[wilton]

I want to join the debate regarding FF cameras. I recently read an article on why a FF Pentax camera is not necessary, I can say two things for I feel reasonably sure about after reading that; there is a market (however small) for a Pentax FF camera and Pentaxians are a hard bunch with a whole lot of pent-up tension. I want to start by recognizing that there is a vast difference between needs and wants. Those who need a FF camera are very few indeed because it is well recognized especially here that the camera does not make the photographer. Notwithstanding, there are a few who need a FF camera. Those who want a FF however are the majority and reasons vary from perceived DoF, to improved IQ, to "bloody hell! it's my money, I want to keep up with the Jones so just give me one!". Of course logic dictates that there are a great many other reason for wanting a FF camera as well as for needing one. For the record, I too want a FF but I acknowledge that I'm no where near the limits of using an APS-C camera.

What I recognize for sure it that quality photos do not require a FF camera. Can a FF produce better images? All technological reasoning says yes (of course this is assuming that the cameras being examined have similar technology and really only differs by the sensor). Is this always the case? No! Where there is sufficient light, possibly not. Of course there will always be debates about that and that's the fun part of a forum like this.

What is clear is that since about 2005 almost every camera released by the major companies have been good enough to take stunning photos, if there is enough light. Canon is the best example of this, their sensor has hover around the middle of the pile since the days of the 350D and 30D, their current top of the line sensor (in the 70D) has hardly improve in quality, up about 10%, in the last ten years. Their FF cameras have fared better having marched along at a blistering pace of about 11% (1DsII to 1Dx). What seems to be on the improve is the software to yank more form the average sensor and files. If cameras are good enough what then makes the difference? Marketing! Holy Cow, can Canon market! When I was looking for my first DSLR everyone I knew said, "just get a Canon", having used Canons all I can say is, "KMDT!, much-a-do about nothing". The other things that seems to make a difference is are ergonomics, glass and support (software and hardware). Having looked around the web I am hard pressed to find any real differences between the images taken by different sensor sizes (or even cameras). In fact I challenge any one to allow me to conduct a blind test by providing images properly edited, at the same resolution and,stripped of Exif data (for the peepers) of both FF and APSC and have them tell the difference within 10 second of looking at the photos (I bet they can't tell which camera took the photo either, hehehe). Sure, dig around long enough and you will be able to scrape some difference, but for how people really look at photos, it is next to impossible.

There are those who will tell you about shallow DoF, many Landscape photographers will tell you that it's not very useful and some of your friend will tell you that your camera is broken because the background is too blurry (assuming you keep normal friends). "I print large" is another rallying cry "and noise will show". Really!? How many Pentaxians (not you landscape shutterbugs or other pros) print more than 2 photos larger than 8x10 per month? How many even print their photos? There you go. Do we really need a FF? Do we really want a FF? Does that mean Pentax should not make FF cameras? You read my first paragraph right? I still want one, so what do you think? hehehe. If for no other reason, a Pentax FF would become something to aspire to and that (plus all the marketing fluff) might be reason enough, I see very few people hovering around an entry level camera when there is some photo exhibit.

I think that people should be clear about why they need FF and state as much in their discussions without tearing other people (who they don't know) to shreds, but then, that's what makes this site fun. Right? So what do you say? Since I'm writing from the perspective of a "noob" I need to know, am I there or way off the ball? Is there something I'm not accounting for?

---

Last edited by wilton; 07-22-2014 at 11:33 AM.

[Nigli]

I agree. I'd rather take photos than have FF angst.

[jatrax]

Going for popcorn, hold up a minute.............

[LFLee]

I want to join the debate regarding FF cameras. I recently read an article on why a FF Pentax camera is not necessary, I can say two things for I feel reasonably sure about after reading that; there is a market (however small) for a Pentax FF camera and Pentaxians are a hard bunch with a whole lot of pent-up tension. I want to start by recognizing that there is a vast difference between needs and wants. Those who need a FF camera are very few indeed because it is well recognized especially here that the camera does not make the photographer. Notwithstanding, there are a few who need a FF camera. Those who want a FF however are the majority and reasons vary from perceived DoF, to improved IQ, to "bloody hell! it's my money, I want to keep up with the Jones so just give me one!". Of course logic dictates that there are a great many other reason for wanting a FF camera as well as for needing one. For the record, I too want a FF but I acknowledge that I'm no where near the limits of using an APS-C camera.

What I recognize for sure it that quality photos do not require a FF camera. Can a FF produce better images? All technological reasoning says yes (of course this is assuming that the cameras being examined have similar technology and really only differs by the sensor). Is this always the case? No! Where there is sufficient light, possibly not. Of course there will always be debates about that and that's the fun part of a forum like this.

What is clear is that since about 2005 almost every camera released by the major companies have been good enough to take stunning photos, if there is enough light. Canon is the best example of this, their sensor has hover around the middle of the pile since the days of the 350D and 30D, their current top of the line sensor has hardly improve in quality, up about 10%, in the last ten years. Their FF cameras have fared better having marched along at a blistering pace of about 11%. What seems to be on the improve is the software to yank more form the average sensor and files. If cameras are good enough what then makes the difference? Marketing! Holy Cow, can Canon market! When I was looking for my first DSLR everyone I knew said, "just get a Canon", having used Canons all I can say is, "KMDT!, much-a-do about nothing". The other things that seems to make a difference is are ergonomics, glass and support (software and hardware). Having looked around the web I am hard pressed to find any real differences between the images taken by different sensor sizes (or even cameras). In fact I challenge any one to allow me to conduct a blind test by providing images properly edited, at the same resolution and,stripped of Exif data (for the peepers) of both FF and APSC and have them tell the difference within 10 second of looking at the photos (I bet they can't tell which camera took the photo either, hehehe). Sure, dig around long enough and you will be able to scrape some difference, but for how people really look at photos, it is next to impossible.

There are those who will tell you about shallow DoF, many Landscape photographers will tell you that it's not very useful and some of your friend will tell you that your camera is broken because the background is too blurry (assuming you keep normal friends). "I print large" is another rallying cry "and noise will show". Really!? How many Pentaxians (not you landscape shutterbugs or other pros) print more than 2 photos larger than 8x10 per month? How many even print their photos? There you go. Do we really need a FF? Do we really want a FF? Does that mean Pentax should not make FF cameras? You read my first paragraph right? I still want one, so what do you think? hehehe. If for no other reason, a Pentax FF would become something to aspire to and that (plus all the marketing fluff) might be reason enough, I see very few people hovering around an entry level camera when there is some photo exhibit.

I think that people should be clear about why they need FF and state as much in their discussions without tearing other people (who they don't know) to shreds, but then, that's what makes this site fun. Right? So what do you say? Since I'm writing from the perspective of a "noob" I need to know, am I there or way off the ball? Is there something I'm not accounting for?

yes there is something you are not account for...

Honda civic is a good enough car, why on earth do we need car companies to make sport cars? You can say "how many of them go to buy grocery in sport car?" to sport car ownner as well.

Photography skill aside (driving ability aside, in car case), different people have different need/want, good enough for you and me doesn't mean good enough for everyone.
Some guys take great pictures with iphone, does that means iphone is "good enough" and we should all throw away our DSLR?

If you know yourself don't need FF, you don't have to question those who wants it.

That's how I view the FF question.

[jatrax]

I think some folks feel FF is needed as a competitive thing. As in Pentax needs one to be competitive with Canikon. It is not that they personally need a FF, but that unless Pentax has one then Pentax will not be taken seriously in the market. I'm not saying I agree with that or even that it is a valid argument, just that it is an argument often put forward.

[boriscleto]

yes there is something you are not account for...

Honda civic is a good enough car, why on earth do we need car companies to make sport cars? You can say "how many of them go to buy grocery in sport car?" to sport car ownner as well.

Photography skill aside (driving ability aside, in car case), different people have different need/want, good enough for you and me doesn't mean good enough for everyone.
Some guys take great pictures with iphone, does that means iphone is "good enough" and we should all throw away our DSLR?

If you know yourself don't need FF, you don't have to question those who wants it.

That's how I view the FF question.

A Civic? Pure luxury. I drive a Fit.

[ElJamoquio]

It's not a luxury - for me it was cheaper. I like to shoot at F/2.8 on APS-C.

[VoiceOfReason]

Since some of my lenses will not work for ff there's no way I could afford to"upgrade"

[ElJamoquio]

What? You have a K5 ($350), a K-01 IR ($250? $350?), a 18-135 ($300?) a 17-50 ($400?) a 70-300 ($150?) an 8-16 ($500), and a 70-210 ($100? No idea).

That's $2100 which would pay for a D600 clone, if that's what Pentax makes.

You'd then have a Kit with a 28-80, 70-200, 50, 150-500, 40. All you're missing is a wide angle. And of course the IR, so maybe don't sell that camera.

[Imageman]

Full Frame? what a worthless and pointless expression.


There is only one Full Frame camera that's a 10x8 sheet film camera.


Any other camera including my 5x4 Large Format camera, my 6x6 TLR, my 35mm miniature camera, yes that's the name for a 35mm film camera a miniature camera, my digital aps camera, and my digital point and shoot. These are all small frame cameras or miniature or sub miniature cameras.


Pentax make a range of digital cameras none of which come close to 10 inches by 8 inches in sensor size and nobody will ever make a 10 inch by 8 inch digital sensor, so lets stop using this ridiculous and misleading description of "Full Frame".


Pentax make a high resolution digital camera and its larger than "Full Frame" 36mmx24mm, but not by much.


Whats that you say, larger than Full Frame, how can that be? Full Frame means as big as you can get doesn't it, it must be a Over-Full Frame to be bigger than Full, or shall we call a 645D sensor a Full Frame and a 36x24 sensor a Nearly Full Frame.


Or should 645D or 645Z users go down to a smaller sensor to move up to using Full Frame.


If you want a large sensor buy a 645D and stop pining for a smaller more crappy less capable "Full Frame" sensor.


Ive decided to call a Fiat 500 a Full Speed automobile, and all USA made vehicles shall no longer be proper automobiles, as the Fiat is a full speed vehicle, the faster USA vehicles are merely Over -Speed vehicles and can be ignored.

[todd]

I have always known that I don't need any of this stuff. I am just shooting for fun. Yet when I first saw a very well done low light photo produced through a D700 on flickr back when that camera first came out (2008, right?), it grabbed my attention and I noticed that it was something that I could have never pulled off with my camera at the time (K100D). That one image clearly communicated next gen low light ability and resolution to me at that time. Of course things have continued to improve in both sensor sizes... Later when I bought my K-5 in 2012, I debated getting a D700 for a long time which had come down in price, but not enough, so I opted for the k-5 because it was plenty good enough in low light for me, especially for the cost difference which enabled me to get a new K-5 and new DA15 at the same time for the same cost of the used D700. Since then I've invested in FA Limited glass (something I didn't think I'd ever be able to do in 2012) and now feel like a FF offer from Pentax would be an irresistible option to pair up with the Three Amigos. If they don't do it, then I will eventually get a K-3 or a K-5IIs (when their prices come down more) in order to upgrade from my K-5 and remain relatively content... It's all about wants for me..

[Kerrowdown]

Since some of my lenses will not work for ff there's no way I could afford to"upgrade"

I'm lucky provided they keep the K mount as all of mine are FF ready.

[wilton]

Full Frame? what a worthless and pointless expression.


There is only one Full Frame camera that's a 10x8 sheet film camera.


Any other camera including my 5x4 Large Format camera, my 6x6 TLR, my 35mm miniature camera, yes that's the name for a 35mm film camera a miniature camera, my digital aps camera, and my digital point and shoot. These are all small frame cameras or miniature or sub miniature cameras.

Haha. Priceless!

But we're all just following the evolved convention. There are those who are saying that based on performance (and ubiquity) the new full frame is the APSC sized sensor. Maybe one day some will be asking what the fuss is about since M4/3 might be the new standard and someone might be calling that FF, after all, I doubt that 10% of us on this forum has ever seen an "Real Full Frame" camera much less used one.

hmmm, did I just commit heresy?

[tuco]

There is only one Full Frame camera that's a 10x8 sheet film camera.


Any other camera including my 5x4 Large Format camera,

Perhaps 11x14 sheet film shooters may take exception to that. I have never seen a camera manufacture sell a 10x8 or 5x4 camera and I have never seen sheet film for sale in the 10x8 or 5x4 size from the manufacturer. Have you? So why are you trying to redefine 4x5 and 8x10?

[VoiceOfReason]

What? You have a K5 ($350), a K-01 IR ($250? $350?), a 18-135 ($300?) a 17-50 ($400?) a 70-300 ($150?) an 8-16 ($500), and a 70-210 ($100? No idea).

That's $2100 which would pay for a D600 clone, if that's what Pentax makes.

You'd then have a Kit with a 28-80, 70-200, 50, 150-500, 40. All you're missing is a wide angle. And of course the IR, so maybe don't sell that camera.

Just got my 18-35 f/1.8 too. That put me out of the market for a bit.