Certain FF Considerations (The Lenses and Cost)

[MightyMike]

When in doubt what to do, then exercise patience. — Sun Tzu (paraphrased)

This is the first ever accomplished try into the digital FF land by Pentax.
It makes sense to observe and save money by being patient, and when there is a clearer view to what lenses will be available for the FF, when we see that Ricoh is really planning and not only playing by ear, then consider it.

To jump on a brand new FF, knowing there is a rebadged Tamron zoom, and maybe 70-200 zoom by Pentax, and not even a modern 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, reworked FA Limiteds, etc. lenses yet, is like buying a car and only then considering whether tyres are available to purchase for that car.

 

[Zvonimir Tosic]

When in doubt what to do, then exercise patience. — Sun Tzu (paraphrased)

This is the first ever accomplished try into the digital FF land by Pentax.
It makes sense to observe and save money by being patient, and when there is a clearer view to what lenses will be available for the FF, when we see that Ricoh is really planning and not only playing by ear, then consider it.

To jump on a brand new FF, knowing there is a rebadged Tamron zoom, and maybe 70-200 zoom by Pentax, and not even a modern 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, reworked FA Limiteds, etc. lenses yet, is like buying a car and only then considering whether tyres are available to purchase for that car.

--
Madamina, il catalogo è questo; Delle belle che amò il padron mio; un catalogo egli è che ho fatt'io; Osservate, leggete con me.

You are right about waiting... however you make the assumption that i need/or want modern 24, 35, 50mm lenses... I have a 24mm F1.8, a 35mm F2.0 and a Sigma 50mm F1.4 Ver1, the only limited i own is the 77mm

None of those lenses is in production anymore. (I am not counting Sigma) Not even the Limiteds are. So yes, we need at least an honest update on what will come out in the following year or two, out of production line — not out of some old inventory. Not planning to buy a 20+ years old lens still in inventory somewhere that will inevitably change in 18 months, (because they may be silently waiting for ancient stuff to run out).

No honest update on lenses, no purchase of the FF — it's that simple, Ricoh.

--
Madamina, il catalogo è questo; Delle belle che amò il padron mio; un catalogo egli è che ho fatt'io; Osservate, leggete con me.

 

[MightyMike]

When in doubt what to do, then exercise patience. — Sun Tzu (paraphrased)

This is the first ever accomplished try into the digital FF land by Pentax.
It makes sense to observe and save money by being patient, and when there is a clearer view to what lenses will be available for the FF, when we see that Ricoh is really planning and not only playing by ear, then consider it.

To jump on a brand new FF, knowing there is a rebadged Tamron zoom, and maybe 70-200 zoom by Pentax, and not even a modern 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, reworked FA Limiteds, etc. lenses yet, is like buying a car and only then considering whether tyres are available to purchase for that car.

 

[Twong]

I picked up a K-S2 instead of K-3 recently. Originally, I was thinking the K-S2 would be the secondary, but I have not touched my K-5IIs for couple months now. If K-S2 is indication of what to come, this is great as I am completely satisfied by it.

DSLR is definitely approaching maturity if it is not already there. This whole FF thing is created by the industry and a small outspoken minority. There is nothing wrong with this scenario but I won't be sucked into it. I will instead spend my money to build up my lens collection, accessories and trips.

I sort of expect Pentax to put most of its premium features into FF, and top end metal APS-C bodies to disappear, with the K-S2 line being the new of the line in APS-C, and a non WR, ABS, body being the bottom end. I would bet the low end, non WR, body ends up a k-mount mirrorless in a generation or two, to keep costs down.

 

[ecube]

Mike - your profile gives me the impression that you are ADDICTED to photography. Do you still keep all the camera bodies and lenses listed on your profile? How often do you used all those cameras and lenses? Since digital camera bodies are like computers that has three or less year life cycle, would you consider getting rid (selling) your old camera bodies and associated lenses?

Like you, photography and travel are my only expensive hobbies, but I am able to keep the cost of acquiring bodies and lenses down by shopping at eBay. I also settled on one brand that obviated the need to buy redundant lenses. I have Nikons: D5300, D800 and D750 and Nikkor DX and FX lenses. The D5300 with 18~140mm is my everyday carry-on camera. While D800 is heavy, I take it with me and the D5300 on trips.

Please forgive me if I sound condescending. Best regards.

 

[Smitty1]

[No message]

 

[MightyMike]

Mike - your profile gives me the impression that you are ADDICTED to photography. Do you still keep all the camera bodies and lenses listed on your profile? How often do you used all those cameras and lenses? Since digital camera bodies are like computers that has three or less year life cycle, would you consider getting rid (selling) your old camera bodies and associated lenses?

I'm likely the biggest reseller of used Pentax equipment in all of Canada and possibly the second biggest in North America second only to KEH... Now i can't really say that for absolute certainty but if i was wrong i wouldn't be far off. Of all the cameras and lenses listed currently 18 cameras and 82 lenses are actively for sale with another 29 lenses waiting their turn. That still leave an estimated 35 lenses, 9 film cameras and 1 digital camera i keep for myself.

Like you, photography and travel are my only expensive hobbies, but I am able to keep the cost of acquiring bodies and lenses down by shopping at eBay.

I recently scoured eBay for deals (resellable deals) I was shocked by how much people were asking for some of the gear, my goodness if i could get people to buy my stuff at those prices I'd be rich. Clearly there are a lot of eBay sellers that are way over price, some that are market value and just a small scattering sprinkled around that are under market value. The other problem with shopping eBay for Canadians is they now insisted on charging cross border fees up front, the sellers don't offer the cheapest shipping options due to lack of knowledge of what is available and i have to multiple each purchase price by 1.31x due to the poor exchange rate. It would have to be an amazing deal before i could buy something off eBay these days.

This doesn't mean i don't buy things at around market value when i have no intention of reselling the item in a short time.

I also settled on one brand that obviated the need to buy redundant lenses. I have Nikons: D5300, D800 and D750 and Nikkor DX and FX lenses. The D5300 with 18~140mm is my everyday carry-on camera. While D800 is heavy, I take it with me and the D5300 on trips.

How is that any different than the Pentax brand, no redundancies but those i choose to have, including some still impressive lenses from the 1950s, it all works and will continue to work on Pentax for the foreseeable future.

Please forgive me if I sound condescending. Best regards.

 

[MightyMike]

Weight and size aren't even a consideration and haven't been for me bar a few rare occasions, Now I'm not a weight lifter nor am I all that strong, basically if you need it you'll put up with the weight and size, if its too heavy you won't buy it then you really don't need it. In simpler terms if you can find a reason to complain about an item to the point where you won't buy it then you never needed that item in the first place and the excuse is really irrelevant. If you really do need the item you'll find some way of owning it regardless of weight and size.

The only 2 times i can think of where weight and size came up for me are when i sold my recently acquired F*600mm F4.0 which is 15lbs for a Sigma 500mm F4.5 which is 6.8lbs ... yes i could justify giving up 100mm and 1/3rd of a stop for a drop of 8.2lbs of weight. before that i didn't know where my upper limit on weight was. Now the F*600mm F4.0 was still usable it was just taxing after 2 hours in the bush handheld and i didn't car to use a tripod or monopod when in the bush. More recently while evaluating the Tamron (Clone) 15-30mm F2.8 over my Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 I decided that the Tamron at over double the weight and larger didn't really give me enough in return to require dealing with the extra, sure 2 more stops of light is impressive but so far I've demonstrated i can get away with doing without. Cost (trade-up difference) played a roll too. I'm not denying its a great lens, I'm just understanding that i don't need it. In all other lens and camera related purchasing size and weight have never played a roll.

 

[Smitty1]

Weight and size aren't even a consideration and haven't been for me bar a few rare occasions, Now I'm not a weight lifter nor am I all that strong, basically if you need it you'll put up with the weight and size, if its too heavy you won't buy it then you really don't need it. In simpler terms if you can find a reason to complain about an item to the point where you won't buy it then you never needed that item in the first place and the excuse is really irrelevant. If you really do need the item you'll find some way of owning it regardless of weight and size.

The only 2 times i can think of where weight and size came up for me are when i sold my recently acquired F*600mm F4.0 which is 15lbs for a Sigma 500mm F4.5 which is 6.8lbs ... yes i could justify giving up 100mm and 1/3rd of a stop for a drop of 8.2lbs of weight. before that i didn't know where my upper limit on weight was. Now the F*600mm F4.0 was still usable it was just taxing after 2 hours in the bush handheld and i didn't car to use a tripod or monopod when in the bush. More recently while evaluating the Tamron (Clone) 15-30mm F2.8 over my Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 I decided that the Tamron at over double the weight and larger didn't really give me enough in return to require dealing with the extra, sure 2 more stops of light is impressive but so far I've demonstrated i can get away with doing without. Cost (trade-up difference) played a roll too. I'm not denying its a great lens, I'm just understanding that i don't need it. In all other lens and camera related purchasing size and weight have never played a roll.

--

It is more a case of weighing (no pun intended) ALL of the Pros and Cons of moving to a particular system.

FF lenses are inherently larger than their APS-C counterparts.

Yet even holding the DA* 50-135mm lens for a few miles walk in your hand and you'll surely notice it. Now consider adding a few more pounds for a FF body and 70-200mm lens. The difference becomes even more noticeable as the focal length increases. There is a reason (keeping with my example) the DA* 50-135mm does not have a mono/tri-pod mount and all of the 70-200mm lenses do. And it isn't to make them look professional.

If you don't see it as an issue, that is your opinion and your view. But it is an actual consideration to make when moving systems.

 

[MightyMike]

Weight and size aren't even a consideration and haven't been for me bar a few rare occasions, Now I'm not a weight lifter nor am I all that strong, basically if you need it you'll put up with the weight and size, if its too heavy you won't buy it then you really don't need it. In simpler terms if you can find a reason to complain about an item to the point where you won't buy it then you never needed that item in the first place and the excuse is really irrelevant. If you really do need the item you'll find some way of owning it regardless of weight and size.

The only 2 times i can think of where weight and size came up for me are when i sold my recently acquired F*600mm F4.0 which is 15lbs for a Sigma 500mm F4.5 which is 6.8lbs ... yes i could justify giving up 100mm and 1/3rd of a stop for a drop of 8.2lbs of weight. before that i didn't know where my upper limit on weight was. Now the F*600mm F4.0 was still usable it was just taxing after 2 hours in the bush handheld and i didn't car to use a tripod or monopod when in the bush. More recently while evaluating the Tamron (Clone) 15-30mm F2.8 over my Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 I decided that the Tamron at over double the weight and larger didn't really give me enough in return to require dealing with the extra, sure 2 more stops of light is impressive but so far I've demonstrated i can get away with doing without. Cost (trade-up difference) played a roll too. I'm not denying its a great lens, I'm just understanding that i don't need it. In all other lens and camera related purchasing size and weight have never played a roll.

--

It is more a case of weighing (no pun intended) ALL of the Pros and Cons of moving to a particular system.

FF lenses are inherently larger than their APS-C counterparts.

For the same resulting photo they are not.

The DA*50-135mm F2.8 should be compared to a 70-200mm F4.0... you'll find very little difference in size, A 16-50mm F2.8 should be compared with a 24-70mm F4.0.

However just to throw a wrench into things the Rokinon 16mm F2.0 APS-C lens is far far larger than its 24mm F2.8 FF counterparts.

Yet even holding the DA* 50-135mm lens for a few miles walk in your hand and you'll surely notice it. Now consider adding a few more pounds for a FF body and 70-200mm lens. The difference becomes even more noticeable as the focal length increases. There is a reason (keeping with my example) the DA* 50-135mm does not have a mono/tri-pod mount and all of the 70-200mm lenses do. And it isn't to make them look professional.

No not all of them do... the 70-200mm F4.0's which are identical in all image parameters give you match to total image noise to the 50-135mm F2.8 on APS-C. Please don't make the mistake of thinking F2.8 on APS-C is the same as F2.8 on FF, if you're going to convert 1 value in a comparison you have to convert all values or you're comparing apples to oranges

If you don't see it as an issue, that is your opinion and your view. But it is an actual consideration to make when moving systems.

For example a 70-200mm F4.0 on FF will proved the same end result as a 50-135mm F2.8 on APS-C and a 35-100mm F2.0 on 43rds and a 25-75mm F1.4 on 1" and a 17.5-50mm F0.7 on 2/3rds" and baring differences in actual length they will all have the same size front element and all be around the same weight.

The 70-200mm F2.8 on FF will always have a 1 stop advantage over the 50-135mm F2.8 on APS-C and therefore is 1 stop larger and therefore an unfair comparison.

 

[Smitty1]

Weight and size aren't even a consideration and haven't been for me bar a few rare occasions, Now I'm not a weight lifter nor am I all that strong, basically if you need it you'll put up with the weight and size, if its too heavy you won't buy it then you really don't need it. In simpler terms if you can find a reason to complain about an item to the point where you won't buy it then you never needed that item in the first place and the excuse is really irrelevant. If you really do need the item you'll find some way of owning it regardless of weight and size.

The only 2 times i can think of where weight and size came up for me are when i sold my recently acquired F*600mm F4.0 which is 15lbs for a Sigma 500mm F4.5 which is 6.8lbs ... yes i could justify giving up 100mm and 1/3rd of a stop for a drop of 8.2lbs of weight. before that i didn't know where my upper limit on weight was. Now the F*600mm F4.0 was still usable it was just taxing after 2 hours in the bush handheld and i didn't car to use a tripod or monopod when in the bush. More recently while evaluating the Tamron (Clone) 15-30mm F2.8 over my Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 I decided that the Tamron at over double the weight and larger didn't really give me enough in return to require dealing with the extra, sure 2 more stops of light is impressive but so far I've demonstrated i can get away with doing without. Cost (trade-up difference) played a roll too. I'm not denying its a great lens, I'm just understanding that i don't need it. In all other lens and camera related purchasing size and weight have never played a roll.

--

It is more a case of weighing (no pun intended) ALL of the Pros and Cons of moving to a particular system.

FF lenses are inherently larger than their APS-C counterparts.

For the same resulting photo they are not.

The DA*50-135mm F2.8 should be compared to a 70-200mm F4.0... you'll find very little difference in size, A 16-50mm F2.8 should be compared with a 24-70mm F4.0.

However just to throw a wrench into things the Rokinon 16mm F2.0 APS-C lens is far far larger than its 24mm F2.8 FF counterparts.

Yet even holding the DA* 50-135mm lens for a few miles walk in your hand and you'll surely notice it. Now consider adding a few more pounds for a FF body and 70-200mm lens. The difference becomes even more noticeable as the focal length increases. There is a reason (keeping with my example) the DA* 50-135mm does not have a mono/tri-pod mount and all of the 70-200mm lenses do. And it isn't to make them look professional.

No not all of them do... the 70-200mm F4.0's which are identical in all image parameters give you match to total image noise to the 50-135mm F2.8 on APS-C. Please don't make the mistake of thinking F2.8 on APS-C is the same as F2.8 on FF, if you're going to convert 1 value in a comparison you have to convert all values or you're comparing apples to oranges

If you don't see it as an issue, that is your opinion and your view. But it is an actual consideration to make when moving systems.

For example a 70-200mm F4.0 on FF will proved the same end result as a 50-135mm F2.8 on APS-C and a 35-100mm F2.0 on 43rds and a 25-75mm F1.4 on 1" and a 17.5-50mm F0.7 on 2/3rds" and baring differences in actual length they will all have the same size front element and all be around the same weight.

The 70-200mm F2.8 on FF will always have a 1 stop advantage over the 50-135mm F2.8 on APS-C and therefore is 1 stop larger and therefore an unfair comparison.

--

Since there is no 70-200mm F/4 currently sold in K mount, the closest we can look at is the Canon USM lenses. Yet the Canon F/4.0 Non-IS lens is still longer and slightly heavier than the 50-150mm f/2.8

They are not the same weight/size. And who is buying FF to retain the same image as they can obtain in APS-C? You're going the wrong direction!

People don't buy FF for compactness.. but at the same time should realize what that really means. That is what I'm trying to get at. Bulk is not easy to ascertain while geeking out on DXO charts and pixel peeping sample photos.

 

[MightyMike]

Since there is no 70-200mm F/4 currently sold in K mount, the closest we can look at is the Canon USM lenses. Yet the Canon F/4.0 Non-IS lens is still longer and slightly heavier than the 50-150mm f/2.8

They are not the same weight/size. And who is buying FF to retain the same image as they can obtain in APS-C? You're going the wrong direction!

People don't buy FF for compactness.. but at the same time should realize what that really means. That is what I'm trying to get at. Bulk is not easy to ascertain while geeking out on DXO charts and pixel peeping sample photos.

And we come full circle... If you can justify not buying FF because of size and weight then you really don't need FF in the first place. If you're not willing to put up with extra size and weight to obtain a 1 stop advantage then you never needed that one stop advantage in the first place.

If you need FF and that 1 stop advantage then you won't waste time complaining about the size and weight, you'll buy the stuff, use it and deal with it.

People say FF lenses are larger, I say for the same performance there is really no size difference, get over it! The truth is FF lenses aren't larger, its that 1 extra stop advantage that is larger and it doesn't matter if you change formats or stay in the same format that one extra stop will always be larger.

If you don't need the tool don't complain about the size and weight of it as you don't need it anyways. If you do need the tool don't complain about the size and weight of it as you have no other choice in the matter! And therefore size and weight are non-considerations unless all you want to do is waste time complaining.

 

[yardcoyote]

Amen. And very well said.

I have six cameras, ranging from a phone camera through a toy camera and a small sensor point and shoot, to two crop sensor DSLRs and a premium fixed lens compact. I use my images for a variety of purposes in print and on the web. And once the image is finished no one cares where it came from.

Not even me. I enjoy using the camera at the time of shooting, but once it's downloaded a jpeg is a jpeg. It just needs to be used or displayed appropriately.

 

[Smitty1]

Since there is no 70-200mm F/4 currently sold in K mount, the closest we can look at is the Canon USM lenses. Yet the Canon F/4.0 Non-IS lens is still longer and slightly heavier than the 50-150mm f/2.8

They are not the same weight/size. And who is buying FF to retain the same image as they can obtain in APS-C? You're going the wrong direction!

People don't buy FF for compactness.. but at the same time should realize what that really means. That is what I'm trying to get at. Bulk is not easy to ascertain while geeking out on DXO charts and pixel peeping sample photos.

And we come full circle... If you can justify not buying FF because of size and weight then you really don't need FF in the first place. If you're not willing to put up with extra size and weight to obtain a 1 stop advantage then you never needed that one stop advantage in the first place.

If you need FF and that 1 stop advantage then you won't waste time complaining about the size and weight, you'll buy the stuff, use it and deal with it.

People say FF lenses are larger, I say for the same performance there is really no size difference, get over it! The truth is FF lenses aren't larger, its that 1 extra stop advantage that is larger and it doesn't matter if you change formats or stay in the same format that one extra stop will always be larger.

If you don't need the tool don't complain about the size and weight of it as you don't need it anyways. If you do need the tool don't complain about the size and weight of it as you have no other choice in the matter! And therefore size and weight are non-considerations unless all you want to do is waste time complaining.

--

/facepalm

Yet the example of F/4 lenses showed they ARE different sizes and weight. And I've seen people consider different batteries (AA vs cell) based on weight which were only 10-15 grams difference. It matters to some. I never stated it mattered to ME.

Again, I wasn't complaining about the size and weight. Where did you get that idea? I believe you are tilting windmills.

I, and will repeat a 3rd time, stated that it should be a consideration when changing systems. And I stand by that. That is the 'obvious' difference between m4/3, APS-C, FF, and MF -- size (, weight, and cost).

Yet it is often not so obvious and less spoken about.. I raised the consideration of it.. as it should be considered. One cannot easily understand this reading text on a screen. It is much better understood by actually handling the cameras in comparison.

A LOT of hype on various Pentax forums with regard to the FF system is in it producing higher resolution images and only on the supposedly improved IQ. These people are in for a bit of a surprise if they've never handed a FF camera before... there is more to it than that.

Yes, the commercial photographers who truly NEED the 1 stop will get it and deal. That never was an argument I was making.

Yet you'd be silly to think we're all comprised of commercial photographers. And further, solely looking to upgrade to FF for the extra stop.

 

[ecube]

I also settled on one brand that obviated the need to buy redundant lenses. I have Nikons: D5300, D800 and D750 and Nikkor DX and FX lenses. The D5300 with 18~140mm is my everyday carry-on camera. While D800 is heavy, I take it with me and the D5300 on trips.

How is that any different than the Pentax brand, no redundancies but those i choose to have, including some still impressive lenses from the 1950s, it all works and will continue to work on Pentax for the foreseeable future.

Please forgive me if I sound condescending. Best regards.

 

[MightyMike]

Since there is no 70-200mm F/4 currently sold in K mount, the closest we can look at is the Canon USM lenses. Yet the Canon F/4.0 Non-IS lens is still longer and slightly heavier than the 50-150mm f/2.8

They are not the same weight/size. And who is buying FF to retain the same image as they can obtain in APS-C? You're going the wrong direction!

People don't buy FF for compactness.. but at the same time should realize what that really means. That is what I'm trying to get at. Bulk is not easy to ascertain while geeking out on DXO charts and pixel peeping sample photos.

And we come full circle... If you can justify not buying FF because of size and weight then you really don't need FF in the first place. If you're not willing to put up with extra size and weight to obtain a 1 stop advantage then you never needed that one stop advantage in the first place.

If you need FF and that 1 stop advantage then you won't waste time complaining about the size and weight, you'll buy the stuff, use it and deal with it.

People say FF lenses are larger, I say for the same performance there is really no size difference, get over it! The truth is FF lenses aren't larger, its that 1 extra stop advantage that is larger and it doesn't matter if you change formats or stay in the same format that one extra stop will always be larger.

If you don't need the tool don't complain about the size and weight of it as you don't need it anyways. If you do need the tool don't complain about the size and weight of it as you have no other choice in the matter! And therefore size and weight are non-considerations unless all you want to do is waste time complaining.

--

/facepalm

Yet the example of F/4 lenses showed they ARE different sizes and weight. And I've seen people consider different batteries (AA vs cell) based on weight which were only 10-15 grams difference. It matters to some. I never stated it mattered to ME.

It matters to those who have nothing better to do than complain.

Again, I wasn't complaining about the size and weight. Where did you get that idea? I believe you are tilting windmills.

when i used the word "you" in my response it was more generic than specifically "you"

I, and will repeat a 3rd time, stated that it should be a consideration when changing systems. And I stand by that. That is the 'obvious' difference between m4/3, APS-C, FF, and MF -- size (, weight, and cost).

Only is you assume want is always need! If you (a person) need(s) it size, weight, cost, etc. it doesn't matter...

Yet it is often not so obvious and less spoken about.. I raised the consideration of it.. as it should be considered. One cannot easily understand this reading text on a screen. It is much better understood by actually handling the cameras in comparison.

Yet thousands of people have already commented on how big and heavy it must be and how big FF lenses are etc. so unless the majority is daft they should get it by now!

A LOT of hype on various Pentax forums with regard to the FF system is in it producing higher resolution images and only on the supposedly improved IQ. These people are in for a bit of a surprise if they've never handed a FF camera before... there is more to it than that.

I totally agree... if you read my previous posts and my original post you should get the picture that I'm not sold on FF, I won't buy just because of a bigger sensor or a 1 stop advantage. If however if is loaded with features that i feel i "want" then there is a way to justify that want into a need.

Yes, the commercial photographers who truly NEED the 1 stop will get it and deal. That never was an argument I was making.

Yet you'd be silly to think we're all comprised of commercial photographers. And further, solely looking to upgrade to FF for the extra stop.

Ok... so features aside what reason but that extra stop is there for anyone to upgrade to a FF from APS-C? Hype is not a reason, its stupidity brought on by smart marketing.

 

[MightyMike]

I also settled on one brand that obviated the need to buy redundant lenses. I have Nikons: D5300, D800 and D750 and Nikkor DX and FX lenses. The D5300 with 18~140mm is my everyday carry-on camera. While D800 is heavy, I take it with me and the D5300 on trips.

How is that any different than the Pentax brand, no redundancies but those i choose to have, including some still impressive lenses from the 1950s, it all works and will continue to work on Pentax for the foreseeable future.

Please forgive me if I sound condescending. Best regards.

 

[Smitty1]

Since there is no 70-200mm F/4 currently sold in K mount, the closest we can look at is the Canon USM lenses. Yet the Canon F/4.0 Non-IS lens is still longer and slightly heavier than the 50-150mm f/2.8

They are not the same weight/size. And who is buying FF to retain the same image as they can obtain in APS-C? You're going the wrong direction!

People don't buy FF for compactness.. but at the same time should realize what that really means. That is what I'm trying to get at. Bulk is not easy to ascertain while geeking out on DXO charts and pixel peeping sample photos.

And we come full circle... If you can justify not buying FF because of size and weight then you really don't need FF in the first place. If you're not willing to put up with extra size and weight to obtain a 1 stop advantage then you never needed that one stop advantage in the first place.

If you need FF and that 1 stop advantage then you won't waste time complaining about the size and weight, you'll buy the stuff, use it and deal with it.

People say FF lenses are larger, I say for the same performance there is really no size difference, get over it! The truth is FF lenses aren't larger, its that 1 extra stop advantage that is larger and it doesn't matter if you change formats or stay in the same format that one extra stop will always be larger.

If you don't need the tool don't complain about the size and weight of it as you don't need it anyways. If you do need the tool don't complain about the size and weight of it as you have no other choice in the matter! And therefore size and weight are non-considerations unless all you want to do is waste time complaining.

--

/facepalm

Yet the example of F/4 lenses showed they ARE different sizes and weight. And I've seen people consider different batteries (AA vs cell) based on weight which were only 10-15 grams difference. It matters to some. I never stated it mattered to ME.

It matters to those who have nothing better to do than complain.

That is one opinion... I'm in the same camp. But I can value that some people have different requirements.

Again, I wasn't complaining about the size and weight. Where did you get that idea? I believe you are tilting windmills.

when i used the word "you" in my response it was more generic than specifically "you"

It is nice to know that NOW.

I, and will repeat a 3rd time, stated that it should be a consideration when changing systems. And I stand by that. That is the 'obvious' difference between m4/3, APS-C, FF, and MF -- size (, weight, and cost).

Only is you assume want is always need! If you (a person) need(s) it size, weight, cost, etc. it doesn't matter...

Yet 'need' is such an overused word. If size, weight, cost, and so forth do no matter then this thread wouldn't have ever been started!

Yet it is often not so obvious and less spoken about.. I raised the consideration of it.. as it should be considered. One cannot easily understand this reading text on a screen. It is much better understood by actually handling the cameras in comparison.

Yet thousands of people have already commented on how big and heavy it must be and how big FF lenses are etc. so unless the majority is daft they should get it by now!

I haven't seen much of this talk, but I'm glad it is out there.

A LOT of hype on various Pentax forums with regard to the FF system is in it producing higher resolution images and only on the supposedly improved IQ. These people are in for a bit of a surprise if they've never handed a FF camera before... there is more to it than that.

I totally agree... if you read my previous posts and my original post you should get the picture that I'm not sold on FF, I won't buy just because of a bigger sensor or a 1 stop advantage. If however if is loaded with features that i feel i "want" then there is a way to justify that want into a need.

Yes.

Yes, the commercial photographers who truly NEED the 1 stop will get it and deal. That never was an argument I was making.

Yet you'd be silly to think we're all comprised of commercial photographers. And further, solely looking to upgrade to FF for the extra stop.

Ok... so features aside what reason but that extra stop is there for anyone to upgrade to a FF from APS-C? Hype is not a reason, its stupidity brought on by smart marketing.

Please see your comment above this one. That and smart marketing/hype. Really, hype and the need to have the latest and greatest brings on A LOT of tech purchases... just look at the DPR comments (outside of the Pentax section) or on any photog/momtog facebook group. There is a sizable chunk of the market that is comprised of affluent hobbyists and consumers who want to have the big 'pro' camera (and thus feel like a pro themselves). In reality an advanced compact would do the job for many of these people.. yet those type of cameras don't look important enough.

 

[MolecularMan]

I am in a similar boat.

I've acquired all of my Canon gear by getting really lucky and finding great prices. It has allowed me to have a pretty good lens range for not much money. I've had the itch to move to FF - but between the body and lenses, it's a losing battle. I am looking at a minimum of 1600 dollars.

If a camera company decided to make a smaller, stripped down FF camera for under 800 bucks - I think it would be a huge deal. I'd also be more willing to drop more money on FF lenses.

 

[ecube]

Amen. And very well said.

I have six cameras, ranging from a phone camera through a toy camera and a small sensor point and shoot, to two crop sensor DSLRs and a premium fixed lens compact. I use my images for a variety of purposes in print and on the web. And once the image is finished no one cares where it came from.

Not even me. I enjoy using the camera at the time of shooting, but once it's downloaded a jpeg is a jpeg. It just needs to be used or displayed appropriately.

Kodak 12 meg 5X zoom pocket camera, Samsung Note 10.1 Tablet, Samsung $99 cell Phone, Motorola $80 cell Phone captures the image at just the right moment... I'd miss if I just relied on any of my DSLR. My wife likes those candid shots and she keep extensive albums (prints).

My DSLRs are for images other than snap shots. The fun for me is taking the shots and capturing the images exactly or as close to what I envision, not manipulating the images on my computer. Like you, I do not care what equipment was use to create the image, hence, I never ask what camera and lens was used.