FF or APS-C....Some Thoughts

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by mountainvisions, Apr 29, 2009.

  1. Shun Cheung [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG],
    Most participants used the D700 and D300 or Canon 1D/1Ds Mark III and 40D/50D. Lanting himself was using a D300 although I know he has a D3. Apparently he prefers the crop factor for the longer reach (as some wildlife photographers do).
    Lanting was also using a 200-400mm/f4 AF-S with a 1.7x TC, stopped down a bit at higher ISO (e.g. 1600) during the day. I asked him about that, and he does not mind using high ISO outdoors. I think he is right that it is more important to get the right shot than worrying about small quality differences. I tried the same thing with a 1.4x on my 200-400 at effective f8 (stopped down 1 stop), 1/500 sec and ISO 800 and got pretty good results at 9 to 10am.​
    This is an excerpt from a post over at Photo.net Nature Forum. I found this interesting for many reasons.
    1) Frans Lanting is one of the worlds best landscape and wildlife photogs. His images speak for themselves, so he isn't a lab rat who test cameras rather than creating images with them. If you are not familar with his work go to any bookstore, and the photography section will be filled with his books.
    2) The goes against the popular sentiment that using a full frame sensor and cropping down yields the same or better image as a native cropped sensor. Afterall, I am willing to bet Frans Lanting has compared the two options in real world shooting.
    3) It verifies the fact that high ISO mainly falters in "bad" light. As I've noted the K10D (as an example) is quite clean if the exposure is spot on, and even cleaner if the lighting is good. Where it breaks down is in the shadows or in marginal lighting where camera movement coupled with noise erode IQ significantly. I found it interesting but not surprising from the text that he was advocating going with a higher ISO rather than pushing the limits of camera shake and mirror vibration with a super tele.
    4) Finally, this is like pouring gasoline on a fire as it fuels the debate of whether full frame sensors are infact so superior that camera companies will be doing us an injustice by continuing to produce cropped sensors, all the while keeping us down with inferior hardware. I've noted a few times that APS-C sales have not taken a hit in market share despite there being 4-7 (4 from Canon and Nikon, 1 from sony, 1 in 2 mounts available on the used market from Kodak) full frame cameras available.
    My thoughts are if full frame was so vastly superior, no one would use APS-C sensors, and yet we have a clear example of someone who is at the top of his field of photography prefering this size sensor.
    Your thoughts?
     
  2. And the reason I feel this is particulary relevant to Pentax is because to date Pentax and Olympus are the only "main stream" companies without the magical 24mmx36mm format, and unfortunately this fact leads to endless speculation about the demise of the Pentax system if such a magical format doesn't appear in a Pentax camera very rapidly.
     
  3. I have no particular interest in the FF debates but will give point #3 a good deal of thought--thanks!
     
  4. I should add to #3...in my experience high ISO often looks bad in real world shooting because people DON'T go high enough.
    An example. If I'm shooting hockey and I know I can get away with 1/400th on many shots, but ideally I need 1/500th and I can get 1/500th at ISO 2500, but I choose to stick with 1600 and 1/400th now I have noise and subject motion degrading the image.
    Or I go with 1600 but put the shutter speed at 1/500th with the idea that I will push the image in post processing. Now I've introduced more noise into the image rather than would have occurred if I just shot at 2500 and 1/500th in the first place.
    Or finally, I know that with SR I can maybe shoot a 300mm lens at 1/60th of a second. So I decide I will go with the lowest ISO to get 1/60th thinking low ISO and wide open trumps high ISO mide aperture and faster shutter speed. The problem is while a lot of my shots might be sharp at 1/60th, many will be soft from mirror slap, camera shake, and subject movement. Better to raise the ISO, and shoot with a higher shutter speed and more optimal aperture than to force a slow shutter speed and a wide open aperture just to shoot at lower ISO.
     
  5. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I am a bit surprised that what I posted to the Nature Forum earlier today got copied over here in the Pentax Forum, which I typically do not read as I don't use Pentax equipment. In the other thread I was describing my experience at the Lanting workshop last week: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00TCtL
    Lanting is certainly one of the very best wildlife photographers in the world, but even he admits that there are better landscape photographers around, and I think that is why he prefers the APS-C sensor D300. I also know Canadian wildlife photographer Wayne Lynch, and he prefers the D300 for the same reason.
    The primary reason Lanting uses high ISO to get to 1/500 sec at f8, f11 is to get sufficient depth of field for wildlifes and to maintain a fast enough shutter speed to freeze any wildlife action.
     
  6. Justin,
    I think you are a troll. If you continue to come into this forum and stir pots, I will report you to the moderators... :)
     
  7. Shun,
    the reason I thought it was relevant was my second post/addendum.
    As you may or may not know Pentax doesn't have a FF sensor, nor is one openly in the works, as a matter of fact in interviews the head engineers at Pentax have said they have no plans for one. So on this forum this sort topic is pretty common, as I am sure it was a few years ago on the Nikon forum.
    this leads to a sort of "doom and gloom" mentality, and since this was clearly a positive mark for APS-C sensors I thought it bore mentioning over here. in most cases it's the other way around, where people find only the negatives and post them up.
    Also thanks for adding another point to #3 which I've gone over with Dave H about shooting sports at f/1.4...too shallow DOF is often as bad as the other examples i listed in losing an image. Instead of motion blur you just have a largely out of focus subject.
    I'm still amazed at 400mm + 1.7x + 1.5x...that is a lot of lens. I bet the workshop was great!
     
  8. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Justin, there is absolutely nothing wrong with copying my post over here.
    The whole FF vs. APS-C debate is silly, anyway. Even with three FF (FX in Nikon terminology) bodies today, it is estimated that 95% of all Nikon DSLRs sold today is still APS-C (DX). Just walk into Costco and take a look at the pile D60 and D90 kit boxes. While I have a D700 (FF), I still use my D300 (APS-C/DX) on a regular basis for wildlife work, for exactly the same reason Lanting and Lynch prefer the D300.
    The main issue with high ISO is under low light, as the shadow areas will tend to get noisy. However, during the day, higher ISO such as 800, 1600 still looks very good with current DSLRs.
     
  9. Re Dave's comment
    Lately most of my wildlife shots were done at iso 800-1600 , 1/2000s or faster and F5.6 or further stepped down to get more dof <<<<<<......The primary reason Lanting uses high ISO to get to 1/500 sec at f8, f11 is to get sufficient depth of field for wildlifes and to maintain a fast enough shutter speed to freeze any wildlife action........>>>>>
     
  10. Who actually believes point #2? When I want to shoot my 85mm @f1.4 I pick up my FF D3 because on APS-C cameras I have to back up too far and there is no good APS-C/DX equivalent lens. When I want to shoot wildlife I use a crop camera.
    4) Finally, this is like pouring gasoline on a fire as it fuels the debate of whether full frame sensors are infact so superior that camera companies will be doing us an injustice by continuing to produce cropped sensors, all the while keeping us down with inferior hardware. I've noted a few times that APS-C sales have not taken a hit in market share despite there being 4-7 (4 from Canon and Nikon, 1 from sony, 1 in 2 mounts available on the used market from Kodak) full frame cameras available.
    My thoughts are if full frame was so vastly superior, no one would use APS-C sensors, and yet we have a clear example of someone who is at the top of his field of photography prefering this size sensor.​
    You are completely ignoring the cost of the camera. The Nikon D300 and D700 are very similar camera bodies but the price difference is $1000-1300. APS-C is cheaper to manufacture. 99% of camera buyers don't even know what "full frame" means so if they buy a DSLR they are going to buy something under $1500 and that means APS-C.
     
  11. I guess also another addendum to the pro list which I again forgot about till Shun mentioned DOF.
    Since the APS-C sensor has about a stop more of DOF. This is another positive in wildlife I'd assume (as well as sports which I do appreciate often).
    So the APS-C sensor can open up an extra stop to get more light, while still providing the DOF of a FX/FF sensor.
    Well I was writing my reply as Walt replied but I actually answered his arguement.

    Shallow DOF isn't always wanted, or rather sometimes a little less shallow is needed for the purpose of the image.
    DOF goes both ways. Sometimes having an extra stop of DOF is a good thing, sometimes it's not. In most cases it's a good thing, at least for me.
     
  12. When I want to shoot my 85mm @f1.4 I pick up my FF D3 because on APS-C cameras I have to back up too far and there is no good APS-C/DX equivalent lens.​
    Darn that extra .25mm crop equivelent. And the DA* 55mm was so close, yet so much more expensive than a body with a 24x36mm sensor ...
     
  13. Tip of the hat for mining pnet for new perspectives, and voices, Justin!
     
  14. Your thoughts?​
    Hmmm, I guess we can continue the discussion here we where having at PF regarding medium format film as well. I believe it would be relevant to the discussion. First as you know I bought me a FF D700. While I have only had it less than two weeks, this is what I do know. I love the view finder and love the fact that I could shoot when it gets dark. At first I thought it was high ISO performance which is amazing, but in truth I had it mixed up with LOW LIGHT FOCUSING. I don't know if this is a Nikon thing or a ff thing, but it is very cool...Now as I also said, I have NO intentions of selling any of my Pentax gear to supplement my Nikon D700. If anything I appreciate the 1.5 crop factor of the Pentax for a few reasons..More on that Later....
    Image quality.As I said before...I do not see any difference in image quality between the two. I find my K20D and D700 to be pretty even...There is a part of me that want's to say that my $2200.00 body and $2000.00 dollar lens makes better pictures than my $1300.00 aps-c and $800.00 lens (what I paid when they first came out) but the truth is, I can't...When I pixel peep, which is something I never do, I can maybe trick myself into thinking I see a better image from the Nikon...At ISO 800 and UP, the Nikon does kick the K10D or K20 in its butt...It is extremely clean. The D700 @ISO 1600 is like the K20D at about 640-800 ISO and we know how clean the Pentax is at that ISO. This has to be the FF sensor....
    Now, I am anxious to get my first roll of film developed from my 645N system, because from what I have seen and heard and seen and heard, FF still does not quite match the level of quality of medium format film..Now I don't know and I am sure not going to judge even by my own results, but still, I only know what I see.
     
  15. Now, I am anxious to get my first roll of film developed from my 645N system​
    Me too, and you are not helping my anxiety. I haven't even decided what film I will run through it first, although Portra 160 VC is likely...
     
  16. Shun, as you have both D700 & D300, when do you prefer to use D700 over D300?
     
  17. As per the discussion Javier and I have been having on Pentax forums, I'm on shot #2, yeah not even a roll. I do expect to go through a roll this weekend as I need to get a roll processed just to make sure everything is running smoothly, and it should be a little more green. Unfortunately there was really nothing compelling in my journey last weekend. As a matter of fact I only shot about 50 digital frames and mostly for geo reference since there were a few spots I liked in better lighting. As a matter of fact the locations were very nice and I have some seasonal ideas.
    As far as DOF. If you want shallow DOF, 645 offers that. I'm amazed at the shallow DOF I see from 45 and 55mm lenses at f/5.6. This is in addition to the fact that the 45mm lens is has approximately the FOV of a 28mm on a full frame camera.
     
  18. Justin, As of today, I am on frame #6 and will ''try'' and get through a roll though I doubt I could do it by the weekend...I am very picky about my film shots because each one cost me money .. I am shooting Tri-x by the way...Yes the FOV is taking some getting use to.
    Matt, I hear that Porta 160 is prime stuff. I almost went that way.
     
  19. Another great lesson! Thanks Justin and everyone else.
     
  20. Yeah, I'm on the fence between Portra, Plus-X, or maybe an Ilford B&W. When I was still shooting film at weddings, I usually shot with 35mm Portra VC...
     
  21. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Shun, as you have both D700 & D300, when do you prefer to use D700 over D300?​
    First of all, this is Pentax Forum here. Typically I don't read this forum, but I just happened to come across this thread when I was checking responses in the Unified Forum.
    For those Pentax users who are not familiar with Nikon cameras, the D300 and D700 are very similar camera except that the D300 has a DX format sensor (roughly 18x24mm) while the D700 has an FX (35mm film, 24x36mm) sensor.
    For any wildlife and outdoor sports stuffs, i.e. something I use a long telephoto, the smaller sensor (D300) wins. I prefer the larger sensor since Nikon has some excellent wide-angles such as the 14-24mm and 17-35mm zooms as well as a 24mm PC-E tilt-shift lens. I use the tilt-shift lens for architecture and landscape work, but on DX, it is simply not wide enough. And of course, under indoor low light such as weddings without using flash, Nikon's 12MP FX bodies such as the D3 and D700 are simply wonderful.
     
  22. Borrow or rent the gear, and make and hang 8 20"x prints next to each other: 35mm film, medium format film, APS digital, and 35mm digital, one set of ISO 100 and one set of ISO 1600. Then the debates no longer matter because you've seen it with your own eyes. Another good thing about this comparison is that it takes into account things like individual technique, processing, and printing. Those things affect the finished photograph, yet are rarely considered in online comparisons. It doesn't matter what works for this guy or that other guy; what matters is what gear and process works best for me, suits my taste, and I enjoy using.
    Long before digital the thinking inside the box was that bigger is better. "Serious landscape photography was not done with small format film!" Except that some of the most exciting landscape photography was (Galen Rowell, Dean Brown) and is being done with small format, because you can only haul all that large format gear so far. The best way to champion Pentax and small format is to make good photographs using it.
     
  23. I still have and enjoy Pentax film gear (several LX, 645N), but for wildlife work I jumped ship from Pentax to Nikon a few years ago specifically for the 200-400mm f/4 VR-G. There's never been a lens even remotely equivalent from Pentax. This is a great, great lens for medium to large critters on FF (film, F5) and an even more exquisite lens on a 1.5X crop DX body like the D300 that resolves 90 lp/mm. Only FF sensors with the highest MP counts even come close to this resolution, albeit without the "free" T/C factor; yet another reason why APS-C/DX remains so viable.
    The D300 is extremely clean to ISO 1600 though it does lose dynamic range and default noise reduction values can look plastic with smoothing of hair and fur (K20D I'd expect is similar). Remember though that speeds like this, at any usable quality, would have been unthinkable just a few years back. Coming from film even the extremely clean ISO 400 or 640 is very welcome. Remember that most wildlife and much sports photography was done on ISO 64 Kodachrome and Velvia ISO 50/40 until and Provia 100F back in the day. Astia 100F may take a nice push to ISO 200, but that's really reaching.
    One reason high ISO is not such the issue in the real world--not the be all and end all many would have us believe-- is that the quality of light often sucks when it is low, having little color but blue. (Perhaps explaining why electronic flash was invented?).
    Pentax's problem here is that they can't seem to play to their strengths (which may still be be the embedded base and a used market simply awash in well-regarded wide angle to moderate tele prime and macro glass). They conceded the pro 35mm sports and wildlife market to C&N by the early 90's. Pentax was a professional's best value in MF with the 645 and 67 lines. But because these offered no migration path to digital except via 3rd party adapters (Zork), it's probably too late in the game already. If they don't get to market pronto with SOMETHING 20+ MP and FF, this niche is forever conceded. And it had better jive with the "best value" theme.
     
  24. The biggest difference between APS-C and FF is the macho factor.
     
  25. I've always said FF is for wedding and portrait photogs who want high ISO, narrow DOF effects. Lanting and Shun are neither. Some landscape photogs might be attracted to the A900 or D3x for the extra mpix, but they'd end up paying more than they'd want to ;-)
    Even if Pentax comes out w/ FF, I'd keep an APS-C cam for the 1.5x crop #2 is only valid if you don't lose pixels when cropping). It's unfortunate Pentax doesn't have fast longer than tele lenses like the mentioned 200-400/4 or the old Nikon 500/4, but most Pentax users are currently too "value oriented" (read "cheap" ;-) to buy into these that Pentax has to concentrate on things that give the most profit...
     
  26. Really, Justin. I mean, really...
     
  27. Walt Flanagan wrote:
    When I want to shoot my 85mm @f1.4 I pick up my FF D3 because on APS-C cameras I have to back up too far and there is no good APS-C/DX equivalent lens.​
    I guess you haven't used the DA*55/1.4? Or the K/A 50/1.2? There is no faulting these lenses and they work just fine for portraits.
    As to the whole FF thing: back in the day professionals used medium format of one type or another for landscapes or high end portraiture, fashion, etc. So why is the 35mm format now considered such a mark of professionalism?
    If I needed better quality for my work I'd buy a Hasselblad today. By that I mean that anyone that really needs to shoot with a larger frame is already doing so. But APS-C suits most of the people most of the time (me included). All these debates seem quite petty, and largely occur between people who would never use FF or MF anyway.
     
  28. Long before digital the thinking inside the box was that bigger is better. "Serious landscape photography was not done with small format film!" Except that some of the most exciting landscape photography was (Galen Rowell, Dean Brown) and is being done with small format, because you can only haul all that large format gear so far. The best way to champion Pentax and small format is to make good photographs using it.​
    My philosophy exactly. My goal is to shoot places that others don't tote cameras and even more rarely bother with large format. Basically what I am saying is regardless of the format you shoot, provided it can achieve some reasonable size print, it is better to use whatever gets you the more unique photograph than to shoot the same images people have been shooting decades.
    Rowells work was unique because he was going places with a camera that others weren't. Not to mention he was just a damn good photographer. But what seperated him, at least to me, was that his images weren't cliche!
     
  29. So where does medium format fit into?
     
  30. and largely occur between people who would never use FF or MF anyway.​
    Actually I disagree, on this forum it's between people that generally desire to use FF over APS-C. And those who generally fear monger that if a company doesn't do this or that, it my go out of business in a period of time.
    On other forums you might be correct though.
    My point of the post was to sort of quell this panicked feeling that if you don't have a FF upgrade path you are dead in the water, and should be switching systems.
    I could care less about the format, only that it works for my needs and allows me to print at a reasonable size, and is portable enough for me to get to the locations I want to get to with minimum difficulty.
    I think between 1.5X and medium format film I'm pretty well set to print at whatever size I want. Keeping in mind with Chromira prints, you need as little as 100 ppi from a modern DSLR, that is a pretty big print from a K10/20D, and then keeping in mind you need as little as 200ppi for the same print from a 645N negative, that is again a very big print if you use a high quality scan. So in terms of output, both systems work very well for my needs.
     
  31. False dilemma.
    I'm don't shoot wildlife -- like most people --and I've never actually been in a situation where I wished the lens I had with me was longer, whereas if wishes were fishes I'd be an aquarium for all the times I wish it went wider. Frankly my favorite Pentax lenses are the "wrong" focal length on APS-C; if Pentax made a FF camera then I'd buy one in a heartbeat. I'd keep my APS-C camera -- and perhaps eventually upgrade it -- 'cuz cameras are cheap compared to systems -- and have the best of both worlds, length and width, from the lenses that I already own. I realize Pentax has its business reasons to abandon FF, but what do I care for them? I'm not a shareholder.
     
  32. Leo, do you ever need to go wider than 12mm? The DA 12-24mm f/4 is Pentax's widest lens; I'm just curious to know when and how often you need to go wider than 12mm?
     
  33. Javier, put you 645 next to you K20D, it's not really that much bigger.
    My 200mm f/4 is actually smaller than my 70-300 sigma or my 50-135 2.8 DA, it's also about the same size as my old Kiron 80-200 macro that I don't use much, but it weighs less.
    The 645N with the 55mm fits into the same slot in my camera bag that the K10/20D fits into. It's actually narrower than the K20D and suprisingly easier to get out of that slot. I haven't compared the weight, but it's a bit heavier without the grip, but I bet if you use the grip it's about the same weight.
    It's definitely bulkier than I would take on backpacking trips, on climbing trips, or anything where mobility was key, but for day hiking I put the 645N into my Primus AW backpack, and the k10d into my LowePro 65AW. Lenses for both kits fit into the primus, and actually once I get an adapter I will be able to use the 200mm f/4 as a lens for the K20D as well. Thus, I can leave the DA/35mm tele at home. So for day hikes the system weights just a little more than toting say 2 digital SLRs (2 K20Ds). For longer backcountry trips, I'd probably opt to carry a digital compact like a G10 as a backup, or take a program plus and a few rolls of Provia which would double as a camera for shooting star trails and night exposures.
    On the flip side, the while I liked the even bigger negative of the 67 system, there were a few issues. 1) there seems to be a 645 digital insert floating around China and the 645Nii was supposedly upgraded to accept such an insert even though Pentax never released one (i have a 645N but if I got my hands on an insert, I'd just buy an Nii) 2) 67 camera is huge, heavy, and takes a long time to reload compared to 645 3) lenses are bulkier and slower
     
  34. Mis, favorite lenses, not favorite focal lengths. I don't have the 12-24, so it's never the lens I have with me; ergo, I never wish it went wider. But, for one example, I do have the 31, and I'd rather use the 31 at 31 than the 12-24 at 20, or the DA 21. In fact I would never have bought the DA 21, which is just good, if Pentax had a FF DSLR. If Pentax had a FF DSLR then I'd probably own just one DA lens -- the 16-45.
     
  35. I would ask this: how is it that we got 35mm in the first place?
    I submit that it was probably the result of a convenient way of manufacturing film from bulk materials. Somewhere in that process, there was probably something that came in a certain size; that may have affected the engineering of cameras; perhaps it so happened that this was a good fit for companies to use in terms of image quality for the user and overhead for the supplying manufacturers. I would be willing to bet that many of the more successful formats; 120mm, 35mm, 16mm cine (110), and 8mm cine; all of them may have had a good success to waste ratio, all around. Otherwise, there's no reason why film couldn't have been made in whatever shape.
    Early Eastman Kodak cameras made circular images. What's wrong with that? Anyone have a deep seated need to refuse to accept an image that's bounded by a circle?
    Are we rectangle fanatics? Anyone have a 90 degree corner fetish? Just Say No to the wrong polygon!
    So, I ask you, if you were building a camera, would it be a good idea to make critical structural changes in the design of available materials just to get your new machine to look like an old instrument?
    There are probably many such compromises in building cameras; but, I think we've seen that hit its limits a few times; the Leica M8 springs to mind; I am convinced that camera manufacturers have probably made things unnecessarily harder on themselves by trying to get their new equipment to fit into the same case as the old equipment. Some user considerations are due there, but there is probably a point where making things look the same gets invasive; I think that M8 failed because they were probably trying to shoehorn new technologies into a box that looked like the chassis for the old technology. The old technology probably had its shape based on its requirements; form followed function.
    Maybe when camera companies are trying for a "full frame" sensor, they are trying to get their new technology's form to follow an old technology's form, which had been previously made into that shape by its function.
    If there's a digital insert for the 645s, they ought to just release it already. That's probably the correct answer anyway. In that instance, only a small portion of the shape would be needed to adapt it to the older technology; and, they could probably build the whole thing to fit into that package. Heck, I'd accept a 6MP Optio-style, smaller sensor insert for my 645 just out of convenience, if one was available.
     
  36. I'm just curious to know when and how often you need to go wider than 12mm?​
    When i use my Sigma 10-20 @ 10mm ;-)
     
  37. Good post John!..
    Justin, the 645 is quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the K20D with the grip. It is also a bit awkward, but in truth, I can hand hold it no problem. Still, I prefer a tripod with it.
     
  38. Javier, put you 645 next to you K20D, it's not really that much bigger.​
    The Pentax 645NII with the FA645 33-55 lens is the same size and weight as the Pentax K10D+battery grip and the DA* 16-50 (the K10D is taller; the 645 deeper).
    The Pentax K-7 will be an interesting addition to the Pentax DSLR line-up. A super telephoto and a matching 1.4X converter is in the works. The 645 Digital is for release next year and targeted at a price below $10.000. It has twice as large sensor as FF. Something for the landscape shooter....
     
  39. Pal, I had heard that the 1.4x tc was dropped. Have you any idea on what the super tele might be?
    When I get home, I will have to compare the sizes next to each other and see. Maybe it is perception.
     
  40. As to the whole FF thing: back in the day professionals used medium format of one type or another for landscapes or high end portraiture, fashion, etc. So why is the 35mm format now considered such a mark of professionalism?
    If I needed better quality for my work I'd buy a Hasselblad today. By that I mean that anyone that really needs to shoot with a larger frame is already doing so. But APS-C suits most of the people most of the time (me included). All these debates seem quite petty, and largely occur between people who would never use FF or MF anyway.​
    I never said 35mm was the mark of professionalism. You can use whatever format and whatever camera you want. I promise that it doesn't bother me. Personally I have Nikon DSLRs, not Pentax but the original post is from the Nikon forum. Sometimes I grab my DX/APS-C DSLR. Sometimes I grab the digital or film FF/35mm one. Or the Hasselblad, or Leica / Voightlander rangefinders, or my Canon or Panasonic P&S, or my Yashica TLR, or even my camera phone. I find all of these useful and fun in different situations. If you have no use for a digital 35mm/FF DSLR that's just fine with me.
     
  41. I submit that the very use of the words "Full Frame" is buying into a marketing ploy that carefully selects diction, the words used in a sentence; and, that the intent of this is to manipulate us into concluding that the company that uses the words "Full Frame" in their advertising must be right.
    We know this sort of thing happens all the time. Take politicians of all one party using the same "talking points" to discuss an issue, for example. Or, shamelessly made-up words used to impersonate technical jargon in marketing or selling anything.
    I'd suggest that 4X5 studio cameras are probably closer to the professional standard for publication than anything else. I've seen several magazine layouts that were based on 4X5 transparencies. They looked fantastic.
    I challenge you to substitute the words "Fractional Frame" any time you see the words "Full Frame" used in a discussion. Would you still feel as enthusiastic about the product if they admitted it was a "Fractional Frame" sensor?
    Well, it is. Canon and Nikon make "Fractional Frame" sensors. I know this because my standard for "Full" is my Pentax 645. It probably should be a 4X5 view camera, but I don't have one of those. Why should I put a salesman in charge of my language choice when I evaluate a sensor?
    Fractional Frame cameras. Now on sale. APS-C; "Almost Pentax Sized - Computer." Who's in charge here? The guy making the images; or the guy selling us the equipment to make the images? If it's the guy selling, I need him to come down over here for free and take up some slack on this project; after all, he's in charge, right?
    Fractional Frame.
     
  42. Pål Jensen wrote: The 645 Digital is for release next year and targeted at a price below $10.000.​
    Now where did you hear that, Pål??? It will be a miracle if Pentax even releases it at $10k.
     
  43. I also think the small percentage of FF use is largely due to cost. But that cost has fallen dramatically in the last couple of years, and may soon become a hard to resist addition to a lineup. Justin says the MF cameras are not much larger, in his opinion, than carrying a FF body. But now, there are very good FF models about the same size as a D300!!
    MF is not only expensive, but it serves a narrower niche of use. One is not likely to shoot birdies, other wildlife, boat races, sports, or the kid's birthday party. You won't be putting a compact lens on it to shove into a hip pack or large jacket pocket, as I can with my FF compact film bodies. But the niche of use it does address, it does so extremely well.
    Every lineup needs at least 3 categories- entry level, mid-level, and advanced level. So far, Pentax' K series entry level has been good enough to merge it with the mid-level, requiring just two models. But now I wonder if the KM/2000 will be "it" other than the top model. That entry level model is not up to the features of the K100/K200 series. In additon to simplicity for the casual user, the mid-level requires features that satisfy demanding advanced use, as a compact alternate or backup for the advanced photographer. The K100D & K200D are well suited, but the KM does not quite cut it.
    I agree that the APS format certainly does offer advantages for tele use. In fact, it may well provide the greatest resolution, and ease of handling for this use over any other format. And this has great potential for many applications, including sports, wildlife, and even tele landscape. The smaller size also lends itself well to street scenes and candids. But I think saying FF is virtually worthless can be viewed as a rationalization when it is not being offered. There are certain applications APS does not handle well, or handle at all. There are obstacles in the area of wide angle. It is silly to vaunt the advantages of MF over FF because it is a larger format, then turn around and vaunt the advantages of APS, while saying FF has NO meaningful advantages over APS, even though it is a larger format. Two recent threads regarding *wide angle lens* questions serve to demonstrate in part, the comparatively reduced offerings of APS in this area. For APS, you CANNOT get a fast wide-angle prime lens. f/2.8 in a prime lens is not fast. You cannot even find the equivelent to a nice, compact, inexpensive 28mm f/2.8!! There is NO equivelent to the Pentax 31mm f/1.8 Limited on FF, in a compact lens of this type, and NO equivelent to the Pentax FA* 24mm f/2 or the fine, reasonably-priced Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG. On FF, such a lens is very wide angle, and low distortion, with very fast aperture. If that is your interest, you'll not meet that need with APS.
    Therefore, FF is no doubt the most versatile of the formats. Not as advantageous as APS for tele, but it can still do that quite well, while offering the above advantages for wide angle. Useful for a very wide range of applications, with no real downside. It does not suffer the greater disadvantages in the tele realm of MF, nor the restrictions of flash sync. And its lenses are generally usable for APS bodies without a hitch. APS, FF, and MF all have areas where they function particularly well. But with MF and APS there are areas of application in which there are functional shortcomings, compared with FF.

     
  44. and largely occur between people who would never use FF or MF anyway​
    Gee, Justin, Javi, and I all have APS-C, 24x36, and 645 equipment (although I have to keep my 24x36 sensors in lightproof cans...)
    but for wildlife work I jumped ship from Pentax to Nikon a few years ago specifically for the 200-400mm f/4 VR-G.​
    If that's what you need, then that's what you need. I'm not going to fault anyone for buying what they need, I just can't stand people telling me that I need digital 24x36, I don't. Additionally, that kind of glass isn't what the average consumer is interested in dropping their money on, and right now Pentax needs to focus on building back its customer base, and that means products for the masses - and we all know that FF is not for the masses at this point in time.
    make and hang 8 20"x prints next to each other: 35mm film, medium format film, APS digital, and 35mm digital, one set of ISO 100 and one set of ISO 1600​
    Every time this comes up, I invite anyone to come to Wichita to see 20"x30" prints from my K10D and DA* glass...
    Justin, the 645 is quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the K20D with the grip. It is also a bit awkward, but in truth, I can hand hold it no problem​
    My 645n is not as comfortable to hold as my PZ-10 or K10D's (with or without grips), but it still isn't bad...
    I'm just curious to know when and how often you need to go wider than 12mm?​
    Yup, 10mm is a favorite focal length of mine, too...

    Anyone have a deep seated need to refuse to accept an image that's bounded by a circle?​
    Yes, round frames are more expensive - and circle mat cutters are too...
    There are probably many such compromises in building cameras​
    Yes, that's how we got the APS size in the first place. Kodak's research showed that people wanted a film can no bigger than a 135 cartridge (that's the standard 35mm film format to you young pups), but to put the functionality the customers wanted into the APS cassette, they had to make the film smaller. Of course, some griped about the size, but Kodak's recent (at that time) advances in emulsion technology made the quality difference negligible. Kodak also played up the DoF and 1 stop faster advantages as well...
     
  45. Javier,
    I'm going to weigh both, and do a surface area too. I bet you it's not nearly as different as you think. I'm basing this on the fact it fits into the same slot as the K10D without the grip, but actually fits better. I'm guessing surface area is quite similar between the two, but the shape is obviously quite different. What is funny is people with 5Ds talk about about the Primus being a tight squeeze and yet the 645 goes in no problem!


    Also, are you using 4 akalines or lithiums? I doubt lithium provides any advantage in longevity but it will make the camera much lighter.
     
  46. The 645n takes 6 AA's. I'd bet that's why the grip isn't as comfortable....
     
  47. Justin, the 645 is quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the K20D with the grip. It is also a bit awkward, but in truth, I can hand hold it no problem. Still, I prefer a tripod with it.​
    You might want to check my #s and actually the surface area of the 645 is probably a little high since it has cutouts and is asymetrical so if anything it takes up less area actual area.
    Here are my #s. I always admit any math by me is subject to errors, and should be double checked. Unlike my writing where I am just lazy and careless, my math is about as good as you see.
    So here are the #s.
    K20D + Grip + 2 batts= 40oz, 158sq in
    645N + 6 AA Lithium batteries = 48.2oz, 147sq in
    The 645N is in fact heavier, but I conceded that from the start. Although it's only 20% heavier with AA lithiums. Then again, you don't need to carry extra batteries since you'll probably get over 200 rolls with lithiums.
    On the flip side, the 645N is actually smaller in surface area by 11 sq in. I think the "bulk" factor is more a perception since it is more square shaped.
     
  48. To simplify your math, put both cameras in individual ziploc bags and suck all of the air out. Dunk them one at a time in a bucket of water and note the displacement for each... It's just simple subtraction that way!
     
  49. Personally I think that having the equivelent of a 1020mm lens is just too much.
    Its a silly discussion, use what gets the job doe best for you.
     
  50. Justin, You opened up a bag of worms with this thred and it has been a blast I must admit!
     
  51. Also, are you using 4 akalines or lithiums? I doubt lithium provides any advantage in longevity but it will make the camera much lighter.​
    Actually, the 645n manual says to expect to shoot about 130 rolls of 120 on alkalines and 320 rolls on lithiums.
     
  52. Damn you matt, you are a royal PITA...i was guessing since I knew the AA alkaline was about 120, I didnt' remember if there was a lithium # listed in the book but I figured 2x the capacity was within reason. But energizer does in fact claim 3x capacity vs alkaline so 320 does seem more likely.
    I figure the Lithiums will go bad from non use long before most people shoot 320 rolls. That is about 5100 frames!!!!! A lot of shooting on a sub 2fps camera!
     
  53. I guess I'll stack the two noteable photographer links together. Since this thread evolved into medium format film thread, I'll add John Shaw lists no medium format gears either, just 2 full frame dslrs:
    http://www.johnshawphoto.com/equipment.html
    I'm not buying into the concept of using "Fractional Frame" inleiu of Full Frame. I like full frame, no I have zero regrets adding it to my bag of tools. I suspect if pentax had a full frame upgrade path several people on this forum would have already paid the admission price.
    Lindy
     
  54. Here's another noteable photographer​
    Is this a poll or a contest? Are there any rules? Are we supposed to be scouring the earth examining every photographer's kit and tax return to evaluate how many 'real pros' are using APS-C and how many are using 36x24? First one to 100 wins? Knock yourself out.


    btw, Justin: 645 was sub 2fps at 1.5 fps, but Pentax says the 645n is 2fps... ;-)
     
  55. Lindy, I think the issue with Pentax FF is this: Pentaxians are a cheap bunch. Sure, some people would pay the admission price, especially if the FF body fell to $2,000 a few months after introduction, but would it be enough people to cover R&D costs? There were many people who thought $1,300 for the K20D was outrageous and they didn't buy it until it got down to $800 (wasn't that you? ;-) Now, if you compare the K20D to similar Canikon cameras, you'll agree that $800 is also outrageous...ly cheap!
    $1,300 actually sounds pretty fair to me for a camera of such calibre, yet we Pentaxians all thought it was too expensive. Just wait for the *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* storm when the K-7 comes out at $1,500. My point is this: I'm sure Pentax have done their math and figured out that between the costs of creating a FF camera and the lenses to go with it, not enough people would buy into the system to make it financially worthwhile. Look at Sony; they have a $3,000 FF camera that by all accounts is excellent (as long as you don't shoot in the dark) and some fabulous lenses to go with it (albeit expensive), yet they're going nowhere. Sony can afford to do that, Pentax can't.
    This isn't a personal attack on you, Lindy. It's not even an attack. Your post simply prompted me to write this :)
     
  56. Maria, have you missed the title of the thread and Justin's first post? I say, yes, think of a noteable nikon photographer then go to their website and see what gear they list. Correct me if I am wrong but Frans Lanting lists zero pentax gears, zero medium format. Yet Shun's nature forum post about the class he took recently was kinda crossposted here for us to consider Nikon aps-c versus Nikon full frame dslrs. Right?
    Actually Mis, the K20D I bought was $789 with a $100 gift card included. Gift card got converted into 100 bucks towards a Photoshop 4 upgrade. So I like to think I paid $689 for K20D as I would have upgraded to PS4 anyways.
    I remain curious what the 60-250 SDM will launch for in USA. You know the one already released elsewhere on the planet last week let alone my wondering what the K-7 will issue at. Its 5-01-09, just 20 more days & Terminator, errr, Pentax K-7 will be "officially" announced.
    I'll say it again, I like the K20D. Very feature rich for what I paid:
    K20D is The Best way I know of to drive K Mount lenses.
     
  57. To me, the point of the post was to remind those who say 'Pentax will die if they don't build a camera with a 36x24mm sensor,' that there is considerable value in APS-C size sensor. When it is defended in this forum, we are accused of being 'Pentax Cheerleaders' who put brand loyalty in front of logic. Justin put forth an example of someone who obviously wasn't using a smaller sensor because of blind loyalty, but because he found real value in the smaller sensor.
    Maybe Justin can tell me I'm wrong...
     
  58. I cannot find a link to Frans Lanting's complete gear list, but here's a handy link:
    http://www.lanting.com/phototips.html
    So I cannot say if he does or does not currently use Pentax gear:
    Pentax Medium format film or APS-C Pentax.
    Shun , who's thread was used at start of this thread, also said he uses aps-c nikon D300 for supertelephoto. BUT, he also said for weddings he's using full frame D700. Cameras are tools, pick the best one to fit your needs. Or pick several if your needs are many.
     
  59. Look, all this debate over APS-C vs. 35mm is missing the point. You're not comparing apples to apples. There are numerous factors that play a pivotal role in the resulting image that are not determined by the sensor area itself: Lens MTF, pixel density, lens design, sensor design, shooting environment, the list goes on.
    Making blanket statements about which format is inherently superior, in the absence of discussing at least some of the other major parameters determining image quality, only serves to demonstrate one's own ignorance of digital photographic technology.
    Regarding lenses, if you've got a really sharp, contrasty prime, then you've largely eliminated the lens as a contributing factor to image degradation on APS-C. But in practice, that's not often the case, and is almost never the case with a complex tele-zoom. You might say, "but the smaller sensor size will give better corner-to-corner sharpness!" Yes, you're right, but that smaller sensor also implies higher pixel density which in turn requires glass with higher MTF that allows the sensor to capture that resolution. That kind of central sharpness is also a function of aperture, focal length, and overall lens design.
    Regarding pixel density, there isn't really any argument that a 15 MP APS-C sensor will not beat a 15MP 35mm sensor for light capturing ability. And even compared to a (15-X) MP 35mm sensor (where X is some positive number), you're still capturing the same amount of light (if not a bit more)--it's the same sensor area, but the question is, did the increased signal-to-noise ratio adequately compensate for the loss of X MP sensor resolution in terms of overall perceptual image quality? The answer to that question invariably depends on the value of X. I mean, you can't reasonably state that a hypothetical 1-pixel 35mm sensor is going to capture anything meaningful about the subject compared to a hypothetical 40 MP APS-C sensor that pushes the boundary of what is physically possible in terms of pixel density.
    You can also think of it this way: If the smaller format of APS-C is superior for the 1.6x factor, then why not go even smaller, say four-thirds? Or even the dinky 1/2.5" 7MP sensors they put in P&S? Why wouldn't you just put that behind a 300mm f/5.6 prime designed for 35mm and get ridiculous magnification? You have to understand the optical physics of the imaging systems you're comparing before you can even begin to consider how they can be reasonably compared.
     
  60. It is obvious, there comes a point where packing more pixels into a smaller and smaller area sensor creates a diminished return of tele enhancement, encumbered by too many downsides that reduce overall image quality, field of view range, and control over DOF.
    As it is, about 15mp seems to be near the limit for APS size sensor design, without incurring too great of sacrifice in terms of undesirable side effects. But there are potentially new advancements in sensor technology to come, which may greatly reduce these negative aspects.
     
  61. Justin -
    Damn you matt, you are a royal PITA...​
    You don't even have to live w/ the smartass!!!
    Can you tell he got his Christmas present early? Dad asked what piece of camera equipment on ebay matt would want most (or something like that), and I *had* to open my mouth and say 645. Then not a week later a fantastic deal on a 645n comes along.......
    Sheesh.
     
  62. Lindy, thanks for trying to put this back on track, but I'm a bit confused by what you are trying to say?
    Are you implying that APS-C use is irrelevant because Lanting uses Nikon and not Pentax? You are aware that the K10D had better image quality than the D200 correct?
    I'm glad you've become a poster boy for multiple systems and formats, I remember not too long ago you were concerned I was abandoning Pentax when I bought into Nikon. I'm glad you have come to see things my way ;-).
    By the way, this is what Lanting has to say on equipment (full article here) :


    “It’s easy to get carried away, especially in this day and age when photography is so technology-driven, with comparing features instead of focusing on what you can actually do with a camera. Look at the great photographers who worked 20 or 30 years ago with equipment that by today’s standards is very, very simple. It’s the power of your vision, not the number of your pixels.”​
    But anyway, while the point of the thread either went way off topic, or actually became pertinent to Pentax discussion, the actual point was nailed by Maria. And that is, Pentax doesn't need a FF upgrade path to continue to survive and/or thrive!
     
  63. Well recently I took the plunge and got a FF dslr. I still use an APS-C one too so here is my take.
    While the pixel density remains higher, APS-C wins out in the situation where you are using the longest lens you have and you still need to crop to get an enlargment. When you don't have to crop, FF wins out for quality, but the difference is not as huge as some make out.
    My Canon 5D (4 year old design) is still about two stops better in the noise stakes than my Canon 450D (1 year old design).
    The 5D has noticeably more dynamic range and this is perhaps the biggest difference to me for my kind of shooting (as I don't often shoot at high ISOs).
    The larger FF viewfinder makes composition much easier.
    If you have a lens system built around the FF format it makes sense to get a FF camera. If you have a lens system built around APS-C it makes sense to stick with APS-C unless you value that last little bit of quality and are prepared to pay.
    Having two formats in the one brand is actually very helpful - the best of boths worlds. Nikon got this right (maintaining compatibility across its system) Canon got this half right (EF-S mount was a dumb move) and Pentax is not yet at the starting blocks.
     
  64. Geoff, what was so bad about EF-S mount other than perhaps lack of support in the earliest small-sensor models like 10D, D30, or D60 (thereby screwing some customers who bought some pretty expensive cameras & couldn't use the new wide angle lenses designed for small sensors)? The E-FS lens models are designed for a smaller image circle anyway so wouldn't be all that well suited for FF models anyway.
     
  65. Andrew
    Its true that APS-C lenses are not well suited for FF models, but with FF models now approaching 20+ megapixels they would now support a 10 megapixel APS-C crop, which is enough resolution to get a high quality 13x19 print. Nikon got this right by maintaining compatibility.
    For those of us that use both formats it is just an extra hassle not having comaptibilty. For example I have an EF-S 10-22. To recreate the same field of view having bought a 5D I now need a 17-40L. I can't even use the EF-S 10-22 as an interim stop gap.
    Just last weekend was a good example of the nuisance it caused me. I was out walking around with my usual bag of lenses but decided to take the 5D at the last minute instead of the 450D. Thinking I would not need any telephoto capability I didn't bother to swap out my EF-S 55-250 with my EF 70-210.
    As it turned out the at the beach I was walking there were some dolphins playing and I would have given anything to have been able to mount the EF-S 55-250 to the 5D to get a shot. Now of course it is my fault for not packing the right lenses and I only have myself to blame, but Canon's EF-S mount didn't exactly help the situation.
     
  66. This is where Nikon was smart, and I think most other companies that do go to a larger sensor will follow suit.

    It makes no sense to alienate your base when a fix is so simple. And actually the nikon crop mode is quite popular. It was even popular when it was a 2x (i believe) crop mode on the D2X. Of course the main advantage on the D2X was speed rather than cropping power since it was identical to cropping it out of the camera.
    Geoff, do the EF-S lenses not work at all? I'm wondering because you could just mount them and then crop off the edges. Since that is really all a crop mode does vs. using an actual smaller sensor with a higher pixel density.
     
  67. Posting this for Matt. Yell at him if he's wrong ;-)
    No, the EF-S lenses are specifically designed to prevent mounting on a 36x24 format camera. I understand that the rear lens element is positioned too far back to clear a "Full Size" mirror. This was discussed in this thread ( http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00SkAf ) which was started in this forum, then someone decided to move it.
    Someone can correct my math, but the way I figure it (by actual recorded pixels) a crop lens on a 5D Mk II only gives you about 8.2 megapixels:
    5D Mk II sensor: 5616x3744 (21 mp) Cropping the 5D Mk II sensor to APS-C (calculated from Canon's 1.6 factor): 3510x2340 (8.2 mp)
    50D sensor: 4752x3168 (15 mp)
    K10D sensor: 3856x2576 (9.9 mp) K20D sensor: 4672x3104 (14.5 mp)
    If someone can tell me how many actual recorded pixels a 5D Mk II gives you with a crop lens attached, please post it here.
     
  68. Agreed, Nikon, in taking their time to offer full frame, were able to better Canon aps-c lens concept. Canon designed their aps-c lenses to sit closer to sensor. They altered the mount so mounting them without mods was impossible. Current Canon extention tubes & teleconverters are designed for both crop and full frame dslrs. You cannot mount aps-c canon glass on 1.3x aps-h dslrs either. You cannot mount them on canon 10D either. I assume D30 and D60 they won't mount either. Canon 20D and newer & all those Drebels take aps-c lenses: EF-S
    That said I believe one of the best ultra wides is made by canon: 10-22mm EF-S. I considered it and 40D before I added 5D full frame instead. I Don't know how the Nikon 10-22 just announced will compare to Canon. Canon makes Nikon better & then visa versa Nikon makes Canon better. Competetion is good for the consumers.
    At somepoint if I wanted to buy into the concept of greater reach telephoto effect via crop format sensors I might add the unannounced but leaked Canon 60D. Especially if they get the viewfinder bigger to compensate for even smaller 1.6x crop and add an articulated viewscreen for 3nd Generation HD Dslr video capture. Well and offer AF function while filming video too. Theres time still so 60D should cover all those bases. Until then I'm letting Pentax serve my 1.5x aps-c needs. If I did this then I could see ditching my old Pentax lens and lens mount system and K20D. I think usable 6400iso or higher offsets shake reduction built into camera body. Well and my 70-200 2.8 and 300 f4 are both IS canon lenses too.
    Long story short, you cannot attach an unmodified aps-c canon lens onto full frame dslrs or 1.3x dslrs.
    Me, I'll never own a EF-S Canon lens even if I do eventually buy into a future aps-c canon dslr. So no problems I can foresee in grabbing wrong gear within one brand. Pentax K Mount has served me well while Canon full frame got ever more affordable & Nikon came into the market with their own affordable full frame camera too.
     
  69. Justin
    As mentioned above you can not even mount a Canon EF-S lens to an standard Canon EF mount, although the reverse is possible, ie EF-S mounts can take an EF lens.
    Even if I did not want to use an EF-S lens on a Canon EF mount, lack of comaptibility has a further drawback. Sometimes when swapping lenses it is easier just to mount the spare lens on the camera I am not using, rather than using a body cap, to keep the dust out. This can be important during travel if ones camera bags don't have a lot of space for carrying unmounted lenses and camera bodies seperately. The EF-S mount gets in the way of doing this and makes for an extra hassle.
    Canon has a history of introducing incompatibilities that orphan their technology. Of course there is the famous FD mount, but also the 420 EX flash.
    When APC-S was introduced rather than a firmware fix in the body that told the flash it was an APS-C crop (Canon bodies typically have firmware to control the flash) they instead introduced a new much more expensive flash the 430 EX. As a result 420 EX flashes are left flashing 1.6 times more wide than they need to, significantly reducing their effective range.
    I think their EZ flash system has also been orphaned.
    ...and then there is the EF-S mount, which half orphaned D60s and 10Ds and EF-S lenses for those that upgrade to FF.
    Don't get me wrong, I think there is plenty in the Canon system to like, but there is also a sense that either they don't think some things through properly, or that they are too clever by halves forcing an upgrade here and there through such incompatibilities.
     
  70. Hmm, Canon really screwed the pooch on that one.
    So unlike every other brand that can implement a sensor crop mode, Canon left it's users clearly segregated into FF and APS-C crowds. So Canon is really the only company with 2 active mounts for the same style camera system.
    What is kinda funny about your flash is the Pentax FGZ-360 not only can sense APS-C and 35mm but be set for 67 and 645 system as well.
    Obviously as a system Canon is excellent but it would burn me if I owned a product that I couldn't be sure would still work in a few years. Every system phases out technology but it seems Canon does it intentionally for whatever reason.
     
  71. I've got no clue if Canon does this abandonment intentionally. For years I used Canon FD System. But I bought in after Eos emerged. So you could say I knew what was up. In my Pre Ebay world I did all my shopping at the local used camera stores.
    Now with forums & the internets & ebay its rather simple to get a clue where the potholes are. I'm not sympathetic to Geoff grabbing the 10-22mm EF-S lens to use on his newly acquired 5D. I don't see how this is Canon's fault. EF-S was/is an affordable system designed to bring imaging to the masses. When sensors are crazy cheap its pretty obvious to me aps-c canon will get abandoned, just like Canon abandoned FD System. Anyways, there are many techs who can still dial in and fix FD so its still quite usable today. Better yet its very affordable and plentiful. The used FD prices tend to spike in September when the next wave of high school and college film students get their shopping lists. Now I can see where Nikon will continue aps-c since their full frames are compatible with aps-c glass. Well kinda: The D700 is 12mp but in crop mode its JUST 5mp. SO, Is the D700 really The Best solution for using your aps-c nikon glass? I'd say no, get a D300 instead just for your crop glass.
    In the past I considered buying a diesel truck but I KNOW at somepoint I'd put unleaded in it or visa versa put diesel in my regular gas car once I'm dealing with two fuels. If I bought the Diesel and then got sidelined due to having the car immediately towed & drained of incorrect fuel who would I blame? The manufacturer? No, it would be my fault, not the manufacturers fault.
    Lindy
     
  72. One thing that I discovered thta was cool was this. I went over to samys to buy a nice short wide angle lens for my D700. When I got there, they had so many in stock and many different ones to choose from, I could not make up my mind...What was cool, is that I was able to rent a lens to see how I like it before buying one. How cool is that. Rent before you buy. I know this is more of a canikon thing as pentax does not have the resources for it, but still it was cool. I have a few I want to try before I buy. Oh and the money that I put towards the rental will applied to the lens I buy, if I buy it from them.
     
  73. Javier, surely you've heard of CameraLensRentals.com ... They not only offer Canikon, but Pentax lenses too. And if you like the lens you've rented, you can buy it :)
    Oh, and they have the DA* 60-250mm f/4 avaialable for rent as of May 23rd...I'm just saying... ;-)
     
  74. Mis, I have heard of that place, but have never thought to rent any pentax glass. But here where I live, there are tons of places that rent canikon lenses, but not a single one has pentax glass for rent...
    On a side note, I took out my D700 on tuesday to capture some cinco de mayo pics and was impressed even more by how much I could see out the view finder. It is so cool to be able to see what I am shooting. I really hope Pentax does address that and I will then by the K7 and sell my K20D's. If it is the same view finder, I will pass on the K7...Another thing. By default I have my K20's set on burst mode even though I rarely will take more than one shot. I tried hat with the D700 and got three or four frames, so I had to set it back to a single shot. It is like an AK47.....
     
  75. Lindy
    Few of us like to be across multiple systems. Its fair enough to say that most advanced amatuers are locked into one system. Sure I knew what I was doing when I bought EF-S lenses and a FF camera and I am not blaming Canon for my purchases.
    But I can't see why its my fault that Canon made them incomatible, when all other manufacturers chose to keep some semblance of comaptibility. It was a dumb decision by them that made their system less attractive overall.
    No one is pretending using APS-C glass on FF cameras is an ideal solution. This is just a straw man argument. The issue is whether compatibility is helpful.
     
  76. I hear you Geoff, its a bummer about EF-S lenses not being usable on full frame or 1.3x crop APS-H. Worse yet, you'll need about $800 after you sell 10-22mm & acquire 16-35mm 2.8 II.
    The 16-35mm II and 70-200mm 2.8 IS were my first two canon eos lens purchases ever last spring when I only had an EOS3 film body. You may not know this but your EF-S glass will not work on any eos film body either. Then a few months later I added a 5D when local proshop ditched their killer film developing special. No regrets skipping 20D, 30D, 40D, & now 50D. I considered each and every one, hands on. I'm glad I used Pentax K Mount to serve my crop needs via numerous used lenses I've picked up last 7 years. K20D is a very nice camera. In fact its gets well deserved Flagship title. But its 2009. Who knows where my loyalties will lie in a couple years? Adding a D700 to the bag this past January certainly gives me much more to consider. At some point I'd really like to streamline my system while the dslrs still have some recoverable value.
    That all said I have no regrets with Canon, Nikon & Pentax in my kit. I can think of personal gripes for each brand but If I ever grab the wrong lens, like eos or pentax to use on my D700 then thats'a mybad.
    Lindy
     

Share This Page