Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-04-2015, 04:37 PM   #76
Pentaxian
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 900
I'll be able to switch out the stock pentaprism for a waist level finder and get stealthier candid shots. I mean, surely, it is going to have interchangeable viewfinders. Right?

07-04-2015, 04:52 PM   #77
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,576
QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
a waist level finder and get stealthier candid shots.
A flippy screen does the job of a waist level finder pretty well.

Plus nowadays, you have camera WiFi and your mobile running an app like the Pentax remote control app to also enable that.
07-05-2015, 12:15 AM   #78
Pentaxian
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
A flippy screen does the job of a waist level finder pretty well.

Plus nowadays, you have camera WiFi and your mobile running an app like the Pentax remote control app to also enable that.
Spoil sport.
07-05-2015, 12:27 PM   #79
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Pekin, IL
Posts: 207
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
. . . Going FF doesn't necessarily make you a better photographer, but it can improve your photographs (and increase your fun!)
Great. I bought an smc DA 15 so my photos would look just like yours (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/86234-15mm-limited-controls-my-mind-club.html), and now you're telling me I need to buy an FF camera, too.

07-05-2015, 12:49 PM   #80
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by fredralphfred Quote
Great. I bought an smc DA 15 so my photos would look just like yours (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/86234-15mm-limited-controls-my-mind-club.html), and now you're telling me I need to buy an FF camera, too.
I still have my DA15ltd! It wants a K3II, but I've learned how to talk it down from the early days of the mind-control thread.
07-05-2015, 01:59 PM - 1 Like   #81
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10
QuoteOriginally posted by januko Quote
Why didn't the manufacturers use full frame sensors as the mainstream when digital SLRs first came out?

I mean the 35mm film cameras both cheap and expensive use full frame. It makes one think that manufacturers are using APS-C just to save money.

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that APS-C sensors are bad. I am also NOT saying that FF will make our photography technique and photographs better.

I am just saying that FF sensors should be the sensors that must be inside when the first Canon, Nikon, and Pentax digital SLRs came out and from the first models, we all SHOULD have FF sensors in our K-5's, K-3's, K-01's, D7xxxx, D40's, D300, 7D's, 60D's 70D's, etc. because these cameras are supposed to be the digital equivalent of the film cameras of old (are they?).

Forgive me if I am ranting but it is also my observation that I can't help keeping. Okay, educate me now or scold me even.
Just want to say that I agree with this observation also.
I shoot film regularly (not having a full-frame digital), I see the difference between APS and full-frame in the types of photos that I make.

---------- Post added 07-05-2015 at 04:01 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It's amazing what people think FF will do for them.... the marketers have done well.
On the contrary, I think it's amazing what the marketers were able to convince us that sensor size makes no difference
07-06-2015, 02:56 AM   #82
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,940
QuoteOriginally posted by shakumar Quote
Just want to say that I agree with this observation also.
I shoot film regularly (not having a full-frame digital), I see the difference between APS and full-frame in the types of photos that I make.

---------- Post added 07-05-2015 at 04:01 PM ----------



On the contrary, I think it's amazing what the marketers were able to convince us that sensor size makes no difference
I don't think it has anything to do with marketing. Folks have been able to buy full frame cameras since 2002. The issue up until recently has been that whatever wonderful benefits shooting with a larger sensor size provided, the cost was high enough that people didn't buy them en mass. When my brother and dad were looking for cameras, they ended buying a K5 and K30, both for 600-ish dollars. If I had suggested spending 1500 dollars on a camera body, whatever the perceived benefits of the larger sensor, they would have laughed at me. Most folks shooting as a hobby do not really see the benefits of a larger sensor size.

I haven't seen any advertising campaigns in recent years selling the fact that full frame makes no difference. In point of fact, Canon, Nikon and Sony have all been pushing their users to move up to full frame, precisely because they make more money on both the camera bodies and the higher end glass they sell to full frame users.
07-06-2015, 05:13 AM   #83
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,285
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I haven't seen any advertising campaigns in recent years selling the fact that full frame makes no difference. In point of fact, Canon, Nikon and Sony have all been pushing their users to move up to full frame, precisely because they make more money on both the camera bodies and the higher end glass they sell to full frame users.
You've missed some of the m4/3 propaganda then, especially that obnoxious "Crop or Crap" video. No, don't go looking for it. It's not worth it.

07-06-2015, 05:26 AM   #84
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,940
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
You've missed some of the m4/3 propaganda then, especially that obnoxious "Crop or Crap" video. No, don't go looking for it. It's not worth it.
That particular video is a Fuji video. Fuji mirrorless guys are very much of the opinion that with Fuji's magic, amazing high iso results are obtainable. But it isn't so much about sensor size as the X Trans Sensor array (and Fuji's understatement of iso) that is supposed to bring the awesome results.

I do think overall, the differences are relatively small. Yes, you can see the differences. Yes, full frame can do more narrow depth of field and better dynamic range. But most people aren't pushing the envelope on these things anyway. If you are shooting out of camera jpegs with a kit lens, then full frame is unlikely to produce dramatically different results.
07-06-2015, 07:08 AM   #85
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,285
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
That particular video is a Fuji video. Fuji mirrorless guys are very much of the opinion that with Fuji's magic, amazing high iso results are obtainable. But it isn't so much about sensor size as the X Trans Sensor array (and Fuji's understatement of iso) that is supposed to bring the awesome results.
He spends an obnoxious amount of time obnoxiously declaring that the obnoxious fuji sensor's smaller size isn't a hindrance. Improved technology is his excuse for the apparent paradigm shift in his choice of camera, but he seemed to be doing his best to play down the effect of the sensor size.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I do think overall, the differences are relatively small. Yes, you can see the differences. Yes, full frame can do more narrow depth of field and better dynamic range. But most people aren't pushing the envelope on these things anyway.
And I 100% agree with this. It's ultimately dependent on end use, and how critical you want to get about things. It's really a matter of personal preference and as long as people are spending their own money and not mine, I'll generously allow them to make whatever choices they want .
07-06-2015, 07:29 AM   #86
Senior Member
romeck's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Piekary Śląskie
Photos: Albums
Posts: 156
QuoteOriginally posted by januko Quote
Why didn't the manufacturers use full frame sensors as the mainstream when digital SLRs first came out?

I mean the 35mm film cameras both cheap and expensive use full frame. (...)

I am just saying that FF sensors should be the sensors that must be inside when the first Canon, Nikon, and Pentax digital SLRs came out and from the first models, we all SHOULD have FF sensors in our K-5's, K-3's, K-01's, D7xxxx, D40's, D300, 7D's, 60D's 70D's, etc. because these cameras are supposed to be the digital equivalent of the film cameras of old (are they?).
100%

And with 645 also:
............................edit: tanks wpvv:

645 film - 5,6 x 4,15 cm
645 digit. - 4,4 x 3,3 cm !
1,6 times the size

Last edited by romeck; 07-06-2015 at 10:56 PM.
07-06-2015, 07:41 AM   #87
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,940
Ian Shive was on Creative Live talking about photographing national parks. He uses Canon 5D Mk II/III to do his photographing, but he said that he shoots stopped down to f22 most of the time.

It is funny to me, because my perception is that at f22 on a full frame because of diffraction, you are pretty unlikely to see much benefit over APS-C, but his perspective is that he wants everything in focus and photos are more about composition and light and less about sharpness anyway. He has nice results, but I bet the pixel peepers here on the forum would have a cow about the sharpness he is losing because of diffraction.
07-06-2015, 08:04 AM - 1 Like   #88
Senior Member
romeck's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Piekary Śląskie
Photos: Albums
Posts: 156
2,33

QuoteOriginally posted by fredralphfred Quote
a FF sensor is still 2.25 times the size of the 1.5x crop sensors ... APS-C.
A FF sensor is 2,334 times the size of the APS-C sensor.

FF area = 855,62 mm2 (Sony A7, Canon 5D)
APS-C area = 366,60 mm2 (Pentax K-3)

what is this: diagonal^2 ???

FF diagonal = 43,0447 mm
APS-C diagonal = 28,2066 mm
crop = 1,5261x

to help :)
07-06-2015, 12:14 PM   #89
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 232
QuoteOriginally posted by romeck Quote
100%

And with 645 also:
645 film - 6,0 x 4,5 cm
645 digit. - 4,4 x 3,3 cm !!!

The actual film size was 5,6x4,2 or in practical terms (slide or negative masks) even a few mm less. Still a crop of 20% lineair, but not as much as the 645 name suggests.
07-06-2015, 01:59 PM   #90
Site Supporter
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,515
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't think it has anything to do with marketing. Folks have been able to buy full frame cameras since 2002. The issue up until recently has been that whatever wonderful benefits shooting with a larger sensor size provided, the cost was high enough that people didn't buy them en mass. When my brother and dad were looking for cameras, they ended buying a K5 and K30, both for 600-ish dollars. If I had suggested spending 1500 dollars on a camera body, whatever the perceived benefits of the larger sensor, they would have laughed at me. Most folks shooting as a hobby do not really see the benefits of a larger sensor size.

I haven't seen any advertising campaigns in recent years selling the fact that full frame makes no difference. In point of fact, Canon, Nikon and Sony have all been pushing their users to move up to full frame, precisely because they make more money on both the camera bodies and the higher end glass they sell to full frame users.
This is a great point!
How many people outside of enthusiasts and forums even care if the camera is FF? Some people I have spoken to don't even know if their camera has a full frame or not!

The power of marketing!

Randy
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, cameras, control, count, diffraction, dof, f/2, ff, film, frame, frame sensors, full-frame, images, increase, lens, manufacturers, megapixel, observation, pentax, rock, sensor, sensors, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to improve your photographic creations pursang Photographic Technique 15 03-21-2015 10:39 PM
Night Trying to Learn Night Photography v3; How can I improve? Hexism Photo Critique 14 01-14-2015 08:19 PM
Ten household items that can improve your food photography interested_observer Photographic Technique 2 11-17-2013 06:07 PM
Thematic try it backward to improve your photography slip Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 2 08-26-2012 07:40 AM
Food How to improve my food photography? ddekadt Photo Critique 12 06-22-2012 08:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:46 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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