[Finn]

Two reasons, and two reasons only.

1. Depth of field.

2. 24x36 viewfinder. Every time I put my MX to my eye I sigh with relief.

If someone would make a 6mp FF DSLR, I'd totally buy it. As long as they gave it a goddamn pentaprism.

[Duplo]

Two reasons, and two reasons only.

1. Depth of field.

2. 24x36 viewfinder. Every time I put my MX to my eye I sigh with relief.

If someone would make a 6mp FF DSLR, I'd totally buy it. As long as they gave it a goddamn pentaprism.

I do not know how I could forget to mention the improved viewfinder... but you are right, the viewfinder of an FF camera is something very pleasant to use, the K10D is not bad at all, but FF is something else.

[fwbigd]

Sure? I am sceptical. Any sample photo? There aren't any at richardmurrian.net .

Try [edited for content-Codiac2600]

[*isteve]

Well yes APS-C has come a long way, but then again so has FF and so has MF.
I think it is fair to say that larger generally is better, but not proportionally to the cost involved. or the application used.
You are comparing a brand new APS-C sensor to a how many years old FF? What if we compare it to say a 12MP D3 or a 10MP 1DIII From what I have seen of sample this still will have an advantage in terms of noice vs. detail.

Well to be fair I was not comparing any models specifically, but unless Nikon have done something miraculous with the laws of physics, I cant see how it would have resolution superior to a 5D or any of the 12+MP APS cameras.

I am sure it will have less noise than an APSC sensor, but only at higher ISO and the number of stops may not be as great as you think compared to the K20D. We will see on this one. But this comes down to the question of "how much is an extra stop of noise worth"?

I guess we can all agree that the 21MP 1DsIII still has a bit of a way to go to compete with say a 22MP MF back same will go for APS-C vs. FF. Important question is if the gained improvement is important or pays off in terms of cost.

Actually I expect the IDS3 will blow a lot of 22MF backs away at high ISO (they all use CCD). I also suspect it will run them close on resolution. DR is where MF backs really score. But again the difference wont be that great. Bigger sensors actually start to generate MORE noise, its only the signal that overcomes it. At a certain point, you need thermal cooling for the sensor. This mantra that "bigger is better" is just baloney.

I have recently delivered a full eventset to a customer, during that event I shot a fair bit at ISO 6400... something I would nto dare do with any APS-C.
The K20D might have a workable ISO 6400, but will it be comparable, I would really love it to be but I doubt it.

I doubt ISO 6400 will be comparible but the shots I have seen at 3200 have been quite promising. They de-noise well too. Until the tests are done we cannot know, but its hardly a surprise that noise is better on the D3. They seem to have added a lot of NR as well jusding by the look of the pix you posted.

After having done a fair number of shots with the D3 I am now confident that what we have known as a soft corner issue on FF is more related to canon than to FF, which is natural as they for a long time was the only provider.
The Nikon F mount (quite similar to the K mount in terms of registration distance have not shown this weakness, at least not with the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8G

See any soft corners here?


Truth is that none of us really knows how a K mount would do with FF digital. Canon FF has the "soft corner" issues, Nikon in my personal experience does not.

How many lenses have you tried? The 14-24 is a brand new lens designed after the D3 was in development no doubt. The issue on Canon was many of their legacy L glass. Have you tried any of that on the Nikon? The N actually has a narrower lens mount so it should be worse if anything. And Im sorry but how can I tell anything from that shot about corner sharpness? Most of it is sky or snow and its downsized to 600 X 400. All I know is some of my FA lenses have issues on an APS sensor, let alone a FF one!!!!!!

Well I agree on that part, just like Mf will always remain rather expensive compared.
Question is if the cost is justifiable and whether the advantages of FF matters to the type of photography you do.

Thomas I have no issue with professionals chosing any gear they want for the job they need to do, or wealthy enthusiasts spending their own good money on gear. However most of the FF supporters here are not professionals and would not consider paying $5000 for a FF camera and are expecting low cost FF for $1500. If this is the market, then Pentax are wasting their time by trying to respond to it at this point.

1-2 stop cleaner at high ISO, larger DR, shallwoer DOF, but at the same MP count it allows you to stop further down before hitting diffraction limits. UWA is better at lest from what I have seen with the D3. less distorsion.

To be fair, most of these differences are a matter of degree which is on the whole slight. Shallower DOF is both a blessing and a curse (and its only 50% or shallower eg 4cm rather than 6cm). As for UWA distortion, have you seen the price of that lens you are using? I would hope it was darn good However some of the APS ultrawides are pretty good too - my 12-24 for instance.

Downside to FF is size and weight of the body, as well as the telephoto lenses and the nagain not, a 70-200f2.8 on FF would be equal to a 50-135 f2.0, so I guess if we calculate in speed the lens part averages out. The APS-C does have a reach advantage though.

Oh not that old chestnut. Lets please not go there! They are only equal in the one instance where you demand equal DOF wide open. Since that is only ONE instance of a lenses entire repertoire it does not justify the "equal" tag. If I am shooting sport I need a certain amount of DOF to make sure I get the action in focus - with APSC I can get that at an aperture a stop FASTER which I consider a major plus. In landscape and macro work I also have an advantage. Fact is its a matter of preference but I need a longer lens to get the same field of view on a FF camera so lets leave it at that.

Shake reduction is another major advantage of APS-C.

Perhaps not according to Sony

Another major FF downside is price, but then again that would hold true with MF compared to FF as well, a larger format will always be more expensive, that has not changed since film IIRC.
Agreed, each step up in format has advantages and disadvantages MF more so than FF, I sse it as 3 different formats with each of their own set of advantages, to me personally after having shot quite a bit of FF it seems to me as the most attractive compromise for the paid work and some of the personal work I do, but APS-C and Pentax will not leave me completely, the compact pentax primes will stay in my kit for certain things, that kit will very likely include a K20D too

My general question to all of those people that keep "defending APS-C and especially with the arguments, comparing a brand new APS-C to an old FF and bringing up the canon "soft corner" issue is.

Steve I greatly respect both your opinions and your skills, so below question is not directed at you personally but in general.
The fact that I will run a FF and APS-C system side by side for different applications tells what I think of the whole issue as well. That and the fact that Pentax is my APS-C system of choice and I am every bit as thrilled with the K20D as the rest of you, so I am not bashing it, I am just not expecting it to compare to a new FF system.

How many of you have actually shot extensively with the new FF cameras? and made an fact based comparison relative to the work you do?

I have spent a lot of time shooting with 5Ds (a camera I was planning to buy last year - glad I did not it really does not like skin tones) and have had the chance to use a 1DS mk2 a few times. If your job requires the kind of resolution they deliver, then I would say APSC has now caught up pretty much. If you want to shoot in low light, then it will always be a stop or so behind. For my professional work the K10D does the job pretty well, and is a fun camera at weekends too. I would worry far more about upgrading AF and the flash system than a larger sensor - and I am selling A3+ prints. The K20D will give me some extra resolution, cropping room and another stop or so I can use when it gets dark and I am delighted.

But if you have a business need, or you have no problems spending the money, and your expectations about what you are getting for that money are realistic, then I have no problem at ALL with FF. The issues "we" are opposing here are

1/ whether Pentax needs to build a FF camera now to remain in business. The people who most vociferously propose this frequently have a very limited understanding of the business and technical issues involved and fully expect the camera they lust for to be $1500 or so when its released. This is simply NOT feasible hence there is simply noone who would buy it for a price that would justify the cost of development right now and this would simply divert resources which would be better spent elsewhere (flash, AF, lenses etc).
And
2/ there is a lot of misinformation floating around that is making FF out to be vastly superior in ways which it clearly is not. Its possible to make very nice very large prints from both which are indistinguishable at ISO up to around 800 or so. Its is also easier and cheaper to build a fast mirror box and up the frame rate on an APS camera than on a FF one (vis a vis 30D and 5D) and in the short term that and AF speed seems to be the main gripe about Pentax.

[DSgaijin]

Thomas,

Regardless what camera it was taken with, that is truly a beautiful shot. Thanks for sharing it.

Don

[DSgaijin]

I have (and regularly use) a K10D, but for light rendering, the K10D can't compete with my Canon 5D. The 5D is spreading those pixels over a larger sensor and the resulting photo is more accurate looking to me. In addition, I can "see" with the viewfinder in the same way as I do with my full frame film cameras (mostly m42 mounts).
Here's a macro/closeup photo with the 5D

and here's a macro/closeup with the K10D

lens is a Helios 44-2 f/2 and I used extension tubes as I don't have a dedicated macro for the K1D

and, finally, here's a macro/closeup with a Mamiya Sekor 1000DTL and a Mamiya Sekor 55 f/1.4 and 2XTC

in the case of the full frame cameras, the light is more translucent and there's more depth in the photo. Perhaps a true dedicated macro lens would yield better results on the K10D, but I haven't bought one yet. I have a whole lot of Canon macro glass, so I use the K10D to play with old lenses.
If Pentax were to go the full frame route, I'd buy one in an instant. I used Pentax for years before I bought a Canon 300D because Pentax didn't come out with a DSLR and I wanted one. The beauty of the K10D, over Canon, is the backward compatibility of lenses. I never tire of playing with it.

Jypsee,

I've looked at a lot of your on-line photos, so many and so beautiful. You have talent and I love that you share that here with us. But what I can't tell (see) on-line is the difference between your shots taken with your 5d and any other of the several digi cams you own and use. And since you're in the business of selling photos I can't help but wonder if you sell more pics made with he 5D than, say, the K10D, or any other digi cam you have? I'm just curious if the investment has paid off in 5D shots taken and sold over your other digi cams?

Thank you for sharing your wonderful shots with us. I wish I had such a beautiful variety to share here.

Best regards,

Don

[Duplo]

Well to be fair I was not comparing any models specifically, but unless Nikon have done something miraculous with the laws of physics, I cant see how it would have resolution superior to a 5D or any of the 12+MP APS cameras.

It does not per se, but it does have a greater DR, saw a link posted from a DR test, that claimed it to be equal to the S5 from fuji. I will try to track down the link if you want me to?

I am sure it will have less noise than an APSC sensor, but only at higher ISO and the number of stops may not be as great as you think compared to the K20D. We will see on this one. But this comes down to the question of "how much is an extra stop of noise worth"?

That is the true question and since my Nikon system is part of a contract, as a customer requirement, to me it was worth it

Actually I expect the IDS3 will blow a lot of 22MF backs away at high ISO (they all use CCD). I also suspect it will run them close on resolution. DR is where MF backs really score. But again the difference wont be that great. Bigger sensors actually start to generate MORE noise, its only the signal that overcomes it. At a certain point, you need thermal cooling for the sensor. This mantra that "bigger is better" is just baloney.

At higher ISO true, but in terms of DR it will not.
Seems we agree quite a bit
The bigger is better is no less baloney than the opposite IMHO
It is about the right tool for the job at hand. something I fully expect us to agree on as well.

I doubt ISO 6400 will be comparible but the shots I have seen at 3200 have been quite promising. They de-noise well too. Until the tests are done we cannot know, but its hardly a surprise that noise is better on the D3. They seem to have added a lot of NR as well jusding by the look of the pix you posted.

That pix is a long exposure at low ISO with NR off. and again web samples are hardly the right to judge from... The only NR performed is downsampling which hardly qualifies
So please lets keep it fair shall we, NR was the first thing I turned off in the D3.
I have posted very few shots from the D3 and none where NR has been activated, except for Long exposure NR.
Btw, the NR does not kick in until ISO 6400 if you have it turned on.
WOuld you mind pointing the shot where there seems to be excessive NR going on out to me? I would honestly like to know.

How many lenses have you tried? The 14-24 is a brand new lens designed after the D3 was in development no doubt. The issue on Canon was many of their legacy L glass. Have you tried any of that on the Nikon? The N actually has a narrower lens mount so it should be worse if anything. And Im sorry but how can I tell anything from that shot about corner sharpness? Most of it is sky or snow and its downsized to 600 X 400. All I know is some of my FA lenses have issues on an APS sensor, let alone a FF one!!!!!!

Yes admitted the 14-24 is a different beast alright... and you are probably right, my point was that none of us knows
Here is a sample from the photo above, I do not have an unprocessed version at hand right now... but here is a corner crop from the extreme right hand lower corner:

Processed for an A4 print which actually looks quite good.
It was btw a flare test shot more than anything else, but a very recent sample.
Let me know and I will forward you an unprocessed RAW file of a more suitable shot. I would actually be interested in your opinion, second opinions are always good.

Thomas I have no issue with professionals chosing any gear they want for the job they need to do, or wealthy enthusiasts spending their own good money on gear. However most of the FF supporters here are not professionals and would not consider paying $5000 for a FF camera and are expecting low cost FF for $1500. If this is the market, then Pentax are wasting their time by trying to respond to it at this point.

I know that steve. and we agree on the point about a low cost FF.

To be fair, most of these differences are a matter of degree which is on the whole slight. Shallower DOF is both a blessing and a curse (and its only 50% or shallower eg 4cm rather than 6cm). As for UWA distortion, have you seen the price of that lens you are using? I would hope it was darn good However some of the APS ultrawides are pretty good too - my 12-24 for instance.

Yep I saw the pricetag and it was worth every penny I think. I am still in evaluation mode on it all, but so far the results looks promising.
The 12-24 has an excellent reputation, as does the DA14. I am not discounting the pentax lineup, it is one of my reasons to keep the system on the side for more personal stuff

Oh not that old chestnut. Lets please not go there! They are only equal in the one instance where you demand equal DOF wide open. Since that is only ONE instance of a lenses entire repertoire it does not justify the "equal" tag. If I am shooting sport I need a certain amount of DOF to make sure I get the action in focus - with APSC I can get that at an aperture a stop FASTER which I consider a major plus. In landscape and macro work I also have an advantage. Fact is its a matter of preference but I need a longer lens to get the same field of view on a FF camera so lets leave it at that.

Sorry steve, I could not help it... we do however agree on the rest.
I quite like the nikon output for landscapes (at least from my initial tests... but only a very minor improvement. and you would probably not notise after processing at A3 size

Perhaps not according to Sony

True

I have spent a lot of time shooting with 5Ds (a camera I was planning to buy last year - glad I did not it really does not like skin tones) and have had the chance to use a 1DS mk2 a few times. If your job requires the kind of resolution they deliver, then I would say APSC has now caught up pretty much. If you want to shoot in low light, then it will always be a stop or so behind. For my professional work the K10D does the job pretty well, and is a fun camera at weekends too. I would worry far more about upgrading AF and the flash system than a larger sensor - and I am selling A3+ prints. The K20D will give me some extra resolution, cropping room and another stop or so I can use when it gets dark and I am delighted.

The question was not aimed at you, I was quite certain you know what you talk about.
As I wrote up there. I think you and I are pretty much in line on much of both the ups and downs of each system and I would be surprised to say the least if you would turn out not to have any digital Ff experience.
I do sell A3 prints as well and also from the K10D, it does great for A3.

But if you have a business need, or you have no problems spending the money, and your expectations about what you are getting for that money are realistic, then I have no problem at ALL with FF. The issues "we" are opposing here are

1/ whether Pentax needs to build a FF camera now to remain in business. The people who most vociferously propose this frequently have a very limited understanding of the business and technical issues involved and fully expect the camera they lust for to be $1500 or so when its released. This is simply NOT feasible hence there is simply noone who would buy it for a price that would justify the cost of development right now and this would simply divert resources which would be better spent elsewhere (flash, AF, lenses etc).
And
2/ there is a lot of misinformation floating around that is making FF out to be vastly superior in ways which it clearly is not. Its possible to make very nice very large prints from both which are indistinguishable at ISO up to around 800 or so. Its is also easier and cheaper to build a fast mirror box and up the frame rate on an APS camera than on a FF one (vis a vis 30D and 5D) and in the short term that and AF speed seems to be the main gripe about Pentax.

Steve I think writing this post was a good idea after all. we are much more in line than I thought initially.
I would say my expectations was and still is pretty realistic. It is a tool and I had a full weekend with it (and the 1DsIII) before making any decisions, a fun weekend btw

I think we agree completely on 1 and 2.
The advantage of FF is there and will likely always be there, whether one need it or will ever notise it is a totally different matter. Same goes for whether pentax will need to produce a FF body and whether it should be the top priority.

[distudio]

...most of the FF supporters here are not professionals and would not consider paying $5000 for a FF camera and are expecting low cost FF for $1500. If this is the market, then Pentax are wasting their time by trying to respond to it at this point.

These are probably the same people who swore they'd buy the 645D if it came in at 5k or under ;-) Anyone who has a realistic interest in a 24x36mm sensor body knows it can't be done for $1500 at this point . I bet however many would be prepared to pay what it did cost.

[falconeye]

Admin edit: per forum rules, link removed

May I kindly ask which forum rule I did misrespect?

Reading the forum rules, I only can see one matching rule:

Although users may occasionally post links to useful resources and personal galleries

Is it this? However, this is a useful resource. I only have put the link to one image and I provided additional information about gear used. I will be very pleased to link to another 645 full frame digital image at 100% resolution if you give me one. Without such a link, how can forum members get an impression about the difference in IQ to expect from such gear? And this is the very topic of this thread!

Or is it that some skin was visible in the shot? Note however, that it is hard to photograph people w/o showing skin and that this photo is considered appropriate for all ages (at least in Western countries).

In any case, I kindly ask to restore my original forum message. Thank You.

[Adam]

Hello Falconeye,

It is against the forum rules to post links to nude or pornographic sites. The link you posted opened a website with nude photos showing more than just "some skin"; it wasn't a link to a single image. You have every right to link to useful resources, however, but we cannot allow links such as the one you posted due to the broad audience that this site encompasses.

It may be possible that the link you ended up posting was broken, or, it could have pointed to a private file requiring server authentication. When I tried to access the link, I was redirected to the homepage of an inappropriate site. Please check the link and re-post it if you think this is the case. Thanks.

[volosong]

I'm satisfied with my APS-C Pentax bodies. Since going digital, the ability to take unlimited images from a financial standpoint, has made me a much better photographer. Scanning old slides and film has shown me just how much I stank as a photographer some thirty-years ago.

Only thing I don't really like is the lack of aperture rings on DA lenses. For some reason, when I shooting manual, I like having a knob to turn to change the shutter speed and a lens ring to rotate when changing the aperture. Doesn't "feel" the same using a thumb or a pointer-finger to turn dials.

[distudio]

To be fair, most of these differences are a matter of degree which is on the whole slight. Shallower DOF is both a blessing and a curse (and its only 50% or shallower eg 4cm rather than 6cm). As for UWA distortion, have you seen the price of that lens you are using? I would hope it was darn good However some of the APS ultrawides are pretty good too - my 12-24 for instance.

I missed this quote. To be fair the design angular coverage of the DA12-24 is a fraction of that of the new Nikon 14-24 which given what I paid for my old A15/3.5 actually seems like extraordinary value given its speed zoom range and undisputed performance.

[distudio]

Only thing I don't really like is the lack of aperture rings on DA lenses. For some reason, when I shooting manual, I like having a knob to turn to change the shutter speed and a lens ring to rotate when changing the aperture. Doesn't "feel" the same using a thumb or a pointer-finger to turn dials.

I feel very much the same, I really miss not being able to use (effectively) the aperture ring on my older Pentax lenses, my left hand supports the lens and I feel it's just a natural position to have a control (I generally only shoot primes so I don't have need to control a zoom ring).

[*isteve]

I missed this quote. To be fair the design angular coverage of the DA12-24 is a fraction of that of the new Nikon 14-24 which given what I paid for my old A15/3.5 actually seems like extraordinary value given its speed zoom range and undisputed performance.

Sigma had the 12-24 FF lens available years ago, which is even wider but s-o-f-t.

The Canon 10-20 is, I guess, the nearest reclinear equivalent for APS but sadly its not quite the same class of lens. So yes, its a v.good lens at a price which seems reasonable considering its performance.

Nikon do make some pretty good stuff and if they and Canon were the only manufacturers left I would be really hard pressed to choose - Nikon bodies vs Canon lenses.... Hmm!

[falconeye]

Hello Falconeye,

When I tried to access the link, I was redirected to the homepage of an inappropriate site. Please check the link and re-post it if you think this is the case. Thanks.

Hi Adam,

it may well be that the link was broken because, when I checked again today, I ended up with a diffrent URL, i.e.: [Link removed]
Please check if it is appropriate in this forum.

I would be pleased to link to another topic photo taken with a 645D 40 MPixel sensor. Does anybody know a link to such a resource?