[GeneV]

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.

In my experience, the glass is also the issue. If shooting is your primary or only reason for being there, then take the biggest artillery you can get. For the other occasions, there is life which you miss as a pack animal. It is a reason my 645 saw limited use compared to the MX/LX. Now there was a difference in DOF. But we really have had this discussion a lot.

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.

Well I feel the need to point out that the surface area on the FF is twice the size of the APS-C, i.e the FF fits a little more than 2 APS-C sensors. I would'nt call that slightly bigger.

(35.9x24 mm vs 23.5x15.6 mm)

[Tony Belding]

Well I feel the need to point out that the surface area on the FF is twice the size of the APS-C, i.e the FF fits a little more than 2 APS-C sensors. I would'nt call that slightly bigger.

(35.9x24 mm vs 23.5x15.6 mm)

I guess it's a matter of perspective. It's twice the surface area, only 1.5 X the linear size, and that is indeed what I call "slightly bigger". I think as a general rule, you need to double the size (not surface area!) of a sensor for a noticeable improvement in overall image quality, or quadruple it for the improvement to really be satisfying and readily appreciated. It's all about human perception, and our perceptions are not linear. This applies to many areas of perception, not only to photography.

I see this argument of "edge cases" where someone has very demanding needs and APS-C isn't quite cutting it, then FF might solve the problem. Even in that scenario, though, I think you would be moving from "not quite adequate" to "barely adequate". Is that really what you want to do? Maybe you should be looking at medium format.

[normhead]

I guess it's a matter of perspective. It's twice the surface area, only 1.5 X the linear size, and that is indeed what I call "slightly bigger". I think as a general rule, you need to double the size (not surface area!) of a sensor for a noticeable improvement in overall image quality, or quadruple it for the improvement to really be satisfying and readily appreciated. It's all about human perception, and our perceptions are not linear. This applies to many areas of perception, not only to photography.

I see this argument of "edge cases" where someone has very demanding needs and APS-C isn't quite cutting it, then FF might solve the problem. Even in that scenario, though, I think you would be moving from "not quite adequate" to "barely adequate". Is that really what you want to do? Maybe you should be looking at medium format.

Or more likely. you might be moving from really sucks bad, to still quite inadequate. There can be improvement without it being meaningful improvement. DO you really care if your shots have improved from really bad to bad. My keepers tend to fall into the "really good" category which is a completely different end of the spectrum.

We are assuming that there is a little sliver of usefulness in the images where the bigger sensor is a keeper, and the APS-c image is un-useable. I'd really enjoy seeing a demonstration of how big that window is.

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-07-2016 at 12:55 PM.

[newmikey]

This is not productive at all. I am a solid APS-C shooter yet willing to freely admit that FF depth of field is superior to that of APS-C and large format DOF superior to that of FF - at the same focal length and aperture. There you have it. End of discussion. If you really, no REALLY want smooth and razor-thin DOF, get yourself a extremely large format plate camera!

I don't get it at all. Why so much back and forth about some obvious physical and optical theoretic truths? What would you hope to accomplish (or what would anyone)? Is that really what we want or need? By all accounts, the K-1 is a formidable camera. By all accounts the K-3 II is an awesome camera. I find the K-5 IIs a great camera. Does it really matter for your type of photography what the difference is between formidable, awesome and great? Go shoot some images!

[normhead]

The 36x24 format is gives you more options than any other digital format, in terms of narrow DoF. No argument there. But so what? For a lot of people that's not something they are even interested in. As for being superior, no it is narrower, for many images, that's the exact opposite of "superior". SO, why are you admitting that?

[newmikey]

The 36x24 format is gives you more options than any other digital format, in terms of narrow DoF. No argument there. But so what? For a lot of people that's not something they are even interested in. As for being superior, no it is narrower, for many images, that's the exact opposite of "superior". SO, why are you admitting that?

Because it can be narrower not because it always has to be that. More choice is superior. I don't often use a extremely narrow DOF on purpose and often avoid it by closing down aperture. But on the one or two images where I do use it, thinner DOF would be welcome, just not so welcome I'd spend triple the money on a body and quadruple on a bunch of lenses and a bit on therapy for my back carrying it all around. My choice, I know. APS-C is exactly at my sweet spot in terms of money-size-weight-glass-IQ

A bit like admiring a Ferrari for its excellence but not being the least bit interested in driving one because the Volvo V40 is very efficient as well as perfectly fitting my requirements.

[Rondec]

The 36x24 format is gives you more options than any other digital format, in terms of narrow DoF. No argument there. But so what? For a lot of people that's not something they are even interested in. As for being superior, no it is narrower, for many images, that's the exact opposite of "superior". SO, why are you admitting that?

This is the sort of thing that no one can answer for someone else. For me, I could care less about narrow depth of field. I mostly shoot stopped down a bunch. If you shoot a lot of portraits or wedding then you probably value the shallow depth of field a lot.

As you say, it isn't that one is superior to another, but there are times when a good photographer wants to blur the background and times when he wants to include everything. Doing either one all of the time is probably just a sign of not knowing what you are doing than anything else.

[Kunzite]

I guess it's a matter of perspective. It's twice the surface area, only 1.5 X the linear size, and that is indeed what I call "slightly bigger". I think as a general rule, you need to double the size (not surface area!) of a sensor for a noticeable improvement in overall image quality, or quadruple it for the improvement to really be satisfying and readily appreciated. It's all about human perception, and our perceptions are not linear. This applies to many areas of perception, not only to photography.

Take two sheets of paper, let's say an A4 and an A3. In theory, FF can allow you to print on the larger paper with the same quality per square mm as APS-C on the smaller one. I call that noticeable

In practice, there are so many factors that one format cannot possibly be considered overall "better" than another. In other words, there can be acceptable no definition of "better", suitable for all of us, on all the situations we might encounter.
My posts here are only to show the importance of Pentax offering the choice of FF. This, however, does not diminish in the least the importance of the APS-C. We shouldn't discuss as if there's some sort of competition between these formats.

[mattb123]

We shouldn't discuss as if there's some sort of competition between these formats.

This.

[normhead]

More choice is superior

Photography is about images, not arguments.
More choice is superior only when it produces superior images.
Each user must of course decide how much that little bit of superiority is worth to them.
But, it is quite annoying for someone to just say something is superior, without a shred of physical evidence, relying strictly on a bunch of numbers on a page. Help me out here. Show me some images that demonstrate what you're talking about. I'll make up my mind if I think they are superior, or worth even taking.

Simple math says they are not superior, except when shooting within 1 stop of wide open. For those of us who spend our lives between ƒ5.6 and ƒ8 as a preferred shooting range, hardly any images taken wide open at ƒ1.2 are superior. IN fact they are by definition inferior due to insufficient DoF to capture the subject. SO if you want to say the FF is superior at inferior images, I'm with you.

But then, I'm not one of those thin DoF worshippers, who having noticed that some images are excellent using thin DoF (like 2.8) there must be some benefit to going crazy. Some of us would consider that diving into the shallow end.

Go to the ƒ1.2 thread. A great place to explore this kind of insanity. Not much there to convince most of us we need an ƒ1.2 lens though.

[Nicolas06]

Take two sheets of paper, let's say an A4 and an A3. In theory, FF can allow you to print on the larger paper with the same quality per square mm as APS-C on the smaller one. I call that noticeable

In practice, there are so many factors that one format cannot possibly be considered overall "better" than another. In other words, there can be acceptable no definition of "better", suitable for all of us, on all the situations we might encounter.
My posts here are only to show the importance of Pentax offering the choice of FF. This, however, does not diminish in the least the importance of the APS-C. We shouldn't discuss as if there's some sort of competition between these formats.

OK. Let's do that. Let's shoot 2 pictures same field of view, same subject etc with K3 and K1, let's print both A4 and A3. Let's see how much of a difference it make.

My bet is that for quite shallow dof shoots the K1 will be noticably superior because it will be able to use a lens more closed down so at a setting where the lens will give better results.

My bet is that for quite challenging shoots in low light you'll benefit from better noise handling beyond the theoretical 1.3EV because the K3 is older and don't benefit of the same technology. Would you happen to be limited by your lens apperture rather than dof, the differnce will increase by 1.3 stop uppon the technology improvement. That why people say there 2EV difference, some even say 3-4EV.

Now, shoot studio, shoot landscapes, shoot street photography, shoot your vacations. Shoot almost anything in good light... There may not be that much difference.

But there other aspects K1 heavier, bigger more expensive. Pentax APSC has a lack of dedicated good performing AF lenses but can manage much smallers lenses for same reach. K1 has improved ergonomics.

[Kunzite]

Sorry, but I'll pass. I really don't believe a single format is the answer. Well, except that you can crop the K-1 to APS-C (but still, that makes sense only if you do it occasionally), or even further.
Choice (of cropping or not, in this case) is good, if you need it. If you don't, it's just a burden.

[newmikey]

Photography is about images, not arguments.
Help me out here.

Norm, you are preaching to the wrong person but I have learned from way back when when I was caught in the schoolyard with the other dads tryng to get some pics of a little dance or play our kids were putting up. Without fail there always was a dad with a huge Canon body and one of those white telelenses right next to me nudging my elbow and, winking and pointing to my K100D-Super: "Satisfied with that little camera? How many Mp does it have?".

I learned very quickly I could end a discussions on the merits of pixels and shmixels as well as a long litany on why Pentax wasn't a real camera by immediately saying "oh, really not so much. Your camera is way superior..." and I could literally see the dissappointment on the other dad's face. In the end, my shots always made it to the school website and parents would phone/email for prints of their kids. Never heard or saw any result off the other dad(s).

This is not so different. For those who need to justify their purchase I have no problem saying it is superior.

[surfar]

Ricoh provided what many customers wanted, but not all.


I'm very happy with my Aps-c cameras(Pentax and Samsung)


I'm also happy with the K1 because it has features that NO other camera provides!


Also happy with my P&S cameras, 1'' sensors and M43system AND Q systems.


I know I have many overlaps but I can afford them, for the sceptics go hire/borrow the K1, it really is worth the investment.