full frame..NO

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
david tittermary
Contributing MemberPosts: 503
Like?
full frame..NO
4 months ago

WHY would you want full frame for nature ? So many times on here I read people saying they want full frame and the shots I see posted are all nature shots.  Full frame does nothing for you in this are unless its 35+ meg and Pentax or someone comes out with some 500-800 mm 4.0 or faster prime lens.

if you NEED full frame (and I do) get a full frame (I did) but don't wait for pentax.

For nature get the best apsc camera you can (k3) imho

and of course there might be some special circumstances were this isn't true but in general I believe it is.

just saying.....

rant over, carry on.

-- hide signature --
walgarch
Forum MemberPosts: 71Gear list
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to david tittermary, 4 months ago

I imagine some people aren't nature photographers and have a lot of old FF glass they'd love to use on a FF body.

To each their own, no?

 walgarch's gear list:walgarch's gear list
Pentax K-3 Pentax K-5 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jan Rinze
Regular MemberPosts: 236Gear list
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to david tittermary, 4 months ago

david tittermary wrote:

WHY would you want full frame for nature ? So many times on here I read people saying they want full frame and the shots I see posted are all nature shots. Full frame does nothing for you in this are unless its 35+ meg and Pentax or someone comes out with some 500-800 mm 4.0 or faster prime lens.

if you NEED full frame (and I do) get a full frame (I did) but don't wait for pentax.

For nature get the best apsc camera you can (k3) imho

and of course there might be some special circumstances were this isn't true but in general I believe it is.

just saying.....

rant over, carry on.

-- hide signature --

Perhaps you got it the wrong way around. The characteristics of a 24 MPix APS-C camera are a perfect fit for nature photography and thus it gets used as such. This does not mean that now everyone here only wants to shoot BIF.

A 24 MPix FF would be awesome if it had same or lower high ISO noise compared to the K5II. Even 16 MPix FF would be acceptable on my part if that would boost high ISO performance beyond anything available today. But that is just me, I love to take pictures of concerts and such.

-- hide signature --
 Jan Rinze's gear list:Jan Rinze's gear list
Pentax K-5 Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Pentax smc DA* 300mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ozdean
Forum ProPosts: 19,701Gear list
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to david tittermary, 4 months ago

I agree the K3 ticks all the boxes for nature,

Light setup

1.5x crop advantage

High frame rate with good tracking - you need to know how to set it up though.

You can use good old tele's because of screw drive - as with all pentax's.

-- hide signature --

Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
N.B. All my Images are Protected by Copyright

 ozdean's gear list:ozdean's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
david tittermary
Contributing MemberPosts: 503
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to Jan Rinze, 4 months ago

Jan Rinze wrote:

david tittermary wrote:

WHY would you want full frame for nature ? So many times on here I read people saying they want full frame and the shots I see posted are all nature shots. Full frame does nothing for you in this are unless its 35+ meg and Pentax or someone comes out with some 500-800 mm 4.0 or faster prime lens.

if you NEED full frame (and I do) get a full frame (I did) but don't wait for pentax.

For nature get the best apsc camera you can (k3) imho

and of course there might be some special circumstances were this isn't true but in general I believe it is.

just saying.....

rant over, carry on.

-- hide signature --

Perhaps you got it the wrong way around. The characteristics of a 24 MPix APS-C camera are a perfect fit for nature photography and thus it gets used as such. This does not mean that now everyone here only wants to shoot BIF.

A 24 MPix FF would be awesome if it had same or lower high ISO noise compared to the K5II. Even 16 MPix FF would be acceptable on my part if that would boost high ISO performance beyond anything available today. But that is just me, I love to take pictures of concerts and such.

-- hide signature --

and thats what a ff is perfect for

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
david tittermary
Contributing MemberPosts: 503
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to walgarch, 4 months ago

walgarch wrote:

I imagine some people aren't nature photographers and have a lot of old FF glass they'd love to use on a FF body.

To each their own, no?

couldn't agree more

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Mak
Senior MemberPosts: 1,070
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to david tittermary, 4 months ago

WHY would you want full frame for nature ? So many times on here I read people saying they want full frame and the shots I see posted are all nature shots.  Full frame does nothing for you in this are unless its 35+ meg and Pentax or someone comes out with some 500-800 mm 4.0 or faster prime lens.

if you NEED full frame (and I do) get a full frame (I did) but don't wait for pentax.

For nature get the best apsc camera you can (k3) imho

and of course there might be some special circumstances were this isn't true but in general I believe it is.

just saying.....

rant over, carry on.

-- hide signature --

David,
If you reálly want to know the answer to this question, go take a look at the Sony (24mp) A7 images thread on the FM forum, or elsewhere. Perhaps it will enlighten you...
Watch especially for the images at dusk or twilight, there or on other threads.
FF is about more than pixel numbers.

Chris

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jan Rinze
Regular MemberPosts: 236Gear list
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to david tittermary, 4 months ago

david tittermary wrote:

Jan Rinze wrote:

david tittermary wrote:

WHY would you want full frame for nature ? So many times on here I read people saying they want full frame and the shots I see posted are all nature shots. Full frame does nothing for you in this are unless its 35+ meg and Pentax or someone comes out with some 500-800 mm 4.0 or faster prime lens.

if you NEED full frame (and I do) get a full frame (I did) but don't wait for pentax.

For nature get the best apsc camera you can (k3) imho

and of course there might be some special circumstances were this isn't true but in general I believe it is.

just saying.....

rant over, carry on.

-- hide signature --

Perhaps you got it the wrong way around. The characteristics of a 24 MPix APS-C camera are a perfect fit for nature photography and thus it gets used as such. This does not mean that now everyone here only wants to shoot BIF.

A 24 MPix FF would be awesome if it had same or lower high ISO noise compared to the K5II. Even 16 MPix FF would be acceptable on my part if that would boost high ISO performance beyond anything available today. But that is just me, I love to take pictures of concerts and such.

-- hide signature --

and thats what a ff is perfect for

To be able to share the lenses with my K-3 and K-5 I would love to see a PENTAX FF camera. Provided it lives up to these expectations  (oh and Nikon/Canon just does not have the great user friendliness like Pentax i.m.h.o.)

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 Jan Rinze's gear list:Jan Rinze's gear list
Pentax K-5 Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Pentax smc DA* 300mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GossCTP
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,026
Like?
It has at least one advantage
In reply to david tittermary, 4 months ago

david tittermary wrote:

WHY would you want full frame for nature ? So many times on here I read people saying they want full frame and the shots I see posted are all nature shots. Full frame does nothing for you in this are unless its 35+ meg and Pentax or someone comes out with some 500-800 mm 4.0 or faster prime lens.

Virtually no one will go for longer tele lenses for FF. It would still be useful for prime shooters though. Sometimes you can get too close to the action with long lenses and TCs. Kind of a reverse digital zoom.

-- hide signature --

Through the window in the wall
Come streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Lusk
Contributing MemberPosts: 936
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to david tittermary, 4 months ago

Are you saying that if you want to stay with Pentax, get a K3, and be satisfied with the limited range and quality of long lenses that are readily available?

Otherwise, your rant makes no sense.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
debo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,407Gear list
Like?
+1 .... and
In reply to Tom Lusk, 4 months ago

I have lenses that would be ideal for FF e.g. 31, 43, 77 ... so why not?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
david tittermary
Contributing MemberPosts: 503
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to Chris Mak, 4 months ago

Chris Mak wrote:

WHY would you want full frame for nature ? So many times on here I read people saying they want full frame and the shots I see posted are all nature shots. Full frame does nothing for you in this are unless its 35+ meg and Pentax or someone comes out with some 500-800 mm 4.0 or faster prime lens.

if you NEED full frame (and I do) get a full frame (I did) but don't wait for pentax.

For nature get the best apsc camera you can (k3) imho

and of course there might be some special circumstances were this isn't true but in general I believe it is.

just saying.....

rant over, carry on.

-- hide signature --

David,
If you reálly want to know the answer to this question, go take a look at the Sony (24mp) A7 images thread on the FM forum, or elsewhere. Perhaps it will enlighten you...
Watch especially for the images at dusk or twilight, there or on other threads.
FF is about more than pixel numbers.

Chris

I have full frame, I am very very aware of what full frame is and its uses and I  hear you but with-in the context of pentax and nature photography it is not a advantage for most people, I don't care how clean and low noise it is DOES nothing for you is you can't get some megapixels on your subject though sensor and lens. Again my post is with the scope of nature photography

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
david tittermary
Contributing MemberPosts: 503
Like?
Re: It has at least one advantage
In reply to GossCTP, 4 months ago

GossCTP wrote:

david tittermary wrote:

WHY would you want full frame for nature ? So many times on here I read people saying they want full frame and the shots I see posted are all nature shots. Full frame does nothing for you in this are unless its 35+ meg and Pentax or someone comes out with some 500-800 mm 4.0 or faster prime lens.

Virtually no one will go for longer tele lenses for FF. It would still be useful for prime shooters though. Sometimes you can get too close to the action with long lenses and TCs. Kind of a reverse digital zoom.

-- hide signature --

Through the window in the wall
Come streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning

lol true

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dual12
Regular MemberPosts: 232
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to walgarch, 4 months ago

They can use that glass on APS-C.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jay_akita
Regular MemberPosts: 172
Like?
Re: It has at least one advantage
In reply to david tittermary, 4 months ago

Many people are waxing nostalgic about the K5 era IQ - D800 gives you that but with  > double the resolution and a much bigger viewfinder.  Not to mention the extreme flexibility of cropping which allows you to minimize the number of lenses you carry around, while avoiding the hassle of switching if you're out trying to cover miles of terrain.

If you switch from landscape to portrait shots (which I often do) that flexibility is awesome because now an F4 lens gives you the depth of field control of an F2.8 lens.  Even if you're out solo, what if you happen across an animal and you want to isolate it from the background somewhat?  I have the Nikon 24-120 and paired with the D800 out in the mountains the combo is liberating IMO.  Giant RAW files are a downside, but better to be inconvenienced at home than out in the field.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
debo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,407Gear list
Like?
Re: +1 .... and
In reply to debo, 4 months ago

If one can pay 1300 for a K3, one could pay 1500-1600 for a A7 like FF from Pentax and not have to deal with adapters.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
david tittermary
Contributing MemberPosts: 503
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to Tom Lusk, 4 months ago

Tom Lusk wrote:

Are you saying that if you want to stay with Pentax, get a K3, and be satisfied with the limited range and quality of long lenses that are readily available?

Otherwise, your rant makes no sense.

Sorta I am saying that full frame for most nature photography is not the idea set-up. Pentax with the k3 has about the best solution out there right now, yes a few more SMALL aspc lens would be nice but there are some decent offerings and the 24 meg sensor is giving resolution as good as the FULL frame d800. Here is a idea, Look at the weight and size of what you would need to compete with the d800 vs the k3 for nature,

d800 $2800 2lbs

nikon 500 f4 with vr $8300 9lbs!! yes thats nine pounds!!!!!!

11 pounds total, yeah thats going really be a joy to use.

now

K3 1.7 pounds $1299

Pentax *da300 f4 $1399 aproxx 2 lbs

what would you rather lug around and shoot nature with?

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
david tittermary
Contributing MemberPosts: 503
Like?
Re: +1 .... and
In reply to debo, 4 months ago

debo wrote:

If one can pay 1300 for a K3, one could pay 1500-1600 for a A7 like FF from Pentax and not have to deal with adapters.

good luck shooting action nature with that setup

I think people are so focused on ff they have totally missed my point about for nature photography. I have full frame it has its uses but nature is not one of them and that is what my post is about

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
david tittermary
Contributing MemberPosts: 503
Like?
Re: It has at least one advantage
In reply to jay_akita, 4 months ago

jay_akita wrote:

Many people are waxing nostalgic about the K5 era IQ - D800 gives you that but with > double the resolution and a much bigger viewfinder. Not to mention the extreme flexibility of cropping which allows you to minimize the number of lenses you carry around, while avoiding the hassle of switching if you're out trying to cover miles of terrain.

and how does the k3 not give you that and much much better reach for any lens you use?

If you switch from landscape to portrait shots (which I often do) that flexibility is awesome because now an F4 lens gives you the depth of field control of an F2.8 lens. Even if you're out solo, what if you happen across an animal and you want to isolate it from the background somewhat? I have the Nikon 24-120 and paired with the D800 out in the mountains the combo is liberating IMO. Giant RAW files are a downside, but better to be inconvenienced at home than out in the field.

in the case for portrait and close range stuff then yeah FF would/could be better for you no argument from me on that. 120mm is very very close.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Unexpresivecanvas
Contributing MemberPosts: 900
Like?
Re: full frame..NO
In reply to david tittermary, 4 months ago

By "nature" do you mean "wild life photography" or do you mean "Birds in Flight" photography?

If we are talking about "nature photography" the way it is used in general terms, the greatest of all nature photographers was, guess who?, Ansel Adams.

If you never studied photography history, Adams had something a little larger than a modern full frame. He used this big rig that he used to mount on top of his truck.

Now if you are talking about birds in flight, yeah, APS-C crops the lens and uses only one fraction of the lens as the sensor is smaller. But also is the quality. APS-C cameras can deliver very good images, but you never are going to find the same quality or image flexibility (richness of color and light capturing capabilities) as a modern full frame.

The main reason most people using DSLRs select an APS-C is because they can't carry the physical or financial weight that comes with owning a full frame system. Not because  FF can't do what APS-C does.

This is an old and tired discussion.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads