[cali92rs]

So true! Still, I continue to see all these FF posts where a FF camera is going to "make me a Pro"! In the OP post, he states that....

I took the liberty to look at his 3-4 shots posted in his Gallery/Album and can't honestly see where he has utilized the potential of his K511 and Pentax gear in general. Not picking on him, but if he thinks a FF is going to jump out there and do for him what his current gear isn't, I am afraid he is going to be in for a costly disappointment.

I see this more often than not....."if only I had a FF I could shoot wonderful photos!". That may be true for a tiny select group of shooters, but for the majority it won't hold water. Do a little research on your own.....go look at the photos of those that were longing for a FF to get those "wonderful shots" and then look at the shots they got when they did get their FF. See any difference? In most cases I have studied...not much, if any...and some actually got worse!

Again, my apology to the OP for using him as an example, I am certainly not a skilled shooter or expert photographer in any respect, and I know it. It's why I am mostly a Toy Camera shooter and never entertain the idea that a FF camera could possibly change that.

Regards!

You break out this strawman argument quite a bit.
I don't know if I have read one single person on this message board or any other that have said that "If I had a FF, it would make me a pro"...or..."if I had FF, I would be a much better photographer".

[Rupert]

You break out this strawman argument quite a bit.
I don't know if I have read one single person on this message board or any other that have said that "If I had a FF, it would make me a pro"...or..."if I had FF, I would be a much better photographer".

"......,but will find it hard to be satisfied with landscapes or wildlife shots,once I use the FF system, and the amount of detail there is, and low light capabilities."

No, not in those specific words, but close enough to read between the lines. Certainly looks like expectations that exceed probabilities to me? See it often? Yep, here and other sites too. I don't often hear "I just want to spend a lot more cash for fractionally better results." Most seem to be hoping for a miracle, and miracles are few from what I have seen as noted in my comment.
I have no dog in the hunt and don't care what a person shoots with, but I do respect a certain amount of reality in praising the virtues of FF, and often that reality is left out of the conversation.

To make it clear, I do know a good number of shooters here that could dazzle with a FF camera, I could name a dozen quickly. I could also name many more that couldn't. My point was not to condemn, but to get the benefits to the masses of a FF camera into the area of reality.
Not sure that is a worthy idea, apparently not for you, and you may be right. Just saying I once dumped an old girlfriend for a new and flashier model with regrets that lingered for a long time.....and were also very costly!

Best Regards!

[Shanti]

So true! Still, I continue to see all these FF posts where a FF camera is going to "make me a Pro"! In the OP post, he states that....

I took the liberty to look at his 3-4 shots posted in his Gallery/Album and can't honestly see where he has utilized the potential of his K511 and Pentax gear in general. Not picking on him, but if he thinks a FF is going to jump out there and do for him what his current gear isn't, I am afraid he is going to be in for a costly disappointment.

I see this more often than not....."if only I had a FF I could shoot wonderful photos!". That may be true for a tiny select group of shooters, but for the majority it won't hold water. Do a little research on your own.....go look at the photos of those that were longing for a FF to get those "wonderful shots" and then look at the shots they got when they did get their FF. See any difference? In most cases I have studied...not much, if any...and some actually got worse!

Again, my apology to the OP for using him as an example, I am certainly not a skilled shooter or expert photographer in any respect, and I know it. It's why I am mostly a Toy Camera shooter and never entertain the idea that a FF camera could possibly change that.

Regards!

dude..the 3 photos posted are Not representative of what I do..they were tests for something or another..can't remember
I never said FF will make me better!!?? I shot FF & MF film for 30 yrs or more I know what is possible
I said will I ever want to use the K5II after seeing the resolution & high ISO's of the Nikons...if that was possible at APS C then I no need to change

[Digitalis]

I use the D800E,Canon 1DsMK III, Leica M9, Leica monochrom, Leica S2, Pentax 645D, Phase one iQ180, Sinar 4X5 and Ebony 8X10 - I still use my APS-C pentax cameras. The Pentax K system is the only APS-C system I work with, I gave up on reduced format Canon and Nikon cameras ages ago.

FYI: I still use my pentax cameras for commercial macro work because there is really nothing else on the market that can match the FA*200mm f/4 ED MACRO when it comes to image quality.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 12-04-2014 at 09:26 PM.

[Shanti]

Different cameras for different purposes. You will never find one camera or system to do it all.
- K-3 for general duties and telephoto, due to awesome AF, excellent low-light, WR and 1.5 crop. Also I love the DA*300+K-3 combo. Unrivalled.



- RX-100 for pocket, NEX-F3 for light walkabout and family snaps.
- Nikon D610 for just one stop of cleaner, better high ISO output when doing low-light event shooting (eg night rodeo), which saves hours of effort when processing 1000+ event shots.
- Canon SX50 for superzoom reach, just for fun.

Use the tool that does the job best. That's why most tool boxes have more than one type hammer or screw-driver inside. And if you shop prudently, being a multi-system user need not be prohibitively expensive.



Having said all that, if Pentax releases a good FF next year that matches the D610/D750 at higher ISO's, I'll sell all my Nikon gear without any qualms.

---------- Post added 2014-12-04 at 07:07 PM ----------



Now the D750 is a nice camera, to be sure, but let's not 'gild the lily' about it's dynamic range advantage, especially at higher ISO's:

From dxomark.com

I agree I use the DA*300+ TC almost all the time for birding..just the lack of light gives need for ISO 6400 alot,& Pentax is not so good at that,especially when cropped

I have many cameras..Oly,Nikon P7100,Q + film cmaeras at the moment..this tool I am considering is for birding at 500mm or more,and since Tamron or Sigma will not do K mounts on their new tele zooms.....

[rawr]

just the lack of light gives need for ISO 6400 alot

Nobody that I have ever seen uses ISO 6400 for birding, not even myself (and I am normally very relaxed about using high ISO ), since birding is all about detail and colour quality, and fine detail, colour quality and high ISO rarely go together. Even 1Dx or D4s shooters would avoid ISO 6400 for birding.

If you are routinely using ISO 6400 for birding, even at f5.6 (DA*300 f4 + 1.4 TC), you probably need to modify your technique or setup. Maybe even invest in a Better Beamer or similar flash extender. And of course stop using light-stealing UV or other filters ...

[Digitalis]

Nobody that I have ever seen uses ISO 6400 for birding, not even myself (and I am normally very relaxed about using high ISO ), since birding is all about detail and colour quality, and fine detail and high ISO rarely go together. Even 1Dx or D4s shooters would avoid ISO 6400 for birding.

I agree, I work with a D4s quite a bit professionally and I would only use 6400 when I absolutely had no other options. But as it turns out I have plenty of options with the Nikon system, and AF-S 400mm f/2.8 ED VR lens with a 2X nikkor teleconverter gives me an 800mm f/5.6 - stop it down to f/8 and I get superb image quality and still I rarely have to go to ISO 3200. I use a tripod and sometimes a Monopod, but I always use flash for wildlife photography - especially with birds. The catch lights in the subjects eye add a liveliness to them that aesthetically looks wrong when it is absent.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 12-05-2014 at 04:29 AM.

[manntax]

I still use my pentax cameras for commercial macro work because there is really nothing else on the market that can match the FA*200mm f/4 ED MACRO when it comes to image quality.

I am very curious how this claim would stand a simple trial. Would you be interested in a small test to squeeze the most you can from a K5 sensor ( not K5II *) with that lens - so we could compare if the detail would indeed be greater than I could get with a K-01 and one of my macro lenses ? I currently have 4 macro lenses and that would really be interesting how they would compare .. We could go for a similar subjects ( bank note or something with fine detail that we both have access to) - fancy a try ? D


*) I wish I could go for a K3 sensor for such challenge but the best I have right now is K-01 - which seems to be the same as K5 .

[Rupert]

dude..the 3 photos posted are Not representative of what I do..they were tests for something or another..can't remember

Sorry....I could only report on what I saw, and what you posted. I am certain that when you get your FF you will come back here and show us the fabulous difference it has made in your shooting abilities? I will look forward to it...dude!
Regards!

[Shanti]

Nobody that I have ever seen uses ISO 6400 for birding, not even myself (and I am normally very relaxed about using high ISO ), since birding is all about detail and colour quality, and fine detail, colour quality and high ISO rarely go together. Even 1Dx or D4s shooters would avoid ISO 6400 for birding.

If you are routinely using ISO 6400 for birding, even at f5.6 (DA*300 f4 + 1.4 TC), you probably need to modify your technique or setup. Maybe even invest in a Better Beamer or similar flash extender. And of course stop using light-stealing UV or other filters ...

With the DA*300+1.4TC I normally keep it under ISO1600,as higher is not good enough.But sometimes I can't get the shutter speed high enough to freeze the wings--like low flying buzzards or herons,alot in overcast lighting & from OCt to March the sun is so low here which doesn't help.From the tests of D810/D750 it seems ISO 6400 is very clean & good DR. My plan is to get the Sigma or Tamron 150-600 & at 6.3 in this light it will be hard to keep a fast enough shutter speed.
I use a Hoya HD UV,which is supposed to not take much light away(needed as alot is by the ocean)
Of course If I could afford a 400 2.8 or 500 4.5 then not such a big problem,but to keep within my budget the the 810/750 & 150-600 are my limits.
a flash will not help BIF ,maybe a 1800 Lumen fenix light mounted would??

[Digitalis]

sometimes I can't get the shutter speed high enough to freeze the wings

Then don't freeze the wings, there are many good BIF images have some movement in the animals wings.

Of course If I could afford a 400 2.8 or 500 4.5 then not such a big problem,but to keep within my budget the the 810/750 & 150-600 are my limits.

Personally I think this is a bad idea. Sure you can buy a D810 or 750 - but you would still run into issues with DOF which is shallower on FX format, so you will have to stop down even more to obtain the same DOF you were getting on DX format.

IMO going full frame will hinder you more than it will help if you are only going to buy slow lenses. If you really want to do BIF with birds perfectly frozen in mid air like taxidermied specimens in a museum you have to do it properly, there isn't room for half measures. Get a fast autofocus 400mm f/2.8, get a full frame DSLR with clean High ISO and high FPS and class leading AF - like the d4s - because really that is the best way to do it. If you can't afford this then do the best you can with what you have got, technique can accomplish things that technology alone can not.

[rawr]

technique can accomplish things that technology alone can not

Indeed. Even modest gear like the K-x and K-5 can do OK with birds and moderately high ISO:


Scarlet Honeyeater w 'Orange Marmalade' Grevillea
Pentax K-x, DAL 55-300, ƒ/9.0, 300.0 mm, 1/400, ISO 1600


Scarlet Honeyeater hovering under pink callistemon 1/2
Pentax K-5, DA*300, ƒ/7.1, 300.0 mm, 1/640, ISO 2500

[B Grace]

Sorry....I could only report on what I saw, and what you posted. I am certain that when you get your FF you will come back here and show us the fabulous difference it has made in your shooting abilities? I will look forward to it...dude!
Regards!

Well, it is certainly possible. I've been shooting both Pentax and Nikon APS-C gear - I don't care for comparing the two systems because the lenses I have for both are very different and, in my opinion, the traditional Nikon image style from the film days just wasn't there with the early DX cameras and lenses. When I added a D600 to my Nikon kit I noticed a significant step up in capability with my existing Nikon lenses. Much improved dynamic range and more tolerance for exposure issues due to exposing for highlights. Much more detail available allowing more frequent darkroom-style crops. More tolerance for image perspective adjustments such as stretching images using the PS Camera Distortion tool. And this was even with shooting in crop mode with the same normal DX zoom I had been using with my DX camera, which I've since traded for a good quality normal FX zoom. Getting pleasing architectural-style images was worth the cost of the camera alone.

What are the challenges posed by shooting 35mm-format digital? I no longer see any of my shots as snapshots which can make vacations more work than they need be. And a DX shooter can move up to an FX camera and shoot whatever lenses already on hand but the last fraction of image quality offered by a camera such as the D800/D810 over a D7000/D7100 will require mid-grade to pro-grade lenses. I do know a fellow shooting a D800 with the high-grade AiS lenses he bought in the 1980s and he gets fantastic image quality results. The resolution and detail results I can get with my D600 and AiS28/2.8 using proper technique (given the chance I shoot the combo at low ISO ratings, F5.6 to F8, and on a tripod) are beyond anything I would have imagined being possible from a 35mm-format camera system. So a new D810 shooter can spend $5k US on current pro-grade Nikon lenses to get the best of the Nikon best, or $1k on good quality older lenses and be very happy.

[aleonx3]

I'm very impressed with the D750 I am using but it is $3000. I'm a little nervous about taking it certain places. So tonight, for example, I am taking my X30 to my gig at the local coffee shop.

So I would say keep some inexpensive gear for those dicey situations.

Just for that reason, I wouldn't want to have a $3000 equipment and avoid using it in some situations....

[normhead]

Hi planning to get a FF D750 or 810 soonish,as need longer glass 150-600 or 100-400 .
I just think if I get on my Pentax gear K5II & some good glass ,maybe $3500 in all invested,will never get used after I see what the FF can do. I love Pentax for the tank body & size & primes ,but will find it hard to be satisfied with landscapes or wildlife shots,once I use the FF system, and the amount of detail there is, and low light capabilities.
Anyone who has both systems D750/ 810 & Pentax--- do you still use your Pentax gear & for what? I need some good reasons not to sell it all off

Thanks for any help

You realize that with your 150-600 on full frame, you'll be at 600 ƒ6.3. AN equivalent in Pentax would be the K-3 with a DA*300 and a 1.4 TC, which gets you 420mm ™ ƒ5.6. FF equivalent that's 630 @ƒ5.6. So you're going to be slower and shorter, if only marginally for wildlife. As for the assumption that you're going to get better images with your FF, well maybe.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/270829-misc-post-your...s-version.html

Just to add to that a comparison between my K-5 and K-3




You can add quite a bit of detail to your K-5 images with a K-3. But the the D810 is pretty amazing for dynamic range....

IN any case, you seem to be sold, so good luck with your new system. Let us know what it eventually costs and how it works out.