Is FF worth the upgrade?

kenny47 · 04-24-2015, 03:20 PM

I am not sure, so here is my question. Suppose the FF has 36MP sensor, if you crop it to APS-C size, you get 24MP. Can it be equally good as K3II, or is that impossible? (Provided the FF sensor is good..)

Sandy Hancock · 04-24-2015, 03:28 PM

Crop to APS-C will be more like 15-16Mp - we are talking areas not linear dimensions....

kenny47 · 04-24-2015, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Crop to APS-C will be more like 15-16Mp - we are talking areas not linear dimensions....

Ah, okay, thanks for correction. So not like K3 but like K5. And with even better IQ also in the crop, hopefully.

Dlanor Sekao · 04-24-2015, 05:42 PM

I was all pumped up over FF ever since they announced it was coming. But now with the K3II pre-ordered Im on complete hold until I test drive it for a while.
Im not a "Pro" by the definition of the word but have made quite a bit of cold hard cash the last year with my K30 doing freelance Insurance Fraud work that I have paid for all my gear 3 times over and acquired a glut of lenses and a few decent bodies in the process.
I think the best bet is to just wait a while (unlike) what I did.... Its a tough call with neither body has even released yet. If FF comes out with PSR as the K3II did , I think it will be a no brainer to buy it if you can afford it whether you need it or not. I jumped on the K3II because I see a use for it as hopefully one of the greatest Landscape camera's made to date.......the specs look fantastic and on paper it screams at me...BUY...BUY...BUY !

Omestes · 04-24-2015, 08:11 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Being able to shoot APS-C and full frame extends the capability of the system.

That is actually a very good point. I would love my 77 to be a hair wider. Though, conversely, if the FF allows me to use the 40ltd in FF mode, I'd hate it to be any wider, ditto with my 24mm. I'm fine with my 100mm Macro being 150mm. I know I can always crop in PP. My other concern is that the RAWs will kill my computer, and I'm going to need to actually invest in a semi-pro storage backup/solution. This makes me feel odd, but is it just too much for my needs?

Though I suppose, as my girlfriend pointed out, I never cared about FF until Pentax announced FF. If I didn't luck into the ability to have just enough spending money, I would have been happy with the change to upgrade my K-5 to the K3, and ecstatic for the K3ii. FF wasn't even something I was interested in three months ago outside of looking randomly at a Sony Mirrorless FF. I did want a K5iis, or K3 because losing the AA filter made me excited. I did want to upgrade my aging M43 camera since its high ISO performance makes me cry. I could do both of my previous long term goals, for the same cost as the FF, and have a decent amount of spare change.

The problem is that it is so hard to tell what FF would actually mean. Would it be like upgrading from a crappy point and shoot to my first DSLR (the K-x) (life changing), or upgrading from the K-x to the K-5 (a pretty big deal)? Or like how I'd imagine upgrading from my current DSLR to the K3ii (a nice workaday upgrade but nothing life changing). I just can't tell.

Dang it Pentax, stop making things I want.

sb in ak · 04-24-2015, 10:40 PM

Yes, if you are a DOF junkie. Also, if we are talking about OVFs, FF gives a much bigger size viewfinder.

romeck · 04-24-2015, 11:03 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Stavri

Check out Bill Gekas Photography | The Gallery

/offtopic

My affair with Fuji... (April 21, 2015)
As most people know I've been shooting with the Pentax system since I started photography when I was shooting film using a Pentax ME-Super and K1000 bodies which I still have in some cupboard somewhere. I never considered switching systems as the Pentax system was always adequate for what I was doing and once they brought out their digital bodies I continued with their digital cameras as I could use my older manual focus prime lenses on their latest bodies. By that time I also had invested enough into the system that switching to any other system would have been a costly exercise with no real gain or benefit with my work so i've been happily doing what I do with the system,

but after almost 20 years of shooting with Pentax i'm now at a crossroads.
........
...I thought all was good until I recently started putting the Fuji x100s...."

/end offtopic

sb in ak · 04-25-2015, 12:05 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by romeck

/offtopic

My affair with Fuji... (April 21, 2015)
As most people know I've been shooting with the Pentax system since I started photography when I was shooting film using a Pentax ME-Super and K1000 bodies which I still have in some cupboard somewhere. I never considered switching systems as the Pentax system was always adequate for what I was doing and once they brought out their digital bodies I continued with their digital cameras as I could use my older manual focus prime lenses on their latest bodies. By that time I also had invested enough into the system that switching to any other system would have been a costly exercise with no real gain or benefit with my work so i've been happily doing what I do with the system,

but after almost 20 years of shooting with Pentax i'm now at a crossroads.
........
...I thought all was good until I recently started putting the Fuji x100s...."

/end offtopic

He certainly does good work. I'm not sure that I love his style, but it's good. He certainly has creative vision and the technical side down.

The X100 series is a fixed focal length and could hardly replace a whole kit (he notes this). I'm curious if he jumps ship over to a X100 series and something like a X-T1 or keeps the Pentax for other focal lengths.

Anyways, a good takeaway point is that APS-C is certainly capable.

kenny47 · 04-25-2015, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by sb in ak

Yes, if you are a DOF junkie. Also, if we are talking about OVFs, FF gives a much bigger size viewfinder.

Yes, ever since I tried ME super I wanted FF just for the viewfinder. Not sure if it will be worth the cost for me, and I definitely think I can APS-C is enough for me in other aspects. But I might be wrong, I definitely need to know the price (and other features) before deciding.

**Rondec** · 04-25-2015, 03:36 AM

I think full frame will be problematic as, I doubt it will have a pop up flash and I know that is a deal killer for a lot of folks...

Honestly, only you can tell if you need/want what full frame offers. It will be more expensive and probably a little larger than current APS-C bodies. The viewfinder will be bigger and brighter. You will be able to print bigger and shoot with shallower depth of field if you desire. Pentax seems to be planning to be SR in the camera body, but I would bet that it won't be as good as with current APS-C SR, since it is a bigger sensor and their first attempt at stabilizing it. You also do need longer lenses to get the same field of view as compared to APS-C, if you shoot much telephoto.

I think there are a lot of reasons to consider full frame, but it is a calculation, that only you can do to see if you value those things enough to carry a larger camera and spend the extra funds necessary to buy it. APS-C is pretty good at this point.

normhead · 04-25-2015, 04:29 AM

It's totally about the flexibility of the system for me. APS-c uses all the APS-c lenses obviously, but it also uses all the FF lenses both at full resolution. You have this weird anomaly where two formats use the same mount. That gives you the 17 lenses Pentax has developed just for APS-c and all the legacy and future lenses designed for FF. Going to a K-3 II gives me the speed bump available for the new lenses, plus still backwards compatable with my A-glass, FA glass, M glass, and DA glass.

Omestes · 04-25-2015, 08:32 AM

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...

mikeSF · 04-25-2015, 08:57 AM

it is nice to have some choices (thanks Ricoh!).

Personally, I am seriously considering buying the K3 II as an adjunct to my 645D which is my main landscape/studio cam. Keeping a smaller rig with great IQ for astro and long tele work makes sense for the K3 II, and my K5 is getting a little long in the tooth as technology goes.
Later on, I can reassess after FF is released and see if I need that, but honestly, I don't think I can justify it.

**todd** · 04-25-2015, 09:05 AM - **1 Like**

Almost as long as I've been an unprofessional, I've wanted FF. I knew I didn't need it back then (when the D700 came out) and I still don't need it, as I don't even use my K-5 well enough to prove my worthiness... The problem is my three amigo's. They keep insisting that I get the upcoming FF release, and they won't shut up about it!

Winder · 04-25-2015, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Omestes

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?

I recommend:
1.You rent a FF body (any brand) and a premium lens that fits your needs.
2. Go to a website where people actually use FF and talk to them.
3. Ask yourself: What is my goal? What will be the final output for my work?

There is a reason professionals spend the money on FF or medium format. It has to do with image quality. The differences are subtle and if you don't have the experience you would spend a lot of money and see little to no benefit. If you are a professional and you are putting your portfolio on the table against other photographers then those subtle differences make a huge difference. If you are a serious enthusiasts who takes a lot of pride in their work, then those differences might be worth it. If you have a good bit of skill with Photoshop then APS-C can really do some amazing work. https://www.flickr.com/photos/95993939@N05/ Here is a photographer who uses a $300.00 camera and a $200 lens for ALL her work.

If you are just starting out I would not recommend shooting multiple systems or formats. Pick one system and format and focus on capturing great images. Fuji has a great system with some great glass. The K-3 or the K-3II (if you need the new features) and the Limited lenses are all excellent. Pick the system you enjoy using the most and put the rest of the money in to developing skills like post processing.

04-24-2015, 11:03 PM - 1 Like	#22
romeck Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Piekary Śląskie Photos: Albums Posts: 155	offtopic: Bill Gekas Originally posted by Stavri Check out Bill Gekas Photography \| The Gallery /offtopic My affair with Fuji... (April 21, 2015) As most people know I've been shooting with the Pentax system since I started photography when I was shooting film using a Pentax ME-Super and K1000 bodies which I still have in some cupboard somewhere. I never considered switching systems as the Pentax system was always adequate for what I was doing and once they brought out their digital bodies I continued with their digital cameras as I could use my older manual focus prime lenses on their latest bodies. By that time I also had invested enough into the system that switching to any other system would have been a costly exercise with no real gain or benefit with my work so i've been happily doing what I do with the system, but after almost 20 years of shooting with Pentax i'm now at a crossroads. ........ ...I thought all was good until I recently started putting the Fuji x100s...." /end offtopic

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

04-24-2015, 03:20 PM	#16
kenny47 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Bratislava Photos: Albums Posts: 44	I am not sure, so here is my question. Suppose the FF has 36MP sensor, if you crop it to APS-C size, you get 24MP. Can it be equally good as K3II, or is that impossible? (Provided the FF sensor is good..)

04-24-2015, 03:28 PM	#17
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,267	Crop to APS-C will be more like 15-16Mp - we are talking areas not linear dimensions....

04-24-2015, 03:43 PM	#18
kenny47 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Bratislava Photos: Albums Posts: 44	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Crop to APS-C will be more like 15-16Mp - we are talking areas not linear dimensions.... Ah, okay, thanks for correction. So not like K3 but like K5. And with even better IQ also in the crop, hopefully.

04-24-2015, 05:42 PM	#19
Dlanor Sekao Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 1,457	I was all pumped up over FF ever since they announced it was coming. But now with the K3II pre-ordered Im on complete hold until I test drive it for a while. Im not a "Pro" by the definition of the word but have made quite a bit of cold hard cash the last year with my K30 doing freelance Insurance Fraud work that I have paid for all my gear 3 times over and acquired a glut of lenses and a few decent bodies in the process. I think the best bet is to just wait a while (unlike) what I did.... Its a tough call with neither body has even released yet. If FF comes out with PSR as the K3II did , I think it will be a no brainer to buy it if you can afford it whether you need it or not. I jumped on the K3II because I see a use for it as hopefully one of the greatest Landscape camera's made to date.......the specs look fantastic and on paper it screams at me...BUY...BUY...BUY !

04-24-2015, 08:11 PM - 1 Like	#20
Omestes Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 207 Original Poster	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Being able to shoot APS-C and full frame extends the capability of the system. That is actually a very good point. I would love my 77 to be a hair wider. Though, conversely, if the FF allows me to use the 40ltd in FF mode, I'd hate it to be any wider, ditto with my 24mm. I'm fine with my 100mm Macro being 150mm. I know I can always crop in PP. My other concern is that the RAWs will kill my computer, and I'm going to need to actually invest in a semi-pro storage backup/solution. This makes me feel odd, but is it just too much for my needs? Though I suppose, as my girlfriend pointed out, I never cared about FF until Pentax announced FF. If I didn't luck into the ability to have just enough spending money, I would have been happy with the change to upgrade my K-5 to the K3, and ecstatic for the K3ii. FF wasn't even something I was interested in three months ago outside of looking randomly at a Sony Mirrorless FF. I did want a K5iis, or K3 because losing the AA filter made me excited. I did want to upgrade my aging M43 camera since its high ISO performance makes me cry. I could do both of my previous long term goals, for the same cost as the FF, and have a decent amount of spare change. The problem is that it is so hard to tell what FF would actually mean. Would it be like upgrading from a crappy point and shoot to my first DSLR (the K-x) (life changing), or upgrading from the K-x to the K-5 (a pretty big deal)? Or like how I'd imagine upgrading from my current DSLR to the K3ii (a nice workaday upgrade but nothing life changing). I just can't tell. Dang it Pentax, stop making things I want.

04-24-2015, 10:40 PM	#21
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612	Yes, if you are a DOF junkie. Also, if we are talking about OVFs, FF gives a much bigger size viewfinder.

04-25-2015, 12:05 AM - 1 Like	#23
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612	Originally posted by romeck /offtopic My affair with Fuji... (April 21, 2015) As most people know I've been shooting with the Pentax system since I started photography when I was shooting film using a Pentax ME-Super and K1000 bodies which I still have in some cupboard somewhere. I never considered switching systems as the Pentax system was always adequate for what I was doing and once they brought out their digital bodies I continued with their digital cameras as I could use my older manual focus prime lenses on their latest bodies. By that time I also had invested enough into the system that switching to any other system would have been a costly exercise with no real gain or benefit with my work so i've been happily doing what I do with the system, but after almost 20 years of shooting with Pentax i'm now at a crossroads. ........ ...I thought all was good until I recently started putting the Fuji x100s...." /end offtopic He certainly does good work. I'm not sure that I love his style, but it's good. He certainly has creative vision and the technical side down. The X100 series is a fixed focal length and could hardly replace a whole kit (he notes this). I'm curious if he jumps ship over to a X100 series and something like a X-T1 or keeps the Pentax for other focal lengths. Anyways, a good takeaway point is that APS-C is certainly capable.

04-25-2015, 01:35 AM	#24
kenny47 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Bratislava Photos: Albums Posts: 44	Originally posted by sb in ak Yes, if you are a DOF junkie. Also, if we are talking about OVFs, FF gives a much bigger size viewfinder. Yes, ever since I tried ME super I wanted FF just for the viewfinder. Not sure if it will be worth the cost for me, and I definitely think I can APS-C is enough for me in other aspects. But I might be wrong, I definitely need to know the price (and other features) before deciding.

04-25-2015, 03:36 AM	#25
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	I think full frame will be problematic as, I doubt it will have a pop up flash and I know that is a deal killer for a lot of folks... Honestly, only you can tell if you need/want what full frame offers. It will be more expensive and probably a little larger than current APS-C bodies. The viewfinder will be bigger and brighter. You will be able to print bigger and shoot with shallower depth of field if you desire. Pentax seems to be planning to be SR in the camera body, but I would bet that it won't be as good as with current APS-C SR, since it is a bigger sensor and their first attempt at stabilizing it. You also do need longer lenses to get the same field of view as compared to APS-C, if you shoot much telephoto. I think there are a lot of reasons to consider full frame, but it is a calculation, that only you can do to see if you value those things enough to carry a larger camera and spend the extra funds necessary to buy it. APS-C is pretty good at this point.

04-25-2015, 04:29 AM	#26
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	It's totally about the flexibility of the system for me. APS-c uses all the APS-c lenses obviously, but it also uses all the FF lenses both at full resolution. You have this weird anomaly where two formats use the same mount. That gives you the 17 lenses Pentax has developed just for APS-c and all the legacy and future lenses designed for FF. Going to a K-3 II gives me the speed bump available for the new lenses, plus still backwards compatable with my A-glass, FA glass, M glass, and DA glass.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2015, 08:32 AM	#27
Omestes Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 207 Original Poster	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...

04-25-2015, 08:57 AM	#28
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	it is nice to have some choices (thanks Ricoh!). Personally, I am seriously considering buying the K3 II as an adjunct to my 645D which is my main landscape/studio cam. Keeping a smaller rig with great IQ for astro and long tele work makes sense for the K3 II, and my K5 is getting a little long in the tooth as technology goes. Later on, I can reassess after FF is released and see if I need that, but honestly, I don't think I can justify it.

04-25-2015, 09:05 AM - 1 Like	#29
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,791	Almost as long as I've been an unprofessional, I've wanted FF. I knew I didn't need it back then (when the D700 came out) and I still don't need it, as I don't even use my K-5 well enough to prove my worthiness... The problem is my three amigo's. They keep insisting that I get the upcoming FF release, and they won't shut up about it!

04-25-2015, 09:38 AM	#30
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Omestes 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? I recommend: 1.You rent a FF body (any brand) and a premium lens that fits your needs. 2. Go to a website where people actually use FF and talk to them. 3. Ask yourself: What is my goal? What will be the final output for my work? There is a reason professionals spend the money on FF or medium format. It has to do with image quality. The differences are subtle and if you don't have the experience you would spend a lot of money and see little to no benefit. If you are a professional and you are putting your portfolio on the table against other photographers then those subtle differences make a huge difference. If you are a serious enthusiasts who takes a lot of pride in their work, then those differences might be worth it. If you have a good bit of skill with Photoshop then APS-C can really do some amazing work. https://www.flickr.com/photos/95993939@N05/ Here is a photographer who uses a $300.00 camera and a $200 lens for ALL her work. If you are just starting out I would not recommend shooting multiple systems or formats. Pick one system and format and focus on capturing great images. Fuji has a great system with some great glass. The K-3 or the K-3II (if you need the new features) and the Limited lenses are all excellent. Pick the system you enjoy using the most and put the rest of the money in to developing skills like post processing.