[liukaitc]

So far it looks like FF would not really be of any use to someone like me because I don't do studio stuff. I do take pictures of people at anime cons for personal enjoyment, but my big thing I LOVE to do is hiking and taking pictures. I do some wide angle stuff, and some stuff where my 300 mm zoom just about doesn't cut it. Unless it's flowers or somethign DOF really doesn't mean much to me. In fact most of my stuff yesterday was at ISO 80-320, and f/5.6-8.0 while running around with a sweet girl (and freezing since ti was in the mid 50s) along the northern 70 miles or so of the Natchez Trace Parkway in Tennessee, so other than a few shots I wanted as much of the picture as possible to be crisp and sharp. Also on the zoom thing, in some cases 300 mm wasn't enough for me. I need a Bigma...

Those were the reasons I had to ask, why full frame? For me the Kx did most of what I wanted, and the K5 does everything I want, so I wanted to know if I am missing anything. For me it looks like I am not missing much, and what I am missing I can get better glass to make up for it. I guess if I were doing studio stuff, or wedding stuff where I really wanted to isolate the subject it would be a different story based on all of the replies, but I guess different needs require different equipment. That's what I thought coming into this, and it's pretty much been confirmed.

Ohh, speaking of professionals doing a photoshoot with Canon. Yesterday I ran into some panicking due to rain. We talked for a few, with them wondering why I did not seem to care about my camera getting a little damp. I told them all about the K5, specwise, and then told them abotu the weather sealing. I think I saw one of the group almost cry.

Again my opinion is that buying FF is about personal pursue. Like purchase a luxury ar. you would say an economic car is good enough for you, but there are still people buying very expensive car.

[FrancisK7]

Again my opinion is that buying FF is about personal pursue. Like purchase a luxury ar. you would say an economic car is good enough for you, but there are still people buying very expensive car.

True, but many clients or customers frown at you if you don't reply either Canon or Nikon when they ask what kind of gear I use, which is a little redundant, and while these brands don't only have FF cameras, most "pros" use the FF bodies.

Not that they'd know anything about APS-C or FF.

[Blue]

True, but many clients or customers frown at you if you don't reply either Canon or Nikon when they ask what kind of gear I use, which is a little redundant, and while these brands don't only have FF cameras, most "pros" use the FF bodies.

Not that they'd know anything about APS-C or FF.

In that case, you just need to whip out a Leica M9 on them. Tell them it matches your Maserati.

[Todd Adamson]

And don't forget IQ also.
I've found "most" FF samples to handle sharpening much better than APS-C in terms of degradation and artifacts at low ISO.

This is the only reason that really resonates with me. I have a D3 now, and though the K-5 is significantly better with dynamic range and rescuing shadow detail. It's also better noise-wise. But if I have the D3 handy, with the lens I want, in reasonable light, I'll always choose it before the K-5 due to general "IQ" considerations. When I'm shooting at ISO1600 and below, and have control of the scene's dynamic range, the D3 delivers better files, which hold up better to my own processing and my lab's RIP software for large prints.

DOF and speed are not concerns for me. I'm very happy with the "slow" FA Limiteds, and I can make the DOF I want by controlling the focal length and subject to camera distance without violating any of my own perspective sensibilities. I can always get the shallow DOF I need with my K-5.

It's Image Quality. The K-5 has incredible IQ, but a FF version, provided they don't go nutty and pack in 36 MP of photosites, will always be better.

[FrancisK7]

In that case, you just need to whip out a Leica M9 on them. Tell them it matches your Maserati.

LMAO

[eddie1960]

the nutty 36mp is the K5 taken to FF though. and it sounds crazy but when you look at the numbers and then see a large print from a D800 it makes good sense (I looked at a 6 foot print of a macro shot with D800 as part of my cousins current art show (he's a an abstract painter who combines large scale macro worlds from the paintings in the same show) he used to shoot with the D3 (which he would rent) he got one of the first D800 in Canada and the last 2 shots for the current show were done with it. the D3 prints were amazing......until you saw the D800 prints (and i was pretty much pixel peeping in the extreme standing less than a foot from the prints. When I got to the show We talked first and then he told me most were D3 prints but 2 were D800. He didn't tell me which. I had no trouble guessing which
Now if you aren't making extreme prints like these the 36MP is more dubious in value. (Hell I never make prints like that because I can't sell my stuff for enough, his prints sell for $4500-6000 (they cost over a grand to print and mount the gallery takes 50% on top) and the paintings 2-3 times that. He keeps telling me to just print the show and set the price at that level but I'm a realist I don't have his exposure or name (he has pieces in MOMA, the national gallery and the AGO amongst other places..... a little beyond my modest hobby art shows. Funnily enough what he thinks I should be printing that way is not what I would have chosen (he thinks I should do my rock and roll portraits and ignore the fact that no rock and roll people can afford them)

[Todd Adamson]

Now if you aren't making extreme prints like these the 36MP is more dubious in value.

And this is why I hate the megapixel wars. It's definitely good for a small subset of applications. But I rarely would need it, and I suspect I'm closer to the average FF Nikon shooter than anyone who really uses that much data. This is why I love the D3 so much: a mere twelve megapixels. My portrait clients, on average, spend less than $1000 with me. I had a client a couple of years ago, for whom I did some large group shots; fourteen people. She wanted it as big as I could get it. Since I had to crop somewhat due to the composition of the grouping, that turned out to be a 30" print. I was being a little bit conservative, and might have gone larger, I don't know. Anyway, she was happy with it, but would have bought larger had I been willing to print larger. She spent nearly $4000 with me all told. That's rare. That's my highest spending client in eight years, and I've only had a handful go over $2000. But if I had, say, eight or ten such clients each year, with a willingness to spend that much cash, and large groupings, the D3x (or now the D800) would be a no-brainer for me. As things stand, though, I don't give them a second look. Those files would only annoy me and my measly twelve gigabytes of RAM and dual quad-core Nehalem processors.

If I am completely honest, 80% of my portrait clients would have been well-served by the 4MP D2h. I've got a beautiful 20" print from three-fourths of a D2h file hanging in my studio now. Most of my photography income comes from prints 8x10 and smaller.

[eddie1960]

i agree my cousin is an exception to the rule. he rarely prints under 4 feet and goes as big as 10 feet if needed for the presentation. Needless to say this limits his clientele to Corporate Clients and Large galleries. His paintings are easier to deal with (say 3 1/2 to 4 feet) but well beyond my budget even if I got a friends and family discount cutting out the gallery owner
I do have a few pieces of art in the 3x4 foot range at home which severely limits hanging anything else, there's only so much big open wall space in a small victorian row house

[Todd Adamson]

Oh, backing up a bit, I had meant to say that the VF is also a huge consideration for me. I do a lot of manual focusing, and I'm less successful with the K-5 than I am with FF cameras. I'm still generally OK manually focusing with the FA77 on APS-C....but at 35mm focal length, it becomes a bit of a crap shoot.

[eddie1960]

Oh, backing up a bit, I had meant to say that the VF is also a huge consideration for me. I do a lot of manual focusing, and I'm less successful with the K-5 than I am with FF cameras. I'm still generally OK manually focusing with the FA77 on APS-C....but at 35mm focal length, it becomes a bit of a crap shoot.

the only reason I would consider a good EVF camera is the ability to have a disproportionately large VF with focus peaking. if the VF jst reflects the format size it is on no interest to me ( a big reason for wanting FF is the VF for me. DOF meh, it's achievable in many ways and i'm not a huge fan of DOF so thin only one eye is in focus and nothing else. it's an optical trick, interesting once or twice but generally not of anything but minor interest.

[Class A]

It's not so bad of course on the telephoto end and it may even be an advantage for APS-C at those focal lengths, mainly because you get a 1.5x tele by default at a cheaper price.

FF has no tele disadvantage. The tele "reach" is defined by pixel-pitch (the higher, the better), not by sensor size.

smaller means more flexibility and spontaneity.

This does not quite apply to the APS-C vs FF debate since both share the same mount. An APS-C set cannot be significantly smaller than an FF set due to the shared mount (mount diameter, registration distance), provided that both have equivalent speeds (i.e., the APS-C glass has to offer the lower f-ratios).

Why not FF? Because it's big and heavy and expensive and optically demanding and probably a couple other good reasons. Lenses with weak edges on FF are sweet on APS-C. Long teles must be LONG.

All not true.
Teles need not be longer ("reach" depends on pixel pitch, not sensor size).
FF glass is only bigger (and potentially more expensive) when it is faster. FF glass that is equivalent to APS-C glass (i.e., 70-200/4 on FF vs 50-135/2.8 on APS-C) is not bigger and typically cheaper.
FF is not optically more demanding. On the contrary, due to the lower enlargement factor, there is more leeway for the AF and lenses need not be quite as sharp in the centre.
If you have lenses with weak edges on FF, just crop the edges out (will likely be a smaller crop than an APS-C) crop. I believe with perhaps the exception of wide angle lenses, it is not a particular lens design challenge to get good corners even for an FF image circle.

Further debunking (i.e., there is no inherent "noise advantage" with FF) takes place in falconeye's FF article.

[jsherman999]

It's not about shallow DOF so much as getting the DOF you want at more civilized apertures. An 31mm F1.8 lens on APS-C cannot compete with an 50mm F2 lens on FF. I know most (if not all) lenses are certainly sharper when stopped down a little so a cheaper longer lens on FF that might cost as little as $400 that can out-perform a $1500 lens on APS-C is welcome. I paid 1500 for my 31LTD in Australia from a dealer and that was discounted by $200.

An example:
31mm @ F/1.8 on APS-C @ 1 meter DOF = 75.89mm
50mm @ F/3.2 on FF @ 1 meter DOF = 76.91

From that set of numbers it becomes obvious that the 31mm is at it's limits whereas there's still plenty of flexibility left in the '50 on FF.

+1 for a point I haven't seen before. If that 50 is an SMC f/1.7 then it's just as sharp as (or sharper than) the 31/1.8 and just as fast, with notably thinner DOF. To match FF 50/1.7 on APS-C would take a 35/1.1, and good luck.

I've been making that same point for over two years, and you haven't seen it before!?! GRRRR.

EDIT: I should have added: And yes, for the same DOF, the FF 50 needs only a much slower aperture and will be notably sharper, rendering detail much better. For the same DOF, the fastest APS 35 is at the edge of acceptability, whilst a fast FF 50 is stopped-down to near its sweet spot. So, a cheaper FF lens for better results, or an equal FF lens for MUCH better results -- THAT is the point here.

Yes.

[RioRico]

I've been making that same point for over two years, and you haven't seen it before!?! GRRRR.

That's because I rarely bother reading all the FF threads.

[jsherman999]

Still, I am suprised that the people who bellyache the most about DoF control, and aren't strictly professionals, don't jump into a used Mamiya 645AFD or an early AF Hasselblad with a 120 film back. Or, for that matter, go 6x9 with a Mamiya Universal or Fuji GSW690, or even a Mamiya 7.

Because shooting those cameras is laborious, and more expensive the more you shoot. With FF DSLR, you gain a bit more DOF control (and all that other stuff) without sacrificing any of the convenience or quality of Digital. As Mike Johnson pointed out on T.O.P. the other day, advances in photography in the past century have been as much about convenience as they've been about image quality.

I just don't want to be chasing these guys around with an early AF Hasselblad with a 120 film back

[jsherman999]

That's because I rarely bother reading all the FF threads.

I know, just kidding.