Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-23-2019, 07:57 AM - 1 Like   #286
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 840
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
That is moving the goalposts to a different stadium.

---------- Post added 03-23-19 at 08:36 AM ----------


Aps-c will always be cheaper than full frame. Thor has made a false argument by comparing usefulness with money. One does not follow the other.
Sure, in the same vein that a BMW 8-Series is more useful than a Subaru Legacy. Or that a 5000 square foot house has more utility than a 1500 square foot house. In all three of these cases the much more expensive product is better, by some degree. But that's completely irrelevant if you don't have or don't wish to spend the money for the expensive option.

03-23-2019, 08:16 AM   #287
Banned




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,099
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Sure, in the same vein that a BMW 8-Series is more useful than a Subaru Legacy. Or that a 5000 square foot house has more utility than a 1500 square foot house. In all three of these cases the much more expensive product is better, by some degree. But that's completely irrelevant if you don't have or don't wish to spend the money for the expensive option.
Oh please. It's more like saying a Volkswagen Jetta is more useful than a Ford F350 on moving day because you can't afford the truck.
An unwillingness or inability to afford something does not change the usability equation.
The Ford us still the better vehicle for moving a load of furniture whether one can afford it it not.
03-23-2019, 08:52 AM   #288
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 840
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Oh please. It's more like saying a Volkswagen Jetta is more useful than a Ford F350 on moving day because you can't afford the truck.

An unwillingness or inability to afford something does not change the usability equation.

The Ford us still the better vehicle for moving a load of furniture whether one can afford it it not.
If the price and size of FF gear gets you the images and experience you want and you have the disposable income to afford it, that's great.

03-23-2019, 09:04 AM   #289
Pentaxian
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,648
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
In all three of these cases the much more expensive product is better, by some degree.
Interesting comparisons.

In general in these types of comparisons, I think the metric "better" needs to be qualified to relate to specific needs or requirements. For example, in the case of the house comparison, the 5000 sq. ft. house might be "better" if one has a very large family and really needs the space. On the other hand, one could also be comfortable and raise a happy (smaller) family in a 1,500 sq. ft. home. Either sized house could bring satisfaction and happiness, depending on the situation.


QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
It's more like saying a Volkswagen Jetta is more useful than a Ford F350 on moving day because you can't afford the truck.
I'm not sure that this comparison fits here. The Jetta would not be able to carry furniture or other large items. Maybe compare an F150 and F350. The F350 has roughly three times the carry payload, but the 150 would probably work, albeit with more trips between the two houses.

Similarly, one could be satisfied with either an APS-C camera, say a K-3 II, or a full frame K-1 II. Either one could work well in most circumstances and provide satisfying images.

- Craig


Last edited by c.a.m; 03-23-2019 at 10:27 AM.
03-23-2019, 09:59 AM   #290
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,409
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Pentaxians really are the people who buy a thousand dollar camera purely to mount 50 year old, 50 dollar lenses on.
LOL. Not really. I've known Nikonians and Canonites putting all their budget on a high end camera but then using the cheapest Vivitar (film) or Yongnuo (digital) lens. (Yes, I know that some Vivitar Series 1 and Yongnuo are excellent values....but IMO, it's not the place to cut costs.)

No doubt, PF members are more savvy, but I've only known one photographer that did the reverse when he bought a Yashica SLR instead of Contax so that he could use a Zeiss prime on his camera.
03-23-2019, 10:37 AM   #291
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 840
QuoteOriginally posted by c.a.m Quote
I'm not sure that this comparison fits here. The Jetta would not be able to carry furniture or other large items. Maybe compare an F150 and F350. The F350 has roughly three times the carry payload, but the 150 would probably work, albeit with more trips between the two houses.
I'd just buy the Jetta and rent a Penske truck for the one day every few decades where I need to move. I don't see the point in commuting 275 days a year in a 6000 lb dually that gets 13 mpg.
03-23-2019, 12:40 PM   #292
Banned




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,099
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
If the price and size of FF gear gets you the images and experience you want and you have the disposable income to afford it, that's great.
The camera you have with you may be the best one you have, it just might not be the best one that's for sale.
Bringing money in is changing the discussion from product and image quality to economics.
Saying something is the best there is because it is the best you can afford is an incredibly false statement.
03-23-2019, 12:43 PM   #293
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 840
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
The camera you have with you may be the best one you have, it just might not be the best one that's for sale.
Bringing money in is changing the discussion from product and image quality to economics.
Saying something is the best there is because it is the best you can afford is an incredibly false statement.
I didn't say my camera is the best, only that it's the best for me, and that for many people APS-C is a better choice than FF. If FF is best for you, that's great.

03-23-2019, 12:46 PM   #294
Banned




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,099
QuoteOriginally posted by c.a.m Quote
Interesting comparisons.

In general in these types of comparisons, I think the metric "better" needs to be qualified to relate to specific needs or requirements. For example, in the case of the house comparison, the 5000 sq. ft. house might be "better" if one has a very large family and really needs the space. On the other hand, one could also be comfortable and raise a happy (smaller) family in a 1,500 sq. ft. home. Either sized house could bring satisfaction and happiness, depending on the situation.




I'm not sure that this comparison fits here. The Jetta would not be able to carry furniture or other large items. Maybe compare an F150 and F350. The F350 has roughly three times the carry payload, but the 150 would probably work, albeit with more trips between the two houses.

Similarly, one could be satisfied with either an APS-C camera, say a K-3 II, or a full frame K-1 II. Either one could work well in most circumstances and provide satisfying images.

- Craig
I could have used a Passat and a Silverado in my comparison. It doesn't change the equation. Sure, you can strap a couch to the roof of your car and move it across town but the truck is still the better tool.
Likewise, a full frame camera is a better imaging tool than an APS-C camera in virtually every situation. The major exception is when the extra reach the smaller format gives per focal length is advantageous, and even then the FF can be cropped.
I've seen this myself, with my own eyes.

---------- Post added 03-23-19 at 01:49 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I didn't say my camera is the best, only that it's the best for me, and that for many people APS-C is a better choice than FF. If FF is best for you, that's great.
And as long as we aren't bringing image quality to the table you are correct.
However, if that is a consideration, then there are other factors outside of image quality that are being weighted more heavily.
And that's fine.
03-23-2019, 01:28 PM   #295
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 840
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
And as long as we aren't bringing image quality to the table you are correct.
However, if that is a consideration, then there are other factors outside of image quality that are being weighted more heavily.
And that's fine.
Absolutely, the bolded is what I'm doing, and I have to think that's what most people do. If image quality was all that mattered then Hasselblad 100MP medium formats would outsell everything else.
05-11-2019, 05:49 PM - 1 Like   #296
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 17
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote

Advantages:
* All my wide angle lenses are wide again
Best advantage
05-12-2019, 12:24 PM   #297
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Merv-O's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Philadelphia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,313
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Aps-c will always be cheaper than full frame
Not true...How about the new $3,000 Olympus 4/3rds body? Costs more than any Pentax b body FF or APS-c....How about the $2,800 Leica APS-c CL body? The MP, sensor and feature set, along with build quality will make the differential.
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
For example, in the case of the house comparison, the 5000 sq. ft. house might be "better" if one has a very large family and really needs the space. On the other hand, one could also be comfortable and raise a happy (smaller) family in a 1,500 sq. ft. home. Either sized house could bring satisfaction and happiness, depending on the situation.
This is also a poor analogy. A crappy Full frame sensor will not be as good as an excellent top of the line APS-c or even 4/3rds....A KIA and a BMW look the same out of the showroom. The key is what is the value 5 years later? Is there a better inherent build quality? These compares are inane at best and just ridiculous at worst. Everyone is a critic. Any 14 year old with a blog can diss a product and actually hurt sales if it goes viral.
Love the one your'e with......until you replace it
05-12-2019, 04:15 PM   #298
Pentaxian
stillshot2's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 906
I used to want a full frame until I realized it would be a downgrade to me in relation to pixel density. I'd need 50+ on full frame so for now I will stick with my K3 which has been and still is an excellent camera
05-13-2019, 05:41 PM - 1 Like   #299
Banned




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,099
QuoteOriginally posted by stillshot2 Quote
I used to want a full frame until I realized it would be a downgrade to me in relation to pixel density. I'd need 50+ on full frame so for now I will stick with my K3 which has been and still is an excellent camera
You still get a better image with the K1. There is also pixel pitch to consider. No matter how you do math, the K1 has 50% more pixels than the K3, and bigger, less noisy ones at that.
Take the same picture on both cameras and the K1 has 50% more pixels.
6 Days Ago   #300
Pentaxian
stillshot2's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 906
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
You still get a better image with the K1. There is also pixel pitch to consider. No matter how you do math, the K1 has 50% more pixels than the K3, and bigger, less noisy ones at that.
Take the same picture on both cameras and the K1 has 50% more pixels.
For wide angle shots, yes, the K-1 is superior with more total megapixels and when at high iso, but for macro and tele shots, the K3 has more density for heavy crops and will pull more detail using the same lenses. I find I'm not willing to pay 3-4 times the money for a K-1 and give up the better ability for cropping macro and wildlife shots. And 24mp shooting at 15mm is quite amazing; not sure 36mp at 22mm would make much a discernible difference unless you are printing billboards to be viewed at close viewing distances, and even harder to tell a difference at base iso 100 (which I mostly shoot).
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-c, camera, canon, decision, ff, finland, full-frame, glass, hand, head, hobby, jump, k-1, k-5, k-50, leica, neck, option, pentax, photo, size, stability, train, tripod, window, winter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-1 owners ! Is switching to FF worth it ? zoolander Pentax DSLR Discussion 89 11-16-2018 08:24 AM
Why I am Switching Back from Canon FF cali92rs Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 06-26-2015 09:17 AM
Alien Skin Software/ Switching to FF? dr_romix Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 01-08-2013 11:00 PM
Would you buy the first FF if it is a K-01 or wait for the FF DSLR? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 07-18-2012 10:09 PM
Switching from Pentax to FF 123ben Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 31 05-25-2012 02:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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