Is FF worth the upgrade?

rawr · 06-23-2015, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by philbaum

With K-mount, they wouldnt' have been able to keep them on the shelves.

That is so true. Tamron, pls be reading this.

ElJamoquio · 06-23-2015, 12:56 PM

No joke. Pentax doesn't need all three 150-600-ish lenses (Tamron, Sigma, Sigma) but two would be nice.

I'm sure the Pentax will be nice too but a 600mm is still better than 450...

philbaum · 06-23-2015, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Welcome to the squeeze. A few of us described this current situation starting about 3-4 years ago, if I recall.
.

I do recall you saying that - many times

1. As to the original OP question, lets say that one buys one of the Sony FE F4 zooms that they have for a A7X model. This FF combination provides no more light exposure over my K3 + F2.8 aps zoom. But doesn't the FF camera provide additional SNR and Dynamic range benefits over the above mentioned Pentax APS combo?? I don't see this mentioned to much, but there are still benefits to be had. Plus, faster primes would really benefit the FF camera.

2. There are at least 2 ways of converting to FF, a full conversion or a supplemental/partial conversion. What i'm thinking of doing is keeping my K3 and the key lenses i frequently use with it, sell the remainder, and then buy a Sony FF and a very few lenses to do the specific low light work i have in mind. Thats a lot less money than a full conversion.

Fogel70 · 06-24-2015, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by philbaum

I do recall you saying that - many times

1. As to the original OP question, lets say that one buys one of the Sony FE F4 zooms that they have for a A7X model. This FF combination provides no more light exposure over my K3 + F2.8 aps zoom. But doesn't the FF camera provide additional SNR and Dynamic range benefits over the above mentioned Pentax APS combo?? I don't see this mentioned to much, but there are still benefits to be had. Plus, faster primes would really benefit the FF camera.

As long as you can use base ISO on both cameras, the FF will give some advantage, but on the other hand noise and DR do not differ much at base ISO between FF and APS-C.
When you need to use one stop higher ISO on FF to compensate for the slower lens or when you need to use one stop higher ISO stopping down the lens one extra stop on FF to get the DOF, you will not see much difference in noise or DR between FF and APS-C.

Comparing Sony A7II with K3, A7II has a 0.2 stop advantage on DR at base ISO (according to DXOMark). So far Sony does not seems to make full use of the FF-advantage when it comes to DR and noise.
FI Nikon seem to do much better on this, but on the other hand both Nikon 750 and 7200 have about one stop DR advantage at base ISO over Sony A7II and Pentax K3. So FF does not seems to have a general advantage in DR over APS-C at base ISO.

Attached Images

**Rondec** · 06-24-2015, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by philbaum

I do recall you saying that - many times

1. As to the original OP question, lets say that one buys one of the Sony FE F4 zooms that they have for a A7X model. This FF combination provides no more light exposure over my K3 + F2.8 aps zoom. But doesn't the FF camera provide additional SNR and Dynamic range benefits over the above mentioned Pentax APS combo?? I don't see this mentioned to much, but there are still benefits to be had. Plus, faster primes would really benefit the FF camera.

2. There are at least 2 ways of converting to FF, a full conversion or a supplemental/partial conversion. What i'm thinking of doing is keeping my K3 and the key lenses i frequently use with it, sell the remainder, and then buy a Sony FF and a very few lenses to do the specific low light work i have in mind. Thats a lot less money than a full conversion.

If you are shooting at f4 on full frame and f2.8 on APS-C, you would have to bump your iso on full frame by one stop meaning that your dynamic range and SNR would be pretty similar between your crop and full frame shots. The benefit comes if you are able to shoot with a faster lens on your full frame camera.

Wired · 06-24-2015, 07:34 AM

getting rid of the math and all the technical mumbo jumbo... you only need an FF if it is the right too for the job you are doing at that time. In fact, even then I would argue that an APSC format camera can do everything a 35mm format can do if all other specs are equal. There is a learning curve going from APSC to 35mm. It will not instantly over night make you a better photographer, in fact it will make you a worse photographer the day you pick it up. You need to shoot differently when you pickup a 35mm camera. For me personally, if every spec was the same aside from sensor size, knowing what I know now, I would purchase the crop sensor camera. The exception would be things that are matched to sensor size, like view finder size and high-iso noise.

I've been shooting without my D800 since mid-May (as it's in the shop....again) and I have only missed shooting with it for two specific things... flash sync/hss speed with my studio lights and AF motor speed (more a system concern). If Pentax were to release a mkii version of the DA* lenses with updated focus motors that are as fast as Nikon's 24-70 and 70-200...I may be tempted to ditch the Nikon. I can work around the flash system limitations.

normhead · 06-24-2015, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

No joke. Pentax doesn't need all three 150-600-ish lenses (Tamron, Sigma, Sigma) but two would be nice.

I'm sure the Pentax will be nice too but a 600mm is still better than 450...

Stick a 1.4 TC on it.... now it's a 210-630.

markku55 · 06-25-2015, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Stick a 1.4 TC on it.... now it's a 210-630.

And if the FF do have enough off resolution, the easyest way to get "longer" lens is to crop the picture.

philbaum · 06-25-2015, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Fogel70

As long as you can use base ISO on both cameras, the FF will give some advantage, but on the other hand noise and DR do not differ much at base ISO between FF and APS-C.
When you need to use one stop higher ISO on FF to compensate for the slower lens or when you need to use one stop higher ISO stopping down the lens one extra stop on FF to get the DOF, you will not see much difference in noise or DR between FF and APS-C.

Comparing Sony A7II with K3, A7II has a 0.2 stop advantage on DR at base ISO (according to DXOMark). So far Sony does not seems to make full use of the FF-advantage when it comes to DR and noise.
FI Nikon seem to do much better on this, but on the other hand both Nikon 750 and 7200 have about one stop DR advantage at base ISO over Sony A7II and Pentax K3. So FF does not seems to have a general advantage in DR over APS-C at base ISO.

Good point. Another loose screw in these comparisons is Pentax being straight about the ISO numbers. while Canikon and Sony all seem to be playing games with these ISO calculations, which creates an unfavorable impression of Pentax.

The SNR chart below compares K3, D810 and A7II. Its remarkable how close D810 and A7II are in these charts. For the same corrected iso, K3 is about 5% below D810/A711 at 100 iso, but that increases to about 9% when one looks at these values at 800 iso. So getting at higher iso's, the SNR becomes more and more favorable to the full frames. That sort of makes sense because the larger sensor area becomes key in capturing more photons when they are getting to be few in number. Nikon D750, not included, is a later generation of sensor and clearly outclasses D810, A711. The K3 sensor is now at least 30 months old - i'm not sure if its the same as the one installed in K3 II.

As you pointed out, if the FF is at F4 and the aps camera is at F2.8, the SNR value becomes almost identical (because the ISO is increased to provide equal exposure conditions)

[IMG]

[/IMG]

ElJamoquio · 06-27-2015, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Stick a 1.4 TC on it.... now it's a 210-630.

It's a rare zoom where the (zoom + TC) does better than (zoom + cropping). Some of the better 70-200 f/2.8's do better with a TC IMO. I have no experience with the 150-450 with a TC but I'd guess it's not much of an improvement over cropping in practice (which for me is handheld and wide open for a lens like that).

If you're taking pictures in mid-day sunlight on a tripod your experience might be quite different.

Personally I'm glad Pentax is (rumored to be) using the 42MP FF sensor. It makes it easier to forgo the TC and crop.

normhead · 06-27-2015, 03:01 PM

You'd be wrong if that was your guess. The 150-450 does quite well with the TC. Actually with anything but a kit lens type of lens you will do much better with a TC. Pentax has said with he 1.4 TC on a good lens the loss of resolution is 3.% and since the increase due to enlargement is 40% that's a 37% gain on your subject using the TC. MY A-400 which was a consumer lens, not an A* benefits from the 1.4 TC but doesn't do well with the 1.7 AF adapter. That gives me a pretty clear line as to how much enlargement a consumer lens will handle. Any DA* and all but the worst DAs will be improved over cropping the same lens.

**mwilky55** · 06-27-2015, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by 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'...

Flylooper and Omestes, thank you both for the wise and thought provoking sanity check.

06-25-2015, 06:01 PM	#144
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by Fogel70 As long as you can use base ISO on both cameras, the FF will give some advantage, but on the other hand noise and DR do not differ much at base ISO between FF and APS-C. When you need to use one stop higher ISO on FF to compensate for the slower lens or when you need to use one stop higher ISO stopping down the lens one extra stop on FF to get the DOF, you will not see much difference in noise or DR between FF and APS-C. Comparing Sony A7II with K3, A7II has a 0.2 stop advantage on DR at base ISO (according to DXOMark). So far Sony does not seems to make full use of the FF-advantage when it comes to DR and noise. FI Nikon seem to do much better on this, but on the other hand both Nikon 750 and 7200 have about one stop DR advantage at base ISO over Sony A7II and Pentax K3. So FF does not seems to have a general advantage in DR over APS-C at base ISO. Good point. Another loose screw in these comparisons is Pentax being straight about the ISO numbers. while Canikon and Sony all seem to be playing games with these ISO calculations, which creates an unfavorable impression of Pentax. The SNR chart below compares K3, D810 and A7II. Its remarkable how close D810 and A7II are in these charts. For the same corrected iso, K3 is about 5% below D810/A711 at 100 iso, but that increases to about 9% when one looks at these values at 800 iso. So getting at higher iso's, the SNR becomes more and more favorable to the full frames. That sort of makes sense because the larger sensor area becomes key in capturing more photons when they are getting to be few in number. Nikon D750, not included, is a later generation of sensor and clearly outclasses D810, A711. The K3 sensor is now at least 30 months old - i'm not sure if its the same as the one installed in K3 II. As you pointed out, if the FF is at F4 and the aps camera is at F2.8, the SNR value becomes almost identical (because the ISO is increased to provide equal exposure conditions) [IMG][/IMG] Last edited by philbaum; 06-25-2015 at 06:06 PM.

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

06-23-2015, 08:58 AM	#136
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by philbaum With K-mount, they wouldnt' have been able to keep them on the shelves. That is so true. Tamron, pls be reading this.

06-23-2015, 12:56 PM	#137
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	No joke. Pentax doesn't need all three 150-600-ish lenses (Tamron, Sigma, Sigma) but two would be nice. I'm sure the Pentax will be nice too but a 600mm is still better than 450...

06-23-2015, 02:54 PM	#138
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by jsherman999 Welcome to the squeeze. A few of us described this current situation starting about 3-4 years ago, if I recall. . I do recall you saying that - many times 1. As to the original OP question, lets say that one buys one of the Sony FE F4 zooms that they have for a A7X model. This FF combination provides no more light exposure over my K3 + F2.8 aps zoom. But doesn't the FF camera provide additional SNR and Dynamic range benefits over the above mentioned Pentax APS combo?? I don't see this mentioned to much, but there are still benefits to be had. Plus, faster primes would really benefit the FF camera. 2. There are at least 2 ways of converting to FF, a full conversion or a supplemental/partial conversion. What i'm thinking of doing is keeping my K3 and the key lenses i frequently use with it, sell the remainder, and then buy a Sony FF and a very few lenses to do the specific low light work i have in mind. Thats a lot less money than a full conversion.

06-24-2015, 01:02 AM	#139
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by philbaum I do recall you saying that - many times 1. As to the original OP question, lets say that one buys one of the Sony FE F4 zooms that they have for a A7X model. This FF combination provides no more light exposure over my K3 + F2.8 aps zoom. But doesn't the FF camera provide additional SNR and Dynamic range benefits over the above mentioned Pentax APS combo?? I don't see this mentioned to much, but there are still benefits to be had. Plus, faster primes would really benefit the FF camera. As long as you can use base ISO on both cameras, the FF will give some advantage, but on the other hand noise and DR do not differ much at base ISO between FF and APS-C. When you need to use one stop higher ISO on FF to compensate for the slower lens or when you need to use one stop higher ISO stopping down the lens one extra stop on FF to get the DOF, you will not see much difference in noise or DR between FF and APS-C. Comparing Sony A7II with K3, A7II has a 0.2 stop advantage on DR at base ISO (according to DXOMark). So far Sony does not seems to make full use of the FF-advantage when it comes to DR and noise. FI Nikon seem to do much better on this, but on the other hand both Nikon 750 and 7200 have about one stop DR advantage at base ISO over Sony A7II and Pentax K3. So FF does not seems to have a general advantage in DR over APS-C at base ISO. Attached Images

06-24-2015, 02:33 AM	#140
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by philbaum I do recall you saying that - many times 1. As to the original OP question, lets say that one buys one of the Sony FE F4 zooms that they have for a A7X model. This FF combination provides no more light exposure over my K3 + F2.8 aps zoom. But doesn't the FF camera provide additional SNR and Dynamic range benefits over the above mentioned Pentax APS combo?? I don't see this mentioned to much, but there are still benefits to be had. Plus, faster primes would really benefit the FF camera. 2. There are at least 2 ways of converting to FF, a full conversion or a supplemental/partial conversion. What i'm thinking of doing is keeping my K3 and the key lenses i frequently use with it, sell the remainder, and then buy a Sony FF and a very few lenses to do the specific low light work i have in mind. Thats a lot less money than a full conversion. If you are shooting at f4 on full frame and f2.8 on APS-C, you would have to bump your iso on full frame by one stop meaning that your dynamic range and SNR would be pretty similar between your crop and full frame shots. The benefit comes if you are able to shoot with a faster lens on your full frame camera.

06-24-2015, 07:34 AM	#141
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	getting rid of the math and all the technical mumbo jumbo... you only need an FF if it is the right too for the job you are doing at that time. In fact, even then I would argue that an APSC format camera can do everything a 35mm format can do if all other specs are equal. There is a learning curve going from APSC to 35mm. It will not instantly over night make you a better photographer, in fact it will make you a worse photographer the day you pick it up. You need to shoot differently when you pickup a 35mm camera. For me personally, if every spec was the same aside from sensor size, knowing what I know now, I would purchase the crop sensor camera. The exception would be things that are matched to sensor size, like view finder size and high-iso noise. I've been shooting without my D800 since mid-May (as it's in the shop....again) and I have only missed shooting with it for two specific things... flash sync/hss speed with my studio lights and AF motor speed (more a system concern). If Pentax were to release a mkii version of the DA* lenses with updated focus motors that are as fast as Nikon's 24-70 and 70-200...I may be tempted to ditch the Nikon. I can work around the flash system limitations.

06-24-2015, 08:15 AM	#142
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ElJamoquio No joke. Pentax doesn't need all three 150-600-ish lenses (Tamron, Sigma, Sigma) but two would be nice. I'm sure the Pentax will be nice too but a 600mm is still better than 450... Stick a 1.4 TC on it.... now it's a 210-630.

06-25-2015, 10:23 AM	#143
markku55 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Hanko, Finland Posts: 223	Originally posted by normhead Stick a 1.4 TC on it.... now it's a 210-630. And if the FF do have enough off resolution, the easyest way to get "longer" lens is to crop the picture.

06-27-2015, 11:10 AM	#145
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by normhead Stick a 1.4 TC on it.... now it's a 210-630. It's a rare zoom where the (zoom + TC) does better than (zoom + cropping). Some of the better 70-200 f/2.8's do better with a TC IMO. I have no experience with the 150-450 with a TC but I'd guess it's not much of an improvement over cropping in practice (which for me is handheld and wide open for a lens like that). If you're taking pictures in mid-day sunlight on a tripod your experience might be quite different. Personally I'm glad Pentax is (rumored to be) using the 42MP FF sensor. It makes it easier to forgo the TC and crop.

06-27-2015, 03:01 PM	#146
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	You'd be wrong if that was your guess. The 150-450 does quite well with the TC. Actually with anything but a kit lens type of lens you will do much better with a TC. Pentax has said with he 1.4 TC on a good lens the loss of resolution is 3.% and since the increase due to enlargement is 40% that's a 37% gain on your subject using the TC. MY A-400 which was a consumer lens, not an A* benefits from the 1.4 TC but doesn't do well with the 1.7 AF adapter. That gives me a pretty clear line as to how much enlargement a consumer lens will handle. Any DA* and all but the worst DAs will be improved over cropping the same lens.

06-27-2015, 03:23 PM	#147
mwilky55 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Southeastern Connecticut Photos: Albums Posts: 816	Originally posted by 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'... Flylooper and Omestes, thank you both for the wise and thought provoking sanity check.