[Lowell Goudge]

My decision is made. I'm going dual systems because Pentax just can not offer me the long lenses, I need for birding, and their lack of clarity on both FF and the 560mm. There is no way I'm going to wait for an announcement, then another few months to the launch and then another few months to ensure the feedback is positive.

Price is also a major factor. If any Pentax FF gets close to the D800's US$3,000 then it had better be out of this world. Around US$2,000 - 2,200 should otherwise be it's price-point.

One K5 (or maybe later it's replacement) will stay and I'll sell off the other (and sell the Q which was a waste of money for me personally) plus sell maybe 10-12 of my 20 or so lenses. Keeping the classic glass; 77, 43, 15, Tamron 90 macro and Zeiss lenses etc.

In comes the D800 plus a Sigma 500mm to get me started. It is the crop modes (x1.2 @ 24mp and x1.5 @ 16mp with the world's best AF) that sold me on this over the 5DIII (another superb new AF system). We'll see what else is added as funds appear later.

What I don't get in your argument is you are going to nikon plus a sigma 500 as the dual system selection. if you consider absolute resolution, it has about the same as the K5 sensor, if it were scaled up to full frame, so except for the difference in megapixels, with an image that fills the entire frame, and perhaps the ability to print that image twice the size of a K5 image, what do you actually gain.

a 300/4 on a K5 would be roughly equal FOV to a 500/4.5 on a full frame. Since you are already considering sigma, any debate on the 560mm pentax is moot (although I too would live to see pentax with this lens this year). so what is it you really want?

I simply do not see any advantage of going full frame for wild life over APS-C

[Lowell Goudge]

+1 to that. Dimmer eyesight is an inevitable result of getting older, even if 60 is the new 40 in other respects!

Unless someone comes up with an optical Viagra, I'll be pinning my photographic future on a 35mm sensor DSLR, or maybe going back to film if a suitable one doesn't come along soon. On the other hand, a second-hand M9 might be an attractive proposition in a few years.

I don't know, my father commented after his cataract surgery that everything was a lot brighter. (he was 88 at the time) so maybe there is hope

Why not shoot both film and digital, I do, although most shooting is digital, I do take out the PZ1 from time to time, mostly with B&W film, and have a lot of fun with it. I especially use it with ultra wide angle lenses, and the most fun is with my Samyang 14/2.8 which is a full frame lens.

as for a leica, they do have a K to Leica mount adapter, but without the focusing cam, you are guessing at the correct focus point. My BIL has one that he uses as a light? (the thing weighs a ton, especially the lenses) compact travel camera. he keeps complaining his nikon i just too big, then I hand him ny *istD with M35/2 and let him have fun

[LeDave]

Pentax also has a 560mm f4.5 lens coming up and most likely to be shown and priced at Photokina. From the looks of it, it's probably a full frame lens... just a heads up =P

http://www.pentax.jp/english/news/announce/info-image/20120208_2.jpg

PENTAX to Exhibit 7 Reference Products at CP+ 2012 Camera and Imaging Show | PENTAX RICOH IMAGING

[RobA_Oz]

I don't know, my father commented after his cataract surgery that everything was a lot brighter. (he was 88 at the time) so maybe there is hope

Why not shoot both film and digital, I do, although most shooting is digital, I do take out the PZ1 from time to time, mostly with B&W film, and have a lot of fun with it. I especially use it with ultra wide angle lenses, and the most fun is with my Samyang 14/2.8 which is a full frame lens.

Funny you should say that, because I've started shooting with my K2DMD again recently, and liked it so much I've bought an LX to go with it!

[ihasa]

APSC is it.

Small size of the system is what got me into Pentax in the first place. Even if Pentax were to bring out a relatively small full frame, the lenses are NOT going to be small. To get the equivalent of the 50-135 I would have to carry around a 70-200 which is just too big to walk around with. At least for me. But then photography is only a hobby for me. I suppose professionals need it?

I dunno about that. You could always use a 70-200mm f4, which would be the closest equivalent in terms of results (you would be able to bump the ISO at least one stop and still have better IQ.) I suppose it doesn't have to be quite as sharp as an APSC lens, either, since the image which the lens projects won't be magnified by the crop factor. I don't really see much difference between a FF and APSC system in terms of lens size, it all seems to pretty much even itself out.

[ihasa]

What I don't get in your argument is you are going to nikon plus a sigma 500 as the dual system selection. if you consider absolute resolution, it has about the same as the K5 sensor, if it were scaled up to full frame, so except for the difference in megapixels, with an image that fills the entire frame, and perhaps the ability to print that image twice the size of a K5 image, what do you actually gain.

a 300/4 on a K5 would be roughly equal FOV to a 500/4.5 on a full frame. Since you are already considering sigma, any debate on the 560mm pentax is moot (although I too would live to see pentax with this lens this year). so what is it you really want?

I simply do not see any advantage of going full frame for wild life over APS-C

I suspect his need for longer lenses, and desire for a full frame, are two separate things, but yes it seems odd to defect to Nikon citing a lack of long lenses, only to use a third-party lens you could have used on Pentax.

[Frogfish]

What I don't get in your argument is you are going to nikon plus a sigma 500 as the dual system selection. if you consider absolute resolution, it has about the same as the K5 sensor, if it were scaled up to full frame, so except for the difference in megapixels, with an image that fills the entire frame, and perhaps the ability to print that image twice the size of a K5 image, what do you actually gain.

a 300/4 on a K5 would be roughly equal FOV to a 500/4.5 on a full frame. Since you are already considering sigma, any debate on the 560mm pentax is moot (although I too would live to see pentax with this lens this year). so what is it you really want?

I simply do not see any advantage of going full frame for wild life over APS-C

Consider: You are shooting birds with the D800 and a 500mm. For those closer shots a flick of the switch gives you FF (with the Sigma 500mm that's ca. 335mm equiv on APS-C), a bird appears in the middle distance and a flick of a switch later and you are at x1.2 crop (24mp and ca. 400m APS-C / 600mm 35mm equiv. ) and then you spot a small bird 40 yds away and another flick the switch and you are now at x1.5 (APS-C) for your 750mm (35mm equiv. ) with the famous latest and greatest version of Nikon's AF (which you seem to have disregarded even though I made it a feature of my previous post).
Of course people also use the Sigma 500/4.5 on K5s (to great effect indeed) however the D800 gives far greater flexibility, better FF files and IQ and it loses nothing over the K5 in mm or mp in crop mode whilst still retaining all the advanced features and benefits of the D800 and Nikon's AF and a larger, brighter 100% VF that will make it even easier to obtain critical focus when in MF.

I have recently spent quite a bit of time on bird shoots with Canon/Nikon shooters with FF cameras and 500/600/800 lenses. Let me say that those FF cameras with those lenses absolutely rock ! We all chimp our shots but they can get far more into the shot than I can and the IQ is two steps up with lower noise (I'm using the K5+DA*300+AFAx1.7). That said the Sigma 500mm has an advantage for me here - as I like to wander and not always be rooted to the spot, with the much lighter Sigma you can do that, with those CaNikon monster lenses it's not feasible !

I spend a lot of time on FM now (pop over and have a look at their wildlife forum) - not wonderful but superb bird shots, the like of which I haven't seen from any APS-C camera (Pentax, Nikon or Canon) on any other forum and the vast majority from FF cameras and long lenses, they blow me away.

So my decision wasn't based on a whim. As you said an image that fills the frame and the amazing files that come out of it can be printed at twice the size (which means added cropping potential). I have researched it, checked the results on the web and in person, Googled all of the FF vs APS-C arguments for birding, and have found that no matter how much I would like to deny it, there is an advantage, that I will have to pay for in $$$, but it is definitely there. If there wasn't then all those shooters would be using 7Ds or D300s'.

And finally when I'm not shooting birds I've now got a superb FF camera for those low DoF and low light shots that I love, with that distinct FF 'look'. The D800 is an all-in-one-camera that the 5DIII can't match.

---

Last edited by Frogfish; 07-26-2012 at 06:32 AM.

[Frogfish]

I suspect his need for longer lenses, and desire for a full frame, are two separate things, but yes it seems odd to defect to Nikon citing a lack of long lenses, only to use a third-party lens you could have used on Pentax.

The Canon/Nikon 500m lenses are considered better but the cost is for me prohibitive. There is quite a saving using Sigma and only maybe a 10% drop in IQ /AF speed.

I hope I have addressed the longer lenses / FF issue clearer in the post above.

[Medium FormatPro]

If not full frame announced on some roadmap/plan; I'd at least be looking for some type of K-5 expansion and/or improvement.

[GibbyTheMole]

I do not understand the FF issue since if your not making money of your images an APS-C is just fine

APS-C is also just fine if you are making money for your images. If it's good enough for Benjamin Kanarek, it's damn well good enough for me.

[LeDave]

APS-C is also just fine if you are making money for your images. If it's good enough for Benjamin Kanarek, it's damn well good enough for me.

Yes! Benjikan is my savior.

[Rondec]

Consider: You are shooting birds with the D800 and a 500mm. For those closer shots a flick of the switch gives you FF (with the Sigma 500mm that's ca. 335mm equiv on APS-C), a bird appears in the middle distance and a flick of a switch later and you are at x1.2 crop (24mp and ca. 400m APS-C / 600mm 35mm equiv. ) and then you spot a small bird 40 yds away and another flick the switch and you are now at x1.5 (APS-C) for your 750mm (35mm equiv. ) with the famous latest and greatest version of Nikon's AF (which you seem to have disregarded even though I made it a feature of my previous post).
Of course people also use the Sigma 500/4.5 on K5s (to great effect indeed) however the D800 gives far greater flexibility, better FF files and IQ and it loses nothing over the K5 in mm or mp in crop mode whilst still retaining all the advanced features and benefits of the D800 and Nikon's AF and a larger, brighter 100% VF that will make it even easier to obtain critical focus when in MF.

I have recently spent quite a bit of time on bird shoots with Canon/Nikon shooters with FF cameras and 500/600/800 lenses. Let me say that those FF cameras with those lenses absolutely rock ! We all chimp our shots but they can get far more into the shot than I can and the IQ is two steps up with lower noise (I'm using the K5+DA*300+AFAx1.7). That said the Sigma 500mm has an advantage for me here - as I like to wander and not always be rooted to the spot, with the much lighter Sigma you can do that, with those CaNikon monster lenses it's not feasible !

I spend a lot of time on FM now (pop over and have a look at their wildlife forum) - not wonderful but superb bird shots, the like of which I haven't seen from any APS-C camera (Pentax, Nikon or Canon) on any other forum and the vast majority from FF cameras and long lenses, they blow me away.

So my decision wasn't based on a whim. As you said an image that fills the frame and the amazing files that come out of it can be printed at twice the size (which means added cropping potential). I have researched it, checked the results on the web and in person, Googled all of the FF vs APS-C arguments for birding, and have found that no matter how much I would like to deny it, there is an advantage, that I will have to pay for in $$$, but it is definitely there. If there wasn't then all those shooters would be using 7Ds or D300s'.

And finally when I'm not shooting birds I've now got a superb FF camera for those low DoF and low light shots that I love, with that distinct FF 'look'. The D800 is an all-in-one-camera that the 5DIII can't match.

But the issue here is (a) the availability of lenses (Pentax doesn't currently have fast, long glass) and (b) auto focus module capability (this is not dependent on format size, although upper end cameras tend to have better modules). I would hope that both of these are addressed. The 560 mm prime is a start, but it isn't "fast" by any stretch and for birders, it probably will not be adequate. As far as auto focus, this drum has been beaten for ages and Pentax hasn't addressed it, although there may be some good signs that the K30 has improved somewhat compared to past cameras (unfortunately mostly in the contrast auto focus area though).

I just don't think when it comes to wildlife photography that full frame has a whole lot on APS-C intrinsically.

Edit: I think the big reason to go with full frame is for wide angle photography. As been mentioned several times in various places, there just isn't an equivalent for 35mm f1.4 lens on APS-C and if you are someone who like those sorts of lenses, then probably full frame makes the most sense. For middle to long focal lengths, the formats are basically awash.

[ElJamoquio]

Fixed aperture, fast zooms, mainly.

For what purpose do you desire a fast, fixed aperture zoom?

[ElJamoquio]

APSC is it.

Small size of the system is what got me into Pentax in the first place. Even if Pentax were to bring out a relatively small full frame, the lenses are NOT going to be small. To get the equivalent of the 50-135 I would have to carry around a 70-200 which is just too big to walk around with.

How much bigger is the canon 70-200 f/4 than the 50-135, though? In my mind it's not much bigger.

On the other hand the chance of Pentax, etc, making a f/4 zoom soon are pretty minimal.

[LeDave]

How much bigger is the canon 70-200 f/4 than the 50-135, though? In my mind it's not much bigger.

On the other hand the chance of Pentax, etc, making a f/4 zoom soon are pretty minimal.

The DA* 50-135 and 70-200 f4 non IS is very identical in weight and size.