[kenyee]

woodworm: FF gives you more DOF and you also maximize usage of existing glass which was built for FF (and you get better high ISO from the bigger photosites). Those are pretty much the main advantages. Most people don't need them except for perhaps wedding photogs.

One main reason to stay APS-C is bird/sport shooters like the "extra" reach of crop formats. For that reason alone, there will always be APS-C unless someone makes an inexpensive FF sensor w/ the same pixel density as APS-C (which can't physically be possible because more sensor surface area = more cost)...

[Indianadinos]

Hello,

My reasons for going FF:

1. A 24mm will behave as a ... 24mm, and not as a 36mm (yes, i use wideangle lenses more than my teles, as i no longer attend F1 GPs as i did before)

2. A f/1.4 lens will have the DOF of a f/1.4 lens when used wide open, and not the DOF of an f/2.8 lens (yes, i like to control the DOF when taking a picture, and when i use f/2 is that because i want the DOF of f/2, not f/4)

3. A bigger sensor, with bigger sensitive elements, will allow higher ISO speeds without too much noise.

4. An FF DSLR will, IMHO, weight no more than my old (now stolen) Canon F1. Moreover, the weight of the body was one of the reasons i bought a K10D ...

5. The size of the image files doesn't really scare me, due to the cost of today's HD (less than 100 euros for a 1TB Samsung SATA drive, to store about 40K pictures at 25Mb/each) ...

6. Pentax and third-parties (Zeiss, Voigtlander, Tamron, ...) have a lot of FF capable lenses ... Moreover, it seems that, as reported by other users, even some of the DA lenses work well on an FF camera (i suppose they did their tests on film Pentax cameras) ...

The only advantage i can see for APS-C over FF is the quality of the details you can reach when shooting macro ...

But, of course, these are my opinions and i'm sure that there will be a lot of other people around able to show me that i'm wrong ...

Best wishes for an happy new year to everyone.
With a little bit of luck, there will be an FF Pentax and, maybe, a 105 Limited ...

[nostatic]

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.

There is more to the file size issue than just buying another HD. It depends on your workflow, but I primarily use my Macbook Pro, and often am somewhat mobile. I can carry a travel drive with me (and have about 4 of them from various time periods), but then files are starting to get strewn all over the place. Sure, in a perfect world I'd actually properly consolidate my Aperture libraries, but that doesn't always happen.

The other issue is that many apps will write their scratch files to disk (like Photoshop). That means that you're having to deal with that much more data when manipulating images. If you're on a current machine maxed out with ram and a fast HD, not so much of a problem. If you're on any kind of older machine it can be an issue. Not a deal breaker for me, but could be for some.

Totally agree on the size/weight. If you're lugging around tripod, lights, etc then it isn't a big deal...just another couple of pounds. If you're street shooting or doing candids for hours on end...misery.

[Ratmagiclady]

I really have to question how many pixel-peepers are *actually* maxing out a good film-lens' resolution under any sort of real-world circumstances, anyway.

I think with the FF issue, it's simple. If I were a wide angle fan, I'd be screaming for it. Since I'm not, I don't much care. As it is, the only thing bothersome in this regard is that you can't have a forgettably-light wide lens of reasonable speed for utilitarian tasks. (Yes, I'd like a *nice* significantly-wide lens, but, I'm not going to carry it a lot, especially if it's twice the size and four times the price of a film equivalent. (As it stands, though, I'd be happy enough with a DA 21: it's even *nice* ...which would be cool for occasions I do want wide-for-real) it's just way down the priority list.

But, hey, for me, if I got a full-frame, I'd only be needing to drop thirteen hundred on a fastish 85.

Actually, a cropped sensor means I can be carrying longer and faster lenses than I'm of a habit to do. And that could be fun. All of a sudden I can be toting something like a 200 2.5 on the street, just by putting one of those old consumer 135s on. This could be fun.

Which for me is a bit of a taste of what maybe digital in general needs to do to be more than an ersatz substitute for film to me: can I do something I couldn't really do before. I gotta buy glass anyway.

[*isteve]

woodworm: FF gives you more DOF and you also maximize usage of existing glass which was built for FF (and you get better high ISO from the bigger photosites). Those are pretty much the main advantages. Most people don't need them except for perhaps wedding photogs.

Not quite...

FF gives you LESS DOF at the same aperture and field of view (eg a 75mm lens on FF at F4 has the same DOF as a 50mm lens on APS at F2.8). This is fine for portrait and wedding shooters who like blurry backgrounds but not so good for landscape shooters.

One main reason to stay APS-C is bird/sport shooters like the "extra" reach of crop formats. For that reason alone, there will always be APS-C unless someone makes an inexpensive FF sensor w/ the same pixel density as APS-C (which can't physically be possible because more sensor surface area = more cost)...

Well if you like shooting any action in lowish light (the SR is no use for freezing action) then there is no real substitute for a nice low noise, low res (eg 12MP) FF sensor to increase ISO and therefore shutter speed. This is why PJs, sports and wildlife photogs love D3s and D700s despite the reach issues. You just have to carry heavier gear.

[alexeyga]

Guys, you can yap as much as you want about whether FF is needed or not... problems is, it is not folks like us who decides... nor the engineering... but the damn Marketing department!!! And if on today's market all big players are pushing FF and all big-wallet shoppers are opting for FF... sorry fellas, but even Pentax will have to coop with that... Perhaps not today, not even tomorrow... maybe cropped sensors will still lead the mainstream market for a few more years, but eventually, as FF is getting cheaper to produce, cropped sensors will fall into "ultra-low"-end category and, perhaps, hardcore-telephoto...

So, what the noise is all about?

[drewdlephone]

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.

Point taken. I suppose I could have mentioned, for reference, that I also have a K200D, and my shooting habits are much different depending on the equipment used. When I go out with my film camera, I can take two or three rolls in a day, but then the camera sits unused for two weeks, and then things balance themselves out. Or I might only go out and shoot half a roll. You're not as liberated to just fire away indefinitely with film, which is how I've started to shoot with my digital. Think more, shoot less. More frames don't guarantee more good ones. Of course, this also varies depending on what you shoot.

So that turns my film cost into $4500. It's still cheaper than the digital option.

[Indianadinos]

Hello,

Guys, you can yap as much as you want about whether FF is needed or not... problems is, it is not folks like us who decides... nor the engineering... but the damn Marketing department!!! And if on today's market all big players are pushing FF and all big-wallet shoppers are opting for FF... sorry fellas, but even Pentax will have to coop with that... Perhaps not today, not even tomorrow... maybe cropped sensors will still lead the mainstream market for a few more years, but eventually, as FF is getting cheaper to produce, cropped sensors will fall into "ultra-low"-end category and, perhaps, hardcore-telephoto...

So, what the noise is all about?

This is already happening, today there are some mobile phones with embedded 5-8 MP cameras ... I'm not sure about the size of their sensors, although i'm sure that they are smaller than APS-C ones, but my feelings (hopes ?) are that the FF sensor evolution will push the limits/performances of APS-C sensors, exactly as F1 sport cars have done with more "consumer-friendly" cars ...

Best regards

[augustmoon]

How long has the DA*30 and DA*55 been on the roadmap already? and then if Pentax went FF, new line of consumer and * and Ltd. lenses would be needed to truly land a decent market share in the FF market, without bankrupting Pentax or Hoya or whomever...

Whatever benefits of going FF Pentax (higher ISO and signal to noise ratio, more resolution, thinner DOF, etc..) doesn't seem to be worth the wait for and cost of new pentax FF lenses to complete the set (at least, again, I say, in order for it to be worthwhile to Pentax or even myself)

Now, whatever benefits to be gained from going FF, would seem to be gained even more so gained in going to a digital medium format (645d) there seems to be already lenses available and new ones (with better coatings for digital) wouldn't seem to be a long of a wait or as expensive of R&D and final price as a new set for 35mm... Pentax already has fierce competition from Sony, Canon and Nikon (their big competition in APS-C as well) in the FF market, seems like Pentax is a day late and a dollar short to make it work. Now with Digital Medium format, that would mean no competition from Nikon or Canon or Sony, and then maybe Pentax can break free from that vicious circle, then their competition would be Mamiya/Sinar, Leaf, Hasselblad, and it would seem Pentax could issue (even with R&D) a decent digital medium format camera , in a simpler, smaller form factor that would sell for cheaper than their competition, and that might even help boost Pentax market share overall and infuse some financial health into their line that could benefit the APS-C lineup????

???

Brian

[cputeq]

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...

A few comments:

1) You're assuming FF has to equal large files. It doesn't. I had the D700 for a short while and guess what? RAW file sizes are exactly the same size as the D300, around 14MB or so.

2) Yes, I agree on 2. If size/weight are your concerns, a FF camera isn't for you.

3) Cost, yes, is a factor. But, they're worth every penny.


--------------
--------------


Most people seem to think that FF and crops can't coexist -- this is completely wrong. Many FF users also have a crop camera, because they're good for different reasons.

Pentax's "problem", if you want to call it that, is that they offer zero..nada, zilch FF options.


Full frame, when done right, is amazing. The complete lack of noise on the D700 was incredible -- the only, ONLY reason I returned the camera back to Amazon -- I'm a birder / wildlife guy mostly and I needed the crop 1.5x multiplier, as I'm way too poor to afford a 600mm F/4. I can get to 630mm f/5.6 effective for around $2300 (D90, 300mm F/4 and 1.4x TC) for the same price as the D700 body alone.

Were I primarily a street shooter, wedding photog, or wide angle guy, I would have held onto the D700 until it had literally fallen apart. The low light ISO performance is incredible. The AF system is outstanding. The flash options and control are awesome. The IQ is outstanding.


GOOD lighting -- Yes, the difference between a D700 and D300 is almost zilch.
Turn down the lights, though, and the D700 completely obliterates it, by around 1.5 stops or more, which is huge.

[ftpaddict]

Quit hiding behind your finger. There's no use to think up reasons not to go 36x24. It will come sooner or later. And you'll all love and adore the camera like it was the best thing since sliced bread.

[SpecialK]

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

Only 30 rolls a year? Either you are an exceptional photographer with a very high keeper rate, you are a fastidous setup man who takes hours to set up a single shot, or you don't get out much. Or all three :-)

[KungPOW]

135 or aps-c are just two different formats. That's it.

Each format has characteristics that will be a plus or a minus depending on the requirements of the photographer.

FF is neither better nor worse than APS-C. They are similar but different tools.

I would expect Can*n and Nik*n to always offer both formats in their linups. I doubt APS-C will ever go away. As long as there are photographers that need the benifits of a smaller sensor, there will be a market and the camera builders will try to meet the demand.

And I think that might be the root of the FF debate on Pentax forums. If Pentax makes their top camera FF, then it could be expected that they will not have a matching camera in APS-C. The company is just too small to offer "sister cameras" like the 50D/5Dmkii, D300/D700 or the A700/A900.

So, a FF Pentax model could easily alienate a large part of the existing user base. Maybe 50-75% of users. I'm thinking of all the existing users that have no need for FF, and all the users that would like FF but cannot justify the cost, plus all the users that are heavily invested into APS-C lenses.

So Pentax right now is in a bind. How do they meet the requirements of both camps?

[nostatic]

Quit hiding behind your finger. There's no use to think up reasons not to go 36x24. It will come sooner or later. And you'll all love and adore the camera like it was the best thing since sliced bread.

Actually there are plenty of reasons. And in fact, there are times that I reach for my small sensor camera and leave the K20d at home (and a FF camera would stay at home as well).

Not only are there physical reasons for not going 36x24, there are artistic ones as well. The various sensor sizes all have slightly different looks, especially wrt noise. Some of us like noise if it is done properly. While absolute clarity and resolution might be a benchmark, it isn't necessarily the ultimate path to art. Different tools for different tasks...

[Kerrowdown]

Does someone know something about FF coming out that I dont.