Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-12-2019, 10:26 AM - 1 Like   #31
The one and only
Loyal Site Supporter
iheiramo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Espoo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,573
I'm pretty convinced that full frame is the best format to own if one love's to shoot with manual vintage lenses. Those lenses just seem to work better in the format they were designed for.

I hate it when people try to tell how I should think, so thread title

12-12-2019, 10:29 AM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Goldsboro North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 985
When the K-new arrives in 2020 it will be the 'best', right? No?

What's the best band of all time? (Don't answer that.)
12-12-2019, 10:30 AM - 2 Likes   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cairo West Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 139
QuoteOriginally posted by LaHo Quote
The optimum solution is very individual. I have had the k-3 for a number of years now and like its comparatively compact size and the overall size with current DA lenses. I also shoot medium format film, e.g. the Pentax 645 N and have many fine lenses for this format. Over time I have acquired a broad range of older Pentax K/M and A lenses and also have a good collection of Takumar M42 lenses and would like to use them on the intended format when I shoot digital.

So my choice stands between buying a used 645Z or D - both have come substantially down in price in the used market - or buying a new, but heavily rebated K-1, and I am inclined to do the latter. I shoot landscape and portraits more than sports or action, so K-1 would suit me very well. As the sensor size on the 645 D or Z is heavily cropped compared to the original film size, the K-1 compares very well, especially when pixel shift comes into play.

I plan to keep my K-3 either way as a smaller and lighter option.
i use the K1 and the K3 nearly interchangeably depending on what i am doing and to be honest sometimes as the mood strikes me and i get quality either way. i give up burst rate with the K1 but its a trade off i am willing to make for the quality i get even with smaller prints. i do use the K3 with the 560mm for wildlife but also use it on the K1 depending on what and the distance. 95% of all photography is the photographer not the equipment. i enter local contests in ohio and west virginia and more then hold my own against Canon and Nikon shooters.
12-12-2019, 10:39 AM - 2 Likes   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
grog85361's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 691
A mentor I had in high school had a saying that still serves me today: "To Each, Their Own."
Get what you want, enjoy it to the max, don't worry about what anybody else thinks.
I like all my gear, from a Canon point and shoot, to a K-1.

12-12-2019, 11:03 AM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,026
I just got a k1ii with kit lens, it was for a good price and I already had the fa 43 and 100 macro. I won't give up on my apsc kit for longer lenses and for long mountain hikes. And what I enjoy most about the new camera has less to do with image quality and more with feature and how it handles. Wondering how this will evolve over time, my current thinking is to use the ff with mostly primes and apsc with mostly wide range zooms. Maybe I'll revert to apsc, but for an amateur like me medium format is way out of budget. I see your point about ff being overkill already if you don't print large, the most I print is 20x30" from 24mp apsc and I don't see much lacking, that's already quite large, but in curious to see how the first k1 print at this size will be.
12-12-2019, 11:06 AM - 1 Like   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2017
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 175
QuoteOriginally posted by iheiramo Quote
I'm pretty convinced that full frame is the best format to own if one love's to shoot with manual vintage lenses. Those lenses just seem to work better in the format they were designed for.

To you these older lenses may seem to work better with FF when in fact they deliver better quality images when used with APS-C cameras.
That is quite easy to explain. Only part of the image cirkel from FF lenses is used to deliver the image of the APS-C sensor.
The outer parts where almost every lens shows a decline in quality is not used.

---------- Post added 12-12-19 at 11:14 AM ----------

Try to think what would have been the situation if the APS-C format would have been first and FF came later.
FF would have had a had time to beat APS-C.

The reason why many of us are tempted to go FF is the use of wide angle lenses.
It was difficult to find a nice WA zoom lens for my K5.
I ended up with a compromise towards the WA range with the Sigma 17-50 2.8 lens.
Pentaxs 16-50 was not impressive when used at F2,8.
12-12-2019, 11:15 AM   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 874
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
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.
All systems are a compromise. No sensor size is the 'best'. Most/all of us change our needs over time, often over quite short time too. K3/K1/645Z will exceed most users requirements, most of the time and it is only at the extremes where one size betters another. It could easily be argued that FF in fact hits the sweet spot between medium and apsc....
12-12-2019, 11:16 AM - 2 Likes   #38
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,450
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
However, moving MF to MILC bring back camera body to ideal ergonimics, so that's a good move.
Yeah, but it won't help you because you hate EVF.

12-12-2019, 11:22 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 447
Well, kind of a click-baity title.
But I'm pretty much the poster child for this thread.
I had both a K-1 and a KP. Mostly focused on outdoors photography, both landscape and wildlife. And I hike and travel and take lots of photos while doing both.
The KP has worked very well for the travel and wildlife side of things. Image quality is great. Would I like better burst/high-speed focusing, perhaps. I'd actually like a slightly bigger body for ergonomic perspective, more the size of the K-3 or K-1. So I'll look at the new body, but I'm pretty happy with the KP.

For landscape, I recently decided to take the plunge and switch from my K-1 to a 645z, when a nice, low-shutter count one became available. When I'm taking serious landscape photos, the camera is usually on a tripod, so I'm not too concerned about size/weight on that front. I believe I will see enough of an improvement in quality from the K-1, even in pixel-shift mode, to justify the jump. And there are some pretty decent lenses available for reasonable prices for the 645 for landscape. Maybe even better options than we have right now for the K-1. But obviously, even at the very reduced prices that used 645z are going for now, they are still pretty expensive compared to a K-1. So even if they are better, not everyone is going to be in the position that I am, being able to try a 645z for relatively small improvements in landscape.
12-12-2019, 11:29 AM - 1 Like   #40
The one and only
Loyal Site Supporter
iheiramo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Espoo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,573
QuoteOriginally posted by Fluegel Quote
To you these older lenses may seem to work better with FF when in fact they deliver better quality images when used with APS-C cameras.
That is quite easy to explain. Only part of the image cirkel from FF lenses is used to deliver the image of the APS-C sensor.
The outer parts where almost every lens shows a decline in quality is not used.
That is a common mistake in thinking and I've heard it before. Corner sharpness is for pixel peepers. In reality rarely composition works so that the interisting stuff in focus is placed in corner. What counts are the results in viewing size, and when the final viewing size is the same, and here the larger sencor provide more information and final results appear sharper.

This is especially visible wide open when lens doesn't provide best sharpness, but provides best bokeh. On APSC I rarely shoot wide open, but love to do it with FF.
12-12-2019, 11:48 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,660
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote
In Nikon land you Could find tons of arguments for ff and apsc...
There isn't enough difference between apsc and FF , IMHO. Of course Canikon would defend that, but they driven by money and legacy, less driven by the actually requirement of image quality as a final product.
12-12-2019, 11:49 AM   #42
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
brewmaster15's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: CT
Posts: 973
Full frames not in the Budget for me right now but if someone wants to give me a K-1 free I would be happy to let you all know my views on which is better ( and no I won't rent one...why try it if I can't buy it!) .. In the mean time APSC is most definitely the best Format for me to own as Its all I have! Unless I want to count my PZ1ps film.


al
12-12-2019, 11:49 AM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,660
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Yeah, but it won't help you because you hate EVF.
I'd not use the EVF, live view mode only.

---------- Post added 12-12-19 at 19:54 ----------

Again, things have changed a lot since 24x36 film. Lots of people view photographs on digital screens and for this only no big sensor is needed, that's why phones replaced so much of the compact camera market. Optics are better now, that perhaps why Fuji claimed that full frame wasn't necessary, which happens to be a correct statement if we consider printing photos for books and magazines, the X mount camera line up is perfectly fine for such prints sizes.

---------- Post added 12-12-19 at 19:55 ----------

Now, doubling the resolution from a 24Mpixels apsc cameras, basically means 4 x 24 = 96Mpixels, pretty close to the 100Mp of the GFX100.
12-12-2019, 12:07 PM - 1 Like   #44
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,234
QuoteOriginally posted by Kevin B123 Quote
MF is even slower in burst mode?, so it's horses for courses
Yep...horses for courses! The 24x36mm format came to prominence not because it was so very perfect, but because it provided a happy point of convergence between compact (miniature in the parlance of the day), easily hand-holdable cameras and negative size adequate (with good technique) for moderate enlargement.


Steve
12-12-2019, 12:08 PM - 4 Likes   #45
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 14,452
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
I'd not use the EVF, live view mode only.
I'm guessing landscape and/or studio photography are more-or-less your intended use cases, with the camera tripod mounted - yes? I say tripod mounted, because I can only imagine how delightful it would be to shoot a medium format camera - even a mirrorless one - with any decent-sized lens attached, by either hand-holding it up to eye level, almost at arms length, or - alternatively - dangling it from a neck-strap with the articulating screen pointing upwards to the photographer's face which is pointing down...
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, aps-c, apsc, camera, canon, coverage, dslr, evf, ff, format, frame, image, lens, lenses, medium, milc, noise, pentax, photography, post, prints, quality, ricoh, size, software, view, wa
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why GoProís Success Isnít Really Isn't about the Cameras interested_observer General Photography 16 07-01-2014 05:05 PM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
Full Frame Full Frame vanchaz2002 Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 12-11-2008 07:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:15 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top