[Tonto]

Reasons I want full frame
More dynamic range - use the FA ltds how they were originally intended. - give my current lenses interesting new fields of view (a reason I am also considering m4/3s )

Also it will encourage Pentax to release new versions of original FF F/Ls like 24-80, 80-200, 85, 135 which I also enjoy on APS-C
Otherwise I will just buy their Tamron/Sigma equivalents which is more money NOT going to Pentax .

[Twarp]

Yes, it's talked to death. Why FF? 1) Thinner DOF. 2) Brighter viewfinder. 3) Lenses seem wider. 4) Fatter pixels for smoother resolution. 5) Slightly greater diffraction limit. 6) Mania.

Each time I pick up one of the oldies, preferably the MX, there is one obvious reason to think why FF has its merits: the delightfully BIG and BRIGHT FF optical viewfinder. Bottom line, this is your working area! Attempting manual focus on a dull APS-C OVF is a crime in comparison.
Switching to optimist-mode - sorry for pixelpeepers in general, but let's wait for the any-size-sensor mirrorless one with a HUGE (amoled or something) EVF;and there's your biggest advantage.

[normhead]

On tests done 5 years ago with similar sized APS-c and FF cameras, the FF camera produced a marginally clearer image.If you blow it up fso you look at each pixel, the FF was a bit clearer. You couldn't say the APs-c wasn't sharp, or lacked any detail.. but the FF looked a little crisper. Personally , I don't know where to put that. You can't print effectively at under about 120 dpi, and there were no examples to show that it made any difference to the print. The difference was so ngligible you had to have a roll over to even see it. Any norma person would have been happy with either image at 1:1 on a monitor.

As fo DoF- sometimes you want less DoF at a given F stop... sometimes you want more. Those who want full frame, because of their shooting style wnat less DoF. Myself, I've never like isolation through DoF, I think isolation accomplished with lighting looks much more natural. But others like more blur so.... they need less DoF.

Now the odd thing is that part of the reason APS-c wasn't as clear as a comparable FF was the pixel count. The technology of the day didn't allow for clean images at the pixel density of a 10Mb APS-c sensor. However there is evidence that with the new FF 36 Mp images, FF has now exceeded the same limit, creating APS-c quality images.

APS-c lenses can be lighter, because the use less material, and cheaper. For those of us who carry our lenses that's a huge advantage. There is no F4 lens like the DA*50-260 available for FF , of the same quality or near the price.

So, I would argue that the advantages to FF are largely imaginary... or if not imaginary, trade off's where you give up something to get something... for most of us the something you give up isn't worth what you get.

No one has ever on this forum, or anywhere as far as I know, posted series of pictures that that demonstrate the superiority of FF over APS-c. Feel free to point me to the place if there is. That would suggest that the difference is largely theoretical, or if you prefer imaginary. But, enough people prefer FF, I'm assuming there is something about it that makes people feel better. Be that psychological or more comfort with the very close physical characteristics. Some people just have to know their image is the absolute sharpest it could be, and don't want to lay out 9 grand for a 645.

It's hard to comprehend, for those of for whom APS-c is good enough.. I don't think it can ever really be explained. For those of us who haven't made the jump from a K20D to a K-7 or K-5, talking FF is just crazy talk. I still like (and sell) the pictures my K20D takes. Other need more, apparently.

[pinholecam]

Its called JPG

Justification Photos of Gears

Shallow and even shallower dof shots makes it easy to justify the money spent on all those lenses.
Not that shots with shallow dof are not nice though.....

I think many have cited the technical reasons above, so I won't repeat.

[Jonathan Mac]

A lot of the debate I see is simply a matter of keeping up with the Jonses. Canikon have FF, so why don't we?

I suspect that this is 90% of the reason.

I would much rather see Pentax invest fully in APS-C to develop the first system that is entirely centred around this format. If they try to maintain another system then both will suffer, and Pentax sales will plummet. APS-C is the future of large-sensor digital photography, at least until a FF sensor costs what an APS-C sensor does now, and that's a looo-o-o-ong way off.

[ducdao]

Yes, it's talked to death. Why FF? 1) Thinner DOF. 2) Brighter viewfinder. 3) Lenses seem wider. 4) Fatter pixels for smoother resolution. 5) Slightly greater diffraction limit. 6) Mania.

3) Lenses seem wider. <--- they don't seem, they are wider

[jogiba]

My 28-300mm zoom would have a wide angle 28mm like on my 35mm SLR and not a 42mm at the wide end with APS-C.

[arnie0674]

My 28-300mm zoom would have a wide angle 28mm like on my 35mm SLR and not a 42mm at the wide end with APS-C.

Yes, but your 450mm telephoto would become a 300mm.


Regardless, it would much cheaper to replace your 28-300mm with a 18-200mm (giving you the exact same effective range) than it would be to purchase a full frame camera.

[ducdao]

Yes, but your 450mm telephoto would become a 300mm.


Regardless, it would much cheaper to replace your 28-300mm with a 18-200mm (giving you the exact same effective range) than it would be to purchase a full frame camera.

You can always crop to make an 300mm image to look like an 450mm image or even more but you can't do the opposite

[JohnTaylor]

My personal view on Pentax having a FF camera falls into a few categories:

1) Curiosity- I'd like to see how the so called legendary FA limiteds would perform at their non cropped proper 35mm focal lengths, especially the 31mm f1.8.

2) Marketing and Sales-

Having a top of the line camera makes people believe you have a good product, even if it is only sold in limited numbers. It might entice buyers to want to get a foot in the door with a lower level product. Car makers do this too.

One could argue the 645 medium format camera achieves this, but I think the 645 is too unknown by the general public to be effective for this purpose.

Also, by having another higher, yet not too high, tier, social psychology research has shown a new superior product can mean more sales of an inferior one. (sorry, I am going to ramble a bit- but I've noticed how some fellow PF'ers like to blast in and tell you you're wrong, or you're wrong and an idiot so I'm going to reference my points where I can)

An example used in the 1993 California Management Review was of Williams-Sonoma- sellers of French cooking equipment in the 1940's and 1950s. At one point, a good portion of their catalogue business came from the bread maker, whose sales nearly doubled immediately after an improved, more expensive one was introduced.

Researchers found that when consumers consider a particular set of choices for a product, they tend to favour alternatives that are "compromise choices"- choices that fall betrween what they need, at a minimum, and what they could possibly spend, at a maximum. When consumers must make a decidion between two products, they often compromise by opting for the less expensive version. However, if a third product were to be offered that was more expensive than the other two choices, the compromise choice would shift from the economy priced product to the moderately priced product, which is no longer the highest priced product of the set. In this case, the introduction of the more expensive bread maker for Williams-Sonoma made the original bread maker seem like a wiser and more economical choice in comparison.

3) Personal/ Company self esteem- As many have mentioned before- bragging rights, being able to say the Pentax brand is a serious one, not just for amateurs





On a personal note, If I had to choose between Pentax producing a FF dlsr, and making more DA* lenses, I'd want more DA* ones- Pentax is really behind in more refined lenses and lens choices. Screwdrive really s**ks compared to USM or SDM (when SDM works). It should not be up to 3rd party brands like Sigma to make lenses for Pentax. Buyers of a current Pentax should not have to rely on buying FA lenses, which do not have modern features like quick shift, SDM, Weather resistance or modern sleek styling (yes, looks count)

One problem with introducing a FF camera is that Pentax does not really have any FF lenses to go with it. FA's are not options that a newbie wants to go for. I mean, if you finally got your drivers licence, you want a new car, right? Not a 30 year old Camry, even if those Camry's were reliable. And PEntax is quite slow in bringing out new lenses.

[elho_cid]

My 28-300mm zoom would have a wide angle 28mm like on my 35mm SLR and not a 42mm at the wide end with APS-C.

Your 28-300 will have so much degraded sharpness, contrast, and abberation in image border, not to mention the vignetting, that you will stop using it.

I believe the FF could be benefit for large aperture prime users, but it is not a benefit for consumer zoom users.

[RioRico]

I understand that larger pixels perform better. But are the pixels really any bigger in a 24 or 36 megapixel full frame sensor than a 16 megapixel APS-C sensor?

24mpx, yes.
32mpx, the same.
36mpx, no.

It's pretty easy to do the arithmetic for pixel density. The exercise is left for y'all to solve.
Hint: Use 36x24mm= 864mm2 for full-frame, half that for half-frame (~APS-C). Now compute.

3) Lenses seem wider. <--- they don't seem, they are wider

Any individual lens indeed has a wider AOV on FF than on APS-C. But wider lenses are affordably built for APS-C than for FF. I don't recall any 15-36mm for FF that could compete price-wise with my Tamron 10-24 for APS-C, and no 15-30mm to compete with a Sigma 10-20. So yes: FF lenses *seem* wider, while APS-C lenses *are* wider.

[cali92rs]

People have said pretty much everything that I want to say already, but I will still throw in my 2 cents...mostly because its monday and I'm bored at work.

I doubt that for 99% of people (the normal folks out there), could tell the difference between a 16x24 print made between full frame sensor camera or crop sensor.
If you want to make normal sized prints, or images that will never leave the your computer screen, your crop sensor camera will do the job the vast majority of the time.

However, the important qualifier of my paragraph above was "normal folks"...people who frequent photography forums are not normal folks. They are generally men, and men love toys. Sorry Women, but you do happen to be the minority on these forums.
Another important caveat above is "the vast majority of time". Forum people want the best that they can afford (or not afford) juuuuust in case that small instance arises.
Also, forum people are pixel peepers. If an image isn't dead sharp at 100%, then its not good enough.

[normhead]

Great article here...

So, if you're standing on the fence and wondering what it is you're missing out on, the answer for most people would be "a luxury." Full-frame is in no sense of the word a necessity for the vast majority of purposes and photographers, and the ones who really do require it won't need to read this piece of pontification to know that they do. But if you can afford it and are prepared to go the extra mile when it comes to shooting technique and choice of glass, it is immensely satisfying. It would take a lot to tempt me back to APS-C.

He covers it all pretty well.

To Full-Frame or Not To Full Frame?

[Coeurdechene]

-"Apsc lenses *are* wider"
True...nothing like the sigma 8-16 in a nikon FF setup.
Lense wise FF and APSc are different,especially in the wider area, since it's not only a field of view question but also a perspective question. In apsc "equivalent" FOV lenses have their own focal length perspective...that's why when someone tells you that a 50mm is equivalent to a 70ish milimiter lens he's only talking about FOV and therefore he's being misleading...a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. FF enables you to use the wider lenses with a larger FOV than APS-c wich can be a plus for some people and some types of photography. For some applications i may want the field of view a sigma 8-16 delivers on an aps-c but without such an exagerate perspective (for others i may want my 8-16 precisely because of that ).
FF has advantages over APS-c in the resolution,ISO and noise areas wich can mean a lot for someone who works in some fields of photography...but for the vast majority and for the most common usages the apsc cameras that exist today are appropriate (in the case of the higher end ones one could argue they are overkill).
Now personally...i need a FF camera, for two simple reasons: customer expectations and industry standarts. I've started to work as a photographer and although i've been producing decent material with my beloved Kx, i've started to meet new potential customers that need to feel they are hiring a pro...that means that besides the suitable material i need to "look" like a pro, at least like an uneducated in photography gear person sees them: big FF camera systems, and preferably Canikon
Once you get known and your name has some prestige you can shoot whatever you like (but then, at that moment, i'm sure you can afford a medium format setup for the studio and a couple of FF for the events ).
Of course since i'm expected to have Pro FF setup, and since i'm gonna buy one i'm gonna profit from the bigger pixels and/or a hefty increase in resolution...i'm gonna love the shallower depth of field and the bigger FOV.