[ZombieArmy]

I am an avid Pentaxian and loyal to remain with the Pentax brand, however if I remove money from the conversation (I wish I could do this!!!!) what is Pentax doing to keep me as a customer?

One of (if not the) best digital medium format camera for the money is in their lineup.

[Rondec]

My experience in viewing photos is that those who shoot good photos with APS-C continue to shoot excellent photos with full frame. Photographers whose work didn't connect with me when they shot APS-C continue to have work that doesn't connect with me when they are shooting with a larger sensor. And for landscape, I have difficulty telling the difference between formats at web sizes. Portraiture/narrow depth of field is a little easier to sort out, particularly if the focal length is mentioned, but even there it isn't always easy if there is much post processing in an image.

I still go back to the fact that if there is a specific need that you aren't getting with APS-C (a specific lens, ability to shoot higher iso, etc), then you are better off moving on to fulfill that need. These days, there aren't bad cameras out there, but there are camera systems that aren't adequate for a specific photographer's needs.

[dtmateojr]

Have a look at Bill Gekas' portrait shots because a lot of them were shot with a lowly Pentax APS-C and an even more lowly 16-45 lens that nobody will buy now because of its inferior performance.

http://www.billgekas.com/p1014938437

He also shot with the 645 very recently. I'd be damned if you can recognise which of his shots is which.

[normhead]

My experience in viewing photos is that those who shoot good photos with APS-C continue to shoot excellent photos with full frame. Photographers whose work didn't connect with me when they shot APS-C continue to have work that doesn't connect with me when they are shooting with a larger sensor. And for landscape, I have difficulty telling the difference between formats at web sizes. Portraiture/narrow depth of field is a little easier to sort out, particularly if the focal length is mentioned, but even there it isn't always easy if there is much post processing in an image.

I still go back to the fact that if there is a specific need that you aren't getting with APS-C (a specific lens, ability to shoot higher iso, etc), then you are better off moving on to fulfill that need. These days, there aren't bad cameras out there, but there are camera systems that aren't adequate for a specific photographer's needs.

A good photographer will make the best of what he has, otherwise he wouldn't be a good photographer. he'd be a good camera buyer.

Have a look at Bill Gekas' portrait shots because a lot of them were shot with a lowly Pentax APS-C and an even more lowly 16-45 lens that nobody will buy now because of its inferior performance.

Bill Gekas Photography | The Gallery

He also shot with the 645 very recently. I'd be damned if you can recognise which of his shots is which.

Everyone says if you print bigger than 30x40 you'll see a difference... but no one prints bigger than 30x40 so how do they know?

[Rondec]

A good photographer will make the best of what he has, otherwise he wouldn't be a good photographer. he'd be a good camera buyer.



Everyone says if you print bigger than 30x40 you'll see a difference... but no one prints bigger than 30x40 so how do they know?

You pixel peep. If you click your zoom button in lightroom on one format and on another, you probably see a difference. As to whether or not that translates into "real life" differences is debatable. The easiest thing to argue is presence or absence of a specific lens in a line up and there is no doubt but that Pentax has several faster lenses that are not present.

[jsherman999]

I will if you stop your FF is god BS

Where has anyone said that ^ ?

By the way, what's the name of the subforum you're reading (and posting in) right now?

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 08:13 AM ----------

Does it matter? The OP was about yay or nay for going FF. I contributed a real story and you mocked me. You started it. It's not the first time. Your FF fanboism gets triggered every effing time people say good things about crop sensor cameras. People here are witnesses to your behaviour. You and that other guy sherman just can't help it. You strongly believe that FF is the only way to go. For the record, I came from a Nikon FF before I discovered Pentax by accident. I still own and love my Nikon. I'm not ignorant like you think I am.

Stop the fanboism because it's really really annoying.

Stay out of this forum, perhaps? What is your interest here besides trolling? If you're going to be abusive, you'll probably be removed.

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 08:22 AM ----------

He also shot with the 645 very recently. I'd be damned if you can recognise which of his shots is which.

Many (most) high-level ("Pro" if you wish) photographers shoot with multiple formats these days - from the phone all the way up to medium format - and they prefer different formats for different purposes.

At web sizes, you often can't tell the difference - it's usually all good at that level - but they still have their preferences, and find a certain format easier to use for certain things. Sometimes it's just easier to work with a certain format in a given shooting circumstance.

Why is this hard to understand? Why is this choice a bad thing, how is your personal perception of their end result all that matters?

As I've said for three years now, larger sensors just make getting the shot easier, for me. In some cases, it can actually get me shots smaller formats can't, but in most cases it just makes everything easier, gets the equipment out of the way.

[normhead]

You pixel peep. If you click your zoom button in lightroom on one format and on another, you probably see a difference. As to whether or not that translates into "real life" differences is debatable. The easiest thing to argue is presence or absence of a specific lens in a line up and there is no doubt but that Pentax has several faster lenses that are not present.

The only thing i worry about is the thought that at some point in the future we'll have output devices that take advantage of the resolution. I don't have many 6 MP images from my *ist.. but when I look at them my mind immediately thinks "old tech", you can tell...right now, I look at images taken with the 645z and I see what appear to be sharpening artifacts, but I've seen the same kinds of things from my Sigma DP2m... when you have really sharp images and reduce them in size you get what appear to be sharpening artifacts sometimes, and maybe 24 MP is better..even though you know printed at 60 inches wide, they'd probably be totally awesome.

I think that's how camera makers sell larger MP cameras. They introduce that little niggling doubt, "if I'm not shooting 36 or 51MP, in 10 years will these images be totally obsolete?" The obvious thing is something could come along and they'd be obsolete anyway... but still, niggle , niggle , niggle...

[Rondec]

The only thing i worry about is the thought that at some point in the future we'll have output devices that take advantage of the resolution. I don't have many 6 MP images from my *ist.. but when I look at them my mind immediately thinks "old tech", you can tell...right now, I look at images taken with the 645z and I see what appear to be sharpening artifacts, but I've seen the same kinds of things from my Sigma DP2m... when you have really sharp images and reduce them in size you get what appear to be sharpening artifacts sometimes, and maybe 24 MP is better..even though you know printed at 60 inches wide, they'd probably be totally awesome.

I think that's how camera makers sell larger MP cameras. They introduce that little niggling doubt, "if I'm not shooting 36 or 51MP, in 10 years will these images be totally obsolete?" The obvious thing is something could come along and they'd be obsolete anyway... but still, niggle , niggle , niggle...

Maybe. I think resolution is overstated in importance, except when it comes to cropping ability. Honestly, what is the resolution of most paintings? Not very good. Certainly not at 24 megapixel level. It is really things like light, subject and composition that make an image, not number of megapixels in the image.

My K100 images aren't as good as my K3 images, but the reason has little to do with the sensor and more to do with the fact that I am more experienced now and have better glass.

[normhead]

Maybe. I think resolution is overstated in importance, except when it comes to cropping ability. Honestly, what is the resolution of most paintings? Not very good. Certainly not at 24 megapixel level. It is really things like light, subject and composition that make an image, not number of megapixels in the image.

My K100 images aren't as good as my K3 images, but the reason has little to do with the sensor and more to do with the fact that I am more experienced now and have better glass.

The better glass thing is huge... my *istD with Sigma 70-300, K-3 with DA*60-250, totally not fair.

[dtmateojr]

I think that's how camera makers sell larger MP cameras. They introduce that little niggling doubt, "if I'm not shooting 36 or 51MP, in 10 years will these images be totally obsolete?" The obvious thing is something could come along and they'd be obsolete anyway... but still, niggle , niggle , niggle...

I think if you set a target print size of 12x18 then you should be safe forever. I doubt if human perception of sharpness will evolve that much ... but maybe with the constant pixel peeping we will develop superhuman eyes

So I declare that 12Mp is a good number.

[Kerrowdown]

Should I stay? Or, should I go?

Go in a heartbeat... if your current kit is not giving you what you need, move on and get some kit that does, it's a no brainer not a debate.

Many folk here run multiple systems for that very reason.

[BrianR]

For the OP- if you're not happy and can afford a switch, go for it. No need to speculate about how green the grass is on the other side of the fence if you have wire cutters.

If you are a full frame fan boi then I would understand if that's everything that you got from a true story. Those of us who have a few more brain cells will conclude that FF isn't really going to change your photos that much. In some cases it would even make them worse.

I'm not really sure why this particular photographer is doing what he is doing. Back when he was shooting Pentax he was going f/8 or f/11 but now with FF he is shooting f/5.6 or f/2 with landscapes. Is it because he realised that at f/8 or f/11, a 36Mp is just a waste of disk space? Quite mysterious.

Back when he was shooting Pentax he made very moody images with fog and mist ... interesting weather conditions. Now with Nikon FF I can not find anymore harsh weather shots. Is he scared that his 3x more expensive equipment is now more fragile and not worth risking? Very curious indeed.

Seems like user error.

- He's using a FF vs landscapes at f/2, apparently trying to get one tree in focus. FF is for getting one EYE in focus, not one tree. Wrong subject chosen for the tool in hand, that's user error.
- His FF is surely not a weather sealed model, but one that comes with a Sunny Day Vortex guaranteeing safe, but not photogenic, weather. Wrong tool chosen for moody, foggy landscapes. User error.

He lost the plot for some reason when going from APS-C to FF. Maybe the extra heavy camera around the neck strap is cutting off blood circulation to the brain, but who knows. If you switch from APS-C to FF or FF to APS-C and you suddenly suck, it's probably user error. As you say, it's really not going to change your photos that much (for some definition of "that much")

[pinholecam]

TS, like what some have said, if your heart is already not here, then you should look elsewhere.



I do think that the Sony A7 is a better solution if you intend to keep one foot with Pentax.
Good video which you say you want.
Takes your Pentax lenses (IF you have Pentax FF lenses)
FF (warts and all)
Its MF only of course, but I would encourage those who are thinking of jumping ship to look at this route.
You need to sell off very little and buy very little.
Keep you a Pentax user as well. (though using a PONY)
It also allows you to keep an eye out for the next Pentax camera or a FF if it ever comes.


On the FF for landscapes argument, I think its moot nowadays.
The lenses like 8-16, 10-20, 12-24 provide as wide a FOV as FF lenses can provide.
The rest of it depends on the capability of the photographer.
DR is not really that far apart with these Sony Exmor sensors for aps-c and FF; Most guys do HDR, luminosity masks or exposure blending anyway
Details are fine on apsc (as much as most people will need)


Poor edges on FF wide angle is quite and issue.
The Canon 16-35/2.8 is one of those.
The new 16-35/4 is the one that has improved on it.
There are other lenses that can do well, like the Tokina 17-35; Nikon 14-24, Zeiss 15, 18, 21 but these are large lenses, some can't mount filters easily (curved front element) and are often expensive (excluding Tokina )
So know what you are getting into.


The only thing practically left for FF is the difference in DOF for the same FOV, especially for the application of shots using shallow DOF for isolation or giving more spatial relation that is OOF to convey this isolation.
Some like it, some don't use it.
I got FF mainly for it. (and closer working distances for same FOV too for 50mm and up focal length lenses)

[ElJamoquio]

Poor edges on FF wide angle is quite and issue.
The Canon 16-35/2.8 is one of those.
The new 16-35/4 is the one that has improved on it.
There are other lenses that can do well, like the Tokina 17-35; Nikon 14-24, Zeiss 15, 18, 21 but these are large lenses, some can't mount filters easily (curved front element) and are often expensive (excluding Tokina )
So know what you are getting into.

It takes a rare lens comparison for the edges to be worse on FF than on APS-C at equivalent focal lengths. This is just another myth that won't die.

[noser]

Everyone says if you print bigger than 30x40 you'll see a difference... but no one prints bigger than 30x40 so how do they know?

Yup. I have a 30x40 canvas of a very slightly cropped shot from a K-5, and it could use a few extra pixels.

---------- Post added 09-03-2014 at 11:12 PM ----------

The only thing i worry about is the thought that at some point in the future we'll have output devices that take advantage of the resolution.

I think we get collective amnesia about jumps in technology. I've been doing stuff with graphics since... forever... 1976? You want as much source data as possible, because tomorrow isn't far away.

My first digicam thingy was maybe 1.3MP (or was it 3.1?) Doesn't matter, what was once voodoo is now crap.

And back in the stoneage (2012?) when the max width for a facebook image was 720 pixels... now all those images look like crap, even on my phone. Thank goodness for Lightroom exports.

What I thought was good as desktop wallpaper resolution... but on my iPad now looks like... well, y'know.

The next new display I suspect I'll be using to edit on will be 1:1. I'm thinking 30" at 300+ DPI (whatever retina is, 340?), so that's 645Z territory.

I can hear it now:

Client: "We'd like to purchase digital downloads ... so we can have our images on our TV."

Photog: "Ok, is your TV 720p or 1080p?"

Client: "6480p... is that a problem?"

< crickets... >