand.

I actually have a whole file of digital images, as well as small format film with the intent to have my 4x5 with me if/when I return.


Resolution always has and always will be a function of lens resolution and capture area. Even with the sharpest optics available, APS-C doesn't have much need for anything more than 16-20 mp at the sensor. Out of everything I've handled in the APS-C size, I wouldn't push anything I have past 12x18--- even my best images. the m4/3 thing is getting more and more competitive because they're dumping all their research into lenses. Also, with a sensor that small, you don't have to stop down to get the necessary DOF, since the focal lengths are so short. Shooting at f/4 or f/2.8, there is so much headroom on diffraction that the lenses are getting beyond razor sharp. Then again, the total resolution is still fairly equal to APS-C since the capture area is small...

Once I worked it out for 4x5 film with my Super Angulon, I stopped buying into the modern digital stuff... I'm waiting for something in he 24 MP FF region to come under $650 used before hopping back on. My SA 90mm can pull 60+ lp/mm of resolution in the real world, at real world apertures on T-Grain 100 speed film. Factoring for 15% losses in my enlarging optics or scanning, I can get about 8-9x enlargement and get 5 lp/mm in a print, which is right around 36x45 at 'native resolution' (300 ppi in a print without upscaling). I also spent under $300 on all my 4x5 gear that I have to this date, and it's not that much more of a pain than a DSLR when you use that DSLR on a tripod with MLU and carefully selected settings.


Anyways, for large prints, it's always best to go with the largest capture area possible-- especially for landscapes. The only massive prints I've seen that I could say you could put your nose into were done on 8x10. I can't remember the name of the gallery, but there's a gallery in downtown Flagstaff where the photographer uses LF slides, scanned, then printed on metallic paper. It's a really good example of how far digital hasn't come when in comes to all out print size and resolution.


Then again, you don't really need this. If you get pin-sharp 20x30's from APS-C, upscaling and printing higher might be a bit softer, but with a few exceptions, massive prints aren't going to be viewed up close. It's very gratifying to see this level of detail at your own prints, but if you want massive prints from digital it sounds like you are to the point of needing to throw money at it. Getting good 20x30's from APS-C files is not an easy feat, so congrats on that!

05-23-2014, 01:53 PM   #137
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
@ panzerfaustnl

I just wanted to say thank you for your link to the Canon comparison of aps canons versus FF canons. I don't have Canon cameras, but one of his main points that his tests confirm, is that its better to buy lenses than sensors. He makes a case that even a entry level Canon rebel will do quite well with a quality lens, and money for a studio, like $1500 will do more for quality images than spending that amount of money for a top of the line flagship camera.

It was interesting to note, that the Canon 6D, which seemed like quite a nice FF, actually specs out in some areas below the K3, i.e multiple frame rate of abt 4 frames/sec vice the K3's 8 frames a sec, shallow buffer, can only use the center focus point for tracking while K3 does better than that, etc.

I would defend the 24mp of the K3 and the Nikon D7100. I didn't buy any new lenses for the K3 from my K3/K20 days, and yet i see increased resolution in my images. I was unsure of the increased MP of the K3, but after using it for 4 months, i'm convinced of their value. My use of the K3 has been mainly on lenses DA 50-135 and DA 17-70.

---------- Post added 05-23-14 at 02:23 PM ----------

Getting 20x30 inch prints out of a K5 is not that difficult, but one needs a solid image to start with. Low iso, a tripod preferably or a fast shutter speed is a good start. If you have to use NR on a file, that's a killer for printing a file large in my experience, sadly. If i had a candidate that i wanted to print large, i would blow it up to the size required using Lightroom's export menu, and then examine it at the projected print size. If i didn't like it full size, i wouldn't print it - its that simple. Lightroom uses some sophisticated enlargement tools and they are more than adequate to enlarge pictures from 16mp - don't listen to much to the nay sayers who refuse to do any enlargement on the original file - times have changed.

Just for grins, i sent one of my K5 images to the Edmonds art fair juried photography gallery about 3 years ago, as a 24"x36" print, and it sold for $350. Compared to my old K5, the K5 II and K3 (which i now own) are even better for resolution - not to mention focus capability.

Today, I'm stretching out a print, again from my K5 in Oct of 2013, that goes out to 48" tall. And it looks good. Its a special order from a customer who's waiting for it.

If you want to go much larger than the above - you may want to consider a FF or MF or 8x10 film, ala Gregory Crewdson - check him out on youtube.
05-25-2014, 11:45 PM   #138
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by fretlessdavis Quote
Anyways, for large prints, it's always best to go with the largest capture area possible-- especially for landscapes. The only massive prints I've seen that I could say you could put your nose into were done on 8x10. I can't remember the name of the gallery, but there's a gallery in downtown Flagstaff where the photographer uses LF slides, scanned, then printed on metallic paper. It's a really good example of how far digital hasn't come when in comes to all out print size and resolution.
4x5 adapter for graflok back for use with sony a7r - The GetDPI Photography Forums
making compact technical camera for A7/A7r - The GetDPI Photography Forums

for $147 on ebay, you can buy cheap chinese e-mount backs for 4x5 view cameras, that appear to allow for at least 60mm total of shift or rise(?)
Moveable Camera Adapter for Sony NEX to Linhof Sinar Toyo Wista Horseman 4x5 | eBay

it won't take much to build an 8x10 e-mount back.
05-27-2014, 08:06 AM   #139
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,048
While I would love to see a Pentax FF, I don't agree with those predicting the end of APS-C. It's like predicting the end of zooms, because we know primes are better.

Better doesn't matter. In any business, it's never about what's better. It's about what's more convenient while still good enough. Think about that.

I bet that the number of people wanting a small enough, portable enough setup will always greatly outnumber the people that want to carry the best available, regardless of the convenience. There will always be those of us who love to carry our multiple prime setups everywhere we go (in my case, to my wife's disdain, as she has no idea why one would go through the trouble of changing lenses all the time - and she's greatly peeved by me shooting RAW as well, as she can't just get my images and post them on facebook whenever she wants). But those carrying zooms will always outnumber us. In my wanderings, I don't remember the last time that I saw a Canon shooter anywhere with a prime lens on the camera. And Canon is the market leader.

05-27-2014, 10:10 AM   #140
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
1) People who aren't willing to add an additional piece of equipment - e.g., a P&S doesn't offer enough IQ/usability over a camera phone
2) People who aren't willing to add an additional piece of equipment that isn't pocketable - e.g. are willing to have a P&S but not a larger M4/3
3) People who are willing to carry a DSLR like a Rebel but not a DSLR like a 6D or a K-3
4) People who are willing to carry a DSLR like a 6D but not like a 645

The most people are in group 1, I think.

I think APS-C is going to be around in 10 years but I think it will be the very entry level DSLR's, a lot of the mirrorless, and the largest of the pocketable cameras. I could be wrong, there's a lot of incentive for the manufacturer to sell APS-C in order to sell expensive glass.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 05-27-2014 at 10:16 AM.
05-27-2014, 10:27 AM - 1 Like   #141
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,424
I'm willing to carry a DSLR like the K-3, but not a compact - where do I fit?
05-27-2014, 02:22 PM   #142
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
I just opened a thread on The Camera Store: auto focus comparison between several new generation mirrorless cameras and the D4s, a $7000 plus camera.

Thread link: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/263...ml#post2828617

In a nutshell - the Panasonic GH4 and the Sony A6000 gave the D4s a lot of competition. D4s still came out on top, but its very close from these field tests which were done at a motocross track.

I see a lot of contraction in the next few years in the number of FF models produced by Nikon and Canon. Majority of DSLR/ILC sales will continue to be APS and 4/3. Optical viewfinders will become a minority 10% option in the short term.
05-31-2014, 09:12 PM - 4 Likes   #143
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 4
I have been using Pentax for years, and now own the K3 and K5. I am a portrait photographer mainly shooting seniors, couples, and families. I plan to get into weddings more now that my husband will be shooting with me. I had the opportunity to purchase a Canon 1DS Mark II for an absolutely amazing price in pristine condition from a wedding photographer. I bought an 85mm f1.8 lens, and although this camera is a much older FF the images produced are stunning. I can tell a huge difference from my K3. The view finder coverage is enormous compared to my K3. The DOF is so buttery and smooth. The thing I love most about it though is that it will grab focus so quickly in difficult situations and bad lighting. I thought my K3 had a great AF until I started using the FF. I was blown away. Also I am absolutely amazed at some of the pictures I am able to capture that I couldn't capture with my K3 or K5. I haven't picked up my K3 in two months, and I am debating selling it and keeping the K5 with one or two lenses for backup. I was really wanting to wait until Pentax came out with a FF, but I jumped at the deal I was able to get on this camera. I love Pentax, and I have been very loyal to the brand since the days of SLR 35mm. I never thought I would even consider selling my Pentax gear, but I really am considering selling most of it in order to purchase a new Canon FF. I am trying to hold off for Pentax, but if it doesn't come soon I will be switching to Canon completely. Most people will say that the APS-C will give the same results, and for many people it is fine. For anyone not shooting portraits it is most definitely fine. However, once you pick up a full frame I think that most people will have a very hard time returning to an APS-C. I have a K3 that I purchased in January sitting in its original box while I am using a camera produced in 2004 and getting amazing pictures. I have my pictures printed professionally, as I don't give digital images with my photo sessions. Most clients order larger images or a canvas. My K3 and K5 images are very nice, but the FF images just seem to pop. The results of my full frame blows my K3 out of the water. I was the one saying that K3 was all I needed and just as good or better than full frame until I actually tried a full frame.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 11:26 PM ----------

QuoteQuote:
But the fact is that Pentax doesn't have full frame camera's and the people who are Pentax-only will defend that choice with every argument they can find. And if somewhere in time Pentax would release a full frame camera, the people who first defended that there is no reason to have one, will drop those arguments and turn around. Don't be afraid, that's pure human.

Well said!!! I was one of those people that defended Pentax until I put my hands on a full frame camera. No comparison!

06-02-2014, 01:43 PM   #144
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I just opened a thread on The Camera Store: auto focus comparison between several new generation mirrorless cameras and the D4s, a $7000 plus camera.

Thread link: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/263...ml#post2828617

In a nutshell - the Panasonic GH4 and the Sony A6000 gave the D4s a lot of competition. D4s still came out on top, but its very close from these field tests which were done at a motocross track.
Modern mirrorless systems are actually on even footing with DSLRs, technically speaking. Now that MILC implement phase-detect AF via PDAF pixels on the sensor, it's no longer "CDAF vs PDAF", where mirrorless with CDAF are clearly at a disadvantage, it's "which PDAF system is better". That's a fight that mirrorless can at least hold their own on.

Dedicated AF sensors are still probably going to be better than reading out pixels on the main sensor, just from the simple fact that it's a simpler control loop, but the difference may be small enough that no one really cares. A camera that can keep up shooting motocross with a pro DSLR system is good enough for pretty much anything. It's also much more practical to put large numbers of PDAF pixels on a sensor than to try and stuff hundreds of separate AF sensors into a DSLR body, which could lead to improvements in the ability of the camera to actually lock on to the desired subject even off-center, etc. The A6000 has 179 AF sensor points, the D4s has 51.

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 06-02-2014 at 01:51 PM.
06-03-2014, 01:04 PM   #145
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
QuoteOriginally posted by amom2twins Quote
I have been using Pentax for years, and now own the K3 and K5. I am a portrait photographer mainly shooting seniors, couples, and families. I plan to get into weddings more now that my husband will be shooting with me. I had the opportunity to purchase a Canon 1DS Mark II for an absolutely amazing price in pristine condition from a wedding photographer. I bought an 85mm f1.8 lens, and although this camera is a much older FF the images produced are stunning. I can tell a huge difference from my K3. The view finder coverage is enormous compared to my K3. The DOF is so buttery and smooth. The thing I love most about it though is that it will grab focus so quickly in difficult situations and bad lighting. I thought my K3 had a great AF until I started using the FF. I was blown away. Also I am absolutely amazed at some of the pictures I am able to capture that I couldn't capture with my K3 or K5. I haven't picked up my K3 in two months, and I am debating selling it and keeping the K5 with one or two lenses for backup. I was really wanting to wait until Pentax came out with a FF, but I jumped at the deal I was able to get on this camera. I love Pentax, and I have been very loyal to the brand since the days of SLR 35mm. I never thought I would even consider selling my Pentax gear, but I really am considering selling most of it in order to purchase a new Canon FF. I am trying to hold off for Pentax, but if it doesn't come soon I will be switching to Canon completely. Most people will say that the APS-C will give the same results, and for many people it is fine. For anyone not shooting portraits it is most definitely fine. However, once you pick up a full frame I think that most people will have a very hard time returning to an APS-C. I have a K3 that I purchased in January sitting in its original box while I am using a camera produced in 2004 and getting amazing pictures. I have my pictures printed professionally, as I don't give digital images with my photo sessions. Most clients order larger images or a canvas. My K3 and K5 images are very nice, but the FF images just seem to pop. The results of my full frame blows my K3 out of the water. I was the one saying that K3 was all I needed and just as good or better than full frame until I actually tried a full frame.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 11:26 PM ----------




Well said!!! I was one of those people that defended Pentax until I put my hands on a full frame camera. No comparison!
I think I am kinda agree with you on the advantages of FF camera, but I am not too hot on Canon ergonomics... would be nice if you can share with us a couple of examples (one using k-3 and the other using Canon 1Ds MKII).
06-03-2014, 03:21 PM   #146
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by amom2twins Quote
I have been using Pentax for years, and now own the K3 and K5. I am a portrait photographer mainly shooting seniors, couples, and families. I plan to get into weddings more now that my husband will be shooting with me. I had the opportunity to purchase a Canon 1DS Mark II for an absolutely amazing price in pristine condition from a wedding photographer. I bought an 85mm f1.8 lens, and although this camera is a much older FF the images produced are stunning. I can tell a huge difference from my K3. The view finder coverage is enormous compared to my K3. The DOF is so buttery and smooth. The thing I love most about it though is that it will grab focus so quickly in difficult situations and bad lighting. I thought my K3 had a great AF until I started using the FF. I was blown away. .

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 11:26 PM ----------




Well said!!! I was one of those people that defended Pentax until I put my hands on a full frame camera. No comparison!
I'm just trying to understand the differences, so thats the nature of my comments.

i looked up the specs for the 1DS (couldn't find the Mark II vers) and it said it had 11 mps. Coincidentally, there's this rumor that Sony is coming out with the A7s FF with 11 mps. But i could understand how this reduced mps and being a FF besides, that would contribute to really good focusing in low light. What i don't understand so much, is how the 11 mps is contributing to the "buttery and smooth" DOF.(did you mean bokeh?)

Your 1DS is sampling the subject with 11mps, while the K3 is sampling it with 24 mps, i'm thinking the larger sampling rate of the K3 should be giving even more detail, as long as the light needed is available for the APS sensor. On the other hand, maybe the terrific portrait is more of a reflection of the new 85mm lens you bought. That would make more sense to me. Just trying to figure it out :-)

In any case, you gotta go with what's working for you - sounds like you got a great deal!!!

I think there was a comparison between the K3 and a Nikon FF on one of the PF forums, and they compared images. I couldn't tell via those images, which was the aps sensor and which was the FF sensor. Thats what caused my questions.
06-03-2014, 03:54 PM   #147
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,249
QuoteOriginally posted by amom2twins Quote
I have been using Pentax for years, and now own the K3 and K5. I am a portrait photographer mainly shooting seniors, couples, and families. I plan to get into weddings more now that my husband will be shooting with me. I had the opportunity to purchase a Canon 1DS Mark II for an absolutely amazing price in pristine condition from a wedding photographer. I bought an 85mm f1.8 lens, and although this camera is a much older FF the images produced are stunning. I can tell a huge difference from my K3. The view finder coverage is enormous compared to my K3. The DOF is so buttery and smooth. The thing I love most about it though is that it will grab focus so quickly in difficult situations and bad lighting. I thought my K3 had a great AF until I started using the FF. I was blown away. Also I am absolutely amazed at some of the pictures I am able to capture that I couldn't capture with my K3 or K5. I haven't picked up my K3 in two months, and I am debating selling it and keeping the K5 with one or two lenses for backup. I was really wanting to wait until Pentax came out with a FF, but I jumped at the deal I was able to get on this camera. I love Pentax, and I have been very loyal to the brand since the days of SLR 35mm. I never thought I would even consider selling my Pentax gear, but I really am considering selling most of it in order to purchase a new Canon FF. I am trying to hold off for Pentax, but if it doesn't come soon I will be switching to Canon completely. Most people will say that the APS-C will give the same results, and for many people it is fine. For anyone not shooting portraits it is most definitely fine. However, once you pick up a full frame I think that most people will have a very hard time returning to an APS-C. I have a K3 that I purchased in January sitting in its original box while I am using a camera produced in 2004 and getting amazing pictures. I have my pictures printed professionally, as I don't give digital images with my photo sessions. Most clients order larger images or a canvas. My K3 and K5 images are very nice, but the FF images just seem to pop. The results of my full frame blows my K3 out of the water. I was the one saying that K3 was all I needed and just as good or better than full frame until I actually tried a full frame.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 11:26 PM ----------




Well said!!! I was one of those people that defended Pentax until I put my hands on a full frame camera. No comparison!
well said.

with K5 and K5IIs, I really don't feel like buying another APSC camera, which I doubt will offer much advantage. On the other hand, I am always amazed at the 120 film that I got with my recently acquired P67. The only APSC camera I think I will buy in the future is GR type compacts. and my next digital slr camera should be FF, anything less than FF is a waste of money (for me).
06-03-2014, 07:42 PM   #148
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,777
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I'm just trying to understand the differences, so thats the nature of my comments.

i looked up the specs for the 1DS (couldn't find the Mark II vers) and it said it had 11 mps. Coincidentally, there's this rumor that Sony is coming out with the A7s FF with 11 mps. But i could understand how this reduced mps and being a FF besides, that would contribute to really good focusing in low light. What i don't understand so much, is how the 11 mps is contributing to the "buttery and smooth" DOF.(did you mean bokeh?)

Your 1DS is sampling the subject with 11mps, while the K3 is sampling it with 24 mps, i'm thinking the larger sampling rate of the K3 should be giving even more detail, as long as the light needed is available for the APS sensor. On the other hand, maybe the terrific portrait is more of a reflection of the new 85mm lens you bought. That would make more sense to me. Just trying to figure it out :-)

In any case, you gotta go with what's working for you - sounds like you got a great deal!!!

I think there was a comparison between the K3 and a Nikon FF on one of the PF forums, and they compared images. I couldn't tell via those images, which was the aps sensor and which was the FF sensor. Thats what caused my questions.
I had a 5D (12mp)
Yes, the low pixel density helps and I found Canon to be better for skin tones. (not right, but better).
For people shots, I prefer Canon skin tone, other stuff I prefer Pentax.
The low pixel density of the 5D is very forgiving on lens flaws (CA, sharpness, focus)
I'd suspect than down sampling a K5, K3 shot would be close.

However, FF for people shots does give the advantage of getting to the lenses sweet spot while still retaining a shallow DOF look.
That is mostly with older lenses.
More modern ones can be plenty sharp from wide open.
On my A7 for example, I can use the A50/1.4 at f2 and for the same waist to head type portrait, get the same DOF as my K30 with the same lens at f1.4
But the A50 on FF benefits from the stop down for better sharpness on the subject and better CA resistance.

Studio shots with a strobist setup works the other way round though.
Most shots for FF need to be f8 and a lot of flash power.
Aps-c breezes thru with f5.6 and less flash power for better recycling times.
Both f5.6 and f8 are very sharp on most lenses to matter.
06-03-2014, 07:56 PM - 1 Like   #149
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,870
My contribution to this thread is: shoot film and stop arguing/speculating. You'll be happier for it.
06-03-2014, 08:55 PM   #150
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,483
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I'm willing to carry a DSLR like the K-3, but not a compact - where do I fit?
Dunno, but when my wife permanently borrowed my first Q and 02 I made her give me back the A40 she permanently borrowed the last time. I still like that little camera as much as I did my K10D.

As for the OP's question - I certainly don't need a FF - I didn't need the K-3. K-01 and K10D were more than adequate for what I do (they actually still are. The K-3 is just better). Q7 is just fine for 50% of what I do. If they release one I might sell other stuff and get it because I want it - but I certainly don't need it.

There's a 20x30 B&W print in every private office where I work - 50 of them. Nobody knows what they are. We've been there 10 years and we're moving in a few months. We don't move furnishings - we just trash it and buy new. You can guess what I plan to try to get away with. The frames and mats alone are worth $250!!

They were shot on film. Probably MF - I'm not even sure they could be shot on FF digital, they're that good.

I actually start to think all these legacy K-mount lenses are a giant bag of albatross and I'd be better off selling almost all of it and getting Limiteds.

Of course I'd get FA Limiteds, just in case.

Last edited by monochrome; 06-03-2014 at 09:12 PM.
Closed Thread

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, asp-c, bit, camera, canon, control, dof, equipment, f/2.8, ff, film, format, frame, full-frame, lenses, lot, medium, pentax, people, photographer, pm, resolution, sensor, skill, thread, thread title, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax ff and why do I need that. soled Welcomes and Introductions 6 02-20-2015 03:50 AM
Filters, do you really need them? peterjcb Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 01-16-2014 06:10 PM
Do i really need a FF DSLR simple mick Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 12-26-2012 07:02 PM
Do you really want a FF??? i83N Photographic Industry and Professionals 48 10-09-2012 01:52 PM
Why Do You Want FF? tkj365 Photographic Industry and Professionals 193 09-26-2012 11:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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