[6BQ5]

I don't think it will necessarily improve my photography but I would appreciate the experience shooting FF with a larger viewfinder. Maybe it will get me to shoot more and more practice may help me improve.

[richard balonglong]

It won't improve your photography. The FF is another tool for your photography if you seek a shallower depth of field, to fully use your collection of FF Pentax glasses, and etc... Both FF and APS-C gives good results, both gives the artist an option for his/her creativity. It's not a battle of which is better.

[virusn3t]

It will improve with better AF, better ISO and more megapickles to crop against my K30, but i dont think that make me better photographer.

[hoopsontoast]

Hopefully improved dynamic range and RAW files lattitude. That and I get to use the glorious FA43 as originally intended!

[aurele]

Will having a FF sensor improve your photography?
If so, why?
I can see having better autofocus or maybe more adjustable but am trying to understand why someone would pay thousands of dollars for the body and some decent glass to match. I can see maybe a wedding photographer needing high ISO performance.
So please convince me of your need for full frame where APS-C can't give as good results

Thanks

Randy

It won't
Ok, maybe the iso will be better, but that's pretty much it.

it's more about the bigger VF and the fact that i will be able to shoot film and digital with the same lens and same perspective. I will be simply simpler to have a unifed kit

[repaap]

If FF will not improve my photography, I'll have to buy D645...

---------- Post added 07-02-15 at 11:24 ----------

or not. Have to see, what will happen.

[infoomatic]

the reasons why I think my photography will improve with a fullframe ... ranked according to importance:
1) use my lenses as they were intended to ... (my 31mm is a 31mm and not equiv 47mm!)
2) easier shallow DOF (i like that)
3) better high iso ... or less post-processing on good concert photos
4) more resolution ... almost negligable for me.

[januko]

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.

[grispie]

It makes one think that manufacturers are using APS-C just to save money.

yes, & there are advantages for the consumer as well.
Apsc is a nice sensor size imo

as to the post itself: i love having more dof to play with at wider angle. for that alone, i'd purchase one..

[Rondec]

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.

APS-C is the new 35mm.

That is to say, "back in the day," professionals used larger formats -- medium and large format films to allow for bigger printing options, etc. 35mm was a compromise solution that allowed every day folks to take photos with a camera and lens that was easily portable and gave decent (if not great) image quality.

When digital cameras were first released, it was very costly to make even small sensors with few megapixels and therefore, when they first released digital SLRs, it was with a crop sensor. And the first digital SLRs were very expensive. In a sense, APS-C is a compromise solution, similar to 35mm in film days. A format that is good enough for most folks, allows for good sized printing and a little smaller cameras than with 35mm. Considering that you can get a new K50 for 277, this compromise solution allows folks without a whole lot of funds the option to jump fully into digital photography with some very nice gear indeed.

Many people want full frame because they have old full frame lenses and they don't like the fact that they are cropped somewhat on their current cameras and that is fine. But many lenses, particularly the zooms, in Pentax's line up are not full frame compatible and if you like your DA *50-135 or DA 18-135, you probably won't have options that please you on full frame (the 70-200 f2.8 Pentax is releasing is significantly larger than the 50-135).

Anyway, over time their have been many different film formats and now different sized sensors available in digital cameras and I am glad. There is no one solution that is perfect for every person in every situation.

[januko]

APS-C is the new 35mm.

That is to say, "back in the day," professionals used larger formats -- medium and large format films to allow for bigger printing options, etc. 35mm was a compromise solution that allowed every day folks to take photos with a camera and lens that was easily portable and gave decent (if not great) image quality.

When digital cameras were first released, it was very costly to make even small sensors with few megapixels and therefore, when they first released digital SLRs, it was with a crop sensor. And the first digital SLRs were very expensive. In a sense, APS-C is a compromise solution, similar to 35mm in film days. A format that is good enough for most folks, allows for good sized printing and a little smaller cameras than with 35mm. Considering that you can get a new K50 for 277, this compromise solution allows folks without a whole lot of funds the option to jump fully into digital photography with some very nice gear indeed.

Many people want full frame because they have old full frame lenses and they don't like the fact that they are cropped somewhat on their current cameras and that is fine. But many lenses, particularly the zooms, in Pentax's line up are not full frame compatible and if you like your DA *50-135 or DA 18-135, you probably won't have options that please you on full frame (the 70-200 f2.8 Pentax is releasing is significantly larger than the 50-135).

Anyway, over time their have been many different film formats and now different sized sensors available in digital cameras and I am glad. There is no one solution that is perfect for every person in every situation.

Well sensor technology has improved since and I believe the cost has lowered too (or maybe not or maybe the sensor manufacturers don't want to!) as well which I believe that it could still be possible to offer cameras with FF sensors but priced like the APS-C cameras. You are right. APS-C is the new full frame. One can't tell if a photograph is shot with a FF sensor or APS-C. I like more depth of field though with the APS-C like others have said here.

[fredralphfred]

Well sensor technology has improved since and I believe the cost has lowered too (or maybe not or maybe the sensor manufacturers don't want to!) as well which I believe that it could still be possible to offer cameras with FF sensors but priced like the APS-C cameras. You are right. APS-C is the new full frame. One can't tell if a photograph is shot with a FF sensor or APS-C. I like more depth of field though with the APS-C like others have said here.

Sensor technology has certainly improved, as has fabrication technology (remember -- the sensor is essentially a HUGE one-piece "micro"chip). But the math hasn't changed -- a FF sensor is still 2.25 times the size of the 1.5x crop sensors that Pentax, Sony, Nikon, and most other APS-C-size camera manufacturers use. Since the sensor is already likely the single most expensive part in the cameras (at least, it used to be), doubling its size is not trivial. Even without development costs, it's expensive to turn "free" sand into pristine etched silicon wafer, so a large portion of what you're paying for is wafer size. Plus larger sensors are more likely to have a fault (which wipes out that whole portion of the wafer), and they can't fit as many in "around the edges" (if you cut a circle up into rectangles, you can use a higher percentage of the circle with smaller rectangles). All this adds up to a more-than-linear cost increase per unit area. And that's not accounting for lower relative volume due to higher cost . . .

[Rondec]

Well sensor technology has improved since and I believe the cost has lowered too (or maybe not or maybe the sensor manufacturers don't want to!) as well which I believe that it could still be possible to offer cameras with FF sensors but priced like the APS-C cameras. You are right. APS-C is the new full frame. One can't tell if a photograph is shot with a FF sensor or APS-C. I like more depth of field though with the APS-C like others have said here.

Well, full frame sensors are by definition more expensive due to bigger size, more possibility for defects in the sensor wafers, etc. The price has come down dramatically over time. The cost of an A7 now stands at about 1000 dollars and the 6D and D610 aren't that much above it. But APS-C prices have come down in similar fashion and pretty dirt-cheap right now.

That said, the price of high end full frame glass has not come down and is pretty expensive. This is where you will spend your money on a full frame system and even if you get an A7, you will spend a fair amount to get the glass necessary to use it (assuming you want auto focus and auto metering).

[GeneV]

We have all hashed this out before, but as long as the new body is friendly to old glass, Pentax has a leg up. So many of us (myself included) might be shooting something else if we did not have a good deal of K-mount film era lenses, and we have been buying those as supplements to our collections even in the digital age.

[Sandy Hancock]

I just want to use my FA*24, FA31 and FA43 the way nature intended.
The rest is gravy.