Who needs a full frame, not me anymore...

**Digitalis** · 01-18-2016, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I wonder if the next 645 will have pixel shift.

Having standalone pixel shift capability will give the competition a run for its money. With Hasselblad Multi shot backs there is the annoying restriction that Multi-Shot shooting requires the digital back to be tethered to a computer running Phocus software.

Unregistered User · 01-19-2016, 04:55 PM

If only looking to IQ I guess the K-3 II is enought but when it comes to what a larger image area gives when looking at depth of field, noise, tonal range and diffraction the K3 no longer has the same appeal as a FF or MF. I shoot alot Pentax 6x7 and the different look the images has compared is huge. The FF will be preordered when released. A 645Z II will be my birthdaypresent when I hit 50.

...I wish...

bertwert · 01-19-2016, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

Who needs a full frame

Not me, I couldn't afford it even if I wanted it

(I won't refuse any gifts of FF cameras or lenses though...)

normhead · 01-20-2016, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by bertwert

Not me, I couldn't afford it even if I wanted it

(I won't refuse any gifts of FF cameras or lenses though...)

Get in line dude....

Rupert · 01-20-2016, 08:23 AM

The only thing that matters is can the FF shoot squirrels. Ricoh answered that with their sample photos...what the heck else do you need to know?

Regards!

**jatrax** · 01-20-2016, 02:14 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rupert

what the heck else do you need to know?

Cats. it has to shoot cats as well. Not everyone has squirrels.

Oh, and cheese, it has to be good at shooting cheese or I won't buy it. It would be nice if Ricoh provided some cheese shots for the next teaser.

bertwert · 01-20-2016, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

Cats. it has to shoot cats as well. Not everyone has squirrels.

Oh, and cheese, it has to be good at shooting cheese or I won't buy it. It would be nice if Ricoh provided some cheese shots for the next teaser.

And it needs to be able to write the goodest grammar with the properest spelling, and write it differently in the Americas and Great Britain's area...

krsto · 01-20-2016, 02:54 PM

FF is not a holy grail. If I were to choose between FF 36 MPx and, say, APS-H 4:3 with K-3 pixel density (so also 36 MPx) I would most likely choose the latter one. If it was significantly cheaper and smaller I would definitely choose it (it would fit almost all or simply *all* of APS-C lenses without SR due to more square resembling ratio). It's just a wish, anyway...
And even APS-C has its obvious pros, i.e. price, size, ...and it works with FF lenses whilst otherwise is usually a bad idea.

Qwntm · 01-20-2016, 03:48 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by krsto

FF is not a holy grail. If I were to choose between FF 36 MPx and, say, APS-H 4:3 with K-3 pixel density (so also 36 MPx) I would most likely choose the latter one. If it was significantly cheaper and smaller I would definitely choose it (it would fit almost all or simply *all* of APS-C lenses without SR due to more square resembling ratio). It's just a wish, anyway...
And even APS-C has its obvious pros, i.e. price, size, ...and it works with FF lenses whilst otherwise is usually a bad idea.

Damien Lovegrove shoots Fuji 16mp's... and has stated that 16mp's is all he needs. He said most people that worry about mp's, you can see it in their work, they are more worried about their kit than their photos and it shows. (Paraphrased.)

I only mention him because 99.9% of the people lusting after a FF or medium format Pentax will never shoot work anywhere near his level. He's got me re-thinking a lot of what I took for granted. Prophotonut.com

He also says lens quality is more important than number of Mp's. And a lot of other things. He kinda is the antidote to forum stupidity. (Not this forum, forums in general...

)

As a lot of you know I've been toying with FF's and other stuff for the past few months as I gear up for a busy professional year ahead, the first in quite a few. Damien's work and opinions and my own experience have me completely committed to APS-c. And my preference for the Pentax DSLR's has me trying to emulate a Fuji kit with Pentax lens choices. I have a Fuji kit as well, but the proof will be in the shooting this year.

The important take away for me, though, is it's not a FF vs. APS-c fight. FF already lost... It's a mirrorless vs. DSLR fight in APS-c and it's really just a question if the Pentax lens selection can work with the gauntlet that the fast Fuji primes have thrown down.

**mattb123** · 01-20-2016, 04:58 PM

I went ahead and took the fuller frame route with a 645D. The Z was too expensive for me but the D was attainable and I'm loving the output. 24x36 or even 32x48 prints look great.
But if the upcoming FF allows similar IQ with a smaller package I'll be pretty interested. I'm still digging out of the 645D hole so I'll have time to see how the new one does for others before jumping in.

Qwntm · 01-21-2016, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by mattb123

I went ahead and took the fuller frame route with a 645D. The Z was too expensive for me but the D was attainable and I'm loving the output. 24x36 or even 32x48 prints look great.
But if the upcoming FF allows similar IQ with a smaller package I'll be pretty interested. I'm still digging out of the 645D hole so I'll have time to see how the new one does for others before jumping in.

I've never shot a digital medium format, but everything I've read puts it at ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better than FF or APS-C. Just like with film, it's the lenses and the magnification factor required of the final image product.

FF is single digit percentages of IQ increase, Medium Format is Orders of magnitude. That's the way I think of it anyway.

You won't notice much increase going from APS-c to FF, but you will notice a significant decrease going from MF to FF. That's the consensus of all I've read, be interesting to see what you come up with.

Personally I'd run the MF with the APS-c as the alternate. Best of both worlds. FF is almost the worst of both worlds. Almost as big and heavy as MF, just a little bit better than APS-c.

Unregistered User · 01-21-2016, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Qwntm

I've never shot a digital medium format, but everything I've read puts it at ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better than FF or APS-C. Just like with film, it's the lenses and the magnification factor required of the final image product.

FF is single digit percentages of IQ increase, Medium Format is Orders of magnitude. That's the way I think of it anyway.

You won't notice much increase going from APS-c to FF, but you will notice a significant decrease going from MF to FF. That's the consensus of all I've read, be interesting to see what you come up with.

Personally I'd run the MF with the APS-c as the alternate. Best of both worlds. FF is almost the worst of both worlds. Almost as big and heavy as MF, just a little bit better than APS-c.

You say that the FF will be big and heavy. Why would you make that assumption? The thickness of the camera will be the same as before with a larger mirror and prism. That's it. When it comes to lenses all Pentax lenses will yield a higher resolution than the K3 can today. Don't get me wrong, I totally love my K3 and will only sell it when there is a new aps-c out there, but I will get a FF because bigger is better when it comes to photography. And there are the same engineers that made the K3 that are working on the FF. I am prepared to be amazed. There will ofcourse be a lesser jump between APS-C to FF compared to MF but there will be a visible difference. Just compare Canikons APS-C to there FFs. Maybe doing landscape will not give you more IQ but certainly you will gain alot when doing portraits, night or wildlife. A stop or two on the ISO, shorter DOF with cheaper glass, larger DOF due to less diffraction etc...

Well, those are my thoughts when reading your message.

EDIT

After reading your message again I get another interpretation of it but I let it stay for postarity...

**mattb123** · 01-21-2016, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Qwntm

I've never shot a digital medium format, but everything I've read puts it at ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better than FF or APS-C. Just like with film, it's the lenses and the magnification factor required of the final image product.

FF is single digit percentages of IQ increase, Medium Format is Orders of magnitude. That's the way I think of it anyway.

You won't notice much increase going from APS-c to FF, but you will notice a significant decrease going from MF to FF. That's the consensus of all I've read, be interesting to see what you come up with.

Personally I'd run the MF with the APS-c as the alternate. Best of both worlds. FF is almost the worst of both worlds. Almost as big and heavy as MF, just a little bit better than APS-c.

I'll reserve judgement on the FF until it's out but yeah, that is what I'm doing now and it's good to have both for different kinds of shoots.

Qwntm · 01-21-2016, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Tjompen1968

You say that the FF will be big and heavy. Why would you make that assumption? The thickness of the camera will be the same as before with a larger mirror and prism. That's it. When it comes to lenses all Pentax lenses will yield a higher resolution than the K3 can today. Don't get me wrong, I totally love my K3 and will only sell it when there is a new aps-c out there, but I will get a FF because bigger is better when it comes to photography. And there are the same engineers that made the K3 that are working on the FF. I am prepared to be amazed. There will ofcourse be a lesser jump between APS-C to FF compared to MF but there will be a visible difference. Just compare Canikons APS-C to there FFs. Maybe doing landscape will not give you more IQ but certainly you will gain alot when doing portraits, night or wildlife. A stop or two on the ISO, shorter DOF with cheaper glass, larger DOF due to less diffraction etc...

Well, those are my thoughts when reading your message.

EDIT

After reading your message again I get another interpretation of it but I let it stay for postarity...

The LENSES are the main problem. Compare the DA*16-50 to the FA 24-70 Tamron/Pentax. Or the DA* 50-135 to any of the 70-200's. That's almost a doubling of size and big increase in weight to accomplish the same thing.

How much resolution do you need? Are you really exceeding the capabilities of your K3? Really?

Regardless of who the engineers are who designed the FF, I think we are going to see the beginning of a shift in the user interface that we have been used to in this new FF. I believe the underlying design philosophy is changing, and I'm not sure it's for the better. But we shall see. The jury is still out, as they say.

As for portraits requiring FF, Damien Lovegrove.

http://www.lovegrovephotography.com/

Looking at his stuff, the format or size of your sensor is really meaningless. Just sayin'

Unregistered User · 01-21-2016, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Qwntm

The LENSES are the main problem. Compare the DA*16-50 to the FA 24-70 Tamron/Pentax. Or the DA* 50-135 to any of the 70-200's. That's almost a doubling of size and big increase in weight to accomplish the same thing.

How much resolution do you need? Are you really exceeding the capabilities of your K3? Really?

Regardless of who the engineers are who designed the FF, I think we are going to see the beginning of a shift in the user interface that we have been used to in this new FF. I believe the underlying design philosophy is changing, and I'm not sure it's for the better. But we shall see. The jury is still out, as they say.

As for portraits requiring FF, Damien Lovegrove.

Damien Lovegrove Photographer

Looking at his stuff, the format or size of your sensor is really meaningless. Just sayin'

How much resolution I need? Well, as much as possible. If beeing able to crop hard and get high resolution I am all for it. Yes, some lenses are bigger due to FF but not all. FA77 is small.

Your reference to Damien Lovegrove I do not understand, please explain.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Night Who needs a full moon anyways?	ZombieArmy	Post Your Photos!	2	09-05-2014 12:40 AM
Full Frame Not Practical in the Long Run?	DarCam	Pentax Full Frame	579	07-12-2014 11:04 AM
Misc Hungry ? Not me anymore ...	daacon	Post Your Photos!	2	08-04-2010 05:16 AM
Why not a Full frame with two APC sensors	madhurvyas	General Talk	23	02-16-2010 11:24 PM
Those who are not remembered anymore....	mulder	Post Your Photos!	2	06-17-2007 08:04 AM

01-18-2016, 06:59 PM	#16
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by normhead I wonder if the next 645 will have pixel shift. Having standalone pixel shift capability will give the competition a run for its money. With Hasselblad Multi shot backs there is the annoying restriction that Multi-Shot shooting requires the digital back to be tethered to a computer running Phocus software.

01-19-2016, 04:55 PM	#17
Unregistered User Guest	If only looking to IQ I guess the K-3 II is enought but when it comes to what a larger image area gives when looking at depth of field, noise, tonal range and diffraction the K3 no longer has the same appeal as a FF or MF. I shoot alot Pentax 6x7 and the different look the images has compared is huge. The FF will be preordered when released. A 645Z II will be my birthdaypresent when I hit 50. ...I wish...

01-19-2016, 05:00 PM	#18
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	Originally posted by Fenwoodian Who needs a full frame Not me, I couldn't afford it even if I wanted it (I won't refuse any gifts of FF cameras or lenses though...)

01-20-2016, 08:18 AM	#19
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by bertwert Not me, I couldn't afford it even if I wanted it (I won't refuse any gifts of FF cameras or lenses though...) Get in line dude....

01-20-2016, 08:23 AM	#20
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	The only thing that matters is can the FF shoot squirrels. Ricoh answered that with their sample photos...what the heck else do you need to know? Regards!

01-20-2016, 02:14 PM - 1 Like	#21
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Rupert what the heck else do you need to know? Cats. it has to shoot cats as well. Not everyone has squirrels. Oh, and cheese, it has to be good at shooting cheese or I won't buy it. It would be nice if Ricoh provided some cheese shots for the next teaser.

01-20-2016, 02:17 PM	#22
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	Originally posted by jatrax Cats. it has to shoot cats as well. Not everyone has squirrels. Oh, and cheese, it has to be good at shooting cheese or I won't buy it. It would be nice if Ricoh provided some cheese shots for the next teaser. And it needs to be able to write the goodest grammar with the properest spelling, and write it differently in the Americas and Great Britain's area...

01-20-2016, 02:54 PM	#23
krsto New Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 15	FF is not a holy grail. If I were to choose between FF 36 MPx and, say, APS-H 4:3 with K-3 pixel density (so also 36 MPx) I would most likely choose the latter one. If it was significantly cheaper and smaller I would definitely choose it (it would fit almost all or simply all of APS-C lenses without SR due to more square resembling ratio). It's just a wish, anyway... And even APS-C has its obvious pros, i.e. price, size, ...and it works with FF lenses whilst otherwise is usually a bad idea.

01-20-2016, 03:48 PM - 1 Like	#24
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856	Originally posted by krsto FF is not a holy grail. If I were to choose between FF 36 MPx and, say, APS-H 4:3 with K-3 pixel density (so also 36 MPx) I would most likely choose the latter one. If it was significantly cheaper and smaller I would definitely choose it (it would fit almost all or simply all of APS-C lenses without SR due to more square resembling ratio). It's just a wish, anyway... And even APS-C has its obvious pros, i.e. price, size, ...and it works with FF lenses whilst otherwise is usually a bad idea. Damien Lovegrove shoots Fuji 16mp's... and has stated that 16mp's is all he needs. He said most people that worry about mp's, you can see it in their work, they are more worried about their kit than their photos and it shows. (Paraphrased.) I only mention him because 99.9% of the people lusting after a FF or medium format Pentax will never shoot work anywhere near his level. He's got me re-thinking a lot of what I took for granted. Prophotonut.com He also says lens quality is more important than number of Mp's. And a lot of other things. He kinda is the antidote to forum stupidity. (Not this forum, forums in general... ) As a lot of you know I've been toying with FF's and other stuff for the past few months as I gear up for a busy professional year ahead, the first in quite a few. Damien's work and opinions and my own experience have me completely committed to APS-c. And my preference for the Pentax DSLR's has me trying to emulate a Fuji kit with Pentax lens choices. I have a Fuji kit as well, but the proof will be in the shooting this year. The important take away for me, though, is it's not a FF vs. APS-c fight. FF already lost... It's a mirrorless vs. DSLR fight in APS-c and it's really just a question if the Pentax lens selection can work with the gauntlet that the fast Fuji primes have thrown down.

01-20-2016, 04:58 PM	#25
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	I went ahead and took the fuller frame route with a 645D. The Z was too expensive for me but the D was attainable and I'm loving the output. 24x36 or even 32x48 prints look great. But if the upcoming FF allows similar IQ with a smaller package I'll be pretty interested. I'm still digging out of the 645D hole so I'll have time to see how the new one does for others before jumping in.

01-21-2016, 12:10 PM	#26
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856	Originally posted by mattb123 I went ahead and took the fuller frame route with a 645D. The Z was too expensive for me but the D was attainable and I'm loving the output. 24x36 or even 32x48 prints look great. But if the upcoming FF allows similar IQ with a smaller package I'll be pretty interested. I'm still digging out of the 645D hole so I'll have time to see how the new one does for others before jumping in. I've never shot a digital medium format, but everything I've read puts it at ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better than FF or APS-C. Just like with film, it's the lenses and the magnification factor required of the final image product. FF is single digit percentages of IQ increase, Medium Format is Orders of magnitude. That's the way I think of it anyway. You won't notice much increase going from APS-c to FF, but you will notice a significant decrease going from MF to FF. That's the consensus of all I've read, be interesting to see what you come up with. Personally I'd run the MF with the APS-c as the alternate. Best of both worlds. FF is almost the worst of both worlds. Almost as big and heavy as MF, just a little bit better than APS-c.

01-21-2016, 12:56 PM	#27
Unregistered User Guest	Originally posted by Qwntm I've never shot a digital medium format, but everything I've read puts it at ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better than FF or APS-C. Just like with film, it's the lenses and the magnification factor required of the final image product. FF is single digit percentages of IQ increase, Medium Format is Orders of magnitude. That's the way I think of it anyway. You won't notice much increase going from APS-c to FF, but you will notice a significant decrease going from MF to FF. That's the consensus of all I've read, be interesting to see what you come up with. Personally I'd run the MF with the APS-c as the alternate. Best of both worlds. FF is almost the worst of both worlds. Almost as big and heavy as MF, just a little bit better than APS-c. You say that the FF will be big and heavy. Why would you make that assumption? The thickness of the camera will be the same as before with a larger mirror and prism. That's it. When it comes to lenses all Pentax lenses will yield a higher resolution than the K3 can today. Don't get me wrong, I totally love my K3 and will only sell it when there is a new aps-c out there, but I will get a FF because bigger is better when it comes to photography. And there are the same engineers that made the K3 that are working on the FF. I am prepared to be amazed. There will ofcourse be a lesser jump between APS-C to FF compared to MF but there will be a visible difference. Just compare Canikons APS-C to there FFs. Maybe doing landscape will not give you more IQ but certainly you will gain alot when doing portraits, night or wildlife. A stop or two on the ISO, shorter DOF with cheaper glass, larger DOF due to less diffraction etc... Well, those are my thoughts when reading your message. EDIT After reading your message again I get another interpretation of it but I let it stay for postarity...

01-21-2016, 01:36 PM	#28
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	Originally posted by Qwntm I've never shot a digital medium format, but everything I've read puts it at ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better than FF or APS-C. Just like with film, it's the lenses and the magnification factor required of the final image product. FF is single digit percentages of IQ increase, Medium Format is Orders of magnitude. That's the way I think of it anyway. You won't notice much increase going from APS-c to FF, but you will notice a significant decrease going from MF to FF. That's the consensus of all I've read, be interesting to see what you come up with. Personally I'd run the MF with the APS-c as the alternate. Best of both worlds. FF is almost the worst of both worlds. Almost as big and heavy as MF, just a little bit better than APS-c. I'll reserve judgement on the FF until it's out but yeah, that is what I'm doing now and it's good to have both for different kinds of shoots.

01-21-2016, 01:42 PM	#29
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856	Originally posted by Tjompen1968 You say that the FF will be big and heavy. Why would you make that assumption? The thickness of the camera will be the same as before with a larger mirror and prism. That's it. When it comes to lenses all Pentax lenses will yield a higher resolution than the K3 can today. Don't get me wrong, I totally love my K3 and will only sell it when there is a new aps-c out there, but I will get a FF because bigger is better when it comes to photography. And there are the same engineers that made the K3 that are working on the FF. I am prepared to be amazed. There will ofcourse be a lesser jump between APS-C to FF compared to MF but there will be a visible difference. Just compare Canikons APS-C to there FFs. Maybe doing landscape will not give you more IQ but certainly you will gain alot when doing portraits, night or wildlife. A stop or two on the ISO, shorter DOF with cheaper glass, larger DOF due to less diffraction etc... Well, those are my thoughts when reading your message. EDIT After reading your message again I get another interpretation of it but I let it stay for postarity... The LENSES are the main problem. Compare the DA16-50 to the FA 24-70 Tamron/Pentax. Or the DA 50-135 to any of the 70-200's. That's almost a doubling of size and big increase in weight to accomplish the same thing. How much resolution do you need? Are you really exceeding the capabilities of your K3? Really? Regardless of who the engineers are who designed the FF, I think we are going to see the beginning of a shift in the user interface that we have been used to in this new FF. I believe the underlying design philosophy is changing, and I'm not sure it's for the better. But we shall see. The jury is still out, as they say. As for portraits requiring FF, Damien Lovegrove. http://www.lovegrovephotography.com/ Looking at his stuff, the format or size of your sensor is really meaningless. Just sayin'

01-21-2016, 01:55 PM	#30
Unregistered User Guest	Originally posted by Qwntm The LENSES are the main problem. Compare the DA16-50 to the FA 24-70 Tamron/Pentax. Or the DA 50-135 to any of the 70-200's. That's almost a doubling of size and big increase in weight to accomplish the same thing. How much resolution do you need? Are you really exceeding the capabilities of your K3? Really? Regardless of who the engineers are who designed the FF, I think we are going to see the beginning of a shift in the user interface that we have been used to in this new FF. I believe the underlying design philosophy is changing, and I'm not sure it's for the better. But we shall see. The jury is still out, as they say. As for portraits requiring FF, Damien Lovegrove. Damien Lovegrove Photographer Looking at his stuff, the format or size of your sensor is really meaningless. Just sayin' How much resolution I need? Well, as much as possible. If beeing able to crop hard and get high resolution I am all for it. Yes, some lenses are bigger due to FF but not all. FA77 is small. Your reference to Damien Lovegrove I do not understand, please explain.