Announcement "should" be later this month. I got three sets of FF lenses ready for a NEX FF. Three Canon EF lenses, a Zeiss 50/2.0 and a Pentax SMC-A 50/2.0. Already got a M to NEX adapter for the Zeiss.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
No FF until next year
- Thread starter yonsarh
- Start date
britcam
Senior Member
Film use was a large part of my life, learning the process with 120 & 220 film as early as 8 yrs old, thanks to my father's knowledge and artistic background. I made the plunge into digital when the Coolpix 990 first appeared, and though I still have countless film bodies, they sit in a glass case and are there for nostalgic reasons or as collector items ... I dread to think how many boxes of slides and negatives are sitting around in storage ... and I don't want to go there again, even though I do have a good film scanner ...
The instant feedback of digital has transformed the thinking / learning process, and IMHO there is no better means of improving one's understanding of photography, providing of course that its done with some rigour and method .. though I do think that the sheer breadth and range of controls on a modern DSLR can be hugely confusing for those keen to move up the photographic ladder, and that doesn't really help. For day-to-day subjects, I use my K5IIs in a very simple way, only rarely dipping into menu driven settings & controls. Of course for specialist subjects its quite different ...
That's one reason I enjoy the little MX-1 - its such a straightforward & uncomplicated little thing ...!
bluevellet
Senior Member
... if they can't get prices lower than FF DLSRs, make the lenses significantly smaller or if the rumors are to be believed about the slow primes (and by extension, the zooms) then I fail to see the point.
I would just buy a D600 or an A99 with a couple of F1.4-1.8 primes and be happy with that.
I would just buy a D600 or an A99 with a couple of F1.4-1.8 primes and be happy with that.
bluevellet
Senior Member
My bad, I thought I was in the NEX forum!
DaveJC
Senior Member
I am surrounded by FF and APC shooters every time I go out with my camera club. I have never felt inferior to them simply because I use a Pentax APC. When we get back and show our captures of the day, I get as many ohs and ahs as the others. Usually it is the person who saw the most unusual version of the day who gets the Kudos. Nobody thinks, "wow, if I had FF, I could have caught that image too." I know I think, " Nice capture, he/ she has a nice eye." If you can't see or take the time to master your gear, it really does not matter what you shoot with.
I use a blend of technologies that keep things light and small. I sometimes carry my Fuji X-E1 with the 18-55 and 55-200 along worth my Sigma DP2M. I get convent zooming with the Fuji's and the Sigma for that really detailed shot I see me printing big. Otherwise, the Fuji catches most everything else.
Or I carry my Pentax K-5 with 43, 77 and ZK 50 macro. Hitching a ride is the Sigma DP1M for any wide angle stuff that really calls for detail.
When I go birding, it is my K-5, F*300 f4.5 and A* 600 f 5.6. These are 450mm and 900 mm even before any TC is added. My captures are every bit as good as my camera club friends carrying their FF Canons with 70-200 plus 1.4 TC and I have much better reach. One member has the Canon FF with the 400mm DO and bless his heart for the price he paid for them. His body and that one lens cost more than most of my gear put together. It is more about the anticipation of the shot than the rapid firing in AF hoping for the right moment.
Since several of my lenses are MF only and most can be easily adapted to a FF MILC, let Sony bring it on. It does seem like Pentax/Ricoh are a long way from even tipping their hand let alone letting us see what is in it. So I may pick up a IIs to carry me through my Winter of Discontent. Otherwise, she'll be coming around the mountain when she comes...
I use a blend of technologies that keep things light and small. I sometimes carry my Fuji X-E1 with the 18-55 and 55-200 along worth my Sigma DP2M. I get convent zooming with the Fuji's and the Sigma for that really detailed shot I see me printing big. Otherwise, the Fuji catches most everything else.
Or I carry my Pentax K-5 with 43, 77 and ZK 50 macro. Hitching a ride is the Sigma DP1M for any wide angle stuff that really calls for detail.
When I go birding, it is my K-5, F*300 f4.5 and A* 600 f 5.6. These are 450mm and 900 mm even before any TC is added. My captures are every bit as good as my camera club friends carrying their FF Canons with 70-200 plus 1.4 TC and I have much better reach. One member has the Canon FF with the 400mm DO and bless his heart for the price he paid for them. His body and that one lens cost more than most of my gear put together. It is more about the anticipation of the shot than the rapid firing in AF hoping for the right moment.
Since several of my lenses are MF only and most can be easily adapted to a FF MILC, let Sony bring it on. It does seem like Pentax/Ricoh are a long way from even tipping their hand let alone letting us see what is in it. So I may pick up a IIs to carry me through my Winter of Discontent. Otherwise, she'll be coming around the mountain when she comes...
illogical
Active member
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 40
I too contemplated for long to buy a full frame camera. Until couple of months ago, I checked prices of entry level full frame cameras everyday so that the moment I get them for a good price, I grab them however, then I read some blogs of those photographers who shifted from full frame/ heavy gear to mirrorless cameras like Olympus OMD E-M5 and Fujifilm X-E1 or X-pro1. I didn't just go by their advices and experiences rather put myself in the situation and found that even I too would be wise to switch from heavy gear to mirrorless light weight system like Olympus OMD E-M5. The only advantages of FF bodies I find better low light capabilities and shallow depth, which a photographer like me needs occasionally or very rarely. There are times when I don't take my camera and gear along for its heavy weight and bulge, what if I had a camera like OMD, which I could keep in my pocket or a small carry case, I would have had more opportunities and pleasure to click. Moreover, I could overcome the disadvantage of less shallower depth of the sensor with Zuiko 75mm f/18. Plus, smaller sensors are better for macro photography too. So, it all boils down to one's need. If you often need good low light performance then you should go for FF because, so far, there is no way out.
Lot of people here are right that getting fancied merely by new stuff in the market makes no sense, as one said that grass looks greener on the other side. People were clicking great pictures even when the technology was not as advance as much it is today. However, some people are more a gadget freak than a photographer so for them, the pleasure comes from the new gadgets so, they should not stop buying new stuff in the market because, they too should enjoy what they like
Regards
Anurag Arora
Aperture Photo Gallery
Lot of people here are right that getting fancied merely by new stuff in the market makes no sense, as one said that grass looks greener on the other side. People were clicking great pictures even when the technology was not as advance as much it is today. However, some people are more a gadget freak than a photographer so for them, the pleasure comes from the new gadgets so, they should not stop buying new stuff in the market because, they too should enjoy what they like
Regards
Anurag Arora
Aperture Photo Gallery
Who really knows what is feasible? No one thought that you could put a FF sensor in a camera the size of the RX-1 until Sony did it. The K-5 is much larger than the RX-1, and I would not rule out the possibility of IBIS. Your are correct that the prism and mirror would take up extra space, so a FF DSLR might be larger than a K-5, but perhaps not much larger.
As far as a mirrorless FF ILC goes, my experience with the RX-1 leads me to be very positive about that possibility. It seems that Sony is about to deliver one to the market. They are really on a roll. I wish I could say the same about Ricoh-Pentax. Let's hope for pleasant surprises.
Rob
I don't agree. Although smaller formats can produce very good IQ, the advantage of FF goes beyond shallow DOF and low light capabilities. Whether or not an individual wants or truly needs that advantage is a personal decision. With the exception of the RX1, there is a significant tradeoff in size and weight.illogical wrote:
I too contemplated for long to buy a full frame camera. Until couple of months ago, I checked prices of entry level full frame cameras everyday so that the moment I get them for a good price, I grab them however, then I read some blogs of those photographers who shifted from full frame/ heavy gear to mirrorless cameras like Olympus OMD E-M5 and Fujifilm X-E1 or X-pro1. I didn't just go by their advices and experiences rather put myself in the situation and found that even I too would be wise to switch from heavy gear to mirrorless light weight system like Olympus OMD E-M5. The only advantages of FF bodies I find better low light capabilities and shallow depth, which a photographer like me needs occasionally or very rarely. There are times when I don't take my camera and gear along for its heavy weight and bulge, what if I had a camera like OMD, which I could keep in my pocket or a small carry case, I would have had more opportunities and pleasure to click. Moreover, I could overcome the disadvantage of less shallower depth of the sensor with Zuiko 75mm f/18. Plus, smaller sensors are better for macro photography too. So, it all boils down to one's need. If you often need good low light performance then you should go for FF because, so far, there is no way out.
Lot of people here are right that getting fancied merely by new stuff in the market makes no sense, as one said that grass looks greener on the other side. People were clicking great pictures even when the technology was not as advance as much it is today. However, some people are more a gadget freak than a photographer so for them, the pleasure comes from the new gadgets so, they should not stop buying new stuff in the market because, they too should enjoy what they like
Regards
Anurag Arora
Aperture Photo Gallery
Rob
Here's my take on it...... FF would make better use of my existing lenses, gives better DR, low light advantage, higher resolution for the same noise, same resolution for lower noise (take your pick), wide angle lens advantage, TS lenses, cropability, and yes, shallower DOF.
I suspect that different photographers will pick out of these reasons the ones that are important to them in considering whether or not FF is for them. Some may conclude that it is, others that it isn't, and that's fine.
Cheers, Rod
I suspect that different photographers will pick out of these reasons the ones that are important to them in considering whether or not FF is for them. Some may conclude that it is, others that it isn't, and that's fine.
Cheers, Rod
illogical
Active member
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 40
Well, if you take it as a healthy discussion and do not take it personally, offensive or as an argument, I would like to offer my opinion as below:
1. You wrote - "FF would make better use of my existing lenses". This is exclusive to you so not necessarily be advantageous to others.
2. You wrote - "gives better DR". Theoretically, the FF sensors should have better DR than cropped sensors however, as per real world experiments e.g. by DXO, the DR difference between FF sensors & cropped sensors are not significant and the difference does not justify the extra price, weight and bulkiness.
3. You wrote - "low light advantage, higher resolution for the same noise, same resolution for lower noise (take your pick)". I think, it is an elaborated version of low light capability, which I know that FF sensors have.
4. You wrote - "wide angle lens advantage". Wide angle lenses are generally used for landscape shots which need deep depth of field (usually). The depth of field one gets at f/16 aperture with an FF sensor camera, can be achieved by larger aperture (lower value) with a cropped sensor camera, e.g. around f/12 by an APS-C camera and around f/8 by MFT camera. Now, as you know that camera companies are filling more mega pixels in the same size sensors, the diffraction limited aperture (DLA) is becoming larger (lower value). Nikon D800 should have its DLA around f/5.6 and Nikon D600 should have its DLA around f/8. Which means if you need deeper depth in FF sensor cameras, you will need to compromise with sharpness due to DLA. Fortunately, Olympus OMD can have deeper depth of field even at f/5.6 so we can avoid diffraction affecting the sharpness.
MOREOVER, if you think otherwise, if in one hand, FF sensor cameras offer shallower depth, how could they be better for those photography needs in which you need deeper depth?
5. You wrote - "TS lenses". I wonder how an FF sensor camera could be better for TS lenses over a cropped sensor camera.
6. "cropability" - It depends on mega pixels and we have enough mega pixels even in cropped sensor cameras.
7. "shallower DOF" - This was known already along with low light capabilities, I needed additional IQ advantages.
audiobomber
Veteran Member
Nonsense. M4/3 cameras have no tracking, no AF-C and poor multi-shot modes (e.g. camera OM-D focus on first shot). Read the reviews on DPR for confirmation.
It was your five-year horizon. I need an all-round camera soon, not in five years.
I hear this a lot, but it's crystal ball stuff, no basis in reality. Currently, APS-C still dominates.
You have your predictions, I have mine. No one knows what technology will bring in the next five years.
audiobomber
Veteran Member
If you use a K-50, the size difference gets bigger again, and the 6D left out the built-in flash to trim the size.
http://camerasize.com/compare/#380,462
Most Pentax shooters will select the more compact 50-135mm f2.8, not a full-frame 70-200.
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
Sorry but looking at my d800 photos and comparing them to my K5 photos the k5 at ISo 800 share the same noise characteristics as my D800 @ iso 1800.
Another way I can test DR is if take a photo with the D800 at F4 iso 100 for me to capture the same DR with the K5 I would have to shoot the K5 at F4 iso44, to gathering the same amount of total light (DR). a little more than 1 stop increase in DR
Weight and bulk with my D800 with similar lenses that share the same DOF and FOV were not much larger when compared to what I was using with my K5 at the time.
Diffraction is related to the projected image so an image that is captured with a set FOV and DOF will share the same Diffraction. What a FF has to offer is the ability to see that blurring earlier do to the higher resolution.
If we had a cropped image captured with the same DOV and FOV at the same resolution you would see the same Diffraction. Just because you hit Diffraction does not mean you hit a limit on capturing more detail. Think of it this way, if you use a cheap lens on a 6mp camera and you record X number of detail, your capture on a 20mp will have X amount of detail plus the detail that the 6mp camera could not see thus capturing more detail there is no barrier with detail it just get less and less as resolution goes up
I have yet to have a FF lens not give me the same DOF I was expecting from my K5 rig
Every time you crop you lose light that could have been captured thus lowering IQ
2 images captured @ same FOV at the same distance and F stop but captured with 2 different formats , The one with the most amount of light be project on to a sensor gives you better a better IQ with greater DR and lower noise
Zvonimir Tosic
Senior Member
You did not explain anything, just pointed out to a $8000 solution.
So is that what you propose: be happy with a commodity $600 APS-C DSLRs, or buy a $8000 camera.
Or else ... jump ship .. ?
Is that a real, honest answer to offer?
S
Simon Devlin
Guest
That's what my cousin thought!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum