Here's a question for those moist over a Pentax FF


Smeggypants

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 01:23
Here's a question for those moist over a Pentax FF ....

How will a FF camera improve the standard of your photography over what you can get from a K-5 or K30?
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 07:47
I could never afford one, Smeggy, so it's a moot point, but for me the only advantage would be to get full use from my old wide-angle lenses (although I bet the bigger sensor would show most of them to be of so-so quality.)

The only other advantage I can think of, is for folks who print LARGE. I never even print 5"x3" so, personally, I wouldn't be affected.

Yet, just as I'll never own an Aston Martin, it's good to live in a world where they exist: it would be fun to see a full-frame Pentax and read about people's experiences with one.

Vicarious pleasures, I know, but there you are.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

johnriley

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 08:06
Probably bigger cameras, bigger lenses, bigger file sizes, bigger prices and probably little advantage for the photographer printing no larger than A3.

Do I feel a desire for a FF camera? No, otherwise I would already have one.

What I do is shoot pictures, not worry constantly about what I shoot them with, although to be fair I do enjoy the delights of Pentax engineering quality and ergonomics.
Best regards, John

Mannesty

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 08:09
I doubt that I'd be in a hurry to buy one of the first Pentax FF DSLR's, mainly because I think the initial cost will be too high but I might buy a used one when they get to around £500.00.

I'll not need to go on a lens shopping spree because I have enough FF lenses to cover most of the 28 - 500mm range, one of the benefits of buying Sigma DG lenses.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

gartmore

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 08:13
Another question, how many who shot 35mm film felt the need to shoot MF or larger? Or indeed wished Pentax would make a 5x4 camera
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Last Edited by gartmore on 15/12/2012 - 08:14

Fletcher8

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 09:03
I guess the main two improvements would be increased D.O.F and increased F.OV. In relation to wide angle lenses. Depending on the sensor, increased detail? However, I am very happy with the K5 and have invested a fair amount of money in lenses, so moving to full frame would be out of my reach for a long time. Moreover, unless I was making a regular amount of money from my photography, I think the K5 can deliver anyway. For those people who have the funds and desire for full frame it would be great for Pentax to offer the choice.
Fletcher8.

johnriley

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 09:08
Quote:
I think the initial cost will be too high but I might buy a used one when they get to around £500.00.

The world has changed since people were posting that they would definitely buy a K-5 when it fell to £1000! Clearly Peter you don't want a FF camera!

Quote:
how many who shot 35mm film felt the need to shoot MF or larger?

I did for years, but found it was an illusion. The lenses of some were disappointing, as they assumed less enlargement was needed. The cameras were bulky and slow. Features taken for granted on 35mm were not in sight. Running them was uber-expensive. The close up and telephoto arrangements were incredibly Heath Robinson and not particularly effective unless proiced as high as the cameras.

The 645 was not enough of a jump from 35mm. I would have needed, but could not afford, the 67. Alas, the world has moved on and APS-C gives arguably better quality, with the possible exception of the 67 and the Hasselblad.
Best regards, John

Mannesty

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 09:20
Want? Not yet anyway. Need? probably never.

The kit I have now caters for all of my current photographic needs. A K5-II might be better for my low light race track meetings, but I get by with what I have now so it's unlikely that I'll upgrade yet.

I'm not sure that FF will afford me any benefits over my APS-C gear because I seldom print anything. I've shot events for my son with my gear and he has sold quite a few prints, but none much larger than 9" x 6". Modern camera phones can do that very respectably now.

Basically, what I want from Pentax has been said a thousand and more times by many. Faster and more accurate AF is top of my want list, hopefully the low light issue is now resolved by the K5-II. I don't really care about the size of the sensor.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream
Last Edited by Mannesty on 15/12/2012 - 09:21

obione

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 09:38
And next we will need a tv at 96inch, to look at all ur F/F images,
a computer with a 3X 10t/b hard drives to store all the images and lightroom 20 to edit your work flow.
k-5, K-5ii,60-250 f4, 50 f1.4 af,17-70 f4, 100mm macro wr,siggy 10-20 siggy 100-300f4

vic cross

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 10:00
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I'd like to see a square format using the long side of the APS-C as the size. This way it would save having to turn the camera for landscape and portrait and you could crop to whatever size and shape you wanted. Quite a few of the medium format cameras, both film and digital are square format so why not a DSLR?
CHEERS Vic.
Born again biker with lots of Pentax bits. Every day I wake up is a good day. I'm so old I don't even buy green bananas.

Mannesty

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 10:24
obione wrote:
And next we will need a tv at 96inch, to look at all ur F/F images ...

One of my local domestic appliance stores has a 106" flat panel TV on display with an awesome sound system. It's looping on a Bruce Springsteen concert, and has been for over a year now.

The image quality is exceptional, even close up, and a snip at a mere €64,999.00 (No, not a typo, almost sixty five grand).
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

Algernon

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 10:26
vic cross wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I'd like to see a square format using the long side of the APS-C as the size. This way it would save having to turn the camera for landscape and portrait and you could crop to whatever size and shape you wanted. Quite a few of the medium format cameras, both film and digital are square format so why not a DSLR?
CHEERS Vic.

That would mean cropping every single shot!.... OUCH!

-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 15/12/2012 - 10:26

Mannesty

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 10:30
Algernon wrote:
vic cross wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I'd like to see a square format using the long side of the APS-C as the size. This way it would save having to turn the camera for landscape and portrait and you could crop to whatever size and shape you wanted. Quite a few of the medium format cameras, both film and digital are square format so why not a DSLR?
CHEERS Vic.

That would mean cropping every single shot!.... OUCH!

-

Not difficult with Lightroom. You can setup a preset with the crop dimensions which can be applied automatically when images are imported. It's all done for you. About all you might need to do is fine tune the crop selection for some images.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

johnriley

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 10:47
Square format DSLRs would need new bodies, or just be a full frame model cropped down for no purpose. Square format is no better and no worse than any other format - right for shots when the subject and composition suit it.

I often use square format made from APS-C. I would not like to be restricted to it and have to crop down to make a more usual oblong format.

In any event, as the mass market is now used to widescreen TV and cinema, a square format is counter-intuitive and the opposite of where the market has headed.

Many Pentax cameras now have a suare format option built in I think. As well as 16:9 and 4:3 there is also 1:1 offered.
Best regards, John

gartmore

Link Posted 15/12/2012 - 10:55
Without going in to aesthetics, square format only made sense with Twin Lens Reflex cameras because you couldn't rotate them
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.