Do you really need a FF ? Why ?

Winder · 06-10-2014, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by normhead

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.

Doesn't the same apply to long lenses and surveillance cameras? It doesn't have to be dark to raise the question, but I think the answer is the same.

rawr · 06-10-2014, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by normhead

if a Pentax needs 2.8 to focus to -3 EV

I think the testing of AF is usually done in a standardised way. Using ISO 100 at f2.8 is something I've seen mentioned often.

One point worth mentioning with the GH4 is that while the AF works down to -4EV, it's metering only works down to 0 EV, unlike the K-3 which both meters and AF's down to -3 EV. So K-3 would probably turn in a better exposed and focussed shot under low-light.

ElJamoquio · 06-10-2014, 07:00 PM - **1 Like**

Anybody have pics at -4EV? Personally I rarely take pictures outside at night, just wanted to see some.

I would like to take pics of aurora borealis but I don't need to focus for that!

normhead · 06-10-2014, 07:03 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rawr

I think the testing of AF is usually done in a standardised way. Using ISO 100 at f2.8 is something I've seen mentioned often.

One point worth mentioning with the GH4 is that while the AF works down to -4EV, it's metering only works down to 0 EV, unlike the K-3 which both meters and AF's down to -3 EV. So K-3 would probably turn in a better exposed and focussed shot under low-light.

Are these people deliberately trying to keep us in constant confusion? As soon as you think you have something under control, somebody comes out of no where with something you can't understand the reason for. Innovation at work. It's often counter productive, but it makes our world interesting.

jonlg · 06-11-2014, 12:12 AM

One other thing - a neighbour brought around a Panasonic GH3 or GH2 which she has picked up secondhand last night and I had a play. Very dinky but horribly plasticky and eugh the electronic viewfinder was hideous and reminded me of an old videocamera I had to peer down years ago with horrible artificial colours and terrible lag. I just don't get why everyone is saying mirrorless is the future - it's bloody awful!! So you can buy a normal SLR with zero lag where you're looking straight down the lens that's taking the picture and see exactly what the scene looks like in real life with perfect colours, shadows and zero lag or you can have this horrible cartoony pizellated laggy view of what you're trying to photograph. What the hell is the matter with people?? How can they want the latter?? What is the advantage??

Also Lumix build quality and reliability is dreadful - my £200 Lumix TZ-3 compact died within 5 years, all of my Pentaxes even the 30 year old ones still work!!

I just don't understand the world anymore...

Jonathan
Jonathan Gorse Photography

cali92rs · 06-11-2014, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by jonlg

One other thing - a neighbour brought around a Panasonic GH3 or GH2 which she has picked up secondhand last night and I had a play. Very dinky but horribly plasticky and eugh the electronic viewfinder was hideous and reminded me of an old videocamera I had to peer down years ago with horrible artificial colours and terrible lag. I just don't get why everyone is saying mirrorless is the future - it's bloody awful!! So you can buy a normal SLR with zero lag where you're looking straight down the lens that's taking the picture and see exactly what the scene looks like in real life with perfect colours, shadows and zero lag or you can have this horrible cartoony pizellated laggy view of what you're trying to photograph. What the hell is the matter with people?? How can they want the latter?? What is the advantage??

Also Lumix build quality and reliability is dreadful - my £200 Lumix TZ-3 compact died within 5 years, all of my Pentaxes even the 30 year old ones still work!!

I just don't understand the world anymore...

Jonathan
Jonathan Gorse Photography

One bad example and your ready to dismiss the entire mirrorless world?
Try the XT-1s EVF. Negligible lag; bigger than FF cameras viewfinder; can pretty much see in situations where an optical view finder would be rendered useless due to the darkness; and what you see is what you get, so you can change your exposure, colors, white balance on the fly in real time.
Oh, and for build quality, it has a magnesium alloy body and is weathersealed.

So, just like other things in life, there are good examples and bad examples. It would be equivalent of you dismissing all DSLRs because Canon Rebels suck.

normhead · 06-11-2014, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by cali92rs

One bad example and your ready to dismiss the entire mirrorless world?
Try the XT-1s EVF. Negligible lag; bigger than FF cameras viewfinder; can pretty much see in situations where an optical view finder would be rendered useless due to the darkness; and what you see is what you get, so you can change your exposure, colors, white balance on the fly in real time.
Oh, and for build quality, it has a magnesium alloy body and is weathersealed.

So, just like other things in life, there are good examples and bad examples. It would be equivalent of you dismissing all DSLRs because Canon Rebels suck.

I'm not sure what camera you are referring to, do you have a link?

cali92rs · 06-11-2014, 07:09 AM

FUJIFILM X-T1 | Fujifilm Global

I have a bad habit of calling it an XT-1...when in actuality, it is an X-T1

ElJamoquio · 06-11-2014, 09:26 AM

I'd have a hard time purchasing ANY fuji after the lied so egregiously with the ISO on the X100 (or whatever that camera was).

traderdrew · 06-11-2014, 12:36 PM

The real reason why I would wish to switch to a FF is their autofocus. I'm not talking about inexpensive FF cameras. I have stood next to someone in the field photographing flying birds and he kicks my a$$ on any given day with his Nikon D4 and the 500mm F/4. Even his D800 is really good even though he complains about its shutter speed. I use a K-3 and/or a K-5 with the Sigma 500mm F/4.5.

pericombobulation · 06-11-2014, 01:03 PM

Why would FF necessarily translate to better AF? Am I missing something? Maybe the D4 simply has a better AF system?

normhead · 06-11-2014, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by pericombobulation

Why would FF necessarily translate to better AF? Am I missing something? Maybe the D4 simply has a better AF system?

I don't know but I suspect a D600 doesn't have better AF than a K-3. Those D4s cost a pile of money , and with Nikon unlike Pentax, the best they have never migrates down to the less expensive models. They are committed to premium prices for premium performance model. It may well be that the AF systems, in their premium models actually cost more than what they'd want to put into an lower end camera, so I'm prepared to cut them som slack. As long as the premium systems wouldn't be cheap enough to put into a low end model if volumes were increase by selling more of them and that would bring the price down. You just don't know how all the factors line up.

ElJamoquio · 06-11-2014, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I don't know but I suspect a D600 doesn't have better AF than a K-3.

This suspicion is based on what?

---------- Post added 06-11-14 at 01:38 PM ----------

Originally posted by pericombobulation

Why would FF necessarily translate to better AF? Am I missing something? Maybe the D4 simply has a better AF system?

In an equivalent system, it does not.

If you're using the same numeric-aperture lens, with proportionately sized AF sensors, there's 2.25 times as much light going to the FF A/F, with a lot less DOF. That means there's quite a bit of improvement possible.

Enrique S Toso · 06-11-2014, 02:52 PM - **2 Likes**

Why full frame?? Just because I dont want to buy a lens, thinking "it shall be F2.8 or NOTHING". Think about it...a 300mm F5.6, its actually a 450mm, but F11.2!! It like those cheap F9 lenses in amazon, no matter brand or IQ or whatever.

Maybe it is ok for enthusiast, but im becoming pro, and dont want to go Nikon. Other photographers say "if you were thinking in becoming pro, you should choose the gear wisely", but I fall in love with photography with Pentax, and I consider myself a Pentaxian. Why u dont take care of pro pentaxians?? why you take care just of enthusiasts, or just millonaire enthusiasts (P645Z), but no pro photographers.

We need a full frame body, and pentax need to make lenses for nikon AND canon AND sigma, just like sigma and tamron do.

ElJamoquio · 06-11-2014, 03:32 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Enrique S Toso

Why full frame?? Just because I dont want to buy a lens, thinking "it shall be F2.8 or NOTHING". Think about it...a 300mm F5.6, its actually a 450mm, but F11.2!! It like those cheap F9 lenses in amazon, no matter brand or IQ or whatever.

Maybe it is ok for enthusiast, but im becoming pro, and dont want to go Nikon. Other photographers say "if you were thinking in becoming pro, you should choose the gear wisely", but I fall in love with photography with Pentax, and I consider myself a Pentaxian. Why u dont take care of pro pentaxians?? why you take care just of enthusiasts, or just millonaire enthusiasts (P645Z), but no pro photographers.

We need a full frame body, and pentax need to make lenses for nikon AND canon AND sigma, just like sigma and tamron do.

450 would be a F/8.4, fyi. Not F/11.

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

06-10-2014, 05:03 PM	#211
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by normhead 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. Doesn't the same apply to long lenses and surveillance cameras? It doesn't have to be dark to raise the question, but I think the answer is the same.

06-10-2014, 06:02 PM	#212
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by normhead if a Pentax needs 2.8 to focus to -3 EV I think the testing of AF is usually done in a standardised way. Using ISO 100 at f2.8 is something I've seen mentioned often. One point worth mentioning with the GH4 is that while the AF works down to -4EV, it's metering only works down to 0 EV, unlike the K-3 which both meters and AF's down to -3 EV. So K-3 would probably turn in a better exposed and focussed shot under low-light.

06-10-2014, 07:00 PM - 1 Like	#213
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Anybody have pics at -4EV? Personally I rarely take pictures outside at night, just wanted to see some. I would like to take pics of aurora borealis but I don't need to focus for that!

06-10-2014, 07:03 PM - 1 Like	#214
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by rawr I think the testing of AF is usually done in a standardised way. Using ISO 100 at f2.8 is something I've seen mentioned often. One point worth mentioning with the GH4 is that while the AF works down to -4EV, it's metering only works down to 0 EV, unlike the K-3 which both meters and AF's down to -3 EV. So K-3 would probably turn in a better exposed and focussed shot under low-light. Are these people deliberately trying to keep us in constant confusion? As soon as you think you have something under control, somebody comes out of no where with something you can't understand the reason for. Innovation at work. It's often counter productive, but it makes our world interesting.

06-11-2014, 12:12 AM	#215
jonlg Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: West Sussex Posts: 128	One other thing - a neighbour brought around a Panasonic GH3 or GH2 which she has picked up secondhand last night and I had a play. Very dinky but horribly plasticky and eugh the electronic viewfinder was hideous and reminded me of an old videocamera I had to peer down years ago with horrible artificial colours and terrible lag. I just don't get why everyone is saying mirrorless is the future - it's bloody awful!! So you can buy a normal SLR with zero lag where you're looking straight down the lens that's taking the picture and see exactly what the scene looks like in real life with perfect colours, shadows and zero lag or you can have this horrible cartoony pizellated laggy view of what you're trying to photograph. What the hell is the matter with people?? How can they want the latter?? What is the advantage?? Also Lumix build quality and reliability is dreadful - my £200 Lumix TZ-3 compact died within 5 years, all of my Pentaxes even the 30 year old ones still work!! I just don't understand the world anymore... Jonathan Jonathan Gorse Photography

06-11-2014, 06:03 AM	#216
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by jonlg One other thing - a neighbour brought around a Panasonic GH3 or GH2 which she has picked up secondhand last night and I had a play. Very dinky but horribly plasticky and eugh the electronic viewfinder was hideous and reminded me of an old videocamera I had to peer down years ago with horrible artificial colours and terrible lag. I just don't get why everyone is saying mirrorless is the future - it's bloody awful!! So you can buy a normal SLR with zero lag where you're looking straight down the lens that's taking the picture and see exactly what the scene looks like in real life with perfect colours, shadows and zero lag or you can have this horrible cartoony pizellated laggy view of what you're trying to photograph. What the hell is the matter with people?? How can they want the latter?? What is the advantage?? Also Lumix build quality and reliability is dreadful - my £200 Lumix TZ-3 compact died within 5 years, all of my Pentaxes even the 30 year old ones still work!! I just don't understand the world anymore... Jonathan Jonathan Gorse Photography One bad example and your ready to dismiss the entire mirrorless world? Try the XT-1s EVF. Negligible lag; bigger than FF cameras viewfinder; can pretty much see in situations where an optical view finder would be rendered useless due to the darkness; and what you see is what you get, so you can change your exposure, colors, white balance on the fly in real time. Oh, and for build quality, it has a magnesium alloy body and is weathersealed. So, just like other things in life, there are good examples and bad examples. It would be equivalent of you dismissing all DSLRs because Canon Rebels suck.

06-11-2014, 06:40 AM	#217
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by cali92rs One bad example and your ready to dismiss the entire mirrorless world? Try the XT-1s EVF. Negligible lag; bigger than FF cameras viewfinder; can pretty much see in situations where an optical view finder would be rendered useless due to the darkness; and what you see is what you get, so you can change your exposure, colors, white balance on the fly in real time. Oh, and for build quality, it has a magnesium alloy body and is weathersealed. So, just like other things in life, there are good examples and bad examples. It would be equivalent of you dismissing all DSLRs because Canon Rebels suck. I'm not sure what camera you are referring to, do you have a link?

06-11-2014, 07:09 AM	#218
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	FUJIFILM X-T1 \| Fujifilm Global I have a bad habit of calling it an XT-1...when in actuality, it is an X-T1

06-11-2014, 09:26 AM	#219
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	I'd have a hard time purchasing ANY fuji after the lied so egregiously with the ISO on the X100 (or whatever that camera was).

06-11-2014, 12:36 PM	#220
traderdrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 639	The real reason why I would wish to switch to a FF is their autofocus. I'm not talking about inexpensive FF cameras. I have stood next to someone in the field photographing flying birds and he kicks my a$$ on any given day with his Nikon D4 and the 500mm F/4. Even his D800 is really good even though he complains about its shutter speed. I use a K-3 and/or a K-5 with the Sigma 500mm F/4.5.

06-11-2014, 01:03 PM	#221
pericombobulation Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 103	Why would FF necessarily translate to better AF? Am I missing something? Maybe the D4 simply has a better AF system?

06-11-2014, 01:22 PM	#222
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pericombobulation Why would FF necessarily translate to better AF? Am I missing something? Maybe the D4 simply has a better AF system? I don't know but I suspect a D600 doesn't have better AF than a K-3. Those D4s cost a pile of money , and with Nikon unlike Pentax, the best they have never migrates down to the less expensive models. They are committed to premium prices for premium performance model. It may well be that the AF systems, in their premium models actually cost more than what they'd want to put into an lower end camera, so I'm prepared to cut them som slack. As long as the premium systems wouldn't be cheap enough to put into a low end model if volumes were increase by selling more of them and that would bring the price down. You just don't know how all the factors line up.

06-11-2014, 01:37 PM	#223
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by normhead I don't know but I suspect a D600 doesn't have better AF than a K-3. This suspicion is based on what? ---------- Post added 06-11-14 at 01:38 PM ---------- Originally posted by pericombobulation Why would FF necessarily translate to better AF? Am I missing something? Maybe the D4 simply has a better AF system? In an equivalent system, it does not. If you're using the same numeric-aperture lens, with proportionately sized AF sensors, there's 2.25 times as much light going to the FF A/F, with a lot less DOF. That means there's quite a bit of improvement possible.

06-11-2014, 02:52 PM - 2 Likes	#224
Enrique S Toso Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Mendoza - Argentina Posts: 141	Why full frame?? Just because I dont want to buy a lens, thinking "it shall be F2.8 or NOTHING". Think about it...a 300mm F5.6, its actually a 450mm, but F11.2!! It like those cheap F9 lenses in amazon, no matter brand or IQ or whatever. Maybe it is ok for enthusiast, but im becoming pro, and dont want to go Nikon. Other photographers say "if you were thinking in becoming pro, you should choose the gear wisely", but I fall in love with photography with Pentax, and I consider myself a Pentaxian. Why u dont take care of pro pentaxians?? why you take care just of enthusiasts, or just millonaire enthusiasts (P645Z), but no pro photographers. We need a full frame body, and pentax need to make lenses for nikon AND canon AND sigma, just like sigma and tamron do.

06-11-2014, 03:32 PM - 1 Like	#225
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Enrique S Toso Why full frame?? Just because I dont want to buy a lens, thinking "it shall be F2.8 or NOTHING". Think about it...a 300mm F5.6, its actually a 450mm, but F11.2!! It like those cheap F9 lenses in amazon, no matter brand or IQ or whatever. Maybe it is ok for enthusiast, but im becoming pro, and dont want to go Nikon. Other photographers say "if you were thinking in becoming pro, you should choose the gear wisely", but I fall in love with photography with Pentax, and I consider myself a Pentaxian. Why u dont take care of pro pentaxians?? why you take care just of enthusiasts, or just millonaire enthusiasts (P645Z), but no pro photographers. We need a full frame body, and pentax need to make lenses for nikon AND canon AND sigma, just like sigma and tamron do. 450 would be a F/8.4, fyi. Not F/11.