Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-06-2016, 03:08 PM   #61
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,785
QuoteOriginally posted by HopelessTogger Quote
APS-C + slightly slower lenses or APS-C lenses = much higher probability of use.

I hadn't realised quite how physically weak I'd become until I went out shooting with the K-1 and D-FA* 2.8/70-200 the other day. It's a great combination, but the weight and handling negates the marginal optical benefits over say, my A6000 and 4/70-200 G OSS.

For me, the lens weight limit is around a kilo before it becomes too uncomfortable, so my preference for general shooting is APS-C, both camera and lens.
It's amazing how many of us are in a similar situation.


Last edited by normhead; 07-06-2016 at 03:30 PM.
07-06-2016, 03:21 PM   #62
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 758
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It's amazing ho many of us are in a similar situation.
K-1's a great camera with the FA Ltd's and Zeiss ZK's mind. It's just big heavy full frame zooms are limited by the users' strength and stamina.
07-06-2016, 03:33 PM   #63
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,785
QuoteOriginally posted by HopelessTogger Quote
K-1's a great camera with the FA Ltd's and Zeiss ZK's mind. It's just big heavy full frame zooms are limited by the users' strength and stamina.
It ought to pay a lot more for something you can't even carry. My latest purchase is a DA*200 ƒ2.8, because it's half pound lighter than my DA*60-250. These guys talking about F DA 150-450s and FDA 70-200s, that's crazy talk to me. Especially since I get out to 476mm (700mm equivalent on the K-1) with the DA*200 and 1.4 and 1.7 TC stacked.) I exceed the reach of a 150-450 with a fraction of the weight.

Last edited by normhead; 07-06-2016 at 03:57 PM.
07-06-2016, 03:43 PM   #64
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 758
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It ought to pay a lot more for something you can't even carry. My latest purchase is a DA*200 2.8, because it's half pound lighter than my DA*60-250. These guys talking about F DA 150-450s and FDA 70-200s, that's crazy talk to me. Especially since I get out to 476mm (700mm equivalent on the K-1) with the DA*200 and 1.4 and 1.7 ti's stacked.) I exceed the reach of a 150-450 with a fraction of the weight.
In my opinion, stick with what you have. It's not so much the camera, it's big full frame glass which takes the pleasure out of shooting. The D-FA 2.8/15-30 isn't too bad because of the fulcrum is close to the camera, but the combined weight and leverage of the 70-200 causes me to avoid the thing unless on a tripod.

07-06-2016, 03:52 PM   #65
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 604
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
Here's the thing that I don't think a lot of people appreciate about APS-C and FF. . . They're almost the same size! With full frame we're talking about a slightly larger sensor. To move to a slightly larger sensor and expect a big, dramatic difference in optical performance isn't really sensible. It's only through an odd developmental quirk of DSLRs that we even have these two formats so close in size.

From my viewpoint, the Pentax lineup of Q (1/1.7), APS-C and 645 made a lot of sense, and there was enough gap in size and performance between each line that nobody would ever mistake them or get confused about which one filled which role. Then the K-1 dropped awkwardly into the slot i between APS-C and 645, and the rationale is not so clear.

But the K-1 wasn't created to fill a rational, technical need. It exists because we kept asking for it. Because professionals use full-frame. Because Ricoh needed to keep up with the Joneses (i.e. Canon and Nikon) and be taken seriously. Because Sigma and Tamron and Samyang kept churning out more and more full-frame lenses. And so forth. Basically it's all about hype and peer pressure.

And, at the end of the day, they made yet another great camera. Everybody who's got a K-1 seems to love it, and we've all been having a great party here, and far be it from me to throw cold water on the festivities. However. . . I can't help thinking that it's all been a distraction from more interesting and forward-looking things that Pentax could have been working on instead.


Exactly right.


Pentax had an opportunity to rival Fuji for the only professional APS-c based DSLR system to Fuji's Mirrorless System, and instead we got an "also ran" FF.


It's great that we got the FF. We will see how soon the sales drop off though. It's a very limited market in my opinion and I look forward to picking one up for <$1000 in a year or two, new. We'll see.
07-06-2016, 03:58 PM - 1 Like   #66
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,785
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
Exactly right.


Pentax had an opportunity to rival Fuji for the only professional APS-c based DSLR system to Fuji's Mirrorless System, and instead we got an "also ran" FF.


It's great that we got the FF. We will see how soon the sales drop off though. It's a very limited market in my opinion and I look forward to picking one up for <$1000 in a year or two, new. We'll see.
If that happens Ill be right behind you, especially if the Canadian dollar rebounds.

I'm not anti K-1, but, meet your main needs first, then add what's left.
07-06-2016, 04:06 PM   #67
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 758
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If that happens Ill be right behind you, especially if the Canadian dollar rebounds.

I'm not anti K-1, but, meet your main needs first, then add what's left.
Canadian Dollar? Take a look at Sterling! Yikes! I'm glad I did all my big spend before Brexit.
07-07-2016, 12:44 AM - 1 Like   #68
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,433
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
Pentax had an opportunity to rival Fuji for the only professional APS-c based DSLR system to Fuji's Mirrorless System, and instead we got an "also ran" FF.
Wrong.

First, if we're talking professional, Pentax had no chance to out-compete Canikon. To compete against a huge lens range and cameras like the 7DMkII (already 2 years old) and D500 - and call such an effort "the only professional APS-c based DSLR system" it's just not realistic.
And they can't use hype and marketing like Fuji; on the contrary, Pentax is fighting against hype and others' marketing.

Second, the K-1 is wonderfully positioned: very affordable, fully featured, its high resolution sensor cannot be seen in any DSLR at such low price levels. Far from an "also ran", it's exactly what was needed.

And for Pete's sake, FF has a frame area more than double that of APS-C's; that's not a minor difference except in Fuji's marketing material. It's also the largest sensor size you could still get at relatively affordable prices.
Pentax was bleeding high-spending customers because they didn't had this.

07-07-2016, 03:15 AM   #69
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,969
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
Here's the thing that I don't think a lot of people appreciate about APS-C and FF. . . They're almost the same size! With full frame we're talking about a slightly larger sensor. To move to a slightly larger sensor and expect a big, dramatic difference in optical performance isn't really sensible. It's only through an odd developmental quirk of DSLRs that we even have these two formats so close in size.

From my viewpoint, the Pentax lineup of Q (1/1.7), APS-C and 645 made a lot of sense, and there was enough gap in size and performance between each line that nobody would ever mistake them or get confused about which one filled which role. Then the K-1 dropped awkwardly into the slot i between APS-C and 645, and the rationale is not so clear.

But the K-1 wasn't created to fill a rational, technical need. It exists because we kept asking for it. Because professionals use full-frame. Because Ricoh needed to keep up with the Joneses (i.e. Canon and Nikon) and be taken seriously. Because Sigma and Tamron and Samyang kept churning out more and more full-frame lenses. And so forth. Basically it's all about hype and peer pressure.

And, at the end of the day, they made yet another great camera. Everybody who's got a K-1 seems to love it, and we've all been having a great party here, and far be it from me to throw cold water on the festivities. However. . . I can't help thinking that it's all been a distraction from more interesting and forward-looking things that Pentax could have been working on instead.
With regard to performance, there is a little better than a stop difference between the K-1 and a K3 with regard to high iso performance. That is to say that iso 6400 on a K-1 performs pretty similarly to iso 2000 on a K3. That really is a big jump and the sort of performance gain that you aren't going to get easily at this point from simple tech advances. You can argue that APS-C is good enough and it probably is, but if folks are pushing the envelope with regard to image quality, the next step really is to move up to full frame.

I know that when I shoot landscape images, I am significantly less likely to need to resort to HDR techniques with the K-1 versus a K3 (both shot at iso 100 on a tripod). That is real world improvement and is worth it to me. My wife shoots weddings and the high iso boost was worth it to her.

As to the size difference, it is real too. The K-1 is a little bigger than a K3, which was already pretty good sized. Combine that with any of the f2.8 zooms that pentax released with it and you have a very big package to carry around.

I don't think you can say that people need or don't need the performance improvement. I know there was video that circulated here three or four times called Crop or Crap where I guy ranted for an extended period of time about how APS-C and full frame were really close in size and performance. He was a little right and a lot wrong and mostly was trying to sell folks on the fact that Fuji cameras were good enough, even though their mount isn't full frame compatible. A stop and a half performance gain isn't to be sneezed at, although neither is the size difference between the formats.
07-07-2016, 04:26 AM   #70
bxf
Pentaxian
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,043
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
We have more.. beer... than we need or can use
I know people who would dispute this
07-07-2016, 05:00 AM   #71
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,785
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
With regard to performance, there is a little better than a stop difference between the K-1 and a K3 with regard to high iso performance. That is to say that iso 6400 on a K-1 performs pretty similarly to iso 2000 on a K3. That really is a big jump and the sort of performance gain that you aren't going to get easily at this point from simple tech advances. You can argue that APS-C is good enough and it probably is, but if folks are pushing the envelope with regard to image quality, the next step really is to move up to full frame.
Hopefully that gets solved with the K-70 and all APS-c bodies moving forward.. It should be one stop. When it is things will be back to normal. You can always find a few things with a brand new camera that won't be advantages after a few months when the new tech gets passed down the line.
07-07-2016, 05:18 AM   #72
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,003
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Hopefully that gets solved with the K-70 and all APS-c bodies moving forward.. It should be one stop. When it is things will be back to normal. You can always find a few things with a brand new camera that won't be advantages after a few months when the new tech gets passed down the line.
Only problem with that is you've spent 1/2 of what would get you a K-1 and you still wouldn't have one.

Edit.... I'm sure I'm going to regret having typed that!
07-07-2016, 05:27 AM   #73
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,785
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
Only problem with that is you've spent 1/2 of what would get you a K-1 and you still wouldn't have one.

Edit.... I'm sure I'm going to regret having typed that!
Naw, that's too far out for even me to respond to.
07-07-2016, 05:35 AM   #74
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,003
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Naw, that's too far out for even me to respond to.
Just trying to take your mind off your hip pain....
07-07-2016, 05:53 AM   #75
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,785
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
Just trying to take your mind off your hip pain....
Thanks for that,
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!
aperture, aps-c, background, blur, camera, dof, dslr, feet, ff, ff over aps-c, field, focus, frame, full frame, full-frame, k-1, k1, lens, paper, pentax k-1, people, picture, posters, stitching
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FF vs APS-C Field of View revisited Ole Pentax K-1 2 05-07-2016 02:13 PM
Confused about Angle of View of Lenses on FF vs APS-C? Kath Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-01-2015 09:55 AM
Does FF vs APS-C affect amount of light? windhorse General Photography 46 03-02-2015 07:07 PM
Quick question regarding field of view - FF vs APS-C glass? Julie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-23-2012 05:33 PM
APS-C does not increase focal length over FF, it decreases field of view. TomTextura Photographic Technique 135 06-09-2012 04:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:16 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