Do I want FF or not?

mrt10x · 03-12-2009, 11:06 AM

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

Vinfer · 03-12-2009, 11:30 AM

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.

Vil · 03-12-2009, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by pasipasi

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

alderfall · 03-12-2009, 02:50 PM

Love it...

Originally posted by Mike Cash

A wonderful full frame Pentax:

I couldn't resist.

Marc Sabatella · 03-12-2009, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by pasipasi

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?

mithrandir · 03-12-2009, 05:58 PM

Put a .67x Raynox on a FF lens on a APS-C sensor camera and the 1.5x factor goes away.

thePiRaTE!! · 03-12-2009, 06:20 PM

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.

jeffkrol · 03-12-2009, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by mrt10x

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.......

laissezfaire · 03-12-2009, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by mithrandir

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.

Jonson PL · 04-02-2009, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by mithrandir

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

Originally posted by mithrandir

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

Originally posted by laissezfaire

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

Gooshin · 04-02-2009, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Jonson PL

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.

fwcetus · 04-02-2009, 03:33 PM

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...

F16 · 04-02-2009, 04:12 PM

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.

kristoffon · 04-02-2009, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by dkittle

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.

OregonJim · 04-02-2009, 08:12 PM

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.

03-12-2009, 06:48 PM	#23
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by mrt10x 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
laissezfaire Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 188	Originally posted by mithrandir 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

03-12-2009, 11:06 AM	#16
mrt10x Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Woodland Park CO Posts: 102	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
Vinfer Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ottaviano (Italy) Posts: 56	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	Originally posted by pasipasi 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
alderfall Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Southern Oregon Coast Photos: Gallery Posts: 127	Love it... Originally posted by Mike Cash A wonderful full frame Pentax: I couldn't resist.

03-12-2009, 02:59 PM	#20
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by pasipasi 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
mithrandir Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,895	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
thePiRaTE!! 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.

04-02-2009, 01:57 PM	#25
Jonson PL Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,842	Originally posted by mithrandir 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 Originally posted by mithrandir 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 Originally posted by laissezfaire 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
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by Jonson PL 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
fwcetus Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New England Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,286	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: 104	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
kristoffon Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Brazil Posts: 532	Originally posted by dkittle 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
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	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.