Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-08-2015, 08:31 PM   #46
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Upper Middle Class Status Seekers

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Because they're upper-middle-class status seekers...

- upper-middle-class status seekers.
So anyone who buys FF (any model, any kit) who doesn't 'need' it profesionaly is just a Upper Middle Class Status Seeker (UMCSS!)

I'd go farther. I'd say anyone who buys a FA or DA Limited who doesn't need it is a UMCSS. Heck, any DSLR or MILC purchase by a non-pro is an UMCSS folly! (I'm actually serious - same logic applies.)

QuoteQuote:
Otherwise, if you are rational, you will find a good compromise, or shoot with what you have, when you have it, where you are.
It so often seems to come down to:

My un-needed purchase: Rational, good compromise, cost-effective.
Other guys un-needed purchase: UMCSS!



01-08-2015, 08:39 PM   #47
Pentaxian
todd's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Basement
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,943
QuoteOriginally posted by aleonx3 Quote
Do you have the focus on the toddler's face or the shirt? Nice shot, just seem a little soft...
it was a miss (in part because I was laying on my side) and noise reduction was applied because I boosted it..
01-08-2015, 09:03 PM   #48
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Bcrary3 Quote
Now, don't get me wrong, I know that FF has many advantages over the APS-C sensors Pentax is currently using, but my big question is this: WHY?
there is a saying about the a7r...

if you have to ask do i need it, then it's not for you.

people who need it, know that they need it... for the most part anyway, lol
01-08-2015, 09:20 PM   #49
Veteran Member
Flugelbinder's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Toronto - missing the ocean
Posts: 466
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
there is a saying about the a7r...

if you have to ask do i need it, then it's not for you.

people who need it, know that they need it... for the most part anyway, lol
I believe that applies to every one who asks the same about FF...


01-09-2015, 04:12 AM   #50
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,249
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Do you have *any* evidence at all to back up that blatantly incorrect blanket statement?
I think as long as you designate that in order to be a "top professional" you have to shoot full frame then the statement stands as written. I do wonder about those lower end photographers who shoot with medium format or, even those who for some reason shoot a crop frame camera. But clearly they aren't "top professionals."

I'm just frustrated, I guess, by the gear-centric nature of these discussions. True professionals don't talk gear, they talk light, they talk subject, they talk about composition, while amateurs talk about newer bodies and faster glass. There is nothing wrong with full frame cameras, they do allow one to push iso higher with less noise and better dynamic range, they do have some benefits in the wide angle department, but in my experience, most shots that people mess up with APS-C wouldn't be helped by going full frame.

And if you shoot a lot of landscapes, you would save more money and get better results buying a nice tripod than buying a full frame camera.

Last edited by Rondec; 01-09-2015 at 04:20 AM.
01-09-2015, 05:13 AM - 2 Likes   #51
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
I don't understand why it should be FF vs APS-C. The question is and/or/neither but never vs. This ain't sports or war.

I don't understand arguments about the gear 'pros' use on a Pentax forum either. Heck, if that consideration had any meaning to us, we would not be using Pentax in the first place. Being a Pentaxian may not bring pro status but it sure means you are a discerning buyer.

Having said that I still want my FF and CP+ would be a good time for Ricoh/Pentax to finally let us in on their thinking
01-09-2015, 07:15 AM   #52
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by todd Quote
So lower to middle middle-class blokes who do not give a rip about status hobby shooters like myself are rare then? Seems to be some around here from what I've seen... I just enjoy taking photos and the challenge of making the best photos I can whenever I do...



I took this shot at a Christmas party in relatively low light with my K5. (FA31, f1.8, ISO500, 1/25sec... ) I realized in hind sight I could have shot this one better with a bit higher ISO, etc, but the point is that I would have enjoyed a little extra help from the camera in this situation (as just one example) and if I can manage to swing it somehow, I am willing to shell out to get it... And I don't feel crazy/irrational but I concede that I may be hahaha. FF for me will be one of the more extravagant things I have ever purchased for myself, but I already shelled out bigger than I could have ever imagined when I started photography for the lenses I wanted the most, and I don't have many toys...
QuoteOriginally posted by aleonx3 Quote
Do you have the focus on the toddler's face or the shirt? Nice shot, just seem a little soft...
And that is what so often happens, someone actually provides an image, and their analysis, as to why they need a full frame, but there are other issues with the image that don't involve a full frame at all. The low light focusing system on the K-3, K5II is as good as any Full Frame, not the ISO noise thing, the actual AF system. So the user gets an image, that there is something wrong with, and he thinks it's a problem a full frame would have solved.

But the fact is, the T-shirt is in clear focus, not the eyes as is usual for portraits. The user doesn't realize that the image is actually quite good for what it is, and in fact, a one stop higher noise value wouldn't have made much difference to the image. If he wanted one stop higher ISO, he should have just used one stop higher ISO, it's not like APS-c didn't have that setting, he just didn't use it. An FF isn't going to remind him what setting he has at his disposal. And the missed focus is user error, and has nothing to do with he camera. Whatever camera he uses, he's going to have to learn how to get selective focus happening.

So the user assumes, because of all the hype he's heard hither thither and yon, that FF cameras are better in low light, and also assumes that the issues in the image were caused by APS-c's "lack of ability" in low light.

This is the Full Frame advantage. The people who don't know how to use their gear, who don't understand the limitations that are inherent in all cameras, regardless of what format is used, and who end up erroneously believing, "an FF would have made this better." when in fact, there are many FF's that would have made it considerably worse.

With that shirt in focus, and the face a bit soft, what we have here, is a DoF problem. An FF, would have made that worse. Instead of having a sharp shirt and soft face you would have had part of the shirt in focus, and a very soft face. The only reason the face is as good as it is, is the wider DoF provided by APS-c. And it would have been better with a Q.

Yet the user for some reason is thinking this images is an argument for an FF. The simple fact is, the mistakes made in this photo, would be made worse by an FF, not improved.

So the user thinks "FF to improve the image", I look at the same image and think, "potential Q user." Life is funny.
The larger format you use, the more skill you need in composition, the more critical your focus point and awareness of DoF. Larger format does not make bad photographers better, it makes them worse.

Last edited by normhead; 01-09-2015 at 07:29 AM.
01-09-2015, 07:37 AM   #53
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,249
QuoteOriginally posted by todd Quote
Sorry if it has been said here, but I don't know why it's always 'APSC vs. FF'... This is a classic 'both and' situation if there ever was one, imho. Never before in my photographic life has there been this big of a GAS inducing possibility!

I don't technically need and can't afford FF, but mark my words I will somehow get a k-mount digital FF as soon as possible (with three of my top reasons being FA31, FA77 and FA43... I think it was Rondec who wrote that it's not a big difference shooting them on FF, but I sure like shooting them on film and will enjoy having the option to shoot them at both sensor sizes...)

I also look forward to being able to carry FF and APSC bodies at the same time, and shoot them back and forth in suitable situations...
I shoot stopped down a lot. Shooting DA *55 on film versus FA 31 on APS-C just doesn't feel like a big difference. Both are nice lenses. I don't really like the whole film experience and I would probably enjoy it more if I had a digital full frame available, but in the end, there certainly wasn't something "eye-opening" with shooting the FA 31 or FA 77 on film that was so different from crop cameras. You just choose a different focal length based on the framing you want.

01-09-2015, 08:07 AM   #54
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I shoot stopped down a lot. Shooting DA *55 on film versus FA 31 on APS-C just doesn't feel like a big difference. Both are nice lenses. I don't really like the whole film experience and I would probably enjoy it more if I had a digital full frame available, but in the end, there certainly wasn't something "eye-opening" with shooting the FA 31 or FA 77 on film that was so different from crop cameras. You just choose a different focal length based on the framing you want.
I think what people really want is the advantage of shooting on both. There are only two systems that use the same mount... APS-c and FF. You can't use Q lenses and you can't use MF lenses, but you can without an adapter use APS-c and FF. That to any camera enthusiast is just bonus. Each lens has two distinct Field of View. Let's say the 31 ltd is your favourite lens. You're shooting a scene that tis just little too wide for it. You get out your FF body and take the scene with your favourite lens.

The simple fact is, it's a freak of DSLR development, it never should have happened, APS-c should have had it's own registration distance etc. but it did happen. And even though no one has any right to expect that should be true, it is. And people look at it and say "wow" Two lenses for the price of one. Even more appealing for the Limiteds, it just makes buying really good glass make more sense.

If you know you can leverage different FoVs from the same lens, you could buy fewer really good lenses as opposed to more average lenses to cover the various FoVs you might encounter. You 31, would also be your 21 on an FF. Your 77 would also be your 50 on an FF. You have the same coverages as an APS-c with a 21, 31,50 and 77, and 4 pieces of equipment instead of 5. As If you add a 300 APS0c that will give you an APS-c 200 used on your FF body. Every time you buy apiece of glass, you are getting two FoVs. That's what is exciting about adding an FF to an APS-c system if you have the right glass.

If you don't have premium glass in the right configurations, I'm not sure what you're going on about.
01-09-2015, 08:16 AM   #55
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,249
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I think what people really want is the advantage of shooting on both. There are only two systems that use the same mount... APS-c and FF. You can't use Q lenses and you can't use MF lenses, but you can without an adapter use APS-c and FF. That to any camera enthusiast is just bonus. Each lens has two distinct Field of View. Let's say the 31 ltd is your favourite lens. You're shooting a scene that tis just little too wide for it. You get out your FF body and take the scene with your favourite lens.

The simple fact is, it's a freak of DSLR development, it never should have happened, APS-c should have had it's own registration distance etc. but it did happen. And even though no one has any right to expect that should be true, it is. And people look at it and say "wow" Two lenses for the price of one. Even more appealing for the Limiteds, it just makes buying really good glass make more sense.

If you know you can leverage different FoVs from the same lens, you could buy fewer really good lenses as opposed to more average lenses to cover the various FoVs you might encounter. You 31, would also be your 21 on an FF. Your 77 would also be your 50 on an FF. You have the same coverages as an APS-c with a 21, 31,50 and 77, and 4 pieces of equipment instead of 5. As If you add a 300 APS0c that will give you an APS-c 200 used on your FF body. Every time you buy apiece of glass, you are getting two FoVs. That's what is exciting about adding an FF to an APS-c system if you have the right glass.

If you don't have premium glass in the right configurations, I'm not sure what you're going on about.
I guess. The thing is that if APS-C and full frame have the same pixel density, then you can just crop your full frame shot however you want it and if you want to crop to APS-C then you'll have the same shot. The only problem in that situation is that you have really big image files and your full frame camera will be expensive compared to APS-C.

I just don't really care. They are different formats that happen to share a mount, but I don't think it really gives you two different lenses.
01-09-2015, 08:20 AM   #56
Veteran Member
Flugelbinder's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Toronto - missing the ocean
Posts: 466
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
...With that shirt in focus, and the face a bit soft, what we have here, is a DoF problem...
Or maybe the K-5's well known "dinner-plate-sized-focus-anywhere-close-to-where-you-chose" issue?
01-09-2015, 08:43 AM   #57
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Flugelbinder Quote
Or maybe the K-5's well known "dinner-plate-sized-focus-anywhere-close-to-where-you-chose" issue?
That was an issue taking pictures of small birds through branches, I'm not aware it ever affected images like this one. I shot with a K-5 for over a year, and my wife still shoots with one, stated definitively, that isn't the issue. Now if he'd focused on the eye, and it was a little soft but the eyebrow was in sharp focus, you might have point. Even with the K-5 you have that little rectangle in the middle of the viewfinder divided into 9 points. The whole saucer things was way over blown by Canikon users, using systems that cost 3 or 4 times as much. Now that the K-3 has 27 points, it seems to have been resolved, both the problem and the cheap shots. Although the above post could be construed as a cheap shot, so maybe we still have to contend with those.
01-09-2015, 08:46 AM   #58
Veteran Member
Flugelbinder's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Toronto - missing the ocean
Posts: 466
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
...Now that the K-3 has 27 points, it seems to have been resolved, both the problem and the cheap shots.
Man, how I'd love to try one...
01-09-2015, 08:49 AM   #59
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,619
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
I will hate myself for ever mentioning APS-H on these forums.
bonk
01-09-2015, 08:49 AM   #60
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Flugelbinder Quote
Man, how I'd love to try one...
If your issue was K-5 AF, the camera is a dream.... before the K-3 I used to think "AF I can get along with MF...any AF is a frill." I don't think that anymore. It's not that it's even that much better, it's just the little bit better that it is, grows on you to the point, you groan when you think of using your K-5.
Closed Thread

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, advantages, aps-c, doubts, ff, ff vs, formats, frame, full-frame, images, k-5, lenses, light, market, nikon, pentax, people, pixel, pm, post, print, sensor, sensors, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How & Why Sensor Size Affects Image Quality (APS-C vs FF vs compact) Adam Photography Articles 28 01-02-2015 09:38 PM
FF vs APS-C light gathering / noise CypherOz General Photography 21 06-13-2014 10:25 AM
35mm FF vs 35mm crop angle of view on APS-C camera QCdude Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 01-26-2014 11:16 AM
Quick question regarding field of view - FF vs APS-C glass? Julie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-23-2012 05:33 PM
APS-C vs FF again bobrapp Pentax News and Rumors 45 03-22-2008 02:59 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 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