Do we need full frame and to much resolution

Being an exhibition secretary, I get to process images from a variety of cameras.

Although full frame images have more detail, to me, they are too smooth they have no depth, guts or edge. Reminds me why so many preferred 35mm over 2 and 1/4 squared in film days. the same goes if resolution gets too high.

Example is the Nikon(spit)D800 full frame at 36meg - horrible results but the Nikon(spit) D4 images at 16meg are really good.

Not trying to show off but I have a K30, Nex3N at 16 meg but, I hate to say this,my Leica X1 at 12meg gives far more gutsy images.

You can't generalise really, or you can up to a point only. Different manufacturers offer different types of output from their cameras, sometimes even when using basically the same sensors.

As a generalisation, all compact cameras give more gutsy images because they use slightly more aggressive sharpening and colour than DSLRs do. It's expected that compacts should produce images that are "print ready", whereas DSLR owners are expected to want to use software to process images themselves.

You can alter the JPEG parameters of your K30 to give images as gutsy as your Leica. To be fair though, they are different manufacturers and you may still find differences in the final result.

As an owner of a Nikon D800E and several top end Pentax cameras I can tell you there is a concern-able difference in quality between the top models of all the leading manufacturers, John Riley has never spoke a more honest and informed answer to your sweeping statement - Mr Riley, I salute you

"Swings and roundabouts" "Horses for courses"

Personally I would like access to both a crop sensor and a FF camera depending on what I wanted to produce in an image.

Pixel count isn't important to me whilst I only really want to produce A4 images but not all sensors are created equal within a certain pixel count.

I recall being told in the early days of digital photography that 6mp was equal to the resolution of film but I never investigated the truth of that.

I guess 36mp might be a good idea if you have to cover a billboard with your image but at more usual print sizes it will be the quality of the sensor that matters.

As the owner of a 16 oz. Stanley Hammer and a 16 oz. Vaughn Hammer
I much prefer the hold and balance of the Vaughn Hammer although
I wish I had a 24oz. Estwing Hammer.... like the pro's have.

I must confess that I rarely knock any nails in I just
like holding a hammer

My wife on the other hand is quite happy with the
Junior Plumbers Outfit she bought and has no
desire to ever own a hammer

--

I hear they're ideal for cracking nuts with....

Hasn't sony released two versions of it's A7(?) line, which are full frame but with tow very different resolutions. So we've now got a K3 that's higher (or at least the same) resolution as a full frame sensor.

Personally I like the idea of lenses 'going back' to what they were in film days. Namely that will allow me to get some wide angles going again on a budget. I've said it before, but I think over time that the full frame sensor will lose the stigma it's got at the moment of being unobtainable. They'll get cheaper and I'd be surprised if Pentax didn't release something full frame fairly soon, given we are seeing more of them in smaller packages now.

I was just thinking that, supply and demand being what it is, sensor manufacturers looking to expand sales might be very keen to offer Ricoh a very good deal now. That might make it easier to make a Pentax FF model, maybe even in the same shell as the K-3.

Richandfleur wrote:

.

My sentiments exactly. Seems I have someone like minded . I would love to have my 24mm lens do what a 24mm lens should.

Regards, Horst

Given that technology is allowing te individual cell size on te sensor to become smaller, what would a FF actually achieve?

Had there been a FF around when the *istD at 6MP was produced it would have been around 12MP which is significantly lower than the APS-C resolution now available.

And with the D series lenses actually work with a FF sensor or will there be Vignetting?

Yes it was a bit of a sweeping statement but seeing Pentax being criticized for not going full frame with the K3 annoyed me. Reminded me of the marketing numbers games that went on with HiFi.
My comments where about the raw images as manufacturers can perform minor miracles with their in camera processing software. An example of that is Fuji with their Xtrans sensor. It is very difficult to better their jpges by raw processing.
I would love to go FF, but out of cameras I have tested to date, only the Sony RX1 has got anywhere near the gutsy 18in x 12in B&W prints that the Leica X1 or even the K30 with good glass can achieve.

One of the key advantages of FF is shallow DOF, nothing to do with pixels.

Yeah that's what I was alluding to earlier. The Megapixel count used to be the factors put forward the most, but we're already seeing higher pixel counts in smaller sensors now, even in cell phones.

The full frame term refers to a sensor that is essentially the same size as the film we used to use in our Pentax gear. So what we would really be doing is returning to how we used to use the film equipment. That means our lenses will provide the same field of view that we used to get from them.

Yes if we've gone with APS-C only lenses then they will not be compatible.

Personally I'm not impressed with the aura or stigma that full frame seems to carry. It's been expensive in the past, but with sensor developments it's no longer such an issue. As to the 'we don't need it' conversation, well I simply refer back to we all had it in the film days.

There's potentially a higher resolution count coming off the K3 sensor now, so Pentax are already handling the info, depending on what version FF sensor they negotiate to use.

Things are different these days. Yes old 'designed for film' lenses would get their 'true' focal lengths back - great for wide-angles, not great for tele's. But the 18-55 (even if it didn't vignette) wouldn't be the general purpose lens it is on APS-C.

For photographers with a slew of old lenses, FF makes sense. Taking it to the extreme, the Leica M8 wasn't FF, the M9 was and sold in droves even at £5k because it was cheaper than the 'FF' equivalent Leica wide-angle lenses otherwise needed for the M8.

As someone who has shot medium format for years, the FF v APS-C argument is irrelevant. With film you basically needed a larger format to get increased resolution. This brought with it far better tonal graduation and decreased DoF (aperture for aperture) but at the cost of lens resolution (getting the same resolution over a larger image circle is much more expensive). Medium format was the format of choice for advertising etc. simply because on a light box, it blows 35mm into the weeds (LF was a bit too unwieldy to take advantage). Size matters, but in the world of the computer screen, they're all the same size now.

Johnha wrote:

The first part of your comment is correct. The second part is not.
For Example, a 300mm Tele lens will show as much detail in its APS-C section taken with a full frame camera. Always assuming the Amount of pixels has increased to the same extend as the size of the sensor.

This brings me to the second point: The Pixel size does not need to get smaller with the size it is, when an inctrease from the existing APS-C is required to create a FF size. EG 16Mp to 34Mp. The size of each pixel will not vary. Therefore the noise level should be the same..

Johnha wrote further:

It is quite correct. The cost of wide-angles (not real wide-angles, but Inverted teles) seems to be a lot higher when the same angle is required on APS-C then it is with FF. Where the cost of a Tele stays the same. ( See my comments at the start).

Regards, Horst