Moving to full frame

Not necessarily expensive and for landscape photography in particular I think most people will agree FF is the preferred choice over a crop sensor

Simple analogy to me is that I support a football team and always think of them as number one in my eyes. On occasions though I have had to admit they were beaten by a better side or applauded a great goal from the opposition

A lot of Pentax users are very interested to see how Pentax lenses perform on a full frame sensor.

Surely the level of interest and discussion generated on a forum will help Pentax to gauge the needs of their customers. It's free market research.

Many of those interested parties would prefer to use Pentax lenses on a Pentax body. I don't see how it is promoting another brand where the principal interest is in the performance of a Pentax lens. Plenty of us spend much more on lenses than on camera bodies, so again surely it is positive for Pentax. I'm a little confused too, there doesn't seem to be an issue with discussing other brands of lenses for use on a Pentax body.

Furthermore it doesn't mean that we will all be going out and buying a Sony, au contraire it gives us more incentive to wait and see what Ricoh have in store. And surely Pentaxians moving to Sony with Pentax lenses is so much better than Pentaxians moving to Nikon with Nikon lenses.

I hope that these images taken with Pentax glass are allowed to stay, I for one am finding them very useful.

Fair point well made

It's very simple really If I use a Pentax lens on a Sony body does that stop me then being a Pentax user???

Likewise if I use a Sigma lens on a Pentax body does that make me a Sigma or a Pentax user???

So is it the camera body that makes you a Pentax user or the lens, as it cannot be the sensor as then we will be back to square one as all Sony users

I can quite see users wanting both an APS-C body for wildlife shooting and a full frame body for landscapes and general photography. It's a shame Pentax users are presently denied to discuss such an option on a dedicated Pentax site.

Maybe Ricoh could have a Pentax rebadged A7 with a full-featured lens adapter that would allow for AF and metering with Pentax lenses….. Imagine…

I'd rather imagine those specs in K mount with a full featured lens adaptor that would allow for AF and metering with non K mount lenses.

If you decide to go FF, the Nikon D610 is a good starting point price point wise.

I had the same desire a few months back to move to full frame, but after playing with a Canon 5Dmk3 and a Nikon D800 I concluded that for my needs the grass was not any greener and the cost was very red.

My main desire for FF was for increased ISO and DOF, but after really considering the advantages of full frame, I concluded there were trade offs with FF in relation to my needs and although the Canon 5Dmk3 was a great camera, it was not for me.

When the K3 was announced I was very excited and so far have not been disappointed staying with APS-C and Pentax and not moving into FF. I think photography is about compromise in relation to ones needs and desires but marketing can often skew this.

APS-C, Full Frame or Medium Format? At the end of the day its really about different formats for different types of photographic requirements. I have learned and am continuing to learn that lighting and lenses are perhaps the most important aspect for me to concentrate on.

The K3 has addressed a lot of the issues that were frustrating me in terms of photography and i learned personally that Full Frame is not the magic bullet that we may think it is. Obviously if people know and understand how and why FF will benefit them and their photography then, Nikon, Sony or Canon are currently the options to explore.

I am happy to stay with APS-C until Pentax release a full frame model or I have the funds for medium format. My guidance would be rent a FF camera for a weekend and see if it delivers what you are hoping for.

That would give Pentax users something to really moan about!

--

Why is it a resolving contest? There's far more to image quality then just the amount of pixels.

From my comparisons of DNG test shots of both the K-5 is much better at higher ISOs [ >3200 ] than the K-3 is.

I'm sticking with the K-5 possibly upgrading to a K-5II for the AF.

My future with cameras is a want of better ISO performance. If the next Pentax APS-C, probably named the K-1 doesn't come up with the goods then I'll look into Full Frame. Hopefully pentax will haev released one by then.






You're not kidding about the expense. Bet you'll get a pentax FF though.

Fully agree. I'm really surprised at the objections to Full Frame amongst Pentax users. I suspect it's come from years of having to dream up excuses as to why Pentax didn't really need one in it's line up.

If it's pure megapixels then the K3 is doing fine, but then it's beaten by a Nokia cell phone.

I had a post pulled the other day also to an Olympus advert site. That made for very interesting reading, as several of their key points were what Pentax does already, so others are encroaching on those traditional points of difference. There's movement in the market place and I'd be surprised if Full Frame is not on the development plans. There doesn't appear to be a lot more to be extracted from the APS-C range, given the K5 leads the way sensor wise still.

Indeed. I have a Nokia 808 and it can out resolve a K-3 in it's 38MP mode. I use the 8MP mode on it becuase the IQ is better.

That's because Pentax don't make one yet. Just wai to see how the views will change once they do release a FF Camera. All do a sudden FF will be great.


Yup. I rather like the idea of a mirorless Pentax FF along the lines of the Sony A7.

Compare the sizes ...

http://camerasize.com/compare/#187,487



.

I also agree fully with the first point. It's not all about resolution. My K-x at 12.3MP takes superb images, not far short of those achieved by a K-5 and perfectly suitable for making large prints. However, the resolution can be important, particularly when cropping.

Regarding the second point, I agree to an extent. The K-5 and K-5iis are superb at high ISO's but I'm not seeing a big difference with the K-3. The noise characteristics are certainly different, but is the noise worse? I honestly can't give a definitive answer but I'm finding the noise easier to deal with on the K-3 than I did on the K-5iis. It is much finer grained, due to the higher resolution and to my eye is less unpleasant. Just my opinion of course

Regards
David

Between 12800 and 51200 I had to add a lot more NT in lightroom on the K-3 test DNGs to get he same result as I did on the K-5 DNGs .

I've posted these before ...

click on them for full size to avoid the 800px nonsense

K5 ISO6400 100% no NR




K3 ISO6400 100% no NR




K5 ISO51200 100% no NR




K3 ISO51200 100% no NR

Agreed Smeggy, but as always there's more to this than meets the eye (!).

A lot of the difference is colour noise which is quite easy to deal with. Also, as demonstrated in the images above, you are seeing a more magnified image due to the higher resolution of the K-3. When making prints at the same physical size the actual real world difference is very small and to my eyes is nothing to worry about. I do understand that a lot of users expected to see an improvement in this area over the K-5, but that's not what the K-3 is about and if you are expecting better high ISO performance than a K-5 you will not get it.

If you are expecting a better all round shooting experience, faster operation, better PTTL flash, faster and more accurate AF, more versatility (e.g. twin SD cards amongst a host of other things), quieter / smoother shutter, better viewfinder (marginally), easier and more accurate focussing with MF lenses, better video, better rear LCD, better SR, Configurable anti-moire, higher resolution and more detail, then you will not be disappointed.

Regards
David