Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-08-2015, 01:29 AM   #1
Veteran Member
Bcrary3's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 364
FF vs APS-C

So, this may or may not have been brought up before, but I am really curious about all the hype with the FF.

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?

In terms of overall usability, what are the biggest advantages of FF over APS-C? Well, for one, yes better low light performance, and yes, higher pixel density (higher pixel sensor mean more PPI which means better resolution). But what I don't get is why that is necessary? With the current APS-C sensor, I can easily blow up an image taken with my K-5 to 64" x 48" and have virtually no distortion. Which for all practical purposes you'll probably never need to go any bigger than that... Ever.
How do you feel about the idea of a FF camera at a (likely) higher price point than what Pentax already has (I mean, c'mon, you know you bought a Pentax because you got so much more for your money over Canon and Nikon) but what if the prices were in a similar range and Canon and Nikon?

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

Any input?
Thanks

01-08-2015, 01:39 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,792
QuoteOriginally posted by Bcrary3 Quote
Rather than a FF sensor, what about an APS-H size sensor?
No.Canon tried it and after a few years they ditched it. APS-H is a stop gap between full frame and APS-C, canon used it when sensor yields for full format chips were lower than they are today. There is no room for half measures here - Pentax has to go full frame or it is never going to be taken seriously.
01-08-2015, 01:39 AM - 1 Like   #3
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,717
Please do a search for the plethora of threads on this subject. We don't need another one.
01-08-2015, 01:48 AM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 442
This is a good one:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/175341-why-do-pe...me-sensor.html

01-08-2015, 01:51 AM   #5
Veteran Member
JimC1101's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Fremont, Ca
Photos: Albums
Posts: 393
Plethora.....wow.....that is a lot.
It is true though.


I think when we get to CP Plus in Feb coming up....there will be a lot more talk about this too. I think that will be the time we will see a Pentax FF....maybe just proto for now...but that is a big show in Japan.
01-08-2015, 02:04 AM - 4 Likes   #6
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,091
QuoteOriginally posted by Bcrary3 Quote
So, this may or may not have been brought up before, but I am really curious about all the hype with the FF.

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?

In terms of overall usability, what are the biggest advantages of FF over APS-C? Well, for one, yes better low light performance, and yes, higher pixel density (higher pixel sensor mean more PPI which means better resolution). But what I don't get is why that is necessary? With the current APS-C sensor, I can easily blow up an image taken with my K-5 to 64" x 48" and have virtually no distortion. Which for all practical purposes you'll probably never need to go any bigger than that... Ever.
How do you feel about the idea of a FF camera at a (likely) higher price point than what Pentax already has (I mean, c'mon, you know you bought a Pentax because you got so much more for your money over Canon and Nikon) but what if the prices were in a similar range and Canon and Nikon?

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

Any input?
Thanks
FF has better image quality than APS-C, just like APS-C is better than smaller formats. The fact that a FF-sized sensor would fit inside a K-mount body and support existing lenses is the key reason there's so much hype, and it's certainly not unjustified.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

01-08-2015, 03:52 AM - 1 Like   #7
Veteran Member
Bcrary3's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 364
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
No.Canon tried it and after a few years they ditched it. APS-H is a stop gap between full frame and APS-C, canon used it when sensor yields for full format chips were lower than they are today. There is no room for half measures here - Pentax has to go full frame or it is never going to be taken seriously.
I had no idea about that with the APS-H chips, I just knew it was basically the size between a medium and a large, haha. But one thing that baffles me, is how are they not "taken seriously"? I mean, yeah, they do hold a much smaller market share than Canon and Nikon, but a few big differences are with Pentax you really get a truly outstanding piece of equipment for the price you pay (which is much lower than the others), so whilst not the "go to brand for all professionals" even if they did introduce a FF camera, they still wouldn't be. Why? Well, because they do not market their product, at least not like Canon and Nikon do (we have all seen the countless adverts for the Nikon D--- and the Canon Rebel XXX) moreover why do they need to be "taken seriously" I mean, with Canon and Nikon dSLRs you get a choice of what... Black? (You can have a Ford model 'T' in any colour as long as it is black) whereas Pentax at least has some fun with their bodies. I guess I just really understand what you mean by "taken seriously".



QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Please do a search for the plethora of threads on this subject. We don't need another one.
If I really felt like searching for what other people wanted to know, then I would not have asked the questions that I did... :rollseyes:




QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
FF has better image quality than APS-C, just like APS-C is better than smaller formats. The fact that a FF-sized sensor would fit inside a K-mount body and support existing lenses is the key reason there's so much hype, and it's certainly not unjustified.
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?
01-08-2015, 03:53 AM   #8
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
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.

01-08-2015, 04:07 AM   #9
HYS
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 306
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).
01-08-2015, 04:11 AM   #10
Veteran Member
Bcrary3's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 364
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by HYS Quote
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
01-08-2015, 04:21 AM   #11
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Bcrary3 Quote
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.
The issue over time has been that full frame cameras have been significantly more expensive than APS-C cameras (although lenses tend to be fairly similar in price). Assuming though, that the price of full frame cameras continues to drop, who is going to buy a 1000 dollar APS-C camera when there is a 1200 dollar full frame camera available that will get better performance? It feels like the days of the APS-C flagship are nearing an end and crop cameras will tend to be relegated to entry and mid level. Pentax will have to decide if they want something between top end APS-C and the 645z and if so, that will probably be full frame.

I actually agree with you for the most part. I think APS-C is "good enough" for most photographers. Unless you are pushing the extremes -- shooting over iso 6400 regularly, trying to get narrow depth of field with wide angle lenses, or printing super-big, I doubt you would see a huge difference. A lot of the shots I take are landscape shots on a tripod at low iso, with my lens stopped down between f8 and 11 and really, I don't think something would magical happen to my shots if I suddenly had a D810 instead of my K3. The light is the same, I would just have to stop down another stop to get the same depth of field, that's all. And maybe flare resistance would be worse because I have more glass in front of my sensor than my DA 15 gives...
01-08-2015, 04:30 AM   #12
HYS
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 306
QuoteOriginally posted by Bcrary3 Quote
....

---------- Post added 01-08-15 at 05:15 AM ----------

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
I briefly meant "Minox" - "Leica" (lets say). It could be 35 mm vs 6x6 cm or vs 9x13 cm ...
Sorry but I don't know how to compare images here. It's better to be seen in RAW. And finally it is a mater of taste.
01-08-2015, 04:31 AM   #13
Veteran Member
Bcrary3's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 364
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The issue over time has been that full frame cameras have been significantly more expensive than APS-C cameras (although lenses tend to be fairly similar in price). Assuming though, that the price of full frame cameras continues to drop, who is going to buy a 1000 dollar APS-C camera when there is a 1200 dollar full frame camera available that will get better performance? It feels like the days of the APS-C flagship are nearing an end and crop cameras will tend to be relegated to entry and mid level. Pentax will have to decide if they want something between top end APS-C and the 645z and if so, that will probably be full frame.

I actually agree with you for the most part. I think APS-C is "good enough" for most photographers. Unless you are pushing the extremes -- shooting over iso 6400 regularly, trying to get narrow depth of field with wide angle lenses, or printing super-big, I doubt you would see a huge difference. A lot of the shots I take are landscape shots on a tripod at low iso, with my lens stopped down between f8 and 11 and really, I don't think something would magical happen to my shots if I suddenly had a D810 instead of my K3. The light is the same, I would just have to stop down another stop to get the same depth of field, that's all. And maybe flare resistance would be worse because I have more glass in front of my sensor than my DA 15 gives...
Well, in that perspective, of a $200 price difference, that's what I would hope for (except I would like to see a Pentax FF for $1200 and say a... K-3 for like $700-$800) to have a flagship FF and a high end APS-C (like the K-3 for example). But make them affordable, I mean, I don't want to see Pentax be like Canon and make their flagship, top-of-the-line camera like the Canon EOS 1D C (which is like $12k) but I mean, it is probably a pretty nice camera. I have a feeling that if Pentax does release a FF it probably isn't going to be in the $1000-$1200 range. Which I feel, for the average semi-pro, or serious photographer is probably their price range. But if they didn't change the lense line up, and continued as they are now (making low-mid range APS-C dSLRS like the Kr and having a high end dSLR like the K-3 with affordable price points) would be best, but who knows if they are going to do that. My way of thinking here, we have a technology that we knows works, it's proven, and we have all had it for so long, that we all know it best, why change that up? Haha, not a big fan of change.
01-08-2015, 04:43 AM   #14
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Bcrary3 Quote
Well, in that perspective, of a $200 price difference, that's what I would hope for (except I would like to see a Pentax FF for $1200 and say a... K-3 for like $700-$800) to have a flagship FF and a high end APS-C (like the K-3 for example). But make them affordable, I mean, I don't want to see Pentax be like Canon and make their flagship, top-of-the-line camera like the Canon EOS 1D C (which is like $12k) but I mean, it is probably a pretty nice camera. I have a feeling that if Pentax does release a FF it probably isn't going to be in the $1000-$1200 range. Which I feel, for the average semi-pro, or serious photographer is probably their price range. But if they didn't change the lense line up, and continued as they are now (making low-mid range APS-C dSLRS like the Kr and having a high end dSLR like the K-3 with affordable price points) would be best, but who knows if they are going to do that. My way of thinking here, we have a technology that we knows works, it's proven, and we have all had it for so long, that we all know it best, why change that up? Haha, not a big fan of change.
I would like to see options. Keep a flagship APS-C with all of the bells and whistles for between 800 and 900 dollars and then release a mid-level full frame -- somewhere close to a D810, but closer to 2000 dollar price. If folks really want full frame, they can then get it, but I don't see Pentax entering the cut-rate full frame market. Not enough profit in it to make it worth while.
01-08-2015, 06:56 AM   #15
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,821
As I see it, there are very few people clamouring for an FF who have ever taken a picture that taxed the limits of APS-c. No one ever posts a picture and says, if I'd only had FF this image would have been exactly what I wanted. I have seen exactly one set of images that involved an enviromental portrait taken in what was claimed to be tight space (no really, there was a wall there, I couldn't back up). So I'm not saying there couldn't be a time or place when an FF might save your bacon. Just saying most of us don't encounter that on a regular basis.

The main argument for FF is, it's there! In some situations it might give you better IQ, therefore people want it. But, that being said, those situations where it will give you better IQ are for the average shooter, pretty rare. People who buy FF cameras thinking they're going to make a big difference to their lives are often disappointed. The hype goes way beyond the added functionality. As witnessed in this thread. Folks will say "you get better IQ". Hogwash, a 24 MP APS_c camera will 90% of the time will give you the same IQ as a 24 MP FF. What you're buying is the possibility that you might get better IQ in some shooting circumstances, but in actual practice, 90% of the time they will be pretty much the same. No difference, nada, zilch null and void, empty set. The difference between these two statements is the difference between fact, and hype.

Last edited by normhead; 01-08-2015 at 07:01 AM.
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 05:41 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