Would you buy a FF Pentax?

bobrapp · 04-12-2008, 05:04 PM

I voted yes. That would be assuming that the pixel count was not over the top. If you were to scale the present K20D sensor to full-frame it would be in the 40mp range. I would settle for 20 to 25 mp. The logic is simple, less stress on the lenses and opens up a broader aperature range, selective focus, more aptions regarding DOF, etc. than the APS size sensors.

Bob

bobrapp · 04-12-2008, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by bobrapp

I voted yes. That would be assuming that the pixel count was not over the top. If you were to scale the present K20D sensor to full-frame it would be in the 40mp range. I would settle for 20 to 25 mp. The logic is simple, less stress on the lenses and opens up a broader aperture range, selective focus, more options regarding DOF, etc. than the APS size sensors.

Bob

I forgot to mention, I only have one APS lens - the 16-45 F4. In full frame, I have lenses spanning the range from 17mm to 200 plus several zooms - some of which are quite good on the K10D.

Bob

cpopham · 04-12-2008, 05:17 PM

I voted no, I'd stick with APS-C.

As a hobbyist I appreciate the small size and weight and most of all the (supposed) lower cost of the APS-C lenses.

I'd also like to point out that a FF camera would be the end of the fabled backwards compatability...

PDL · 04-12-2008, 06:26 PM

Sorry, the vote choices are too limited. When I get to the point where I am going to get a new camera (*ist Ds and K10D) I will see what is available.

If Pentax made a 135 format (I try to use the full frame of what I have so the term FF is just wrong) camera and I was able to buy it on my budget - I would get it.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

thePiRaTE!! · 04-12-2008, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by cpopham

I voted no, I'd stick with APS-C.

As a hobbyist I appreciate the small size and weight and most of all the (supposed) lower cost of the APS-C lenses.

I'd also like to point out that a FF camera would be the end of the fabled backwards compatability...

I'd bet dimes to dollars that a new FF body would read a DA lens and optionally scale its sensor. Worst case scenario, you have poor edge performance and crop your shots manually. Mount compatibility would remain.

I wouldn't think the addition of a 24x36mm sensor over an 18x24mm one would necessitate a dramatic increase in body size, if at all. The mount was already originally designed for a film of that size.

bobrapp · 04-12-2008, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by thePiRaTE!!

I wouldn't think the addition of a 24x36mm sensor over an 18x24mm one would necessitate a dramatic increase in body size, if at all. The mount was already originally designed for a film of that size.

The body would require a larger mirror, shutter and Pentaprism. Since the flange to sensor distance is the same, the only extra bulk would be for electronics.

Bob

bymy141 · 04-13-2008, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by bobrapp

The body would require a larger mirror, shutter and Pentaprism. Since the flange to sensor distance is the same, the only extra bulk would be for electronics.

Bob

I doubt that.
My ME Super handling 35mm film (FF) is a whole lot smaller than my K10D.

- Bert

*isteve · 04-13-2008, 04:10 AM

I would not buy a $5000 camera.

I would probably never even buy a $2000 camera.

I dont care what size the sensor is particularly I just care about price vs. performance and what I can get for around $1000. I would rather spend the rest on decent glass.

The difference in performance is - in useful terms - practically insignificant. FF is far more of an emotional choice than a practical one unless you are a professional.

regken · 04-13-2008, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

I would not buy a $5000 camera.

I would probably never even buy a $2000 camera.

I dont care what size the sensor is particularly I just care about price vs. performance and what I can get for around $1000. I would rather spend the rest on decent glass.

The difference in performance is - in useful terms - practically insignificant. FF is far more of an emotional choice than a practical one unless you are a professional.

Steve,
In general, I agree with you about the cost of a body. The difference in performance however throws a monkey wrench in the equation. When I look at the high ISO samples from a Nikon D3 it seems there is at least two stops difference between that and a K20D.

My present collection of old M and A series lenses shouldn't be out resolved by a 12-14 MP FF sensor so the need to buy new glass is not an issue. A higher MP count would probably cause problems. 28mm is as wide as I have and would like to go wider but the cost looks like it would be at least $500 to get something of good quality. A FF body the size of a K20D would not only give me the wide angle I want but also give me an extra two stops on lenses like the A 200/4. For $2,000 I get a new wide angle lens and an additional two stops on all of my lenses if it were priced at $2,000 like the Canon 5D.

I see a FF body as an addition to my present system that improves my range of lenses and low light performance. Your opinion is highly regarded and would be interested in what your thoughts are on this reasoning.

Thanks,
Ken

simons-photography · 04-13-2008, 06:42 AM

thing is whats all this fuss over FF other than... historical ? I mean so we used to use 36 mm before that it was 4-6 inchs (depending on frame shape) why not call the old medium format full frame ? I mean we have medium format digital backs, its mearly a reference point and today APS-C size sensors and related equipment are quite adequate unless you have particular needs. is there any particular reason (I am a novice after all) why we crave the popular 36 X 24 mm frame size (other than old film SLR compatibility). of course theres always the old 12 inch glass wet plate shall we ask for a digital version of that ?

I saw one at my camera club 150 year old camera worth about 20'000 pounds

falconeye · 04-13-2008, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

(1) High ISO performance amongst different brands is a myth -- it's just a question of how much 'blurring' they use to archive what *looks* like an acceptable image.

(2) Shoot at whatever ISO you wish, you can blur it later to make it more pleasing with numerous programs after the fact.

(3) There isn't much difference in noise or ISO performance when it comes to FF vs APS-C. But many people have convinced themselves otherwise.

(1) I agree.

(2) Actually, shoot at whatever aperture/speed you wish, you can always boost the shadows later on (it doesn't really matter whether high ISO or the boost creates the noise).

(3) Now, that's an easy one: twice the surface = 1 step better ISO noise performance. This is an exact fact from the underlying physics.

falconeye · 04-13-2008, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by aegisphan

whether the lens or the censor is the limiting factor in resolving power.

Ah no. I've seen some images, esp. from Japan, where censorship clearly was the limiting factor in resolving power

twinda1 · 04-13-2008, 07:41 AM

A FF Pentax would NOT be the end of backwards compatibility -- see how Nikon does it with the D3.

There is quite a difference between noise and high-ISO (ISO 6400 say) performance with the D3 and everything else below $5000. I'm not sure why the OP would make such a statement.

I don't have the Canon 5D or the Nikon D3 but I have a pair of friends who do, and I pixel-peep their images regularly. I'd have zero interest in a FF that performs like the K10D. This the main reason why I didn't go for the 5D -- I didn't think it was enough of an advantage for 4x the price. (This of course is why the K10D is such an incredible camera.) However, if you combine FF, low noise, high ISO, fast AF, accurate AF, high frame rate, plus weather sealing, this is quite a camera. Most people fixate on the FF, but the D3 is the complete package, at a price.

I voted yes, but only if the FF Pentax is exactly like a D3 with a K mount.

And I'm probably lying about being willing to shell out $5000; $3000 though...

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-13-2008, 09:18 AM

I answered no, because I have no issues with the crop factor of ASP-C sensors, In fact, as I shoot mostly wild life the crop factor has an advantage for me.

The real fact is, I don't really care one way or another, as to the format of the sensor, BUT in my lens collection, where I have 14 lenses, I have only 1 that is ASP-C limited, specifically my sigma 10-20mm

Part of this simply that many of my lenses predate digital specific formats, and this includes the kit lens that came with my *istD (SMC-FAJ 18-35) and my sigma APO 70-200 F2.8 EX, but I was concious of the full frame capability of my tamron 28-75 F2.8 when I bought it this year.

I still have a very capable film camera (PZ-1) and I do use it from time to time so having lenses that can work on it is a benefit, but also because somewhere in the back of my mind, due to those who promote full frame digital, should one become available I might just have a go at it, if and only if, it is not cost prohibitive, and if it has better IQ and Noise at extreme ISO.

If a camera like that comes along, why not, but otherwise, ASP-C is fine.

aegisphan · 04-13-2008, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Ah no. I've seen some images, esp. from Japan, where censorship clearly was the limiting factor in resolving power

. I don't know what I was thinking.

View Poll Results: Would you buy a full frame Pentax DSLR?
Yes; I will move to FF as soon as I can	60	46.88%
No; APS-C size, cost and quality suits me best	68	53.13%
Voters: 128. You may not vote on this poll

04-13-2008, 09:18 AM	#44
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	No ASP-C suites me fine, BUT I answered no, because I have no issues with the crop factor of ASP-C sensors, In fact, as I shoot mostly wild life the crop factor has an advantage for me. The real fact is, I don't really care one way or another, as to the format of the sensor, BUT in my lens collection, where I have 14 lenses, I have only 1 that is ASP-C limited, specifically my sigma 10-20mm Part of this simply that many of my lenses predate digital specific formats, and this includes the kit lens that came with my *istD (SMC-FAJ 18-35) and my sigma APO 70-200 F2.8 EX, but I was concious of the full frame capability of my tamron 28-75 F2.8 when I bought it this year. I still have a very capable film camera (PZ-1) and I do use it from time to time so having lenses that can work on it is a benefit, but also because somewhere in the back of my mind, due to those who promote full frame digital, should one become available I might just have a go at it, if and only if, it is not cost prohibitive, and if it has better IQ and Noise at extreme ISO. If a camera like that comes along, why not, but otherwise, ASP-C is fine.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax SMC FA 50mm/F1,4 to buy or not to buy?	Eugene-S	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	12-05-2010 02:04 PM
Should I be a good Pentax choirboy and buy a DA 15 Limited or buy the Sigma 10-20mm?	tokyoso	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	42	03-14-2010 04:54 PM
SIGMA 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM Lens for PENTAX:To buy or not to buy?	thelittlecar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	12-31-2009 06:01 AM
LBA help! buy 17-70 or sell the 70-300 and buy 18-250	cardikat	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	12-30-2009 03:55 AM
To Buy Or Not To Buy Pentax F 50mm 1.7	Slice	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	03-21-2009 06:39 PM

04-12-2008, 05:04 PM	#31
bobrapp Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Grand Junction Colorado Posts: 209	I voted yes. That would be assuming that the pixel count was not over the top. If you were to scale the present K20D sensor to full-frame it would be in the 40mp range. I would settle for 20 to 25 mp. The logic is simple, less stress on the lenses and opens up a broader aperature range, selective focus, more aptions regarding DOF, etc. than the APS size sensors. Bob

04-12-2008, 05:08 PM	#32
bobrapp Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Grand Junction Colorado Posts: 209	Originally posted by bobrapp I voted yes. That would be assuming that the pixel count was not over the top. If you were to scale the present K20D sensor to full-frame it would be in the 40mp range. I would settle for 20 to 25 mp. The logic is simple, less stress on the lenses and opens up a broader aperture range, selective focus, more options regarding DOF, etc. than the APS size sensors. Bob I forgot to mention, I only have one APS lens - the 16-45 F4. In full frame, I have lenses spanning the range from 17mm to 200 plus several zooms - some of which are quite good on the K10D. Bob

04-12-2008, 05:17 PM	#33
cpopham Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Auckland Posts: 553	I voted no, I'd stick with APS-C. As a hobbyist I appreciate the small size and weight and most of all the (supposed) lower cost of the APS-C lenses. I'd also like to point out that a FF camera would be the end of the fabled backwards compatability...

04-12-2008, 06:26 PM	#34
PDL Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: PNW USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,127	Sorry, the vote choices are too limited. When I get to the point where I am going to get a new camera (*ist Ds and K10D) I will see what is available. If Pentax made a 135 format (I try to use the full frame of what I have so the term FF is just wrong) camera and I was able to buy it on my budget - I would get it. The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

04-12-2008, 06:51 PM	#35
thePiRaTE!! Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Calgary, AB Photos: Gallery Posts: 942	Originally posted by cpopham I voted no, I'd stick with APS-C. As a hobbyist I appreciate the small size and weight and most of all the (supposed) lower cost of the APS-C lenses. I'd also like to point out that a FF camera would be the end of the fabled backwards compatability... I'd bet dimes to dollars that a new FF body would read a DA lens and optionally scale its sensor. Worst case scenario, you have poor edge performance and crop your shots manually. Mount compatibility would remain. I wouldn't think the addition of a 24x36mm sensor over an 18x24mm one would necessitate a dramatic increase in body size, if at all. The mount was already originally designed for a film of that size.

04-12-2008, 07:27 PM	#36
bobrapp Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Grand Junction Colorado Posts: 209	Originally posted by thePiRaTE!! I wouldn't think the addition of a 24x36mm sensor over an 18x24mm one would necessitate a dramatic increase in body size, if at all. The mount was already originally designed for a film of that size. The body would require a larger mirror, shutter and Pentaprism. Since the flange to sensor distance is the same, the only extra bulk would be for electronics. Bob

04-13-2008, 02:47 AM	#37
bymy141 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,563 Original Poster	Originally posted by bobrapp The body would require a larger mirror, shutter and Pentaprism. Since the flange to sensor distance is the same, the only extra bulk would be for electronics. Bob I doubt that. My ME Super handling 35mm film (FF) is a whole lot smaller than my K10D. - Bert

04-13-2008, 04:10 AM	#38
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	I would not buy a $5000 camera. I would probably never even buy a $2000 camera. I dont care what size the sensor is particularly I just care about price vs. performance and what I can get for around $1000. I would rather spend the rest on decent glass. The difference in performance is - in useful terms - practically insignificant. FF is far more of an emotional choice than a practical one unless you are a professional.

04-13-2008, 06:14 AM	#39
regken Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bangor, Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,377	Originally posted by *isteve I would not buy a $5000 camera. I would probably never even buy a $2000 camera. I dont care what size the sensor is particularly I just care about price vs. performance and what I can get for around $1000. I would rather spend the rest on decent glass. The difference in performance is - in useful terms - practically insignificant. FF is far more of an emotional choice than a practical one unless you are a professional. Steve, In general, I agree with you about the cost of a body. The difference in performance however throws a monkey wrench in the equation. When I look at the high ISO samples from a Nikon D3 it seems there is at least two stops difference between that and a K20D. My present collection of old M and A series lenses shouldn't be out resolved by a 12-14 MP FF sensor so the need to buy new glass is not an issue. A higher MP count would probably cause problems. 28mm is as wide as I have and would like to go wider but the cost looks like it would be at least $500 to get something of good quality. A FF body the size of a K20D would not only give me the wide angle I want but also give me an extra two stops on lenses like the A 200/4. For $2,000 I get a new wide angle lens and an additional two stops on all of my lenses if it were priced at $2,000 like the Canon 5D. I see a FF body as an addition to my present system that improves my range of lenses and low light performance. Your opinion is highly regarded and would be interested in what your thoughts are on this reasoning. Thanks, Ken

04-13-2008, 06:42 AM	#40
simons-photography Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northamptonshire - England Photos: Gallery Posts: 496	thing is whats all this fuss over FF other than... historical ? I mean so we used to use 36 mm before that it was 4-6 inchs (depending on frame shape) why not call the old medium format full frame ? I mean we have medium format digital backs, its mearly a reference point and today APS-C size sensors and related equipment are quite adequate unless you have particular needs. is there any particular reason (I am a novice after all) why we crave the popular 36 X 24 mm frame size (other than old film SLR compatibility). of course theres always the old 12 inch glass wet plate shall we ask for a digital version of that ? I saw one at my camera club 150 year old camera worth about 20'000 pounds

04-13-2008, 06:53 AM	#41
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by konraDarnok (1) High ISO performance amongst different brands is a myth -- it's just a question of how much 'blurring' they use to archive what looks like an acceptable image. (2) Shoot at whatever ISO you wish, you can blur it later to make it more pleasing with numerous programs after the fact. (3) There isn't much difference in noise or ISO performance when it comes to FF vs APS-C. But many people have convinced themselves otherwise. (1) I agree. (2) Actually, shoot at whatever aperture/speed you wish, you can always boost the shadows later on (it doesn't really matter whether high ISO or the boost creates the noise). (3) Now, that's an easy one: twice the surface = 1 step better ISO noise performance. This is an exact fact from the underlying physics.

04-13-2008, 06:58 AM	#42
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by aegisphan whether the lens or the censor is the limiting factor in resolving power. Ah no. I've seen some images, esp. from Japan, where censorship clearly was the limiting factor in resolving power

04-13-2008, 07:41 AM	#43
twinda1 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Boston Posts: 142	A FF Pentax would NOT be the end of backwards compatibility -- see how Nikon does it with the D3. There is quite a difference between noise and high-ISO (ISO 6400 say) performance with the D3 and everything else below $5000. I'm not sure why the OP would make such a statement. I don't have the Canon 5D or the Nikon D3 but I have a pair of friends who do, and I pixel-peep their images regularly. I'd have zero interest in a FF that performs like the K10D. This the main reason why I didn't go for the 5D -- I didn't think it was enough of an advantage for 4x the price. (This of course is why the K10D is such an incredible camera.) However, if you combine FF, low noise, high ISO, fast AF, accurate AF, high frame rate, plus weather sealing, this is quite a camera. Most people fixate on the FF, but the D3 is the complete package, at a price. I voted yes, but only if the FF Pentax is exactly like a D3 with a K mount. And I'm probably lying about being willing to shell out $5000; $3000 though...

04-13-2008, 09:23 AM	#45
aegisphan Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Mexico Posts: 815	Originally posted by falconeye Ah no. I've seen some images, esp. from Japan, where censorship clearly was the limiting factor in resolving power . I don't know what I was thinking.