[Rondec]

OK but by that argument your camera on your phone is the best format, or a PS camera that you can pocket. Most people don't use DSLRs.

Sure. There are plenty of situations where even if you own an SLR your phone camera will be the best tool just because it is with you and your SLR isn't. There are certain things that phone cameras aren't good at -- telephoto images, action shots, etc. Most people will get an additional camera to their phone for those specific situations. For daily snaps, they'll just use their phone.

If someone has a 3000 dollar budget, they will have a lot more options, than if they just have 5 or 600 dollars to spend.

[kooks]

Definetly a FF is not for everybody, and not everybody needs it to take good pictures.. besides not every FF is a "great" camera ... BUT as you all said, the difference will be notice when you push the sensor, especially at low light, and norrow dof at portraits.. BUT if you dont take low light pictures or dont take portraits that much... a nice APS-C is good enough. Period.

is stupid to spend $4000 / $5000 ( if is a Canikon) in a camera to take a picture of for example a "mountain" during daylight, when you can do the IQ with less than $2000 ( for example a K3 with a nice lens ).. If you somebody use a FF at least you should know why are you using that camera and not another.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Definetly a FF is not for everybody, and not everybody needs it to take good pictures.. besides not every FF is a "great" camera ... BUT as you all said, the difference will be notice when you push the sensor, especially at low light, and norrow dof at portraits.. BUT if you dont take low light pictures or dont take portraits that much... a nice APS-C is good enough. Period.

is stupid to spend $4000 / $5000 ( if is a Canikon) in a camera to take a picture of for example a "mountain" during daylight, when you can do the IQ with less than $2000 ( for example a K3 with a nice lens ).. If you somebody use a FF at least you should know why are you using that camera and not another.

Sorry to say but K3 will not take as good picture than a 4-5K FF Canon or Nikon..In any equal conditions. You want to beat those cameras for landscape you have to go to the pentax 645

[Arrvon]

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

I know this was back in the thread a bit, but I've just been reading through it now.

I find ironic when the classic statement that all the top professionals are shooting FF is brought up. There is no doubt they all pretty much do. That's not the issue. But this also means that they were all shooting with FF years ago with for example a 5D. They were still making great photos then weren't they? Making lots of money no? Well unless they were always shooting wide open for an advantage in DoF, all of the other image quality measures would have been a wash with someone shooting a aps-c k5.

So somelne using a k5 is getting all the image quality and ISO performance that the 'top professionals' all had 5 or so years ago with their FF cameras minus that extra stop and a half of DoF.

[hjoseph7]

You know what I think, that camera manufacturers jumped into the Digital band-wagon a little bit too early. Initially, they could not produce a 24x36" sensor that was cost efficient, so instead they dumped a lower-level APS-C sensor on the market hoping to cash in on the Digital Revolution, regardless of what the photographic community thought.


If they had come out with a FF sensor in the first place then there would not be this argument between FF and APS-C. People would be using their lenses normally as usual. A 35mm would be a 35mm, not a 50mm. A 50mm would be a 50mm not a 85mm. Not only that, the first digital cameras that came out were featureless. They were just a hunk of metal and plastic surrounding a digital sensor.


The good thing is that digital cameras now come packed with features, but that took years to develop. That's why I waited until 2006 to purchase my first Digital camera a Canon 30D.


Fast forward to the future and now we have a bunch of lenses that were designed to only work with APS-C sensors. The Digital revolution not only changed the way photographers processed pictures, it also changed the way they viewed the Focal Length of their lenses. About 75 years of experience was suddenly wiped out.


The Focal Length of these new ASP-C lenses did not really change however. A 50mm lens remained a 50mm if placed on a film camera. What camera manufacturers did was give us a compromise until they could develop cost efficient methods to produce Full Format or 24X36" sensors that would match the recording area of film.


This whole digital ASP-C process took about 10-15 years. A period where hundreds of thousands if not millions of cameras with this new modified sensor (recording area) were sold along with their matching lenses. Looking at it from a Business perspective and the way things have evolved to this point, some camera manufacturers are saying why should they change since they are already making a profit off of these ASP-C cameras and lenses. Producing FF sensors is still a very expensive proposition and the manufactures would just pass this expense down to the consumer.


The way they(business) think is that there are not that many consumers willing to pay $2000+ for a camera. It may not look that way if you visit this site a lot, but in general most people would call you crazy for spending that much on a camera. It's a matter of supply and demand, in the case for Pentax I would say, "demand" predominates looking at it from a business perspective...

[jsherman999]

You know what I think, that camera manufacturers jumped into the Digital band-wagon a little bit too early. Initially, they could not produce a 24x36" sensor that was cost efficient, so instead they dumped a lower-level APS-C sensor on the market hoping to cash in on the Digital Revolution, regardless of what the photographic community thought.

There was no forestalling it, though. The tech was good enough, people were ready to buy, and especially: the manufacturers really wanted a product to sell. It was time, even if aps-c had to be the compromise.

And the photographic community by and large were pretty receptive - when I was married in 2004 the photog we chose was already shooting digital Canon and he didn't want to go back, his workflow was so easy, fast and efficient compared to film. We asked him to shoot a bunch of Film anyway and paid a little more for it, I was against the idea but my wife didn't want to risk not having "good" photos (Digital SLR was brand new to us and we didn;t know how the images would really look when printed) - and as it turns out, for whatever reason the film shots were the very best and the ones that ended up getting framed, and scanned again, etc.

.

[lesmore49]

Please do a search for the plethora of threads on this subject. We don't need another one.

That my friend is your opinion. What about those of us , who like this kind of discussion ? If you don't want to participate because you feel there has already been too much discussion on this subject...well...then don't.

[kooks]

Sorry to say but K3 will not take as good picture than a 4-5K FF Canon or Nikon..In any equal conditions. You want to beat those cameras for landscape you have to go to the pentax 645

According to DxoMark and other websites that test sensors the FF sensor of the 5Dmk2 produce a virtually equal quality image compared with the K5iis and K3.. BUT at low light ISO where the FF stands up, and that's ok. APS-C is more limited than FF so we cant spect the same behaviour as same as nobody spects the same behaviour of a cel phone camera compared with an APS-C. ..

Now THAT is in the case of a Canon 5Dmk2... if we compare the IQ tests between the K3/K5iis and a Nikon D810 thats another story...


I really like low light pictures, and portraits.. that is my main reason why i want a Pentax FF. But if i take nature, birds, macro, or casual at daylight.. i wouldnt even mind because i'll never push the sensor to where it really stands up, and the price doesnt justify the increse of image quality.

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10917053_101525488...6d&oe=552890B1

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10929170_101525488...a7&oe=553C8CD0

[Sliver-Surfer]

According to DxoMark and other websites that test sensors the FF sensor of the 5Dmk2 produce a virtually equal quality image compared with the K5iis and K3.. BUT at low light ISO where the FF stands up, and that's ok. APS-C is more limited than FF so we cant spect the same behaviour as same as nobody spects the same behaviour of a cel phone camera compared with an APS-C. ..

Now THAT is in the case of a Canon 5Dmk2... if we compare the IQ tests between the K3/K5iis and a Nikon D810 thats another story...


I really like low light pictures, and portraits.. that is my main reason why i want a Pentax FF. But if i take nature, birds, macro, or casual at daylight.. i wouldnt even mind because i'll never push the sensor to where it really stands up, and the price doesnt justify the increse of image quality.

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10917053_101525488...6d&oe=552890B1

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10929170_101525488...a7&oe=553C8CD0

The 5D mark ii is the old model 7 years ago should compare it to the pentax 20d they were released at the same time

Heres why I use Love/need Sony A7 FF Iso 6400

[Digitalis]

According to DxoMark

When anyone bases their data on a single online source in academia, they are prompt ignored - and rightly so.

[justin-23]

Sorry to say but K3 will not take as good picture than a 4-5K FF Canon or Nikon..In any equal conditions. You want to beat those cameras for landscape you have to go to the pentax 645

Except when you print these photos in magazine most people can't tell the difference between FF and APS-C. Depending on conditions and subject, you might be able to tell, but in a majority of cases most people can't tell the difference in a true blind test.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't care to spend the money for APS-C. So I shoot full frame.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Except when you print these photos in magazine most people can't tell the difference between FF and APS-C. Depending on conditions and subject, you might be able to tell, but in a majority of cases most people can't tell the difference in a true blind test.

If you are shooting for an ad in a magazine it's likely to end up on a billboard somewhere. When you submit an image to a photo editor of a magazine for an article, he will definitely be able to tell. Readers don't decide what is published the editor does.

[Pioneer]

Interesting thing. I have been approached by a few Canon and Nikon users and have never been asked if I had full frame. Of course I was either packing the Pentax Q or the 645Nii. In the first case it was pretty obvious, in the second I think they may have been afraid to ask.

My advice, if you are tired of being asked whether or not your camera is full frame you have to stop wasting time with the little stuff. You have to pack a BIG gun! Otherwise get over yourself and quit being so sensitive.

[GeneV]

I shoot with friends who pack Canons. When we shoot wildlife they are using APS-C just like I am with the K3. Indoors I see some difference in high ISO portraits, most of which can be dealt with in PP. I'm not sure an art director will be that thrilled with any of the ISO 3200 and above portraits I have seen from the 5Dmk3 or K3 without a lot of work, either.

If I have $1700 lying around next year, I may pick up a Sony FF and see. So far the only one that interests me with a boatload of Pentax FF lenses is the new A7II, with internal IS.

High ISO is nice to have when you need it. I just don't find that I need that high ISO that often. This concert in a dark hall worked at 1600, 1/250 and F5.6 with K3 and and old SMC K135/2.5