[jsherman999]

SIgh, As per usual, your understanding seems to be that I have a problem, and that my problem is I just don't see the issue as clearly as you do.(It must be tough being so superior and having to put up with us neanderthals.) In any case, my response to this is already contained in the body of the thread. I'm not going to start repeating myself here.

Two things - you don't have tens of thousands of shutter actuations with a FF camera under your belt to compare to the tens of thousands of aps-c shutter actuations you've also done, which allows some added insight. I don't hold that against you in any way, but it's hard for me to come up with a few paragraphs in threads here or there that come close to recreating that experience. You'll have to forgive my brevity and the annoyance that comes from having to repeat myself. Second: I really mean it about the use-case deal. Instead of getting mad, try to see how your uses for it could be vastly different than someone else's. That really is good advice and is meant as such.

It has to do with whether or not the technical differences you point are actually significant enough to be detected given the limits of human perception.

It's only going to be 'outside the limits of human perception' when the shooting conditions have leveled the playing field quite a bit. (think of all the things we've seen like: "Nokia camera phone equals DSLR output, thus it can replace DSLR, see these ideal images for proof!")

I'd summarize a pass on FF as: "When, in your most common shooting situations, the difference in IQ or body performance is not enough to justify the size/weight/cost delta."

.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 10-29-2013 at 11:37 AM.

[derekkite]

I'd summarize a pass on FF as: "When, in your most common shooting situations, the difference in IQ or body performance is not enough to justify the size/weight/cost delta."

.

Isn't that always the case? I fully expect the value proposition to change in the next few years. I suspect that when I'm looking to replace the K-3, a full frame body will be available in the price range that I'm willing to spend. Right now I still think I would need to buy a D800 to be happy, otherwise too many compromises.

[kenafein]

Isn't that always the case? I fully expect the value proposition to change in the next few years. I suspect that when I'm looking to replace the K-3, a full frame body will be available in the price range that I'm willing to spend. Right now I still think I would need to buy a D800 to be happy, otherwise too many compromises.

There are compromises in the D800 also, but maybe you don't care about those particular limitations. I don't think an all around perfect camera exists. That sure is a great one, however.

[Rondec]

Or wait about a year for the Pentax FF body, which, if we believe Asahi-man, is really actually coming this time. My frustrations with Pentax being so late to the game (to the point where they are almost missing the team bus) is tempered by my excitement for that camera.

Or, you could buy a K-3, be happy (not hard to do probably,) and then buy Pentax's 2nd-gen FF body in 2016 or so.

.

I will probably get the K3 and then full frame next year. I would expect full frame from Pentax to be 36 megapixels, but probably with faster fps than the D800 and probably with IBIS and same adjustable AA filter present in the K3. Probably will lag the D800 with regard to auto focus tracking.

I am not against full frame. I hope Pentax does make one. I just have a problem with the full framers showing up at every new Ricoh announcement to beat it down with their frustrations over lack of full frame. It just hasn't been in the cards to this point and if it is a real point of frustration for a photographer, than you are better shooting with another brand. But why turn every thread into a full frame thread?

I know I am not the only one frustrated. People don't read the Q forum or K3 forum just to see the people who own them explaining why if the people using these cameras would just purchase full frame cameras, they would understand what they are missing and throw the rest of their gear in the river. It seems like it is every thread on the forum and it gets old, really old.

[jsherman999]

But why turn every thread into a full frame thread?

Every thread? (again, check the thread title and original post!)

With that said I'll take your point and move along...

[tuco]

... I don't think an all around perfect camera exists.

You got that right. When one of the Leica cameras came out not long ago, I remember reading people complaining about the new LCD size on the back. Apparently, it was not the right size for the best aesthetic appeal for the size of the camera. No end to what level people will get picky about. So how can any camera manufacture ever come close to satisfying everyone.

[normhead]

Two things - you don't have tens of thousands of shutter actuations with a FF camera under your belt to compare to the tens of thousands of aps-c shutter actuations you've also done, which allows some added insight. I don't hold that against you in any way, but it's hard for me to come up with a few paragraphs in threads here or there that come close to recreating that experience. You'll have to forgive my brevity and the annoyance that comes from having to repeat myself. Second: I really mean it about the use-case deal. Instead of getting mad, try to see how your uses for it could be vastly different than someone else's. That really is good advice and is meant as such.



It's only going to be 'outside the limits of human perception' when the shooting conditions have leveled the playing field quite a bit. (think of all the things we've seen like: "Nokia camera phone equals DSLR output, thus it can replace DSLR, see these ideal images for proof!")

I'd summarize a pass on FF as: "When, in your most common shooting situations, the difference in IQ or body performance is not enough to justify the size/weight/cost delta."

.

With all due respect jay, You're comparing a K20D to a D800. I'm not sure that's at all relevant. We're talking about a k-3 and a D600. A valid FF to APS-c to FF comparison because they are both 24 MP reducing non-format issues such as more resolution because of MPs to a minimum. I went from a k20D to a K-5. Is your bliss with your D800 more than my bliss with my K-5? Could we even measure that or even try?

OK, shooting the heaviest lens you choose to carry, and in a situation where you don't use the area of the sensor bigger than the crop sensor, because you're shooting wildlife or objects at a distance, in good light, you're going to get a superior image using APS-c than you do with a D800. You have to decide if what you get in less DoF and higher resolution in the whole sensor, is worth giving up higher resolution in the crop area of the crop sensor. It's not about one system being better all the time. it's about giving up an area where one system excels in IQ, to get something where the other system excels in IQ.


You aren't giving up IQ for weight. You're giving up IQ in one circumstance for IQ in another circumstance. For me it's all about the IQ in wildlife images.
For you it's all about the lack of noise (and noise can be acceptable in some images) in low light.

But for any given lens, I can get better IQ in the area of the crop sensor, than you can with your D800. At least every lw/ph measurement I've seen says so.

[jsherman999]

I was out, but I'm back in for this:

With all due respect jay, You're comparing a K20D to a D800. I'm not sure that's at all relevant.

And K20D/K-m/D80/D90 to D700.

But for any given lens, I can get better IQ in the area of the crop sensor, than you can with your D800. At least every lw/ph measurement I've seen says so.

Not unless you're shooting 24MP aps-c, and then it's only going to be correspondingly better with MTF scores if the lens used is about 1.5 times as sharp as the lens used on FF. If you're shooting 16MP, the lw/ph is almost exactly the same, and DR at any ISO level above base will slightly favor the D800 crop.

.



K-3/D7100 will be very interesting on that chart when Bill Claff gets to it.

But let's stop talking about Nikon FF and return discussion to the wonderful K3, which is here now, and leave dreams of Pentax FF dancing in our heads like next Christmas's sugarplums.



.

[normhead]

Not unless you're shooting 24MP aps-c,

I'm choosing, and the thread is about a K-3 which, so time to stop right there.
One fo the interesting comparisons on IR is between the D7000 and D7100 where they estimated about a 30% increase in lw/ph for the d7100, but on some of the weaker lenses like the super-zooms, they found increases as much as 60%. SO if you're looking at a D800, you're probably looking at 30% to 60% less resolution on that camera. The numbers on the D7100 are already in. We don't have to wait for a graph. Joe.Penn, a former poster on this site, also a wildlife shooter, went to a d7100 and he's absolutely thrilled with the results, as i'm hoping ot be with a K-3.

But let's stop talking about Nikon FF and return discussion to the wonderful K3, which is here now, and leave dreams of Pentax FF dancing in our heads like next Christmas's sugarplums.

Sounds like a plan... but wait, I'm not finished yet, "just kidding"

[kenafein]

You got that right. When one of the Leica cameras came out not long ago, I remember reading people complaining about the new LCD size on the back. Apparently, it was not the right size for the best aesthetic appeal for the size of the camera. No end to what level people will get picky about. So how can any camera manufacture ever come close to satisfying everyone.

Sure, in the D800's case, I was speaking functionality only. The D800, for example, doesn't make the best sports camera. The D4 doesn't match the D800 for landscapes. Looks are very low on my list, a tie breaker at best. Some of the things people complain about astound me; but I suppose, if you're paying 7k for a camera, you might want it all.

[Bolt]

Sure, in the D800's case, I was speaking functionality only. The D800, for example, doesn't make the best sports camera. The D4 doesn't match the D800 for landscapes. Looks are very low on my list, a tie breaker at best. Some of the things people complain about astound me; but I suppose, if you're paying 7k for a camera, you might want it all.

Canon 1D X anyone?

[tuco]

Sure, in the D800's case, I was speaking functionality only. The D800, for example, doesn't make the best sports camera.

Yep, the cheaper a camera is, the more we seem to tolerate things that are less than perfect.

The D800 may not make a really good sports camera in the conventional sense ( machine gun shooting) but it has just as fast of an auto focus system and use the same lenses. So if you can shoot your sports without needing really high FPS, then you too can shoot sports with a D800.

[kenafein]

Yep, the cheaper a camera is, the more we seem to tolerate things that are less than perfect.

The D800 may not make a really good sports camera in the conventional sense ( machine gun shooting) but it has just as fast of an auto focus system and use the same lenses. So if you can shoot your sports without needing really high FPS, then you too can shoot sports with a D800.

Sure, I take sport-like pictures with my NEX 5n and Canon FD 200/2.8. It works pretty well, but the buffer is too small for some. The D800 would certainly satisfy my sports needs, but, for those demanding sorts, who wants the perfect camera, they'd have to buy the D4 and the D800(in Nikon land).

[kenafein]

Canon 1D X anyone?

Great camera, but it's more D4 like. It doesn't have the resolution of the D800. I'd be more than happy with it though.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one?