Can't wait much longer for the FF

**Rondec** · 03-09-2015, 03:07 AM

I think you should get what you need and what makes you happy. If you can wait six-ish months then wait, but if not that's OK.

No one else can really tell you what gear you need and what will work best for you. There are many situations where the differences between APS-C and full frame are negligible, but it sounds like you are pushing to the point where you need the larger sensor.

Good luck.

osv · 03-09-2015, 09:13 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

And then if you match DoF you can shoot at wider ƒstop with APS-c, one stop faster ISO and completely negate the FF advantage.

wrong.

you must be the yogi berra of pf

'Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to yours.'

Sliver-Surfer · 03-09-2015, 01:32 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

In images like this i's hard to get the whole bird in focus. Not taking into account the number of times maxing out your DoF is important to an image, is probably the biggest mistake FF proponents make. They talk about a noise advantage, that in this type of photography just doesn't exist.

I'm sorry but ???? How do you not max out your Dof on a bird this size with any Tele? You could shoot that bird with the fastest tele available and always max out your dof.
Im not saying because someone uses aps-c that they are unknowledgeable when I say this, but in general, FF owners are pretty well versed in photographic techniques and are more likely to put their dof exactly where they want it.

soycory · 03-09-2015, 01:53 PM

buy a used 645D

Sliver-Surfer · 03-09-2015, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by soycory

buy a used 645D

Same brand different system

ClinchShots · 03-09-2015, 11:43 PM

can I add another aspect? Post processing my A7R images seemed to generate better results with more low light forgivness lets say at ISO 800 if I needed to go that high

I couldn't imagine using the K3 at ISO 800 for enlarged wedding portraits without quite a bit of editing sony would be very fast and easy (workflow matters to me)

also I shot at 4pm once about 1.5 hours from sunset under a shaded veranda flipped both camera to auto and snapped a pic with sim. lenses on front. The Sony with availiable light shot at ISO 160 while the K3 was at 400. Not that it means much but it seems like the A7r was better equipped to handle the situation with nobody behind the wheel (I'm normally in manual mode or AV so I'm not sure if this is useful)

---------- Post added 03-10-15 at 01:44 AM ----------

I just wish the sony had as good as color rendition of the K3.... talk about a cold son of a bi*ch the sony is...

eyeswideshut · 03-10-2015, 12:00 AM

So you already have a Sony A7R? What was the point of your original post then?

**Kerrowdown** · 03-10-2015, 01:45 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ClinchShots

I have 2 weddings this month and two next month and I might leave this system

Professionals or those earning a living from photography, have no brand loyalty (unless of course sponsored) and as such a camera is only a tool to get the job done.

To that end you should get whatever it is you need... many folk run dual or multiple brand systems to achieve this, so I'm not really understanding why you should need convincing to do anything.

Chaos_Realm · 03-10-2015, 04:37 AM

Heads you stay pentax, Tails you go.

Wired · 03-10-2015, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Kerrowdown

Professionals or those earning a living from photography, have no brand loyalty (unless of course sponsored) and as such a camera is only a tool to get the job done.

To that end you should get whatever it is you need... many folk run dual or multiple brand systems to achieve this, so I'm not really understanding why you should need convincing to do anything.

truth.

Which is why I'm struggling as well... do I buy the Pentax FF in the fall, or another Nikon body so I can finally get NPS and be able to get my bloody D800 fixed without having to rent... oh I don't got a credit card, so no renting. My K3 is my backup, and it does the job well enough for almost everything.

jsherman999 · 03-10-2015, 10:11 AM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by Rondec

No one else can really tell you what gear you need and what will work best for you.

Norm can!

---------- Post added 03-10-15 at 11:40 AM ----------

Originally posted by normhead

The parameters I defined were 100 to 400 ISO, so I'm not sure why you keep going on about the 6400 ISO thing. It's unacceptable both cameras, i... Why do you guys keep trying to impress me with stuff, I've already told you is unacceptable? ..

Translation: In Norm's world, no real photography ever happens above ISO 400!

.

normhead · 03-10-2015, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Norm can!

---------- Post added 03-10-15 at 11:40 AM ----------

Translation: In Norm's world, no real photography ever happens above ISO 400!

.

For once, you're right. I'm always pushing for the best possible image , and in many cases I'd rather have no image than one with limited Dynamic Range and reduced resolution, so, ya, I do try and stay away from images over 400 ISO. Although maybe I wouldn't if I had a sony A7s or 645z. I know you guys all love that grainy , low dynamic range, low resolution, narrow DoF stuff. It's just not for me.

You say it like there's something wrong with that.

biz-engineer · 03-10-2015, 02:33 PM

Well, recently, I've made two 30x20 (inches) prints; one from the K-5+17-70 and one from the K-3+17-50 and you know what? What surprised me is that I can't see pixels or noise even looking close. However, I've seem two other things that are more disturbing that resolution or noise: 1) color fringing from the 17-70...really catching the eye badly, and 2) K-5 image underexposed by 0.5 ev which is a problem because unlike a LCD display, a printed photograph does not have any back-lighting, 3) colors are shit due to the finish I've chosen for the prints. The k-3 image is sharp and correctly exposed, I can easily double the size of the print.

So, we are very far from current discussion on FF , resolution and high ISO noise. Bad lens on FF = bad result. And you'll have to spend twice the money to get good FF lenses that are up to visual expectation of your prints.

normhead · 03-10-2015, 03:16 PM

Printing is an art all it's own... I find just for starts, a print has to be 10% brighter than something to make up for that lack of backlight from your monitor, but we do have some amazing prints take with an Optio 80W, 10 MP camera. It makes more work to get a good print than it does to do your initial processing for the web.

Many people recommend you find a service with an experienced printer and develop a relationship, to save you from having to learn all the tricks of the trade yourself.

ElJamoquio · 03-10-2015, 08:39 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by soycory

buy a used 645D

Really not a very good system for low-light photography. No fast lenses are available and that sensor is particularly poor at high ISO, even after factoring in the larger sensor size.

---------- Post added 03-10-15 at 08:41 PM ----------

Originally posted by biz-engineer

you'll have to spend twice the money to get good FF lenses that are up to visual expectation of your prints.

Opposite of what I've found. APS-C lenses for a given quality+ability are much more expensive.

03-09-2015, 01:32 PM - 1 Like	#48
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by normhead In images like this i's hard to get the whole bird in focus. Not taking into account the number of times maxing out your DoF is important to an image, is probably the biggest mistake FF proponents make. They talk about a noise advantage, that in this type of photography just doesn't exist. I'm sorry but ???? How do you not max out your Dof on a bird this size with any Tele? You could shoot that bird with the fastest tele available and always max out your dof. Im not saying because someone uses aps-c that they are unknowledgeable when I say this, but in general, FF owners are pretty well versed in photographic techniques and are more likely to put their dof exactly where they want it. Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 03-09-2015 at 04:05 PM.

03-10-2015, 10:11 AM - 3 Likes	#56
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Rondec No one else can really tell you what gear you need and what will work best for you. Norm can! ---------- Post added 03-10-15 at 11:40 AM ---------- Originally posted by normhead The parameters I defined were 100 to 400 ISO, so I'm not sure why you keep going on about the 6400 ISO thing. It's unacceptable both cameras, i... Why do you guys keep trying to impress me with stuff, I've already told you is unacceptable? .. Translation: In Norm's world, no real photography ever happens above ISO 400! . Last edited by jsherman999; 03-10-2015 at 10:41 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How much would you pay for the FF body only?	VoiceOfReason	Pentax Full Frame	109	08-16-2015 11:59 PM
Would you buy the first FF if it is a K-01 or wait for the FF DSLR?	slackercruster	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	07-18-2012 10:09 PM
Can't Wait For Summer	Venturi	Post Your Photos!	7	04-26-2009 02:38 PM
Can't wait till Canon Announces New FF Cam	Okami	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	2	09-15-2008 05:45 AM
Can't wait for Spring!	kpfeifle	Post Your Photos!	4	03-01-2008 10:01 AM

03-09-2015, 03:07 AM	#46
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I think you should get what you need and what makes you happy. If you can wait six-ish months then wait, but if not that's OK. No one else can really tell you what gear you need and what will work best for you. There are many situations where the differences between APS-C and full frame are negligible, but it sounds like you are pushing to the point where you need the larger sensor. Good luck.

03-09-2015, 09:13 AM - 1 Like	#47
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by normhead And then if you match DoF you can shoot at wider ƒstop with APS-c, one stop faster ISO and completely negate the FF advantage. wrong. you must be the yogi berra of pf 'Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to yours.'

03-09-2015, 01:53 PM	#49
soycory Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 93	buy a used 645D

03-09-2015, 02:24 PM	#50
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by soycory buy a used 645D Same brand different system

03-09-2015, 11:43 PM	#51
ClinchShots Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 437 Original Poster	can I add another aspect? Post processing my A7R images seemed to generate better results with more low light forgivness lets say at ISO 800 if I needed to go that high I couldn't imagine using the K3 at ISO 800 for enlarged wedding portraits without quite a bit of editing sony would be very fast and easy (workflow matters to me) also I shot at 4pm once about 1.5 hours from sunset under a shaded veranda flipped both camera to auto and snapped a pic with sim. lenses on front. The Sony with availiable light shot at ISO 160 while the K3 was at 400. Not that it means much but it seems like the A7r was better equipped to handle the situation with nobody behind the wheel (I'm normally in manual mode or AV so I'm not sure if this is useful) ---------- Post added 03-10-15 at 01:44 AM ---------- I just wish the sony had as good as color rendition of the K3.... talk about a cold son of a bi*ch the sony is...

03-10-2015, 12:00 AM	#52
eyeswideshut Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Hamburg Posts: 287	So you already have a Sony A7R? What was the point of your original post then?

03-10-2015, 01:45 AM - 1 Like	#53
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,818	Originally posted by ClinchShots I have 2 weddings this month and two next month and I might leave this system Professionals or those earning a living from photography, have no brand loyalty (unless of course sponsored) and as such a camera is only a tool to get the job done. To that end you should get whatever it is you need... many folk run dual or multiple brand systems to achieve this, so I'm not really understanding why you should need convincing to do anything.

03-10-2015, 04:37 AM	#54
Chaos_Realm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,251	Heads you stay pentax, Tails you go.

03-10-2015, 09:49 AM	#55
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by Kerrowdown Professionals or those earning a living from photography, have no brand loyalty (unless of course sponsored) and as such a camera is only a tool to get the job done. To that end you should get whatever it is you need... many folk run dual or multiple brand systems to achieve this, so I'm not really understanding why you should need convincing to do anything. truth. Which is why I'm struggling as well... do I buy the Pentax FF in the fall, or another Nikon body so I can finally get NPS and be able to get my bloody D800 fixed without having to rent... oh I don't got a credit card, so no renting. My K3 is my backup, and it does the job well enough for almost everything.

03-10-2015, 01:50 PM	#57
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by jsherman999 Norm can! ---------- Post added 03-10-15 at 11:40 AM ---------- Translation: In Norm's world, no real photography ever happens above ISO 400! . For once, you're right. I'm always pushing for the best possible image , and in many cases I'd rather have no image than one with limited Dynamic Range and reduced resolution, so, ya, I do try and stay away from images over 400 ISO. Although maybe I wouldn't if I had a sony A7s or 645z. I know you guys all love that grainy , low dynamic range, low resolution, narrow DoF stuff. It's just not for me. You say it like there's something wrong with that.

03-10-2015, 02:33 PM	#58
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Well, recently, I've made two 30x20 (inches) prints; one from the K-5+17-70 and one from the K-3+17-50 and you know what? What surprised me is that I can't see pixels or noise even looking close. However, I've seem two other things that are more disturbing that resolution or noise: 1) color fringing from the 17-70...really catching the eye badly, and 2) K-5 image underexposed by 0.5 ev which is a problem because unlike a LCD display, a printed photograph does not have any back-lighting, 3) colors are shit due to the finish I've chosen for the prints. The k-3 image is sharp and correctly exposed, I can easily double the size of the print. So, we are very far from current discussion on FF , resolution and high ISO noise. Bad lens on FF = bad result. And you'll have to spend twice the money to get good FF lenses that are up to visual expectation of your prints.

03-10-2015, 03:16 PM	#59
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Printing is an art all it's own... I find just for starts, a print has to be 10% brighter than something to make up for that lack of backlight from your monitor, but we do have some amazing prints take with an Optio 80W, 10 MP camera. It makes more work to get a good print than it does to do your initial processing for the web. Many people recommend you find a service with an experienced printer and develop a relationship, to save you from having to learn all the tricks of the trade yourself.

03-10-2015, 08:39 PM - 2 Likes	#60
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by soycory buy a used 645D Really not a very good system for low-light photography. No fast lenses are available and that sensor is particularly poor at high ISO, even after factoring in the larger sensor size. ---------- Post added 03-10-15 at 08:41 PM ---------- Originally posted by biz-engineer you'll have to spend twice the money to get good FF lenses that are up to visual expectation of your prints. Opposite of what I've found. APS-C lenses for a given quality+ability are much more expensive.