Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-26-2015, 12:39 PM   #46
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
most digital presentation formats are somewhere around ~16:9... smartphones, tablets, computer monitors, etc.

04-26-2015, 01:05 PM   #47
Site Supporter
markku55's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hanko, Finland
Posts: 195
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
most digital presentation formats are somewhere around ~16:9... smartphones, tablets, computer monitors, etc.
Those are video formats, not still picture formats, and with all sensors it is easy to schoose the format according to own wish.
04-26-2015, 01:19 PM   #48
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,369
QuoteOriginally posted by Omestes Quote
After the announcement of FF, I got lucky and managed to save up enough to cover upgrading to FF from my aging K5 in anticipation of its release. But with the announcement of the K3ii, I'm wondering if FF is actually the way to go. For the price of FF I could upgrade both my main camera (the K5), and my backup kit (thinking of switching from M43 to Fuji). I'm not 100% FF would be that much of an upgrade over the K3ii. I might also be naive.

Going from the K5, how big of a difference would there actually be from the K3ii to full frame? What would FF get me that the K3ii couldn't? Is it really that big of a deal?
If you have the money then go for it, but keep your K5 as a back-up just in case. Not sure what you photograph, but a FF sensor does have its advantages when it comes to low-light photography, close-ups, landscape and portraits. It's just that the K3 is such a capable camera already that it might be very difficult to see any improvements in your shots.


Depending on how much it cost when it comes out, in a couple of years that FF camera will be worth half of what it originally cost. Unless it's a Leica, cameras usually depreciate much faster than lenses. What you might be able to do is get the new K3 II and when the prices start going down, get the FF.


A lot of people think that a Full Frame is the Holy Grail that it will improve their pictures dramatically. To me and I used a FF camera by another brand in the past, that is a very expensive way to improve your pictures, especially if you are not a Professional.
04-26-2015, 02:49 PM   #49
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by markku55 Quote
Those are video formats, not still picture formats, and with all sensors it is easy to schoose the format according to own wish.
look at the screen resolution on your computer... 1920x1080 is 16:9 format.

there aren't very many 4:3 digital displays being sold these days: Browser Display Statistics

i could see 4:3 for mf cameras, for print output.

04-28-2015, 05:15 AM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,178
My old eyes work better with a full frame viewfinder.

My biggest hope for the FF model is that it will have a split screen viewfinder with a micro prism ring around the split screen area. A lot of the other stuff is fluff. I already have snapshot cameras.


04-28-2015, 06:56 AM   #51
Senior Member
Omestes's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 207
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by hjoseph7 Quote
If you have the money then go for it, but keep your K5 as a back-up just in case. Not sure what you photograph, but a FF sensor does have its advantages when it comes to low-light photography, close-ups, landscape and portraits. It's just that the K3 is such a capable camera already that it might What you might be able to do is get the new K3 II and when the prices start going down, get the FF.


A lot of people think that a Full Frame is the Holy Grail that it will improve their pictures dramatically. To me and I used a FF camera by another brand in the past, that is a very expensive way to improve your pictures, especially if you are not a Professional.
I've been thinking along these lines. I suppose I've had a moment of photographic sobriety. I love my K5, it has allowed me to take amazing images, some of which turned into amazing prints. Some even into amazing large prints. Outside of one, or two specific areas I would say that it doesn't at all hamper my abilities. I doubt that getting FF would really improve my pictures outside of the technology aspects, it won't allow me to do anything I can't do now.

I think I'm just going to wait and see, if the K3ii really grabs me when the reviews hit, I'll grab one. Probablly I'll wait a year for both cameras to be out, see what the community thinks, then make a choice. I already decided to buy the OM-D EM-5, even if it means I can't get FF the second it comes out. Worst case is I need to wait a year to afford it, if it isn't worth it to me, I can grab a K3ii. After thinking about it, is being "stuck" with my K5 for another year really a horrible thing?

Thinking about it, my m43 kit had technology flaws that truly annoyed me, where my K5 only has some minor flaws that I've managed to work around. Fix what needs to be fixed first.
04-29-2015, 04:11 PM   #52
Senior Member
Omestes's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 207
Original Poster
A quick question. I've been playing with the "High Res" mode on my new OMD EM5 II, which captures a composite 40 megapixel image (somewhat like the Pixel Shift Resolution feature in the upcoming K3ii, as far as I can tell); and it makes Lightroom chug, horribly. It is actually the first time in recent memory where I've wanted to upgrade my (pretty beefy) computer. Exporting 11 40mp images tags my CPU ( Intel i5 3570k) at around 90%, sucks up over 4GB of my 8 GB of high speed ram, and slows my computer to a crawl. Generating a full 1:1 preview in Lightroom takes around 30 seconds per picture (actually up to a minute, depending). Applying more than basic corrections cause things to chug further.

Is this something to expect from FF, if it is ~36mp? My last full shoot with the K5 generating around 100 images, weaned down to maybe 50 worth doing some PP too, and 20 or so worth exporting. I'm having a hard time even imagining the slow down if the same is true for FF RAWs as the 40mp shots I did today.
04-30-2015, 03:46 PM - 1 Like   #53
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,794
QuoteOriginally posted by Omestes Quote
A quick question. I've been playing with the "High Res" mode on my new OMD EM5 II, which captures a composite 40 megapixel image (somewhat like the Pixel Shift Resolution feature in the upcoming K3ii, as far as I can tell); and it makes Lightroom chug, horribly. It is actually the first time in recent memory where I've wanted to upgrade my (pretty beefy) computer. Exporting 11 40mp images tags my CPU ( Intel i5 3570k) at around 90%, sucks up over 4GB of my 8 GB of high speed ram, and slows my computer to a crawl. Generating a full 1:1 preview in Lightroom takes around 30 seconds per picture (actually up to a minute, depending). Applying more than basic corrections cause things to chug further.

Is this something to expect from FF, if it is ~36mp? My last full shoot with the K5 generating around 100 images, weaned down to maybe 50 worth doing some PP too, and 20 or so worth exporting. I'm having a hard time even imagining the slow down if the same is true for FF RAWs as the 40mp shots I did today.
No. Ricoh's pixel shift doesn't work the same way as the Olympus version.

04-30-2015, 07:08 PM   #54
Senior Member
Omestes's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 207
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
No. Ricoh's pixel shift doesn't work the same way as the Olympus version.
It kind of does, it shifts the sensor using SR. The K3 will do it in a more limited sense for slightly different ends (more color depth, versus more resolution), but it still is a composite image based off of moving the sensor and collecting several (4 vs 8) photos.

With the similarities in mind, it makes me wonder if Pentax' pixel shift will have the same flaws as the EM5 (object must be perfectly still, to a ridiculous level).
04-30-2015, 11:22 PM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,826
Is full-frame worth the upgrade?

Maybe not. In 10 years full-frame will be obsolete, so FF doesn't look like a great investment. Save your money, buy some Qualcomm or Apple shares instead:

Say goodbye? Full-frame DSLRs gone by 2025 claims Dr. Rajiv Laroia, imaging startup Light
05-01-2015, 12:36 AM   #56
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,323
Each time I'm told that technology A is obsolete and will be replaced by the much improved, amazing and innovative technology B, I'm asking myself: is he trying to sell me (on) something? So many times behind such enthusiasm is personal or commercial involvement, wishful thinking and trying to persuade a market instead of objectively predicting anything.
That man is trying to sell you (on) some sort of non-FF cameras Oh, and I guess Lytro was also supposed to replace something, can't remember what?

Last edited by Kunzite; 05-01-2015 at 12:45 AM.
05-01-2015, 09:21 PM   #57
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 184
QuoteOriginally posted by hjoseph7 Quote
If you have the money then go for it, but keep your K5 as a back-up just in case. Not sure what you photograph, but a FF sensor does have its advantages when it comes to low-light photography, close-ups, landscape and portraits. It's just that the K3 is such a capable camera already that it might be very difficult to see any improvements in your shots.


Depending on how much it cost when it comes out, in a couple of years that FF camera will be worth half of what it originally cost. Unless it's a Leica, cameras usually depreciate much faster than lenses. What you might be able to do is get the new K3 II and when the prices start going down, get the FF.


A lot of people think that a Full Frame is the Holy Grail that it will improve their pictures dramatically. To me and I used a FF camera by another brand in the past, that is a very expensive way to improve your pictures, especially if you are not a Professional.
At some point--and any serious amateur is probably there with the new K-3 II--the incremental improvement with x dollars of new equipment won't make much of a difference assuming they have the right glass. I agree, cameras are like autos in that they depreciate quickly in value due to the better sensors coming out each year. If what anyone wants is "good enough," waiting a year or two to get it at 40%-50% off makes sense. I too have a K-5 and was waiting for the FF. If it turns out I can't afford it, your advice is logical.

For anyone with the right glass (to fill the frame), the extra resolution makes sense only when making large prints. Those who never print larger than 8" x 10" may not notice much of a difference. Those shooting sports without the reach of a sharp lens will benefit with the FF, as well as those who want max. bokeh.

---------- Post added 05-01-15 at 09:52 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Omestes Quote
A quick question. I've been playing with the "High Res" mode on my new OMD EM5 II, which captures a composite 40 megapixel image (somewhat like the Pixel Shift Resolution feature in the upcoming K3ii, as far as I can tell); and it makes Lightroom chug, horribly. It is actually the first time in recent memory where I've wanted to upgrade my (pretty beefy) computer. Exporting 11 40mp images tags my CPU ( Intel i5 3570k) at around 90%, sucks up over 4GB of my 8 GB of high speed ram, and slows my computer to a crawl. Generating a full 1:1 preview in Lightroom takes around 30 seconds per picture (actually up to a minute, depending). Applying more than basic corrections cause things to chug further.

Is this something to expect from FF, if it is ~36mp? My last full shoot with the K5 generating around 100 images, weaned down to maybe 50 worth doing some PP too, and 20 or so worth exporting. I'm having a hard time even imagining the slow down if the same is true for FF RAWs as the 40mp shots I did today.

The pixel shifting technology doesn't seem to increase the files much based upon the test photos Ricoh Japan put on the website (see: Sample Images?K-3 II | RICOH IMAGING ). The increased file size from the larger sensor means anyone using a FF (from any manufacturer) will need a computer capable of processing the increased file sizes.
05-01-2015, 10:41 PM   #58
Forum Member
Flylooper's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Oregon's Willamette Valley
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 69
QuoteOriginally posted by Omestes Quote
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.
I've got a 645N. A couple of rolls of 120 and I'm in business. I'm just now learning it. I have the film developed and then hi-rez scan it...and Voila!
05-02-2015, 08:13 AM   #59
Senior Member
romeck's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Piekary Śląskie
Photos: Albums
Posts: 156
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Is full-frame worth the upgrade?

Maybe not. In 10 years full-frame will be obsolete, so FF doesn't look like a great investment. Save your money, buy some Qualcomm or Apple shares instead:

Say goodbye? Full-frame DSLRs gone by 2025 claims Dr. Rajiv Laroia, imaging startup Light
There is different market.
Can not be compared
05-03-2015, 09:05 AM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Omestes Quote
big of a difference would there actually be from the K3ii to full frame? What would FF get me that the K3ii couldn't? Is it really that big of a deal?
1) Big enough
2) A) Cheaper, lighter lenses
2) B) And/or faster lenses
3) Yes
Reply

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, announcement, beer, camera, computer, ff, fish, full-frame, fun, gear, ii, images, k-3, k3ii, k5, lenses, lightroom, pentax, pixel, resolution, ricoh, rod, rods, scene, tool, upgrade
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax-F 35-70mm worth the upgrade? nyonya Pentax K-30 & K-50 29 09-06-2014 09:15 PM
Is it worth the upgrade from the A 50 f/1.7 to f/1.4? Fat Albert Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 03-14-2014 03:31 AM
K30 Firmware upgrade - Is it worth buying a 32gb card? Steven Chain Pentax K-30 & K-50 7 02-11-2013 04:56 PM
Is it worth trying to fix a kr or upgrade? Kricket Pentax K-r 13 07-15-2011 10:29 PM
k10D Is an upgrade worth it? emptydam Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-11-2007 04:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:19 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