[JJJPhoto]

Although there are brief moments that I long for a full frame Pentax (mainly just to use my FA Limited lenses as originally intended), I'm actually almost perfectly happy if Pentax sticks to using good APS-C sensors.

Why? Because after a couple of months of shooting cameras with both full frame and APS-C sensors I found that in both online galleries and in prints up to 24 x 36 inches (the largest I ever print) I absolutely CANNOT see the difference in images shot with a full-frame sensor and an APS-C sensor.

I shot this with a Sony A99 at ISO 1600:


I shot this with the Sony NEX-6 at ISO 1600:


Both these images look fantastic as 24 x 36 prints and the A99 print actually looks "a little grainier" because of the way I lit the subject compared to the way I lit the model in the NEX-6 image.

Even at ISO 6400 (the highest I ever go) I cannot see obvious differences between the full frame and APS-C images in web galleries or in prints. Sure, If I "pixel peep" at extreme magnification on my 27-inch monitor I can see some (mostly SUBTLE) differences in my real life shots (I don't shoot test charts), but why does pixel peeping matter since no one (except for us crazies in photography forums) ever look at images in that way?

At least for now, APS-C technology is holding its own quite well against full frame ... and even with the prices coming down on full-frame cameras the APS-C cameras are MUCH less expensive.

[blackcloudbrew]

OMG FF blasphemy! However, I don't particularly care either whether or when Pentax goes FF.

[Kerrowdown]

lenses as originally intended

This is the bit that says it all for me.

All my lenses are FF compliant, therefore; I for one will welcome the day a Pentax FF arrives, but I also appreciate it's not for everyone.

[Dr_who]

This almost falls under trolling doesn't it. I mean this has been posted a hundred times with hundreds of responses on each thread. If you want FF great, if you don't great. I don't really see why it needs a new thread, there are plenty of other threads you could have added this comment to. Just my 2 cents worth.

[JJJPhoto]

This almost falls under trolling doesn't it. I mean this has been posted a hundred times with hundreds of responses on each thread. If you want FF great, if you don't great. I don't really see why it needs a new thread, there are plenty of other threads you could have added this comment to. Just my 2 cents worth.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to troll. I've been away from PentaxForums for a few years and recently returned to the Pentax fold so I haven't been following previous threads here about FF and Pentax. I sincerely didn't mean to offend.

[JonPB]

I've been away from PentaxForums for a few years and recently returned to the Pentax fold...

Just curious: being the sort of photographer who attends Sony press events, what drew you back into the Pentax fold? (I'm hoping the answer has something to do with Pentax marketing, but simply that Pentax has the best offering at the moment is also an acceptable answer. )

[JJJPhoto]

My return to Pentax actually has nothing to do with Pentax marketing ... in fact, I've personally heard less from Pentax since the acquisition by Ricoh. I sold all my Pentax gear shortly after the K-7 came out and switched to using a variety of other gear. However, in the couple of years since (while using a variety of Nikon, Fujifilm, Canon, Sony and Olympus gear) I kept looking back fondly at my personal and professional work done with Pentax cameras and primes.

There is nothing inherently superior about my images created with Pentax gear (I could say the same about my images from Nikon, Canon, or "insert camera brand here") but there is "something" about the experience of using smaller/lighter Pentax bodies and Pentax primes that I really enjoy.

When the K-01 dropped to closeout pricing recently that was the excuse I was waiting for to repurchase a core set of Pentax primes and a Pentax body. I mean, a "relatively" compact K-mount camera packed with essentially the same image sensor as the K-5/K-5II priced at $299??? Are you kidding me?

Find another camera that takes fabulous lenses like the Pentax Limiteds, has an aluminum body, high-res LCD, a high-capacity battery and has this great 16MP Sony sensor that you can buy NEW for $300.

Sure, I had my doubts about the K-01. Even with the latest firmware it lacks the AF speed of newer Pentax bodies, but at $300 I couldn't say no. To my surprise, there's actually something about the K-01 that I enjoy more than when I was shooting with the K10D, K20D and K-7. I haven't found the lack of viewfinder to be a problem and the AF speed has only been a problem for me with some lenses (like the FA 135mm 2.8 or FA77) under low light.

Heck, after a week of shooting personal and work stuff with the K-01 I liked the K-01 so much I bought a SECOND K-01 just in case the first has problems or if I want to make a quick lens swap during a shoot without having to remove and reattach lenses.

Also, it's worth mentioning that Pentax isn't the only gear I own and use even though the K-01 and Limiteds are my current favorites. I've sold all my Nikon and Sony gear but I still have a relatively large kit of Canon DSLR gear, an even larger kit of Olympus micro 4/3 gear and a Fujifilm X10.

[Buschmaster]

Pentax WILL go FF, it's only a matter of time. But it'll be a while before it really makes a difference for me as well. That's a damn good shot with the NEX!

[normhead]

People go on and on about using lenses as they were designed to be used. The lenses were designed to be used with film, not digital. With any lens designed to be used with film, purple fringing can be an issue. IN fact the think I pay most attention to in the reviews of older lenses is CA. And many of them are brutal. A brutality that gets more expanded as pixels get smaller. Some argue that CA isn't an issue unless you exceed one pixel in size. As pixels get smaller and smaller, the lack of correction in older lenses becomes more and more noticeable. It's possible that your older glass will work fine. It's also possible CA and purple fringing will make them the first thing you replace. Newer lenses are going to fluorite glass elements to reduce CA and fringing. You aren't going to produce a top quality digital lens without that or something like it. And no film era lenses have them.

There's so much more to this than just sticking a film era lens on a digital FF and thinking you're going to be happy with the results.

Be careful what you wish for.

[vodanh1982]

I usually shoot my son indoor. If Pentax have a fast wide angle for crop (18mm f/1.4), I will not need a FF.

[Ash]

Thanks for sharing your experience JJJ. Nice images by the way.

there is "something" about the experience of using smaller/lighter Pentax bodies and Pentax primes that I really enjoy.

This is no moot point.

a "relatively" compact K-mount camera packed with essentially the same image sensor as the K-5/K-5II priced at $299??? Are you kidding me?

IQ is increasing and price decreasing. But as we know, there is more to a good photographic tool than just the sensor. Pentax make the K-5 et al. for the more rugged outdoors as well as the studio. The K-01 might not always be appropriate for the harsh outdoor conditions, but still a very good buy in anyone's language.

Newer lenses are going to fluorite glass elements to reduce CA and fringing. You aren't going to produce a top quality digital lens without that or something like it. And no film era lenses have them

Pentax's in-camera CA correction is quite useful for lenses such as the FA Limiteds, which are just too good to throw away, CA or not. High contrast situations are where these aberrations are exemplified. Not all shoots require such conditions and as such the FA Limiteds (for example) should perform quite fine on a FF camera, digital or not. I don't see why it would make a difference to the lens's performance whether it is attached to a film or digital body. The aberrations it had on film will be no different than that on digital - pixel peepers will see it to the same extent if film prints were made as big as images are expanded on the computer screen.

Nevertheless, we know that few people actually *need* FF - the law of diminishing returns does apply between APS-C and FF - but it is a pleasurable experience to have the flexibility of a stop more DoF control at the wide end of a FF lens as well as a brilliant and large OVF. When the Pentax FF camera does eventually come out into the wild, I'm sure there will be more reasons that that still that will entice K-5 owners to pick one up.

[monochrome]

People go on and on about using lenses as they were designed to be used. The lenses were designed to be used with film

And for under a hundred bucks anybody who has one can shoot FF right now.

[normhead]

I don't see why it would make a difference to the lens's performance whether it is attached to a film or digital body.

I don't either, but I have seen it said on numerous occasions that purple fringing is a digital problem that does not affect film. And my DA 10-17 @ 15mm produces some wicked purple fringing on my K-5 that I never noticed on my *ist. We can generally get rid of CA in software, but not always. we see purple fringing on the A-400, the F 70-210 and SIgma 70-300, that we don't see on the DA*60-250. And our FA 50 1.7 is one of the worst lenses we have for un-expected purple fringing. Much safer to use the DA 35 2.4 in "normal" type situations.

I'm going with modern lenses control CA and purple fringing better. That's what i see with the lenses I have.

[RobA_Oz]

I don't really think we need to go over the same ground, yet again, but the initial statement by the OP does put a slightly different twist on the debate. Do I care, and if so on what basis? Having seen the numerous posts on those other threads that proselytise, self-justify and argue fine points, I've come to the conclusion that I do care that my investment in Pentax glass is supported by the company maintaining their relevance, and I may care enough to buy a FF body, just to stay current and to get a brighter, bigger viewfinder. Photographically, I don't think I care that much, having seen the many attempts to compare and contrast results from both formats (all three, if you include FT, as some will, inevitably, or four, if you want to bring MF into it). My K-5 has been a revelation after the K20D (which I still have) so staying current clearly has its benefits, as the technology advances. The revelation might have been greater still, if my eyes had been twenty years younger.

[joe.penn]

Nevertheless, we know that few people actually *need* FF - the law of diminishing returns does apply between APS-C and FF - but it is a pleasurable experience to have the flexibility of a stop more DoF control at the wide end of a FF lens as well as a brilliant and large OVF. When the Pentax FF camera does eventually come out into the wild, I'm sure there will be more reasons that that still that will entice K-5 owners to pick one up.

Ohhhhhhhhh, the excitement of the crack of dawn, nice and blue with hardly any light and a great fog rolling across the still calm waters of the river. In the distance you here a cackling sound, you've prepared and visualized this moment all week long, the time is now, you've prepared yourself for this moment - !!!!CLICK!!!! the sound of the 500mm prime locking on to your camera body, [APERTURE SET - Check], [SHUTTER SPEED SET - Check], the shivers, the nervousness, the OH MIGHTY GOOSEBUMPS start to show as you float on the water through the thick fog just knowing what is sitting around the up coming bend in the river ======

POP
POP
POP
POP
POP
POP
POP

Total Chaos!!!! 30+ Hooded Merganser's just took flight off of the water, WOW, what an incredible rush!!!! Prepared for this moment all week long, couldn't wait to come across an opportunity like this, what an incredible moment!!!

Hmmmmmmm - chimping through these pics the ISO was kind of high, I know that 1,250 and below I can get really good ISO performance from my K5, apply a little noise reduction and all is well, but wow, my ISO on these pics bumped 4,000.

O....M....G.... Just applied NR and completely blew the detail of my subjects %$*!

-----------------------------------------------------

DXO ISO Ratings

D3s -> 3253
D600 -> 2980
D800 -> 2979
K5IIs -> 1208

The K5 is way out of it's league when comparing ISO to these FF bodies, not even close - ISO ='s Speed. A D800 sensor would have handled the above with relative ease and would have produced near perfect noise'less solid image files with near perfect detail (thanks to it's FF sensor) - oh ya, the extra DOF helps also for better subject isolation. Yep, few people actually need FF.

In short, if you need a FF body, then get it - if you don't need a FF body and can get the job done with a cropped sensor, then get a cropped sensor.

I hope that Pentax does come out with a FF body one day so we can start seeing the sentiment change towards FF on the forums here, the threads will quickly become "Why You Need A Pentax FF"...