Originally posted by shaolen a 42 mp pentax FF would cannibalize the 645Z
Cannibalize what? Do you see 645Z's on every street corner?
---------- Post added 08-29-15 at 11:33 PM ----------
Originally posted by normhead SO what is your reason for believing if you had a camera with better high ISO performance, you'd like the results? How do you know you wouldn't delete just as many. The issue is not in your ability to criticize what is wrong, what's wrong is the belief that you'd have different results with something else. Everyone deletes lots of pictures, I probably keep one of 10, that doesn't mean I'd do better with different camera.
from APS-c to FF there is about a one stop difference in high ISO performance. The window where APS-c isn't good enough and FF would be better is very small. SO we'd still like to see some images where APS-c was tested, but not to the degree that FF wouldn't have been tested as well. If your APS-c image is about 3 stops short of being good, adding one stop (or even 2) going to FF doesn't help you, you're still two stops short. We don't want to see your tossed images, we want to see your keepers, that you think would be better shot with an upgrade. SO my first response to the above is, "are you using sub ƒ2 glass, because there is lots of it available for your K-5 and the 50 1.8 is quite inexpensive. No sub ƒ2 glasses, don't complain to us about trouble locking focus i
The issue isn't whether or not some folks can improve their photography with an upgrade in some area. The question is, is their photography close enough to the technical abilities of the next upgrade to make switch worth while.
Obviously, someone who does all their shooting indoors in available light or in dark alleyways, is going to be happier with a camera that performs well at high ISO. IF we are going to be part of the discussion, we'd like to know that you're that guy before we recommend paying a premium for a camera with that extra stop or two of high ISO performance.
But we are also going to think you weren't so smart investing in Pentax in the first place. Look through all the literature. No where is any Pentax camera recommended as best in low light, or fast AF performance. SO right off the bat, you're a guy who doesn't do his research. Second, you're asking us for comment. Between these two things... forgive us if we might be a little sceptical of how accurately you present your actual needs.
And in all probablility, if you have no keepers using any system, you're probably making more than a few mistakes in your technique.
The differences between camera systems tend to be greatly magnified.
SO do you really believe there are cameras that don't have problems with AF in dim conditions?
I've stood side by side with Canon pro shooters shooting with 2.8 lenses, that couldn't lock focus, when I was just shooting away.. with my K-5 plus 50 FA 50 ƒ1.7. And I had a pretty near 100% keeper rate, It was so dark I saw detail in the pictures I couldn't see in the viewfinder. Locking focus is a lot more than just which camera system are you using.
No sub ƒ2 glass? Don't even make that complaint. You have to buy appropriate glass for what you are shooting, no matter what system you own.
The guys who I think need to explore "extra" whatever, are the guys who are producing excellent images with what they have...nad that extra stop of performance is going to take them right over the top. Guys who can't get close to what they want with what they have... I'm less enthusiastic about their prospects.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I was out this morning and I had few keepers due to the low light and diffuse light due to smoke. There are definite fall off points with the K3 sensor, as there was with the K5. A stop costs thousands of dollars with long lenses. If the full frame 1600 iso is the same as the K3 800 iso, that means I can push the shutter speed higher to freeze action. Or not have to use mirror up and delay for some shots.
Some of us do live right on the edge of capability. You complained about the high quality shots in the 300+ forum. High resolution and low noise gets me shots that I wouldn't otherwise.
I'm heading into kokanee spawning season in a month where the loons hunt offshore. Last year I barely managed to get decent shots due to the distance and early morning light. Someone telling me that a stop better performance won't make any difference doesn't know what they are talking about.
And yes, I would shoot 500 f2.8 if I could afford and carry the darn thing. Canon makes a 400 f2.8, a huge monster, for people who need the low light and long capabilities. If a better sensor gives me that stop, are you saying that I shouldn't use it?
I haven't tried the K3II, but the marginal improvement in AF would mean that I would take shots that I don't bother doing with the K3. I suspect the coming full frame will be substantially better.
Try for the 'national geographic' level quality on your winter bird shots. You will find very quickly the hard limits of the sensors and lenses you use. Any improvement means you will get more acceptable shots.