[volley]

That statement is not true. When considering the same enlargement ratio between print and sensor size, full frame has the same dynamic range and ISO noise as apsc.

That's an interesting point of view. Not many labs offer prints based on "enlargement ratios" though. They off a dedicated print size and that's what we want to have, right? If we assume your above statement is correct (and you are an engineer - it must be correct) this also means that for every real print size FF has the edge over APSC. Otherwise your statement makes no sense.

But I would like to move away from a purely technical discussion:

The single most important reason for me (surely not for everybody) to prefer the K1: this camera makes me want to go out and take pictures. It's as simple as that. Much more than the K3 ever did, although it an excellent camera with great resolution.
Looking through the K1's much better viewfinder is so enjoyable; using my manual focus lenses much easier and the ergonomics are perfect for me.
I now use the K1 mainly in manual mode, control aperture with rear the dial, speed with the front and ISO with the top dial. Perfect control about all 3 parameters.

But again, this is my preference. Other preference are equally valid.

[Dan Rentea]

For anyone interested in a thorough comparison between film and digital resolution, here is a very enlightening article on the subject. It proves that 8x10 and 4x5 format film can beat anything digital in terms of resolution:

36 Megapixels vs 6x7 Velvia | Film vs Digital | On Landscape

Biz-engneer, you heard that? Maybe you will take another look at your options.

[Fluegel]

This is not entirely true because you assume that the only advantage of MF is its high resolution that enables XL printing. That's only one dimension of the MF advantage.

If you downsample a 16-bit 150 MPix Phase One image to something like an 8 MPix file for A4 printing at 300 ppi in a magazine, it seems like a waste of pixels but it's not. It creates an image file with probably about 17-18 EV of DR. The result smokes the pants off APS-C for highlight protection, shadow recovery, high-fidelity color, and high-iSO work. That downsampled Phase One file will be much much more tolerant of extreme processing than the best APS-C image.

To a first approximation, any photographic system that can gather more total light can create both bigger and smoother images. MF can provide both more pixels and more bits of data. The total amount of information in an image is strictly upper-bounded by the total number of photons measured. That's not to say that lens aberrations, flare, read noise, dark current, and other disturbances can't impair the information content of an image but it does imply that if the system collects fewer total photons, there's no way it can resolve as many pixels or as many bits of light/color.

Thank you for this post. It sheds light on aspects pixel counters do not know of or choose to ignore.

In film days I looked at the work of a friend, a professional wedding photographer.
Instantly I picked out a print that was different from all the others.
He laughed and said: " I always carry an old Hasselblad SWC camera with me. "
The one MF print stood out between many excellent shots taken with his Canon cameras.

Start trusting your eyes as the best way to enjoy photographs.

---------- Post added 12-16-19 at 12:20 PM ----------

In any case, I'll bite; 8x10 cameras are used because it is simpler to get to f/64 or so, keeping everything in more or less perfect focus, and to print very, very large for prints that include a lot of highlight detail (as film generally behaves better there). In my case, I would never use them because it's not worth the gigantic hassle, so they are as good as useless - a camera that does not take the picture is a terrible camera.

Excellent effort to declare users of large format cameras idiots.

Ignorance is a bliss.

[MarkJerling]

Full frame give you more margin of error for magazine size prints and small posters, but that's all. If you print a large poster, you better have your full frame camera with perfect settings and technique and you'll have zero margin for error.

Of course, it depends how close you plan to stand to that large poster.

[MarkJerling]

I think that with this topic Biz-engineer just wanted to tell us that he is ready for big clients (magazines) with high and demanding standards. He just didn't find a simpler way to tell us the good news.

Next, he'll be shelling out on a 100MP Phase1.

[Wasp]

Allow me to chime in on the subject of low light photography. Bigger sensor is better, but that is not all there is to the story. FF seems to occupy the sweet spot for hand held low light work. Medium format have bigger sensors that gather more light, but the lenses tend to be one or two stops slower. An f/2 lens of any focal length is rare, with f/2.8 to f/5.6 as the norm. On top of that, hand holding a great big body and lens blurs the picture in more ways than one. Crop frame does not have this advantage of faster lenses, not in K mount land anyway. What's available in crop is available in full frame, so the bigger one wins.

[Serkevan]

Excellent effort to declare users of large format cameras idiots.

Ignorance is a bliss.

As I said twice now, I was genuinely curious about the reasons. You keep posting without actually saying anything, so I decided to let my sarcasm out a little. I would say I'm genuinely sorry for offending you, but I hate lying. I asked about what lenses are not available, what pictures cannot be taken and why. I got nothing but snobbism. I will ask, for the third time, again: "Why do you feel like that?". Examples, pictures, arguments. I'm not picky

Don't tell me that I declare users of large format cameras idiots when the ONLY THING you've said is that users of anything less than an 8x10 is a noob who knows nothing. Get off your high horse, the atmosphere is thin up there.

[BigMackCam]

OK, folks - let's keep this friendly and constructive, please

[bertwert]

OK, folks - let's keep this friendly and constructive, please

Very funny Mike, this isn't the Joke Thread you know...

[Serkevan]

Sorry Mike. I'll keep the sarcasm to a minimum . Stressful day at work

[BigMackCam]

Sorry Mike. I'll keep the sarcasm to a minimum . Stressful day at work

I edited your post slightly

No problem. The discussion is perfectly valid, but I think everyone here can get their points across without sniping. Personally, I recommend deep breaths, and a moment or two away from the computer before clicking the "Submit Reply" button

[Ivan]

I've sold all of my K3 kit including all my DA lenses, done so to buy a Pentax K1 and good set of DFA lenses. After printing images, I realized that full frame is great for having a single system , but not as good as having both apsc and medium format. And here are the reasons for coming to such conclusion:
- Enlargement: full frame deliver more resolution than apsc but extraodinary quality for large professional grade prints, medium format does a better job. For A4 and A3 type prints, full frame is an overkill and apsc is plenty good enough.
- Full frame is slow in burst mode. No matter what, full frame cameras are generally all slower than apsc counterparts. AF coverage of full frame DSLR is not as good as AF coverage on apsc.
All that mean is FF is a compromise that is never the best. The old Pentax models of offering apsc K mount and 645 was the best.

You are right, and of course, before changing the system, you need to know exactly what you want to receive. The price of the error can be quite high

---------- Post added 12-16-19 at 03:32 PM ----------

When I bought the full frame, I thought it would help me shoot in a dark home environment without a flash. But it turned out that it was necessary to close, to a large extent, to penetrate into the depth of field. As a result, my home camera has a smaller sensor size.

[biz-engineer]

Of course, it depends how close you plan to stand to that large poster.

According to my calculations, based on angle of binocular vision of 120 degrees (and confirmed by experimentation), the closed viewing distance is 1/2 of the horizontal print size. e.g viewing a 60" print at 30" from the print.

---------- Post added 17-12-19 at 08:31 ----------

Biz-engneer, you heard that? Maybe you will take another look at your options.

Yes, it's an interesting article.

Personally, I recommend deep breaths, and a moment or two away from the computer before clicking the "Submit Reply" button

The preview (and read back) button helps a lot. But that button is only available in advanced mode.

---------- Post added 17-12-19 at 08:34 ----------

If you downsample a 16-bit 150 MPix Phase One image to something like an 8 MPix file for A4 printing at 300 ppi in a magazine, it seems like a waste of pixels but it's not. It creates an image file with probably about 17-18 EV of DR. The result smokes the pants off APS-C for highlight protection, shadow recovery, high-fidelity color, and high-iSO work.

That would be true in theory, however the paper printing process is the bottelneck that can't print such tone gradation and dynamic range information from MF to A4 paper. Practically, the addition image quality from MF is wasted during the printing process on A4.

---------- Post added 17-12-19 at 08:37 ----------

Start trusting your eyes as the best way to enjoy photographs.

Of course MF prints look better but it's not possible to realize it unless taking two photos from FF and MF and comparing the prints side by side. It's simple, at constant PPI, the larger format with larger MP count allow larger prints. The real problem of MF is the price of equipment, not everybody can afford it, hence there is no need to demonstrate that FF is as good as. With regards to image quality MF is better and more expensive.

---------- Post added 17-12-19 at 08:41 ----------

FF seems to occupy the sweet spot for hand held low light work.

Low light wasn't a parameter in the equation in my orginal post. The starting point was the final image product leading to the choice of equipment. Someone introduced low light to bring about the advantage of the full frame format.

---------- Post added 17-12-19 at 08:44 ----------

I got nothing but snobbism

Snobbism could be interpretted as such . But there was genuine content in the message (under the form of expressing the message).

---------- Post added 17-12-19 at 08:49 ----------

So , full frame is good for low light works, the apsc format is good for high speed shooting, and medium format is good for landscape and architecture on a tripod. If we introduce factor in the enlargement in the equation, the fact that full frame is good for low light doesn't remove the other facts that medium format is an overkill for calendars and apsc is a bit of a stretch for large posters. If weddings is not your cup of tea, you don't use full frame, you use apsc or apsc and medium format.

[Dan Rentea]

full frame is good for low light works, the apsc format is good for high speed shooting, and medium format is good for landscape and architecture on a tripod.

Full frame is good for low light, for high speed shooting (A9, 1Dx Mark II, D5), for architecture and interiors (wide angle lenses like Canon 11-24mm f4 or tilt shift lenses being one reason).

If we introduce factor in the enlargement in the equation, the fact that full frame is good for low light doesn't remove the other facts that medium format is an overkill for calendars and apsc is a bit of a stretch for large posters. If weddings is not your cup of tea, you don't use full frame, you use apsc or apsc and medium format.

You can't get this quality prints from APS-C and there are few clients willing to pay for larger prints like the ones from this video from below. I'm talking about real life situations. Sure, there will always be clients demanding even higher resolution images and in those situations a medium format camera will be better. If those demanding clients are not your regular cup of tea, then medium format is overkill due to size and cost and it's also very restrictive in terms of types or areas of photography that it can cover compared to APS-C or full frame due to lack of lenses and due to poor af. And APS-C is a bigger compromise than full frame because it does the same things as full frames, but not as good or as fast. And it needs full frame lenses to get the best results anyway.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[Ivan]

That's right, everything depends on the task that the photographer set for himself.

---------- Post added 12-17-19 at 01:36 AM ----------

But I don’t agree that the full frame is good for dark conditions. Again, what to shoot. I don’t take my family to the full frame, only if they pose for me. For me, this issue is resolved.