Full Frame for the Insecure?

'Hi, I am going full frame so my gear has to go' - sound familiar?

I'm wondering if some people move to full frame because they feel insecure about their equipment, or think it will magically turn them into professionals?
Do they stand at a view point and feel insecure because the guy next to them is 'holding something bigger in his hands'?

Why I'm scratching my head -
ISO performance of the latest generation of ASP-C sensors more than matching something like the Canon 5D Mark II

'I need a bigger sensor' - 'I need it for landscape' - buy a Sigma 10-20mm or 8-16mm

'I need more detail' - a 16m pixel ASP-C given the crop is essentially around 20m pixel Full Frame, pixels are not the whole story with regard picture quality, and how big are the prints you're actually planning to make?

(Is there something else I am missing/got wrong?)

Obviously I am talking about comparison to moderately priced Full Frame gear (if there is such a thing), I know the very high end stuff is in its own league, but I find it unlikely your average joe would make the leap to that expense?

Be interested to hear what people think, guess I am feeling insecure myself...

Well, have a look at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm to see what we're missing. Also, the field of view is nicer. In terms of ISO performance, FF cameras have access to the same technology. So the next gen FF will have amazing ISO. I'm not remotely insecure about my stuff. But yes I'd go for a Pentax FF if it came out.

More cost, more weight, more sensor, but more quality? Debatable.

At the end of it, it's their money, and if buying into FF gives them more confidence, etc, good for them.

Hopefully in the process they'll be selling quality Pentax kit at the right price

Me? The quality of my photography is in no way related to the size of my sensor - all my shots are rubbish.

Yeah I've read that Rockwell page before, its a bit out of date no though is it not?

and yeah certainly like the sound of Sony's replacement for the A900 - 36mp, EVF, and ISO like night vision goggles

When we had film, bigger format gives better quality was a fairly straightforward relationship. I never found the jump from 35mm to 645 to be quite enough, but the jump from 35mm to 6x7cm is very obvious. Hence I aspired to the Pentax 67, but never actually got to own one. The viewfinders are incredible by the way.

With digital, there's a lot of after-capture skill needed to get the absolutely best results, so investment in that area - computers, printers, scanners, Photoshop.....- is probably more helpful than changing format. Unfortunately it's also very mundane as purchases go, when we might prefer buying lenses and cameras.

In the end almost certainly it's more the person behind the camera that matters most, not the camera itself.

For those that use FF DSLR's, they already know why they do. For Pentax users who don't, don't give it a thought as it would all be hypothetical.

As far as missing anything, the same may be said about FF DSLR user's not using DMF cameras. It goes on.

I use a FF and since using it, I would never be without one.

Best regards

Agreed, the amount of times my posted images have been improved by other forum members making tweaks demonstrates this.

Think most people aspire to reach the pinnacle of their chosen hobby, so FF is the format to aspire to, unfortunately I cannot envisage Pentax developing FF so I shall have aspire to a 645

Davex.

Life is tough...I'm aspiring to one of those nice red ones, but I shall probably never own one. Mind you, one decent lottery win and the first thing on the list won't be a problem.

Certainly agree theres a lot of DSLR's out there now but what would make the difference betwen a 'pro' and 'joe' is the after PP'ing

(that's someting that annoys me, the constant whining for a FF Pentax camera, if you want/need you would change system - if you havn't guess you don't need it that bad or can't afford it so you wouldn't be able to afford a FF Pentax either )

Certainly agree. Whats main reason(s) you would never be without one?

Given the same photosite density, it's about 36M pixel, not 20.

(36x24)/(24x16) = 2.25.

Less than that, obviously, with the bigger, less noisy photosites that presumably they have (had? I don't know what the big sensors are like now).

The attraction for me would be the ability to endlessly increase the ISO without noise - but it would only be any good if the AF got correspondingly better in the increasing darkness.

I'd never go FF without a lottery win - the weight and expense of the long fat lenses would be prohibitive.

As far as bragging rights go, with the revolution in diminutive, yet powerful portable devices of all kinds, is there really any margin in having a big camera any more?

Small is the new large, these days. I think the fact that the K-5 so much more capable, yet both smaller and lighter than the K10D is just brilliant.

When I moved to a Digital SLR (KX and now KR) I bought into Pentax precisely because of the progress in APS C sensor quality especially low light ISO performance and dynamic range combined with the extremely compact bodies, system and value for money.

I fully understand Pro friends buying 35mm sized sensor cameras although they increasingly seem to like to carry more compact second cameras too.

As a keen amateur travel photographer I get a camera with three or four lenses in a very small Lowepro slingshot bag. I wouldn't be doing that with a full frame alternative if I still wanted 15mm to 450mm range out there with me.

So no to 36 x 24mm sensors however fine they are as the lenses are too bulky for my needs.

I find the idea that people go to full frame because they are insecure a bit patronising. Pentax have some lovely full frame lenses, and it's a great pity you have to stick them on a Canon to use them properly, ie without the 1.5 crop which makes their focal length less useful and increases dof. There's also no reason FF cameras and lenses need to be massive. Is the FA43 or 31mm really a big lens? That said, I wouldn't be able to afford a FF body anyway, even if Pentax made one. Closest I can come is use film.

If Ricoh/ Pentax managed to produce a quality, relatively compact FF body, I'm sure there'd be a lot of interest.

Well lets go back to May 2009 when I bought a D700. My initial "want" was for lower noise and true wide glass with the future purchase of long fast glass. The D700 fit the bill and I consider Pentax and Nikon as siblings. Canon kit was never on the horizon.

Big bright viewfinder, silly fast AF (though not always needed), possibly the best flash system out there and very high IQ. Since then, the K5 and D7000 have arrived. Of course, new FF Nikon's are about to be announced yet I don't feel that I need to upgrade as all present kit does its job very well.

If Pentax ever introduce a FF, providing it's no more than a FF Nikon price, I'll buy it as my Ltd's are home sick.

Best regards

Can someone explain this?

I've heard it said many times, but I don't understand it.

The out-of-focus-ness of the subject is surely the same on the sensor, with the same lens at the same distance from the camera, regardless of crop, so what needs to be compared with what, for this to be true?

Here

link

Best regards