Pentax Full Frame

LOL - Damn! If only I could afford the adapter as well.

LOL. These peeps try their luck eh? - I might pay that much for an f/0.5

You don't need the adapter just Dremel a bit off the lens
mount!

Hard to believe that lens came from the same factory
as the Tomiokas


-

Can't wait for the Pentax FF to hit the market, but was surprised to what extent Bill Gekas manages to make the K-5 look like an FF camera.

Have a look at his Potatoes image. I love the smooth tonality transitions.

If you want to fully appreciate it, download Issue 17 of F11-magazine, scoot to page 86, and watch it full screen on a calibrated monitor (not too close though, as the resolution isn't quite up there). Amazing.

Brilliant Appreciate the (slightly) off topic link
Matt

Nothing new about his style which dates back to the 70's when
the Gainsborough backgrounds first appeared. The single brolly
flash lighting was mostly based on paintings by Frans Hals
Two brollies side by side gave a slightly better
result (wrap-around lighting).

The camera doesn't matter and normally a standard lens would be
used. I think someone in the US set up a studio with Wild West
costumes and backgrounds and just sold large Polaroid prints quite
successfully.

The potatoes seems to have been done using a 16-45mm lens.

If Benjamin Kanarek can produce covers for Harper's Bazaar that
compete on news stands against other covers shot on large
format you would have to be very conceited/pretentious to
even dream that you need FF

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/new-harper-s-bazaar-beauty-cover-38386

-

LOL

LOL,good point.

ALL these cameras are so good nowadays, if you've got a Lumix, K5, 5D, or a Nikon D800E and you can't get a decent shot with one of them, it AIN'T the camera.

I think you will find its more down to lighting the camera used oh and of course the photographer.

Cover shoots don't tend to push a cameras capabilities so much. Now shooting low light without flash in a church then you will see a difference between aps-c and ff.

Moi aussi!
Andy

The camera needs to support some minimal colour depth to yield an image like that. I have an older compact that couldn't do it. Also I believe he has done some post processing to achieve the smooth tonality gradients (that's not just soft lighting). I like this look and I see it more often in FF shots.

Well, typical cover shots don't require an FF or even MF camera at all. With good studio lighting my K100D + Tamron 18-250 combo produces cover worthy shots. In addition, Benjamin Kanarek often goes for a smeared, dragged shutter look, which reduces the need for any kind of fidelity.

BTW, define "need". I do not need to take photos at all. But I want to. And I want an FF camera as well.

What about the poor unfortunates that have to manage with
Olympus and Panasonic Micro/Four/Thirds cameras
Some have even left here and gone to them. I wonder if
they are calling out for FF??? They after all lose 2
stops of DOF

-

Just populating an APS-C sensor with additional photo-sites would not I believe, lead to an automatic IQ increase, all else being equal. If the quest for improved s/n ratios and extra 'clarity' continues, then FF may be the only way to go.

Larger photo-sites with more light gathering abilities can be accomodated onto a FF sensor without pushing pixel densities to crazy extents, so boosting IQ without excessive file size increases.

It would be good to know how any 645D shooters feel about this. Are the advantages of this digital 'medium format' as immediately obvious as the previous film equivilent was over 35m?

No one would have believe you could fit 4TB of data into a 3.5" HDD a few years ago

I was suggesting there might be some advantage in fitting the same amount of data into a bigger (sensor) space!

I know but technology is always getting better and the smaller pixels will improve in quality. Look at the K-5 versus K20D, K-7. A 3 stop increase in ISO performance and 12dB increase in dynamic range. And there's MORE pixels per unit area.