Full Frame: The Real Pros (and Cons?)

**Rondec** · 02-13-2015, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I think there are going to be a lot of Pentaxians surprised how good that 50-135 2.8 performs on 36MP FF in auto-crop mode.

---------- Post added 02-13-15 at 10:10 AM ----------

People talk about 'resolution' in two ways. Basically, lp/mm and lp/ph.

lp/ph -> 36MP is more
lp/mm -> 24mp on aps-c is more

In my experience more more lp/ph is what most photogaphers covet and find they can use.

.

It would be pretty silly to get a 50-135 to shoot in auto crop mode on a K2, when you could get a K5 for 300 dollars and get the same results. Not?

**maxfield_photo** · 02-13-2015, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I think there are going to be a lot of Pentaxians surprised how good that 50-135 2.8 performs on 36MP FF in auto-crop mode.

I'll be pleased, but not surprised, it's one of my favorite lenses ever. I will say that it's a shame that the 50-135 doesn't cover a 35mm image circle, I personally find the focal lengths 16-50 and 50-135 to be much better suited to full frame, and the focal lengths of 28-70 and 70-200 better for cropped bodies. I think I'm probably in the minority there.

jsherman999 · 02-13-2015, 09:29 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Finntax

If by equivalent you mean APS-C designed lens on APS-C body delivering the same reach as FF designed lens on FF body at least I'm noticing a "small" difference in size:

Those are not equivalent. An equivalent zoom on FF would be a 70-200 f4 (not f/2.8) which generally would be smaller. I think most 70-200 f4s are around the same size as a 50-135 2.8 or 50-150 2.8.

BrianR · 02-13-2015, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

In my experience more more lp/ph is what most photogaphers covet and find they can use.

Which makes it extra unfortunate that adobe products (and other software) use 'resolution' in the 'density' sense and not the 'grand total' sense

.

jsherman999 · 02-13-2015, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

It would be pretty silly to get a 50-135 to shoot in auto crop mode on a K2, when you could get a K5 for 300 dollars and get the same results. Not?

It might be silly to *buy* one to just shoot on FF, but it wouldn't be silly to shoot one you already own on FF in crop mode - which describes the situation for every current 50-135 owner who's thinking of getting the pentax FF.

That crop mode makes the transition to FF much easier on the wallet - you can take your time buying FF lenses, or in some single cases forgo them altogether if you like what a certain lens gives you in crop mode enough.

This is one of the advantages of at least 36MP - crop mode still gives fantastic IQ. I also suspect that because the AF points will all be in the aps-c 'frame' and even near the edge of it in autocrop mode, coupled with the (probably) better AF on the FF body - that 50-135 may perform better AF-wise on FF than it does on aps-c, SDM and all. We'll have to wait to see though.. but that's how it worked with my aps-c Sigma 50-150 2.8 on D800.

**hjoseph7** · 02-13-2015, 09:44 AM

Canon just announced a 50MP FF the 5Ds ! Wow, how many pixels can you cram on a sensor ?

normhead · 02-13-2015, 09:46 AM - **1 Like**

How many times have we done this?

My latest pronouncement.

Full frame is easily the most versatile system out there for images.
It is far from the best system for portability.

If you don't make use of it's versatility another format will certainly be a better choice, in that it will be more portable, or higher resolution.

I know , everyone wants to say why they have to have it, it's the popular thing to do. Needless to say, I take such pronouncements worth a grain of salt. Of the thousands of images I've seen posted on the forum, I've seen about 50 guys who actually are good at using what FF has to offer.

Another 200 or 300 people discussing where they fall on the format scale, really doesn't add anything new. You are discussing what you think about yourselves, and what kind of photographer you think you are, under the guise of discussing a sensor size.

Last edited by normhead; 02-13-2015 at 11:02 AM.

jsherman999 · 02-13-2015, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by hjoseph7

Canon just announced a 50MP FF the 5Ds ! Wow, how many pixels can you cram on a sensor ?

Note that 50MP FF isn't even quite as dense as the pixels on the K3 sensor. Just using the same stepping capability over a larger sensor area.

My guess is we'll be stuck at 50-56 MP on FF for three or four years or so, then who knows.

DeadJohn · 02-13-2015, 10:38 AM

I think some people are interpreting "resolution" as the crispness of the entire frame (most images) while others are talking about resolution at the pixel level (for things like cropping later).

Since we don't know exact specs yet, let's pretend the Pentax FF has a 36mp sensor vs the K-3 APS-C 24mp:

For landscapes with equivalent fields of view (30mm on FF and 20mm on K-3), the FF might look sharper.
On the other hand, a birder using the same telephoto lens on both cameras and doing an extreme crop later might get sharper results from the K-3's smaller pixels.

normhead · 02-13-2015, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Note that 50MP FF isn't even quite as dense as the pixels on the K3 sensor. Just using the same stepping capability over a larger sensor area.

My guess is we'll be stuck at 50-56 MP on FF for three or four years or so, then who knows.

I really am ambivalent about the 24 Mp on the K-3 Jay. The AF is by Pentax standards to die for, and some sources say as good as the Nikon D7100... If they had the K-3 AF on a 16 MP with the Dynamic Range of a K-5camera I'd be tempted, and I'm definitely going to give the 20 Mp, KS-2 a look.

I am however interested in seeing what these 50 Mp sensors produce... aren't we all.

jsherman999 · 02-13-2015, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I am however interested in seeing what these 50 Mp sensors produce... aren't we all.

I will say that if manufacturers drop the ball in AF in any way, 50+MP is going to make more people upset than ever. PIxel-peepers will see AF errors more clearly, there will be a lot of angst, people will be upset about buying 50MP FF and not seeing razor-sharp results at 100%.

On the other hand on-spec, accurate AF + 50MP (or Manual focus) is going to be thrilling for the most part, IMO.

36MP is really all I think I want/need. I'm sure I'll be able to talk myself into more later.

**Rondec** · 02-13-2015, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I will say that if manufacturers drop the ball in AF in any way, 50+MP is going to make more people upset than ever. PIxel-peepers will see AF errors more clearly, there will be a lot of angst, people will be upset about buying 50MP FF and not seeing razor-sharp results at 100%.

On the other hand on-spec, accurate AF + 50MP (or Manual focus) is going to be thrilling for the most part, IMO.

36MP is really all I think I want/need. I'm sure I'll be able to talk myself into more later.

I think I would prefer not to go to over 36 megapixels. It would probably be easier to have high density APS-C in combination with a lower pixel density on full frame. Use the right tool for the right job. 50 megapixel images would be fine, except that it will slow your frame rate and gum up buffers. There is no tool that is perfect for every situation.

jsharpy · 02-13-2015, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

I'll be pleased, but not surprised, it's one of my favorite lenses ever. I will say that it's a shame that the 50-135 doesn't cover a 35mm image circle, I personally find the focal lengths 16-50 and 50-135 to be much better suited to full frame, and the focal lengths of 28-70 and 70-200 better for cropped bodies. I think I'm probably in the minority there.

Just get a HD DA 1.4 converter and it keeps the FOV you love and covers the FF sensor with your lenses. I shot a roll of film to test it a few days ago and worked great with my 16-50 qne 60-250

Eyewanders · 02-13-2015, 01:01 PM

Numbers number numbers. This isn't photography.
Here is, IMO, the real "pro" for a Pentax FF:
Pentax users will have the option to shoot true 135mm with their existing glass, like so many have wanted for such a long period of time.

Does there need to be much more discussion?

---------- Post added 02-13-15 at 12:06 PM ----------

Originally posted by jsherman999

I think there are going to be a lot of Pentaxians surprised how good that 50-135 2.8 performs on 36MP FF in auto-crop mode.

^ ^ that. And also, the DA15 (mmmm... I miss mine. I may have to seek one out yet again.)

**Ash** · 02-13-2015, 01:15 PM

I never thought I'd see the day when prosumers settled on how many Mps are enough!
36Mp files may be enough to handle on screen, but it will forever be compared with the K-3's pixel density and whether it is able to deliver more than what the K-3 can. It would make an expensive 'upgrade' from a K-3. I'm more hopeful for Pentax that professionals' heads are turned to take notice of the camera - the existing duopoly would be a worthwhile barrier to breakthrough financially for them.

02-13-2015, 09:35 AM	#79
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by jsherman999 In my experience more more lp/ph is what most photogaphers covet and find they can use. Which makes it extra unfortunate that adobe products (and other software) use 'resolution' in the 'density' sense and not the 'grand total' sense.

02-13-2015, 09:36 AM	#80
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Rondec It would be pretty silly to get a 50-135 to shoot in auto crop mode on a K2, when you could get a K5 for 300 dollars and get the same results. Not? It might be silly to buy one to just shoot on FF, but it wouldn't be silly to shoot one you already own on FF in crop mode - which describes the situation for every current 50-135 owner who's thinking of getting the pentax FF. That crop mode makes the transition to FF much easier on the wallet - you can take your time buying FF lenses, or in some single cases forgo them altogether if you like what a certain lens gives you in crop mode enough. This is one of the advantages of at least 36MP - crop mode still gives fantastic IQ. I also suspect that because the AF points will all be in the aps-c 'frame' and even near the edge of it in autocrop mode, coupled with the (probably) better AF on the FF body - that 50-135 may perform better AF-wise on FF than it does on aps-c, SDM and all. We'll have to wait to see though.. but that's how it worked with my aps-c Sigma 50-150 2.8 on D800. Last edited by jsherman999; 02-13-2015 at 09:42 AM.

02-13-2015, 10:38 AM	#84
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834	I think some people are interpreting "resolution" as the crispness of the entire frame (most images) while others are talking about resolution at the pixel level (for things like cropping later). Since we don't know exact specs yet, let's pretend the Pentax FF has a 36mp sensor vs the K-3 APS-C 24mp: For landscapes with equivalent fields of view (30mm on FF and 20mm on K-3), the FF might look sharper. On the other hand, a birder using the same telephoto lens on both cameras and doing an extreme crop later might get sharper results from the K-3's smaller pixels.

02-13-2015, 01:01 PM	#89
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	Numbers number numbers. This isn't photography. Here is, IMO, the real "pro" for a Pentax FF: Pentax users will have the option to shoot true 135mm with their existing glass, like so many have wanted for such a long period of time. Does there need to be much more discussion? ---------- Post added 02-13-15 at 12:06 PM ---------- Originally posted by jsherman999 I think there are going to be a lot of Pentaxians surprised how good that 50-135 2.8 performs on 36MP FF in auto-crop mode. ^ ^ that. And also, the DA15 (mmmm... I miss mine. I may have to seek one out yet again.) Last edited by Eyewanders; 02-13-2015 at 01:07 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pros and cons of EVF and OVF	Ash	Photographic Industry and Professionals	187	01-24-2013 06:21 PM
K-5 IIs -- The Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-Filter	Class A	Pentax DSLR Discussion	114	12-18-2012 10:22 PM
From K20D to 645D, Pros and Cons.	Reportage	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	11-10-2010 03:13 PM
Limited edition prints - pros and cons?	Wombat	Photographic Industry and Professionals	5	07-30-2009 04:09 PM
Pros and cons of the Pentax KM/2000	lesmore49	Pentax DSLR Discussion	109	05-01-2009 11:51 PM

02-13-2015, 09:19 AM	#76
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by jsherman999 I think there are going to be a lot of Pentaxians surprised how good that 50-135 2.8 performs on 36MP FF in auto-crop mode. ---------- Post added 02-13-15 at 10:10 AM ---------- People talk about 'resolution' in two ways. Basically, lp/mm and lp/ph. lp/ph -> 36MP is more lp/mm -> 24mp on aps-c is more In my experience more more lp/ph is what most photogaphers covet and find they can use. . It would be pretty silly to get a 50-135 to shoot in auto crop mode on a K2, when you could get a K5 for 300 dollars and get the same results. Not?

02-13-2015, 09:22 AM	#77
maxfield_photo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,216	Originally posted by jsherman999 I think there are going to be a lot of Pentaxians surprised how good that 50-135 2.8 performs on 36MP FF in auto-crop mode. I'll be pleased, but not surprised, it's one of my favorite lenses ever. I will say that it's a shame that the 50-135 doesn't cover a 35mm image circle, I personally find the focal lengths 16-50 and 50-135 to be much better suited to full frame, and the focal lengths of 28-70 and 70-200 better for cropped bodies. I think I'm probably in the minority there.

02-13-2015, 09:29 AM - 1 Like	#78
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Finntax If by equivalent you mean APS-C designed lens on APS-C body delivering the same reach as FF designed lens on FF body at least I'm noticing a "small" difference in size: Those are not equivalent. An equivalent zoom on FF would be a 70-200 f4 (not f/2.8) which generally would be smaller. I think most 70-200 f4s are around the same size as a 50-135 2.8 or 50-150 2.8.

02-13-2015, 09:44 AM	#81
hjoseph7 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,048	Canon just announced a 50MP FF the 5Ds ! Wow, how many pixels can you cram on a sensor ?

02-13-2015, 09:46 AM - 1 Like	#82
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	How many times have we done this? My latest pronouncement. Full frame is easily the most versatile system out there for images. It is far from the best system for portability. If you don't make use of it's versatility another format will certainly be a better choice, in that it will be more portable, or higher resolution. I know , everyone wants to say why they have to have it, it's the popular thing to do. Needless to say, I take such pronouncements worth a grain of salt. Of the thousands of images I've seen posted on the forum, I've seen about 50 guys who actually are good at using what FF has to offer. Another 200 or 300 people discussing where they fall on the format scale, really doesn't add anything new. You are discussing what you think about yourselves, and what kind of photographer you think you are, under the guise of discussing a sensor size. Last edited by normhead; 02-13-2015 at 11:02 AM.

02-13-2015, 10:04 AM	#83
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by hjoseph7 Canon just announced a 50MP FF the 5Ds ! Wow, how many pixels can you cram on a sensor ? Note that 50MP FF isn't even quite as dense as the pixels on the K3 sensor. Just using the same stepping capability over a larger sensor area. My guess is we'll be stuck at 50-56 MP on FF for three or four years or so, then who knows.

02-13-2015, 11:07 AM	#85
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by jsherman999 Note that 50MP FF isn't even quite as dense as the pixels on the K3 sensor. Just using the same stepping capability over a larger sensor area. My guess is we'll be stuck at 50-56 MP on FF for three or four years or so, then who knows. I really am ambivalent about the 24 Mp on the K-3 Jay. The AF is by Pentax standards to die for, and some sources say as good as the Nikon D7100... If they had the K-3 AF on a 16 MP with the Dynamic Range of a K-5camera I'd be tempted, and I'm definitely going to give the 20 Mp, KS-2 a look. I am however interested in seeing what these 50 Mp sensors produce... aren't we all.

02-13-2015, 12:03 PM	#86
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by normhead I am however interested in seeing what these 50 Mp sensors produce... aren't we all. I will say that if manufacturers drop the ball in AF in any way, 50+MP is going to make more people upset than ever. PIxel-peepers will see AF errors more clearly, there will be a lot of angst, people will be upset about buying 50MP FF and not seeing razor-sharp results at 100%. On the other hand on-spec, accurate AF + 50MP (or Manual focus) is going to be thrilling for the most part, IMO. 36MP is really all I think I want/need. I'm sure I'll be able to talk myself into more later.

02-13-2015, 12:18 PM	#87
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by jsherman999 I will say that if manufacturers drop the ball in AF in any way, 50+MP is going to make more people upset than ever. PIxel-peepers will see AF errors more clearly, there will be a lot of angst, people will be upset about buying 50MP FF and not seeing razor-sharp results at 100%. On the other hand on-spec, accurate AF + 50MP (or Manual focus) is going to be thrilling for the most part, IMO. 36MP is really all I think I want/need. I'm sure I'll be able to talk myself into more later. I think I would prefer not to go to over 36 megapixels. It would probably be easier to have high density APS-C in combination with a lower pixel density on full frame. Use the right tool for the right job. 50 megapixel images would be fine, except that it will slow your frame rate and gum up buffers. There is no tool that is perfect for every situation.

02-13-2015, 12:51 PM	#88
jsharpy New Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5	Originally posted by maxfield_photo I'll be pleased, but not surprised, it's one of my favorite lenses ever. I will say that it's a shame that the 50-135 doesn't cover a 35mm image circle, I personally find the focal lengths 16-50 and 50-135 to be much better suited to full frame, and the focal lengths of 28-70 and 70-200 better for cropped bodies. I think I'm probably in the minority there. Just get a HD DA 1.4 converter and it keeps the FOV you love and covers the FF sensor with your lenses. I shot a roll of film to test it a few days ago and worked great with my 16-50 qne 60-250

02-13-2015, 01:15 PM	#90
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	I never thought I'd see the day when prosumers settled on how many Mps are enough! 36Mp files may be enough to handle on screen, but it will forever be compared with the K-3's pixel density and whether it is able to deliver more than what the K-3 can. It would make an expensive 'upgrade' from a K-3. I'm more hopeful for Pentax that professionals' heads are turned to take notice of the camera - the existing duopoly would be a worthwhile barrier to breakthrough financially for them.