Very interesting topic regarding APS-C & FF

DPR have posted a very interesting and remarkably sensible piece on the full-frame myth and the myth of the upgrade path. It's particularly relevant to Pentax as a brand who manufactures primarily APS-C DSLRs with no FF digital option. The vast majority of people who have bought into APS-C thinking they'll move to FF options from the same manufacturer have never done so (and never will).

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5678273556/opinion-the-myth-of-the-upgrade-path

Muddy thinking in a couple of places in the article, including the one quoted.

Take a look at the price points. The prices when Pentax releases items such as the K3 and the exact price at when it is released. Compare that to the price of the "entry level" Nikon full frame.

Sorry but it is far from myth when full frame almost always produces better results; not myth - scientific fact.

Full frame = Better image capture with any lens, but more so with wider angles. The math is really quite simple.

And to the right of that article is a list of most popular cameras which shows the Nikon D750 going great guns. As we are seeing a convergence in prices between top end APSC and lower end full frame then I think the larger format is a market segment not to be ignored.

That is *ONLY* true if you are talking about FF optimised lenses, certainly not for APSC optimised ones.

Is it? on what basis?

That's because D600 and D700 users only now have an adequate replacement available - so many people were put off the oil issue on the D600, weren't trusting the D610 and couldn't afford the D8x0...that their prayers were answered with the D750. QC issues on various Nikon models make the K-5 sensor stain and K-3 mirror flap issues minor in comparison.

That's a bit misleading. It just shows the number of readers of reviews and previews in the last 5 days. 7.9% have read the D750 reviews. The Sun newspaper has the most reads in the UK so does that make it the best

--

I think that article is utter nonsense. Both 'arguments' are flawed and untrue. Firstly, thinking about and planning a potential upgrade in sensor size from aps-c to FF does not imply ' that is the sole aspiration to strive for' .????. Sorry, what? What fancy of invention did that spring from? A sensor upgrade like that is perfectly logical and has obvious benefits for many, and of course the cost and size issues have to be factored in. That's a personal judgement for each person .... It'll weigh one way for some, the other way for others.

Secondly, it it's also perfectly logical to plan a system and acquire lenses in in advance of a format change, if those lenses can adequately serve your needs on both formats. Some lenses, sure, due to coatings or optical aspects may be not ideal for one or the other. But many are good for both. What is wrong with my 14, 28, 35-70, 50, 75-150, 135, 70-300 mm lenses (all full frame) on my aps-c camera? I have never heard comments on the forums from people telling me I really need to get some aps-c optimised lenses to improve my images ....

Of course, being a fairly budget selection, I know that I may find some aspects lacking when revealed by the bigger sensor ... But I don't expect perfection from one button press, I post process and optimise, so I may have to optimize a little differently. Of course, I may decide its worth it to buy another lens with a FF camera, but at least I don't HAVE to straight away. Financially, planning wise (for an amateur) what on earth is the problem with that??

To further explain the "it is" and "on what basis"

Stop by any camera shop which happens to sell full frame or any school which has photography classes and/or majors. Even the math department in most schools can very clearly prove it.

But if one were to take ANY Pentax 16mp sensor and then line it up with ANY full frame sensor of about the same MP, such as the Nikon (approximately) 16mp full frame sensor... The results are staggering.

Even by the numbers alone; published throughout the internet and on the camera manuals, scores, etc... But better than any numbers are the results; on most any subject with little exception.

Sure cameras such as the Pentax K3 do not offer full frame but are a cropped sensor; which also magnifies to about 1.5x. This is actually great for telephoto, especially extreme telephoto. But at the opposite extreme of the spectrum, the wider the angle the worse the result. One is trying to "make up" or compensate for that 1.5x math in the optics. The result doesn't work so well optically, even with the best lenses on the market.

To further compare sensor size, such as full frame to cropped sensor... Imagine any type of image magnification, whether on screen or perhaps eventually printed. There's where the math thing comes into effect again, The smaller the sensor the more it has to be enlarged in the final result.

The result is quite obvious to most any photographer, and even to the client. It's almost like trying to take a billboard sized photograph with a pocket camera

Can we get an ignore button?

I don't see any muddy thinking there, it's entirely true.

The FF upgrade is a myth - almost no Canikon users will upgrade to a FF model, most will never learn to use their APS-C cameras outside of full auto mode.

It makes absolutely zero sense to buy a camera and then buy lenses that are ideal for a different format to use on it, or to buy a camera with one sensor size and spend all your time using it daydreaming about a different one. If you have an APS-C camera now, don't hobble your photography by only buying lenses (which you apparently don't even want) that were designed for a different use. Pentax's attitude to APS-C is ideal - that it's perfectly good, and offers the best available compromise between quality, price, size and weight.

If you want a FF buy, one and lenses to go with it. If you want an APS-C model, buy one and lenses to go with it, not lenses to go with something else.

How would you respond to my post earlier then Jonathon, about lens choices suitable for both formats?

Regarding the quote and comment about a larger sensor getting 'more light' .. well the commonly understood meaning of 'more' for lighting is surely 'brightness', or light levels, or 'lumens' (is that a technical term)?

This of course is not affected by a sensor at all. Whether a larger surface area could be said to capture 'more light' is stretching our powers of definition a bit don't you think?

I

There are plenty of lenses which are very useable on both formats - the humble fast fifty for example. A standard lens on FF and a portrait lens on APS-C. The point is it serves different purposes, making a set of lenses designed for FF unsuitable for use on APS-C because the focal lengths don't serve the same purpose.

I'm looking forward to using my FF lenses on FF digital ... One day !? .... Meantime they're doing fine service on aps-c. I'm not sure I understand what is not suitable about the focal lengths of my FF lenses for aps-c? And as I said earlier, I've never been told I'd get better images by choosing aps-c specific lenses. I appreciate that with the old glass there might be some optical deficiencies that may 'show up' more on a larger sensor. But if a move to FF can be accomplished with a body purchase only, is that not a financial and planning approach to be recommended?

No sensor affects how much light there is.....what is true that larger photosites can be more sensitive and therefore the signal needs less amplification, but that definitely doesn't affect how much light there is.