[Iberia]

There are lots of ways to say why people need a full frame, without implying that you are smarter than others, that others don't know what they're talking about, or by un-necessarily trashing other's equipment. All of which are counter productive... I'm always amazed at folks who say they need a full frame, and then reel off a pile of reasons that are half truths. It makes me wonder, do they really need a full frame, or do they just think they need a full frame? Or is this a social one upsmanship thing..."na na my cameras bigger and better than yours". I feel the same way about DSRLs and every other piece of equipment for anything. The thing is, I've heard knowledgeable people explain clearly and concisely why they are going to both 4/3 and FF without a single inflammatory "na na na na na" kind of statement. It's possible to do, it should be done more often.

From where I'm standing it looks like your behaviour is overly defensive, as if (someonelse's preference for) FF were somehow threatening your beliefs.
If "every system is a set of compromises. APS-c is your favourite set of compromises", just relax and enjoy it.
And as you've so rightly mentioned in a previous post, I should be shooting FF; I should be the unhappy soul.

R

[cali92rs]

"Full Frame was cheaper for me"

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/247656-stop-ff-sens...-nonsense.html

Norm, you seem to be in the FF forum a great deal arguing about how other people shouldn't want FF. If you enjoy what you have, enjoy what you have.

It is the definition of Inferiority complex.
He wants to both tell people why they are wrong yet not have anyone challenge his thinking.

[easyreeder]

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.

A sunny outdoor location (anywhere you have to stop down) is the best test venue for a mirrorless. It's the lowlight situation (where the mirrorless doesn't mechanically have those wide aperture values) that you're going to see a marked difference. A 2.8 on a micro four thirds camera is something like an 8.4. That's going to be a really challenging aperture value in low light.

[normhead]

A sunny outdoor location (anywhere you have to stop down) is the best test venue for a mirrorless. It's the lowlight situation (where the mirrorless doesn't mechanically have those wide aperture values) that you're going to see a marked difference. A 2.8 on a micro four thirds camera is something like an 8.4. That's going to be a really challenging aperture value in low light.

Exactly, why do you test against a camera designed to be an awesome low light camera, in good light? By those standards, my $800 canoe kills a $275k Mazeratti if we do the test on a 12 foot deep lake. You wonder why people go to such lengths to so obviously mis-represent the truth. It's not like any serious reader got taken in by that comparison. The design flaw meant it was a "who cares" read from the start.

The D4s is an exciting development because it actually offers a significant advantage in low light performance over anything else below a 645Z. Its an FF camera that actually makes use of it's 35x24 sensor area to do what smaller sensors can't do. The D800 is essentially the same sensor in the K-5 only bigger. If you don't need bigger it doesn't have much to offer. The D4s gives you the opportunity for high shutter speeds for bird photography, grainless wildlife photography in low light, because wildlife is usually more active in low light. It takes advantage of the strengths of a larger sensor, to do things APS-c will probably never match. IN that sense it's the FF camera every guy like me should have, and from my perspective, what FF should have always been. Just like I should have a 645Z for landscape. And just as I can see there might be situations I might want to rent a 645Z, there might be situations I might want to rent a D4s. But for me, both those cameras are up in "rent not own " zone.

I'd be equally excited about the Sony A7s, but, I don't believe the viewfinder will give me good tracking in low light, for a low light camera you really need an OV, and having gone from a K-x 12 MP to a K-5 16 Mp, I already know that 12 Mp is just a tad on the light side for my purposes. Where as I've yet to experience any real difference between 16 MP and 24 Mp on my K-5. Better AF, faster burst, but I'm still happy with the images I take on my K-5 when I use it.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-08-2014 at 08:16 AM.

[philbaum]

A sunny outdoor location (anywhere you have to stop down) is the best test venue for a mirrorless. It's the lowlight situation (where the mirrorless doesn't mechanically have those wide aperture values) that you're going to see a marked difference. A 2.8 on a micro four thirds camera is something like an 8.4. That's going to be a really challenging aperture value in low light.

Exactly, why do you test against a camera designed to be an awesome low light camera, in good light? By those standards, my $800 canoe kills a $275k Mazeratti if we do the test on a 12 foot deep lake. You wonder why people go to such lengths to so obviously mis-represent the truth. It's not like any serious reader got taken in by that comparison. The design flaw meant it was a "who cares" read from the start.

The D4s is an exciting development because it actually offers a significant advantage in low light performance over anything else below a 645Z. Its an FF camera that actually makes use of it's 35x24 sensor area to do what smaller sensors can't do. The D800 is essentially the same sensor in the K-5 only bigger. If you don't need bigger it doesn't have much to offer. The D4s gives you the opportunity for high shutter speeds for bird photography, grainless wildlife photography in low light, because wildlife is usually more active in low light. It takes advantage of the strengths of a larger sensor, to do things APS-c will probably never match. IN that sense it's the FF camera every guy like me should have, and from my perspective, what FF should have always been. Just like I should have a 645Z for landscape. And just as I can see there might be situations I might want to rent a 645Z, there might be situations I might want to rent a D4s. But for me, both those cameras are up in "rent not own " zone.

I'd be equally excited about the Sony A7s, but, I don't believe the viewfinder will give me good tracking in low light, for a low light camera you really need an OV, and having gone from a K-x 12 MP to a K-5 16 Mp, I already know that 12 Mp is just a tad on the light side for my purposes. Where as I've yet to experience any real difference between 16 MP and 24 Mp on my K-5. Better AF, faster burst, but I'm still happy with the images I take on my K-5 when I use it.

Thanks to both of you for that explanation. I did like the video that "the camera store" put out, because it showed how far mirrorless AF has come in the best of conditions.

It would have really been classy for the narrator to explain what you two just did, that the ratings would have been in a different order in a low light situation. The Fuji and Sony would have done better, perhaps, in a lower light testing environment, if i've understood things correctly, than the mircro 4/3. And the FF camera would have shown a huge difference in its capability.

Even in manual focus situations, i've noticed what you two are talking about. I was doing some macros with the Nex6 or 5n when the light was starting to go, First thing i noticed, was the peaking function became inoperative right away, So then you switch to magnify function and even that struggles with less light. I then brought out a flashlight, but didn't have enough hands

Unfortunately, when we say "mirrorless" its become almost type-cast to mean a low-spec'd camera, but it doesn't have to be that way. One could design a mirrorless to optimize its performance in low light situations like the A7s is designed to be (i guess). Then you get the pundits that criticize the use of larger optics on mirrorless as the "pop-can" look. Well, form follows function. Its ok in my book if it gets the job done.

[easyreeder]

One could design a mirrorless to optimize its performance in low light situations like the A7s is designed to be (i guess).

Yes of course. It's the sensor size, not the mirror.

[reeftool]

We want a full frame camera because they exist. For most of us, all the reasons why that are listed are just attempts to justify owning one. A handful might actually need one. It's much like my motorcycles. My Harley Sportster gets 60mpg. I use that fact to justify the purchase. At 9K miles, two new tires cost $550. That kind of wiped out the gas savings. But I look really cool cruising down the highway......

[ElJamoquio]

I don't want an APS-C, I don't want a FF camera. I want the camera that is the least expensive for my needs and takes the best pictures. Luckily I don't have to compromise, FF is both.

It'd be nice if Pentax made one, though, so I could give Pentax my money instead of putting my lenses out there on the market to compete with Pentax's.

[jonlg]

I visited the David Bailey exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery in London a couple of weeks back and what was interesting was him saying on the audio track thing you could listen to while viewing the exhibition that the choice of camera was a case of choosing whatever he felt would work best for the picture he wanted to take. The gallery included all formats - large, medium, 35mm film, digital and even some iphone work. He said basically all the arguments about which camera or camera maker is best is a load of immaterial hogwash! I thought that was very interesting coming from Britain's greatest photographer of the past 100 years...

The full frame thing doesn't bother me as much as it clearly does some of you on the basis that the K5 is clearly (judging by the results I am getting from it) by far the finest camera I have ever owned (and I've had an ME Super, MZ-5n, Ists DS and now the K5. I know that my photographs are sharper, better exposed, clearer and more easily edited in post production than anything I have ever shot with. The level of quality from the APSC K5 is miles ahead of what I was getting even shooting on Agfa, Fuji and Kodachrome full frame slide film...

On the other hand I would like a bigger viewfinder and I suppose I worry especially now that I am now investing in some pretty expensive lenses that at some point int he future Pentax may launch a full frame camera and I will want one because it will no doubt be their highest-end SLR outside the 645D (which is simply way outside my budget). If they do that it will render my complete DA lens collection obsolete overnight and that id a definite worry.

So in short I would rather they had started with full frame but given we have an APSC system I have to admit any desire I have for full frame is more about worry of my system becoming obsolete rather than anything to do with the quality I'm getting...

Jonlg
Jonathan Gorse Photography

[normhead]

The gallery included all formats - large, medium, 35mm film, digital and even some iphone work. He said basically all the arguments about which camera or camera maker is best is a load of immaterial hogwash! I thought that was very interesting coming from Britain's greatest photographer of the past 100 years...

An excellent point of view, no camera is right for every occasion. And committed as I am to carrying one format, there are a lot of times I know I could do better with a different system. Each of us figures out what we shoot most and gets the system that suits us. The joy of being a successful pro, is you have the option to use the best system for what you do, each time you go out. Most of us end up compromising a higher percent of the time. Getting a full frame won't solve that. For every time I would have been better with a bigger format , theres another time I used or would have been better off with a smaller format. But comparing systems is pretty much hogwash. Until one system is, the most portable, is easiest to annual focus, has tilt shift functions, has the most dynamic range, resolution and low light capacity and fits in your pocket, each system is going to be better at something.

[philbaum]

I visited the David Bailey exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery in London a couple of weeks back and what was interesting was him saying on the audio track thing you could listen to while viewing the exhibition that the choice of camera was a case of choosing whatever he felt would work best for the picture he wanted to take. The gallery included all formats - large, medium, 35mm film, digital and even some iphone work. He said basically all the arguments about which camera or camera maker is best is a load of immaterial hogwash! I thought that was very interesting coming from Britain's greatest photographer of the past 100 years...

The full frame thing doesn't bother me as much as it clearly does some of you on the basis that the K5 is clearly (judging by the results I am getting from it) by far the finest camera I have ever owned (and I've had an ME Super, MZ-5n, Ists DS and now the K5. I know that my photographs are sharper, better exposed, clearer and more easily edited in post production than anything I have ever shot with. The level of quality from the APSC K5 is miles ahead of what I was getting even shooting on Agfa, Fuji and Kodachrome full frame slide film...

On the other hand I would like a bigger viewfinder and I suppose I worry especially now that I am now investing in some pretty expensive lenses that at some point int he future Pentax may launch a full frame camera and I will want one because it will no doubt be their highest-end SLR outside the 645D (which is simply way outside my budget). If they do that it will render my complete DA lens collection obsolete overnight and that id a definite worry.

So in short I would rather they had started with full frame but given we have an APSC system I have to admit any desire I have for full frame is more about worry of my system becoming obsolete rather than anything to do with the quality I'm getting

Jonlg
Jonathan Gorse Photography

Thanks for that post. I was trained as an engineer, and you quickly learn to look for the pros and cons in every decision. And there are always compromises to be made. Because there is no perfect camera, i presently switch between a Pentax dslr and a Sony Nex depending on what i'm doing. I wouldnt rule out a FF, but at present, its not high on my priority list.

[Winder]

A sunny outdoor location (anywhere you have to stop down) is the best test venue for a mirrorless. It's the lowlight situation (where the mirrorless doesn't mechanically have those wide aperture values) that you're going to see a marked difference. A 2.8 on a micro four thirds camera is something like an 8.4. That's going to be a really challenging aperture value in low light.

You Tube

You Tube

The GH4 can focus in -4EV which is very, very dark. GH4 would probably beat the D4 in low light AF since it can only focus down to -2EV Nikon | Imaging Products | Still image shooting functions - Nikon D4

[normhead]

My new Panasonic GH4 Camera Arrives - YouTube

The GH4 can focus in -4EV which is very, very dark. GH4 would probably beat the D4 in low light AF since it can only focus down to -2EV Nikon | Imaging Products | Still image shooting functions - Nikon D4

So you're saying they've solved the problem of viewfinder lag in low light? Interesting. I need to see some tests....
As always, the GH4 can beat the D4s in everything but low light IQ, and as long as it loses in low light IQ, the D4s is still the better camera, for low light photography. That's what it was designed to be.

[Winder]

So you're saying they've solved the problem of viewfinder lag in low light? Interesting. I need to see some tests....
As always, the GH4 can beat the D4s in everything but low light IQ, and as long as it loses in low light IQ, the D4s is still the better camera, for low light photography. That's what it was designed to be.

Since -4EV is too dark to see it probably doesn't matter if the EVF has lag or not. There is nothing to see. I never said the GH4 had solved he problem with EVF lag. I just said it focuses faster in less light.

[normhead]

Since -4EV is too dark to see it probably doesn't matter if the EVF has lag or not. There is nothing to see. I never said the GH4 had solved he problem with EVF lag. I just said it focuses faster in less light.

I didn't watch it all, but it is impressive.... and the images look decent. I guess that's what ƒ1.2 does for you. It does raise a question though, if a Pentax needs 2.8 to focus to -3 EV, with a 1.2 lens would it focus lower, now I'm curious. Even though I've focussed in near darkness on my K-5 and saw stuff on the final image I couldn't see in real life, it's still impressive. I'll take his word for it he couldn't see, but the camera recording the scene could have made it appear a little darker than it really was. Interesting video, inconclusive as to what it means, but still grounds for investigation, if you're interested in that kind of thing.

It does raise some interesting ethical values. If your subject can't see you and doesn't know you have a camera, because he can't see it, is it still OK to take his/her picture. If I ever here that beeping when I'm in a dark room, I'm reaching for a flashlight real quick.