[normhead]

Agree. I have a feeling that the upcoming FF camera will also be the best pentax APSC camera on release.

It would have to be 51 MP for that. 36 MP is about the same as a K-5 cropped. To have the 24 MP of a K-3 in the crop area, it would have to have more than 50 MP. I have absolutely no plans to sell my K-3. But adding a compact 30-36 MP for Landscapes would be nice.

[jonby]

I just don't see that happening, unfortunately.

You might be right of course, but I'm not sure...

The sensor is still the most expensive single part in a DSLR by far, with a FF sensor still costing the manufacturers between 4x and 8x (depending on the sensor) the cost of an aps-c sensor.

That may well be true today, but economies of scale have a huge influence on manufacturing cost, so it's certainly possible for this gap to close substantially if the market shifts towards full frame as the norm. Winder makes some interesting points about different types of sensor coming into play also.

Then there's the market - will people really want to buy a flagship body, for more money, that can't achieve the same IQ as a larger-sensored, less expensive body?

I would say yes it's possible. Even now, professionals in many areas favour flagship cameras like the 1D X and D4s, at 18 and 16MP respectively, yet certainly in one respect (resolution), these cameras are way behind the D810 at 36MP, which is around half the price. These people are paying the extra money for build quality, handling, frame rate, AF etc. because these things are more important than resolution. Yes, the D810 isn't APS-C, and resolution is not the only determinant of IQ, but you know what I mean. I think the same practical reasoning could easily be extended to include APS-C cameras once the 'halo' effect I talked about in my previous post is eroded sufficiently.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

From what I can discern the advantages of the FF vs. APSC are essentially:

1. Lenses which perform at their "true" focal length.
2. Larger prints at higher resolutions.
3. More dramatic DOF.
4. Having the cachet of a professional.

Am I missing something?

Often times with FF you can use zoom lenses that can achieve the resolution you would see in a prime lens on a cropped body at equivalent FOV.

You can stop down a FF lens 1.3 stops more if both lenses that start at the same Fstop increasing sharpness

Using a TC on a prime lens or zoom has less of an effect on image quality, for example if your primary lens for wildlife is a apsc 300mm 2.8 and you occasionally use a 1.4 tc, with FF you could get away with a 400 F4 lens and using a 1.4 tc introduces very little IQ loss and often times less IQ loss than would see with the apsc 300mm F2.8 and 1.4 tc

[Rondec]

In the end, you are most likely to see differences in the extremes. If you shoot really high iso a lot, shoot with shallow depth of field, or print really big, you will probably see better results with full frame. Because the full frame sensor is bigger, it doesn't need to be magnified as much to make prints and so you see less noise and probably can print bigger. 24 megapixels is 24 megapixels, but it is a lot harder to get pixel level sharpness on APS-C at that pixel density than with full frame.

Viewfinder will be nicer with full frame, but I have been told that optical viewfinders are dying and that bright EVFs are the wave of the future, in which case you can have whatever size viewfinder you want, regardless of the size of the sensor.

As to whether or not professionals use full frame, some do and some don't. Having a full frame camera doesn't make you a professional and it certainly won't give you mad photography skills you didn't have before, but if there is a limitation in your gear that you can't get around currently, it could meet that need.

[Kunzite]

I have been told that optical viewfinders are dying and that bright EVFs are the wave of the future

That was an April 1st joke.

[normhead]

This whole thread has become an April fools joke. Every imagined advantage to FF has been repeated, true or not, researched or not. But ti was a great option poll. My last word is probably to compare an FF with an 8x10 or 4.5 film camera. If you can carry it, and manage the weight, you might like it. If you shoot wide DoF at a distance, it has very little to offer. You can buy more MP in FF format than you can with APS-c if you need that. But the truth is, 99% of the people here wouldn't don't need it. Most of the people here don't need 12 MP. The rest of it amounts t two baseball players sitting in a dug out. One uses a 27 ounce bat, the other uses a 28 ounce bat. One says, there are advantages to using a 28 inch bat the ball goes further when you hit it. The other guy says, You have more chance to hit it with a 27 ounce bat, it's lighter and more nimble in your hands. They both hit the ball out of the park, once the ball clears the fence at 300feet, no one cares if it goes 325 or 350 in the air. They are both a home run, you get one run on the scoreboard for both, there is no bonus for hitting it further. The guy with the big bat strikes out more, the guy with the lighter bat has a higher on base percentage. You want both guys on your team.

Go hit some home runs. And if you're a photography enthusiast and you can afford a bigger format, buy it, you'll enjoy it. Even if 90% of the time it sits in the cupboard. And that goes for every larger format going on up. DOn't stop at FF. You'll be missing out.

But don't pay too much attention to what most of the people here say. If you buy an FF, you'll make it work for you in your own way. A lot of what you read on here won't be important, but some other things that you don't think of now as important will surprise you.

All some people need to excel is a little bit of confidence. If talking up FF and owning one give you a little bump in that department, it's worth it.

Just don't become one of the morons who has the next booth over to me at the craft who's and tell me how much better your camera is than mine and what FF I'd really like, but isn't selling as much as I am... Or one of the idiots who comes to my booth and asks where I took my pictures then plots and plans with his buddy to reshoot the ones he likes, because they'll be better shot with a full frame. 90% of what people believe about FFs, isn't true.

Buying a full frame gives you the opportunity to explore some unique photographic opportunities, in narrow DoF. Beyond that it give you the opportunity to shoot in lower light by reducing your DoF. But you can do that on APS-c just as effectively, except for the wide open ƒ-stop on every lens.

[jsherman999]

Same lens from same position on both formats? The image FOV will be radically different as well, with the aps-c shot 1.5x tighter.

For the same FOV from the same position, same framing, which is what photographers actually do - they don;t shoot all their portraits tighter when they move to aps-c or wider when they move to FF - then the FF shot will have about 1.3 stops less DOF than the aps-c, even though they were both shot at f/1.2.

So it's the framing and not the DOF that's different?

If you use the same lens from the same position on both formats, yes, the framing/FOV is different. I'm not sure why you'd even be concerned about DOF differences if the framing is different, though, because it's a completely different image to start with.

So unless you want a really large print APSC can do the same narrow DOF as full frame.

I'm not sure what print size has to do with anything in the context of your question (unless you're trying to say something about how print size itself affects perceived DOF,) but for a given FOV, f-stop and distance to subject, FF will have 1.3 stops less DOF.

---------- Post added 04-02-15 at 12:19 PM ----------

In the end, you are most likely to see differences in the extremes.

I'm not sure this ^ paints an accurate picture, because I think the 'extremes' you mention are a lot more common than you imply.

For example - go through your catalog and find any shots that were taken wide-open by any lens on aps-c. If any of those images would not be made worse by 1.3 stops less DOF, then that image would probably have seen a benefit from being taken on a larger format.

In some cases the benefit (more DR, less noise) is not make-break for the image, but if you're like me an you shoot *a *lot, then you start to notice these differences and appreciate them over the course of many images - and it's hard to go back to something smaller and give those advantages up.

In other words, it's not really 'extreme', it's probably closer to 'day-to-day.'

Anyone who uses f/2.8 zooms a lot really benefits from the larger format, even more.

---------- Post added 04-02-15 at 12:27 PM ----------

Same lens from same position on both formats? The image FOV will be radically different as well, with the aps-c shot 1.5x tighter.

For the same FOV from the same position, same framing, which is what photographers actually do - they don;t shoot all their portraits tighter when they move to aps-c or wider when they move to FF - then the FF shot will have about 1.3 stops less DOF than the aps-c, even though they were both shot at f/1.2.

DOF is not dependent on focal length and aperture alone. It is dependent on focusing distance and magnification as well. It is meaningless to talk about DOF without stating at what focus distance.

Pål, do you see what I highlighted in yellow above? Please read more carefully before you reply.

.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-02-2015 at 11:47 AM.

[Rondec]

If you use the same lens from the same position on both formats, yes, the framing/FOV is different. I'm not sure why you'd even be concerned about DOF differences if the framing is different, though, because it's a completely different image to start with.



I'm not sure what print size has to do with anything in the context of your question (unless you're trying to say something about how print size itself affects perceived DOF,) but for a given FOV, f-stop and distance to subject, FF will have 1.3 stops less DOF.

---------- Post added 04-02-15 at 12:19 PM ----------



I'm not sure this ^ paints an accurate picture, because I think the 'extremes' you mention are a lot more common than you imply.

For example - go through your catalog and find any shots that were taken wide-open by any lens on aps-c. If any of those images would not be made worse by 1.3 stops less DOF, then that image would probably have seen a benefit from being taken on a larger format.

In some cases the benefit (more DR, less noise) is not make-break for the image, but if you're like me an you shoot *a *lot, then you start to notice these differences and appreciate them over the course of many images - and it's hard to go back to something smaller and give those advantages up.

In other words, it's not really 'extreme', it's probably closer to 'day-to-day.'

Anyone who uses f/2.8 zooms a lot really benefits from the larger format, even more.

---------- Post added 04-02-15 at 12:27 PM ----------



Pål, do you see what I highlighted in yellow above? Please read more carefully before you reply.

.

We've had this discussion before Jay. It is my perception from shooting APS-C that I will tend to stop down with full frame to match APS-C depth of field. My struggle with faster lenses is usually to maintain adequate depth of field. It is one thing when you are taking a photo of one person, another when there are a couple of people in the image. I took a number of photos of my sons playing a game with their grandfather and unfortunately, I shot at f2.8 with a 55mm lens. There just wasn't enough depth of field and one or two people in each image were soft as a result. I would have been far better to stop down and use a flash, if necessary, in order to keep my iso down.

There is no free lunch. The only way to get this "extra" dynamic range and better high iso performance is to trade it for less depth of field. It is my opinion that many photos will suffer as the result of this trade, although there will be some folks who definitely are able to use the reduced depth of field in an artistic fashion.

[normhead]

You can stop down a FF lens 1.3 stops more if both lenses that start at the same Fstop increasing sharpness

When you stop down the FF 1.3 stop more, you've lost your total light, ISO and noise advantage... so at that point, there really is no advantage to FF. It's only an advantage if you wish to reduce the DoF.

You might be interested in the following conversation with a Sigma Rep during a discussion of why they aren't supporting Pentax....

The 24x36mm sensor can yield superior images but not to the extent that everyone seems to think as most final prints aren’t large enough to truly benefit from the increase in sensor size. I truly feel that the so called “Full Frame” 24x36mm sensor is merely a selling device for manufacturers and not of much value at all.

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/292207-emai...#ixzz3WCf6iLK2

Hey, don't shoot me, I'm just quoting.

[jsherman999]

...You can stop down a FF lens 1.3 stops more if both lenses that start at the same Fstop increasing sharpness

When you stop down the FF 1.3 stop more, you've lost your total light, ISO and noise advantage... so at that point, there really is no advantage to FF. It's only an advantage if you wish to reduce the DoF.

The advantage he was referring to is for those candid/portrait/street (not landscape) situations where you may like how a certain lens isolates a subject at a large aperture (small f-stop,) but you like the increased sharpness and contrast from the lens when it's stopped down a little more.

You're in a bind - do you go for the increased contrast and sharpness, or the isolation? Shooting FF gets you the same isolation stopped down 1.3 stops, so you can often get both at the same time. Give up the advantages associated with more total light (noise and DR,) but gain a lens sharpness/contrast advantage.

You at least get the choice with FF.

That's a pretty good one-liner summary for the thread: FF gives you more choices, more headroom in your shooting parameters.

[normhead]

The advantage he was referring to is for those candid/portrait/street (not landscape) situations where you may like how a certain lens isolates a subject at a large aperture (small f-stop,) but you like the increased sharpness and contrast from the lens when it's stopped down a little more.

You're in a bind - do you go for the increased contrast and sharpness, or the isolation? Shooting FF gets you the same isolation stopped down 1.3 stops, so you can often get both at the same time. Give up the advantages associated with more total light (noise and DR,) but gain a lens sharpness/contrast advantage.

You at least get the choice with FF.

That's a pretty good one-liner summary for the thread: FF gives you more choices, more headroom in your shooting parameters.

Only if you care about isolation. IF you're looking for wide DoF FF is a disadvantage. You have to look at a lower shutter speed and that's more risk of motion blur. In shots like this, with APS_c i am dealing with shutter speed and DoF, in that I'd actually like to increase my DoF even more. APS-c gives me the best shot. You always want to talk about subject isolation, but way more often than subject isolation, I deal with lack of DoF. I'm quite happy with the subject isolation in this image... and if I wasn't, I could blur the image in PP. I can't correct motion blur in PP.

[jsherman999]

...like to increase my DoF even more. APS-c gives me the best shot.

Aps-c doesn't give you "the best shot" there, because if it's more DOF you're after, you can simply stop down the FF shot and it gives you the same shot. There's absolutely no DOF-related reason why apsc would give you s better shot there. And shutter speed can be matched at any time by bumping ISO. There's no "shutter speed" advantage in any scenario there. (This is basic stuff?!)

[osv]

APS-c gives you more wide DoF possibilities.

that is totally wrong.

at equivalent dof, diffraction is the same, period.

there are no advantages to shooting with a smaller sensor.

[Rondec]

Aps-c doesn't give you "the best shot" there, because if it's more DOF you're after, you can simply stop down the FF shot and it gives you the same shot. There's absolutely no DOF-related reason why apsc would give you s better shot there. And shutter speed can be matched at any time by bumping ISO. There's no "shutter speed" advantage in any scenario there. (This is basic stuff?!)

The biggest negative to me, Jay is the increased file size that comes with a bigger sensor with more megapixels (I am assuming now that Pentax is going with a 36 megapixel sensor). I just don't print big enough/view big enough to use more than 24 megapixels and personally, I would rather use an APS-C and full frame camera in tandem -- full frame when I need the things it offers and APS-C when I need more reach.

There is no particular down side to stopping down on full frame, the only thing I would say is that if you are someone who shoots a lot of stopped down photos at low iso, you are probably less likely to see improvement in your photos than if you shoot wide open with f1.4 lenses.

I know wide angles are supposed to be better with full frame as well, but you can still do landscapes OK with APS-C and frankly resolution isn't the key to having a decent landscape photo.

[Bryce K]

Let me put this in perspective with this - there better be some advantages because I'm tired of seeing all the shiatty pics people are posting here from their K-3/K-5IIS/K-5/K-50/K-30/K-7/K-whatever/Q-whatever. I think you know what I mean. For myself, with my meager skillset I have a very, very long way to go before I even begin to approach the limits of what my equipment will let me do. My sense tells me that whatever advantages FF may have over APS-C may well appeal to those with a specific need that FF may address over a smaller format, not necessarily due to sweeping advantages in general. That said I'm a full fledged capitalist and even if you don't necessarily need one but want one and have the $$$ - go right ahead.