Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-12-2009, 11:06 AM   #16
Site Supporter
mrt10x's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Woodland Park CO
Posts: 97
I have been kicking this idea around all week.. if not all month. I have been a Pentax user since 1983 when I used a K1000 for photos for my high school newspaper. Worked my way to a Pz1P eventually, then a 645Nii. I found that in the end I just never lugged the 645 with me when I needed to have it, on my backpacking and fly fishing trips. I have been using a k10d and now a k20d for the last two years or so. I have a bag full of lenses from the Bigma to the Pentax 12-24. W

What I can not get away from is my old mindset that bigger is always better when it comes to the recording media. I recently purchased an Epson 3800 and plan on making 17"x?? size pritnts.. I say ?? because Epson says 22" is the max length but on the web I have found folks who have made up to 45" long prints,,, so as I get into bigger and bigger prints I just keep thinking that medium format slides made better prints than 35mm... so why wouldnt FF make better big prints than APS-C. I am so analog

03-12-2009, 11:30 AM   #17
Forum Member
Vinfer's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottaviano (Italy)
Posts: 57
To respond to the topic: No, I prefer, for my personal needs, format APSc. For my shots I prefer the angle of field more "telephoto oriented". I prefeer more depth of field of APSc...i don't need of very high iso performance or extreme bohek.
Noise question: for great print on photographic paper (up to 30x45 cm) i haven't any problem of noise.
I also can not distinguish the difference in print between the two formats. I think that the quality of a photo is the photographer (80%), then the optical (15%) and finally the sensor (5%).

Often I have known many people who look for ff are the same people that do not print their photos (!!!). With the exception of a few cases of real need, I think that the current need of ff is more a question of marketing. So, i prefeer the APSc and 4/3 format.
I do not think there is a much better format to another in print. I think you should think according to individual needs...and not by the ridiculous difference of quality between these formats.
03-12-2009, 11:41 AM   #18
Vil
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa CDN
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 76
QuoteOriginally posted by pasipasi Quote
I want a digital FF body, because there's no cheap wide angle primes for the crop sensor.

Unfortunately, there aren't many cheap FF bodies either
03-12-2009, 02:50 PM   #19
Senior Member
alderfall's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern Oregon Coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 127
Love it...

QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
A wonderful full frame Pentax:




I couldn't resist.


03-12-2009, 02:59 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by pasipasi Quote
I want a digital FF body, because there's no cheap wide angle primes for the crop sensor.
So you'll pay >$1000 more for a body in order to save a couple hundred on a lens?
03-12-2009, 05:58 PM   #21
Veteran Member
mithrandir's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,890
Put a .67x Raynox on a FF lens on a APS-C sensor camera and the 1.5x factor goes away.
03-12-2009, 06:20 PM   #22
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
This white paper Canon issued a couple of years back on the difference describes what you're getting and not getting with 24x36 sensors and an interesting description explaining the cost factor behind them. Mind the Canon marketing speak.

http://usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/White%20Papers/Canon_CMOS_WP.pdf

or

http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf

Last edited by thePiRaTE!!; 03-12-2009 at 06:29 PM.
03-12-2009, 06:48 PM   #23
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by mrt10x Quote
I have been kicking this idea around all week.. if not all month. I have been a Pentax user since 1983 when I used a K1000 for photos for my high school newspaper. Worked my way to a Pz1P eventually, then a 645Nii. I found that in the end I just never lugged the 645 with me when I needed to have it, on my backpacking and fly fishing trips. I have been using a k10d and now a k20d for the last two years or so. I have a bag full of lenses from the Bigma to the Pentax 12-24. W

What I can not get away from is my old mindset that bigger is always better when it comes to the recording media. I recently purchased an Epson 3800 and plan on making 17"x?? size pritnts.. I say ?? because Epson says 22" is the max length but on the web I have found folks who have made up to 45" long prints,,, so as I get into bigger and bigger prints I just keep thinking that medium format slides made better prints than 35mm... so why wouldnt FF make better big prints than APS-C. I am so analog
OK one thing to remember, if you use the same type/speed film the grain size is all the same (very general assumption). On sensors (though it's not exactly the same) grain (pixel size) gets bigger. Now 24mp ff is a different story...... maybe. Check out this thread and the followup comments.
Re: James, given your printing experience ....: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Sony A900 vs A700 print size
Resolution you need, noise is easier to deal with.......


Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-12-2009 at 06:58 PM.
03-12-2009, 08:28 PM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by mithrandir Quote
Actually, the Pop Photo article is not pushing FF at all. They are recommending FF for just a small group of users and actually make recommendations for APS-C for the vast majority with the reasoning behind their recommendations.
I read that article (it just arrived in the mail today) and it made me want to stay with APSC for a very long time.

I took some of my most interesting pictures like the ones below, in fact, with the original APS format camera (if you remember those) so I'll stick with this format.
Attached Images
   
04-02-2009, 01:57 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by mithrandir Quote
Put a .67x Raynox on a FF lens on a APS-C sensor camera and the 1.5x factor goes away.
What is this ? I haven't heard about it



QuoteOriginally posted by mithrandir Quote
Actually, the Pop Photo article is not pushing FF at all. They are recommending FF for just a small group of users and actually make recommendations for APS-C for the vast majority with the reasoning behind their recommendations.
Thanks, will have a look at it





QuoteOriginally posted by laissezfaire Quote
I read that article (it just arrived in the mail today) and it made me want to stay with APSC for a very long time.

I took some of my most interesting pictures like the ones below, in fact, with the original APS format camera (if you remember those) so I'll stick with this format.
Very nice shots
04-02-2009, 02:03 PM   #26
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
What is this ? I haven't heard about it
its the reverse of a teleconverter, a very backwards way of getting back the field of view... i'm sure he was joking.
04-02-2009, 03:33 PM   #27
A Proud PENTAXER !!!
fwcetus's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 1,075
Using telephotos most of the time, and finding the 14 MP of the K20D spectacular for resolution in the APS-C format, I say "NO".

YMMV...
04-02-2009, 04:12 PM   #28
F16
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: U.S.
Posts: 106
Cost is the biggest factor here, but cost aside, FF is an absolute no-brainer as I see it. A 24MP FF = ~10MP cropped to the APS-C, you'll end up with similar noise and resolution to a typical 10MP APS-C body when cropped to that size, plus the many obvious advantages that a FF provides. The 'crop factor advantage' argument of an APS-C body is overemphasized. Again, cost is far and away the biggest factor, otherwise I simply do not understand why there's so much preference toward the APS-C sensor.
04-02-2009, 04:38 PM   #29
Veteran Member
kristoffon's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 532
QuoteOriginally posted by dkittle Quote
Oh, and going FF for wide angle seems like a strange concept too. I just picked up a Tamron 17-35mm and it's pretty terrible performance in the corners on a FF camera. Considering the price of a Sigma 10-20 used, going wide on APS-C seems like a very viable option.
How about for the 31mm ltd becoming a wide angle again? What other FAST wide angle is there? I may get a FF Pentax when it becomes available solely for that reason.
04-02-2009, 08:12 PM   #30
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
APS-c to FF is not a big enough jump to justify the cost for me. When a medium format digital body arrives in the sub-$3000 range, then I'll be interested. But I still won't give up APS-c for portabilty. Or 35mm film for sheer fun.
Reply

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!
angle, camera, cameras, d700, dslr, ff, noise, photography, pic, resolution, shot
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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