Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-17-2014, 03:27 PM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Albums
Posts: 71
I agree with everyone here. But I also think FF is over hyped.

09-17-2014, 03:40 PM - 1 Like   #17
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by brelip Quote
I agree with everyone here. But I also think FF is over hyped.
It's over-hyped in the same way that owning a nice car is over-hyped. You don't really need to own a car that gets 50 mpg, can do 200 miles/hour, and how often do you really need to move a flatbed of cement around? People have lived without anti-lock braking or electronic traction control for a century. A no-frills beater car gets you around just fine.

Of course, there's no reason that an APS-C DSLR is the stopping point on this train of thought. Most people would be fine with a smaller cheaper M4/3 body, or an RX100. In fact most people could probably get away with a $150 P+S for most of their work (cat pictures). Are you willing to take the Fun Police argument to its natural conclusion?

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 09-17-2014 at 03:48 PM.
09-17-2014, 03:56 PM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
It's over-hyped in the same way that owning a nice car is over-hyped. You don't really need to own a car that gets 50 mpg, can do 200 miles/hour, and how often do you really need to move a flatbed of cement around? People have lived without anti-lock braking or electronic traction control for a century. A no-frills beater car gets you around just fine.

Of course, there's no reason that an APS-C DSLR is the stopping point on this train of thought. Most people would be fine with a smaller cheaper M4/3 body, or an RX100. In fact most people could probably get away with a $150 P+S for most of their work (cat pictures). Are you willing to take the Fun Police argument to its natural conclusion?
But they are all "nice cars" to use your analogy. APS-C cameras available currently can do more than most cameras that photographers had available to them for most of photographic history. The fact that we always want better is probably part of the human condition, but there is a lot less separating APS-C and full frame currently than your no-frills beater versus 200 miles per hour sports car analogy implies.
09-17-2014, 04:11 PM   #19
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
But they are all "nice cars" to use your analogy. APS-C cameras available currently can do more than most cameras that photographers had available to them for most of photographic history. The fact that we always want better is probably part of the human condition, but there is a lot less separating APS-C and full frame currently than your no-frills beater versus 200 miles per hour sports car analogy implies.
The point of it was that there wasn't much of a difference between a beater and a sports car for most people. Running commutes and your daily errand isn't something you need a fancy car to accomplish, yet people choose to go beyond the bare minimum. Maybe not to the brand-new sports car level, but more than they actually need if the Fun Police ordered them to maximize every dollar. And doesn't a beater sure beat walking around like people did for most of history anyway?

For most tasks, comparing between contemporary models, FF are subtly but noticeably better. They have better high-ISO performance, more resolution, more color depth, and more subject isolation, with the main tradeoff being somewhat higher cost. Even if you never shoot in a situation that's past the limit of APS-C's capabilities, FF can sometimes produce nicer output for a given situation. It's another way to increase subject isolation. I'm sure you know the generic arguments for why FF is popular.

Medium format does all of those things a step better, it's just a drastic increase in cost for digital bodies. I like the MF look and I can see and use the technical differences in 6x7 vs 35mm negatives, even if I don't "need" it, so I'm forgiving of that thought process in digital. There's situations my where P67 isn't appropriate to use, and I use other cameras there. Entry into FF is only $500 (5d classic), a basic P67 setup is only ~$400, that's about what a nice lens costs, so why get upset about putting an extra tool in your box?


Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 09-17-2014 at 05:45 PM.
09-17-2014, 06:08 PM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
The point of it was that there wasn't much of a difference between a beater and a sports car for most people. Running commutes and your daily errand isn't something you need a fancy car to accomplish, yet people choose to go beyond the bare minimum. Maybe not to the brand-new sports car level, but more than they actually need if the Fun Police ordered them to maximize every dollar. And doesn't a beater sure beat walking around like people did for most of history anyway?

For most tasks, comparing between contemporary models, FF are subtly but noticeably better. They have better high-ISO performance, more resolution, more color depth, and more subject isolation, with the main tradeoff being somewhat higher cost. Even if you never shoot in a situation that's past the limit of APS-C's capabilities, FF can sometimes produce nicer output for a given situation. It's another way to increase subject isolation. I'm sure you know the generic arguments for why FF is popular.

Medium format does all of those things a step better, it's just a drastic increase in cost for digital bodies. I like the MF look and I can see and use the technical differences in 6x7 vs 35mm negatives, even if I don't "need" it, so I'm forgiving of that thought process in digital. There's situations my where P67 isn't appropriate to use, and I use other cameras there. Entry into FF is only $500 (5d classic), a basic P67 setup is only ~$400, that's about what a nice lens costs, so why get upset about putting an extra tool in your box?
I don't buy that a 5D is a step up from any current APS-C camera. According to DXO Mark, the K50 and the 5D have equivalent high iso shooting, the K50 is better in dynamic range and color depth. Unless you are a die hard full frame proponent or, you desperately need narrow depth of field, I would take the features of any current APS-C camera over the 5D -- that is definitely a "beater car" that will get the job done in a pinch.
09-17-2014, 06:31 PM - 1 Like   #21
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,824
It's bogus analogy.

Reasons to shoot FF
* possibly higher resolution, although not with Canon
* better low light performance
* possibly narrower DoF when required

Those are pretty qualified circumstances though.
* A K-3 has better resolution at 100 ISO than a 6D and is about 4% less than a D610
* even though there is less noise on FF cameras, you still have loss of dynamic range, even with the best sensor, a 100 ISO image in good light is better than a 3200 ISO image in low light, on both systems. Any low light situation causes a lack of dynamic range and compromised IQ.
* much of the time narrow DoF is not desirable

Reasons to Shoot APS-c
*magnification - APS-c produces more resolution at 100 to 400 ISO in the area of the crop sensor, even compared to the same area on an FF sensor
* More DoF - for a given ƒ-stop and a given lens- there are as many instances where the image looks better with more DoF as there are where they look better with less

The notion that because they cost more all the photographic advantages lie with FF over APS-c is just wrong.

With MF, the chief advantage is resolution and the "look". We don't know what it is but we know it when we see it.

You simply cannot obtain the kind of resolution with FF you can with MF.

MF give the best resolution.
FF shallowest depth of field.
APS-c gives the best compromise of IQ and portability and magnification
4/3 gives almost equivalent to APS-c IQ with even better portability.

These four formats are crammed into a very small space in the photographic spectrum, and there's a lot of overlap in the formats depending on resolution, lens availability etc. but, the pro knows the right tool for the job. And if he doesn't have th right tool for the job, he knows how to get the best out of what he's got. Anyone who says it's all about one format, that one format is the luxury car and another is in some way inferior should have absolutely no credibility.

Any one person can have preferences that lead them to value one format over the others, whatever that format is, but saying "this format is like owning the luxury car and this other is like owning a beater", sorry, but there's no logic or photographic intelligence to that.

Some one asked my commercial studio instructor what his favourite camera was. This guy taught with 4x5s and 8x10s, owned cameras of every format under the sun, and knew the photographic world inside and out. His answer? "I like the little throw away camera in my glove box. It's always there, people don't notice I have a camera, and those plastic parabolic lenses give you amazing DoF." He then went into a diatribe on camera snobs, who don't have clue why they have the camera they have. It was expensive so it must be good. I've met a few of those over the years. He did me great service giving me the heads up.

Before getting into these kinds of discussions there should be an entrance exam...
1. Do you understand that no one system, does everything best?
2. Do you understand that the best system for a specific job is not always the most expensive one?
3. Do you understand that another person can have just as many good reasons for the system they use, as you do for the system you use, even though they are different formats.

Then they should let you in the door. You should be learning what each format is good for. Unless you already have worked in multiple formats, in which case you already know this what I'm saying, and I apologize for the rant. There's about 10 on the forum like that, and an awful lot of others trying to say one format is the best. Don't listen to any of those guys, they don't know as much as they think they know.

If you can't listen to a photographer and steer him/her to 4/3, APS-c, FF or MF depending on their needs, you don't know your stuff.

Last edited by normhead; 09-17-2014 at 07:34 PM.
09-17-2014, 09:07 PM   #22
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
some people have obviously never shot a real ff camera, nor edited a 36mp image.

you pick 36mp ff because the pq blows the doors off of crop sensor cameras... it's world class vs. your next door neighbor.

for instance, where in the pentax crop sensor lineup can i get 29p-mpix? post up the k3/lens combo dxo link that is comparable... i couldn't find anything close.

beyond crop sensor... 36mp ff is much better bang for the buck than mf, by a huge margin.

Sony A7R versus Pentax K-3 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
Attached Images
 
09-17-2014, 09:11 PM   #23
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
* even though there is less noise on FF cameras, you still have loss of dynamic range, even with the best sensor,
You talking just Canon, now? Because the Sony Exmor FF sensors in D800, etc have just as much DR at base ISO and much more as you move up from base ISO.

Even the Canon 6D has more DR past ISO 400:



.
QuoteQuote:
a 100 ISO image in good light is better than a 3200 ISO image in low light, on both systems. Any low light situation causes a lack of dynamic range and compromised IQ.
Exactly right, but it affects a smaller-sensored camera more.

Up past ISO 400, 800 a similar-gen FF camera is always going to be your friend.


QuoteQuote:
Reasons to Shoot APS-c
*magnification - APS-c produces more resolution at 100 to 400 ISO in the area of the crop sensor, even compared to the same area on an FF sensor
Only if you're considering a 24MP aps-c camera, and then only if you're using sharp enough lenses to realize the difference.

When the 54MP FF's appear, this 'advantage' disappears again.


QuoteQuote:
* More DoF - for a given ƒ-stop and a given lens- there are as many instances where the image looks better with more DoF as there are where they look better with less
This ^^ is the point you continually get wrong - there is no advantage for aps-c here, because with FF you can simply stop down to match the aps-c DOF for that FOV.

If maintaining a certain DOF is absolutely necessary, and you are not taking advantage of hyperfocal distances, then both systems are equal in this respect. There's no 'advantage' here to aps-c or any smaller sensor.

You've gotten that question wrong on the last 4 exams Norm, we're not going to pass you until you get it right!



QuoteQuote:
APS-c gives the best compromise of IQ and portability and magnification
4/3 gives almost equivalent to APS-c IQ with even better portability.
Aps-c, for many, is the best compromise, the sweetest sweet-spot. That's not a chopped-liver attribute, it's a good one.

You have good points in your post, it's just annoying when the good points are mixed in with misinformation.


Last edited by jsherman999; 09-17-2014 at 09:18 PM.
09-18-2014, 03:25 AM   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You talking just Canon, now? Because the Sony Exmor FF sensors in D800, etc have just as much DR at base ISO and much more as you move up from base ISO.

Even the Canon 6D has more DR past ISO 400:



.


Exactly right, but it affects a smaller-sensored camera more.

Up past ISO 400, 800 a similar-gen FF camera is always going to be your friend.




Only if you're considering a 24MP aps-c camera, and then only if you're using sharp enough lenses to realize the difference.

When the 54MP FF's appear, this 'advantage' disappears again.




This ^^ is the point you continually get wrong - there is no advantage for aps-c here, because with FF you can simply stop down to match the aps-c DOF for that FOV.

If maintaining a certain DOF is absolutely necessary, and you are not taking advantage of hyperfocal distances, then both systems are equal in this respect. There's no 'advantage' here to aps-c or any smaller sensor.

You've gotten that question wrong on the last 4 exams Norm, we're not going to pass you until you get it right!





Aps-c, for many, is the best compromise, the sweetest sweet-spot. That's not a chopped-liver attribute, it's a good one.

You have good points in your post, it's just annoying when the good points are mixed in with misinformation.

The problem I have, Jay, is when folks say that any generation full frame will beat any generation APS-C camera. Better processing, better dynamic range, just better images... That just isn't so. A 5D won't beat any current generation APS-C camera, except maybe some of Canon's in any respect.

Assuming similar generation sensors, full frame will be better with regard to SNR and dynamic range. It will probably have an advantage with regard to print size, depending on the sensors involved. It will allow for lenses that offer more narrow depth of field. All of that is fine and true.

I just hate being beaten over the head with an untrue mantra: "Repeat after me: Any full frame camera will beat any crop frame camera!" They are all good cameras at this point and if you choose to shoot with a crop frame, it is not necessarily because you are an idiot and don't understand camera sensors or, even because you choose to "drive a no-frills beater," but because you feel the output is adequate for your purposes and you don't happen to benefit from the extras that full frame offers.
09-18-2014, 05:42 AM   #25
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,824
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You talking just Canon, now? Because the Sony Exmor FF sensors in D800, etc have just as much DR at base ISO and much more as you move up from base ISO.

Even the Canon 6D has more DR past ISO 400:
And which image is the best image Jay? The K-3 at 100 or the 6D at 100? Or the 6D at 800?. If you want the maximum possible IQ why would you be shooting at 800 ISO?
Now in my post I actually mentioned the 400 ISO thing, so that sort of proves you can't read, more than it proves I was wrong.



QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Up past ISO 400, 800 a similar-gen FF camera is always going to be your friend.
Shooting above 1600 a 645z is always going to be your friend. You always forget, that part. FF is s compromise solution.




QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Only if you're considering a 24MP aps-c camera, and then only if you're using sharp enough lenses to realize the difference.

When the 54MP FF's appear, this 'advantage' disappears again.
And if my mother had wheels she'd be a bus. that's so lame I can't believe you posted it. And when APS-c hits 104 MP, then Osama will rise form the grave and become president of the United States.




QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
This ^^ is the point you continually get wrong - there is no advantage for aps-c here, because with FF you can simply stop down to match the aps-c DOF for that FOV.
We'll no Jay, since you're always quoting the laws of physics, if you're shooting ƒ11 on your APS-c camera, stopping to ƒ16 on your FF is going to cause some diffraction problems. You've repeated that statement for years, and it's always been wrong.

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
If maintaining a certain DOF is absolutely necessary, and you are not taking advantage of hyperfocal distances, then both systems are equal in this respect. There's no 'advantage' here to aps-c or any smaller sensor.
If if if if if.. if my mother had wheels she'd be a bus. If you define a scenario with really narrow parameters, you can draw all sorts of conclusions. All I know is that shooting with my 35mm at 8 inches I get twice as much DoF as shooting with my 50 at 8 inches at the same ƒ-stop. I used a test set up, and measured. What the you're talking about I doubt even you can figure out.

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You've gotten that question wrong on the last 4 exams Norm, we're not going to pass you until you get it right!
Funny how you go into a discussion, and then declare yourself right. Did it ever occur to you that every idiot in the world in every discussion always thinks they are right, whether they are or not? Proclaiming yourself right doesn't mean you are.

Your problem Jay, is that you got into repeating some reply glib answers to some really fundamental questions, that keep you from acknowledging valid comparisons between FF and other systems. You see the small picture, you define things in unrealistic terms that ignore an awful lot of every day use, you miss the big picture. You really have to get those FF blinkers off.

Personally, I'm still on the fence FF or MF for my next camera body, ff is by far the most versatile system out there. But coupled with APS-c if you're going to carry two bodies, MF is a better companion for APS-c for landscapes. Your glib little sayings are just noise, when seriously thinking about these issues.



QuoteQuote:
Aps-c, for many, is the best compromise, the sweetest sweet-spot. That's not a chopped-liver attribute, it's a good one.
Ridicule really doesn't negate a point, is that the best you've got? When looking at resolution FF is a compromise is that a "chopped liver attribute"?

QuoteQuote:
You have good points in your post, it's just annoying when the good points are mixed in with misinformation.
Funny how you always accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing. The difference between me and you, is you define situations with narrow parameters and focus on them to the exclusion of all the different parameters where your logic breaks down. My first rule of comparison is, never lose sight of the big picture. Look at the little things but keep in perspective the big things. And my problems discussing these things with you has always been you look at very small issue, and try and blow them up to be big issues.

IN the real world, any camera over 16 MP has great resolution. Great vs greater- thats a small issue. If it means a lot to you, you go for MF.
FF is better over 400 ISO, if your core practice is to shoot almost exclusively at 100 and 200 ISO for Dynamic Range.. What happens after 400 ISO is pretty much irrelevant. that's the un-important part of the picture. If you are interested in the absolute best image with the least noise and most dynamic range etc. 800 iso doesn't even come into the picture, on any system. That's the big picture.
If you want wider DoF in your macros and you are limiting yourself to ƒ5.6 because that's the absolute sharpest your lens is going to be, saying you can stop down to ƒ8 is ridiculous.

All these examples come form my day to day shooting. Your day to day is different, so I guess it's possible in your day to day existence you're right. it's just too bad you waste so much time telling other people how to think.

This is where i usually give up.. your examples get more and more obscure, and more based on specific shooting situations as opposed to general shooting practices, and it's just to much work to answer. As your glib little saying "you can always stop down on Ff" shows, you're completely un-aware of the limitations of your arguments. I'm sure you'll write a long answer which you will think negates my criticisms, and some of the poor souls on the forum will actually think your right and chime in, the jsherman fan boys...but for me, its a waste of time. It wasn't when I first started talking to you...I haven't changed my opinions any, but I've become much better at expressing them... years of experience will do that. But for the most part, you're on my ignore list, I'm not remaining silent because you're right. I'm remaining silent because I don't read your posts. And that's a good thing. You been flogging the same horse, through all the changes in photography, and locked into a mindset that while practically true 5 years ago, has you longing for the old days, or for FF being 54 MP so you can be somewhat right again.

Last edited by normhead; 09-18-2014 at 06:18 AM.
09-18-2014, 06:42 AM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,553
QuoteOriginally posted by skierd Quote
I swear people on here would complain about a cloudy day then bitch that the sun being too bright when it clears up.
Agreed. There are also people here who complain about other people complaining, and sometimes someone will even have the audacity to complain about people complaining about the complainers.

At least no one has complained about anyone complaining about someone complaining about the complainers, but there's a first time for everything. Come to think of it, it ticks me off that no one's complained about this yet.
09-18-2014, 08:01 AM   #27
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The problem I have, Jay, is when folks say that any generation full frame will beat any generation APS-C camera.
I personally rarely see that. I do see something like "I prefer my 5D more", and that's usually based on viewfinder, available lenses, nice DOF control that gives the 'look', etc. "Beat" usually refers to cameras of similar generations.

QuoteQuote:
I just hate being beaten over the head with an untrue mantra: "Repeat after me: Any full frame camera will beat any crop frame camera!"
It might help to always attach the caveat: "Of similar generation". It doesn't even need to be the exact same generation, most of the time a FF camera 1/2 step behind aps-c still beats or at least matches it. Case in point, D700 or 5DII vs. K3 - K3 only 'wins' really with DR at base ISO (and with resolution in the case of the D700).

QuoteQuote:
They are all good cameras at this point and if you choose to shoot with a crop frame, it is not necessarily because you are an idiot and don't understand camera sensors,
Absolutely agree.

---------- Post added 09-18-14 at 09:03 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Agreed. There are also people here who complain about other people complaining, and sometimes someone will even have the audacity to complain about people complaining about the complainers.

At least no one has complained about anyone complaining about someone complaining about the complainers, but there's a first time for everything. Come to think of it, it ticks me off that no one's complained about this yet.
Complaint filed.

---------- Post added 09-18-14 at 09:07 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Did it ever occur to you that every idiot in the world in every discussion always thinks they are right, whether they are or not? .
Yes, Norm, it has occurred to me. But patiently explaining the facts - sometimes over and over - eventually takes. It's sometimes worth the effort in other words.

Last edited by jsherman999; 09-18-2014 at 08:35 AM.
09-22-2014, 12:33 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by skierd Quote
I'm not getting all of the clamor and whining over Pentax not producing a FF camera. Pentax already makes a superior alternative in the 645D and 645Z, why not embrace it and the brands great DX bodies instead of moaning about a product that may or may not ever come to fruition because it just isn't necessary? The brand has a serious enthusiast/semi-pro camera in the K-3 and a truly affordable professional's MF system in the 645Z. Oh so there's a gap between one of the best DX camera's and the MF system... big whoop.

I swear people on here would complain about a cloudy day then bitch that the sun being too bright when it clears up. I'm not a big poster here at all but all of this drivel about Pentax being doomed by not following the herd (except for Fuji, which is doing just fine it seems with their DX cameras) is making me not want to read or participate on this site anymore, which sucks because there's some talented people here.
645z has worse low light performance with available lenses. Less-shallow DOF. It's also boatloads more expensive.

The DA 25mm 645 lens is $5k.
The Canon 24mm TS-E is faster, larger image circle than the newer DA 25mm, same image circle as the older DA 25mm, adds tilt and shift, and is ~$2k.

It's not even diminishing returns, it's paying more for less in a lot of areas.

All else the same, 645 will win in terms of sharpness. In practice (but not theory) the viewfinders are nicer for 645.

So, do I want to pay $20k for a system or $5-10k for a system that will do a lot more?

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 09-22-2014 at 12:59 PM.
10-02-2014, 11:47 AM   #29
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,039
QuoteOriginally posted by skierd Quote
I'm not getting all of the clamor and whining over Pentax not producing a FF camera. Pentax already makes a superior alternative in the 645D and 645Z, why not embrace it and the brands great DX bodies instead of moaning about a product that may or may not ever come to fruition because it just isn't necessary? The brand has a serious enthusiast/semi-pro camera in the K-3 and a truly affordable professional's MF system in the 645Z. Oh so there's a gap between one of the best DX camera's and the MF system... big whoop.

I swear people on here would complain about a cloudy day then bitch that the sun being too bright when it clears up. I'm not a big poster here at all but all of this drivel about Pentax being doomed by not following the herd (except for Fuji, which is doing just fine it seems with their DX cameras) is making me not want to read or participate on this site anymore, which sucks because there's some talented people here.
The Pentax K-mount system is based on specifications from 35mm cameras. All FA lenses are full frame, even DA lenses use the same mount and distance to the sensor as K-mount. This makes for lenses not optimum in design for APS-C cameras which Pentax is selling right now. The FA31 is wide angle design with angle of view like a normal lens. It is huge and expensive for the angle of view. So even if we see no FF camera, Pentax need to do something.
K-mount ist fullframe and there is a large difference in DOF between FF and APS-C. Currently Pentax is neither leading nor following. That is the probelm.
Kick out that mirror and reduce the flange focal distance to make the statement for APS-C size. Lenses can get smaller and better at the same time.

Pentax MF lineup works with a large sensor, but I would not call it perfect. In film days it was affordable to have a medium format system on the side - now the large sensor in the camera costs much more than a decent full frame camera with lenses. Price and weight are a problem. Versatility of the Pentax system with fixed sensor in the camera and decent, but not great glass is limited.

---------- Post added 02-10-14 at 08:51 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
645z has worse low light performance with available lenses. Less-shallow DOF. It's also boatloads more expensive.

The DA 25mm 645 lens is $5k.
The Canon 24mm TS-E is faster, larger image circle than the newer DA 25mm, same image circle as the older DA 25mm, adds tilt and shift, and is ~$2k.

It's not even diminishing returns, it's paying more for less in a lot of areas.

All else the same, 645 will win in terms of sharpness. In practice (but not theory) the viewfinders are nicer for 645.

So, do I want to pay $20k for a system or $5-10k for a system that will do a lot more?
Never blame a medium format camera for its low llight performance, praise it for low easy quality!

Check out the Canon TS/E on Alpa FPS with medium format backs to get an impression of its performance in MF land. The TS/E are fairly hard to center, tilt shift is not an add on it can be a real problem because the lens elements are not easily set back to zero position.
10-02-2014, 12:28 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote
Never blame a medium format camera for its low llight performance, praise it for low easy quality!

Huh?

QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote
Check out the Canon TS/E on Alpa FPS with medium format backs to get an impression of its performance in MF land. The TS/E are fairly hard to center, tilt shift is not an add on it can be a real problem because the lens elements are not easily set back to zero position.
I own the 24mm TS-E. I haven't used it with medium format but I've done a few 50mmx36mm stitches with it; so, bigger than most MF. It's ridiculous how much cheaper it is than MF that covers the same image circle... plus it adds the tilt and shift mechanism. An awesome lens even at $1500, love everything about it so far. The TS/E is easy to center, there's stops at center and a locking function. Nevertheless it's not super important that it *is* centered IMO. This is a landscape/architecture lens. Move it around until it looks right.


Last edited by ElJamoquio; 10-02-2014 at 05:58 PM.
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, 645z, aps-c, autofocus, bodies, camera, cameras, circle, crop, d700, da, dx, ff, flash, frame, fuji, full-frame, generation, k3, lens, lenses, lot, mf, models, pentax, people, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanned film or FF / distal MF adwb Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 8 08-17-2014 12:41 PM
Can a lens increase FF over time? Zafar Iqbal Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 07-30-2014 09:56 AM
FF even with MF lens LightMeter Pentax K-r 7 11-19-2011 10:34 PM
MF vs. FF froeschle Pentax News and Rumors 51 11-01-2008 09:19 AM
MF APS = 35mm FF? Nesster Pentax News and Rumors 30 02-15-2008 06:55 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:08 AM. | 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