[Asahiflex]

That's why I bought a Porst 135mm f/1.8 so I don't need FF.

Almost anything outperforms the Porst

+1

+1 if it is the only reason, but for me it's only one item on my long list of reasons to want a FF camera.

[abacus07]

I don't see why this creates so much animosity.

To me it's simple, Pentax/Ricoh needs to invest big if they are going to maintain their foothold in the entry level market that will likely become mirrorless AND bring out a full frame DSLR. I'm hoping that they make a mirrorless APSC K mount (or easily adaptable) camera. And set the bar at the high end for the mirrorless segment. If they can also launch a FF DSLR then it's great. But without good entry level sales the company is dead in the water. it won't matter if you have your FF DSLR or not because there won't be a company anymore.

[jsherman999]

Only if you shoot wide-open

No, it also extends the possibilities when you don't shoot wide-open.

For example, I usually like the DOF and subject isolation my FA 50 1.7 ltd brings at f/2, but I like the sharpness and contrast it brings at f/3.2. With my Nikon 85 1.8, I can shoot it at f/3.2 to get that sharpness and contrast while retaining the 'f/2' subject isolation.

[jsherman999]

... I personally don't like photos where the left eye is in focus and the right is out of focus, where the mother is in focus and her daughter is really soft.

And this is always the reason given for "I don't want more DOF control", the old one-eye-in-focus argument

I don't necessarily like that either. I do like greater options for subject isolation, though, like when I can get an entire body in focus from a certain distance and isolate it from it's surroundings a bit more. I think this is often what people refer to when they talk about the 'full frame look."

I think there are plenty of reasons to want a full frame camera, but to me this is the silliest one and the one that is bandied around the most.

It's not silly at all when you become accustomed to using it, but it's also not an extremely dramatic reason for wanting FF, either. But it is real, and does expand your capability a bit.


.

[rparmar]

You didn't get the point. FA limiteds are just not good enough at APS-C. They aren't sharp enough wide open and this is clearly visible.

You keep saying this in as many different threads as possible. And you are always wrong. The Limiteds are plenty sharp wide open though, like almost every lens in existence, they are better shot slightly stopped down. Thousands of postings of quality photos with them at all apertures provide ample evidence that you have a bee in your bonnet that is in no way borne out by the experience of other shooters. Please give it a rest.

[Emacs]

The first aspect you can close aperture a bit but get the same DOF as on APS-C and achieve more contrast and sharpness.
The second aspect lenses wide open are more usable on FF than on APS-C because 1.5 «magnification» on the latter makes halos (and other aberrations) more visible. The typical examples are 31Ltd and A 50 f1.2 which look soft wide open on APS-C, but they are quite sharp on FF at f1.8 and f1.2 respectively.

[rparmar]

price out what it would take to get near those FOV/DOF combos with aps-c, and FF starts to look cheap.

True, but the comparison is false because no pro actually needs apertures that fast. Lenses at f/0.95 and f/1.2 inevitably produce significantly poor images. It's only amateurs obsessed with bokeh as subject matter that want them. Pros are quite happy with f/2.8 on 35mm. And so am I. Which is why you will see, over my thousands of posts, I never call for a new APS-C lens faster than f/2. Because I do not expect anything else to have more than the tiniest niche market.

I've got two f/1.2 lenses and I cannot image needing even narrower DOF than what is already provided by these on APS-C. Care to give me a use case that requires something faster?

645D + a couple new lenses gets you up within spitting distance of $20,000, and the body doesn't have the shot-shot performance or AF module of the top-tier DSLRs. It's overkill for what we need, costs more than we're willing to pay, and is underwhelming in certain key performance metrics that are important to us. Not strange at all.

Why do you need the extra resolution and faster shot-to-shot performance? So you can print sports shots a bit larger? That must be a pressing need for a very, very tiny proportion of Pentax users. I am completely happy saying that they have bought the wrong system and should rectify this as soon as possible to make their job easier and more fun.

[Emacs]

Why do you need the extra resolution and faster shot-to-shot performance? So you can print sports shots a bit larger? That must be a pressing need for a very, very tiny proportion of Pentax users. I am completely happy saying that they have bought the wrong system and should rectify this as soon as possible to make their job easier and more fun.

Cause he doesn't need to buy another system for that, only camera.

[rparmar]

The first aspect you can close aperture a bit but get the same DOF as on APS-C and achieve more contrast and sharpness.

Thank you for responding with specific details. I admit you are correct here but the same goes for even larger sensors. Shooting medium format one can pretty well forget about obsessing over lenses because they all look good. And proper photographic technique matters so much more anyway.

For what it's worth I get plenty of contrast wide open (on APS-C) and can coax so much out of the RAW files it's just silly. This is one of those theoretical differences that makes no difference to real photography. (I would not say this about a lot of cruddier older lenses, but we are talking FA Limiteds here.)

The second aspect lenses wide open are more usable on FF than on APS-C because 1.5 «magnification» on the latter makes halos (and other aberrations) more visible. The typical examples are 31Ltd and A 50 f1.2 which look soft wide open on APS-C, but they are quite sharp on FF at f1.8 and f1.2 respectively.

Do you have some comparison photos? Certainly the 50/1.2 is soft and aberration-filled wide open, but I have seen the same with film shots. (Isn't that why people use it? For "character"?) I don't have the FA31 but the FA43 is decent wide open despite the test figures that show very poor sharpness at the borders. All depends on how you use it. (I have a thread demonstrating this somewhere on this forum.)

A far more valid criticism is that the FA77 (worst offender of the three) fringes horribly on specular subjects. But all this means is that our lenses aren't perfect and we have to work with them. I don't think a 35mm sensor is a cure-all. But I await correction by way of solid and consistent photographic evidence. In the meantime I offer up the FA Limited thread on this very forum as ample evidence that a half-way decent photographer in no way needs a 35mm sensor to make lovely photos.

In the meantime I will stop posting since I am likely giving the impression a larger sensor would be a bad idea. Whereas in truth I believe the larger the sensor the better! I simply refuse to see 35mm as a magic wand. And on the pragmatic side, I can't imagine a company that makes disposable money-grab items like the GXR and Q caring to go that route.

[rparmar]

Cause he doesn't need to buy another system for that, only camera.

This is tantamount to saying that every system should be ideal for every task. Sorry, no. My advice remains to sell the Pentax system and lenses and put the money towards more suitable hardware. By saying this consistently I have saved anyone who has listened five years of waiting for a system that Pentax have never said they would deliver and which, in fact, they never have delivered.

[Emacs]

Do you have some comparison photos? Certainly the 50/1.2 is soft and aberration-filled wide open, but I have seen the same with film shots. (Isn't that why people use it? For "character"?)

I don't have access to the website with 31Ltd wide open shots taken with 5d mk II right now, it's on the maintenance.

Here is some shots with K 50 f1.2 on film: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1622566-post957.html.
It's usually soft because it's damn hard to focus properly with it.

BTW, when I'm talking about "lenses are more usable wide open on FF" I don't mean e.g. 31Ltd becomes sharper on FF sensor. I only mean two things:
1) The shot taken with 31Ltd on FF would look sharper (at the center at least) because the 31Ltd APS-C image fitted (and thus decreased in size) into the area. As we know, smaller shots looks sharper. So the 31Ltd would look more appropriate on FF.
2) It's pointless to compare 31Ltd on FF vs 31Ltd on APS-C. We should compare 31Ltd on FF vs 21mm lens on APS-C. The 31Ltd looks preferable due to higher magnification ratio here.

[rparmar]

Here is some shots with K 50 f1.2 on film: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1622566-post957.html.
It's usually soft because it's damn hard to focus properly with it.

Nice shots! They don't look ultimately sharp, but that's by no means necessary. OOF areas always look so nice with this lens.

2) It's pointless to compare 31Ltd on FF vs 31Ltd on APS-C. We should compare 31Ltd on FF vs 21mm lens on APS-C.

But that is precisely the argument you and others made in support of full-frame. E.g. that the FA31 will look better on the sensor size it was designed for. So now I'm rather confused!

[Macario]

yep, and it might look crap at the borders, as it wasn't designed for sensors, but for emulsion.
So you might want to use your 31ltd on FF as it was intented to be used, but you might be ending up cropping anyway because the borders aree not good. (maybe they will be good stopped down, but then you can't use it wide open anyway)

[Emacs]

But that is precisely the argument you and others made in support of full-frame. E.g. that the FA31 will look better on the sensor size it was designed for. So now I'm rather confused!

I don't understand about your confusion since I found it's clear the 31mm on FF is generally better than 21mm on APS-C.

Another example:
50 f1.2 is soft on APS-C wide open
77Ltd isn't that soft on APS-C wide open
77Ltd is about the same as 50 f1.2 on FF, but will look sharper even sharper than itself on APS-C by the reason I've described above and will definitely sharper than 50 f1.2.

[Emacs]

yep, and it might look crap at the borders, as it wasn't designed for sensors, but for emulsion.
So you might want to use your 31ltd on FF as it was intented to be used, but you might be ending up cropping anyway because the borders aree not good. (maybe they will be good stopped down, but then you can't use it wide open anyway)

BS
I would be very amazed if the 43Ltd borders on FF would look worse than 31Ltd ones on APS-C.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/533-samyang14f28eosapsc?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=1

Here's measurements taken with Canon 50D and Canon 5D mk II respectively both with Samyang 14mm lenses. Show at the resolution numbers at border. They are higher on FF although pixels density of 50D is higher.


The problem (compared to APS-C) is not a resolution itself, but rather contrast between center and border resolution.