Why I want a FF dSLR

pniauris · 01-20-2010, 09:48 AM

The reasons I would like an FF dSLR are two.

First is that what the eye percepts as detail on a photo isn't the "lines per mm"
but the "lines per frame" capacity of the lens. So FF lenses on APS-C gear suffer
a 0.66x penalty on their real dissolving capacity because of the croping factor.
Profesionists hate this so the brands that deal largely with them have the FF choises for them . I hate this also but all my FF lenses are either pentaxes or
M42's so there's not much to do .
The second reason regards the size of the single "pixel" which for the same analysis (Mp) is (2/3x2/3 =4/9) less than half the area than it is on a FFsensor.
This means the light-sample picked is much less rappresentative of the light received for the same exposure value.This results to noise and is cured by interpolation which results to softness and is cured by sharpening .
Today's softwares can do magic things but I prefer an image that is OK from the begining than a well cured one . Makes me feel somehow insecure .

Marc Sabatella · 01-20-2010, 12:08 PM

You could come up with similarly mathematically sound reasons to prefer a smaller format. The question is, how does any of that relate to reality? There *are* real differences betwene FF and APS-C, but they really aren't captured by the above.

**Ash** · 01-20-2010, 02:09 PM

We've gone through similar discussions many times before.
You may want to read through this comprehensive thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/71896-low-noise-be...uals-zero.html

Shashinki · 01-20-2010, 04:32 PM

I'm a little nearsighted, so I think I will need a pentax medium format camera to cope with that.

flyer · 01-20-2010, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by pniauris

The reasons I would like an FF dSLR are two.

First is that what the eye percepts as detail on a photo isn't the "lines per mm"
but the "lines per frame" capacity of the lens. So FF lenses on APS-C gear suffer
a 0.66x penalty on their real dissolving capacity because of the croping factor.
Profesionists hate this so the brands that deal largely with them have the FF choises for them . I hate this also but all my FF lenses are either pentaxes or
M42's so there's not much to do .
The second reason regards the size of the single "pixel" which for the same analysis (Mp) is (2/3x2/3 =4/9) less than half the area than it is on a FFsensor.
This means the light-sample picked is much less rappresentative of the light received for the same exposure value.This results to noise and is cured by interpolation which results to softness and is cured by sharpening .
Today's softwares can do magic things but I prefer an image that is OK from the begining than a well cured one . Makes me feel somehow insecure .

If you think you will become a better photographer because you have a 24 X 36 mm sensor, you're in for a bit of disillusion. For 99.99% of photographers, even above the average photographers, using full frame won't make any difference. The only positive aspect you'll have from the start is "bragging rights", nothing more.

asdf · 01-20-2010, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by flyer

If you think you will become a better photographer because you have a 24 X 36 mm sensor, you're in for a bit of disillusion. For 99.99% of photographers, even above the average photographers, using full frame won't make any difference. The only positive aspect you'll have from the start is "bragging rights", nothing more.

Will my bragging rights be proportionally larger when I buy 645D?

flyer · 01-21-2010, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by asdf

Will my bragging rights be proportionally larger when I buy 645D?

They sure will, but I'm going to be there bragging with you.

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-21-2010, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by flyer

If you think you will become a better photographer because you have a 24 X 36 mm sensor, you're in for a bit of disillusion. For 99.99% of photographers, even above the average photographers, using full frame won't make any difference. The only positive aspect you'll have from the start is "bragging rights", nothing more.

well said, but I think even in these relitively tough economic times, there are still enough people who want to buy the most expensive, regardless of skill level.

Even in our own forum, there are tons of posts like "I just bought a K7, it is my first camera, what are the best settings"

It is not that I am making fun of these people, hell they are supporting my camera company after all, but just like different films in the past, not every camera is good at every photographic situation. Full frame gives you bigger files with more pixles, but in many many shots all that storage space is a waste.

I still go out regularly and shoot with my *istD. i know it is only 6MP but it still takes excellent shots, and has very pleasing High ISO characteristics. For me, and I print up to 13 x 19 at home, If I frame carefully I can use *istD prints at that size and they are every bit as good as my K10D and K7D. Sure, if you use a microscope you might see some more resolution in the shots taken with my newer cameras but the average person does not inspect a 13 x 19 print with a microscope, usually they are a couple of feet back,.

Unsinkable II · 01-21-2010, 10:26 AM

Horses for courses...

I went from K100D to K-x and then seriously contemplated a D700.

After smacking myself in the face I realised that for my amateur level, carting around several kilos of equipment is ridiculous.

At the same time, Pentax FAs would be very well served by a FF sensor. Talking as a rank noob, I also understand that several DA primes are useful on FF.

If Pentax were to go the FF route, my preference would be for them to keep it small (D300 or under size). Size and weatherproofing (as has been said many times) can be a great differentiator.

jsherman999 · 01-21-2010, 01:36 PM

I think I've completed a full-circle.

Started out with aps-c because it was 'good enough' for my level of experience,
then lusted after FF because I wanted 'more', and now, I'm fully realizing the
benefits of a high-quality smaller system - having the equipment with me because
it isn't a pain to lug around is 99% more important than the slight IQ boost a FF kit
would bring me.

Now I'm even starting to think about things like the GF1 or EP2 more than FF.

.

Inspector 17 · 01-22-2010, 09:45 AM

Wow!

The color rendition on that 15mm is amazing. It also seems to have at times a 3-D type effect.

AND relating to the FF discussion, all of my lenses are FF and I have always considered that when buying lenses

the 15 Limited will change that as I must buy one soon. Maybe its image circle will fill enough of the FF frame to be useful sometimes

The "lines per frame" thought in the OP makes a lot of sense. I have always thought that FF contributes a quality I refer to as presence

Marc Sabatella · 01-22-2010, 01:33 PM

The lines-per-frame argument appears to make sense at first, but totally ignores the respect to which the sensor's resolution (not size) might be a factor as well. I don't know the science, but I know the reality: starting from my 6MP camera and kit lens, I was able to get more resolution *either* by switching to a better-resolving lens on the same camera *or* by switching to a 10MP camera with my same lens. If it were as simple as imaging a lens has a fixed number of lines per square inch it can resolve and that simple math involving sensor sizes was all you needed to calculate lines per frame, then it would not be possible to get more resolution by adding more pixels without changing sensor size - and yet this *is* in fact possible. And yet if this were only true for lenses that were already so great they were outresolving the sensor, it shouldn't have been possible to improve the results by getting better lenses and yet it *is* in fact possible. So the simple relatonship between sensor size and resolution in lines per frame proposed in the OP cannot possibly reflect reality.

So like I said, FF has some real benefits, and there are gobs and gobs of existing threads discussing these. But the analysis posted in the OP does not hold water.

WillCarney · 01-22-2010, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by flyer

If you think you will become a better photographer because you have a 24 X 36 mm sensor, you're in for a bit of disillusion. For 99.99% of photographers, even above the average photographers, using full frame won't make any difference. The only positive aspect you'll have from the start is "bragging rights", nothing more.

I guess that makes me in the .01%. I have resisted buying a digital SLR for many years. I have a point and shoot and camcorder-camera but use film SLR's for what I need. On short telescopes like a 80x500 or 120x600 I need larger sensors for prime focus. Otherwise the field of view is lost. Not only for astrophotography but wildlife as well.

William

potatolicious · 01-22-2010, 02:11 PM

Here in the Northwest we have long winters with very short days - it's entirely dark out just about every day when I leave work, so in the winters I shoot a *lot* of night photos.

A crop sensor just doesn't cut it. My K-7 is relatively good up to ISO 800 (some visible noise, but doesn't really detract from the picture), but is absolutely horrendous at 1600-3200. Even at f/1.4 it's hard to get a shutter speed good enough to get clear pictures. I would *kill* for a Pentax camera that has decent ISO 3200 performance.

Alfisti · 01-22-2010, 02:16 PM

What did you do before digital arrived?

Originally posted by potatolicious

Here in the Northwest we have long winters with very short days - it's entirely dark out just about every day when I leave work, so in the winters I shoot a *lot* of night photos.

A crop sensor just doesn't cut it. My K-7 is relatively good up to ISO 800 (some visible noise, but doesn't really detract from the picture), but is absolutely horrendous at 1600-3200. Even at f/1.4 it's hard to get a shutter speed good enough to get clear pictures. I would *kill* for a Pentax camera that has decent ISO 3200 performance.

01-20-2010, 09:48 AM	#1
pniauris Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Athens Posts: 11	Why I want a FF dSLR The reasons I would like an FF dSLR are two. First is that what the eye percepts as detail on a photo isn't the "lines per mm" but the "lines per frame" capacity of the lens. So FF lenses on APS-C gear suffer a 0.66x penalty on their real dissolving capacity because of the croping factor. Profesionists hate this so the brands that deal largely with them have the FF choises for them . I hate this also but all my FF lenses are either pentaxes or M42's so there's not much to do . The second reason regards the size of the single "pixel" which for the same analysis (Mp) is (2/3x2/3 =4/9) less than half the area than it is on a FFsensor. This means the light-sample picked is much less rappresentative of the light received for the same exposure value.This results to noise and is cured by interpolation which results to softness and is cured by sharpening . Today's softwares can do magic things but I prefer an image that is OK from the begining than a well cured one . Makes me feel somehow insecure .

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First DSLR	drifter	Welcomes and Introductions	10	02-24-2010 02:47 PM
K100ds: best DSLR ever, or greatest DSLR ever?	Steve Beswick	Pentax DSLR Discussion	71	01-19-2010 02:47 AM
Trying out the new DSLR	siric	Post Your Photos!	5	07-09-2008 08:09 PM
First DSLR	Von Ryan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	26	11-25-2007 11:12 AM
First DSLR, Which one will do?	seriousam	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	04-12-2007 07:04 AM

01-20-2010, 12:08 PM	#2
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	You could come up with similarly mathematically sound reasons to prefer a smaller format. The question is, how does any of that relate to reality? There are real differences betwene FF and APS-C, but they really aren't captured by the above.

01-20-2010, 02:09 PM	#3
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	We've gone through similar discussions many times before. You may want to read through this comprehensive thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/71896-low-noise-be...uals-zero.html

01-20-2010, 04:32 PM	#4
Shashinki Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 355	I'm a little nearsighted, so I think I will need a pentax medium format camera to cope with that.

01-20-2010, 05:28 PM	#5
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by pniauris The reasons I would like an FF dSLR are two. First is that what the eye percepts as detail on a photo isn't the "lines per mm" but the "lines per frame" capacity of the lens. So FF lenses on APS-C gear suffer a 0.66x penalty on their real dissolving capacity because of the croping factor. Profesionists hate this so the brands that deal largely with them have the FF choises for them . I hate this also but all my FF lenses are either pentaxes or M42's so there's not much to do . The second reason regards the size of the single "pixel" which for the same analysis (Mp) is (2/3x2/3 =4/9) less than half the area than it is on a FFsensor. This means the light-sample picked is much less rappresentative of the light received for the same exposure value.This results to noise and is cured by interpolation which results to softness and is cured by sharpening . Today's softwares can do magic things but I prefer an image that is OK from the begining than a well cured one . Makes me feel somehow insecure . If you think you will become a better photographer because you have a 24 X 36 mm sensor, you're in for a bit of disillusion. For 99.99% of photographers, even above the average photographers, using full frame won't make any difference. The only positive aspect you'll have from the start is "bragging rights", nothing more.

01-20-2010, 05:30 PM	#6
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by flyer If you think you will become a better photographer because you have a 24 X 36 mm sensor, you're in for a bit of disillusion. For 99.99% of photographers, even above the average photographers, using full frame won't make any difference. The only positive aspect you'll have from the start is "bragging rights", nothing more. Will my bragging rights be proportionally larger when I buy 645D?

01-21-2010, 05:35 AM	#7
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by asdf Will my bragging rights be proportionally larger when I buy 645D? They sure will, but I'm going to be there bragging with you.

01-21-2010, 05:57 AM	#8
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by flyer If you think you will become a better photographer because you have a 24 X 36 mm sensor, you're in for a bit of disillusion. For 99.99% of photographers, even above the average photographers, using full frame won't make any difference. The only positive aspect you'll have from the start is "bragging rights", nothing more. well said, but I think even in these relitively tough economic times, there are still enough people who want to buy the most expensive, regardless of skill level. Even in our own forum, there are tons of posts like "I just bought a K7, it is my first camera, what are the best settings" It is not that I am making fun of these people, hell they are supporting my camera company after all, but just like different films in the past, not every camera is good at every photographic situation. Full frame gives you bigger files with more pixles, but in many many shots all that storage space is a waste. I still go out regularly and shoot with my istD. i know it is only 6MP but it still takes excellent shots, and has very pleasing High ISO characteristics. For me, and I print up to 13 x 19 at home, If I frame carefully I can use istD prints at that size and they are every bit as good as my K10D and K7D. Sure, if you use a microscope you might see some more resolution in the shots taken with my newer cameras but the average person does not inspect a 13 x 19 print with a microscope, usually they are a couple of feet back,.

01-21-2010, 10:26 AM	#9
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Horses for courses... I went from K100D to K-x and then seriously contemplated a D700. After smacking myself in the face I realised that for my amateur level, carting around several kilos of equipment is ridiculous. At the same time, Pentax FAs would be very well served by a FF sensor. Talking as a rank noob, I also understand that several DA primes are useful on FF. If Pentax were to go the FF route, my preference would be for them to keep it small (D300 or under size). Size and weatherproofing (as has been said many times) can be a great differentiator.

01-21-2010, 01:36 PM	#10
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	I think I've completed a full-circle. Started out with aps-c because it was 'good enough' for my level of experience, then lusted after FF because I wanted 'more', and now, I'm fully realizing the benefits of a high-quality smaller system - having the equipment with me because it isn't a pain to lug around is 99% more important than the slight IQ boost a FF kit would bring me. Now I'm even starting to think about things like the GF1 or EP2 more than FF. .

01-22-2010, 09:45 AM	#11
Inspector 17 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Southeastern USA Posts: 75	Wow! The color rendition on that 15mm is amazing. It also seems to have at times a 3-D type effect. AND relating to the FF discussion, all of my lenses are FF and I have always considered that when buying lenses the 15 Limited will change that as I must buy one soon. Maybe its image circle will fill enough of the FF frame to be useful sometimes The "lines per frame" thought in the OP makes a lot of sense. I have always thought that FF contributes a quality I refer to as presence

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-22-2010, 01:33 PM	#12
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	The lines-per-frame argument appears to make sense at first, but totally ignores the respect to which the sensor's resolution (not size) might be a factor as well. I don't know the science, but I know the reality: starting from my 6MP camera and kit lens, I was able to get more resolution either by switching to a better-resolving lens on the same camera or by switching to a 10MP camera with my same lens. If it were as simple as imaging a lens has a fixed number of lines per square inch it can resolve and that simple math involving sensor sizes was all you needed to calculate lines per frame, then it would not be possible to get more resolution by adding more pixels without changing sensor size - and yet this is in fact possible. And yet if this were only true for lenses that were already so great they were outresolving the sensor, it shouldn't have been possible to improve the results by getting better lenses and yet it is in fact possible. So the simple relatonship between sensor size and resolution in lines per frame proposed in the OP cannot possibly reflect reality. So like I said, FF has some real benefits, and there are gobs and gobs of existing threads discussing these. But the analysis posted in the OP does not hold water.

01-22-2010, 01:52 PM	#13
WillCarney Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Bloomington, Illinois Posts: 66	Originally posted by flyer If you think you will become a better photographer because you have a 24 X 36 mm sensor, you're in for a bit of disillusion. For 99.99% of photographers, even above the average photographers, using full frame won't make any difference. The only positive aspect you'll have from the start is "bragging rights", nothing more. I guess that makes me in the .01%. I have resisted buying a digital SLR for many years. I have a point and shoot and camcorder-camera but use film SLR's for what I need. On short telescopes like a 80x500 or 120x600 I need larger sensors for prime focus. Otherwise the field of view is lost. Not only for astrophotography but wildlife as well. William

01-22-2010, 02:11 PM	#14
potatolicious Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Seattle Posts: 44	Here in the Northwest we have long winters with very short days - it's entirely dark out just about every day when I leave work, so in the winters I shoot a lot of night photos. A crop sensor just doesn't cut it. My K-7 is relatively good up to ISO 800 (some visible noise, but doesn't really detract from the picture), but is absolutely horrendous at 1600-3200. Even at f/1.4 it's hard to get a shutter speed good enough to get clear pictures. I would kill for a Pentax camera that has decent ISO 3200 performance.

01-22-2010, 02:16 PM	#15
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	What did you do before digital arrived? Originally posted by potatolicious Here in the Northwest we have long winters with very short days - it's entirely dark out just about every day when I leave work, so in the winters I shoot a lot of night photos. A crop sensor just doesn't cut it. My K-7 is relatively good up to ISO 800 (some visible noise, but doesn't really detract from the picture), but is absolutely horrendous at 1600-3200. Even at f/1.4 it's hard to get a shutter speed good enough to get clear pictures. I would kill for a Pentax camera that has decent ISO 3200 performance.