[mecrox]

Looking only at formats doesn't tell the whole story, imho. A digital sensor of around 2007 is a very different beast from one from out now, let alone from the ones likely to be around 2015 or 2016. The differences are almost as great as moving to a new format in itself. Yes, folks can point to FOV, DOF, focus transitions, diffraction limits and all the rest, and they do have important points of course. But trying to establish at 1:1 relationship between sensor sizes and old film sizes is a bit misleading, I think. For many folks, a new-gen APS-C sensor is likely to give them as much as or more than a larger-format sensor from a few years ago when it comes to performance. And for the vast majority, 8 or 9 out of ten people, looking for a sensible compromise between size, cost and performance, that's just the ticket. If FF sensors fall in price very dramatically, then that balance would change but it hasn't happened yet and most folks don't seem to think it will, at least for quite a while if ever. There are "cheap" FF cameras around now, but mostly they leave a lot to be desired, imho, having been deprived of build quality and features to get in at a certain price point. So perhaps they are not as useful or long-lasting as they may appear. Just suggestions, no more.

[normhead]

Looking only at formats doesn't tell the whole story, imho. A digital sensor of around 2007 is a very different beast from one from out now, let alone from the ones likely to be around 2015 or 2016. The differences are almost as great as moving to a new format in itself. Yes, folks can point to FOV, DOF, focus transitions, diffraction limits and all the rest, and they do have important points of course. But trying to establish at 1:1 relationship between sensor sizes and old film sizes is a bit misleading, I think. For many folks, a new-gen APS-C sensor is likely to give them as much as or more than a larger-format sensor from a few years ago when it comes to performance. And for the vast majority, 8 or 9 out of ten people, looking for a sensible compromise between size, cost and performance, that's just the ticket. If FF sensors fall in price very dramatically, then that balance would change but it hasn't happened yet and most folks don't seem to think it will, at least for quite a while if ever. There are "cheap" FF cameras around now, but mostly they leave a lot to be desired, imho, having been deprived of build quality and features to get in at a certain price point. So perhaps they are not as useful or long-lasting as they may appear. Just suggestions, no more.

For sure, you can now pay a lot more for an FF camera like a 6D or D610, that in many situations give you less in IQ than a K-3 does. FF is a good deal, if and only if, you actually regularly use those features where FF has an advantage.

People don't want to discuss things, like in a given situation APS-c gives you much more DOF with an equivalent lens. The f-stop you gain in low light, you lose because you have to shoot a higher f-stop to get the same DoF on your FF system. FF proponents bury this, by trying to convince you that what you need is less DoF, not more, but as I said, that's less than 1 image in 10 for most of us.

[BrianR]

It's all a compromise. Unfortunately everyone else in the world is too thick-headed to choose the compromise that makes the most sense for their personal use, so in my spare time I'm going to try to impose my will upon them since I know what's best for everyone.


Seriously, I don't think the aps-c line is in too much danger. There will always be room for an 'entry-level' camera and I think an aps-c carrying the k-3 capabilities will be around for some time as a high performance inbetweener. It's also worth comparing the entry level camera of today to past pentax flagship models. Any new features added to a 'high end' full frame will trickle down, and likewise new features added to the more frequent aps-c generations will 'trickle up'. We're spoiled as it is, I think it's only going to get better.

[Clavius]

I don't think APS-C format cameras should be restricted to entry level, no matter how good FF format is going to do. There's also place for some really higly features M4/3 cameras too right now. So, I don't see how that would be different for APS-C. There is a lot of people who like the format because of the format. Me included, I can't do without APS-C, even though I also have FF. Heck, I can't do without the Q.

[rangercarp]

When speaking of Alaska, wilderness essayist Edward Abbey said he would probably never make it there. Still, he was glad to know it existed, just in case he ever needed to go. I think a lot of us feel that way about FF. The vast majority of Pentaxians will never buy one, but it would be nice if one existed, just in case we ever find the need.

[nowo1978]

It's a hype, that's all there is to it, period.

[acoufap]

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'm with Rondec. I'd like to see options and I don't see that FF substitutes APSC. In my opinion Ricoh/Pentax should drive a "double format body" strategy and advertise this - apsc plus ff body. This should be supported by some special fast lens offers like a FF-compatible DFA f2.8/20-40mm limited lens (similar the DA 20-40). On the FF-Body you get the "original" wide angle 20-40mm and on your APSC you get the cropped image as 30-60mm. With the 1.4TC you can even vary the focal length and f/4 a little bit. One body backups the other, each with their drawbacks. Motto: Change the body, not the lens. Just an idea.

I'd be happy with such a solution because I like big bright optical viewfinders like that of my ME Super.

[tuco]

PF is full of older people. Didn't we all grow up shooting FF? Or did you guys only learn on a cropped format? If you grew up shooting 35mm, I don't see why you'd want a cropped version where, say, your favorite 85mm is hardly used anymore. Yeah, yeah, birds telephoto, etc. I guess getting old means you can't haul the gear anymore either.

[Kunzite]

No, I grew up shooting small format. I guess that makes me younger?

[RonHendriks1966]

Rather than a FF sensor, what about an APS-H size sensor? Which is a size between the FF and the APS-C sensors.

Another believer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[yucatanPentax]

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?

35mm film was movie film as well. FWIW.

[Bcrary3]

35mm film was movie film as well. FWIW.

I know that, but I mean, how long has 35mm film been used for motion pictures? That I have no idea.

One thing Pentax does offer in their lower, entry level cameras is customizable colours, which is neat... What if, they offered something similar to their customer base on their higher end cameras, but rather than changing the colour scheme, you get to customize the sensor, and maybe other features as well?
That being said, yes, perhaps a bit impractical, but it would cater to everyone, you have the same camera design, features, and quality, however you could get it with either a FF sensor, or an APS-C sensor, but obviously have the price go accordingly?

[jsherman999]

PF is full of older people. Didn't we all grow up shooting FF? Or did you guys only learn on a cropped format? If you grew up shooting 35mm, I don't see why you'd want a cropped version where, say, your favorite 85mm is hardly used anymore. Yeah, yeah, birds telephoto, etc. I guess getting old means you can't haul the gear anymore either.

I never shot SLR film, started out with aps-c digital in 2006 or so, and before that various crappy P&S digital, and before that crappy P&S film bodies.

And, in my opinion, digital 35mm (FF) brings the sweetest of sweet spots with regard to affordability, performance, size, and available equipment. If you like photography, you'd like what FF has to offer.

For certain types of shooting, it beats anything I've used and compromises least. Medium format would be great, just too large and expensive and the lenses are not fast enough to really give me an advantage over FF digital anyway. aps-c is perfectly fine, FF just brings more of the same good stuff.

I'll say this - spend a day with a cheap-but-good fast 50 and an old D700 and you'll never look back - but you'll really, really wish you could spend the next day with a Pentax FF body + FA 43ltd.

.

[Adam]

I understand why it is justified, but I mean, if (for the most part) people are able to o what they need to do, and have not just good, but great results with the current existing hardware, is there a great demand to go above and beyond? I guess I have never really worked with FF before (other than with film) so I can't really judge the difference to say I have a preference, however, my fear is if Pentax did begin to make FF cameras what would happen to their APC-C bodied cameras? Would it become like Canon and Nikon and the APS-C sensor cameras would become second tier, sub-par cameras like we see with Canon & Nikon? Another big concern is if that were the case, would their (presumably sub-par (by that I mean obviously not as good as they are doing now)) cameras remain the same price, or would they drop the price to make their FF cameras at least come some-what close to meeting current market price of their current cameras? I mean, isn't one of the things with Pentax the fact that their "top of the line" dSLR isn't $7,000?

It's true that most of the users on this forum don't need a FF camera, and the same is valid for larger camera market. There are folks who want to go above and beyond, though, including both professionals and amateurs. If you look at how many enthusiasts have picked up the 645Z (enough to make it sell out for the first few months), think about what the demand would be for a $2000-3000 camera that takes better pictures than an APS-C body but still handles like one.

It's also true that Nikon hasn't updated their professional APS-C body in many years, but I wouldn't consider any of Canon or Nikon's APS-C offerings to be an afterthought in any way (look at the 70D, 7D II, D7100, and D5500). They get the majority of their business from sales of such cameras and they stack up well against current tech: though each brand has its own little niche and set of advantages, Pentax included.

Finally, if Pentax were to launch an FF (which is inevitable if you ask me, given the way the camera market is changing), it would just be positioned above the K-3 and nothing else would change. So we'd have a lineup consisting of a professional-grade medium format body, an enthusiast/pro-level full-frame, an enthusiast/pro-level APS-C body, a mid-range APS-C body, and an entry-level body. All but one of those cameras (the FF) are either in the current lineup or about to be announced (see the CES 2015 news).

[todd]

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...