[no694terry]

WR cameras, incredibly well built very small lenses, best online community in the camera world. Good luck with your decision.

Cant argue with any of that.

I'm surprised about the pricing on the K3 with the 18-135 at Adoroma and B&H. Thats what i paid for my K5 body only less than 2 years ago. Its also cheaper to buy them new there than separately on KEH. I figure by January i should have a pretty good idea what i can get, but if a full frame is coming, then i may start looking for carefully at lenses than the body

---

Last edited by no694terry; 12-03-2014 at 10:58 AM.

[jimr-pdx]

Originally posted by no694terry Quote
A few months ago I found myself selling my camera to pay some bills. It was a sad day but a nice young enthusiast got my entire K5/18-135 kit and more for a good price and i got to keep my lights on. Times are getting better...

If you were just recently in financial distress, wouldn't it make more sense to come back a bit more slowly...

I've been bailing from a similar boat financial boom and bust with the Pentax kit mutating each time. I've seen how I behave in both good & bad times and I'm tired of it - so I picked up a $310 Samsung NX300 which will both stave off my K-s1 craving and take great images with my SMC lenses. When the budget is more certain I expect to be back here full-time (this is not an NX1 precursor move) - but that might not happen until late summer of '16. When Pentax uses on-sensor AF like this little nx, that will be my first clue

[carpents]

Cant argue with any of that.

I'm surprised about the pricing on the K3 with the 18-135 at Adoroma and B&H. Thats what i paid for my K5 body only less than 2 years ago. Its also cheaper to buy them new there than separately on KEH. I figure by January i should have a pretty good idea what i can get, but if a full frame is coming, then i may start looking for carefully at lenses than the body

I recently posted a kit suggestion for excellent, small primes which make Pentax unique as far as DSLRs go. (Based on the 15/21/70 pancakes.) I'm even a step further, as I've moved to Fuji X to go small and light.

Having owned a D600 (and current user of Nikon pro bodies for my sports work) I'm 100% happy to have left the weight and bulk of a FF Nikon kit for the Fuji one. Low light capabilities, yes, but beyond ISO 3200 you're really dealing with bad light sources, mostly unflattering light anyway - and today's crop sensors can handle ISO 3200 fine for me. So I don't care that the Nikon is better at ISO 6400 because I don't use it. The 24MP of the D600 took more space both on screen and in storage which added costs too.

Give me a focal reducer so that I can use Pentax wides on my Fuji and I'm 100% happy. Small, light, excellent. Don't miss the D600 at all!

[mecrox]

Buy what you dig and shoot what you love. I know that may sound cheesy but without it what's the point? No one buys a camera to have a crap time. If you're in tune with your equipment and taking the kind of pictures you really enjoy, that will all come through in the quality of the images, I think. Lots of folks just love using m43, for example. Format is just one consideration and maybe not even the main one sometimes.

[jeff knight]

Lets face up to it. Pentax is so far behind the curve now. Samsung, Sony, Olympus and Fuji all have weather sealed bodies now. Some of them have much better autofocus and image stabilization than Pentax. Plus some of their bodies are smaller than most Pentax SLRs. The only advantage Pentax retains is with some of their lenses. I too have cut down my Pentax kit but I haven't completely given up. I'm still waiting to see if Ricoh steps up to the plate with it's next round of new cameras. So many of my friends have given up. I still think there's hope.

I guess i was looking for a "please dont leave Pentax and reasons why" but yall are too nice for that.

We all know reverse psychology.

Banter aside: all brands make good cameras.

[Sandy Hancock]

The only reason I am keen for a Pentax full frame is so I can use my FA*24, FA31, FA43 and A50/1.2 at the AoV's they were designed for.

[no694terry]

If a whole new digital line of full frame lenses is what is holding them back then why dont they just make a sensor with the same reflective properties as film and reuse all the old FA lenses?

[Kunzite]

As the song says:
"If it makes you happy
It can't be that bad
If it makes you happy
Then why the h*ll are you so sad"

[ChristianRock]

If a whole new digital line of full frame lenses is what is holding them back then why dont they just make a sensor with the same reflective properties as film and reuse all the old FA lenses?

The fact is that we don't know what is holding them back.

Still, the issue remains: do you really need FF, or do you just want to spend money to tell your friends you have it?

[normhead]

for low light and general qulaity its hard to pass up a full frame camera when they are getting more competitive in price.

I understand the price competitive thing, that's based on you having the money. Anything you can afford is competitive, anything you can't afford isn't... but the general comparison

I've investigated that here...
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/270828-ok-guys.html

Someone needs to show me that this improvement in general quality is real... and they haven't, and the low light thing is a bit more than one stop. When you consider a K-3 covers 13 EV, 12 stop means that 90% of what an FF can do an APS-c can do. But for what it does it does just as well. Not good if you live in that last 10%, but that last 10% are some pretty low quality photographs for the most part. Now if someone can demonstrate an improvement in your best IQ photographs, that would be something. But that's just not there.

[ChristianRock]

I agree with Norm... and someone - I forgot who - was saying in another thread that if you are in need of using very high ISOs, then you are usually working with unflattering light anyway, so why even take those shots unless you really have to.

Also, IBIS greatly reduces the need to raise ISO because you can just lower the shutter speeds, in a lot of situations. Except for moving targets, in which case you won't be shooting at night in low light anyway. Unless you get the new A7II which hasn't even hit the stores yet, or the older Sony A full frame cameras that seem to have lost the company's support - you will have to either compensate the lack of IBIS with higher shutter speeds or higher ISOs, or use a stabilized lens - which are by nature bigger and heavier.

Here is a shot with the K20D and a manual zoom lens at 70mm. Hand held at 1/13s of a second, which let me use ISO 400. Not pin sharp, but not too bad. And that's old school IBIS...

[no694terry]

My understanding of the bigger sensors (FF) is that the pixels are larger, larger pixels allow in more light thus allowing faster shots in lower light. I would not be as caught up on full frame if it wasn't for my LG Flex cell phone. LG thought it would be a good idea to cram 13 megapixels into a sensor the size of a small raisin. Now my phone, with it's "customer wanted" super high pixel count is pretty much useless indoors, the in-camera noise correction applies so heavily that the image turns out like a water painting. Now my wifes phone on the other hand took a different approach. It went down on pixels, only 4 megapixels and it takes great indoor shots, relatively speaking.

[normhead]

My understanding of the bigger sensors (FF) is that the pixels are larger, larger pixels allow in more light thus allowing faster shots in lower light.

The difficulty with this line of thinking is the assumption (always unstated) that in good light, 4/3 or APS-c or even point and shoots aren't getting enough light. As long as your smaller sensor gets enough light, it's fine. There is a narrow gap, where APS_c is unacceptable, and FF is acceptable, before FF become unacceptable...but it's a really small window. For some it's a critical window. Think of it as a scale 15 inches long, broken one inch sections. After the APS_c image becomes unacceptable, at say pick a number, like 8 on the scale, between 8 and 9.2, there's a red zone, where you get acceptable images with FF and not with APS_c. Now the area may be between 7 and 8.2 or between 12 and 13.2, that's pretty much personal preference. But that's the difference. Now you have to decide. Will I pay twice as much for that difference. The answer for some pros and advanced amateurs is going to be, yes it's essential. If you're one of those ones, then FF is essential to you. But for most of us, we'll stay lower budget and be happier that way.

The other advantages of APS-c far outweigh that little 1.2 inch red zone on the 15 inch scale that determines when an FF is better than APS-c, or Two inches for 4/3, or 4 inches for a point and shoot. By the time you've arrived at the point and shoot you've lost between a quarter and a third of your functionality. But APS-c to FF just isn't that much.

If you are a wedding pro and 50% of your work is in that red zone after APS_c but before FF cuts out, then absolutely twice as much money for an FF is a good deal, but in actual practice, a D4s or low light specialty camera is a better deal. A standard low cost FF dslr is still a compromise, and now your'er getting up into 645z pricing for your FF (with the D4s), and the choice to go MF becomes a lot easier.

The choice isn't D600 or 645z, it's D4s or 645z...and the 645z gives you a heck of a lot more resolution.

[ChristianRock]

I think Norm summed it up pretty well. The question isn't, is full frame going to offer you a bit of better performance.

The question is, will you be able to make use of that performance or even need it, and more importantly, does it align with your financial objectives.

It does seem like you have set your mind on spending the money on the full frame camera, so are we perhaps wasting time here?