[mikesbike]

Yes. I guess I was a bit late for Zoolander, but the intangible clarity of the FF format is un deniable. My minimum print is 8.5 x 11 and I will jump to 13 x 19 or even 2 x 3 and I see discernible differences in the K-1ii and other APS-c offerings. I stand by my comments on the K-1ii. I had to adjust a couple lenses with the fine adjustment on the camera, but it's humming now...

I am glad you are getting the results you need for prints with your K-1 II. Of course, the advantage for a larger sensor, all other things being fairly equal, is in doing enlargements there is an inherent advantage when you are working with a larger image to start with. It does not have to be enlarged as many times over. Another reason why medium format has not disappeared.

I don't know which APS-C offerings you've compared, but I've seen examples from some, including Sandy Hancock, who owns both, of remarkable success with enlargements from the KP.

[normhead]

Yes. I guess I was a bit late for Zoolander, but the intangible clarity of the FF format is un deniable. My minimum print is 8.5 x 11 and I will jump to 13 x 19 or even 2 x 3 and I see discernible differences in the K-1ii and other APS-c offerings. I stand by my comments on the K-1ii. I had to adjust a couple lenses with the fine adjustment on the camera, but it's humming now...

It's really hard to document,ent that but every FF user knows its true. You get a few images you know wouldn't have been as good on APS-c, but you didn't have an APS_c camera with you that day so there's not comparison image to prove it. Every now and then you get an image where resolution, dynamic range, low light performance all come together to produce a stellar image. I think 645 is more of the same.

I suspect this is one of those images, but, i can't prove it. It's just not that often I'm carrying both the K-1 and K-3 and have time to take an image twice.


I can show you comparative images that are quite good where APS-c was up to the job... but it sure is rewarding when you hit that FF sweet spot.

But APS-c isn't too shabby either.


As I see it, it's a continuum. The larger group being images both APS-c can handle and taking them with FF doesn't make much difference. We have lots of those. Then comes the images where they would look a little better shot with an FF, for whatever reason, resolution, more DR, better high ISO performance,, whatever. That's a pretty small group. The there's those for which nether FF nor APS-c will do the trick. A smaller portion of those will be resolved by MF. Then there are those that just aren't going to work, no matter what you shoot.

Going FF is meaning maybe 5% of my images that will be noticeably better, but you're buying heavier more expensive gear to get that 5%. You have to ask yourself, "Do I take the images that will benefit from FF." That's very individual, if I'm MIkSF the answer is "heck yes". If I'm normhead the answer is "it might be" and I'm still undecided. And the numbers above are my numbers. Someone else might have half to all their images improved by FF, a lot depends on what you shoot, and what you expect from it.

[johnha]

I have probably been the greatest advocate for a 24mp FF camera - mainly because I have heard from Nikon users users that they would much rather have a 24mp FF D750 for low light situations than a 20mp APS D500. Since the D750 is currently priced around $1400, I've been hoping that a similar Pentax camera could settle at $1200-$1300 if they give it characteristics similar to a KP..

I agree that Pentax could do with a cheaper FF body - I've just bought a new (old stock) K-1 for a similar price (given that we pay one £ for each $ paid in the US). It's far cheaper for Pentax to do that than develop another (lower res) camera, but all the K-1s seemed to disappear when the ii came out.

The problem is the bench-mark Pentax have set, anything with less technology or inferior build/weather resistance would be seen as a massive step backwards - putting a 'cheaper' sensor in wouldn't reduce the price by 1/3 and Pentax would need to re-write the firmware (as expensive these days as the hardware & body shell).

As a long standing film shooter, yes FF is easily worth it (OK I have a bagful of FA lenses) - getting a 'proper' viewfinder back and being able to use my FA lenses with their 'proper' focal lengths is reason enough.

[reh321]

I agree that Pentax could do with a cheaper FF body - I've just bought a new (old stock) K-1 for a similar price (given that we pay one £ for each $ paid in the US). It's far cheaper for Pentax to do that than develop another (lower res) camera, but all the K-1s seemed to disappear when the ii came out.

The problem is the bench-mark Pentax have set, anything with less technology or inferior build/weather resistance would be seen as a massive step backwards - putting a 'cheaper' sensor in wouldn't reduce the price by 1/3 and Pentax would need to re-write the firmware (as expensive these days as the hardware & body shell).

If they don't make any major changes in features, and {big assumption coming} they wrote the K-1ii / KP firmware 'properly', a few adjustments would be needed, but they should be able to build the new firmware by choosing some from column A and some from Column B. I believe testing would show that this camera has even better high-ISO performance than the KP, so it would be a step forward.

[Rondec]

I have probably been the greatest advocate for a 24mp FF camera - mainly because I have heard from Nikon users users that they would much rather have a 24mp FF D750 for low light situations than a 20mp APS D500. Since the D750 is currently priced around $1400, I've been hoping that a similar Pentax camera could settle at $1200-$1300 if they give it characteristics similar to a KP..

The main reason for lower megapixel sensors is to improve frame rate -- you get faster sensor read outs and your buffer doesn't fill up faster. But the D750 sensor is actually a hair worse at high iso, both with regard to SNR and dynamic range, compared to the one in the K-1.

[Merv-O]

It's really hard to document,ent that but every FF user knows its true. You get a few images you know wouldn't have been as good on APS-c, but you didn't have an APS_c camera with you that day so there's not comparison image to prove it. Every now and then you get an image where resolution, dynamic range, low light performance all come together to produce a stellar image. I think 645 is more of the same.

I suspect this is one of those images, but, i can't prove it. It's just not that often I'm carrying both the K-1 and K-3 and have time to take an image twice.


I can show you comparative images that are quite good where APS-c was up to the job... but it sure is rewarding when you hit that FF sweet spot.

But APS-c isn't too shabby either.


As I see it, it's a continuum. The larger group being images both A{S-c can handle and taking them with FF doesn't make much difference. We have lots of those. Then comes the images where they would look a little better shot with an FF, for whatever reason, resolution, more DR, better high ISO performance,, water. That's a pretty small group. The there's those for which nether FF nor APS0c will do the trick. A smaller portion of those will be resolved by MF. Then there are those that just aren't going to work, no matter what you shoot.

Going FF is meaning maybe 5% of my images that will be noticeably better, but you're buying heavier more expensive gear to get that 5%. You have to ask yourself, "Do I take the images that will benefit from FF." That's very individual, if I'm MIkSF the answer is "heck yes". If I'm normhead the answer is "if might be" and I'm still undecided. And the numbers above are my numbers. Someone else might have half to all their images improved by FF, a lot depends on what you shoot, and what you expect from it.

Great post: I have a Leica M9 (18mp--CCD Sensor) and a Leica CL in addition to the 3 Pentaxes, and it's not all about the MP power or the size of the sensor (FF v. APS-C). It's also about the lenses and the camera IQ. When I used the inexpensive and average DA 50-200mm in crop mode on the K-1ii, the results were better than on the K-3. (Identical photos). The richness of the detail was astounding and the RAW files needed less adjustment--there is more, newer IQ built into the K-1ii. If the K-3ii replacement has a similar focusing system and the firmware adjustments RICOH has learned from the K-1 series they can produce worthy successor(s) for their venerable APS-c line of cameras. I agree about the cost, but other than golf, Photography is my singular passion/hobby.
Sometimes, my family will poke fun at me for toting a camera everywhere we go, but I can't help it. I bought my first Pentax in 2005 (a K-10 I believe-6mp) and immediately took to the brand. It was weather resistant, built like a tank and capable of new (digital) features, my film cameras were not capable of.
That's why I've decided to sell my underused, beloved K-3 (only 4600 clicks). The K-1ii backward compatibility (cropped APS-c simulation on. DA lenses) has allowed me to do that.

[johnha]

Great post: I have a Leica M9 (18mp--CCD Sensor) and a Leica CL in addition to the 3 Pentaxes, and it's not all about the MP power or the size of the sensor (FF v. APS-C). It's also about the lenses and the camera IQ.

This is the real crux of FF - when the M9 was launched, it was cheaper (despite being £5k) to buy it than try to replace 'classic' focal lengths for an M8 due to the crop factor. A Leica 21mm cost a similar amount to the M9, but buy the M9 and all your old lenses get their focal lengths back instead of fighting the crop-factor with not-so-quite-equivilents. For someone with a back catalogue of glass, this is a big incentive (even if it's not going give the ultimate IQ on a FF digital sensor).

[reh321]

The main reason for lower megapixel sensors is to improve frame rate -- you get faster sensor read outs and your buffer doesn't fill up faster. But the D750 sensor is actually a hair worse at high iso, both with regard to SNR and dynamic range, compared to the one in the K-1.

Superiority of K-1 is a tribute to Pentax. Compared to Nikon products, D750 has higher "sports" DxOMark score than both the D500 and D850, both of which are newer than it.

[Wheatfield]

.

For the record: I don't have a K-1, just K-5 and K-5iis.

Doesn’t this kind of make your opinion “rubbish”?

[Merv-O]

This is the real crux of FF - when the M9 was launched, it was cheaper (despite being £5k) to buy it than try to replace 'classic' focal lengths for an M8 due to the crop factor. A Leica 21mm cost a similar amount to the M9, but buy the M9 and all your old lenses get their focal lengths back instead of fighting the crop-factor with not-so-quite-equivilents. For someone with a back catalogue of glass, this is a big incentive (even if it's not going give the ultimate IQ on a FF digital sensor).

Agreed. I still shoot the M9 because Leica fixed/replaced the sensor for free last year and ultimately I sold my m8 APS-h) and my K-3ii and bought the K-1ii with the18-105mm kit lens to start. Had a underused Sigma 70-300 Telephoto with AF and placed that on the K-1ii--suddenly it's a relevant lens in my bag. The 70 is great for shots of people and relative close objects, while the 300 is adequate for most of my telephoto needs. All this due to the FF--Same as you pointed out with the M9. The IQ and speed of the K-1ii is awesome (although I know it lacks the sheer speed of the Nikon) to me & sports shots are now attainable, especially with that big buffer.

[Rondec]

Superiority of K-1 is a tribute to Pentax. Compared to Nikon products, D750 has higher "sports" DxOMark score than both the D500 and D850, both of which are newer than it.

Comparing the D750 and D810 you see sports scores of 2956 for the D750 and 2853 for the D810. The bigger deal to me is that if you look at the graphs of dynamic range and SNR, they are extremely close to each other. The D810 has slightly worse dynamic range below iso 100, but it is only about .1 or .2 EV difference -- certainly not enough for people to see in real world shooting.

The reason people went with the D750 was because it was a lot cheaper, it had faster frame rate, and they didn't need the extra mega pixels the D810 offered. And they couldn't afford the D5, which was Nikon's real sports shooter.

[reh321]

Agreed. I still shoot the M9 because Leica fixed/replaced the sensor for free last year and ultimately I sold my m8 APS-h) and my K-3ii and bought the K-1ii with the18-105mm kit lens to start. Had a underused Sigma 70-300 Telephoto with AF and placed that on the K-1ii--suddenly it's a relevant lens in my bag. The 70 is great for shots of people and relative close objects, while the 300 is adequate for most of my telephoto needs. All this due to the FF--Same as you pointed out with the M9. The IQ and speed of the K-1ii is awesome (although I know it lacks the sheer speed of the Nikon) to me & sports shots are now attainable, especially with that big buffer.

Which Sigma 70-300?
Are you using it in 'crop mode'?

[Merv-O]

Which Sigma 70-300?
Are you using it in 'crop mode'?

No it's in FF -- I bought it for my K-50, but it's full frame and produces decent results....

[mikesbike]

Great post: I have a Leica M9 (18mp--CCD Sensor) and a Leica CL in addition to the 3 Pentaxes, and it's not all about the MP power or the size of the sensor (FF v. APS-C). It's also about the lenses and the camera IQ. When I used the inexpensive and average DA 50-200mm in crop mode on the K-1ii, the results were better than on the K-3. (Identical photos). The richness of the detail was astounding and the RAW files needed less adjustment--there is more, newer IQ built into the K-1ii. If the K-3ii replacement has a similar focusing system and the firmware adjustments RICOH has learned from the K-1 series they can produce worthy successor(s) for their venerable APS-c line of cameras. I agree about the cost, but other than golf, Photography is my singular passion/hobby.
Sometimes, my family will poke fun at me for toting a camera everywhere we go, but I can't help it. I bought my first Pentax in 2005 (a K-10 I believe-6mp) and immediately took to the brand. It was weather resistant, built like a tank and capable of new (digital) features, my film cameras were not capable of.
That's why I've decided to sell my underused, beloved K-3 (only 4600 clicks). The K-1ii backward compatibility (cropped APS-c simulation on. DA lenses) has allowed me to do that.

I also think the K-1, K-1 II having the switchable capability for APS-C crop mode is a major selling point. The resolution and pixel density from a K-1 II in this mode is still very impressive. I believe it would be very much like what I get from my K-5 IIs, which is still admirable, even after having my KP for some time. And the practical advantage of the crop imaging for telephoto work is right there. I love my DA* 50-135mm, for instance, which I've had through numerous camera bodies. The Sigma 70-300mm is quite good, actually, even pretty good out to 300mm. I have an older APO version, and its IQ is especially good from 70-200mm, where, in my copy, it can keep within about one stop to the performance of a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, yet is much lighter in weight, and far less costly.

So far my FF source is still my film bodies. Less convenient for sure, so I employ them far less often, now that Pentax DSLRs have become so wonderful. For me, the intrigue for FF still remains the use factor of what I get from certain lenses I am partial to in their original FOV, like the FA 43mm LTD, the FA 35mm f/2, FA 28mm f/2.8, and some 28-xx and 35-xx zoom lenses. One of these is my Tokina ATX 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 Pro II. Nothing new about the idea of buying a certain camera in order to use certain lenses.

The K-10D, BTW had a 10mp sensor. I passed on it and got its later cousin the K200D, which employed the same sensor, but had much better in-camera adjustments, including AF fine tuning, for the first time. There was also an upgrade in jpeg performance, and it was the smallest, lightest, least expensive WR body ever made at that time. I see no deficit at all in making use of the K-1 II's excellent crop mode feature! It does save having to haul 2 cameras, and it is a very quick matter to switch formats.

[Merv-O]

Sorry it was a Pentax 100--my first digital SLR !! I think it only had 6.1 MP but after I used it for 5 years, I sold all my Canon and Nikon equipment (except my Canon FTBn that I bought as a young teen in 1975) and decided to go all in with Pentax for DSLR use. (readers of this thread know I also have Leica as my other kit of choice).
I hope those that have been nursing their aging K-5 & K-3 series cameras finally get their APS-c successor. It will definitely sell in droves