Very interesting topic regarding APS-C & FF

A lot of this is very much hypothetical and I don't agree that the difference between an image taken on a K-5 and D4 is staggering...If Full frame has such a significant advantage then you would not see so many professionals adopting the Fuji X-system or even iPhones to capture images that sell.

Not quite. Larger photosites capture more photons, but since the photosite capacitance is larger because of the larger area, the resulting voltage stays the same (more-or-less).

In practice , whatever the technical differences that lead to higher quality, their significance is really individual. This is broken into two parts .... Firstly, how a person manages and processes that photos (eg do they example them in great detail looking for technical issues) and secondly the required output size.

Whilst pixel resolution will always be the ultimate determiner of maximum size, other IQ factors will be revealed more at later sizes ... So again, a larger format might win out on a very large print where the DR was extreme and any deficiencies were revealed as a result of the large size (ie more visable).

So there is not much point in making these comparisons outside of personal considerations ... It has to be a personal choices as the significance of the differences will only have impact dependent on the individuals particular workflow and output. I continue to hope that we will soon be given more sensor size choice with Pentax!

I'm sure if we all had a camera with a big fat 35mm sized sensor our pictures would be so much better. 1x5 times better, probably, at least. I know mine would be. It's the only thing holding me back. I blame the weedy sensors in my cameras for all my short-comings as a photographer.

Of course, if we had a 645z camera our pictures would be even better (not sure how much better but certainly better than even a full frame camera) and we'd all be really happy and never want for anything else. Except for world peace, cures for all common diseases and for Green Bay to win the Super bowl every year.

Until they brought out a camera with an even better sensor, of course. Then we'd be a bit less happy.

Andrew, you're so right about the bigger sensors .... I can't weight (:wink for my photos' to become 1.5x better, and as well I will expect 50% more favourable comments on the forum. Now once I add on the massive battery grip I'll get with my FF camera that will surely push the better photos factor up towards 2x !!!

The fact that my lenses are ready and waiting for it all just makes it so much more satisfying.

I've seen a few photographers move from various makes to FF and to be honest their photography hasn't visibly improved. In some cases it's become worse.

I've also seen some photographers start using smaller formats and in a few cases the photography has improved. I think this is because they no longer lug around huge quantities of kit and they've rediscovered a bit of joy in the process.

In the end we do what suits us, but it's still the photographer that makes the image.

Sorry for the levity gents, but one grows so tired of this age old chestnut being warmed over time and again. I'm sure some of my favourite photographs this year have been taken with my MX-1 which has a sensor the same size as my wife's little fingernail.

I'll be good in the future while I think of Nigel's chiropractor bill from carting about his new baby in one arm and his FF camera, grip and lens on the other...

Sorry, did you say carry my baby and camera together?? Now that would be reckless and irresponsible ... There's no way I'd risk dropping my new camera and grip doing that!

The aspect I found interesting from the article was that if you handle each new system separately then there is no need to discount Pentax because it offers no FF upgrade path.

That's pretty much the line that's pulled out at camera stores and in discussion forums etc for newbies. Once they are in Canikon they are unlikely to deviate from the familiar.

No one ever knocks Pentax for its IQ, so I like that an article like this is causing discussion.
Why get a relatively crap Canikon entry model when there is Pentax?

Any sensor size upgrade questions didn't arise for me in the shop when choosing my camera. I admit then I didn't know about Pentax's digital range, although K5 was also on sale, and I was aware it had a higher resolution sensor but was the same in most other respects ... The K7 was the better bargain as I saw it. I didn't actually think about FF then at all ... I was focussed mainly on the legacy lens compatability with the mount, which I correctly figured would allow me to build a little system quickly. Plus the K7 blew the competitions similarly priced options out of the water in terms of build and features that support better picture taking.

I accept that someone who was not already experienced with SLR photography might be swayed by suggestions that they will be able to upgrade to ' what the pros use' in future if they buy into a particular system. I was just seeing that I was getting many 'pro level' features for not much money at all!

iPhone issues easy to address: regardless of how many mp a sensor is, it's the size of the sensor.

As for Fuji... They are doing quite well, but also limiting themselves. There are not all that many lenses, flash is severely limited, etc...

Spoken like a true photographer.
(Better not let Mrs Nigel see this...)

A full frame sensor at a given aperture setting receives twice the light of an APS-C sensor at the same sensor.

Fact.

The same lens used on APS-C will send half the light that comes through it into the mount but onto the area that is not sensor. That's why the field of view is different.

That's impossible Jonathan. The light level remains the same. It will receive twice the light when the light is twice as bright. As for lenses, f/8 is f/8, whatever is behind the lens is irrelevant.

The field of view is different because an APS-C sensor is smaller than a 35mm format FF sensor.

I understand what your thinking is, but the context isn't right in the way it's being expressed.

I'd be willing to compare most any full frame camera to any non full frame model. Any professional photographer would notice the difference both on screen (sadly even a laptop, but preferably a quality monitor), and also in printed material. Naturally such results would be unedited. But ironically what is a bit more difficult to reproduce is the focal length of the images; because cropped sensors typically have the 1.5x magnification of a full frame.

Still the results would be noticeable to state the least. Noticeable whether the photographs were taken in studio, on location, or just about anywhere, with most any subject.

But also noting... Pentax still does have a edge in certain areas when it comes to that cropped sensor medium. Consider this one...

That weather resistant label that is on so many Pentax camera bodies and lenses. Sure companies such as Canon and Nikon have it on their camera bodies; Nikon even has it on one of their interchangeable waterproof camera bodies, but... Outside of that, Pentax should be marketing that fact in as much advertising as possible - if Pentax actually does have an advertising budget. That one can go out and purchase a Pentax K3 and a lens such as a 18-135, even a hotshoe flash to top it all off; whereas the flagship Nikon full frame Nikon does NOT presently offer or market ANY WR lenses for full frame digital. That Nikon WR is great, but what happened to the lenses?

There is also the cost factor. Where Nikon has produced an entry level full frame for not all that much more than the release price of the K3 when it was released - ouch. This is probably one of Pentax's largest stumbling block when it comes to the possibility of Pentax FF; what would be the cost in doing the body and could it be at a price similar to the Nikon? Could Pentax FF also be done and then keep PK?