Moving to full frame

I agree.

That's it then, done and dusted as they say.

It's a official, The Pentax K3 is the best camera in the world ever,

Nikon, Canon and Sony are now as we speak shutting down all operations, putting big padlocks on their gates and finding a large bridge to chuck themselves off.

Just going to alter my magazine subs over to, Amateur Pentax, Practical Pentax and my favorite What Digital Pentax.

All very tongue in cheek, but it does make me laugh

At first glance I wondered why you were getting different results to me.

Then I saw you had downloaded different files to me.

I downloaded the DNGs without noise reduction. I stated why I did this before, as I apply noise reduction in Lightroom and not in the camera. Applying noise reduction on top of noise reduction is not a practise I feel is good. * I have NR completely disabled in my K-5s for the same reason.

The files I used were K3hSLI51200NR0.DNG & K52ShSLI51200NR0.DNG and you can clearly see the K-3 a much worse at 51200 than the K-5 ( Hopefully no one will continue to use the erroneous excuse of the subject matter being different sixes, the number of pixels per unit area is the same )

K5 ISO51200 100% no NR



K3 ISO51200 100% no NR

[/quote]Like I say, on all other respects I have seen nothing to complain about with the K-3. I'd love the extra features and better AF the K-3 brings. I don't crop heavily that much but yes having 24MP can come in handy occasionally for those few times where I do.

However as I'm someone who does place high important on high ISO performance I can't justify spending a grand on a camera that has worse high ISO performance than the excellent K-5's I already own.

For those that don't shoot at such High ISOs then it ain't a problem. For those that persistently and clearly don't like it when imperfections in Pentax gear are highlighted remember nothing is perfect.

I'm not going to trawl the thread to check if anyone has asked the question already, but here goes:

What would getting FF give you that a K-3 won't?

36x24 wasn't considered Full Frame until Oscar Barnack came along and when APS (film) came along in the 1990s the manufacturers boasted that the technology boost more than made up for the size shortfall, until the technology moved to 35mm....

Why not go full hog and get a 645D or H4D?

I have a Nikon D3 plus a selection of very good Nikkors, the D3 wasn't cheap and getting the right lenses wasn't cheap either. There are areas where it excels compared to Pentax - its ability to capture fast moving subjects. It does, however, lack ONE major feature - MOJO. I prefer to pick up the Pentax - but if it's Sport of Aircraft/cars I take the D3.

Now, if you haven't been dissuaded - avoid the D600,

Excellent points!

No it goes back much before that. 1959 in fact when Olympus brought out their Pen series of 'half frame' cameras and continued until some 'full frame' models were manufactured by the likes of Rollei which were no larger than the Pen series. APS, as you indicate came much later (1996) and that allowed various size images to exist on the same roll with a code at the edge to aid the printing device to select the correct image size/shape.

1) The full image circle. For example, I like how 35mm for landscape looks on APSC but I find with the crop factor then it often just isn't wide enough.

2) I wouldn't get a 645D because it is very expensive and my existing lenses wouldn't be much good. The A7R sensor performs almost as well and takes existing lenses. A similarly spec in K mount would be preferable to a K3 for me. A ff 36mp sensor in a K3 body would be worth saving for. The only advantage the APSC K3 would have is price.

So far I have been very impressed with how, inter alia, the FALtds look on a full frame sensor. I haven't yet reached a firm conclusion since I would need to be convinced on edge sharpness - we often hear how film lenses won't perform well on ff because of the way light falls at the edges, etc. But my initial impression is there seems to be a look which I really like that I haven't yet seen with the K3.

Yes I have noticed those points too. There's just something about them. I look forward to a Pentax FF to see how that looks.

Like I say, on all other respects I have seen nothing to complain about with the K-3. I'd love the extra features and better AF the K-3 brings. I don't crop heavily that much but yes having 24MP can come in handy occasionally for those few times where I do.

However as I'm someone who does place high important on high ISO performance I can't justify spending a grand on a camera that has worse high ISO performance than the excellent K-5's I already own.

For those that don't shoot at such High ISOs then it ain't a problem. For those that persistently and clearly don't like it when imperfections in Pentax gear are highlighted remember nothing is perfect.[/quote]---------------------------------------------
I wonder why it looks like it is over saturated with cyan in the K3 pics? I imagine that reduced to the same size image there would be little difference in noise. But then that would defeat the object of having 24mp. I nrarely shoot above ISO 800 but then if it was good above that there would be times when I would I guess.

Can't imagine anyone is surprised that 24mp crammed onto a crop sensor would give worse high iso results than 16mp

Seeing as Imaging Resource is being quoted have a look at the comparison of the Canon 6D and Pentax K-3 still life or new indoor at 51200 link and link How can you doubt that FF would be an advantage for some forms of photography

I can understand brand loyalty, but gets to a point when it's just plain denial. Sorry if that upsets some people, but it was the question posed by the OP

Back to the original question, and I have a question.

Why don't you know which is the best FF camera already?

Reason for the question:-

Some semi-pros and pros may need a full frame DSLR. They know what they want to achieve and they'll have a good idea of which is best for their needs (and it won't be Pentax unless they are prepared to take the quantum leap to a 645D).

I don't think many amateurs can claim to need one, but many amateurs will want one, and some will have sufficient disposable cash to satisfy their want.

If you fall into the type of user that needs one, you will have a purpose in mind and you'll know that some cameras are better for certain applications than others, so, ... what do you intend to do with it?

Or, are you one of those users who doesn't actually need one, but you want one, and don't really know why except that it's in vogue to want one?

If the latter, save your money, keep using what you have.

If the former, this is the wrong place to ask the question because Pentax don't yet produce a full frame body.

PS: I too have looked at your Flickr site and if those images are representative of your work, I don't think you need a FF camera.

This is nothing to do with brand loyalty or denial. It's to do with real life usage and all the various factors including but not exclusively resolution.

Nobody said there were not some applications where a full frame sensor could be advantageous. As indeed there are some where APS-C has the advantage.

The contention appears to be how people are comparing the two APS-C sensors in respect of image noise. The bringing in of brand loyalty arguments is in some cases just being dismissive. In other words the "you would say that wouldn't you" argument, which I believe is not a strong one and it doesn't aid discussion.

I just wish people would concentrate on the issues and explore those.

Surely one can't assume that the settings optimised for one camera/image would be suitable to directly apply to another?
This doesn't seem the right way to do this, regardless of it's link to a full frame discussion or not.

The K3 is first gen and as such I can only assume it will get better and better with subsequent firmware and model developments. Smeggy is on the money though (with regards to full frame) as to whether the K3 is enough of a development, image quality wise at least.

Personally I see the K3 as the new Pentax flagship and it's aiming to be best of the APS-C bunch. The big boys each have several options in Full Frame also, so that's where I see Pentax will be heading next. As others have mentioned, there are now tiny pocket cameras with Full Frame sensors, so 'Full Frame' is not as mythical as it once was. It's also not about resolution either now, and far more about the different optics and how that can be utilised by the photographer.

May I ask a quick question to those members who have stated that they have checked the OP's Flickr page and then went onto state they don't need a FF camera,

1, Not only does it come over quite condescending but boardering on being quite rude, I to have checked out their photos and there does seem to be a lot of times they shoot in low light situations where FF as discussed comes into its own

2. The OP did not ask for his portfolio to be examined and then to be told what he should or should not do with his money.

3. After reading 5 pages of non constructive and Un helpful waffle regarding the original question, all I can conclude is that you are all against FF right upto the point when Pentax bring there own out and then yet again it will be the best camera in the world and everybody should have a FF camera.as long it's the Pentax one as everything else is rubbish.

Yes I bought a FF camera this weekend, Yes I am more then happy with it, Do I need a full frame camera No I don't, but what I did want is the best image quality for low light shooting in a small and light package, and as Pentax do not make such a camera I bought my A7.

I don't know if it's the time of year, but there does seem to be a lot of bitter people making unnecessary personal comments on a number of areas.

I have been a Pentax user/owner for the past 30 years and hopefully for the next 30 years,but photography is my hobby not Pentax, it's just that I choose to use Pentax for my hobby, So if another bit of kit is out there to help or assist in my hobby I will buy it if funds allow, whether it says Pentax or not on the front.

Come on folks it's Christmas, let's be happy, you never know, if you've been a good boy or girl this year you may find a FF camera under the tree

Ah, yes, but if someones's photos are not up to scratch FF will surely help, won't it? I mean, its going to make them better, like, sharper or something, is that right?