Originally posted by Na Horuk Do you think people pay $5000 extra to get
exact same images?
You know how FF gives you a little wider angle and a little more bokeh than APSC? Same thing, just one step further.
Of course, with 645 you get fewer features. K-1 is great because it has lots of features, is easy to use, has high IQ, and its not massively big. The 645 is focused more on IQ, so it is less easy to use, has fewer features, and is much bigger.
And we had threads like this before, you can search for them as they have some sample photos. You can look at threads like "post your best K-1 photos" and "post your best 645 photos", as well. There is also this tool:
Pentax Camera & Lens Sample Photo Search Engine - PentaxForums.com
There is a difference, but it is very difficult to describe. And it might not be worth it for everyone. Depends on your wishes.
Edit: One thing to keep in mind is that very few amateurs use 645, so the 645 photos are, on average, taken by more skilled and knowledgeable photographers and are therefore better than an average APSC photo (since buying a $500 camera is much more accessible). Photographers skill is part of the equation, not just gear.
Yes, I knew all about what you are talking about. I just was wondering how the same picture will be shown by both cameras.
I know that APS-C cameras lose depth of field with respect of a compact sized sensor camera with equivalent apertures and a FF loses depth of field with respect of an APS-C too. So for landscapes it's possibly easier to get better results overall with an APS-C than with a FF due to that fact (more difficult to get sharpness at infinite with a FF, especially with fast lenses).
So possibly the bigger the sensor, the better for portraits, social life and macros. And the smaller, the better for landscapes (¿?). But not all is about that I know, there's resolution, ISO performance, etc...
Anyways, again, I wonder how the same picture will look taken with both cameras. I've read several comments and reviews saying that the upgrade is not worth it because, in general, the small increase in resolution and sensor size (the 645 like others -Hasselblad and Fuji- are not real medium format but smaller sized sensors than that, it looks like anything bigger than FF falls directly into the MF bin when not all these MF sensors are really MF) possibly gives only a 10% of improvement (and in certain circumstances only) comparing with current FF cameras, but costing not 10% more but between 300-400% the price of a good FF. Those reviews, however, don't provide samples of both to compare.
Ok, I'll give a look to that link and will search.
Thank you.