Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-30-2014, 02:04 PM - 2 Likes   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 401
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
My wife shoots weddings and does so with APS-C cameras. At this point, APS-C is good enough that she is very happy with it. Back in the K20 days, not so much. But, she is the opposite of a gear head. If I talk about sensor sizes and auto focus modules, her eyes glaze over and she tunes out. Equivalence is pretty meaningless to her. She knows what framing different lenses give and where they shine and she uses them with good results.

There are an awful lot of working photographers that just aren't "gear-centric." Their goal is a particular image or, style of image and as long as they are able to achieve that, they are happy and the world is good.
I also shoot with APS-C (K-3) and it is perfectly fine in many situations. In others, it is not.

I shot a wedding last year that was supposed to be outdoors, but the gods interjected an hour before the bride's arrival, and the heavens opened. The ceremony was hurriedly rearranged for the reception venue, a converted woolshed (The Driftwood Shed, south coast wedding venue). The inside was poorly lit with tungsten lights, and had angular ceilings that made bouncing flash very difficult (and I don't like using artificial lighting anyway). Reasonable hand-held exposures were possible at ISO 3200 (with some pp required), and perfect exposures possible at 6400. Unfortunately, whilst much better than the K-20 (which I have also previously used, and would have been a disaster on that particular day!) the K-3 struggled in these conditions, and I was ultimately more than a tad disappointed with end result. In the circumstances, I would have been far more comfortable (and would have ended up with a few less grey hairs) had I had the benefits of a FF.

Similarly, I have read of some photographers (Wedding Photography by Dror Eyal - Johannesburg Wedding Photographer, Cape Town Wedding Photography, South Africa and Johannesburg Wedding Photography.) shooting receptions exclusively at ISO 6400, in some cases overexposing shots and recovering in post to preserve the shadows, whilst capturing the ambient light and retaining the mood of the occasion. It's a technique I'd like to employ, as I prefer natural / ambient light to artificial (not least because it also enables me travel lighter), but experiments with the K-3 have shown it's just not up to the job.

I don't really consider myself a gear-head either. But I keep coming back to the same conclusion, to do what I want to do I need a FF body. Not every wedding photographer wants to shoot the way I prefer to, and I accept that without question. But many people do...

And I'll say it again. Considering the size of the wedding & event photography market, I wonder how many working pros have given Pentax a wide berth for the exact reasons I outline above...

And before someone who hasn't seen my previous remarks says "move to another brand you idiot"...I'm invested in K-mount and can't afford to move right now.


Last edited by Poit; 09-30-2014 at 02:11 PM.
09-30-2014, 02:15 PM   #77
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
A consideration is how many lenses a potential buyer already owns in each format and how conveniently those lenses can be used in each format. Pentax users have an expectation of backward compatibility that I imagine is shared only (somewhat) with Nikon.

We could say Ricoh will release a FF camera when sensor and lens technology have advanced such that legacy K-mount lenses are unsatisfactory compared to new lenses.* And we could say we're probably just about there.


* My Tamron AD-2 SP 90/2.5 Macro 52BB (with case, caps, hood, 1:1 Extension and 2x Converter) is subject to sensor reflection under many common macro lighting conditions. Still one of the best 4 or 5 100ish Macro's, but a chore to use these days, rather than a pleasure.
Well those old lenses are one off the big reasons to buy the FF k-mount camera, so Ricoh better makes it in the way it can serve those old lenses.
09-30-2014, 04:42 PM   #78
Veteran Member
rburgoss's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 972
Original Poster
Its all boiling down to a matter of choice according to the "intended" purpose or type of photography done.

If you shoot primarly landscapes for mural printing with hyper reality resolution, there is not a single full frame camera that can do a reasonable photo. You will need a view camera with a digital back (is there one?) with resolutions of about 200 megapixels per photo. If you shoot high speed action sports like drag racing, Indy or even baseball, you will need a body that can use the best medium long brightest telephoto available, and do this at 12 to 20 frames per second or faster. If you plan to go jungle hiking to the Amazon basin... then get something that will hold up the humidity and murky conditions. And so on... I say: The intended purpose is what demands the type of hardware needed.

Almost all pro photographers specialize in few areas. Freelance photojournalism, paparazzi, wedding, sports, newspaper staff, nature and travel, landscaping, advertising, fashion, glamour, boudoir, kids, pets, animals, product shots, portraits, food... you name it! Each has its own area of expertise and hardware needs. It would be next to impossible to pretend a single hardware (camera body) that can handle all situations to top expectations. Of course, anyone can try to photograph a football match with a Mamiya RB67 or go to a Big Cat safari in African with a fixed lens point and shoot. Of course, those two cameras could well be "the best in its own class", but for the mentioned purpuses, they will both fail like a cockroach in a chicken dance!

Now, knowing this matters, we can start drawing the line between "need" and "want". Lets leave "want" out of the equation, since its whole purpose is to satisfy egos and whatever reasoning is done, is purely subjective...

Then, what I "need" begins to unfold into real world situations:

1) What kind of photography I plan to do (or I've been doing that I think will improve with a ff body)?
2) What gear (lenses) do I already have, that could take advantage of a ff body to the point, me and my customers can appreciate the difference?

Hmmm... do you think now its becoming easier to get a direct answer?
09-30-2014, 05:35 PM   #79
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by rburgoss Quote

Now, knowing this matters, we can start drawing the line between "need" and "want". Lets leave "want" out of the equation, since its whole purpose is to satisfy egos and whatever reasoning is done, is purely subjective...
Can't leave 'want' out. If everyone who simply 'wanted' vs. 'needed' a DSLR suddenly had their camera disappear, pentaxforums.com would probably have about 25 active members.

QuoteQuote:
Then, what I "need" begins to unfold into real world situations:

1) What kind of photography I plan to do (or I've been doing that I think will improve with a ff body)?
Again - you're going to be describing a 'want' here 95% of the time.


QuoteQuote:
2) What gear (lenses) do I already have, that could take advantage of a ff body to the point, me and my customers can appreciate the difference?
Customers? I'm the customer.

If you want to talk about selling something, ask someone like Poit who's already described very well why he needs/wants a FF body and why it makes sense in light of his needs and competition and image.

For everyone else, your framework is far too narrow.

.

09-30-2014, 06:21 PM   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
I doubt anyone on Pentaxforums would die if their camera disappeared.

Can we stop with the want vs need definitions now?
09-30-2014, 07:32 PM - 2 Likes   #81
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by rburgoss Quote
For example, talking about technical specs difference that DO EXIST today: What do you want: Full frame or in body Shake Reduction? We do know having both is now not possible, so what do you need most?
Someone better tell Sony, because the A99's full frame SR sensor is apparently impossible!

Lotta armchair camera designers here declaring things "impossible" and "unprofitable" and so on, and then Sony goes on to prove them totally wrong over and over again. Can't count how many times I've read that "there's no profit if you can't sell many lenses", "there's no profit in downmarket FF bodies", "FF SR sensors are impossible", etc etc. You can throw the "digital rangefinder" niche into that too, until Fuji became the phototoy du jour.

It's really rather funny because it's all so obviously a rationalization of Pentax's R&D and marketing failures. There's always some armchair justification for why Pentax isn't listening to their customers, until someone else goes ahead and does it anyway.

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 09-30-2014 at 07:40 PM.
09-30-2014, 07:35 PM   #82
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
Someone better tell Sony, because the A99's full frame SR sensor is apparently impossible!

Lotta armchair camera designers here declaring things "impossible" and "unprofitable" and so on, and then Sony goes on to prove them totally wrong over and over again. Can't count how many times I've read that "there's no profit if you can't sell many lenses", "there's no profit in downmarket FF bodies", "FF SR sensors are impossible", etc etc. You can throw the "digital rangefinder" niche into that too, until Fuji became the hottest thing since sliced bread.

It's really rather funny because it's all so obviously a rationalization of Pentax's R&D and marketing failures.
I took it as 'it's not possible to purchase one off the shelf' rather than 'not possible for a manufacturer to make one'.

He's still wrong of course, but doesn't deserve a derisive tone IMO.
09-30-2014, 07:52 PM   #83
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by rburgoss Quote
If you shoot primarly landscapes for mural printing with hyper reality resolution, there is not a single full frame camera that can do a reasonable photo. You will need a view camera with a digital back (is there one?) with resolutions of about 200 megapixels per photo.
Not one that works instantaneously. There are slower ways to capture high-res images. The downside being that there will probably be some weirdness as things move during this long exposure.

For example, scanning backs. Or digital stitching adapters for view cameras, that help the process of capturing a larger image in 24x36mm chunks. Or auto-pan-and-tilt systems like the Gigapan.

I'm really hoping that someday we get the equivalent flexible OLEDs, except for image capture. Even if the resolution was only mediocre it would still be fun to shoot larger sensor sizes.

10-01-2014, 06:57 AM   #84
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,767
There is no doubt that APS-C or even M4/3 is capable of excellent results and prints. If I were working in a studio all the time with controlled lighting I probably wouldn't bother with an APS-C and just shoot Olympus M4/3. There are 2 reasons that I prefer full-frame over APS-C. The first is that I prefer to work with the 85mm when shooting people and 85mm on APS-C is longer than I want most of the time. I want my 31mm to give me that 31mm FoV and working distance. Reason two is that the RAW files from the 36MP Sony sensor can really handle a lot processing before they start to fall apart. The color holds together better at higher ISO which is especially important for skin tones.

Yes, you can print big with the 24MP APS-C sensor if you have good light and low ISO. Walk into a wedding venue that has bad mixed lighting and jack that ISO up to 1600 and then go make a 24 x 36 print on high quality paper. Let's see how skin tones hold up. Lets see what noise does to detail. Yes. APS-C is capable of producing amazing images as long as you keep ISO down and have good light. If you go for the grungy look or convert to B&W you can push APS-C even farther. For most people on the forums APS-C is more than enough. M4/3 is more than enough.
10-01-2014, 07:13 AM   #85
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,336
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
It's really rather funny because it's all so obviously a rationalization of Pentax's R&D and marketing failures. There's always some armchair justification for why Pentax isn't listening to their customers, until someone else goes ahead and does it anyway.
Asahi created Pentax's customers. Pentax didn't execute for Pentax's customers. Hoya didn't listen to Pentax's customers. Hoya didn't listen to anyone else's customers, either. Hoya listened to its shareholders and investment bankers.

Ricoh is listening to its customers just fine.

It isn't listening to anyone else's customers, though.

Last edited by monochrome; 10-01-2014 at 07:32 AM.
10-01-2014, 09:18 AM   #86
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
... the RAW files from the 36MP Sony sensor can really handle a lot processing before they start to fall apart.
That's exactly what I discovered as well. Expanded PP capability is probably low on most folks lists, but for me it was a pleasing surprise.

.
10-01-2014, 10:32 AM - 1 Like   #87
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: london, UK
Posts: 17
Yes, when digital first started I needed a FF body to use my old lenses at full wide angle. Now I have digital lenses that go wider than my old FF ones, so theres no more need. The megapixels will make no big difference.If I wanted to get a bigger sensor I would go for the 645Z. But I dont think I would be able to detect the difference, the K3 has enough resolution and noise will reduce as models progress. FF is an accident of history and only desirable because its "more". A Rolex is "more" but it only tells the time like all the other watches. Most people dont need a 645, most people dont need a FF.
10-01-2014, 11:04 AM   #88
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by mikereid Quote
FF is an accident of history
aps-c is the accident of history, if there is one. We moved from 35mm film frames to aps-c sized sensors only because at the time no-one could make a 35mm-sized sensor good enough and affordable enough.

FF DSLR just puts us back on the original track. Choice is good though, aps-c provides a very nice size for MILC.

QuoteQuote:
,,,Most people dont need a 645, most people dont need a FF.
<facepalm>
10-01-2014, 11:09 AM   #89
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
36x24 seems to be a great compromise to me. Fastest lenses available. At equivalent speeds, the cheapest, lightest lenses available.

Doesn't seem like an 'accident' that almost all "pro" cameras sold are 36x24.

MF is great if you need more sharpness and have a subject you can't stitch. But you're spending a lot more, have poor-er low-light ability, poor-er autofocus, etc.
10-01-2014, 11:25 AM   #90
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,020
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
36x24 seems to be a great compromise to me. Fastest lenses available. At equivalent speeds, the cheapest, lightest lenses available.

Doesn't seem like an 'accident' that almost all "pro" cameras sold are 36x24.

MF is great if you need more sharpness and have a subject you can't stitch. But you're spending a lot more, have poor-er low-light ability, poor-er autofocus, etc.

Do you know that "almost all pro cameras sold are 36x24" or did you make that up? My experience is that there are significant number of professionals (people who take photos for a living) who use APS-C cameras.

As to whether or not full frame is better, it is, but for a lot of "professionals" APS-C is good enough.
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, acrylic, camera, darkroom, era, ff, film, frame, full-frame, gear, giant, instagram, instruments, moments, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, photography, pictures, post, prints, quality, resolution, rules, technology, twinkle
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Misc "You Forgot To Put Your Bike Away!" rbefly Photo Critique 5 07-22-2013 12:07 PM
What are your thoughts on "upgrading" to a K5II/s after reading the review? jpzk Pentax DSLR Discussion 90 07-05-2013 06:48 AM
When the FF is fixed, we will have the unmatched "SUPER CAMERA" Eric Seavey Pentax K-5 58 10-08-2012 11:10 AM
Have we lost some "love" for the weekly contests?? Peter Zack Photographic Technique 16 01-13-2010 03:02 PM
Some more from the "big mac" DuckysDoll Post Your Photos! 8 07-07-2008 08:25 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 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