Who's sticking with APSc?

TzalamChadash · 02-07-2015, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by shiner

I have no desire for a big clunker of a FF DSLR camera that I would hesitate to carry around all the time due to its weight, size, and huge replacement cost- all for a dubious amount of improved IQ. That said, should Ricoh decide to develop a compact, lightweight FF EVF body with the same sensor, I'd stand in line for that.

Same here. When the EVF technology get to the point that they can be used reasonably well in a sunny climate I see going to something like the sony A7ii.
Good thing that Sony can take all the k mount lenses. I would certainly get the sony A7ii over something twice as large and twice the price.
I can't see myself ever getting a camera that's larger than the k-50.

rburgoss · 02-07-2015, 01:24 PM

When I started in photography, the limitations came from the film (grain, dynamic range, etc) and the chemistry involved (development quality, enlargement, printing, display, storage, etc). With digital, almost all of that is gone. The only remaining limitation was "grain" or "image noise".

For some of use who struggled with ASA (iso) 40 and 64 Kodachrome, when we got some decent results from Ektachrome at 100, we all thanked God, then came Disneychrome (Velvia) who knocked our socks off with its color and saturaration.

By those days, any lens was a good lens, simply because it was difficult to find any film that could render true optics resolution. B&W films such as Agfapan 25 or Kodak Panatomic really started splitting hairs by showing real lens resolutions.

With today's digital cameras (APSC), we are getting way better results and resolution, as well as dynamic range than 40 yrs ago with any film. So, it doesn't seem logical to pursue farther dynmic range or resolution that what is optically and reasonable (cost) to produce with today's gear.

So, unless there is a huge leap in IQ, I find no reason to feel compelled to go to full format, the same way I could have felt compelled to go medium format during the film days. Its a matter or cost vs. actual usable results.

I am just an avid enthusiast. I do not make money from photography, so that's probably a good reason not to be forced into full frame.

Besides, history has told me that new technology needs some extensive "real world" use and abuse, so its creators can come up with second and third generations that fix whatever was overlooked the first time. I am sure the new FF body will also walk this path, but at an average price of $2,000 + per body.... sounds a bit too steep for my enthusiasm.

Besides, I think its too early to know what is going to happen to the market, in matters of availability (APS), and support, as well as further improvement on what we already have. Just lets hope Pentax does not abandon the high end spectrum of the APS format (K3 and good DA new glass).

Jonathan Mac · 02-07-2015, 01:24 PM - **1 Like**

The arguments against FF still stand: size, cost, weight, and not just of the camera but of the lenses. APS-C is the ideal compromise.

I'd love a FF the size of a film SLR so I could use some fast old primes with it, but it looks like Pentax are not going small enough with this FF body - apart from the mount, it looks likely to be just another FF DSLR.

jddwoods · 02-08-2015, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by rburgoss

When I started in photography, the limitations came from the film (grain, dynamic range, etc) and the chemistry involved (development quality, enlargement, printing, display, storage, etc). With digital, almost all of that is gone. The only remaining limitation was "grain" or "image noise".

For some of use who struggled with ASA (iso) 40 and 64 Kodachrome, when we got some decent results from Ektachrome at 100, we all thanked God, then came Disneychrome (Velvia) who knocked our socks off with its color and saturaration.

By those days, any lens was a good lens, simply because it was difficult to find any film that could render true optics resolution. B&W films such as Agfapan 25 or Kodak Panatomic really started splitting hairs by showing real lens resolutions.

With today's digital cameras (APSC), we are getting way better results and resolution, as well as dynamic range than 40 yrs ago with any film. So, it doesn't seem logical to pursue farther dynmic range or resolution that what is optically and reasonable (cost) to produce with today's gear.

So, unless there is a huge leap in IQ, I find no reason to feel compelled to go to full format, the same way I could have felt compelled to go medium format during the film days. Its a matter or cost vs. actual usable results.

I am just an avid enthusiast. I do not make money from photography, so that's probably a good reason not to be forced into full frame.

Besides, history has told me that new technology needs some extensive "real world" use and abuse, so its creators can come up with second and third generations that fix whatever was overlooked the first time. I am sure the new FF body will also walk this path, but at an average price of $2,000 + per body.... sounds a bit too steep for my enthusiasm.

Besides, I think its too early to know what is going to happen to the market, in matters of availability (APS), and support, as well as further improvement on what we already have. Just lets hope Pentax does not abandon the high end spectrum of the APS format (K3 and good DA new glass).

There are some really good points here. I will add two more:
1. Has the resolution of a really good camera & lens combination such as a K-3 with DFA 100 Macro WR already surpassed what our computer monitors and printers are capable of? My guess is yes, especially printers. I have an I Mac 21.5 inch display which is a very sharp monitor but I think the best shots with my K-3 surpass even this monitor.
2. I am 62 years old and my eyesight is not quite what it used to be. Digital camera resolution keeps getting better but my eyesight is not keeping up with the technology and I think the K-3 has now surpassed my eyesight permanently. This makes me think: What advantage in FF is there for me and many others like myself?

I expect my K-5 and K-3 will give many more years of service, but I hope that Ricoh/Pentax will continue to offer high end APS-C. I suppose the worldwide market, all of us who buy the cameras, will make that decision.

vonBaloney · 02-08-2015, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by jddwoods

2. I am 62 years old and my eyesight is not quite what it used to be. Digital camera resolution keeps getting better but my eyesight is not keeping up with the technology and I think the K-3 has now surpassed my eyesight permanently. This makes me think: What advantage in FF is there for me and many others like myself?

Bigger viewfinder

aleonx3 · 02-08-2015, 10:29 AM

I shoot events and I prefer APS-C over FF for the fact that I can get the reach without having to haul the heavy gear such as the 70-200. I often shoot along side with many who uses Canikony FF cameras, I have yet to see them gaining advantages over my k-5IIs/k-3 combination. I can use a 58f1.4 FF MF lens on APS-C camera where to get the equivalent on FF camera, one has to use a 85f2 lens and stand further away from the subject; and I prefer the focal length perspective of the 58mm better than the 85mm. To me, the APS-C sensor format technology has matured and provide the best combination when used with the FF lens; it always will be my primary camera and the FF camera (if and when I get it) will be my secondary.

The real question is: how many Pentax users who can't wait for Pentax FF in the last few years (have already purchased Canikony FF) will come back to become a Pentax FF user again? or are they done with Pentax and left for good. Time will tell....

BTW, I didn't vote...

severalsnakes · 02-08-2015, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by jddwoods

There are some really good points here. I will add two more:
1. Has the resolution of a really good camera & lens combination such as a K-3 with DFA 100 Macro WR already surpassed what our computer monitors and printers are capable of? My guess is yes, especially printers. I have an I Mac 21.5 inch display which is a very sharp monitor but I think the best shots with my K-3 surpass even this monitor.
2. I am 62 years old and my eyesight is not quite what it used to be. Digital camera resolution keeps getting better but my eyesight is not keeping up with the technology and I think the K-3 has now surpassed my eyesight permanently. This makes me think: What advantage in FF is there for me and many others like myself?

I expect my K-5 and K-3 will give many more years of service, but I hope that Ricoh/Pentax will continue to offer high end APS-C. I suppose the worldwide market, all of us who buy the cameras, will make that decision.

I think these are great thoughts. The other day I was discussing it with my brother: I very rarely make prints and all I have is a laptop with a 17" monitor. All I really NEED is, like, 4 megapixels, right??

My K-30 shoots 16, which I already feel is way more than I need. Plus, I would not be excited to have to deal with the sheer file size of 36 megapixels, unless I truly needed the resolution for prints or whatever. I'm sure there's a more complicated way to understand this and justify it, but this is all my brain has in it.

bwDraco · 02-08-2015, 11:57 AM

I have no current plans to go full-frame.

I'm very happy with my original-model K-5, but it's almost three years old and I'm hoping to replace it with a future APS-C successor to the K-3. The next major K-system purchase on my mind is the 1.4x rear converter, and even that is going to be a while away as I am rather short on cash right now.

—DragonLord

repaap · 02-08-2015, 12:19 PM

I will go with both.

Actually If I had more money, I'd have aps-c for most stuff and for reach and 645D/Z for landscapes, portraits...Let us see what this new FF will be. I have no doubt that it would meet every ones standards. Size does not bother me, but if it will have what K-3 has and more, it will be great! But I will not be early adopter, after one year from release, probably or little less.

I love my K-3. Will not let it go for many years to come.

kadajawi · 02-08-2015, 01:31 PM

I don't need FF, and FF would also come with disadvantages that I do not want. I'll stay with APS-C.

UplandGame · 02-09-2015, 09:06 PM

I'm glad to hear that Pentax is launching a Full Frame. But, I will be staying with APS-C as I have grown quite accustomed to the format over the last 10 years, and plan to run with my current gear (K5 iis) for another 4-5 years. Although, I still miss the field of view of my 50mm lenses on FF (35mm film).

CNunez · 02-15-2015, 02:26 AM

I'll be sticking with apsc. I quite enjoy it.

One full frame I've enjoy playing with is the Sony a7 series.

Mirrorless for size and evf makes all the difference if I were to upgrade.

Still if I were to choose an evf it would be Olympus technology. It has been fantastic in any lighting. From the brightest sunny day, to incredible low light.

That said the capabilities and cost of the k3 is why I bought it and why I'll be sticking with it for time to come

howieb101 · 02-15-2015, 03:09 AM

The K3 is superlative in my books. Coming from the K5 I still believe the K3 is the much better than the K5 variants. I see no dying need to go fullframe other than lust (and that is a reasonable reason in and of itself).

I will get a full frame eventually but a 2nd hand or new 645D is also pretty tempting.

Howie B

**Digitalis** · 02-15-2015, 03:29 AM

I'll be using three different DSLR formats from Pentax simultaneously: APS-C, FX and Medium format. How many camera manufacturers have that kind of a line up*?

* Leica also has an APS-C, FX and Medium format camera - but they aren't all SLRs. They have two mirrorless cameras (Leica T and Leica M) with one SLR (The Leica S2). I'm not including compacts because Leica doesn't actually make them, Panasonic does.

Cynog Ap Brychan · 02-15-2015, 03:30 AM

I'm currently running FF, APS-C (K-3), micro four-thirds and Q systems. I don't intend to change that, but if the forthcoming Pentax FF is all I hope it is, I'll be able to drop one brand from the mix, and use Pentax for FF and APS-C.

View Poll Results: Who's going to stick with APSc
APSc only	151	51.36%
FF only	11	3.74%
APSc and FF mix	132	44.90%
Voters: 294. You may not vote on this poll

02-08-2015, 10:29 AM	#111
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	I shoot events and I prefer APS-C over FF for the fact that I can get the reach without having to haul the heavy gear such as the 70-200. I often shoot along side with many who uses Canikony FF cameras, I have yet to see them gaining advantages over my k-5IIs/k-3 combination. I can use a 58f1.4 FF MF lens on APS-C camera where to get the equivalent on FF camera, one has to use a 85f2 lens and stand further away from the subject; and I prefer the focal length perspective of the 58mm better than the 85mm. To me, the APS-C sensor format technology has matured and provide the best combination when used with the FF lens; it always will be my primary camera and the FF camera (if and when I get it) will be my secondary. The real question is: how many Pentax users who can't wait for Pentax FF in the last few years (have already purchased Canikony FF) will come back to become a Pentax FF user again? or are they done with Pentax and left for good. Time will tell.... BTW, I didn't vote... Last edited by aleonx3; 02-08-2015 at 12:08 PM.

02-15-2015, 03:29 AM	#119
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	I'll be using three different DSLR formats from Pentax simultaneously: APS-C, FX and Medium format. How many camera manufacturers have that kind of a line up? Leica also has an APS-C, FX and Medium format camera - but they aren't all SLRs. They have two mirrorless cameras (Leica T and Leica M) with one SLR (The Leica S2). I'm not including compacts because Leica doesn't actually make them, Panasonic does. Last edited by Digitalis; 02-15-2015 at 03:35 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anybody waiting for Pentax's APSC of GH4 equivalent?	lightbulb	Pentax Mirrorless Cameras	8	12-31-2014 06:01 AM
Nature Hinterland - Who's Who - The Duck Series	daacon	Post Your Photos!	8	06-11-2013 08:59 AM
Abstract Who's posing for who	Kerrowdown	Post Your Photos!	13	04-24-2013 01:39 AM
Who's shooting with multiple systems?	leeak	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	12-03-2008 07:53 PM
Sticking with the birds	dws1117	Post Your Photos!	2	04-21-2008 05:57 PM

02-07-2015, 01:10 PM	#106
TzalamChadash Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 103	Originally posted by shiner I have no desire for a big clunker of a FF DSLR camera that I would hesitate to carry around all the time due to its weight, size, and huge replacement cost- all for a dubious amount of improved IQ. That said, should Ricoh decide to develop a compact, lightweight FF EVF body with the same sensor, I'd stand in line for that. Same here. When the EVF technology get to the point that they can be used reasonably well in a sunny climate I see going to something like the sony A7ii. Good thing that Sony can take all the k mount lenses. I would certainly get the sony A7ii over something twice as large and twice the price. I can't see myself ever getting a camera that's larger than the k-50.

02-07-2015, 01:24 PM	#107
rburgoss Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 972	When I started in photography, the limitations came from the film (grain, dynamic range, etc) and the chemistry involved (development quality, enlargement, printing, display, storage, etc). With digital, almost all of that is gone. The only remaining limitation was "grain" or "image noise". For some of use who struggled with ASA (iso) 40 and 64 Kodachrome, when we got some decent results from Ektachrome at 100, we all thanked God, then came Disneychrome (Velvia) who knocked our socks off with its color and saturaration. By those days, any lens was a good lens, simply because it was difficult to find any film that could render true optics resolution. B&W films such as Agfapan 25 or Kodak Panatomic really started splitting hairs by showing real lens resolutions. With today's digital cameras (APSC), we are getting way better results and resolution, as well as dynamic range than 40 yrs ago with any film. So, it doesn't seem logical to pursue farther dynmic range or resolution that what is optically and reasonable (cost) to produce with today's gear. So, unless there is a huge leap in IQ, I find no reason to feel compelled to go to full format, the same way I could have felt compelled to go medium format during the film days. Its a matter or cost vs. actual usable results. I am just an avid enthusiast. I do not make money from photography, so that's probably a good reason not to be forced into full frame. Besides, history has told me that new technology needs some extensive "real world" use and abuse, so its creators can come up with second and third generations that fix whatever was overlooked the first time. I am sure the new FF body will also walk this path, but at an average price of $2,000 + per body.... sounds a bit too steep for my enthusiasm. Besides, I think its too early to know what is going to happen to the market, in matters of availability (APS), and support, as well as further improvement on what we already have. Just lets hope Pentax does not abandon the high end spectrum of the APS format (K3 and good DA new glass).

02-07-2015, 01:24 PM - 1 Like	#108
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	The arguments against FF still stand: size, cost, weight, and not just of the camera but of the lenses. APS-C is the ideal compromise. I'd love a FF the size of a film SLR so I could use some fast old primes with it, but it looks like Pentax are not going small enough with this FF body - apart from the mount, it looks likely to be just another FF DSLR.

02-08-2015, 09:13 AM	#109
jddwoods Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Newark, Delaware Posts: 1,035	Originally posted by rburgoss When I started in photography, the limitations came from the film (grain, dynamic range, etc) and the chemistry involved (development quality, enlargement, printing, display, storage, etc). With digital, almost all of that is gone. The only remaining limitation was "grain" or "image noise". For some of use who struggled with ASA (iso) 40 and 64 Kodachrome, when we got some decent results from Ektachrome at 100, we all thanked God, then came Disneychrome (Velvia) who knocked our socks off with its color and saturaration. By those days, any lens was a good lens, simply because it was difficult to find any film that could render true optics resolution. B&W films such as Agfapan 25 or Kodak Panatomic really started splitting hairs by showing real lens resolutions. With today's digital cameras (APSC), we are getting way better results and resolution, as well as dynamic range than 40 yrs ago with any film. So, it doesn't seem logical to pursue farther dynmic range or resolution that what is optically and reasonable (cost) to produce with today's gear. So, unless there is a huge leap in IQ, I find no reason to feel compelled to go to full format, the same way I could have felt compelled to go medium format during the film days. Its a matter or cost vs. actual usable results. I am just an avid enthusiast. I do not make money from photography, so that's probably a good reason not to be forced into full frame. Besides, history has told me that new technology needs some extensive "real world" use and abuse, so its creators can come up with second and third generations that fix whatever was overlooked the first time. I am sure the new FF body will also walk this path, but at an average price of $2,000 + per body.... sounds a bit too steep for my enthusiasm. Besides, I think its too early to know what is going to happen to the market, in matters of availability (APS), and support, as well as further improvement on what we already have. Just lets hope Pentax does not abandon the high end spectrum of the APS format (K3 and good DA new glass). There are some really good points here. I will add two more: 1. Has the resolution of a really good camera & lens combination such as a K-3 with DFA 100 Macro WR already surpassed what our computer monitors and printers are capable of? My guess is yes, especially printers. I have an I Mac 21.5 inch display which is a very sharp monitor but I think the best shots with my K-3 surpass even this monitor. 2. I am 62 years old and my eyesight is not quite what it used to be. Digital camera resolution keeps getting better but my eyesight is not keeping up with the technology and I think the K-3 has now surpassed my eyesight permanently. This makes me think: What advantage in FF is there for me and many others like myself? I expect my K-5 and K-3 will give many more years of service, but I hope that Ricoh/Pentax will continue to offer high end APS-C. I suppose the worldwide market, all of us who buy the cameras, will make that decision.

02-08-2015, 09:33 AM	#110
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by jddwoods 2. I am 62 years old and my eyesight is not quite what it used to be. Digital camera resolution keeps getting better but my eyesight is not keeping up with the technology and I think the K-3 has now surpassed my eyesight permanently. This makes me think: What advantage in FF is there for me and many others like myself? Bigger viewfinder

02-08-2015, 10:42 AM	#112
severalsnakes Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Kansas City, KS Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,612	Originally posted by jddwoods There are some really good points here. I will add two more: 1. Has the resolution of a really good camera & lens combination such as a K-3 with DFA 100 Macro WR already surpassed what our computer monitors and printers are capable of? My guess is yes, especially printers. I have an I Mac 21.5 inch display which is a very sharp monitor but I think the best shots with my K-3 surpass even this monitor. 2. I am 62 years old and my eyesight is not quite what it used to be. Digital camera resolution keeps getting better but my eyesight is not keeping up with the technology and I think the K-3 has now surpassed my eyesight permanently. This makes me think: What advantage in FF is there for me and many others like myself? I expect my K-5 and K-3 will give many more years of service, but I hope that Ricoh/Pentax will continue to offer high end APS-C. I suppose the worldwide market, all of us who buy the cameras, will make that decision. I think these are great thoughts. The other day I was discussing it with my brother: I very rarely make prints and all I have is a laptop with a 17" monitor. All I really NEED is, like, 4 megapixels, right?? My K-30 shoots 16, which I already feel is way more than I need. Plus, I would not be excited to have to deal with the sheer file size of 36 megapixels, unless I truly needed the resolution for prints or whatever. I'm sure there's a more complicated way to understand this and justify it, but this is all my brain has in it.

02-08-2015, 11:57 AM	#113
bwDraco Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,071	I have no current plans to go full-frame. I'm very happy with my original-model K-5, but it's almost three years old and I'm hoping to replace it with a future APS-C successor to the K-3. The next major K-system purchase on my mind is the 1.4x rear converter, and even that is going to be a while away as I am rather short on cash right now. —DragonLord

02-08-2015, 12:19 PM	#114
repaap Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,242	I will go with both. Actually If I had more money, I'd have aps-c for most stuff and for reach and 645D/Z for landscapes, portraits...Let us see what this new FF will be. I have no doubt that it would meet every ones standards. Size does not bother me, but if it will have what K-3 has and more, it will be great! But I will not be early adopter, after one year from release, probably or little less. I love my K-3. Will not let it go for many years to come.

02-08-2015, 01:31 PM	#115
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	I don't need FF, and FF would also come with disadvantages that I do not want. I'll stay with APS-C.

02-09-2015, 09:06 PM	#116
UplandGame New Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery Posts: 19	I'm glad to hear that Pentax is launching a Full Frame. But, I will be staying with APS-C as I have grown quite accustomed to the format over the last 10 years, and plan to run with my current gear (K5 iis) for another 4-5 years. Although, I still miss the field of view of my 50mm lenses on FF (35mm film).

02-15-2015, 02:26 AM	#117
CNunez Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 168	I'll be sticking with apsc. I quite enjoy it. One full frame I've enjoy playing with is the Sony a7 series. Mirrorless for size and evf makes all the difference if I were to upgrade. Still if I were to choose an evf it would be Olympus technology. It has been fantastic in any lighting. From the brightest sunny day, to incredible low light. That said the capabilities and cost of the k3 is why I bought it and why I'll be sticking with it for time to come

02-15-2015, 03:09 AM	#118
howieb101 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 594	The K3 is superlative in my books. Coming from the K5 I still believe the K3 is the much better than the K5 variants. I see no dying need to go fullframe other than lust (and that is a reasonable reason in and of itself). I will get a full frame eventually but a 2nd hand or new 645D is also pretty tempting. Howie B

02-15-2015, 03:30 AM	#120
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	I'm currently running FF, APS-C (K-3), micro four-thirds and Q systems. I don't intend to change that, but if the forthcoming Pentax FF is all I hope it is, I'll be able to drop one brand from the mix, and use Pentax for FF and APS-C.