[kooks]

I'm quite ignorant about full frames and so far what I'm seeing is FF = focal length differences with the same lens, better low light performance, less noise at higher ISO, better color and overall image quality especially for wide lenses. Is my understanding off? Are there other benefits to FF I am missing? Would it require different lenses?

It depends the lenses that you have, in the Pentax system all FF lenses work with APS-C cameras perfectly.. but not otherwise, because APS-C will give strong vignetting on FF sensors..

Besides that you are correct, FF sensor will give much better iso performance and low light capabilities, allowing you to perform better at some conditions.. it will also give you some more pleasant bokeh.. and comparing to modern sensors it this will give you better Image Quality, colors, dinamic range, etc.. is not that APS-C are bad.. its just that in some situations it wont perform as good as a FF body can do.

[redcat]

Besides that you are correct, FF sensor will give much better iso performance and low light capabilities, allowing you to perform better at some conditions.. it will also give you some more pleasant bokeh.. and comparing to modern sensors it this will give you better Image Quality, colors, dinamic range, etc.. is not that APS-C are bad.. its just that in some situations it wont perform as good as a FF body can do.

with all these advantages, it's bizarre that some people just don't want a FF @__@

[normhead]

I'm quite ignorant about full frames and so far what I'm seeing is FF = focal length differences with the same lens, better low light performance, less noise at higher ISO, better color and overall image quality especially for wide lenses. Is my understanding off? Are there other benefits to FF I am missing? Would it require different lenses?

There is a little over one stop better noise and at high ISO, but that is easy to work around. The colour is not visibly better, the overall image quality is not visibly better. IN fact in all honest tests, the results are only better judged by experts with magnifying glasses.

From 100-400 ISO any decent photographer can get just as good results if not better , depending on the set up with 24 MP APS-c as you would with 24 MP. The FF is so much better mantra is chanted by those who promote differences 9 out of 10 people can't even see.

That's not to say you can't fudge a few pictures that show how much better an FF is than an APS_c, and if you know both formats you can also fudge a few pictures to show how much better APS-c is than FF. Really, claiming there is much difference between FF and APS-c is nitpicking on an extremely nitty level. For 95% of what most people do, there is no difference.

For birds and wildlife APS-c allows me to shoot small birds and animals at distance, with smaller lighter lenses. I kind of think of it as vampires and normal people.

Those who live in caves out of the light during the day,and frequent dark places at night, like FF.
Those of us who treasure mobility and sunshine favour APS-c.

[Vitalii]

All this sales people complaing and ignoring Pentax products could be fixed by having RICOH sales representative visiting the stores and giving the sellers a little "workshop" about Pentax cameras.. so AT LEAST, they will find out things like that many bodies are WR, all DSLRs have IBIS, K3 and K5iis doesnt use AA filter.. or that this cameras can focus at -3EV... and so many other things that I really doubt they will even know about Pentax...

The problem is that they dont sell Pentax because they dont know about Pentax features.. This could be fixed with some marketing and sales representatives visiting the stores.

nope, there are more than enough salesman who know about pentax. the problem is pentax selling politics -
no workshops, no advertising, no profit.
high quality, but low price, there is no much room for the afterseller. in best case, you will earn a few bucks, if you aren´t that lucky, you will pay on top of it, just to sell it, before the price drops even lower.
ah, and there´s the unfriendliest support ever.

[Mikesul]

nope, there are more than enough salesman who know about pentax. the problem is pentax selling politics -
no workshops, no advertising, no profit.
high quality, but low price, there is no much room for the afterseller. in best case, you will earn a few bucks, if you aren´t that lucky, you will pay on top of it, just to sell it, before the price drops even lower.
ah, and there´s the unfriendliest support ever.

But there are glimmers of light here. Ricoh does seem to be increasing their effort in these areas. The Pentax store in Paris, reports of US stores beginning to stock Pentax, Pentax reps showing up in stores and shows. actual ads in photo magazines, etc. All of this is limited and appears a bit random right now but to a optimistic old man it does look like they may be increasing their presence.

[RonHendriks1966]

From 100-400 ISO any decent photographer can get just as good results if not better , depending on the set up with 24 MP APS-c as you would with 24 MP. The FF is so much better mantra is chanted by those who promote differences 9 out of 10 people can't even see.

I delivered yesterday a print on aluminium dibond sized 60x80cm (23,6x31,5 inch) made with the K-01 of a new born. You really don't need the 24 megapixels.

[Volker76]

It depends the lenses that you have, in the Pentax system all FF lenses work with APS-C cameras perfectly.. but not otherwise, because APS-C will give strong vignetting on FF sensors..

Besides that you are correct, FF sensor will give much better iso performance and low light capabilities, allowing you to perform better at some conditions.. it will also give you some more pleasant bokeh.. and comparing to modern sensors it this will give you better Image Quality, colors, dinamic range, etc.. is not that APS-C are bad.. its just that in some situations it wont perform as good as a FF body can do.

if that were true, everybody with a FF sensor camera should trash it right now and get a 645z- because of the bigger sensors....

[Mikesul]

Well there must be something to FF I don't see. Looking a photos you just cannot tell the difference unless it is pointed out. That is something that has been stated by many posters.

[Poit]

I'm quite ignorant about full frames and so far what I'm seeing is FF = focal length differences with the same lens, better low light performance, less noise at higher ISO, better color and overall image quality especially for wide lenses. Is my understanding off? Are there other benefits to FF I am missing? Would it require different lenses?

Add to the list a more shallow depth of field for the given aperture, and you've pretty much got it.

For many, particularly enthusiasts and hobbyists, the differences don't warrant the additional expenditure. For some, particularly those who enjoy chasing wing'd creatures about, the greater reach of APS-C is preferable and more beneficial.

For my own chosen flavour of photography, weddings, the advantages of FF are very useful and not at all trivial. Better low-light / high ISO performance for dimly lit churches and reception venues, better wide angle for groups and up-close work, and shallower depth of field for creative portraiture are all benefits that make a big difference in a competitive industry.

For the wedding photography industry (possibly one of if not the largest body of professional shooters) FF is still the go-to format because of the benefits it brings.

[Winder]

Its not a cut an dry issue of FF is better than APS-C or APS-C is better than M4/3. Larger sensors have advantages, but they also come with some disadvantages. For certain applications the IQ is better. If that were not the case nobody would bother making FF cameras and Ricoh would cancel the 645z line.

With the new A7II coming out people have been at the A7. There really isn't much difference in IQ between the A7 and the K-3. The A7 has an AA filter which softens the image up, the K-3 does not. The A7 exports 11-bit RAW files while the K-3 exports 14-bit RAW files. Sony has crippled the IQ of the A7 to the point that it really isn't any better than the K-3. Its easy to cherry pick examples where there is a difference, and where there is no difference in IQ. People have different needs, and wedding photographers have very different needs than dirt photographers.

[rawr]

People have different needs

Related to that, different cameras have different capabilities and features.

Hubble telescope vs iPhone 6 - which is better?

[kooks]

if that were true, everybody with a FF sensor camera should trash it right now and get a 645z- because of the bigger sensors....

And what is not true?? FF doesnt give you better low light performance?? .. FF doesnt have better IQ in most cases?? .. or larger dynamic range?? .. or a shallower dof at large apertures ?? .. if that isnt true so why people use.. or want a FF???

645Z is most of the time out of the equation just by the simple fact that only the body cost $8500 ( + all the lenses that you might need ).. Average people tend to get the best system that they can buy for a bodget.. if i have $5000 i will try to invest this within a good body and good lenses.. but not everybody have $5000 to spend in a system.. so talking about an $8500 body can not be treated like a consumer camera.. but ofcourse if you ask some portrait or fashion photographers if they would like to "trash" their FF so they use a MF i really doubt that they will say no ( if we remove the price difference between the 2 systems ).. I will love to have a 645Z who doesnt??, but simply will not spend $10000+ in a camera system ( unless i win the lottery and money is not a problem at all.. )...

[jatrax]

FF doesnt have better IQ in most cases?? .

This ^^ is untrue. The consensus from people who actually have data rather speculation are that a FF sensor will give you about 1 stop better low light, less noise, dynamic range and so on. But image quality is dependent on many more things. FF image COULD be better than APS-C but it does not always have to be. Take Sony A7, which because of processing produces images no better than k-3. But if you take that same sensor (maybe give it to Pentax) and use the same 14 bit processing they use in the k-3 then I would assume it would deliver better IQ. IQ will only be as good as the weakest link in the chain.

Or take an image at f/8 in good light, is FF going to be noticeably better than APS-C? No. The advantage of FF only shows at the extremes in difficult conditions.

Now whether a 1 stop improvement is worth the additional cost is a personal decision.

[kooks]

FF image COULD be better than APS-C but it does not always have to be.

Thats correct.. a FF sensor could be better and in many cases it is, but is not always.. actually the 5Dmk2 have almost the same Color Depth score as the K5 .. but if we compare the latest sensors by Nikon/Canon we can see some advantage there.. APS-C are not at that level.. and perhaps because of the matter of light they will never be ( unless not using actual technology )..

For example we can see that there is a big difference with this:

Nikon D810 vs Pentax K-3 - Our Analysis

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D610-vs-Pentax-K-3

But not so big at this except ( Low Noise )

Canon 5D Mark III vs Pentax K-3 - Our Analysis

So yes you are right with that.. is not the rule.. but well worked it can be..

Lets hope that Pentax FF is one of those that make the difference.

[Poit]

Now whether a 1 stop improvement is worth the additional cost is a personal decision.

Actually, it would be a professional decision too if Ricoh/Pentax gave pros the option...