Originally posted by Rondec APS-C is pretty good. I think the biggest reasons to go with full frame are because (a) there are lenses that you want that you could only get in full frame (for example a 30mm f1.4 -- closest thing would probably be Sigma's 18-35 zoom) or, (b) because you want a bigger optical viewfinder. The end result of APS-C lenses being slower is that full frame cameras do better in high iso situations and are capable of more narrow depth of field photography. If you own a D800, you can certainly print larger than a K5 or K3, although I don't max out printing size on either of those and don't know how many people do.
I can understand wanting more light in the viewfinder, but in terms of low light performance, I think the K-5 does a pretty good job of that, and personally I don't think I would need anything different (as I don't typically shoot in complete darkness without a flash). But as I have read in another thread, it's merely keeping up with the Jones; Canon and Nikon have FF why doesn't Pentax? But I mean, when you look at the market, it is flooded with FF products, Canon and Nikon both have different lense lineups for FF & APS-C cameras where as Pentax lenses will work flawlessly with either format, why do we need to cloud that market even more? I think that is truly what sets Pentax apart, is the fact that maybe they don't have the latest and greatest (at least in terms of the biggest sensors) but somehow, we are always able to pull off stunning results.
And yes, with the bigger sensor, you can make bigger prints, but why is that necessary? How big of a print do people actually need, not to mention, unless you are blowing an image up like 500% or more, odds are, you probably won't see much of a difference (not sure on that, I have never really compared any FF images to APS-C images).
I mean, I understand that FF has some advantages over the APS-C sensor, but, if they do bring out a FF camera, how will that affect everything else? I don't know if anyone else shares a similar concern, but personally, I would really hate to see them come out with something, and have it mess everything up.
But case and point, I feel like a FF Pentax camera has a pretty limited market in comparison to the APS-C market? Correct me if I am wrong on any of that.
---------- Post added 01-08-15 at 05:15 AM ----------
Originally posted by Rondec APS-C is pretty good. I think the biggest reasons to go with full frame are because (a) there are lenses that you want that you could only get in full frame (for example a 30mm f1.4 -- closest thing would probably be Sigma's 18-35 zoom) or, (b) because you want a bigger optical viewfinder. The end result of APS-C lenses being slower is that full frame cameras do better in high iso situations and are capable of more narrow depth of field photography. If you own a D800, you can certainly print larger than a K5 or K3, although I don't max out printing size on either of those and don't know how many people do.
I can understand wanting more light in the viewfinder, but in terms of low light performance, I think the K-5 does a pretty good job of that, and personally I don't think I would need anything different (as I don't typically shoot in complete darkness without a flash). But as I have read in another thread, it's merely keeping up with the Jones; Canon and Nikon have FF why doesn't Pentax? But I mean, when you look at the market, it is flooded with FF products, Canon and Nikon both have different lense lineups for FF & APS-C cameras where as Pentax lenses will work flawlessly with either format, why do we need to cloud that market even more? I think that is truly what sets Pentax apart, is the fact that maybe they don't have the latest and greatest (at least in terms of the biggest sensors) but somehow, we are always able to pull off stunning results.
And yes, with the bigger sensor, you can make bigger prints, but why is that necessary? How big of a print do people actually need, not to mention, unless you are blowing an image up like 500% or more, odds are, you probably won't see much of a difference (not sure on that, I have never really compared any FF images to APS-C images).
I mean, I understand that FF has some advantages over the APS-C sensor, but, if they do bring out a FF camera, how will that affect everything else? I don't know if anyone else shares a similar concern, but personally, I would really hate to see them come out with something, and have it mess everything up.
But case and point, I feel like a FF Pentax camera has a pretty limited market in comparison to the APS-C market? Correct me if I am wrong on any of that.
Originally posted by HYS I think that the question "FF vs APS-C" is rather old, same as the answer.
Look back for the dilemma 16mm film or 35 mm film.
Well, in my case APS-C pictures are pretty nice. But the full frame ones are
sweet creamy and full of details (for those who like them).
Well, as far as I know, 8mm, and 16mm film have pretty much always been motion picture film?
But I don't get how the answer of "the details are just better" objectively, because I think we can all agree, it isn't the equipment, but the photographer, and I would be willing to bet that you can very similar results out of either technology? Though, if you have any image examples of what you are referring to, that would be swell