Full frame

Hi, can someone explain how a full frame camera would benefit you over a camera with a sensor.
regards Dave

It would have a FF sensor.

Regards, Horst

A full frame (I hate the term ) camera has a sensor the same sive as a frame of 35mm film so quite a bit bigger the APS-C size sensor in a Pentax DSLR. The bigger the sensor the bigger the print you can make. Most amateur people would find no benefit whatsoever and the downside is much bigger, heavier and expensive cameras and lenses.

So is a 645 sensor bigger again?

Yes Barrie, and the camera is also bigger again.

When I used film I found the step up from 35mm to 645 was not big enough to justify compared to the disadvantages. It needed the step to be 6x7cm to make that difference.

In digital, APS-C is my standard and FF is not a big enough step for me. I feel it needs the 645 format to make the jump worthwhile.

A FF (135 sized Sensor) sits roughly halfway inbetween an APS-C and the 645D/Z Sized Sensor.
Of course, the sensor in a FF camera is likely to be a lot cheaper than the 645 sensor.
That would be the advantage, to bridge the gap between the ~£1k K3 and the ~£7k 645Z.

Thanks for the diagram

Gartmore wrote:

.

There is no reason why lenses for FF should be larger or heavier.
Most lenses until just recently where full frame lenses. they where not bigger than the DA lenses.

There is also no reason why a FF camera should be much bigger than a K5 or K3 and definitely no reason why it should be heavier.

Look at the new K-S1, It has the same size sensor APS-C as the other Pentax SLR's but it is quite smaller.
So if you then take the K-S1 and enlarge it for a FF sensor , you probably end up with a K3 size.

Regards, Horst

I am pretty sure that the FALtds will be no bigger, no more expensive and no heavier on a full frame camera.

I think there will be an expectation of faster lenses, look at the size of some of the Nikon and Canon offerings

FF lenses even fast one's, needn't be any bigger, than APS-C lenses.

The Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 is a very compact little thing and smaller than any APS-C lenses I have.

One of the main benefits is becuase the sensor is bigger each pixel is bigger and gathers more light. This means better dynamic range/high ISO performance.

gartmore wrote:

Why would you need a faster lens for FF than for APS-C?

Regards, Horst

I'm thinking primarily of press photographers using fast zooms

There is the potential for the lenses to be lighter/smaller or at least you would not need as fast lenses if the high ISO performance is better.

This is somewhere where Pentax, I feel could create a USP in the FF market with their range of existing relatively compact/light FA Limited Primes in the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm. Along with potentially a proper FF version of the 40mm & 70mm in the DA Limiteds. The FA 28mm, 35mm and 50mm f1.4 are also all quite compact too.
Thats only missing an UWA Prime (FA20) or Zoom (FA20-35) re work and a standard 24-70mm zoom.

My FA20-35 is an example of this, about the same size, if not smaller than my DA14 and a lot lighter too. There of course is the DA15 which is a little lighter and about 2/3rds the size of the FA20-35 though.
Of course its not as fast but I dont really use the f2.8 aperture apart from very low light or I want some background isolation from a subject.