[Todd Adamson]

K-5 is better than D3 regarding DR, but not noise...

Well, I should say I don't consult charts and tests. I just look at prints. And I've got a 28" print from the K-5 at ISO 12,500 that my D3 couldn't hope to match. But my statement was qualitative, based only on my own eyes. And thus far my eyes tell me that if I need to shoot above 3200, I'm grabbing the K-5.

[yusuf]

Just came across this article, somehow it didn't made much sense to me, especially since it's 5 years old article and newer APS-c sensors are much better than at that time, what's your opinion? especially about Sharpness and color differentiation he mentioned.

The Full-Frame Advantage

[RobA_Oz]

Just came across this article, somehow it didn't made much sense to me, especially since it's 5 years old article and newer APS-c sensors are much better than at that time, what's your opinion? especially about Sharpness and color differentiation he mentioned.

The Full-Frame Advantage

Ken Rockwell doesn't have many fans on this site, and having read a few of his contributions, the kindest thing I could say about him and his opinions is that he has a very low signal-to-noise ratio.

If you want a more considered view, take a look at Falk Lumo's blog, in particular this article:
LumoLabs -- Camera Equivalence -- Whitepaper

[Vaards]

Ken Rockwell doesn't have .. I could say about him and his opinions is that he has a very low signal-to-noise ratio.

Ken Rockwell can be Chuck Norris of photography, but who cares - just check out link. It`s damn good! I saw it when Nikonians cried about Canons 5d. It`s like Pentaxians cries now (I mean for last 5 years).

For example - there is good sample of Crop Nikon image taken with 85mm fixed lens vs cheap zoom on FF. And difference is obvious. It`.s like after photo sessions my Pentax+limited (43 77 31 21 15 etc) looks unsharp, little foggy and with too much CA, than my buddys 5dII+ average L zooms.

[Class A]

If you want a more considered view, take a look at Falk Lumo's blog, in particular this article:
LumoLabs -- Camera Equivalence -- Whitepaper

+1

I've looked at the Rockwell article and as usual there a few partial truths and a number of incorrect statements. Not recommended.

Falk's article, in contrast, is not only solid but also insightful.

[unixrevolution]

+1

I've looked at the Rockwell article and as usual there a few partial truths and a number of incorrect statements. Not recommended.

Falk's article, in contrast, is not only solid but also insightful.

Ken Rockwell, I find, is light on cold hard facts but long on philosophy that, while it may not always be right, is at least interesting.

[forestG]

view finder....so what. dosent make my photos better, i do!
depth of field.....related to pixel size, not sensor size
wide angle lenses.....ummmmm wtf do you call a 10-20
low light performance....never failed a photo because of noise, mainly its focus, composition, and lighting......noise this-noise that, shut-up about the noise. its ruining your hobby/work.
i find that most people who have issues with noise take rubbish photos.
compare 5d mk2, d700, k5, d3, 7d, d60 prints at 8x12, viewing at 1mtr distance. make your own judgement.

[top-quark]

My guess isthe reason that people witter endlessly about full frame here is simple psychology: we're gear freaks and we're never quite satisfied with what we've got.

Sure, a f*ck-off big Nikon or Canon will produce marginally better images than our Pentax cameras. Will they produce 3x better images? Nope. You've hit diminishing returns big time.

Other supposed advantages:

• Viewfinder. Maybe. The SLT EVFs are almost certainly better than any OVF and are likely the future. Plus I'm not exactly hurting with the K-5 viewfinder.
• DOF control. So bokeh is the primary purpose of our cameras? There are just as many situations where a wider DOF is desirable.

Not gonna bang on about equivalence 'cos that's just dumb. However, if you look at the ecological niches of our glass, then APS-C does have distinct advantages over FF. Our 50-135 occupies the same niche as 70-200 on a 35mm camera - you'd use it for the same purposes. Weighs and costs half as much. Our 200mm F2.8 occupies the same niche as 300mm F2.8 on 35mm. Weighs and costs one third as much.

Those big Nikons and Canons are aimed at pros and priced vertically. They start at twice the price that APS-C ends. If I see a pro lugging around two Nikon D3s complete with 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, I think "fair enough". If I see a hobbyist doing the same I think "pretentious twat".

[eddie1960]

Other supposed advantages:

• Viewfinder. Maybe. The SLT EVFs are almost certainly better than any OVF and are likely the future. Plus I'm not exactly hurting with the K-5 viewfinder.
• DOF control. So bokeh is the primary purpose of our cameras? There are just as many situations where a wider DOF is desirable.

For point 1 - Show me one EVF that is better. sorry but they are not there yet. they lag in low light, they are slow. a big bright OVF still wins this one IMO (try the OVF on an MX if you wasnt a cheap example, or just try a D800 VF . For many this is one of the biggest advantages (certainly in my top 5)

yep there are many times where you want to stop down for more not less DOF. the difference is FF gives you the option to open up for less.


I agree a camera like the K5 really can offer almost everything we need. that is never the point of FF lust for people. The idea that FF needs to be huge like a D4 with 70-200 and 24-70 is erroneous though. Aside from allowances for the larger prism of FF there is no reason a FF can't be the size of a K5. In fact the D600 coming is proof of that since it is pretty much a D7000 with FF sensor/Prism

[bossa]

The DA*50-135 needs to be a f/1.8 lens to be equivalent to the 70-200/2.8 and the200/2.8 is really a 300 f/4 on ff (It would need to be a f/1.8 to be equivalent to 300/2.8 on FF) . Whether you like it or not there is a difference and you can blame Pentax though (not your Nikon or canon manufacturer) because they have awesome glass that is really getting sidelined because they don't produce a FF DSLR.

[eddie1960]

The DA*50-135 needs to be a f/1.8 lens to be equivalent to the 70-200/2.8 and the200/2.8 is really a 300 f/4 on ff (It would need to be a f/1.8 to be equivalent to 300/2.8 on FF) . Whether you like it or not there is a difference and you can blame Pentax though (not your Nikon or canon manufacturer) because they have awesome glass that is really getting sidelined because they don't produce a FF DSLR.

This is the thing most anti FF people are overlooking. Aside from exposure (where 2.8 is 2,.8) the rest of the equivalence requires looking at aa different f stop as well as the FL. a 300 f4 size wise can be the same weight and size as an apsc only 200 2.8. Of course that isn't the way it works out. the 200 2.8 we have from Pentax is in fact a FF lens not a true apsc lens. the 50-135 is a much better comparison. the 50-135 2.8 and the Canon 70-200 4.0 are pretty much the same size and weight. the loss of one stop of light is made up for by the better light gathering in a Ff sensor of the same grade allowing and extra stop of iso with similar noise. Nikon doesn't currently have this lens option, though Tokina has announced one is coming from them.

Edit - given the history of Pentax and Tokina rebadging perhaps this lens is what pentax has in the wings for a FF launch.....

[PPPPPP42]

Now you've gone and made me soil myself jumping into another one of these stupid threads.

For someone with a K5 and a pile of DA crop lenses a FF would be a complete waste of money, if that's you Pentax would not be marketing the FF to you and this is not the proper thread for your opinion.

Most importantly of all and any reasons and technical aspects good or bad aside, Nikon and Canon wouldn't make multiple models of FF each for several generations already if it wasn't a solid business move with proven company profit behind it, and so long as they keep stomping the crap out of Pentax in sales what other people might think of that decision isn't really relevant.

[eddie1960]

Now you've gone and made me soil myself jumping into another one of these stupid threads.

For someone with a K5 and a pile of DA crop lenses a FF would be a complete waste of money, if that's you Pentax would not be marketing the FF to you and this is not the proper thread for your opinion.

Most importantly of all and any reasons and technical aspects good or bad aside, Nikon and Canon wouldn't make multiple models of FF each for several generations already if it wasn't a solid business move with proven company profit behind it, and so long as they keep stomping the crap out of Pentax in sales what other people might think of that decision isn't really relevant.

you are right of course, but there are a few persistent anti FF people who will juimp into every thread and rant against it. Reality is Pentax is going to have to market one whether they like it or not.

[jsherman999]

Sure, a f*ck-off big Nikon or Canon will produce marginally better images than our Pentax cameras. Will they produce 3x better images? Nope. You've hit diminishing returns big time.

The same reasoning could be applied directly to lenses. There really is no reason for any Zeiss lens to exist - diminishing returns have made these lenses that cost 2x, 3x or 4x as much as their less-aristocratic Pentax/Nikon/Canon cousins only about 10% better, optically. Yet people are willing to buy them to get that extra 10%... and because they perhaps just want them, because collecting them is part of the hobby they enjoy. (The same argument could even be applied directly to the Limiteds - or aps-c DSLRs vs m4/3. Is the K-5 really twice as good as a G3? Is the FA 43ltd really three times as good as the F 50 1.7?)

Other supposed advantages:
[LIST][*]Viewfinder. Maybe. The SLT EVFs are almost certainly better than any OVF and are likely the future. Plus I'm not exactly hurting with the K-5 viewfinder.

Have you ever shot extensively with a FF DSLR viewfinder?

[*]DOF control. So bokeh is the primary purpose of our cameras? There are just as many situations where a wider DOF is desirable.

Why does DOF control need to be the primary purpose? And also, with FF, if you do want more DOF, simply stop down, and it's there. Can't always go the opposite way with aps-c.

Not gonna bang on about equivalence 'cos that's just dumb.

It is indeed dumb to rant against.... math and physics.

However, if you look at the ecological niches of our glass, then APS-C does have distinct advantages over FF. Our 50-135 occupies the same niche as 70-200 on a 35mm camera - you'd use it for the same purposes. Weighs and costs half as much. Our 200mm F2.8 occupies the same niche as 300mm F2.8 on 35mm. Weighs and costs one third as much.

200 f/2.8 == 300 f/4.5 (not f/2.8) But you have a point - as long as pixel density is favorable to the aps-c body in your comparison. Meaning, if long telephoto is very important to you, you could simply crop the FF shot to the same FOV as the aps-c shot when you're shooting long telephoto. If you have enough MP on FF, you could get a shot that's virtually indistinguishable from a native aps-c shot.

Those big Nikons and Canons are aimed at pros and priced vertically.

Aren't enough 'pros' to account for D3 sales alone. Pros are the most visible, because you see them on TV, on the sidelines, etc, but FF is really a big enthusiast market.

If I see a pro lugging around two Nikon D3s complete with 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, I think "fair enough". If I see a hobbyist doing the same I think "pretentious twat".

How do you know it's a hobbyist and not a pro? And what if it was a pro, but they were using their equipment for fun and recreation at that particular moment, not work, what would it be? 'Fair-enough', or 'pretentious twat'?

(personally if I saw a 'hobbyist' lugging around two D3s's with huge lenses, I might simply suggest a smaller FF body and maybe a smaller, better, faster, less-expensive prime or two instead. But I wouldn't be all angry and judgmental about it, that's for sure.)


.

[Blue]

. . . However, if you look at the ecological niches of our glass, then APS-C does have distinct advantages over FF. Our 50-135 occupies the same niche as 70-200 on a 35mm camera - you'd use it for the same purposes. Weighs and costs half as much. Our 200mm F2.8 occupies the same niche as 300mm F2.8 on 35mm. Weighs and costs one third as much.

. . .

If I see a pro lugging around two Nikon D3s complete with 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, I think "fair enough". If I see a hobbyist doing the same I think "pretentious twat".

Pal has brought this size thing up a couple of times before. He never did address it. However, some of the DA* lenses are actually bigger and heavier than their FA predecessors.

FA* 300/4.5 weighed 935 grams and 73x160mm dimensions compared to the DA* 300/4 at 1070 grams and 83x184
The FA* 200/2.8 weighed 785 compared to the DA* 200/2.8 825. Their dimensions were the same.

The FA* 80-200/2.8 weighed 1510 grams compared to the DA* 60-250mm/4 but it is f2.8 rather than f4. I compared these 2 because they would fit the same roll on full frame sensors.

Pentax had some ff lenses that weren't ginormous such as the F and FA 135/2.8 primes.

As far as the highlighted part, I am not sure if you can always tell. At the end of the day (or evening or night) I don't care which body I use to get an image that I need (newsletter, scientific pub, or presentation) and maybe an image I want (hobby or family pics). I often use 2 to 3 bodies (2 aps-c and maybe 1 film). If I were to use a ff, it would likely be a full frame and an aps-c.