Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

NecroticSoldier · 03-09-2010, 05:12 PM

Okay, so today I asked my Canon camera guy friend. I asked him why not Pentax? and he said ewww because it was not full frame (sad).

So, is there a big deal if it is full frame or not?

Is Pentax going to release a full frame anytime soon?

RioRico · 03-09-2010, 05:39 PM

Full frame (FF) means lots more pixels, more detail, usually much better low-light performance. An APS-C sensor or half-frame (HF) film has about half the area of FF. 645, depending on how it's done, has about 170%-270% the area of FF, which is why there's much excitement over tomorrow's announcement of the Pentax 645D. Yes, Canon and Nikon and Sony aka Canikony all make FF cameras. They also cost a sh!tload. If you're a highly-paid professional, the cost of equipment is irrelevant. If you're squeezing your dollars/yen/rubles/euros/pesos/sheckels like most of us, Pentax still delivers the most bang-for-the-buck.

There have long been rumors of an impending FF Pentax -- maybe the K30D. But Pentax-Hoya seems to be concentrating on the 645D, skipping over the FF market. Pentax's targets may be Leica, Mamiya, Hasselblad, rather than Canikony. Pentax has only so many resources, can only work in so many markets. Spreading too thin can be disastrous. Ask your Canon buddy if he HAS a FF, how much it cost, whether it pays for itself, etc. IMHO Canon and Nikon use their high-priced FF gear as marketing tools, deluding consumers that if they just buy that plastic crap, THEY can be published in Newsweek and Hustler and National Geographic too. Hah.

NecroticSoldier · 03-09-2010, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Full frame (FF) means lots more pixels, more detail, usually much better low-light performance. An APS-C sensor or half-frame (HF) film has about half the area of FF. 645, depending on how it's done, has about 170%-270% the area of FF, which is why there's much excitement over tomorrow's announcement of the Pentax 645D. Yes, Canon and Nikon and Sony aka Canikony all make FF cameras. They also cost a sh!tload. If you're a highly-paid professional, the cost of equipment is irrelevant. If you're squeezing your dollars/yen/rubles/euros/pesos/sheckels like most of us, Pentax still delivers the most bang-for-the-buck.

There have long been rumors of an impending FF Pentax -- maybe the K30D. But Pentax-Hoya seems to be concentrating on the 645D, skipping over the FF market. Pentax's targets may be Leica, Mamiya, Hasselblad, rather than Canikony. Pentax has only so many resources, can only work in so many markets. Spreading too thin can be disastrous. Ask your Canon buddy if he HAS a FF, how much it cost, whether it pays for itself, etc. IMHO Canon and Nikon use their high-priced FF gear as marketing tools, deluding consumers that if they just buy that plastic crap, THEY can be published in Newsweek and Hustler and National Geographic too. Hah.

He has a Canon 50D. It is FF I believe it costs 1000$ish for the body... and who knows how much more money he has put into his battery grip and other lenses.

SteveM · 03-09-2010, 05:57 PM

You'll find a number of posts here for people that do not want FF as they prefer APS-C. There are also a number of posts on the internet that compare FF and APS-C sensors and having FF does not always mean better quality.

I'd like to see Pentax deliver a FF camera, but MF (645d) will trump FF for certain types of photography. To some, FF is not good enough and has physical limitations for future growth.

APS-C vs FF vs MF - it's all one great debate....only you can answer which one is right for you.

GoremanX · 03-09-2010, 06:14 PM

OMG! Another FF debate thread?!? Enough already!

séamuis · 03-09-2010, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by NecroticSoldier

He has a Canon 50D. It is FF I believe it costs 1000$ish for the body... and who knows how much more money he has put into his battery grip and other lenses.

the 50D is an aps-c body not a FF body. unless you meant a 5D. if it is a 50D, his camera has the same size sensor as your K-x, which is arguably not as good as yours. I find it funny that someone would shun a brand for using aps-c sensors while using one himself. its obviously about bragging rights and equipment lust with him. he has probably never tried anything other than a canon. of course, his camera is a great performer, and he probably has some good glass, but his attitude is pathetic and all to common.

GoremanX · 03-09-2010, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

the 50D is an aps-c body not a FF body. unless you meant a 5D.

If he spent $1000-ish for the body, it's a 50D. So you're right, it's probably not even a full frame.

rawr · 03-09-2010, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by NecroticSoldier

He has a Canon 50D. It is FF I believe it costs 1000$ish for the body... and who knows how much more money he has put into his battery grip and other lenses.

LOL. If he has a Canon 50D, that model is NOT FF.

The old 5D and 5D2 are full-frame though. Maybe he means he has a 5D.

And yes, the whole 'rocking full-frame' debate is rather pointless. Few APS-C (or 4/3 etc) photographers ever achieve the maximum potential out of their existing equipment, so 'upgrading' to FF for most would be pretty pointless. I see a lot of people (including some of my friends

) buying expensive, high-end APS-C cameras (D300s, 7D etc) and expensive lenses and flashes, and yet still taking photos that are technically of terrible quality. Yet some of these folks are lusting after FF gear in the belief that somehow 'rocking full-frame' would make them better photographers. I don't think so.

NecroticSoldier · 03-09-2010, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

the 50D is an aps-c body not a FF body. unless you meant a 5D. if it is a 50D, his camera has the same size sensor as your K-x, which is arguably not as good as yours. I find it funny that someone would shun a brand for using aps-c sensors while using one himself. its obviously about bragging rights and equipment lust with him. he has probably never tried anything other than a canon. of course, his camera is a great performer, and he probably has some good glass, but his attitude is pathetic and all to common.

Oh... Sorry I don't know anything about other companies... I spent all my time researching on Pentax, because that is the very company that produced my beloved K1000. I love it a lot and I'm a die hard Pentax fan believe it or not.

All I know is he has money to purchase all that...

You're right. Just checked it out.
Canon EOS 50D = 22.3mm x 14.9mm and my K-X = 23.6mm x 15.8mm
Megapixels might be more than mine though... but it cannot equal the large arsenal of almost all the Pentax lenses ever made!

I guess it sorta isn't about what you have, but how you use them sorta thing?

I have never tried anything other than a Pentax though, sadly.

GoremanX · 03-09-2010, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Yet some of these folks are lusting after FF gear in the belief that somehow 'rocking full-frame' would make them better photographers. I don't think so.

pff, speak for yourself... I would instantly become the Mozart of the photography world if I had a full frame camera. </sarcasm>

GoremanX · 03-09-2010, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by NecroticSoldier

Megapixels might be more than mine though...

Megapixels = completely irrelevant at this point. Once we passed 5 mpixels, none of it really mattered much anymore. An argument could be made for 3 mpixels as the threshold where it stopped mattering.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 03-09-2010, 06:50 PM

APS: smaller, lighter, cheaper cameras and lenses; advantage on telephotos due to crop factor; crop factor also makes FF lenses work better on APS (because of crop from center - sweet spot of high resolution)

FF: usually higher resolution, less noise (usually smaller photosite density), thinner DOF; no crop factor is better for wide-angles

Note that the APS telephoto advantage from the crop factor and the FF noise advantage would both disappear if APS sensors would keep the same photosite density as FF sensors (you could just crop from the FF image).

So, it depends on what you need and prefer.

NecroticSoldier · 03-09-2010, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by GoremanX

Megapixels = completely irrelevant at this point. Once we passed 5 mpixels, none of it really mattered much anymore. An argument could be made for 3 mpixels as the threshold where it stopped mattering.

Yeah, it's gimmicky. And... ;((( I love wide angle shots!...

RioRico · 03-09-2010, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by NecroticSoldier

Yeah, it's gimmicky. And... ;((( I love wide angle shots!...

And THAT is where FF makes a difference. If you go from FF to HF/APS-C, all your lenses get longer -- that is, their FOV gets smaller, so the APS-C camera 'sees' less of a scene. Oh wow, that 400mm lens now reaches like a 600mm!! Well, not really, as we've gone over in other threads. But now all your wide-angle FF lenses become 'normal' on APS-C, and the ultra-wides are just wide, and you gotta pay a sh!tload to get a lens with a really really wide FOV. Bummer.

Ah, but I have a FF Pentax cam! And it only cost me US$13. THIRTEEN BUCKS!! It's called a ZX-M. It takes 135 film cannisters. A fast 24mm lens grabs scenes nicely. A 21mm lens is ultrawide. The Zenitar 16/2.8 is an actual fisheye. And that Vemar 12mm? Sacre bleu!! But the cam isn't digital. Bother. It WOULD be nice to have a FF digicam, even at only 10mpx, just to get wide views with the lenses I already own. Hey, there are M42-Nikon and M42-Canon adapters! And PK-Canon adapters! Oh sh!t, am I doomed to buy an old Canon FF?!?!?

ANSWER: Probably not, not at these prices, not until someone dies and I'm in the will. Hey Uncle Ray, would you like some lemonade?

stevebrot · 03-09-2010, 08:17 PM

Well, if you had $10K and lived in Japan, you could buy the 645D. Yes, it was just announced. 44mm X 33mm sensor @ 40 megapixels.

Steve

03-09-2010, 05:12 PM	#1
NecroticSoldier Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Scarborough, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 488	Full frame? Okay, so today I asked my Canon camera guy friend. I asked him why not Pentax? and he said ewww because it was not full frame (sad). So, is there a big deal if it is full frame or not? Is Pentax going to release a full frame anytime soon?

03-09-2010, 05:39 PM	#2
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Full frame (FF) means lots more pixels, more detail, usually much better low-light performance. An APS-C sensor or half-frame (HF) film has about half the area of FF. 645, depending on how it's done, has about 170%-270% the area of FF, which is why there's much excitement over tomorrow's announcement of the Pentax 645D. Yes, Canon and Nikon and Sony aka Canikony all make FF cameras. They also cost a sh!tload. If you're a highly-paid professional, the cost of equipment is irrelevant. If you're squeezing your dollars/yen/rubles/euros/pesos/sheckels like most of us, Pentax still delivers the most bang-for-the-buck. There have long been rumors of an impending FF Pentax -- maybe the K30D. But Pentax-Hoya seems to be concentrating on the 645D, skipping over the FF market. Pentax's targets may be Leica, Mamiya, Hasselblad, rather than Canikony. Pentax has only so many resources, can only work in so many markets. Spreading too thin can be disastrous. Ask your Canon buddy if he HAS a FF, how much it cost, whether it pays for itself, etc. IMHO Canon and Nikon use their high-priced FF gear as marketing tools, deluding consumers that if they just buy that plastic crap, THEY can be published in Newsweek and Hustler and National Geographic too. Hah. Last edited by RioRico; 03-09-2010 at 05:45 PM.

03-09-2010, 07:29 PM	#14
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by NecroticSoldier Yeah, it's gimmicky. And... ;((( I love wide angle shots!... And THAT is where FF makes a difference. If you go from FF to HF/APS-C, all your lenses get longer -- that is, their FOV gets smaller, so the APS-C camera 'sees' less of a scene. Oh wow, that 400mm lens now reaches like a 600mm!! Well, not really, as we've gone over in other threads. But now all your wide-angle FF lenses become 'normal' on APS-C, and the ultra-wides are just wide, and you gotta pay a sh!tload to get a lens with a really really wide FOV. Bummer. Ah, but I have a FF Pentax cam! And it only cost me US$13. THIRTEEN BUCKS!! It's called a ZX-M. It takes 135 film cannisters. A fast 24mm lens grabs scenes nicely. A 21mm lens is ultrawide. The Zenitar 16/2.8 is an actual fisheye. And that Vemar 12mm? Sacre bleu!! But the cam isn't digital. Bother. It WOULD be nice to have a FF digicam, even at only 10mpx, just to get wide views with the lenses I already own. Hey, there are M42-Nikon and M42-Canon adapters! And PK-Canon adapters! Oh sh!t, am I doomed to buy an old Canon FF?!?!? ANSWER: Probably not, not at these prices, not until someone dies and I'm in the will. Hey Uncle Ray, would you like some lemonade? Last edited by RioRico; 03-09-2010 at 07:47 PM. Reason: answering myself

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How Full is Your Frame?	Venturi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	05-16-2009 04:30 AM
Your Full Frame is Here!!!	Das Boot	Pentax News and Rumors	15	04-05-2009 09:02 AM
Is Full Frame Enough?	mithrandir	Photographic Technique	10	10-04-2008 10:00 PM
DA 10-17 on full frame?	nixcamic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	09-23-2008 07:12 PM
Full Frame????	vanDam	Pentax DSLR Discussion	32	01-24-2008 08:40 PM

03-09-2010, 05:50 PM	#3
NecroticSoldier Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Scarborough, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 488 Original Poster	Originally posted by RioRico Full frame (FF) means lots more pixels, more detail, usually much better low-light performance. An APS-C sensor or half-frame (HF) film has about half the area of FF. 645, depending on how it's done, has about 170%-270% the area of FF, which is why there's much excitement over tomorrow's announcement of the Pentax 645D. Yes, Canon and Nikon and Sony aka Canikony all make FF cameras. They also cost a sh!tload. If you're a highly-paid professional, the cost of equipment is irrelevant. If you're squeezing your dollars/yen/rubles/euros/pesos/sheckels like most of us, Pentax still delivers the most bang-for-the-buck. There have long been rumors of an impending FF Pentax -- maybe the K30D. But Pentax-Hoya seems to be concentrating on the 645D, skipping over the FF market. Pentax's targets may be Leica, Mamiya, Hasselblad, rather than Canikony. Pentax has only so many resources, can only work in so many markets. Spreading too thin can be disastrous. Ask your Canon buddy if he HAS a FF, how much it cost, whether it pays for itself, etc. IMHO Canon and Nikon use their high-priced FF gear as marketing tools, deluding consumers that if they just buy that plastic crap, THEY can be published in Newsweek and Hustler and National Geographic too. Hah. He has a Canon 50D. It is FF I believe it costs 1000$ish for the body... and who knows how much more money he has put into his battery grip and other lenses.

03-09-2010, 05:57 PM	#4
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	You'll find a number of posts here for people that do not want FF as they prefer APS-C. There are also a number of posts on the internet that compare FF and APS-C sensors and having FF does not always mean better quality. I'd like to see Pentax deliver a FF camera, but MF (645d) will trump FF for certain types of photography. To some, FF is not good enough and has physical limitations for future growth. APS-C vs FF vs MF - it's all one great debate....only you can answer which one is right for you.

03-09-2010, 06:14 PM	#5
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	OMG! Another FF debate thread?!? Enough already!

03-09-2010, 06:20 PM	#6
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by NecroticSoldier He has a Canon 50D. It is FF I believe it costs 1000$ish for the body... and who knows how much more money he has put into his battery grip and other lenses. the 50D is an aps-c body not a FF body. unless you meant a 5D. if it is a 50D, his camera has the same size sensor as your K-x, which is arguably not as good as yours. I find it funny that someone would shun a brand for using aps-c sensors while using one himself. its obviously about bragging rights and equipment lust with him. he has probably never tried anything other than a canon. of course, his camera is a great performer, and he probably has some good glass, but his attitude is pathetic and all to common.

03-09-2010, 06:24 PM	#7
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	Originally posted by séamuis the 50D is an aps-c body not a FF body. unless you meant a 5D. If he spent $1000-ish for the body, it's a 50D. So you're right, it's probably not even a full frame.

03-09-2010, 06:33 PM	#8
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by NecroticSoldier He has a Canon 50D. It is FF I believe it costs 1000$ish for the body... and who knows how much more money he has put into his battery grip and other lenses. LOL. If he has a Canon 50D, that model is NOT FF. The old 5D and 5D2 are full-frame though. Maybe he means he has a 5D. And yes, the whole 'rocking full-frame' debate is rather pointless. Few APS-C (or 4/3 etc) photographers ever achieve the maximum potential out of their existing equipment, so 'upgrading' to FF for most would be pretty pointless. I see a lot of people (including some of my friends ) buying expensive, high-end APS-C cameras (D300s, 7D etc) and expensive lenses and flashes, and yet still taking photos that are technically of terrible quality. Yet some of these folks are lusting after FF gear in the belief that somehow 'rocking full-frame' would make them better photographers. I don't think so.

03-09-2010, 06:38 PM	#9
NecroticSoldier Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Scarborough, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 488 Original Poster	Originally posted by séamuis the 50D is an aps-c body not a FF body. unless you meant a 5D. if it is a 50D, his camera has the same size sensor as your K-x, which is arguably not as good as yours. I find it funny that someone would shun a brand for using aps-c sensors while using one himself. its obviously about bragging rights and equipment lust with him. he has probably never tried anything other than a canon. of course, his camera is a great performer, and he probably has some good glass, but his attitude is pathetic and all to common. Oh... Sorry I don't know anything about other companies... I spent all my time researching on Pentax, because that is the very company that produced my beloved K1000. I love it a lot and I'm a die hard Pentax fan believe it or not. All I know is he has money to purchase all that... You're right. Just checked it out. Canon EOS 50D = 22.3mm x 14.9mm and my K-X = 23.6mm x 15.8mm Megapixels might be more than mine though... but it cannot equal the large arsenal of almost all the Pentax lenses ever made! I guess it sorta isn't about what you have, but how you use them sorta thing? I have never tried anything other than a Pentax though, sadly.

03-09-2010, 06:42 PM	#10
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	Originally posted by rawr Yet some of these folks are lusting after FF gear in the belief that somehow 'rocking full-frame' would make them better photographers. I don't think so. pff, speak for yourself... I would instantly become the Mozart of the photography world if I had a full frame camera. </sarcasm>

03-09-2010, 06:44 PM	#11
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	Originally posted by NecroticSoldier Megapixels might be more than mine though... Megapixels = completely irrelevant at this point. Once we passed 5 mpixels, none of it really mattered much anymore. An argument could be made for 3 mpixels as the threshold where it stopped mattering.

03-09-2010, 06:50 PM	#12
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	APS: smaller, lighter, cheaper cameras and lenses; advantage on telephotos due to crop factor; crop factor also makes FF lenses work better on APS (because of crop from center - sweet spot of high resolution) FF: usually higher resolution, less noise (usually smaller photosite density), thinner DOF; no crop factor is better for wide-angles Note that the APS telephoto advantage from the crop factor and the FF noise advantage would both disappear if APS sensors would keep the same photosite density as FF sensors (you could just crop from the FF image). So, it depends on what you need and prefer.

03-09-2010, 06:55 PM	#13
NecroticSoldier Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Scarborough, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 488 Original Poster	Originally posted by GoremanX Megapixels = completely irrelevant at this point. Once we passed 5 mpixels, none of it really mattered much anymore. An argument could be made for 3 mpixels as the threshold where it stopped mattering. Yeah, it's gimmicky. And... ;((( I love wide angle shots!...

03-09-2010, 08:17 PM	#15
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Well, if you had $10K and lived in Japan, you could buy the 645D. Yes, it was just announced. 44mm X 33mm sensor @ 40 megapixels. Steve

Full frame?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!