[normhead]

For the record the DOF difference between FF and APSC is more than one stop. Its about 1.5 stops.

Not that anybody ever notices. The math just isn't important. This is probably the most quoted least relevant fact on the forum.

But for my choice, I saw a pile of Nikon D700's for under $2k on the weekend. The guy behind the counter said he has one with 70k actuations and at present he has no need to upgrade. If it wasn't for the lens incompatibility thing, that would be tempting.

[ElJamoquio]

Either you are talking about a completely different post than the one I was resonding to, or you incorrectly believe that statement "it's not like Pentax has a bunch of ways you can purchase their cameras" accounts for the effect in question. Not sure which, but if it is important to you to clarify this irrelevant point, feel free to do so.



Perhaos so, but still irrelevant, for the reasons I've already stated: Pentax would just be a niche player in an even smaller market.



Again,the specifics of how the comparison works out with specific pair of cameras (or lenses) does not disprove the general point, which is so obvious I can't believe you are seriously wasting time arguing it: APS-C systems are inherently smaller than FF systems, and this - as well as price - will not stop mattering to a lot of people.



Not really. I say it's both. It's scientifically obvious why FF systems must be larger, all else equal, so obvious it's a waste of time discussing it further. It may also be the case that the market are such that there are no efforts to keep the size down for ff cameras or to artifically inflate it for APS-C cameras.



Again, yes, in the normal range, this doesn't hold - but one normal lens doesn't a system make. The diffeence I'm size beween the 200/4 and 135/2.8 eats the normal lens for lunch.



Again, sure, if you wish to spend extra money on a larger sensor, a large body to house it, and then *throw away all advanage in doing so* by only using it in crop mode. Most people are not that stupid. If you want to claim there would be a reaosn for people to spend the extra money on a larger system, you have to assume they'll want to use lenses that make it worthwhile.



how is that relevant?



And the weight difference more significant. In any case, when one reaches the exeme telephoto range, we're now talking about a niche within a niche within a niche.

Look, I realize *you* don't mind the sacrifices inherent in going to a larger format. Can you accept that what are trivial differences to you - an inch here, a couple hundred grams there, a thousand dollars there - is actually significant to many people?

Wow!!

[Drom]

If I were to go to a different system it would probably be Canon, however my K-r has been nothing short of wonderful for me and now I am completely sold on the Pentax system.

[ElJamoquio]

I love lighter, cheaper, less volume to carry around, and better IQ. That's why I love full frame cameras.

[mrjamesabels]

ATM I have a D7000 and the af in low light is much snappier. Comparing a cheap 18-105 to the DA* 16-50. But its all about the right tool for the right job! The K5 pretty much poops on the D7000 in terms of ruggedness and useability. The af aggravated me a few days ago and so I bought a D7000 knowing the upgrade path to FF, affordable f/1.8 lenses and a superior flash system. I bet Pentax now comes out with a vastly improved af system and a FF. I just can't wait anymore. I still wear the Pentaxforums t-shirt.

[Marc Sabatella]

I love lighter, cheaper, less volume to carry around, and better IQ. That's why I love full frame cameras.

In your dreams. Just *try* to match my kit - K200D, DA15, DA40, DA70, M120/2.8 - in a FF system. You probably won't even be able to get within *twice* the weight for a truly equivalent kit. Of course, you could slap those same lenses on an FF body and have a kit that was at least close to the same weight - but still larger and more expensive - but you wouldn't get those same FOV's except by running in APS-C mode. Meaning, the kit would be truly FF - you'd be throwing away all those extra pixels you ought and are carrying around.

[philbaum]

ATM I have a D7000 and the af in low light is much snappier. Comparing a cheap 18-105 to the DA* 16-50. But its all about the right tool for the right job! The K5 pretty much poops on the D7000 in terms of ruggedness and useability. The af aggravated me a few days ago and so I bought a D7000 knowing the upgrade path to FF, affordable f/1.8 lenses and a superior flash system. I bet Pentax now comes out with a vastly improved af system and a FF. I just can't wait anymore. I still wear the Pentaxforums t-shirt.

Interesting observations. I've never had the DA 16 - 50, but i wonder if the sometimes slow SDM affects the Pentax AF sequence time. I have 3 sdm lenses now, and the most recent Pentax 17-70 is fairly snappy, while the DA 50-135 is fairly slow in my perception. (on the other hand, 50-135 optics are stellar)

Achieving a faster AF time may mean that Pentax has to overhaul some of its zoom lens designs, to improve on the AF time. Just speculation on my part.

[ElJamoquio]

In your dreams. Just *try* to match my kit - K200D, DA15, DA40, DA70, M120/2.8 - in a FF system. You probably won't even be able to get within *twice* the weight for a truly equivalent kit. Of course, you could slap those same lenses on an FF body and have a kit that was at least close to the same weight - but still larger and more expensive - but you wouldn't get those same FOV's except by running in APS-C mode. Meaning, the kit would be truly FF - you'd be throwing away all those extra pixels you ought and are carrying around.

It'll be tough to find a 24mm f/5.6 or f/6, you're right. I'll see if I can find the time to complete your task eventually.

[Marc Sabatella]

It'll be tough to find a 24mm f/5.6 or f/6, you're right. I'll see if I can find the time to complete your task eventually.

Actually, the replacement for the DA15 is the easy part, because indeed, you can get a *faster* FF-compatible 24mm at about the same size. Not that the difference in speed is significant or relevant at this focal length, of course, and you will pay a pretty significant penalty in IQ in order to get a small FF 24mm at a similar price point as the DA15, but again, this is *easy* case. So I'll grant you that one, even if it's a tradeoff I personally might not be happy with.

But please report back when you find that FF equivalent for the other lenses - similar size, similar FOV when actually used in FF mode. Looking forward to hearing about that small, weather sealed FF body too - and I'll bet that will turn out to be a real bargain if you find one!

[ElJamoquio]

Actually, the replacement for the DA15 is the easy part, because indeed, you can get a *faster* FF-compatible 24mm at about the same size. Not that the difference in speed is significant or relevant at this focal length, of course, and you will pay a pretty significant penalty in IQ in order to get a small FF 24mm at a similar price point as the DA15, but again, this is *easy* case. So I'll grant you that one, even if it's a tradeoff I personally might not be happy with.

But please report back when you find that FF equivalent for the other lenses - similar size, similar FOV when actually used in FF mode. Looking forward to hearing about that small, weather sealed FF body too - and I'll bet that will turn out to be a real bargain if you find one!

I'm only doing your research on lenses for you; I'm not going to design a hypothetical camera for you too (although Nikon is). If I wanted to be quick and dirty about it I would've just answered the Tamron 28-300, but the real answer is multiple lenses.

Do the math, a crappy lens on a FF camera will give you better sharpness than a great lens on APS-C. With the thousands of dollars left over, surely you can allow for higher quality elements, aperture designs, coatings, etc.

[vapentaxuser]

I like all modern cameras. I don't think there's such a thing as a "bad" camera out nowadays... they're all really good. I like Pentax because, as I see it, they understand they reason why you buy a camera is to, first and foremost, take pictures. And they generally revolve most of their interesting features and perks around still shooting. The two big boys are putting all their energy into the video side of the house and not really doing much to inspire still shooters. I also say the other two cannot touch Pentax in terms of affordable weather-sealed cameras and lenses. Try finding anything that compares to the Pentax 18-135WR at a $500 from the other guys. Outside of Pentax... the other company that I think is doing a lot for still-shooters is Sony. Sony still has to work on tweaking their noise reduction settings a little and de-clutter their menus, but from a still shooters perspective... I enjoy shooting with a Sony almost as much as I do a Pentax.

[Marc Sabatella]

I'm only doing your research on lenses for you

?? You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

I'm not going to design a hypothetical camera for you too

I'm not the one who wants this hypothetical (which is to say, non-existent) camera, *You're* the one who imagined it would be possible to assemble an FF system that was smaller than an APS-C system, so it's *you*, not me, that would benefit from this hypothetical (which is to say, non-existent) system.

It comes down to a very simple question: can you or can you not assemble a *real* (not hypothetical) FF system that is equivalent to (in functionality and quality) but smaller than my current APS-C system, which consists of a *real* (not hypothetical) camera and *real* (not hypothetical) lenses?

Answer: you cannot, and presumably you know this or you'd have put up by now.

Do the math, a crappy lens on a FF camera will give you better sharpness than a great lens on APS-C.

I have a degree in mathematics, and I can absolutely assure you that no mathematics known to mankind will make a false statement true. Although to be fair, I can see how one could possibly incorrectly apply the math to be misled into believing this - extrapolation of LWPH figures and so forth.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

For the record the DOF difference between FF and APSC is more than one stop. Its about 1.5 stops.

No, the difference is closer to 1 stop than to 1.5 stops. The 1.5 crop factor is used to multiply the aperture for equivalence, but 1.5 is very close to the one stop value of 1.4 (the root square of 2, to be precise).

[ihasa]

I have a lot of time for you Marc, but surely you don't need a math degree to work out larger sensor = less demanding on lens design? That said, it was probably going too far to state that a *crappy* lens on FF is better than a *great* lens on apsc...

[Medium FormatPro]

IF I were just on the starting side of photography I would jump ship for either Canon or Sony.

Given my present career (and creative) background I would jump ship towards nothing but Nikon.

Nothing terribly wrong with Pentax in general; just as long as one can get away with using non full frame models and the optics that are tailored towards full frame.