[wilton]

I think we can all agree that 35mm is not the be all and end all of formats. The use of the term full frame to reference the format is both a matter of convenience and the jargon of the discipline but I do get how it can annoy some people who know that there are "fuller" formats. unfortunately, some of us are not acquainted with larger formats and 35mm is the de facto standard (and as full as it gets for us). Maybe with Pentax's 645x line the new holy grail will be the medium format camera and scope for a whole new line of debates (hands rubbing). I think, in part that's what Pentax wants, for us to forgo the FF and grab a 645. In theory it could work for professionals; a Camera with the potential to deliver better image quality at about the same level of portability as the big 2s top performers for about the same price. The problem with that is that not every one wants to lug around such a huge camera a once lens get in the mix the setup can become significantly larger.
But with few exceptions, I don't think the original query of whether the calls for FF is a matter of need or want has been addressed. As for me, it's just my goal to use a FF. I shot two rolls of film recently, different cameras and for different purposes and there was quite a difference, Shots that I thought was" make-able " with a 50mm was suddenly too wide and I had to back up, shots that I knew would be too wide for 28mm was gobbled up by the 35mm that I had. Also, not one picture had any stray crap in the final shot, I guess that's one of the positives of most the crop cameras, most don't have 100% view so you know that you have to be careful around the edges, discipline can be good. It's a slightly different world and I'd love to enjoy that world with some good WR kit.

[Nicolas06]

I think we can all agree that 35mm is not the be all and end all of formats. The use of the term full frame to reference the format is both a matter of convenience and the jargon of the discipline but I do get how it can annoy some people who know that there are "fuller" formats. unfortunately, some of us are not acquainted with larger formats and 35mm is the de facto standard (and as full as it gets for us). Maybe with Pentax's 645x line the new holy grail will be the medium format camera and scope for a whole new line of debates (hands rubbing). I think, in part that's what Pentax wants, for us to forgo the FF and grab a 645. In theory it could work for professionals; a Camera with the potential to deliver better image quality at about the same level of portability as the big 2s top performers for about the same price. The problem with that is that not every one wants to lug around such a huge camera a once lens get in the mix the setup can become significantly larger.
But with few exceptions, I don't think the original query of whether the calls for FF is a matter of need or want has been addressed. As for me, it's just my goal to use a FF. I shot two rolls of film recently, different cameras and for different purposes and there was quite a difference, Shots that I thought was" make-able " with a 50mm was suddenly too wide and I had to back up, shots that I knew would be too wide for 28mm was gobbled up by the 35mm that I had. Also, not one picture had any stray crap in the final shot, I guess that's one of the positives of most the crop cameras, most don't have 100% view so you know that you have to be careful around the edges, discipline can be good. It's a slightly different world and I'd love to enjoy that world with some good WR kit.

I see 2 problems for digital MF as it is today personnally:

- It is too cropped, more so than APSC and the difference with FF is too low
- Relative to what it bring, it is too expensive. Prices should be divided by 2 at least for people starting to really invest on that.

[wilton]

- It is too cropped, more so than APSC and the difference with FF is too low

I don't think that is technical, it's just about the redefinition to a new standard in my mind. The argument being that the IQ is good enough to justify the smaller size. Some one suggested (i'm too lazy to search) that Canon redefined 35mm as FF, the de facto standard, maybe MF is being redefined too. In fact, there are many who will say that with the advent of the D800, that APSC is the new FF and FF is the new MF. Most camera users are so used to the APSC format that they might agree with those sentiments, furthermore just read this thread where many suggest that the size of the sensor is irrelevant. It would seem that it is heresy to try to duplicate a shot, or to understand how to do so for whatever the reason, so maybe the manufacturers just wan us to accept the new sizes as the new standard.

Relative to what it bring, it is too expensive. Prices should be divided by 2 at least for people starting to really invest on that

Not the the Pentax versions, they come in at less than the cost that you are suggesting, see Adorama and Bhphoto.

[Robbod]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the OP's original post.

The marching on of technology in sensors has slowed a bit now and the aps-c now produces quality from FF not that long ago apart from some low light capabilities. I shot a wedding recently with the K5IIs .....(and Kx for that matter) bouncing around to as high as 6400, which after a little clean up produced very acceptable images. It was up to me to get the composition right and after that, the bride n groom very very happy. I had exceeded their expectations. Blown up on their huge TV screen at home, the images appeared even better to me and the grain that appeared was actually really nice, especially the monochrome versions. Did I need FF...... not really.

However, I think the marketing and sale of all this is being driven by the companies themselves. Whoever needs a 50 or 70X bridge camera ? how many megapixels do we really need ? how small do cameras need to get ? They are driving themselves and each other to producing the newest technology, while it's not completely driven by end user as much as the need to be the top company, producing new models all the time ending in hopefully more sales. So yes we do demand more, because they are producing it. The companies produce the need, we get sucked in to wanting more. Pentax have marched to their own drum for a while, but the elusive FF may yet come because the Sony sensor may be cheap enough for them to produce on the coat tails of Sony and Nikon. Most of us don't NEED one, but at say 2k..... hey why not, then throw on all our FF K mounts. They produced the object, we desire it with the perception of a need.

Hence now, more Full frame entry level and bigger sensors in smaller cameras whilst logical, is something we now expect because Sony just did it, Nikon responded with another version, Canon may be rumoured etc etc etc ad infinitum. It's not a necessity for most of us, just we expect it because they believe the more FF sensor's they produce will bring the unit price down and then soon FF sensored camera's will become very normal for the average user. (nothing to do with their ability) There may be some long term sense to Canon's way of doing things.... they're still #1.

I met a guy recently who had a 5D mk3 to shoot his wife and daughter horse riding. He had not much idea of what he was doing but could obviously afford it. Here he was with 6/7k worth of gear and me with my K5IIs and Sigma.....

So all we are worried about is a small margin of improvement, when as the OP suggests, the reality is the total % of world wide target audience won't ever print or even then to something of reasonable size or often. We are the perfect consumers. However, regardless, when or if a k-mount FF arrives and it becomes a worthwhile purchase over and above a K3 (which will satisfy most professional requirements).... I too may part with the $$$$

---------- Post added 07-28-14 at 11:02 PM ----------

............ and further, I bet i could take a nice shot in the right setting with my Nokia 1020 and blow up a very decent sized nice print and fool many. I already have with it's output.

A member of another forum just posted shots at 51,200 iso with his K5II and a Canon 6D. Both very usable, blown up large in monochrome, he actually preferred the rendering and grain of the K5 image, whilst admittedly the 6D certainly was a fair bit cleaner.

Use the right focal length lens and aperture of a f1.4 or similar and the DOF is very narrow. Some aps-c lenses even give a nice 3D effect anyhow. My k5IIs and Sigma 50 f1.4 in low light.......how much more do I need, perhaps use a flash ???? Doh !!!

I have much studied what I need in relation to FF plus the paid work i'm starting to do and the reality is at $1200 Aussie dollars, the K3 just makes too much sense for me to argue with. Dual card slots, AF, write speed etc very Canonesque in its capability and 24mp to crop to my hearts content.

[BrianR]

I don't think that is technical, it's just about the redefinition to a new standard in my mind. The argument being that the IQ is good enough to justify the smaller size. Some one suggested (i'm too lazy to search) that Canon redefined 35mm as FF, the de facto standard, maybe MF is being redefined too. In fact, there are many who will say that with the advent of the D800, that APSC is the new FF and FF is the new MF..

This is getting confusing. So the Pentax 645d/z was called Medium Format when it was really Half Medium Format or maybe Full Half-Medium Format or perhaps Half-Full Medium Format? But now, if it's redefined, it will be Double New Medium Format and old APS-C will be known as Quarter Double New Medium Format or just New Full Frame. If I have all this right, under the new system a new Large Format camera (equaling an old Half Large Format) would be Double Double New Medium Format and will be simply known as a 'Double Double' in Canada.

I think this is terminology we can all live with?

[ElJamoquio]

Hmmm. I think 36x24 might be better.

[RonHendriks1966]

Hmmm. I think 36x24 might be better.

yeah or 30x20...........

[Fogel70]

I would prefer using the unit Beard Second for sensor sizes as it vary between 5 -10 nm.
So a FF sensor has an area of 3 600 000 x 2 400 000 BS and 1.5x crop APS-C sensor has the area of 4 700 000 x 3 120 000 BS.

BS can also be used to measure the time it takes for a Pentax FF camera to be released.

[mee]

[Big Dave]

Hmmm. I think 36x24 might be better.

Using the actual format size in the description has been around for ever. Medium format has been 6x6, 6x4.5(645),6x7 and 6x9. You can do this stuff with 120/220 roll film.View cameras are also 4x5,5x9,8x10 etc. The current crop of medium format camera use crop sensors due to cost and current fab equipment (semiconductor plant) limitations. The same was true a few years ago with dslr's. Now we can get FF sensors at reasonable cost, because of improved equipment and yield. Any way, MF isn't just a single format size like 35mm FF. I still have my MF system, but I am to lazy to use it.

[John Poirier]

This is getting confusing. So the Pentax 645d/z was called Medium Format when it was really Half Medium Format or maybe Full Half-Medium Format or perhaps Half-Full Medium Format? But now, if it's redefined, it will be Double New Medium Format and old APS-C will be known as Quarter Double New Medium Format or just New Full Frame. If I have all this right, under the new system a new Large Format camera (equaling an old Half Large Format) would be Double Double New Medium Format and will be simply known as a 'Double Double' in Canada.

I think this is terminology we can all live with?

I dunno about that. You're talking Tim Hortons units. We really need to consider equivalents. Unless we can compare with Starbucks formats in a deeply meaningful way, we're hooped.

[normhead]

You Tube

You Tube

Enough said.

[mee]

Crop Sensors vs Full Frame :: Crop Or Crap? - YouTube <-- haha that is HERE.

[wilton]

Did I need FF...... not really.

But do you want one ? hehehe

I think this is terminology we can all live with?

Nicely said! But the use of all these terminologies and "pseudo-jargons" just highlights the fact that standards will change and maybe now is a time for new standards to come into effect. The truth is that there was no use of the term "Full Frame" prior to the digital era,AFAIK, but I might be wrong. The size of the sensor/film was quoted 110,135, 6x6 etc. There was the recognition of medium and large formats but I don't think anything was dubbed FF.

Hmmm. I think 36x24 might be better.

We might be better served using this phrase since it is technically correct and would satisfy many technicians amongst us. Although, while we're at it we might have to stop using M4/# as well since this is relative to the FF, among other common jargons of photography.

BS can also be used to measure the time it takes for a Pentax FF camera to be released

Be careful about all the use of this BS on the forum please .

With all the disagreement on this thread I am getting the feeling that with the exception of some specific artistic uses, a 36x24 sensor is not really necessary. It might mean that to get the desired DoF with a smaller sensor we might have to get into personal spaces with the available lenses. The talk of DoF might start another debate especially from the historians among us who will tell us that the need for a shallow DoF is a relatively new craze.

[Class A]

Enough said.

This is just a Fuji commercial with very weak points.

He has no real arguments.