Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-02-2009, 11:23 PM   #1
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,575
top reasons not to go FF

With all the fanfare over FF, and the somewhat incessant calls for Pentax to "step up", I figured maybe it was time to ponder the reasons *not* to build or buy FF.

In no particular order, and of course needs/wants vary depending on shooting style, budget, etc.

1. huge files
My hard drives are already moaning in agony, and I often have to toss stuff on my laptop just so I can download a shooting session. While hard drives are cheap and big, it still is a pita wrt archiving, organizing libraries, etc.

2. size/weight
If you carry your setup around a lot, and especially if you're a "street shooter" (loosely defined), a FF setup can be a little brutal. For instance, a K20d is 798g, an a900 is 939g. A Zeiss 24-70 is 995g vs. 565g for a 16-50*. And if you like to shoot ltd primes, it is a massive difference. All of the FF setups are also larger and more obtrusive.

3. cost
One issue that is starting to pop up with FF is deficiencies in the glass. Lenses optimized for APS of course vignette like mad, but even proper FF glass can look less-than-stellar with the higher resolution. Of course there is no free lunch, but if you want to look good, you'll have to pay $$$.

Even with just those three, there is a pretty strong argument for continuing to build and develop the APS platform. It isn't clear how much economies of scale are going to come into play, or at least how long it will take for them to kick in.

Feel free to add or disagree. Like anyone needs permission...

01-03-2009, 12:09 AM   #2
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.S. /Miami - Florida.
Posts: 208
Price!!!!

let's be honest and maybe the telephoto guys? It's hard not to be tempted with a d700 for $2,300.00 and it will get dow to $1.999 so pentax must hurry before it gets too late
01-03-2009, 01:10 AM   #3
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 261
Cost, Cost, Cost

Here's a breakdown of my system vs a FF digital setup:

Spotmatic F (I inherited mine, but market value in good shape): $200
SMC Takumar 50/1.4: $70
Epson V700 film/flatbed scanner: $550
Negative storage boxes: $20
Film: $7/roll + $4 processing X 30 rolls X 2 years: $660
Total: $1500

Canon 5D Mark II: $3200
Canon 50mm 1.2 L: $1600
Drobo automated backup: $350
Two 1Gb Drives (results in redundant 1Gb storage in Drobo): $400
Total: $5,500

I didn't take into account the cost of computer systems, as it's safe to assume a computer is likely to be in the household, regardless of the camera. I also didn't factor digital storage into the film cost estimate, as the scanner is not for backing up the negatives so much as it is for just showing off. I also didn't factor in hard drive maintenance on the digital side, as I couldn't find accurate data to support the need to replace either drive in the timespan of two years.

That's a total difference of $4000. And the $1500 total cost for the film setup isn't even all upfront; the $660 worth of film and processing is incremental, which would make the difference even larger. And (this is going to start the real argument) it can be argued that you could get the same levels of detail out of both setups, even though color and contrast rendering will obviously be different (I'm not taking sides there). Now try this:

Pentax K20D: $900
Pentax FA50 1.4: $200
Drobo Automated Backup: $350
Two 500Gb Drives: $250
Total: $1700

So there you have it. A $200 difference between the film system and the K20D system is actually not a bad premium to have digital convenience. You lose full frame ISO performance and have to suffice with possibly lower resolution (although it can be argued that color film can provide anywhere between 10-25 megapixels of information), but your workflow is modernized. Most of the people who frequent the forum seem to be satisfied with the K20's lighting and resolution performance.

So you can have affordable full frame with a film system, or accept the relatively minor drawbacks to APS-C and go digital for not a lot more. If you want to go digital full frame, you'd better have deep pockets.

~~~

On an aside, yeah digital files are huge. But weight? I would consider myself an amateur/landscape/street photographer, and almost always have my Spot with me. With the 50mm lens, it weighs 1.03kg but it never seems that heavy, even when I'm out most of the day.

Last edited by drewdlephone; 01-03-2009 at 01:18 AM.
01-03-2009, 01:21 AM   #4
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 261
Oh yeah, and my initial response to this post was going to be: not this shit again!

But I was bored, as it's late, and my camera is being CLA'd. So you get my ramblings instead.

01-03-2009, 01:35 AM   #5
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,783
It is really the size and weight that would prevent me from buying one. However, photographers tend to worry about image quality and FF can allow the flexibility to use ISO 1600 without too much concern about noise.

The noise thing is probably the reason why I see rangefinder M8 users tend to convert their images to black and white... Maybe they are just naturally B+W shooters but I think noise is a major concern for them. After all, B+W photographer a lot tougher than colour photography. I did see some sad trend happening ...
01-03-2009, 01:38 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
I'm loaded down with Takumars and otherwise FF-capable lenses.....if they come out with a FF digital body I'm good to go. I haven't bought into the APS-C optimized lenses.

I was out enjoying some full frame shooting today.....with a Spotmatic ESII and SMC Takumar 50/1.4 that I bought for fifty bucks. It didn't seem particularly heavy to me, I'll scan them in at about 14 megapixels, and I had a very enjoyable afternoon.

And in my right coat pocket I had a full frame Konica Flashmatic 35mm rangefinder ($40). And in my left coat pocket I had a full frame Mamiya Six Model V medium format rangefinder ($60). That one I'll scan in at about 24 megapixels.

I had lots of fun, and $150 is much more appealing to me than $5000+.
01-03-2009, 01:40 AM   #7
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
With all the fanfare over FF, and the somewhat incessant calls for Pentax to "step up", I figured maybe it was time to ponder the reasons *not* to build or buy FF.

In no particular order, and of course needs/wants vary depending on shooting style, budget, etc.

1. huge files
My hard drives are already moaning in agony, and I often have to toss stuff on my laptop just so I can download a shooting session. While hard drives are cheap and big, it still is a pita wrt archiving, organizing libraries, etc.

2. size/weight
If you carry your setup around a lot, and especially if you're a "street shooter" (loosely defined), a FF setup can be a little brutal. For instance, a K20d is 798g, an a900 is 939g. A Zeiss 24-70 is 995g vs. 565g for a 16-50*. And if you like to shoot ltd primes, it is a massive difference. All of the FF setups are also larger and more obtrusive.

3. cost
One issue that is starting to pop up with FF is deficiencies in the glass. Lenses optimized for APS of course vignette like mad, but even proper FF glass can look less-than-stellar with the higher resolution. Of course there is no free lunch, but if you want to look good, you'll have to pay $$$.

Even with just those three, there is a pretty strong argument for continuing to build and develop the APS platform. It isn't clear how much economies of scale are going to come into play, or at least how long it will take for them to kick in.

Feel free to add or disagree. Like anyone needs permission...
Of course everything you say is true, but that wont stop half the people on this forum insisting they need one anyway so that they dont lose posing rights in the camera club car park.

If I was a wedding photographer I would probably get a D700 too. The flash system would make it a no-brainer and the low light ISO is just icing. What made me laugh though were all the D300 owners who traded up (Nikon competing with themselves) and then complained that the IQ wasnt any better. Doh!

But the main issue with Pentax is unlike Nikon and Canon and Sony they dont have enough engineers to build the top end FF camera AND enough APS models to satisfy the meat of the market. The D300 still sells 3X as many as the D700, and the D90 several times more. The D60 and D40 between them account for 20% of the whole market and the 450D about 30%!

95% of the market is non-FF, even at current pricing, and is likely to remain so in the current economic downturn. If you only have enough staff to develop a three model range, then the $400, $700 and $1000 price range is where the meat of the market is. By focusing exclusively on this range, and building lenses specifically designed to maximise the performance at this price range and format, Pentax are actually providing better bang for the $ than anyone else for the largest potential user base.

OK. But what about the argument that Pentax need a professional flagship. Well actually, thats not exactly true. What Pentax actually needs is professional endorsement. So, do they do that by building an FF camera?

Well who would buy it (apart from Ben?) There a not enough new FF lenses or rental support to satisfy pros or news agencies even if they give them away, so no help there.

The 645 may help. This would appeal to a more rarified class of pro, who are currently shooting MF film or using a Mamiya or Hassy. Pentax do know this market and there is a niche there, but its a high risk game even if they only commit to a limited production run. Still, its likely to cost less and use less resources than an all new FF SLR (MF cameras dont need lightening fast tracking AF and 6FPS) but they will only do it if they can sell them all at a profit or the embarassment would be too great.

But there is another way. Many pro's I know use more than one system. They dont take their Mamiyas or D3s on holiday or to their kids parties, but they do take a camera. A compact but full featured, sealed camera with compact prime or sealed zoom lenses would have a lot of appeal. They could easily supply a few pros (without asking for exclusive use in their professional capacity) to endorse the cameras appeal as a street or travel camera good ENOUGH for discerning pro's on holiday doing what most amateur camera buyers ACTUALLY do every day.

01-03-2009, 06:14 AM   #8
Forum Member
UltraWide's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 61
drewdlephone wrote

"Film: $7/roll + $4 processing X 30 rolls X 2 years: $660"

I have had my k10D for just over 2 years. In that time I have recorded just about 12,000 exposures. Based on your numbers that equates to approx 330 rolls of dilm @ $11 per roll. More like $3,660.

Narrows the gap a bit.
01-03-2009, 07:35 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
QuoteOriginally posted by UltraWide Quote
drewdlephone wrote

"Film: $7/roll + $4 processing X 30 rolls X 2 years: $660"

I have had my k10D for just over 2 years. In that time I have recorded just about 12,000 exposures. Based on your numbers that equates to approx 330 rolls of dilm @ $11 per roll. More like $3,660.

Narrows the gap a bit.
Sort of apples and oranges. I can go out and shoot a roll of 36 exp. and come home with maybe 20 photos I will decide worth showing anybody. Or I can go out and shoot 200 digital shots.....and come home with maybe 20 photos I will decide are worth showing anybody.

And maybe have 1 or 2 what I would consider "good" ones out of either batch.
01-03-2009, 08:04 AM   #10
Veteran Member
Finn's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Phoenix
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,056
Don't forget depth of field. Bigger sensor = longer lenses = narrower DOF...

Of course, for portraiture that is perhaps one of the benefits.

And what I wouldn't give for a FF pentaprism to look through.
01-03-2009, 08:29 AM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,169
QuoteOriginally posted by drewdlephone Quote
Here's a breakdown of my system vs a FF digital setup:

Spotmatic F (I inherited mine, but market value in good shape): $200
SMC Takumar 50/1.4: $70
Epson V700 film/flatbed scanner: $550
Negative storage boxes: $20
Film: $7/roll + $4 processing X 30 rolls X 2 years: $660
Total: $1500

Canon 5D Mark II: $3200
Canon 50mm 1.2 L: $1600
Drobo automated backup: $350
Two 1Gb Drives (results in redundant 1Gb storage in Drobo): $400
Total: $5,500
Can I jump in? This is what I did for FF...

Canon 1Ds Mark II: $2000
Canon 50mm 1.4: $225
External 1TB drive x 2: $250 (I throw away everything but good shots so prune probably 3/4 of my stuff. Nice to be able to do this since it's easier than cutting frames off a negative strip!)
Total: $2925

I already had a computer obviously. Also, I am on target to shoot around 8,000 frames this year (and no, I don't just blast away blindly, I just shoot a LOT) so that'd be 222 rolls of film at say $8/roll processed which makes the number a little closer.

Now if you want to make a big difference, price out a used 5D + 50/1.4 and you're looking at around $1300-1400 for the camera+lens which is a friggin' bargain compared to what FF used to cost. And file size depends on resolution rather than sensor size, so they don't have to be larger.

Cheapest FF setup I have though is probably the free Fujica rangefinder I got!
01-03-2009, 09:29 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,748
I never understand the file size problems, just buy an external drive for like $100 .. peanuts.

The size and weight are a killer though, even if they get the camera smaller the lenses are huge and heavy. FF 28-70 ish f/2.8 FF lenses are nudging 1kg!! Sweet jesus. Of course the f/4 lenses are much smaller but ... well you just lost that stop of ISO performance didn't you.

QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
With all the fanfare over FF, and the somewhat incessant calls for Pentax to "step up", I figured maybe it was time to ponder the reasons *not* to build or buy FF.

In no particular order, and of course needs/wants vary depending on shooting style, budget, etc.

1. huge files
My hard drives are already moaning in agony, and I often have to toss stuff on my laptop just so I can download a shooting session. While hard drives are cheap and big, it still is a pita wrt archiving, organizing libraries, etc.

2. size/weight
If you carry your setup around a lot, and especially if you're a "street shooter" (loosely defined), a FF setup can be a little brutal. For instance, a K20d is 798g, an a900 is 939g. A Zeiss 24-70 is 995g vs. 565g for a 16-50*. And if you like to shoot ltd primes, it is a massive difference. All of the FF setups are also larger and more obtrusive.

3. cost
One issue that is starting to pop up with FF is deficiencies in the glass. Lenses optimized for APS of course vignette like mad, but even proper FF glass can look less-than-stellar with the higher resolution. Of course there is no free lunch, but if you want to look good, you'll have to pay $$$.

Even with just those three, there is a pretty strong argument for continuing to build and develop the APS platform. It isn't clear how much economies of scale are going to come into play, or at least how long it will take for them to kick in.

Feel free to add or disagree. Like anyone needs permission...
01-03-2009, 09:36 AM   #13
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,972
I personally could care less about a FF sensor. Now...a larger viewfinder, YES!

c[_]
01-03-2009, 09:47 AM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote

But there is another way. Many pro's I know use more than one system. They dont take their Mamiyas or D3s on holiday or to their kids parties, but they do take a camera. A compact but full featured, sealed camera with compact prime or sealed zoom lenses would have a lot of appeal. They could easily supply a few pros (without asking for exclusive use in their professional capacity) to endorse the cameras appeal as a street or travel camera good ENOUGH for discerning pro's on holiday doing what most amateur camera buyers ACTUALLY do every day.
Olympus sold a few XA's that way.
01-03-2009, 10:25 AM   #15
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Wales
Posts: 266
I don't really understand the fuss about FF? Can someone show me a picture that I couldn't take with my K10D that will help me understand? (assuming I was capable of course! ).

Maybe when I'm more experienced I will hanker after one ...
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!
aps, camera, course, drives, ff, glass, photography, reasons, setup
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reasons to keep your P&S yusuf General Talk 17 05-17-2010 02:31 PM
K200D in Top 25 & K-7 out of Top 25 at Amazon Samsungian Pentax News and Rumors 8 10-20-2009 07:06 AM
Reasons? flockofbirds Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 14 09-05-2009 02:31 PM
Top 15 Reasons You Might Be Obsessed with Photography jgredline General Talk 29 02-15-2009 04:55 PM
9 Reasons To Manual Focus duron Photographic Technique 12 12-08-2008 02:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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