Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-10-2014, 06:21 PM   #166
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,529
QuoteOriginally posted by hjoseph7 Quote
Advantages of Full Frame:
a) Better high ISO performance
b) Better control of DOF
c) Usually but not necessarily better image quality d) no complicated focal length calculations
d) Depending on the brand larger choice of wide angle lenses and older lenses
e) Brighter viewfinder
Trying to stay above the fray but I do not understand what you mean by "d)"? AFAIK no one has ever shot a FF digital Pentax so what calculations are talking about? When I gave up film and went digital I adjusted to what I see in the viewfinder. What is there to calculate?

I'll give you the other points, especially the viewfinder. Not sure about the DOF though, I rarely shoot under f/4 or f/5.6 and usually it is f/11 or f/13 and trying to get more DOF. The whole narrow DOF thing does not work for me.

08-10-2014, 06:27 PM   #167
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,296
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I seem to purchase a new camera every few years. I'd want a new camera anyway, why not FF? The extra money for the base investment, for me, is more than made up for in less expensive and fewer lenses.
But, based on what I already have, how much of an advantage would FF give someone like me? I will likely update my camera within the next year. I possibly would have already done so, but I am waiting to see what is released later in the year first. I have ran up against limitations with my K5 in some of the shooting I do, but I can still get beautiful images from it.
08-10-2014, 06:40 PM   #168
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
But, based on what I already have, how much of an advantage would FF give someone like me? I will likely update my camera within the next year. I possibly would have already done so, but I am waiting to see what is released later in the year first. I have ran up against limitations with my K5 in some of the shooting I do, but I can still get beautiful images from it.
I have no idea! There are plenty of people who basically never shoot below F/4. Almost no one in the general population, and it seems, even few among the photography-enthusiasts, print larger than say 10x15.

If you already have the lenses you want, don't print medium-to-big, and never shoot at large apertures, then FF will just give you a larger viewfinder and more versatile cropping ability with your current lenses. Full-frame cameras sell for $1500 to ~$5k (maybe higher?) right now, so you have to decide if that's worth it to you or not... and assuming you want a native-K-mount FF, you'll likely have at most one choice/price to choose from.
08-10-2014, 06:44 PM   #169
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,296
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I have no idea! There are plenty of people who basically never shoot below F/4. Almost no one in the general population, and it seems, even few among the photography-enthusiasts, print larger than say 10x15.

If you already have the lenses you want, don't print medium-to-big, and never shoot at large apertures, then FF will just give you a larger viewfinder and more versatile cropping ability with your current lenses. Full-frame cameras sell for $1500 to ~$5k (maybe higher?) right now, so you have to decide if that's worth it to you or not... and assuming you want a native-K-mount FF, you'll likely have at most one choice/price to choose from.
I have to shoot at larger apertures in some places I go. That was one of the reasons I bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and why I have both of my faster Tamron zooms.

08-11-2014, 12:14 AM   #170
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by hjoseph7 Quote
The question is if Pentax came out with a FF at a reasonable price would you buy it ?


No sense blurting out sour-grape comments or over reacting and lashing out like someone with an inferiority complex.


These things have been hashed out so many times before it is getting sickening. All you have to do is Google "Crop vs. FF" and you will get thousand of opinions.

Advantages of Full Frame:
a) Better high ISO performance => Only if you are near max apperture of the lens.
b) Better control of DOF
c) Usually but not necessarily better image quality => True but not relevant most of the time.
d) no complicated focal length calculations => Come on "complicated" ??? Multiply/divide by 1.5 ?
d) Depending on the brand larger choice of wide angle lenses and older lenses. => Only APSC fully benefit of APSC only lenses. That's the contrary except for wide.
e) Brighter viewfinder


Disadvantages of FF camera
a) Cost => Used old FF are unexpensives and low end FF are at similar price as high end APSC.
b) size
c) weight
d) slower frames per second => Not high end models
e) larger files means bigger, faster computers => At the same generation, MP are in same order of magnitude. Not relevant.
f) slower down load speeds => One know that you can downscale a file?


Advantages of APS-c cameras
a) Cost => Used old FF are unexpensives and low end FF are at similar price as high end APSC.
b) size
c) weight
d) Greater reach when it comes to wildlife, sports, birding photography
e) Faster frames per second
f) smaller files mean faster download speeds => One know that you can downscale a file?


Disadvantages of APS-c cameras
a) a 70-200mm lens becomes a 105-300mm which is hard to hand hold. Use smaller and lighter 50-135. This is an asset.
b) complicated focal length calculations when purchasing lenses => Come on "complicated" ??? Multiply/divide by 1.5 ?
c) dimmer view finders
d) difficult to control DOF => To control, are you sure? You may be more limited, but the camera doesn't change the dof randomly neither.
e) weaker Bokeh => Bokeh quality also depend a lot on the lens. With FA50, FA77 and FA31, we are not that bad on an APSC only brand.
f) does not perform as well in low-light => Only if you are at max apperture of your lens.
My take on theses Advantages/Disadvantages.
08-11-2014, 02:33 AM   #171
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,813
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
Trying to stay above the fray but I do not understand what you mean by "d)"? AFAIK no one has ever shot a FF digital Pentax so what calculations are talking about? When I gave up film and went digital I adjusted to what I see in the viewfinder. What is there to calculate?
If you're a single format user, it's good fashion to relate every single shooting parameter to a format you're not using. It's said that you can understand things better by relating everything to the unknown, instead of using the camera in your hands.
Happy calculations!
08-11-2014, 03:23 AM   #172
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
a) FF was cheaper for me (equivalent photo capability, more or less)
b) a wash for me
c) FF was lighter for me (equivalent photo capability, more or less)
d) Sometimes/usually... but the highest FPS I'm aware for a mirror up/down system is the D4S
e) larger files goes with higher MP. The lowest-end FF and the highest-end APS-C's (where comparison between the two makes the most sense to me) both have 24 MP files
f) same as e)


If you're OK with F/4 or so on APS-C there's really not a lot to gain on FF other than the viewfinder, IMO. I wanted F/2.8 (or faster) on APS-C which drove me to FF.

You also didn't mention that FF is more tolerant of cropping than APS-C. Basically you get a FF and an APS-C lens all in one.
I think cost is a really tough thing. It isn't that expensive to get a K50 with a 18-55/55-300/DA 35 f2.4/DA 50 f1.8 combo. You would be able to get that combo for under a thousand new and obviously getting used gear you could save even more. If you are insistent on getting expensive gear, it is available for full frame too.

I really come down to the fact that there isn't that much difference in formats unless you are shooting at the extremes. If you are in the middle with regard to isos, apertures -- an average shooter -- it is unlikely to give you some kind of dramatic difference. In addition, people try to put numbers on these things -- 20 percent sharper images, or whatever. The question is what that number means and whether it is visible in real life shooting and presentation. The answer is probably not for the majority of images out there. For a small number, APS-C may actually hold a small advantage and for a slightly larger (but still small) number full frame will hold an advantage.

I'm not sure about the whole cropping thing. Can you really crop a D600 image more than you can a K3 and get a significantly larger print size? Seems like if you have a 24 megapixel image that is pixel sharp, whatever format it is shot on, you should be able to crop it the same before you notice pixelation.

I am in the same camp as the Voice of Reason, in that I am quite used to APS-C format and would actually have to adjust to how different lenses work on full frame (and not the reverse). The Sigma 18-35 does seem to even the playing field between the formats as well, if you shoot in low light a lot.
08-11-2014, 06:58 AM   #173
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think cost is a really tough thing. It isn't that expensive to get a K50 with a 18-55/55-300/DA 35 f2.4/DA 50 f1.8 combo. You would be able to get that combo for under a thousand new
That didn't sound right, so I priced it out - right now the combo was $1300 in my cart. There might be combo deals I don't know about (for instance if you meant 50-200 rather than 55-300).

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
and obviously getting used gear you could save even more. If you are insistent on getting expensive gear, it is available for full frame too.
And of course there's PLENTY of used FF stuff too.


QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I really come down to the fact that there isn't that much difference in formats unless you are shooting at the extremes. If you are in the middle with regard to isos, apertures -- an average shooter -- it is unlikely to give you some kind of dramatic difference. In addition, people try to put numbers on these things -- 20 percent sharper images, or whatever. The question is what that number means and whether it is visible in real life shooting and presentation. The answer is probably not for the majority of images out there. For a small number, APS-C may actually hold a small advantage and for a slightly larger (but still small) number full frame will hold an advantage.

I'm not sure about the whole cropping thing. Can you really crop a D600 image more than you can a K3 and get a significantly larger print size? Seems like if you have a 24 megapixel image that is pixel sharp, whatever format it is shot on, you should be able to crop it the same before you notice pixelation.
Of course, if we have perfect fidelity, every format would have the same ability to crop.

FF has a much better pixel-level fidelity in my experience. I believe the D600 is more croppable than the K3, even with the possible-moire tradeoff.


QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The Sigma 18-35 does seem to even the playing field between the formats as well, if you shoot in low light a lot.
Absolutely, but then you've lost a lot of the cost+weight advantage people ascribe to APS-C. You'd still have a light camera when you wanted to have one, of course (assuming you've purchased a light lens to cover that same range, driving up cost again).

08-11-2014, 07:11 AM   #174
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
That didn't sound right, so I priced it out - right now the combo was $1300 in my cart. There might be combo deals I don't know about (for instance if you meant 50-200 rather than 55-300).



And of course there's PLENTY of used FF stuff too.




Of course, if we have perfect fidelity, every format would have the same ability to crop.

FF has a much better pixel-level fidelity in my experience. I believe the D600 is more croppable than the K3, even with the possible-moire tradeoff.




Absolutely, but then you've lost a lot of the cost+weight advantage people ascribe to APS-C. You'd still have a light camera when you wanted to have one, of course (assuming you've purchased a light lens to cover that same range, driving up cost again).
I guess. I think we are quibbling over small differences.

When I put the K50/18-55/55-300/DA35/DA50 in the cart with Amazon (using the DA-L versions), I get 1140, for what it is worth. I think I could be pretty satisfied shooting that.
08-11-2014, 07:26 AM   #175
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess. I think we are quibbling over small differences.

When I put the K50/18-55/55-300/DA35/DA50 in the cart with Amazon (using the DA-L versions), I get 1140, for what it is worth. I think I could be pretty satisfied shooting that.
OK. I used the more expensive versions.
08-11-2014, 10:40 AM   #176
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Of course, if we have perfect fidelity, every format would have the same ability to crop.

FF has a much better pixel-level fidelity in my experience. I believe the D600 is more croppable than the K3, even with the possible-moire tradeoff.
Nikon D600 vs. Pentax K-3 Image Comparison: Pentax Sweeps Nikon

In fact the K3 provide more sharpness than the D600. This was obvious for me due to the fact that D600 has a low pass filter.

There is no theoretical reason for an FF to perform better in sharpness as long as your are not diffraction (so we are ok until f/8 included on APSC) or light limited (dynamic range).

The test is far from perfect but things change fast. D600 is old, outdated technology. D610 also imbed a low pass filter as well as Canon 6D or Canon 5D Mark III (they don't even have 24MP).

All theses camera will simply NOT have the same sharpness as an D7100 or K3, like it or not. We can say it is useless. I agree it is for some people, but that to be noted.

For having more sharpness than what a basic D3300 APSC Nikon provide (less than 400), you need a D800, D800E, D810 or A7r (more than 2000).
08-11-2014, 11:18 AM   #177
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Nikon D600 vs. Pentax K-3 Image Comparison: Pentax Sweeps Nikon

In fact the K3 provide more sharpness than the D600. This was obvious for me due to the fact that D600 has a low pass filter.

There is no theoretical reason for an FF to perform better in sharpness as long as your are not diffraction (so we are ok until f/8 included on APSC) or light limited (dynamic range).

The test is far from perfect but things change fast. D600 is old, outdated technology. D610 also imbed a low pass filter as well as Canon 6D or Canon 5D Mark III (they don't even have 24MP).

All theses camera will simply NOT have the same sharpness as an D7100 or K3, like it or not. We can say it is useless. I agree it is for some people, but that to be noted.

For having more sharpness than what a basic D3300 APSC Nikon provide (less than 400€), you need a D800, D800E, D810 or A7r (more than €2000).
That test was done with FF at F/4 and APS-C at F/6 equivalent. The K-3 looks sharper because more is in focus.

For what it's worth, on top of that, the APS-C lens cost 60% more and yet has a half stop more modest equivalent aperture, both of which should help it's ability to trounce the FF, and yet it's pretty close even after all those test parameters stacked in the K-3's favor.


Since we're talking about half-baked comparisons:

08-11-2014, 11:47 AM   #178
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
That test was done with FF at F/4 and APS-C at F/6 equivalent. The K-3 looks sharper because more is in focus.

For what it's worth, on top of that, the APS-C lens cost 60% more and yet has a half stop more modest equivalent aperture, both of which should help it's ability to trounce the FF, and yet it's pretty close even after all those test parameters stacked in the K-3's favor.


Since we're talking about half-baked comparisons:
Proving once again that people should stop down more, even on full frame, for better results.
08-11-2014, 12:14 PM   #179
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
That test was done with FF at F/4 and APS-C at F/6 equivalent. The K-3 looks sharper because more is in focus.

For what it's worth, on top of that, the APS-C lens cost 60% more and yet has a half stop more modest equivalent aperture, both of which should help it's ability to trounce the FF, and yet it's pretty close even after all those test parameters stacked in the K-3's favor.
I can fully agree that the test is far from perfect. But something is sure for me, if you think it is pretty close, you do not need yourself a FF for the added sharpness as you would only see "pretty close" performance (that in thoses tests are in favor of K3.

I own a K3, and I can say from day to day work that is extremely sharp and one could use 100% crop of a sharp lens directly.

Just for everybody to see the soooo bad sharpness of a K3 you can look at the following image. It was taken without any boost in sharpness or contrast or micro constrast:


IMGP2661
by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr

And the full image, to get a sense of the size of the crop:


IMGP2661
by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr

Everybody can juge if there any lack of sharpness.

(edit to remove one example: this is more easy to compare crops and full image).

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-11-2014 at 12:27 PM.
08-11-2014, 12:44 PM   #180
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I can fully agree that the test is far from perfect. But something is sure for me, if you think it is pretty close, you do not need yourself a FF for the added sharpness as you would only see "pretty close" performance (that in thoses tests are in favor of K3.

I own a K3, and I can say from day to day work that is extremely sharp and one could use 100% crop of a sharp lens directly.

Just for everybody to see the soooo bad sharpness of a K3 you can look at the following image. It was taken without any boost in sharpness or contrast or micro constrast:


IMGP2661
by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr

And the full image, to get a sense of the size of the crop:


IMGP2661
by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr

Everybody can juge if there any lack of sharpness.

(edit to remove one example: this is more easy to compare crops and full image).
I can use 100% crops from a FF. In fact I posted one a week or two ago. Yesterday I took one, handheld, with a teleconverter, zoom lens, ISO 1600. Still looks pretty dang good to my eyes.

Better or worse than an APS-C? I say better, but of course we're just arguing on the internet. One thing's for sure, one FF lens seemed to replace, in use at least, a bag of expensive primes for me. I never did find any zooms really 'good enough' for me on APS-C. Haven't tried the recent Sigma's though.
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, aps-c, aps-c & ff, camera, cameras, canon, depth of field, ff, full frame, full-frame, gigs, girl, hobby, image quality, image quality comparisons, images, lenses, nikon, pentax, people, photos, post, print, reality, reason, sense, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Magnification with a FF lens on Pentax DSLR Pentax Bob Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 23 11-02-2012 10:42 AM
A Pentax FF idea, a unique take on the FF market... theperception2008 Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 10-03-2012 01:07 PM
Re-cycling another Pentax FF rumour/FF rumor from A German photography magazine rawr Pentax Full Frame 73 09-19-2012 01:12 PM
noob with a KX hadi Welcomes and Introductions 3 06-01-2011 11:52 AM
If pentax release a FF, wouldn't they have to release a FF wideangle. pcarfan Photographic Technique 10 12-26-2009 04:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:43 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