[FireDog]

Setting the cat amongst the pigeons!

What's the big deal with full frame...
when "back in the day"
we all shot full frame and
printed 8 x 10?

When "back in the day"
zoom lenses were mostly crap...
we now have some superb super-wide and out zooms
we crop in camera when shooting!

The APS-C format has matured to become a great standard!
Everything about it is accessible...full frame will be bloody expensive!

Anybody?

Michael

[surfar]

USE a K1....then you will see!

[bertwert]

Okay where's Norm?

[cali92rs]

Setting the cat amongst the pigeons!

What's the big deal with full frame...
when "back in the day"
we all shot full frame and
printed 8 x 10?

When "back in the day"
zoom lenses were mostly crap...
we now have some superb super-wide and out zooms
we crop in camera when shooting!

The APS-C format has matured to become a great standard!
Everything about it is accessible...full frame will be bloody expensive!

Anybody?

Michael

The title is full-frame ironies...yet you don't mention any.

[surfar]

...full frame will be bloody expensive!

Well, what top end camera isn't expensive?


Olympus with 1/4 of the sensor size is similar price to K1....Fuji half sensor size is close....Sony is more....Panasonic don't release the GH5 stuff till next month, probably more
Canikon a lot more.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Well, what top end camera isn't expensive?


Olympus with 1/4 of the sensor size is similar price to K1....Fuji half sensor size is close....Sony is more....Panasonic don't release the GH5 stuff till next month, probably more
Canikon a lot more.

It really depends on how you look at it.
The full frame pentax and the 150-450 comes well under cost than smaller formats .


Olympus 90-250 F/2,8 $5900
Pentax 150-450 4.5-5.6 $2750 and the K1 $2600 = $5300 Now you have to ask your sell if that 50mm extra reach of the Olympus is worth $3300 dollars and not having a body to go with the lens

[C_Jones]

When I shot film (35 mm) I was able to get 8 x 12 prints at some places. The 8 x 10 did not recognize the 4 x 6 ratio, and I did not want to lose my image features. I still request 8 x 12 prints for my aps-c based images when I can (4 x 6 ratio).

K-1 has the sensor and feature capability to produce highly detailed images, and the aps-c cameras like the K-3II have prominent capability too. It depends on which type body you want to shoot with, bearing in mind mostly the aps-c reach or the full frame 36 mp detail capabilities (K-1).

[kiwi_jono]

Of course you are right, APS-C is a great format and has some significant benefits over FF (e.g. system size, weight and cost) and there is no question APS-C is an excellent option.

But FF does have some benefits over APS-C too which may or may not be useful depending on your situation / style. For me:
* I like being able to use the legacy glass I have with the field of view it was designed for. E.g. a 28 - 70 is truly useful range again.
* For the lenses I have and my shooting style, I often see an improvement with bokeh (generally need to focus closer for the same subject framing).
* I find the higher ISO latitude useful
Higher res is nice to have too but not a major feature for me and a disadvantage in terms of disk space and handling.

But for the K-1, its surprising me that FF is just one of the features it has and it has many other neat and useful enhancements that just add to the enjoyment of the shooting process. For example I have say its handling / usability is just a delight.

Your millage may vary.

[FireDog]

When I shot film (35 mm) I was able to get 8 x 12 prints at some places. The 8 x 10 did not recognize the 4 x 6 ratio, and I did not want to lose my image features. I still request 8 x 12 prints for my aps-c based images when I can (4 x 6 ratio).

K-1 has the sensor and feature capability to produce highly detailed images, and the aps-c cameras like the K-3II have prominent capability too. It depends on which type body you want to shoot with, bearing in mind mostly the aps-c reach or the full frame 36 mp detail capabilities (K-1).

thanks
an honest answer...
it's just that I would have thought
go medium format with one or two lenses
and stay with the APS-C for journal work

Back in my Minolta XD-11 days
I borrowed my father-law's Hasselblad
- I wanted One -
If I won the lottery you just know what I would be getting!

Pentax 645Z Medium Format DSLR Comprehensive Starter Kit

My new lust

[C_Jones]

The 645Z is a camera that is a one of a kind type performer that excels in what it does. I can see your point in considering it, as long as you are sure what type format image you want/need. You also have the K-1 to evaluate if you ever desire some excellent full frame results. You seem to want high quality image results, and depending on the format you may require, the 645Z or K-1 are top notch candidates to accompany your aps-c activities. Good luck with your choice.

[D1N0]

What's great about FF. I Get my wide angle back on my legacy glass.

[JeffB]

Full frame advantages (* * * to me * * *)

1. Shallow DOF at a given working distance from the subject. DOF of 100mm lens at f/2.8 is the same regardless of whether used on 16x24mm or 24x36mm sensor at the same distance. But to achieve the same field of view with the same lens you can be closer with a larger sensor and therefore DOF is reduced. Good for portraits.
   
2. Greater field of view at 1:1 for macro. To achieve 1:1 magnification you must be a fixed distance from the subject at a given focal length. Using a larger sensor puts more of the subject into the frame at 1:1 versus a smaller sensor using the same lens.
   
3. Better dynamic range and less noise is possible. The pixel pitch on larger sensors is generally larger than smaller sensors. Larger photosensors tend to have less noise. This advantage gets cancelled out as most full frame sensors have higher pixel count than APS.
   
4. More efficient use of the body size and existing lenses of the entire SLR platform. Most SLR bodies and lenses are based on a 24x36mm frame size. That includes DA lenses that only project an APS image circle. The mount size of a DA lens is still the same as that of an FA type lens. APS sensor bodies are still nearly as large as full frame bodies. Pentax seems to me to do the best job here with their APS bodies compared to other brands. K-1 @ 1000g versus K-3 @ 800g. So the K-3 is 20% lighter. But the K-3 sensor is 67% the size. If it was truly proportional the body would only weigh 667g. Fuji has an edge here because they designed their platform around the smaller sensor. Canon and Nikon (and possibly now Pentax) are committing more and more to the "full frame" game because their existing platforms were all based on that frame size for the last 50+ years.

Full frame disadvantages (* * * to me * * *)

1. Shallow DOF. What was an advantage in some situations can be a detriment in others like landscapes where you want super deep DOF. Shooting from the same distance at the same aperture and capturing the same field of view with full frame versus APS you'll have greater DOF on APS because you'll be using a shorter focal length.
   
2. Shows edge weakness in many lenses. "Cropping" the image circle by using an APS sensor often gives you the best quality image because most lenses are weaker (lower res, more distorted, more CA) near the edges. If you use full frame you have to invest heavily in the best glass possible to get full value from each shot. If you end up cropping the outer 1/3 of most frames because of poor lens performance you should have just shot the images on APS to start with and "pre-cropped" the bad parts of the frame out.
   
3. Storage. Bigger sensors with more pixels have bigger file sizes that take up more disc space and are slower to ingest, process, print and archive.

[normhead]

Okay where's Norm?

This is interrupting my nap.....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/335922-k-1s-plac...ml#post3856223

I've had my say.

In the last few days, I've used the K-3 for birding, and the K-1 for these images....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/336145-nature-birds-day.html#post3859658

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/336144-people-2016-ch...ml#post3859560

K-3 for these images.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ml#post3859411

and these
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/336099-nature-bird-ki...ml#post3858892

You just learn what both are good for. To my mind, the K-1 replaces the K-5 for landscape and people. The K-3 for telephoto and macro. The K-3 can do it all, except high ISO and better dynamic range and resolution. Better, but perhaps not necessary.

[surfar]

It really depends on how you look at it.

I looked at camera bodies,,,those bodies I mention do better video(so what, other cheaper cameras do too)....


Cost of lenses?....its high if you are a first time buyer of a K1....I have spent ZERO on lenses.


My Olympus lens has a FL longer than the example you used and cost 5% of the price ...of course its slower but I can use a speed booster on a few Film era lenses and have the same reach and speed(who needs AF?)

[redrockcoulee]

We just got a Fuji GX680 kit so let's not hear anything about camera sizes being too big (or too small). 😊