[Kerrowdown]

I don't know how many they would sell, but I can at least say I'm in for two of them.

+1, I'm up for at least a couple maybe three depending on workload.

[Rondec]

I know people argue back and forth about size advantages or lack of them, but my wife rented a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens for a wedding she was shooting. When she came back, she commented that while she liked the reach and the rapid HSM focus, she much preferred the DA *50-135 because of its relatively small size in comparison. After trying out the lens, I would have to agree. I would far rather that Pentax put in the effort to update SDM to something faster in the 50-135 than gave me a bigger camera body to stick a 70-200 f2.8 lens on.

Before people starting arguing that I should compare the 50-135 to a 70-200 f4, I buy lenses based on angle of view and light gathering ability, not based on depth of field.

[Class A]

Before people starting arguing that I should compare the 50-135 to a 70-200 f4, I buy lenses based on angle of view and light gathering ability, not based on depth of field.

These two properties are intrinsically linked. Less DOF is created by more light. You cannot have a brighter lens without losing DOF.

The comparison you have alluded to would be the correct one to make.

[Blue]

I know people argue back and forth about size advantages or lack of them, but my wife rented a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens for a wedding she was shooting. When she came back, she commented that while she liked the reach and the rapid HSM focus, she much preferred the DA *50-135 because of its relatively small size in comparison. After trying out the lens, I would have to agree. I would far rather that Pentax put in the effort to update SDM to something faster in the 50-135 than gave me a bigger camera body to stick a 70-200 f2.8 lens on.

Before people starting arguing that I should compare the 50-135 to a 70-200 f4, I buy lenses based on angle of view and light gathering ability, not based on depth of field.

Angle of view and light gathering ability is why a ff sensor interests me . . . plus, If you haven't figured it out, many of us think that IF pentax puts out a ff body, it will be smaller than the ones put out by Canon for the Lemming folks.

---

Last edited by Blue; 08-07-2011 at 06:44 PM.

[Blue]

You realize the 5DII already has HD video right? Nikon will probably release a professional sports camera that does not have HD video capability. Network contracts with the NFL (ans other sporting events) don't allow photographers to have HD capable cameras on the sidelines. All video rights belong to the TV networks or the NFL. This is one reason sports has been a big area of growth for Nikon. AF of course being the other.

I think Kodak is a dying company. I don't see them making it 5 more years. We will see what Ricoh does, but I still don't see a FF from Pentax in the near future. If a FF is in the cards it will have a Sony sensor.

You may be right about Kodak going under or away as we know them. However, Pentax will have to get the 645 sensors from another source if that is the case. However, I can see someone buying the sensor unit from Kodak. Perhaps that will be the next move for Ricoh!!!

[sjwaldron]

You realize the 5DII already has HD video right? Nikon will probably release a professional sports camera that does not have HD video capability. Network contracts with the NFL (ans other sporting events) don't allow photographers to have HD capable cameras on the sidelines. All video rights belong to the TV networks or the NFL. This is one reason sports has been a big area of growth for Nikon. AF of course being the other.

I think Kodak is a dying company. I don't see them making it 5 more years. We will see what Ricoh does, but I still don't see a FF from Pentax in the near future. If a FF is in the cards it will have a Sony sensor.

Yes, I know the 5DMKII has video. If the 5D and D700 do have direct replacements, I still don't see them being video-less. I do agree that a pro sports camera might be without video, but I'm not really thinking of that as anything on the radar of the discussion. Aren't the pro sports cameras using APS-H anyways?

[Rondec]

These two properties are intrinsically linked. Less DOF is created by more light. You cannot have a brighter lens without losing DOF.

The comparison you have alluded to would be the correct one to make.

Is this true? So, if I am shooting at 200 mm f2.8 on a full frame camera and have an adequate exposure at iso 200, when I shoot 135 mm f2.8 and iso 200 on a APS-C camera with the same shutter speed, will I then be underexposed by a stop? If so, then I am all wrong in my thinking. As I said before, I don't really care about depth of field as much as I care about proper exposure and decent shutter speeds.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 08-07-2011 at 01:38 PM.

[alohadave]

Is this true? So, if I am shooting at 200 mm f2.8 on a full frame camera and have an adequate exposure at iso 200, when I shoot 135 mm f2.8 and iso 200 on a APS-C camera with the same shutter speed, will I then be underexposed by a stop? If so, then I am all wrong in my thinking. As I said before, I don't really care about depth of field as much as I care about proper exposure and decent shutter speeds.

No, the exposures will (in theory) be the same. The aperture is a ratio and compensates for the different size of the frame and glass.

Depth of Field will appear different because of the 'crop effect' of the smaller sensor.

[Class A]

Is this true? So, if I am shooting at 200 mm f2.8 on a full frame camera and have an adequate exposure at iso 200, when I shoot 135 mm f2.8 and iso 200 on a APS-C camera with the same shutter speed, will I then be underexposed by a stop?

The APS-C equivalent parameters for a 200/2.8 @ ISO 200 on FF shot are: 133/1.9 @ ISO 89. These would produce the same images as the 200/2.8 @ ISO 200 on FF.

With 135/2.8 @ ISO 200 you'd therefore be very close to the correct exposure (only 0.05 stop difference).

Your f/2.8 on APS-C is slower than the equivalent f/1.9 (in terms of both DOF and brightness) but you are counteracting that with a higher than equivalent ISO setting.

This assumes an "equivalent image" comparison and thus identical shutter speeds.

[Winder]

People worry about equivalence WAY too much.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well I would like a full frame (for wide angle to portrait) next to an APS-C camera for portrat to telework. Use the system where it blooms the best I think.

[twitch]

Equivalence is absolutely KEY when discussing FF vs APS-C, I don't think it's possible to worry about it too much. What ClassA laid out a few posts above is the #1 reason why we should care about sensor size, and why there are so many who want Pentax to come out with a FF option.

[Rondec]

Equivalence is absolutely KEY when discussing FF vs APS-C, I don't think it's possible to worry about it too much. What ClassA laid out a few posts above is the #1 reason why we should care about sensor size, and why there are so many who want Pentax to come out with a FF option.

The reasons to want full frame are: (1) better specs (2) better viewfinder (3) better high iso and dynamic range (4) a desire for easier ability to get more narrow depth of field. Now, full frame cameras tend to have better specs, but this is not inherent to full frame, it is just as easy to spec an APS-C camera at a high level. In fact, by all accounts, the Canon 7D focuses faster than the 5D MkII.

APS-C cameras have currently passed the current crop of full frame cameras when it comes to dynamic range and have improved considerably when it comes to high iso. Sure, the next generation of full frame sensors will be better, but the question arises how good is good enough? Iso 6400 on the K5 is really decent.

So, we are left with viewfinder and ability to shoot with more narrow depth of field. Oddly, that last item seems to be the thing everyone focuses on. I understand that there are certain situations where it is crucial to have as narrow depth of field as possible. I just don't think with most every day shots a stop of depth of field makes that much difference.

[twitch]

OK I admit it, I want a FF because I own a FA31 and want to use it for 31mm/f1.8 equiv images. Before buying that lens I had no interest in FF .

[Class A]

The reasons to want full frame are: (1) better specs (2) better viewfinder (3) better high iso and dynamic range (4) a desire for easier ability to get more narrow depth of field.

Regarding (3): Sensor size does not affect high ISO capabilities. It does affect dynamic range.

You forgot that some want their lenses to have the FF-FOV again, e.g., twitch wants the 31/1.8 to be a wide-angle again. Now that lenses like the Sigma 8-16mm are available, wide-angle photography on APS-C is much less of an issue as it used to be but still some would appreciate their existing lenses to get a wider FOV.

N.B., a change to a larger sensor size need not mean "loss of reach". "Reach" as in "What magnification can I get out of my long lenses"? is defined by pixel-pitch, not by sensor size. So if a Pentax FF retained the pixel pitch of the K-5, long lenses would retain their "reach", i.e., there wouldn't be a trade-off at the long end for the advantage at the wide end. One would just crop an FF-image to APS-C dimensions and lose nothing compared to the same lens on APS-C. Such an FF-camera would have to feature 36.7MP, though.