[Omestes]

The rental idea is actually a pretty good one. Though I suppose it would be harder to discern the difference between what's doing what, than being able to use glass that I know and am very familiar with.

I don't know, I love having two (3 if you count film) systems. I have my large Pentax kit, which I love, but found I often couldn't be bothered dragging it around in the Phoenix summer. Enter m43, I can throw a camera and two lenses in a cargo pocket, and with its instantaneous focusing can take awesome candids that I could never get with a DSLR. For serious stuff the Pentax wins, hands down, but I'm not going to take my K5 (or a FF) to the pub.

[LFLee]

the answer, really is, "depends..."

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

If you are going to consider going FF I would take a serious look at the lenses you would require for FOV and DOF control you are seeking and see if FF format has what you are looking for. When comparing FF and Apsc lenses you will find that for the cost comparison between formats if the FOV and DOF of the lens are equal then the cost in in the same ballpark ( the lenses built quality adds more to the cost than the format behind the lens).

If in choosing the apsc camera and your go to lens is the 50-135 F2.8 lens and you also want a FF camera with a 85 F1.4 lens it might be in your best interest and selling the apsc and just using a single format and pick up a 70-200 F4 for the FF

This is how I look at the augment of selecting FF or Apsc
My needs in a Apsc
16-50 F2.8 $1070
50-135 F2.8 $1170
200 F2 $6800
300 F2.8 $7500
Total =$16540
FF
24-70 F4 $1370
70-200 F4 $1300
300 F2.8 $7500
400 F4 $7500
Total=$17670
With apsc I would save 7% on buying my dream system lenses
Why would I not spend the little extra on the FF body and gain all of the benefits of FF for just $1500 dollars

The price difference we see between FF and APSc lenses really is not from that of the format but rather what lenses are not available with same aperture diameter. The benefit with Apsc is that sometimes we are forced into buying a lens with a larger aperture diameter in FF than what would need and this is what drives up the cost of FF

[Sandy Hancock]

Tangentially, how does that work? How does the DOF get shallower?

Because for the same lens on a full frame, you have to get closer to the subject to frame it the same as you would with APS-C.
Closer at same aperture = shallower depth of field.

[Winder]

The rental idea is actually a pretty good one. Though I suppose it would be harder to discern the difference between what's doing what, than being able to use glass that I know and am very familiar with.

I don't know, I love having two (3 if you count film) systems. I have my large Pentax kit, which I love, but found I often couldn't be bothered dragging it around in the Phoenix summer. Enter m43, I can throw a camera and two lenses in a cargo pocket, and with its instantaneous focusing can take awesome candids that I could never get with a DSLR. For serious stuff the Pentax wins, hands down, but I'm not going to take my K5 (or a FF) to the pub.

If you value more portability over image quality, then m4/3 is the perfect system. IQ is still very good and the system can be very compact.


I don't think FF would be worth the cost for your current needs.

[Omestes]

Closer at same aperture = shallower depth of field.

Thank you very much! I looked around a bit for a good explanation of that, and a lot of them were drowning in needless technical details.

If you value more portability over image quality, then m4/3 is the perfect system. IQ is still very good and the system can be very compact.

I shoot both, though generally when I spend money its going to be on Pentax glass, since they give better results, and I view my Pentax gear as for shots that really matter, where m43 is for places I probably wouldn't take my K-5. The benefit of m43 is that my girlfriend can also be shooting (and thus inadvertently lugging my backup camera... heh) when we're out and about, even if she hates DSLRs.

[sb in ak]

Wouldn't the having a shallower DOF also be a double edged sword? I'm thinking about macro photography, where you're fighting DOF constantly, or even with a longer portrait lens like the 77ltd where I (and the K5) struggle with its DOF wide open.

Tangentially, how does that work? How does the DOF get shallower?

On the off topic train: Fuji glass looks awesome, and that sensor seems interesting. But I'm also leery, since Fyji seems very good at sponsorship and marketing, and its really hard to tell if people are singing their praises because the quality of the system, or because Fuji gave them a ton of free gear, and said nice things to them. I also get a bit cautious when people start compairing stuff to Leica, since we start entering the cult of prestige and elitism, and not necessarily on a products own merits and capability.

If not FF I'd probably not switch my second system to Fuji, I'd probably grab a OMD EM5, and keep my M43 kit. Ignoring that 12mm Zeiss...

Oh for sure, shallower DOF isn't necessarily a good thing. Depends on what you are shooting.

Interesting you should mention Fuji. They seem to be the rage right now in some circles; some people are even saying that they've out-Pentaxed Pentax with their small APS-C only small-ish primes. I recently tried an X-T1 with a 35 1.4 and 14 2.8 after a friend of mine really liked his--though he has not had it long. I can see the allure but it wasn't really for me. Perhaps I just needed to give it more time. It sure is a compact system and they are making faster primes to try to compete with FF to a point. But the flagship K series bodies from Pentax are certainly in a whole different league as far as build. The little X-T1 felt a little toyish in comparison. The body also put too many things in dials up top; I think the Pentax system is a little easier to use. Though some would argue the Fuji approach forces you to slow down a little. Well, whatever floats your boat, but I'd rather be able to make quick changes if needed.

Pentax Limiteds also feel a little better built IMO. A little more heft for the size. I still applaud Pentax with making small little primes. Though it would be nice to have some faster choices from Pentax in some cases. The later is the main approach by Fuji. I wish Pentax would make a 14 2.8 as good as the Fuji, though. Great lens.

Pentax also has the upward mobility of FF coming at some point, with some lenses already good to go. If Fuji plans on going to FF they are keeping it tight to their chests. None of their lenses are going to work on a bigger body.

Fuji also lacks a good 31, 43 and 77.

[noelpolar]

I'm really looking forward to hopefully getting the new Pentax FF when it arrives. However, I have shot recently with film and an old K1000 and I now know 100% that I'll definitely still want a K3 type camera for my longer lenses....

As far as size goes, I find that it is less about size of camera and more about kit size. I shoot primes mostly, as a hobby, and have chosen a camera bag that I'm comfortable having with me most of the time (Domke F-5xc)....this can take a camera and one lens through to camera and 4-5 lenses.....really only the weight changes. Bag is handy for the phone, car keys etc anyway.

[Omestes]

There is a difference between being able to literally stuck a camera and spare lens in a cargo pocket, and having a good bag. Both are good, but I'm still probably not taking the bag grocery shopping. My m43 camera is like a cell phone camera, but it doesn't suck.

I do wonder how much bigger the FF will be over a K5 or K3. Looking at Canikon FF versus their ASP-C models is only a little insightful.

[Sandy Hancock]

I do wonder how much bigger the FF will be over a K5 or K3.

I reckon it will be around K10D size, which is pretty much perfect for me

[Flylooper]

Interesting colloquy here.

Amateur photography, like any hobby, is an industry. My other hobbies happen to be golf and fly fishing. The financial health of all three are dependent on new players, of course; but most of all on a constant turnover of equipment among the folks already engaged in the hobby. Pick up any trade magazine on fly fishing or golf and all the ads promise a longer cast, or better line performance on the water—or, in golf, a longer straighter drive, pitch or chip with this newer, better, set of clubs. And so it is with cameras and lenses, I think.

The fact is that the fish don't give a rip whether I'm using a 800 dollar rod or a 150 dollar rod, and my casting technique is good but certainly not of championship calibre—and a more expensive rod, though nice to have, is not necessary in order to have a good day on the water.

If they built me a custom made set of golf clubs, they wouldn't straighten out my lifelong slice at the tee box or lengthen my drives (or pitches, or chips) commensurate with the cost of the clubs.

Speaking only for myself, the only honest reason I would buy a FF camera is (a) I have money to burn and (b) the satisfaction of knowing I have "the best" of something. Probably the same reasons I would choose a Mercedes over a VW or a Buick.

Omestes, I looked at your pix on 500px. Let me tell you: You're doing just great with that crappy old APS-C sensor.

Just sayin'...

[Omestes]

Flylooper: thanks for the compliment. I think I came to roughly this conclusion, and my motivation for getting FF was pretty much that I have the spare money, and I'd get a sense of (foolish) pride for being top dog. Nothing is wrong with either of these, obviously. I have been itching for an upgrade for technical reasons, but that is mainly the new cameras without the AA filters make both my and my macro lens excited.

Actually, when I spend some time thinking about it, there are very few technical reasons behind my wanting FF. Or at least very few reasons I can understand subjectively. I can't even really comprehend the difference outside of "wider, more pixels". I've shot, and shoot, 35mm, but I have a hard time applying that to digital since there are so many other factors (film type, developing methods, scanning/enlargement methods, etc...) to account for.

That said, I'm going to madly in debt and get a 645z instead. Kidding. Maybe.

[markku55]

Hi,

One idea I got some times ago is that why could not the FF sensor be with slightly other measure, like instead off 24x36mm (2/3) it could be closer 4/3 format with measures like 34,4 x 25,8mm, this sensor would be using the same FF lenses as 24x36mm and it is 2,7% bigger in area.
After using some times m43 system, I feel the picture format far better than the traditional 2/3 which actually came from the limitation of the film. I'm also liking the Pentax 6x7 and that is quite close the 4/3 format, so shouldn't we at last start to use available FF lenses with more usefull sensor format. At last you agree.


I really like to hear from Kenspo, what do you think about this kind of idea to be really innovative and give the photographers a new format in FF size?

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/291296-ff-lenses-ro...#ixzz3YRDYA2TB

[Omestes]

One idea I got some times ago is that why could not the FF sensor be with slightly other measure, like instead off 24x36mm (2/3) it could be closer 4/3 format with measures like 34,4 x 25,8mm, this sensor would be using the same FF lenses as 24x36mm and it is 2,7% bigger in area.

Very interesting. Why are we still stuck on film formats in the digital realm? I, too, like the 4/3 aspect ratio more, and often find it annoying that when I print my ASP-C images I am forced to crop if I want to use standard paper or frames, just because some relic limitations of 35mm film.

[markku55]

Very interesting. Why are we still stuck on film formats in the digital realm? I, too, like the 4/3 aspect ratio more, and often find it annoying that when I print my ASP-C images I am forced to crop if I want to use standard paper or frames, just because some relic limitations of 35mm film.

Thank's, you got my idea. Actually i'm quite surpriced that this idea have not yet got any support.