Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-02-2011, 07:04 PM   #16
Pentaxian
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 1,736
QuoteOriginally posted by pop4 Quote
If you NEED full frame, then your options are limited to Canon or Nikon.
or Sony

02-03-2011, 11:31 AM   #17
Junior Member
oppositz's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Camillus, NY
Posts: 39
Original Poster
Thanks for all the responses.

I can't stress just how much I love my Pentax. I've used a friends Canon 5dMk2 and 20d and neither has intuitive user interface of even my older K10D. Nikon seems a little better. It's like the difference between OS-X and Windows. OS-X is elegant, windows is... (well that's a discussion for somewhere else)

I use my camera for aerial photography, ground and air to air. My partner and I are building a business. The camera is also used almost every day for my own personal use. It is always with me hiking so weight and size needs to be considered. For that matter in the plane too.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking to fit into the crowds Canon/Nikon. I like being different.
Example: Prefer flying gliders instead of airplanes (though bought airplane too last year); Sail not power boats; ride recumbent bike, snowshoe; made living with Windows but now only use Mac, and own a Pentax...

I feel there is a pressure around me to go Full Frame for the image quality and DOF.

Perhaps the wiser decision might be to stick with Pentax. We will see. Must go play with camera now...
02-03-2011, 11:36 AM   #18
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by bobmaxja Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by pop4 Quote
If you NEED full frame, then your options are limited to Canon or Nikon.
or Sony
Or a 135/FF film SLR. Even Pentax! And they're cheap!

But for usable FF digital, especially for lens people, I hate to say it, but Nikon really isn't an option. Buy Nikon, and you're limited to Nikon-mount lenses, and their less costly lenses don't seem to have the greatest reputation. Canon and Sony-Alpha can mount Leica-R, Nikon, C/Y, OM, PK, Exakta, Topcon, others. Nikon can't. Canon is in a position to vampirize the used lens trade. Bother.
02-03-2011, 12:05 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by oppositz Quote
Thanks for all the responses.
I feel there is a pressure around me to go Full Frame for the image quality and DOF.
I am not sure you are looking at this right. For your stated business of areal photography.

DOF for any focal length, enlarged to the same image size shot from the same distance, is the same regardless of sensor format.

as for image quality, the same holds true, in many instances ASP-C sensors have more resolution than Full Frame, again using the same lens from the same distance and the same image size on sensor.

The main reasons people go full frame is to go to a lower resolution sensor (bigger individual light sensors) that are less prone to noise than the smaller sensors of an ASP-C format at the same pixel count.

As for DOF issues these are not for areal photography where you should be stopped down to ensure that everything is sharp, but mostly modelling and abstract photography shot at close range where people want really shallow DOF and this is best achieved with a full frame sensor.

It seems like the arguments you are using for theneed to go full frame do not fit the intended use.

02-03-2011, 01:04 PM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
That car is a 1966 ford fairlane 500 convertible. It was the 956th 1966 ford off the production line. Built in St Louis if I remember correctly I bought it from my cub scout den mother in the late 1970's

I sold it about 6 years later but it is still on the road today

I replaced the stock 289 with a 351 4bbl

Yeah it was a lot of fun
Nice! I've always liked the 1960s cars. My uncle had one if I remember correctly but it wasn't a convertible. Couldn't tell you much about it other than it was that LTD Green Ford used for years.

02-03-2011, 02:49 PM   #21
Junior Member
oppositz's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Camillus, NY
Posts: 39
Original Poster
Lowell, You are absolutely correct about DOF. And yes At 1000' it isn't an issue. Aerial photography is only a small portion of my camera use.

With a FF I can substitute my 30 /1.4 with a 50 /1.4 giving me about the same FOV but narrower DOF.

Low noise is a big issue as I love to shoot indoor family gatherings handheld without flash. With my K10 I can't go past ISO400 without noise being an problem. Thank heavens for the shake reduction!

Perhaps I've been making too big an issue and getting to obsessed about going to FF. The K-5 will solve my noise problems.

That is why I put this message out there. Advice from those more experienced and knowledgeable is greatly appreciated.
02-03-2011, 03:35 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Var, South of France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,071
Sure, the K5 will handle your indoor family gathering quite well...
I shot some pics tonight, my 4yr son kissing my wife's pregnant belly, and haven't really thought about the light levels, as a quick look to the instant review revealed no real noise problems (at least to me), even when zoomed in... A little grainy, but still easily fitting a 8x12, IMO... And I shoot RAW, so I'm confident I'll be able to get rid of troublesome noise in PP, if needed...

It was not until afterwards, while reviewing the shots, that I saw that all the pics were taken somewhere between 3200 and 6400 iso...
02-04-2011, 01:06 AM   #23
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I am not sure you are looking at this right. For your stated business of areal photography.
I agree with all of Lowell's comments. And besides resolution and DOF, the other argument for FF is wideness, but that benefit is diminished by the availability of APS-C ultrawide lenses. For aerial photography, FF really hasn't much advantage over APS-C. And an APS-C kit will weigh a bit less.

If seriously concerned with resolution, go whole-hog and get a 645D system. If that is a budget killer, get a Bronica or other MF film system, and a film scanner. My US$20 6x9cm folder will handily beat the resolution of any digital system costing tens of thousands of bucks / euros / pounds / kilo-yen / whatever.

02-04-2011, 03:22 AM   #24
Veteran Member
blende8's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bremen, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,495
Maybe we will see a FF mirrorless camera in the near future.
I don't expect Pentax doing this.
But perhaps Nikon? There are rumors of a "professional" mirrorless system from Nikon. Perhaps a FF one? Here Pentax lenses possibly fit with an adapter?
Nevertheless I am still curious what mirrorless system Pentax is coming up with. I mean the real one, not the "Kenko" one.
02-04-2011, 04:16 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 484
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I am not sure you are looking at this right. For your stated business of areal photography.

DOF for any focal length, enlarged to the same image size shot from the same distance, is the same regardless of sensor format.
While this is true in theory, I think it's important to point out that in practice it doesn't work that way because equivalent lenses are not available. For instance, to have equivalent field of view and depth of field on APS-C as a 70-200mm f/2.8 on full frame you would need something like a 50-135mm f/1.8.

QuoteOriginally posted by oppositz:
Low noise is a big issue as I love to shoot indoor family gatherings handheld without flash. With my K10 I can't go past ISO400 without noise being an problem. Thank heavens for the shake reduction!
As someone who recently bought a K-r to complement my K10D, I can tell you that the new APS-C sensors will completely change your perspective in this regard. The K-r is approximately 3 stops better, I'm not afraid to shoot 3200-6400 with this camera. The K-5 is supposedly even better!
02-04-2011, 09:02 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 834
QuoteOriginally posted by pop4 Quote
If you NEED full frame, then your options are limited to Canon or Nikon.
Or Sony.

DSLR-A850 (DSLRA850) : Overview : Cameras & camcorders : Sony
02-04-2011, 11:51 AM   #27
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
QuoteOriginally posted by oppositz Quote
Lowell, You are absolutely correct about DOF. And yes At 1000' it isn't an issue. Aerial photography is only a small portion of my camera use.

With a FF I can substitute my 30 /1.4 with a 50 /1.4 giving me about the same FOV but narrower DOF.

Low noise is a big issue as I love to shoot indoor family gatherings handheld without flash. With my K10 I can't go past ISO400 without noise being an problem. Thank heavens for the shake reduction!

Perhaps I've been making too big an issue and getting to obsessed about going to FF. The K-5 will solve my noise problems.

That is why I put this message out there. Advice from those more experienced and knowledgeable is greatly appreciated.
It's true that a large number of professionals are using FF gear for their work (see McNally, Kelby, Jarvis, etc.), but go look through some of the posts by guys like Kirk Tuck ("Visual Science Lab" blog) and what he thinks about gear obsessions, or Bob Krist (Nat Geo shooter) and why he uses a D7000 and consumer zooms for his paid work. There are definitely pros who don't make their living with FF. It may not be necessary for you.
02-04-2011, 12:56 PM   #28
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Before we criticize Pentax for bad market decisions, we ought to consider that post on DPR and i believe here as well, that reported Canon (more) and Nikon (less) lost market share in 2010 and Pentax gained market share (still small however). Apparently FF is no guarantee of increased market share.

In this screwed up global market situation, i think Pentax did pretty well (i'm trying to disregard the rainbow colored pink Kr however )
02-04-2011, 03:51 PM   #29
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
One thing to consider in all of this argument FF bs ASP-C is the difference between NEED and PERCEIVED NEED

Oppositz stated he needed FF for his business which appeared to be for arial use. When that was challenged he restated his need for studio and portraits

While I could be wrong, it almost seems like people throw out reasons that they think justify FF and keep throwing them out there as each one is successively knocked down
02-04-2011, 06:24 PM   #30
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
While I could be wrong, it almost seems like people throw out reasons that they think justify FF and keep throwing them out there as each one is successively knocked down
You mean as in, Homo sapiens is a rationalizing (not rational) animal? Oh yeah!

I've learned not to try rationalizing too much. "Honey, I *need* that Nokton! It's so fast!" just doesn't work anymore. Since I'm not in business, there's no need, only desire, no matter what spin (rationalization) I try to apply. "But I need the DOF! It's so thin!" So use a 135/2.5. "But I need the low-light capability! Nothing else will do!" So use flash or tripod. "But I need the resolution! Not enough megapickles!" So shoot at ISO 100, duh. Or use the ZX-M. "But I need the wideness!" Not after getting a 10-24, nope. "But I need that FF body -- I feel emasculated with only this K20D!" So snort some Viagara. Whatever.

If I *could* rationalize my way into a FF body, which would it be? My cheap sub to PopPhoto just started and I leaf through the section THE GUIDE * CAMERAS and I see exactly two (2) FF's with in-body stabilization: Sony A900 (US$2.7k) and A850 (US$2k). Since I'm not in business, I'll have to rob a few minimarts to get cash for either. All the rationalization in the world won't bump my budget. Bother.
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!
camera, dslr, ff, frame, k-5, nikon, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
The almost full frame Pentax? denisv Photographic Technique 44 01-19-2009 04:01 AM
New Pentax k18D - Full Frame ebooks4pentax Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 10-31-2007 05:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:53 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