Another discussion about Full Frame for Pentax, By Miserere.

**ebooks4pentax** · 09-09-2008, 03:21 PM

Miserere, who posts on various forums has a great article about Full Frame versus APS-C sized sensors. I just wanted to let everyone know about it.

Do You Really Need a Full-Frame Camera? Article by: Miserere

wll · 09-09-2008, 03:35 PM

A very nice article, and IMHO spot on.

wll

Damn Brit · 09-09-2008, 05:14 PM

Great article, thanks for the link Yvon.

sewebster · 09-09-2008, 06:25 PM

Why aren't digital FF viewfinders as big and bright as old film ones?

borno · 09-09-2008, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by sewebster

Why aren't digital FF viewfinders as big and bright as old film ones?

I'm not sure , but I think the mirrors are only part reflective for all the af stuff

sewebster · 09-09-2008, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by borno

I'm not sure , but I think the mirrors are only part reflective for all the af stuff

Sure, but this is the same as for an autofocus film SLR.

kenyee · 09-09-2008, 07:36 PM

Some digital viewfinders are also 100% coverage. I don't remember film cameras' viewfinders being 100% coverage...

**Canada_Rockies** · 09-09-2008, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by kenyee

Some digital viewfinders are also 100% coverage. I don't remember film cameras' viewfinders being 100% coverage...

Same thing. Some film SLR's had 100% coverage. Nikon F3 comes to mind.

Light_Horseman · 09-10-2008, 12:30 AM

Good read. And I was in no hurry to get FF anyway!

awo425 · 09-10-2008, 07:08 AM

We've seen all this arguments many times here and on DPreview, all make sense, I guess.

But, I have a lot of friends who recently switched to FF Nikons and none of them are willing to go back to D300 bodies.
Same thing with my friend who has Canon 5D. For some reason, he is not missing his Digital Rebel.

Do we Pentaxians need FF? Probably not, this concept is for fancy-shmancy Nikon-Canon users.

MikePerham · 09-10-2008, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by sewebster

Why aren't digital FF viewfinders as big and bright as old film ones?

Since the advent of so called "high viewpoint" finders, the view is smaller because of the info panels around the viewfinder encroaching on the space previously used by the image. When I look at the viewfinder on my MX compared to the MZs it's huge by comparison even though the MZs is full frame. But, the MZs has a lot more info around the viewfinder than does the MX.

deejjjaaaa · 09-10-2008, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by MikePerham

Since the advent of so called "high viewpoint" finders, the view is smaller because of the info panels around the viewfinder encroaching on the space previously used by the image. When I look at the viewfinder on my MX compared to the MZs it's huge by comparison even though the MZs is full frame. But, the MZs has a lot more info around the viewfinder than does the MX.

you have coverage and magnification... it looks like all FF dSLR so far
have (coverage * magnification) = ~0.7x

you probably can make that better by using something like O-ME53 (to take care about magnification piece).

Robert Barnett · 09-10-2008, 09:46 PM

No text for this message, read the subject line for my comment.

axl · 09-11-2008, 12:44 AM

Fully agree, it's just about the time we'd stop moaning about what we don't/can't have, take the gear we do/can have and go out there and take some serious pics...
Look at Oly. Will they have FF? no so, what some people still love it, and some still buy into it. Why in the world we can't be happy with APS-C...

Serpiente · 09-11-2008, 07:37 AM

If you could switch FF<->cropped when you want to, it would be perfect! Cropped when using telelens and FF for other stuff.

09-09-2008, 03:21 PM	#1
ebooks4pentax Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: California, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 464	Another discussion about Full Frame for Pentax, By Miserere. Miserere, who posts on various forums has a great article about Full Frame versus APS-C sized sensors. I just wanted to let everyone know about it. Do You Really Need a Full-Frame Camera? Article by: Miserere

09-10-2008, 09:46 PM	#13
Robert Barnett Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 65	FF is so over rated (NT) No text for this message, read the subject line for my comment.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
No Pentax Full Frame DSLR, What to Do Now Then?	RiceHigh	Pentax DSLR Discussion	95	07-19-2014 10:57 AM
Full frame pentax	cem.kumuk	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame...	Shutter-bug	Photographic Technique	60	11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame	aegisphan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-28-2010 04:16 PM
The almost full frame Pentax?	denisv	Photographic Technique	44	01-19-2009 04:01 AM

09-09-2008, 03:35 PM	#2
wll Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mission Hills, CA Posts: 773	A very nice article, and IMHO spot on. wll

09-09-2008, 05:14 PM	#3
Damn Brit Guest	Great article, thanks for the link Yvon.

09-09-2008, 06:25 PM	#4
sewebster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	Why aren't digital FF viewfinders as big and bright as old film ones?

09-09-2008, 06:28 PM	#5
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	Originally posted by sewebster Why aren't digital FF viewfinders as big and bright as old film ones? I'm not sure , but I think the mirrors are only part reflective for all the af stuff

09-09-2008, 07:12 PM	#6
sewebster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	Originally posted by borno I'm not sure , but I think the mirrors are only part reflective for all the af stuff Sure, but this is the same as for an autofocus film SLR.

09-09-2008, 07:36 PM	#7
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Some digital viewfinders are also 100% coverage. I don't remember film cameras' viewfinders being 100% coverage...

09-09-2008, 07:40 PM	#8
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by kenyee Some digital viewfinders are also 100% coverage. I don't remember film cameras' viewfinders being 100% coverage... Same thing. Some film SLR's had 100% coverage. Nikon F3 comes to mind.

09-10-2008, 12:30 AM	#9
Light_Horseman Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Coffs Harbour, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 297	Good read. And I was in no hurry to get FF anyway!

09-10-2008, 07:08 AM	#10
awo425 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NYC, USA Posts: 481	We've seen all this arguments many times here and on DPreview, all make sense, I guess. But, I have a lot of friends who recently switched to FF Nikons and none of them are willing to go back to D300 bodies. Same thing with my friend who has Canon 5D. For some reason, he is not missing his Digital Rebel. Do we Pentaxians need FF? Probably not, this concept is for fancy-shmancy Nikon-Canon users.

09-10-2008, 07:35 AM	#11
MikePerham Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Prince George, BC Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 642	Originally posted by sewebster Why aren't digital FF viewfinders as big and bright as old film ones? Since the advent of so called "high viewpoint" finders, the view is smaller because of the info panels around the viewfinder encroaching on the space previously used by the image. When I look at the viewfinder on my MX compared to the MZs it's huge by comparison even though the MZs is full frame. But, the MZs has a lot more info around the viewfinder than does the MX.

09-10-2008, 07:46 AM	#12
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by MikePerham Since the advent of so called "high viewpoint" finders, the view is smaller because of the info panels around the viewfinder encroaching on the space previously used by the image. When I look at the viewfinder on my MX compared to the MZs it's huge by comparison even though the MZs is full frame. But, the MZs has a lot more info around the viewfinder than does the MX. you have coverage and magnification... it looks like all FF dSLR so far have (coverage * magnification) = ~0.7x you probably can make that better by using something like O-ME53 (to take care about magnification piece).

09-11-2008, 12:44 AM	#14
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Fully agree, it's just about the time we'd stop moaning about what we don't/can't have, take the gear we do/can have and go out there and take some serious pics... Look at Oly. Will they have FF? no so, what some people still love it, and some still buy into it. Why in the world we can't be happy with APS-C...

09-11-2008, 07:37 AM	#15
Serpiente Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 154	If you could switch FF<->cropped when you want to, it would be perfect! Cropped when using telelens and FF for other stuff.