[jsherman999]

I'm just curious , most of the things people say they have to have FF for are done better by the 645D, so I'm curious, why pick FF as your stopping point. Why not go all the way?. God knows I've said forever it's not about the pictures.

If I were a professional landscape photographer, or even a very high-budgeted enthusiast extremely concerned with landscapes, or a pro who's clients required wall-sized advertisements, I might very well spring for a 645D. As it is, my 12MP D700 and 14MP K20D give me more than enough resolution for my landscapes, and I'm not shooting any murals for anyone. A huge, $10,000, 1 FPS body with a relatively noisy sensor past ISO 800 paired with huge $5000 lenses makes less than zero sense for me and many others.

No but you can get 85.1.4 for your APS-C but not the equivalent 135 1.4 for your FF.

A common 200mm f/2.8 would be about the equivalent to a 135mm f/1.8 on aps-c in terms of FOV/DOF. In terms of 'exposure', since you have at least a stop of ISO extra overhead from the larger sensor, you can bump ISO a stop to get the f/1.4 shutter speed (shooting 200mm at f/2.8 on FF,) if you really need it. So, yes, you do have an aps-c 135mm f/1.4 equivalent on FF, in most ways, except price - a 200 f/2.8 can be had for only around $1000, an actual 135mm f/1.4 (if one existed) besides being much larger would probably cost two or three times that.

This kind of argument always pretends like FF is always at an advantage. Sometimes, my depth of field is perfect at 50 and 1.4 mm on an APS-c camera, and using the same lens on an FF system would simply mean cropping the image to APS-c size.

Did you really mean DOF there, or FOV? If you want to match the aps-c DOF at equiv FOV for some reason, you'd only need to stop down to do so on FF (thus probably making your image sharper on the focal plane and probably less CA-prone as well, lens dependent.)

No one has done any analysis to show whether you come out on top using an FF or APS-c system. Everyone who uses an FF system seems to like it, I'm not saying it has no value. But is it necessary?

It's probably only 'necessary' for a small group of PJs and some other pros. For the rest, even many pros, it just makes things easier, sometimes funner, but not always. It just expands capabilities, removes or lessens some barriers, reduces frustrations, and occasionally actually gets better images while doing those things.

jsherman pointed me to an argument that pointed out "your best lens on APS-c isn't as good as your wort lens on FF", a point the author demsontrated, with 1 on 1 pixel peeping. That's the only way to see the difference. Some of us would argue that's just not relevant.

Everyone needs to determine how important these things are and what they're worth. It's absolutely correct to say 'it's not worth it to me,' but it's completely wrong to say 'it shouldn't be worth it to anyone' or 'the advantages are only theoretical.'

Price is an issue.... for most of us.

Price is definitely an issue for me, which is one of the reasons I like FF - it allows me to save money on lenses!

Getting more DOF control (incorrectly described as 'less DOF')

In what way is that incorrect?

Because it implies that you are forced to have 'less DOF' for the same FOV and aperture and distance to subject, and you're not. You can simply stop down to match the same DOF aps-c would give you there if that's what you want, and you can't always do the reverse - open that 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom up any wider, for example - on aps-c. That's more DOF control.

Based on my shooting style, 95% of the time I would prefer more DoF to less, which would mean 95% of the time I would be happier using an APS-c camera.

I think you are primarily a landscape photographer, correct? In your case, the DOF-control 'advantage' of FF is largely useless to you. However I think that D800 is really something you should look at for landscape anyway. No-one maybe really needs to buy $10,000+ MFD any more, right? (or sign petition asking for a 36MP K1 FF)

Your shooting style may differ, but, what I'm saying is there is no intrinsic advantage to FF, it's different not better, accept with pixel peepers. The fact that theoretically there could be an advantage to shooting FF, doesn't mean that there is, or that you'd ever run into a situation where there wasn't an acceptable workaround. You can get all caught up in theory and imagine things to be really important, that aren't.

Agreed.



.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 02-13-2012 at 10:57 PM.

[Bob from Aus]

I like this discussion. My first real camera about 45 years ago was a twin reflex 2 1/4 film obviously. It was very inflexible for many applications but for portraits, landscape and bw contrasty photos it was gorgeous. Hardly got used once I got my pentax spotmatic F and ES. But my twin reflex has always been proudly on display.

I'm afraid if I had a large format camera I would need to totally change my photographic style. However the look of the red glazed pentax 645 is awesome. I would only dream to own one not to actually use it.

[wwwmorrell]

The grass is always greener..............................................................

[Class A]

For me FF means:
1. more weight
2. less depth of field for macro work
3. reduces all my tele lenses

Point 2 should not be an issue. You just stop down more on FF than you do on APS-C. While that may mean that you run out of f-stops on FF earlier than you do on APS-C, shooting at f-stops like f/22 is not recommended as one will lose a lot of detail to diffraction. Focus stacking is the only way to achieve DOF while retaining resolution.

Point 3 is only an issue if the FF sensor has lower pixel pitch. If you changed from a K-5 to a D800, your tele lenses wouldn't be "reduced".

[RioRico]

I'll dredge up the hoary past again. Back in the day, I'd often use medium-format (MF), full-frame (135/FF), and half-frame (135/HF, about the same size frame as APS-C) cameras on the same shoot. I would likely use different B&W films in each, and the 135 cameras could sometimes share lenses (via T-mount adapters). The varied lenses and frames permitted different DOF control with each -- which often wouldn't matter, towards the goal of making usable pictures.

And what DID matter? NAILING THE SUBJECT! And over the last decade, using various digital cams, what is important? NAILING THE SUBJECT! It doesn't matter so much whether a film camera is 6x9 or 645 or 135/FF or 135/HF or 110, nor whether a digicam is 645 or FF or APS-C or m4/3 or Q or a little P&S -- if you nail the subject, most everything else can be massaged as needed. Will visuals captured by each format be the same? Of course not. The big question is: What matters? Do more-or-less different DOF and bokeh and perspective really matter to the picture? Or does the picture communicate adequately despite any differences?

If the tiny details in a picture are the reason for the picture's existence, then yes, these format differences matter. But IMHO a superior picture delivers its message despite loss of detail. We may have good reasons to want larger-than-APSC formats -- and smaller formats too. I'm sure I could put a digital 6x9 or 645 or even a measly FF camera to good use. But I've sold pics shot with a 1.1mpx P&S. All cameras are but tools. Use them to good effect, eh?

[RonHendriks1966]

Well this thread wouldn't be complete without my APS-H request (I guess).

So I want to have the advantages coming from the larger sensor (as is with Full Frame). Better image quality (due to larger pixels for my choice and not the bigger amount of pixels). More controll about DOF, but this is not hi on my list, but comes with it.

When you do sports (as I do) or wildlife/birding (as others) the you can have the advantage for having still some crop in the sensor and not a full size 135 sensor.

Bigger pixels:
This is easy and my goal. Bigger pixels, better performance. More dynamic range (but K-5 is scoring good here) and better S/N ratio. I would like a full stop improvement from K-5. So (noisefree) stellar pictures at iso 2500 and excellent colourfull pictures at iso 6400!

More pixels:
Putting the same pixels as in K-5 on a bigger sensor would give an enourmous win in pixelcount. For large prints (very very large A0 or so) and studiowork this would be perfect. Not my goal, but I do see the advantage.

APS-C versus APS-H versus Full Frame for long lenses
Of course the sensor, and thus the camera gets more expensive when going from a small to a large sensor. On the other hand if you are doing sports or wildlife it is the scenery combined with you accessable location and the lens on your camera that makes your picture.
APS-C (1.52x crop): 300mm lens
APS-H (1.25x crop): 365mm lens
Full Frame (1x crop): 456mm lens
You need bigger and more expensive lenses to make the same scene in your image. The picture will be different due to the sensor size and the lens used. But a Bird In Flight = a Bird In Flight it is in your image or not. Making a cut-out from your shot in post processing is a different matter, but first of all you need to have the lens to make the picture.

APS-H with 1.25x crop and 4:3 ratio
So when I look at my pictures there are a lot of them where I cut of part of the image. I would be fine with a 4:3 ratio sensor of the size of 28,8x21,6mm. On that sensor pixels twice the size of K-5, giving pixels of 6,72 microns and 13 megapixel. More then enough to work with and big enough in size to get that stellar image quality.

APS-H the cheapest way into professional shooting (sports and wildlife)!
So with that bigger sensor the camera gets more expensive. When you want more futures like faster processing or more fps or anything alike the camera gets even more expensive. On the plus side you don't need to go and buy a 400mm/f2.8 lens, since you can come a long way with 300mm/f2.8! The price difference with long lenses is enourmous and thus making this platform much cheaper!

[Class A]

All cameras are but tools. Use them to good effect, eh?

Both the "tools don't matter" and the "only the photographer matters" positions are equally wrong.

Clearly, no matter how brilliant the photographer, certain tools enable certain images, while others don't.

Should no one ever have upgraded from a K-7 to a K-5? Only irrelevant improvements? A great photographer with a K-7 will run circles around a bad one with a K-5?

The "what makes a great image" discussion is off-topic for a discussion that focuses on technical differences. I appreciate a comment that one needs to put certain technical differences into perspective w.r.t. the overall goal of making great images. But that's it, AFAIC. Once the "putting into perspective" has been achieved, one should be able to discuss cold, hard technical differences. Whether any one particular individual can turn the latter into better images is irrelevant. Some can.

[Class A]

When you do sports (as I do) or wildlife/birding (as others) the you can have the advantage for having still some crop in the sensor and not a full size 135 sensor.

Larger sensor do not have a reach disadvantage. Pixel pitch counts, not sensor size.

Bigger pixels, better performance. More dynamic range (but K-5 is scoring good here) and better S/N ratio.

Incorrect. See my earlier link to the DxOMark insight article.

You need bigger and more expensive lenses to make the same scene in your image.

Incorrect. You are scaling focal length but not maximum aperture. Also, when pixel pitch is kept constant, you can just keep using the same lens and simple crop the image coming from the larger sensor.

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[Class A]

The topic is not about technical stuff only. It is about the "why want". It's therefore mostly about people's wishes and psychology.

The OP asked "So why would a camera with a 35mm film frame sized sensor be better than one with a smaller sensor?".

That looks like a technical question to me. Some posters chose to insinuate motives other than technical advantages, but if you look at the first post, it appears to me that the OP was not after people's psychology.

P.S.: I won't comment on your other post. There are too many statements I would have to comment on (again).

[RobG]

Thanks for everyone's input by the way - it has been good to see some reasons for a full frame sensor instead of simple statements that one is needed but not why. For me, I doubt that the advantages of such a sensor would outweigh the disadvantages. In my case, a 300mm lens having an effective focal length of 450mm is a big advantage where until now the availability of longer lenses for the brand is very limited. In realistic terms I'd probably get more use out of a 300mm f4 with a teleconverter than spending a lot more money to get a 500+mm lens. A full frame sensor would make it even harder to get a long focal length. It would be counter-productive to get better IQ from a FF sensor then hobble it with a teleconverter. I seldom want ultra wide, and I usually want more DOF not less. A reduction in digital noise and an increase in dynamic range would be nice, but in the short term I don't think I'm likely to see much better than the K5 (which I haven't bought yet). My main disappointment with the K7 compared to the K200 is that the K7 seems to have significantly higher noise. Going back to the K200 from the K7 however, there's a lot of interface features I miss.

Looking at the sort of things which people have listed as reasons for wanting a FF sensor, they are mostly things where for me I can't see the advantages balancing the disadvantages, and I suspect that this would be true for the majority of current Pentax DLSR users. So if there's a market for a FF DLSR, I suspect it is small. Yes, it's a feature gap between the K5 and the 645D, but I suspect that it will stay unfilled. Sorry folks.

[Coeurdechene]

In my case, a 300mm lens having an effective focal length of 450mm is a big advantage where until now the availability of longer lenses for the brand is very limited. In realistic terms I'd probably get more use out of a 300mm f4 with a teleconverter than spending a lot more money to get a 500+mm lens. A full frame sensor would make it even harder to get a long focal length

A 300mm is a 300mm...on APS-c and in FF...you don't get "an effective focal lenght of 450mm", you get it's field of view but assuming the same pixelpitch you have it too on the FF...you just gotta crop, while you can still have the larger FOV for some applications. If the 300 is good glass you can use it in Aps-c and FF both with the advantage of having more possibilities in the FF setup.
What i'm trying to say is that you cannot rule out FF "because of the teles" since a camera with the same sensor tech and the same pixelpitch will be able to do the same job as your Aps-c camera while opening up a new larger FOV possibility (as i said you just gotta crop when needed).
What is a real comparison and discarding motive is the price of such a body...it can be 3 times as much as the apsc one.
If you got cash to spare the FF gives you more options wich is always welcome while icorporating some high-end stuff we have not taken into accounts (i really want to test the AF system in the d800...looks very promising and helpfull for some of the stuff i do).

So if there's a market for a FF DLSR, I suspect it is small.

There you are completely right...and i would say not only smal but near to nonexistant in economic viability. Pentax hasn't the market share necessary to rentabilize the costs of a FF body production, the market that consumes this kind of cameras is tightly owned by Canikon and not even Sony has managed to pierce it with it's agressive pricing and marketing. I suspect all the "sony abandoning FF" rumors came from that tight grip Canikon has over that market and Sony will probably give it another go from a different tech standing point, they will not only play the cards of affordability as with the a850 but will try to push the SLT as a groundbreking approach (wich i'm not sure if they'll manage to pull off even if they have some good arguments).

Pentax has it's plate full with the 645D bet...in wich it really has a chance to establish a position since it has delivered a fine piece of equipment for 1/3 of the cost. Personally i hate they haven't decided to go for a modular system...i see a real advantage there for Hassy and Mamiya (especially this last one since it's Leaf backs are usable in Large format too).

[RobG]

A 300mm is a 300mm...on APS-c and in FF...you don't get "an effective focal lenght of 450mm", you get it's field of view but assuming the same pixelpitch you have it too on the FF...you just gotta crop, while you can still have the larger FOV for some applications.

If a FF sensor has the same pixel pitch as the APS-C you have negated one of the main arguments for a FF sensor - larger sensor elements. If you are just making a bigger sensor with more elements, you won't gain anything in terms of noise reduction. Yes, you'll get more megapixels, but I didn't think that was the intention of FF.

If the 300 is good glass you can use it in Aps-c and FF both with the advantage of having more possibilities in the FF setup.

Not necessarily - as others have pointed out, the edge to edge image quality of the lens may not be as good on a FF sensor as on APS-C, especially since lenses like the DA 55-300 were designed with APS-C in mind. I understand your premise was "if it's good glass", which it is - for it's intended use.

What is a real comparison and discarding motive is the price of such a body...it can be 3 times as much as the apsc one.

That was why I placed it between the K5 and the 645D.

There you are completely right...and i would say not only smal but near to nonexistant in economic viability. Pentax hasn't the market share necessary to rentabilize the costs of a FF body production

Maybe I'm not appreciating the complexities of accommodating a new sensor but if the sensor was available I wouldn't have thought adapting an existing body to it would be so hard. From what I've read elsewhere, a suitable sensor isn't available and Ricoh doesn't have the means to develop one. If this is true, the FF craving is a moot point. I suspect that a whole new range of lenses would also be needed, which would be harder to justify given the small market requirement. Yes, older lenses from the film era could be used, but people would doubtless want modern AF lenses.

Pentax has it's plate full with the 645D bet...in wich it really has a chance to establish a position since it has delivered a fine piece of equipment for 1/3 of the cost. Personally i hate they haven't decided to go for a modular system...i see a real advantage there for Hassy and Mamiya (especially this last one since it's Leaf backs are usable in Large format too).

I hope they do well enough out of the 645D. I'm unlikely to ever own one unless I win the lotto or write a best seller. It would be nice for landscapes but hard to use - I have a lot of respect for the folks who carry such gear into remote places!

[Coeurdechene]

If a FF sensor has the same pixel pitch as the APS-C you have negated one of the main arguments for a FF sensor

Depending on the intended usage...If the d800 producion model turns out to perform at the same level as the k5 (same sensor tech...) the resolution is a plus for some folks...For me it would mean product fotography and studio photo with the possibility of mural size prints that just opens up (and i had an offer for one of them but i don't have the gear to do it yet). If it delivers decent Iso 1600 i have my event workhorse (catwalks,parties,store openings,...) in the same body of a very powerfull studio camera at an affordable price.

the edge to edge image quality of the lens may not be as good on a FF sensor as on APS-C,

It won't be..aps-c benefits from the sweetspot of the lenses:it's center...so on a FF edge quality will be worse...so you need good glass with FF image circle.
That's one of the reasons pentax FF is economically inviable, they don't have the glass with modern AF to face Sony or Canikon in open competition.

That was why I placed it between the K5 and the 645D.

the difference there is 10X as much body only, more likely 15X with only a couple of lenses...a new FF nikon setup with the finest glass you can buy is around 7X to 10X depending on how many lenses you buy. (only considering the 1000$ k5 body..the difference is less if you add some premium glass).

I wouldn't have thought adapting an existing body to it would be so hard

It's not only housing the new sensor (wich all by itself demands a new assembly line)..but all the costs related to develloping the features that would put it on par with that camera level, it would have to get capacities on par with a d4 wich can mean high develloping costs (that's Af system, processing power, new flash system,...), add the costs of marketing ,etc
Of course Pentax could make a "barebones" FF but that would mean not appealing to the "pro" market and a big chunk of the enthusiast one, and then i'm not sure if the revenues expectations is enough to justify the costs. I'm not sure there is a market because i'm not sure they can keep the costs well under 2500$, because at that price point i'd rather go with the 3000$ camera that has the pro grade capabilities....The FF is a complex matter and i'm sure at the current time ricoh won't find the hassle profitable (unless they plan a long term plan targeting the pro market with the intention to dent Canikon dominance over that segment, wich is costly, and a risky bet for an enterprise the size of Ricoh).

I have a lot of respect for the folks who carry such gear into remote places!

Me too! and then you got the ones who work with the large format..praise!..this is one extreme example:
POWER - Influencing Business