are you happy with switching to FF?

**gaweidert** · 06-19-2018, 06:01 PM

In 2012 I went digital with a K5, then a K5-iI, K3 and finally a K1. Quite frankly APSc never really did it for me. When I got my K1 it was a whole new level of excellence. The first DSLR that i owned that I felt was as good as film. This year I added a K1-II to the stable. During a recent trip to Yellowstone the the K3 never left the bag.

So for me, going FF was definitely well worth it.

johnha · 06-19-2018, 06:33 PM - **1 Like**

I have a K-5 and expected to buy a K-1 (I have enough FA glass to keep me happy), but I haven't - due to the lengthy wait, I built a P6x7 outfit instead. Having done that, and knowing how much medium format gear you can buy for the same price, I can't justify the expense of an FF camera (I also have an LX and various other 35mm bodies). My K-5 has no significant value so trading it in would be pointless - thus I'd have to justify the full price of the K-1. I've looked at the K-1 twice, if starting from scratch (i.e. no K-5, LX or P6x7 to use), I'd buy one straight away, as it is, I've decided not to buy one (yet...).

Obviously from a 6x7 user, size & weight of the camera is not an issue, but it's the size & weight of the bag that counts - for years I carried most of my kit around all of the time (hey, it lives in the bag so why take it out?). I could easily fit a K-1 and enough lenses into my usual K-5 bag (the camera size difference is insignificant). The current super-wide zooms are huge & heavy (in comparison the FA20-35/4 is much smaller & lighter, and for me 20mm on FF is plenty wide enough). My K-5 carry-around lens is the DA17-70/4 - quite a big for a 'small' camera and just about the limit of what I'd like to carry around in terms of balance.

Until very recently I hadn't shot my K-5 for 3 years, concentrating on film (medium format mostly and 35mm) with a GR as my holiday camera, so I may not fit the profile of the usual DLSR user.

Sandy Hancock · 06-19-2018, 07:06 PM - **1 Like**

Extremely, deliriously happy.
But I still have a crop system for reach, and for when I want to travel light.

reh321 · 06-19-2018, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

Yes very. I have a ton of legacy lenses that now have gained their original field of view. It lends more air to my images.

So, your legacy lenses were primes?

reh321 · 06-19-2018, 08:40 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by gaweidert

Quite frankly APSc never really did it for me. When I got my K1 it was a whole new level of excellence. The first DSLR that i owned that I felt was as good as film.

My K-30 gives me better images than my Super Program loaded with Kodachrome ever did, even when using the same lens.

**savoche** · 06-20-2018, 01:45 AM

Yep, I'm very happy with the K-1, but it's not as if there's anything magical about the 35mm format. I think the K-1 simply is a better camera than the K-3 is, just as the K-3 is better than the K-5. The difference between APS-C and 35mm isn't really that big.

Pros (coming from a K-5 and K-3):
* Bigger viewfinder!
* Wider wide-angles (the FA31 finally makes sense)
* Better low-light performance
* Wider dynamic range
* Pull-out screen (I like using it as a waist-level finder)

Cons:
* Heavier (yes, it does matter when carrying it for hours in-hand)
* Needs bigger lenses to get the same tele reach - adding even more weight
* Bigger image files eat more storage and CPU
* Less info on the top LCD than the K-3 has
* "Only" 4.4 fps (but faster in crop mode)
* There are no DFA Limiteds

D1N0 · 06-20-2018, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by reh321

So, your legacy lenses were primes?

Yes most of them. A few zooms as well. So for those are less satisfying, especially standard zooms. Though I have yet to try out the Pentax-a 35-105 F3..5

**Rondec** · 06-20-2018, 02:46 AM - **1 Like**

I still shoot both, but honestly, I prefer shooting with the K-1 versus the K3. People have mentioned a number of differences, but the biggest improvement to me is the extra dynamic range you get with full frame. The files are just so much easier to work with. With the K3, I really need to shoot multiple exposures and consider HDR to get the results I want with landscape photos, whereas I just don't need to do that with the K-1 -- particularly not when I use pixel shift. My wife shoots weddings and rather than get an APS-C replacement for the K3, she got a K-1 II recently so she could shoot with two full frame cameras.

As far as size, it isn't a huge deal unless you are shooting telephoto a lot. The 50-135 is a nice lens, but my expectation is that Pentax's 70-200 f4 will be similar sized, but focus a lot faster. I will say that lugging the DFA *70-200 around gets old pretty fast.

**gaweidert** · 06-20-2018, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by reh321

My K-30 gives me better images than my Super Program loaded with Kodachrome ever did, even when using the same lens.

On many levels I don't disagree with you on this. To me it is more of an impression than anything I can put a number on. But when I started processing the images coming from it was a WOW moment to me. They have some something in them that just appeals to me. A few others here have said the same thing. I call the quality delicious. You can did deep into the images and pull data out. With the K1 I have stopped longing for film. Even the whole "focal length equivalent" thing is a non issue as you can heavily crop images and still get very good results.

**snpsht** · 06-21-2018, 05:25 AM

I just love the K-1. Suddenly I felt totally happy with the camera - even the tutor art school commented on how much better my photos were. For some reason,FF is the format for me..I just really enjoy it. The K-1 is very easy to love.

I have used my K-3 a couple of times when I needed to pack lighter, and the dynamic range, the format, the ability to hand-hold in low light just weren't anywhere near as good. I have two K-3s and will probably sell one and keep the other for macro...the DFA-100 macro focuses better on the K-3. Wish I had kept my K-5, though. Its low light performance strikes me as having been better than the K-3's.

Take-5-JB · 06-21-2018, 10:42 AM - **3 Likes**

Yes for the short answer.

Now my diatribe....I started with 35mm film in 1977. I love being back to FF. I couldn't justify 645. I have had Minolta and Olympus film along with Pentax. I love the generational compatibility for lenses in my Pentax units. I have legacy and third party lenses in M42 and K mount. I don't care what people think about the size, appearance, or brand of my equipment, as I don't seek their validation. I don't have any beef with Canon or Nikon digitals (which I borrowed to try when I was going to digital in 2008-2009). I don't shoot portraits, weddings, or "people" centric shots (as a primary genre). I do nature, landscape, and some architecture. I shoot a K-1, K-3, and K-5 and love them for different reasons. I do a lot of manual and TAV work. I probably haven't used a third to half of the onboard capability with my cameras. I use the K-3 and K-5 for reach and the K-1 for everything else. If I am driving and packing to not carry far, I may even bring my K200D to play with. Each sensor has nifty properties. Remember when single digit megapixel sensors were the thing and not having to wait to develop to see your results. Now it is 30, 50, or 100 megapixel, 128K ISO, double digit points of autofocus, camera weight, shake reduction, pixel shift, and a dozen other things. My ability doesn't shadow the pace of technology development. Are we spoiled, hyper-focused, prima donnas, or just marketing puppets? Shoot what you want/like, don't worry about fashion and appearance, process to your hearts desire, and be happy with your equipment. Go forth and enjoy what you do.

JB

**monochrome** · 06-21-2018, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by 08amczb

Does anybody switched from KP to K-1 ( or K-1II)? I'am only planning now.

I did not noticed too much when I started using the PZ-1p along my KP. I'am using the two camera for different proposes however.

I own a KP and a K-1. Switching back and forth the K-1 is more comfortable and balanced than the KP with all but the DA Limited compacts on the KP (and using a small lens or FA Limited on K-1 is perfect). Long lenses are easier to handle and stabilize on K-1. I believe the full grip on the K-1 is the principal reason for the better ergonomics. KP is my travel and walk-around camera.

Overall I greatly prefer the K-1, though I admit that it isn’t an ‘all-day’ camera for me since it has more mass. I use a Peak Design Sling strap with K-1 and long lenses for comfort. With KP I just use a stock neck strap.

reh321 · 06-21-2018, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by gaweidert

On many levels I don't disagree with you on this. To me it is more of an impression than anything I can put a number on. But when I started processing the images coming from it was a WOW moment to me. They have some something in them that just appeals to me. A few others here have said the same thing. I call the quality delicious. You can did deep into the images and pull data out. With the K1 I have stopped longing for film. Even the whole "focal length equivalent" thing is a non issue as you can heavily crop images and still get very good results.

In what format are you making the comparison - print or screen? No matter how you make the comparison, digital is sharper than film; that is all I'm saying. I'm guessing that is what you are reacting to - digital would also be "creamier" if you smoothed boundaries.

Eyewanders · 06-21-2018, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by johnha

I have a K-5 and expected to buy a K-1 (I have enough FA glass to keep me happy), but I haven't - due to the lengthy wait, I built a P6x7 outfit instead. Having done that, and knowing how much medium format gear you can buy for the same price, I can't justify the expense of an FF camera (I also have an LX and various other 35mm bodies). My K-5 has no significant value so trading it in would be pointless - thus I'd have to justify the full price of the K-1. I've looked at the K-1 twice, if starting from scratch (i.e. no K-5, LX or P6x7 to use), I'd buy one straight away, as it is, I've decided not to buy one (yet...).

Obviously from a 6x7 user, size & weight of the camera is not an issue, but it's the size & weight of the bag that counts - for years I carried most of my kit around all of the time (hey, it lives in the bag so why take it out?). I could easily fit a K-1 and enough lenses into my usual K-5 bag (the camera size difference is insignificant). The current super-wide zooms are huge & heavy (in comparison the FA20-35/4 is much smaller & lighter, and for me 20mm on FF is plenty wide enough). My K-5 carry-around lens is the DA17-70/4 - quite a big for a 'small' camera and just about the limit of what I'd like to carry around in terms of balance.

Until very recently I hadn't shot my K-5 for 3 years, concentrating on film (medium format mostly and 35mm) with a GR as my holiday camera, so I may not fit the profile of the usual DLSR user.

Reading this response I felt like I had written it, except 5 years rather than 3, and I've a K-3 rather than K-5 (which incidentally still looks brand new because dropped away from digital just 3 or so months after buying it). You've typed my thoughts on the matter precisely. Isnt' even that I'd have to justify it a K-1... but oddly it's that I've since never felt the need or want to do so any longer, which is strange because I looked forward to a Pentax FF for many years preceding it.

**gaweidert** · 06-22-2018, 03:27 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by reh321

In what format are you making the comparison - print or screen? No matter how you make the comparison, digital is sharper than film; that is all I'm saying. I'm guessing that is what you are reacting to - digital would also be "creamier" if you smoothed boundaries.

I am not arguing about pixel peeping. To me, a sample of one, I am saying that the K1 made me stop missing film. It is an overall "atmosphere?" of the image I like to much. Nothing I can put into numbers. My k5's or K3 simply do not have "it". They are great cameras and can certainly do the job, but there is just something about the K1 images that really appeal to me. I am talking about 35mm format film only as that is the full frame equivalent.

I used to work with films that have the digital equivalent of 1 terabyte of information per square inch. Each image was 9" x 9". That is 81 terabytes per image. And the roll of film can be up to 10,000 feet long. There simply is no digital equivalent of that today. How good is that? imagine being able to read the date on a newspaper from 20 miles away. I have seen this. This film was developed in the 1960's too. There is a reason we still fly U2's. And I would bet that there is something past the SR71 too. To me. Google Earth is low res data. Very useful, but still nowhere near as good as is technically possible.

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	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	31	05-25-2012 02:40 AM

06-19-2018, 06:01 PM	#31
gaweidert Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,325	In 2012 I went digital with a K5, then a K5-iI, K3 and finally a K1. Quite frankly APSc never really did it for me. When I got my K1 it was a whole new level of excellence. The first DSLR that i owned that I felt was as good as film. This year I added a K1-II to the stable. During a recent trip to Yellowstone the the K3 never left the bag. So for me, going FF was definitely well worth it.

06-19-2018, 06:33 PM - 1 Like	#32
johnha Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Lancashire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,155	I have a K-5 and expected to buy a K-1 (I have enough FA glass to keep me happy), but I haven't - due to the lengthy wait, I built a P6x7 outfit instead. Having done that, and knowing how much medium format gear you can buy for the same price, I can't justify the expense of an FF camera (I also have an LX and various other 35mm bodies). My K-5 has no significant value so trading it in would be pointless - thus I'd have to justify the full price of the K-1. I've looked at the K-1 twice, if starting from scratch (i.e. no K-5, LX or P6x7 to use), I'd buy one straight away, as it is, I've decided not to buy one (yet...). Obviously from a 6x7 user, size & weight of the camera is not an issue, but it's the size & weight of the bag that counts - for years I carried most of my kit around all of the time (hey, it lives in the bag so why take it out?). I could easily fit a K-1 and enough lenses into my usual K-5 bag (the camera size difference is insignificant). The current super-wide zooms are huge & heavy (in comparison the FA20-35/4 is much smaller & lighter, and for me 20mm on FF is plenty wide enough). My K-5 carry-around lens is the DA17-70/4 - quite a big for a 'small' camera and just about the limit of what I'd like to carry around in terms of balance. Until very recently I hadn't shot my K-5 for 3 years, concentrating on film (medium format mostly and 35mm) with a GR as my holiday camera, so I may not fit the profile of the usual DLSR user.

06-19-2018, 07:06 PM - 1 Like	#33
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Extremely, deliriously happy. But I still have a crop system for reach, and for when I want to travel light.

06-19-2018, 08:35 PM	#34
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,181	Originally posted by D1N0 Yes very. I have a ton of legacy lenses that now have gained their original field of view. It lends more air to my images. So, your legacy lenses were primes?

06-19-2018, 08:40 PM - 2 Likes	#35
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,181	Originally posted by gaweidert Quite frankly APSc never really did it for me. When I got my K1 it was a whole new level of excellence. The first DSLR that i owned that I felt was as good as film. My K-30 gives me better images than my Super Program loaded with Kodachrome ever did, even when using the same lens.

06-20-2018, 01:45 AM	#36
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Yep, I'm very happy with the K-1, but it's not as if there's anything magical about the 35mm format. I think the K-1 simply is a better camera than the K-3 is, just as the K-3 is better than the K-5. The difference between APS-C and 35mm isn't really that big. Pros (coming from a K-5 and K-3): * Bigger viewfinder! * Wider wide-angles (the FA31 finally makes sense) * Better low-light performance * Wider dynamic range * Pull-out screen (I like using it as a waist-level finder) Cons: * Heavier (yes, it does matter when carrying it for hours in-hand) * Needs bigger lenses to get the same tele reach - adding even more weight * Bigger image files eat more storage and CPU * Less info on the top LCD than the K-3 has * "Only" 4.4 fps (but faster in crop mode) * There are no DFA Limiteds

06-20-2018, 01:46 AM	#37
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by reh321 So, your legacy lenses were primes? Yes most of them. A few zooms as well. So for those are less satisfying, especially standard zooms. Though I have yet to try out the Pentax-a 35-105 F3..5

06-20-2018, 02:46 AM - 1 Like	#38
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	I still shoot both, but honestly, I prefer shooting with the K-1 versus the K3. People have mentioned a number of differences, but the biggest improvement to me is the extra dynamic range you get with full frame. The files are just so much easier to work with. With the K3, I really need to shoot multiple exposures and consider HDR to get the results I want with landscape photos, whereas I just don't need to do that with the K-1 -- particularly not when I use pixel shift. My wife shoots weddings and rather than get an APS-C replacement for the K3, she got a K-1 II recently so she could shoot with two full frame cameras. As far as size, it isn't a huge deal unless you are shooting telephoto a lot. The 50-135 is a nice lens, but my expectation is that Pentax's 70-200 f4 will be similar sized, but focus a lot faster. I will say that lugging the DFA *70-200 around gets old pretty fast.

06-20-2018, 04:00 AM	#39
gaweidert Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,325	Originally posted by reh321 My K-30 gives me better images than my Super Program loaded with Kodachrome ever did, even when using the same lens. On many levels I don't disagree with you on this. To me it is more of an impression than anything I can put a number on. But when I started processing the images coming from it was a WOW moment to me. They have some something in them that just appeals to me. A few others here have said the same thing. I call the quality delicious. You can did deep into the images and pull data out. With the K1 I have stopped longing for film. Even the whole "focal length equivalent" thing is a non issue as you can heavily crop images and still get very good results.

06-21-2018, 05:25 AM	#40
snpsht Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: South Coast, NSW Posts: 286	I just love the K-1. Suddenly I felt totally happy with the camera - even the tutor art school commented on how much better my photos were. For some reason,FF is the format for me..I just really enjoy it. The K-1 is very easy to love. I have used my K-3 a couple of times when I needed to pack lighter, and the dynamic range, the format, the ability to hand-hold in low light just weren't anywhere near as good. I have two K-3s and will probably sell one and keep the other for macro...the DFA-100 macro focuses better on the K-3. Wish I had kept my K-5, though. Its low light performance strikes me as having been better than the K-3's.

06-21-2018, 10:42 AM - 3 Likes	#41
Take-5-JB Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: South Carolina Posts: 236	Yes for the short answer. Now my diatribe....I started with 35mm film in 1977. I love being back to FF. I couldn't justify 645. I have had Minolta and Olympus film along with Pentax. I love the generational compatibility for lenses in my Pentax units. I have legacy and third party lenses in M42 and K mount. I don't care what people think about the size, appearance, or brand of my equipment, as I don't seek their validation. I don't have any beef with Canon or Nikon digitals (which I borrowed to try when I was going to digital in 2008-2009). I don't shoot portraits, weddings, or "people" centric shots (as a primary genre). I do nature, landscape, and some architecture. I shoot a K-1, K-3, and K-5 and love them for different reasons. I do a lot of manual and TAV work. I probably haven't used a third to half of the onboard capability with my cameras. I use the K-3 and K-5 for reach and the K-1 for everything else. If I am driving and packing to not carry far, I may even bring my K200D to play with. Each sensor has nifty properties. Remember when single digit megapixel sensors were the thing and not having to wait to develop to see your results. Now it is 30, 50, or 100 megapixel, 128K ISO, double digit points of autofocus, camera weight, shake reduction, pixel shift, and a dozen other things. My ability doesn't shadow the pace of technology development. Are we spoiled, hyper-focused, prima donnas, or just marketing puppets? Shoot what you want/like, don't worry about fashion and appearance, process to your hearts desire, and be happy with your equipment. Go forth and enjoy what you do. JB

06-21-2018, 06:09 PM	#42
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by 08amczb Does anybody switched from KP to K-1 ( or K-1II)? I'am only planning now. I did not noticed too much when I started using the PZ-1p along my KP. I'am using the two camera for different proposes however. I own a KP and a K-1. Switching back and forth the K-1 is more comfortable and balanced than the KP with all but the DA Limited compacts on the KP (and using a small lens or FA Limited on K-1 is perfect). Long lenses are easier to handle and stabilize on K-1. I believe the full grip on the K-1 is the principal reason for the better ergonomics. KP is my travel and walk-around camera. Overall I greatly prefer the K-1, though I admit that it isn’t an ‘all-day’ camera for me since it has more mass. I use a Peak Design Sling strap with K-1 and long lenses for comfort. With KP I just use a stock neck strap.

06-21-2018, 08:13 PM	#43
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,181	Originally posted by gaweidert On many levels I don't disagree with you on this. To me it is more of an impression than anything I can put a number on. But when I started processing the images coming from it was a WOW moment to me. They have some something in them that just appeals to me. A few others here have said the same thing. I call the quality delicious. You can did deep into the images and pull data out. With the K1 I have stopped longing for film. Even the whole "focal length equivalent" thing is a non issue as you can heavily crop images and still get very good results. In what format are you making the comparison - print or screen? No matter how you make the comparison, digital is sharper than film; that is all I'm saying. I'm guessing that is what you are reacting to - digital would also be "creamier" if you smoothed boundaries.

06-21-2018, 11:22 PM	#44
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	Originally posted by johnha I have a K-5 and expected to buy a K-1 (I have enough FA glass to keep me happy), but I haven't - due to the lengthy wait, I built a P6x7 outfit instead. Having done that, and knowing how much medium format gear you can buy for the same price, I can't justify the expense of an FF camera (I also have an LX and various other 35mm bodies). My K-5 has no significant value so trading it in would be pointless - thus I'd have to justify the full price of the K-1. I've looked at the K-1 twice, if starting from scratch (i.e. no K-5, LX or P6x7 to use), I'd buy one straight away, as it is, I've decided not to buy one (yet...). Obviously from a 6x7 user, size & weight of the camera is not an issue, but it's the size & weight of the bag that counts - for years I carried most of my kit around all of the time (hey, it lives in the bag so why take it out?). I could easily fit a K-1 and enough lenses into my usual K-5 bag (the camera size difference is insignificant). The current super-wide zooms are huge & heavy (in comparison the FA20-35/4 is much smaller & lighter, and for me 20mm on FF is plenty wide enough). My K-5 carry-around lens is the DA17-70/4 - quite a big for a 'small' camera and just about the limit of what I'd like to carry around in terms of balance. Until very recently I hadn't shot my K-5 for 3 years, concentrating on film (medium format mostly and 35mm) with a GR as my holiday camera, so I may not fit the profile of the usual DLSR user. Reading this response I felt like I had written it, except 5 years rather than 3, and I've a K-3 rather than K-5 (which incidentally still looks brand new because dropped away from digital just 3 or so months after buying it). You've typed my thoughts on the matter precisely. Isnt' even that I'd have to justify it a K-1... but oddly it's that I've since never felt the need or want to do so any longer, which is strange because I looked forward to a Pentax FF for many years preceding it.

06-22-2018, 03:27 AM - 1 Like	#45
gaweidert Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,325	Originally posted by reh321 In what format are you making the comparison - print or screen? No matter how you make the comparison, digital is sharper than film; that is all I'm saying. I'm guessing that is what you are reacting to - digital would also be "creamier" if you smoothed boundaries. I am not arguing about pixel peeping. To me, a sample of one, I am saying that the K1 made me stop missing film. It is an overall "atmosphere?" of the image I like to much. Nothing I can put into numbers. My k5's or K3 simply do not have "it". They are great cameras and can certainly do the job, but there is just something about the K1 images that really appeal to me. I am talking about 35mm format film only as that is the full frame equivalent. I used to work with films that have the digital equivalent of 1 terabyte of information per square inch. Each image was 9" x 9". That is 81 terabytes per image. And the roll of film can be up to 10,000 feet long. There simply is no digital equivalent of that today. How good is that? imagine being able to read the date on a newspaper from 20 miles away. I have seen this. This film was developed in the 1960's too. There is a reason we still fly U2's. And I would bet that there is something past the SR71 too. To me. Google Earth is low res data. Very useful, but still nowhere near as good as is technically possible.