[Parallax]

There's a reason why ALL top professionals shoot with a FF in their chosen brand...

That's a pretty safe statement as "top" is purely subjective on the part of anyone defending or refuting that.

[Flugelbinder]

If your issue was K-5 AF, the camera is a dream....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.

Yeah, that's what I hear... Oh well, it is what it is... Will have a first 'real' go with it next weekend (birthday) and I'll see what it can deliver...

---------- Post added 01-09-15 at 09:00 AM ----------

That's a pretty safe statement as "top" is purely subjective on the part of anyone defending or refuting that.

Yes, but when I mention 'top', I mean top dollars. There's no argument about that...

[Parallax]

Yes, but when I mention 'top', I mean top dollars. There's no argument about that...

"Top" is still subjective. If not, then somewhere there must be a hard and fast, dispositive, definition of a specific dollar amount that constitutes "top"; right?
(Google Benjamin Kanarek. He has dozens and dozens of pictures in Vogue, Elle, and many other "top" magazines over the years that were taken with K10Ds and K20Ds, and, I believe, K-7 as well)

[Flugelbinder]

"Top" is still subjective. If not, then somewhere there must be a hard and fast, dispositive, definition of a specific dollar amount that constitutes "top"; right?
(Google, or do a forum member search for, Benjamin Kanarik. He has dozens and dozens of pictures in Vogue, Elle, and many other "top" magazines over the years that were taken with K10Ds and K20Ds, and, I believe, K-7 as well)

I've heard of him, and seen some of his images, but are you sure he makes a lot of money? I'm not saying he doesn't...
Btw, another name just came to me, Peter Hurley. Shoots MF (Hasselblad) and charges $1000 for a 15 minute, head-and-shoulder, with 10 to 15 images delivered... Packed all the time, with a waiting list of months...

[jsherman999]

"Top" is still subjective. If not, then somewhere there must be a hard and fast, dispositive, definition of a specific dollar amount that constitutes "top"; right?

A quick survey will show that the 'top' (in terms of visibility/name) photographers do use FF primarily, but they also use other formats and few would say that FF is *required* to do good work - just like a professional woodworker or carpenter will tell you that top-name tools are not needed to do good carpentry... yet you will notice they always gravitate towards the top tools for their own work.

(Google, or do a forum member search for, Benjamin Kanarik. He has dozens and dozens of pictures in Vogue, Elle, and many other "top" magazines over the years that were taken with K10Ds and K20Ds, and, I believe, K-7 as well)

And Ben K moved to FF Nikon last year and has said on dpreview he should have done it earlier. (Before Pentax he shot with Canon, not sure what models.)

If you're an enthusiast/amatuer, It really shouldn't matter what 'top pros' use anyway, just like it shouldn't matter to your auto purchase what F1 or Nascar drivers drive, or to your shoe purchase what NBA players are wearing. Buy photo equipment based on your wants, needs and budget.

With FF coming down in price, down to where upper-end aps-c was a few years ago, I think everyone** should look into it - IMO, it's really a rewarding, easy, powerful, fun, cost-effective format for anyone serious about their hobby. Hopefully - and I think we're closer now than ever - Pentax will have an offering in this space and folks won't have to change brands to get it. We have some very compelling lenses already even without a glass refresh, which are begging for the larger format.

**Edit: Of course by "everyone" I mean everyone who would find themselves participating in a thread like this on a camera forum. You know, photography junkies like us. FF isn't for the real "everyone".


.

[Parallax]

but are you sure he makes a lot of money?

Yes. He was a top photographer, even when he used Pentax.
I stand by that statement as it is every bit as substantiable as your statement that "ALL" top photographers use FF.

[Flugelbinder]

..."ALL" top photographers use FF. ...

... or MF...

[todd]

but there are other issues with the image

So the user assumes,

people who don't know how to use their gear

who end up erroneously believing, "an FF would have made this better."

A lot of assumptions here on your part and using an aspect of the photo to prove something that wasn't even at issue... I wasn't talking about the focus. I was talking about low light in general, which is why I posted the settings of the shot and didn't mention the focus... I took other pictures of the boy where I got the focus on the eyes, which is one of the first things anybody ever learns about shooting portraits, but they weren't as cute as this one... I will still concede that with Normhead in the thread, I should have more carefully picked my picture. Anyway, the whole evening I was shooting in that low light and it was tough work, and yes of course a newer APSC body would have helped too, but a FF body with the same lens (though I'd probably go FA43 for the image I posted) would have helped even more.

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.

I don't care and am not surprised that you assume I don't know these things, think I am a bad photographer, and preyed upon my image. It's not rocket science to get a picture in focus.

[jsherman999]

I don't care and am not surprised that you assume I don't know these things, think I am a bad photographer, and preyed upon my image. It's not rocket science to get a picture in focus.

Don't worry about it. Norm is still struggling with the fact that you can stop larger formats down to match smaller formats DOF if you wish. He still apparently thinks FF always will give you "less DOF", and thus smaller formats have some magical advantage here.

---------- Post added 01-09-15 at 11:05 AM ----------

... or MF...

It's seems like the end result is Lomo or pinhole. Once you reach that level it's like Jonathan Livington Seagull, you just vaporize into another realm, and your equipment drops to the floor, un-needed.

.

[Parallax]

He still apparently thinks FF always will give you "less DOF"

No, he's just jealous of the ability of FF shooters to create those coveted "only one eye in focus" portraits.

(Sorry, couldn't resist! )

[normhead]

A lot of assumptions here on your part and using an aspect of the photo to prove something that wasn't even at issue... I wasn't talking about the focus. I was talking about low light in general, which is why I posted the settings of the shot and didn't mention the focus... I took other pictures of the boy where I got the focus on the eyes, which is one of the first things anybody ever learns about shooting portraits, but they weren't as cute as this one... I will still concede that with Normhead in the thread, I should have more carefully picked my picture. Anyway, the whole evening I was shooting in that low light and it was tough work, and yes of course a newer APSC body would have helped too, but a FF body with the same lens (though I'd probably go FA43 for the image I posted) would have helped even more.

I don't care and am not surprised that you assume I don't know these things, think I am a bad photographer, and preyed upon my image. It's not rocket science to get a picture in focus.

Hey, I can only go on what you give me.... so we are in a position where, we'll just have to note that you think an FF would have made your job easier, and go with that. Since I also have met wedding photographers (3 of them) who have gone to 4/3 for much of their indoor work, and use FF only for the formal portraits, I'd also point out that not everyone agrees with you assessment. Some, especially pros it would seem, find the utility of a smaller camera makes this type of shooting easier, and that even APS-c too large.

He still apparently thinks FF always will give you "less DOF"

The only thing I always think is that jsherman will always speak for me, tell others what I say, and then argue with it. Did it ever occur to you, even once, that other people can decide what I said, without you interpreting for them? Did it ever occur to you other people may have even better reading comprehension skills than you do? What is it exactly you're thinking when you make up something you think I said and then ridicule it?

Where's the pay off? Are you seeking some kind of recognition? Some kind of respect? Trying to con people into taking you seriously (as if trashing what I've said will accomplish that?)

[Sliver-Surfer]

The only advantage of an aps-c is size and price. Hands down FF is better on all levels. You put a the same fa lens on both and your abberations, motion blur, sensor dust, softness, and noise are all blown up by 1.5x on an aps-c sensor. Saying a 24mp vs 24mp is not very useful comparison because when Pentax puts out its FF I will bet you a coffee its going to be higher mp than the aps-c sensor of Pentax s newest aps-c camera.

[normhead]

K-3 vs D750

You put a the same fa lens on both and your abberations, motion blur, sensor dust, softness, and noise are all blown up by 1.5x on an aps-c sensor.

Where are all these imperfections of which you speak?

D750 on the right, K-3 on the left < correction, K-3 image on the right>. And why does the K-3 seem to have better IQ in terms of resolution and micro-contrast?
Or maybe you have a better example, like the one you used to form your opinion?

Honestly, after all this time, this is simply getting to be too easy.



I used to spend hours comparing photos, looking at different ISOs etc. trying to come to fair conclusions. No one listened anyway, now just slap up a few images, let people do their own research, and the images do their own talking.

[Flugelbinder]

No, he's just jealous of the ability of FF shooters to create those coveted "only one eye in focus" portraits.

(Sorry, couldn't resist! )

It works, when it's called for, in very particular shooting situations, brides for instance...

[Pioneer]

Full frame is important because...I WANT IT!!

Most people want a full frame Pentax because they want it.

It really isn't going to make others take Pentax any more serious than they do already.

Pro photographers, top level, mid level or bottom feeders, are not instantly going to leap to Pentax. Pentax had their best chance of that with the LX but didn't, or couldn't, follow up with a Pro service program.

People will not immediately take better photos just because they have more pixel density or any of the other BS tech reasons they think up.

People will not instantly compose better photos just because they can now use their lenses as they were designed to be used.

All this is just so much irrelevant fluff that is used to confuse the real fact which is; Pentax fans want it. Their current APS-C cameras are already well known for great ergonomics and design, AND awesome image quality. But, that really isn't the issue here.

There is a good chance that I will buy one if it arrives. But what I find most interesting is this. Though I already own and use other manufacturer's full frame digital cameras, my most used digital camera last year was the Q7. That doesn't even qualify as a dSLR! The second most used was the Q. Not too sure what all this means, or that it is even important? Probably only that those two cameras are with me almost everyday so are ready to hand for most of the photo opportunities. I doubt that will change if Pentax builds a full frame because it certainly isn't going to be smaller than a K5, or a K-01.

But...let's not let logic interfere. I want it therefore I'll buy it!