|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-07-2016, 01:18 PM
|
| |
Sorry, but I'll pass. I really don't believe a single format is the answer. Well, except that you can crop the K-1 to APS-C (but still, that makes sense only if you do it occasionally), or even further.
Choice (of cropping or not, in this case) is good, if you need it. If you don't, it's just a burden.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-07-2016, 12:30 PM
|
| |
Take two sheets of paper, let's say an A4 and an A3. In theory, FF can allow you to print on the larger paper with the same quality per square mm as APS-C on the smaller one. I call that noticeable ;)
In practice, there are so many factors that one format cannot possibly be considered overall "better" than another. In other words, there can be acceptable no definition of "better", suitable for all of us, on all the situations we might encounter.
My posts here are only to show the importance of Pentax offering the choice of FF. This, however, does not diminish in the least the importance of the APS-C. We shouldn't discuss as if there's some sort of competition between these formats.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-07-2016, 12:44 AM
|
| |
Wrong.
First, if we're talking professional, Pentax had no chance to out-compete Canikon. To compete against a huge lens range and cameras like the 7DMkII (already 2 years old) and D500 - and call such an effort "the only professional APS-c based DSLR system" it's just not realistic.
And they can't use hype and marketing like Fuji; on the contrary, Pentax is fighting against hype and others' marketing.
Second, the K-1 is wonderfully positioned: very affordable, fully featured, its high resolution sensor cannot be seen in any DSLR at such low price levels. Far from an "also ran", it's exactly what was needed.
And for Pete's sake, FF has a frame area more than double that of APS-C's; that's not a minor difference except in Fuji's marketing material. It's also the largest sensor size you could still get at relatively affordable prices.
Pentax was bleeding high-spending customers because they didn't had this.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-22-2016, 03:19 AM
|
| |
I see posts about how people claiming the FF is superior are wrong, but don't remember the heated debates on which such claims were so insistently being made... sure, there's the famous one-eye-in-focus look thought out by some photographers...
By the way, the K-1 will be superior from about every point of view (except price and size/weight) than my K-5IIs. Though I'm willing to say "different" regarding DoF, until I re-accustomize myself with the format and decide if I'm happy with a potentially more shallow DoF or not. And if I'm not... the K-1 still won't be any worse than the K-5IIs.
In any case, for me DoF isn't even worth thinking about at this stage. I'll see how things turns out and I'll adapt accordingly.
The trick here is not to apply some formulas, but to realize that you have to work with available lenses. I won't replace my lenses with "perfect equivalents", and in many cases those aren't even available. 35mm f/2.8? The closest would be the 50mm f/2.8 macro; there's no slower version (but there are up to 2 stops faster ones, if I'd give up close focus capabilities). 21mm f/3.2? The 31mm Limited, FA 35 f/2, Sigma 35 f/1.4 are all faster.
The only thing those formulas can tell you is that, if you want to get similar DoF, you can.
|
