Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-31-2015, 03:29 PM - 1 Like   #31
Des
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sth Gippsland Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,659
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
OK, you have to see this guy's work.... https://www.facebook.com/mott.blog/photos/a.357448734279160.89960.1938638106...type=3&theater For those of you who don't have Facebook, I'll post a few.
This gives a new meaning to "taking the plunge".

QuoteOriginally posted by nomadkng Quote
If the K1 AF is not improved over the K3, it would be really tough to justify upgrading at all, since the pixel density would be just about the same.
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You get exactly the same reach, you just crop before you snap instead of after. With a K-3 you get more reach. But ya, if you're using a 16 MP sensor, that makes sense. A 16 MP sensor really doesn't give you anything over a 36 MP 35x23 sensor in crop mode.
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Your output in crop mode is going to be as good as the K5 output in resolution, DR, and noise, and about as good as the native K3 output in everything but resolution, and you'll have to decide if your prints will be huge enough to require all the K3 MP in the frame. You can think of it this way - the FF camera contains a full K5 inside it, only a wheel-flip away .
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't Norm's point right? Say you are using the K1 with a F*300 lens. Whether you shoot in crop mode or FF mode, it won't matter: the image of the bird is magnified to exactly the same extent as it would have been using the same lens on a K-3, but you will be using fewer MPs (assuming the sensor is 36MP). Say you do a tight crop around the bird. Your image will be significantly smaller than it would have been if you had taken the same shot with a K-3. For wildlife, your new $2500 camera is effectively a K-5iis (maybe with better AF), isn't it?

12-31-2015, 04:24 PM - 1 Like   #32
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Gotta have me a huge bird print

QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
...
Say you are using the K1 with a F*300 lens. Whether you shoot in crop mode or FF mode, it won't matter: the image of the bird is magnified to exactly the same extent as it would have been using the same lens on a K-3, but you will be using fewer MPs (assuming the sensor is 36MP). Say you do a tight crop around the bird. Your image will be significantly smaller than it would have been if you had taken the same shot with a K-3. For wildlife, your new $2500 camera is effectively a K-5iis (maybe with better AF), isn't it?
Yes, that's what I was saying here:

"Your output in crop mode is going to be as good as the K5 output in resolution, DR, and noise, and about as good as the native K3 output in everything but resolution, and you'll have to decide if your prints will be huge enough to require all the K3 MP in the frame. You can think of it this way - the FF camera contains a full K5 inside it, only a wheel-flip away "

The pixel density of the K3 would require a 54MP FF sensor for the FF camera to 'match' it in resolution in crop mode. 36MP FF matches the K5 in crop, which frankly should cover a chunk of your wall with a pretty nice print from normal viewing distances. Even if you like your bird prints really big

If you're shooting long telephoto all the time and don't have really long lenses available (or can't afford any,) the 36MP FF body won't give you any real advantage. It might have better AF as you guess, but that may not make a difference for bird shots or whatever.

Thom Hogan used to prefer to go on safari with his D300 + 400, 500mm primes and long zooms because of that. The very best IQ would come from a larger sensor and the longer lenses, but it's not always practical or affordable to go out in the bush with that kit, unless someone else is paying for it. Olympics, etc shooters use FF + 600mm primes and $$$ zooms to get the best telephoto possible, but I suspect Canon loans them most of the equipment they use so the white lenses can be seen everywhere on TV.

.
12-31-2015, 10:01 PM   #33
Des
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sth Gippsland Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,659
Thanks for that @jsherman999. I doubt I'm the only one pondering this.

It's not just about wall size prints. Even with my 300mm or 400mm lens I often need to crop a 24mp shot with the K-3 down to 1000 x 1500 or less. For me the extra megapixels of the K-3 are a worthwhile gain over the K-30.

The need to buy and carry a DA560 or such like to compensate for giving up those extra pixels might make FF less attractive to hobbyist wildlife shooters.

Last edited by Des; 12-31-2015 at 10:20 PM.
01-01-2016, 08:03 AM - 1 Like   #34
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
Thanks for that @jsherman999. I doubt I'm the only one pondering this.

It's not just about wall size prints. Even with my 300mm or 400mm lens I often need to crop a 24mp shot with the K-3 down to 1000 x 1500 or less. For me the extra megapixels of the K-3 are a worthwhile gain over the K-30.

The need to buy and carry a DA560 or such like to compensate for giving up those extra pixels might make FF less attractive to hobbyist wildlife shooters.
And that's been the issue since the K-3. But that isn't always the case, when the D800 came out, the K-5 was as good as it got on APS-c, and there was no IQ advantage to APS-c. With the canon 51 MP camera, it's that way again, except that a D800 was a lot cheaper than the Canon. Right now, my K-3 choice for birding and wildlife and it's good enough for the rest of what i do. But it's probably only a matter of time before the D800 thing happens again and there is an affordable 35mm sensor with a k-3 inside it. These things tend to go in cycles.

I recently checked out a Lumix FZ1000 and that 1 inch sensor can out put the same resolution as a K-3, and it's half the size. Conceivably the same wafer would produce a 40 MP APS_c sensor. But it starts losing resolution after 125 ISO and by 400 it's pretty much a wash. It's going to take some new technology for APS-c to go much further than it has. SO for those of us who like what we have, lucky us, for those who want a bit more, 35x24 and MF are the future, and on that note, a 645D is now cheaper than the Canon 51MP 35mil.

01-01-2016, 08:58 AM   #35
Pentaxian
zzeitg's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South Bohemia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,548
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
SO for those of us who like what we have, lucky us, for those who want a bit more, 35x24 and MF are the future
The thing is that you also need the right lens for 35x24. That's no problem for wide and normal focal length - you can choose whatever you want on eBay; some FF lenses are still in production or in the roadmap at least.

But when it comes to the telephoto lenses, it's trickier. Either you continue using what you have today (like DA*300) in crop mode, but then there's no real progress or benefit against K3. Or you have to buy something with focal length 600 mm (or more). Then you have to pay a lot (there are 2 pcs of FA600 on eBay and that's all...) and you can forget handheld camerawork.

So unless the new FF camera has much more MPx than anticipated, I hold the view that it's more clever to keep both systems alongside.
01-02-2016, 08:19 AM   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteOriginally posted by zzeitg Quote
The thing is that you also need the right lens for 35x24. That's no problem for wide and normal focal length - you can choose whatever you want on eBay; some FF lenses are still in production or in the roadmap at least.

But when it comes to the telephoto lenses, it's trickier. Either you continue using what you have today (like DA*300) in crop mode, but then there's no real progress or benefit against K3. Or you have to buy something with focal length 600 mm (or more). Then you have to pay a lot (there are 2 pcs of FA600 on eBay and that's all...) and you can forget handheld camerawork.

So unless the new FF camera has much more MPx than anticipated, I hold the view that it's more clever to keep both systems alongside.
I know a number of people who do just that. I my case I have my A-400 ƒ5.6, which on FF will be slightly longer than my DA*60-250 on APS-c, and I have used my 60-250 for many images. But, ƒ5.6 of FF doesn't get you the same DoF as ƒ5.6 on APS-c.
01-02-2016, 01:05 PM - 1 Like   #37
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,526
jay, always nice to see posts from you, pal. Hope all is well.
01-02-2016, 01:26 PM   #38
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,123
As long as Ricoh keep making light weight DA lenses and better-performing APS-C bodies, I'll be running both variants, assuming that there turns out to be a practical difference between them. It is only one system, by the way. It's the K-mount system, even though there will be two sensor sizes, making for two variants within the K-mount system.

I read lots of comments about how much "better" the full 35mm format is over APS-C, and I see lots of nice photos, but the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating, and no two people eat the same piece of pudding (let's not pursue that metaphor too far, please). When I get my K-1, I'll be looking really hard at what I produce with it, not what other people produce.

01-02-2016, 07:35 PM   #39
Senior Member
Ron_Man's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 220
Whenever I upgrade to a new camera I let me wife upgrade to my previous one. When I had a K-5 that became her's when I upgraded to the K-3... Except for the fact that when we actually go shooting she ends up using the K-3 and I have to use the K-5 all over again lol

I don't see it being any different if I ever upgrade to the FF. I just need to invest in FF lenses
01-09-2016, 09:35 PM   #40
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
I plan on using APS until I can afford FF. If I want "reach" and small size then I have my u4/3 system to keep me happy. APS will have no purpose to me at that point. I only have one APS lens anyways: the DA 18-135mm.
01-10-2016, 07:33 AM   #41
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
I plan on using APS until I can afford FF. If I want "reach" and small size then I have my u4/3 system to keep me happy. APS will have no purpose to me at that point. I only have one APS lens anyways: the DA 18-135mm.
You should have bought a bridge camera.

I love my 18-135, but I would never have considered it an "only lens." When I go out I carry the 60-250 for edge to edge sharpness when needed in the long end and a 50 for low light,21 ltd and 40XS, and Sigma 8-16, it's a functional lens.

It's designed to be part of a system of lenses. And the camera body is designed to be used with a variety of lenses. So, it would have been nice if you could have actually built a system that was functional before you decided to ditch the format.

But, I know lots of other who are 36x24 and 4/3 so it's not like it hasn't proven to be a functional choice. Personally I'm still in favour of a one system solution, and because they share lenses, I look at APS-c as part of the Pentax system. The one thing that has stopped me from picking up a used 645D is that I've probably end up wanting close to a complete set of lenses for both systems. Pentax APS_c and FF gives you the advantages of a crop sensor without buying different lenses. That to me is the big issue with 4/3 or the 645 for that matter.

Having a Pentax FF will allow me to have one set of higher quality lenses, as opposed to a larger number of lesser lenses for two incompatible systems.


.

---------- Post added 01-10-16 at 09:48 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Ron_Man Quote
Whenever I upgrade to a new camera I let me wife upgrade to my previous one. When I had a K-5 that became her's when I upgraded to the K-3... Except for the fact that when we actually go shooting she ends up using the K-3 and I have to use the K-5 all over again lol

I don't see it being any different if I ever upgrade to the FF. I just need to invest in FF lenses
I went through that with my wife and the K-5. Just give her the camera and buy your own, that's what I ended up doing. It was always set up the way she liked it when I got to use it on the days when she didn't use it, and she always complained if I left the settings the way I shoot. It's only your camera in name only. We bought a second K-5. She doesn't really care much for the K-3, so I got off the hook on this one.

Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2016 at 07:52 AM.
01-10-2016, 08:59 AM   #42
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You should have bought a bridge camera.

I love my 18-135, but I would never have considered it an "only lens." When I go out I carry the 60-250 for edge to edge sharpness when needed in the long end and a 50 for low light,21 ltd and 40XS, and Sigma 8-16, it's a functional lens.

It's designed to be part of a system of lenses. And the camera body is designed to be used with a variety of lenses. So, it would have been nice if you could have actually built a system that was functional before you decided to ditch the format.

But, I know lots of other who are 36x24 and 4/3 so it's not like it hasn't proven to be a functional choice. Personally I'm still in favour of a one system solution, and because they share lenses, I look at APS-c as part of the Pentax system. The one thing that has stopped me from picking up a used 645D is that I've probably end up wanting close to a complete set of lenses for both systems. Pentax APS_c and FF gives you the advantages of a crop sensor without buying different lenses. That to me is the big issue with 4/3 or the 645 for that matter.

Having a Pentax FF will allow me to have one set of higher quality lenses, as opposed to a larger number of lesser lenses for two incompatible systems.
A bridge camera?! Yikes! Hmmm, may be hard to mount my FA 77mm on it, but maybe you're on to something?

Here's my three reasons why I never went full-in on an APS system.
  1. I shoot both film and digital. Having an APS lens set for digital and FF lens set for film was impractical for me. So, all of my lenses are FF.
  2. I knew that one day Ricoh/Pentax would have to release a FF body, especially when Sony released the A7 series. That's when the body became a "cheap" commodity for sure and lenses are foundation of the camera hardware business model. The K-mount has a massive cavern for its mirror box. Having that canyon inside the body for APS is a waste of space. FF is the only place for the mount to go in regards to digital. If the K-mount stays APS then that's one awful compromise.
  3. u4/3 is making leaps and strides in sensor performance that is rendering APS obsolete, especially when you consider how compact the system is.

I got the DA 18-135mm because it is a high quality, very versatile, WR lens that I can safely travel with. Everything from DA 21 to the DA 70 doesn't mean much to me when I have FF lenses that cover nearly the same focal range ... that I can mount on both my K-3 and my PZ-1.

There is no right or wrong answer on the gear anyone choses to use. I'm happy for those who enjoy APS (and so is Ricoh). In the long run, it won't be for me, I think.
01-10-2016, 12:21 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 1,484
I've got an old Pentax-F 100mm f/2,8 macro and it's brilliant on the K-3 - not only is it effectively 150mm, giving better close-ups, but the pixel density of the K-3 is much higher than the FF will be, so detail is great.Having been a 67 user though (well I still have two bodies and half 4-5 lenses, but the film is expensive for hobby use), I do appreciate that larger sensors are better for landscape - I can't afford either 645, so I'll definitely aspire to the FF and work with both. Horses for courses.
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, aps, aps-c, camera, days, edge, ff, full-frame, k-3, k-5, lens, lenses, m20, pentax, system, wife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Portrait APS-C crop on FF? bertwert Pentax Full Frame 7 12-24-2015 07:21 AM
APS-C vs FF Bokeh? Newtophotos Pentax Full Frame 35 02-06-2015 04:55 PM
FF vs APS-C Bcrary3 Pentax Full Frame 132 01-12-2015 02:37 PM
APS-C & FF cameras combination yusuf General Photography 3 06-05-2014 06:05 AM
What is your best example for FF over APS-C? leeak Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 12-11-2008 12:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 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