I like shooting landscapes. Is a full frame more suitable for me?

not particularly
a k-1 would be more suited than a k-3, but a k-3 would arguably be more suited than, say, an EOS 6D because it has that very cool pixel shift function

even if you're not talking about pentax, the biggest advantage in using a bigger sensor is usually less noise, but since you'll be shooting on a tripod (you'll be shooting on a tripod right?) you're better off using that extra money to get better glass

also next time for this type of questions you may wanna refer to the gear thread

>>2933986
actually a small sensor has in this case the advantage that generally the coc is smaller and therefore the dof wider. so it will be easier to achieve the hfd which is good for landscape since you want mostly everything in focus.

but you still should use the gear-thread for a question like this. aye?

>>2933994
Unless the glass has shit lens resolution, I think focal length and aperture matter the most if you know what you're doing.

>>2933997
>Landscape
>Anything but infinity focus.

>>2934003
I am OP, by the way.

>>2933997
>but you still should use the gear-thread for a question like this. aye?

Everything pentax gets a pass, bro. Pantax is not gear, is ART.

OP, the extra sized sensor helps you use those super fast wide angle lenses to their full field of view. Also ask yourself why medium format and large format landscapes look so fucking gorgeous. You want to describe land? get huge sensor then.

>>2934005
AMEN TO THAT!

Speaking of medium format, I had the chance to buy the Pentax 645D for the price of a K-1, including a lens or two. Did I miss out?

>>2933986
Extra resolution and DR is always good for landscapes.
However, if you're, say, climbing hills all day in search of good shots, a smaller camera but with more varied lenses/accessories might give you more opportunities. (I have a FF camera, but my travel kit is a quarter frame lolympus since I can't really take a 500+ mm FF telephoto with me even if I owned one)

>>2934009
645D might be better for still landscapes (you need the tripod-only high-res mode in K-1 to match it), but it's massive and far less versatile, so I don't think you really missed out.

>>2934003
>Focusing on infinity
Lmao what? You should be prioritizing closer features (because they'll stand out the most if blurred) with the largest depth of field you can get without fighting diffraction

>>2934005
> those super fast wide angle lenses to their full field of view

I've got a Samyang 14mm f/2.8. Planning to get a Laowa 12mm f/2.8 if the Samyang's not enough. I do wide-field astrophotography as well.

>>2934010
I could get a 2x teleconverter for my Sigma 70-300.

>>2934011
Not very interested in megapickles. I want crazy good dynamic range/low light capability and a wider frame. I was eyeing the A7S but I started with the K-5, so might as well stay in the Pentax system.

>>2934012
Explain further... or source.

File: 645.jpg (268KB, 646x473px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 646x473px

>>2934009
>noy buying 645
>Did I miss out?

Dunno pal, you tell me?

>>2934013
I had a 70-300 Sigma on a 5DII once and it was pretty crappy, can't imagine how bad it'll be with a 2x TC. And even if the quality is passable, it's a 600mm f/11 with no IS *shudder*

>>2934014
I'm assuming he means maximizing the DoF for closer objects by choosing the smallest aperture that doesn't show diffraction effects yet (~f/8-f/11 for modern FF) and then focusing to hyperfocal distance, not infinity.

>>2933986
The only advantages are:

- better ultra-wide lenses are currently available for FF than for small formats (might change in the future, who knows?)

- moar megapixels (but then 24 is plenty in most cases, and you can also do stitched panoramas)

my advice:
money to burn -> buy full frame
limited budget -> but cheapest APS-C body and the best lens you can afford.

>>2934018
645 *D*.
You know, the crop camera with an old CCD, painful AF and no live view for precise MF.

>>2934009
>>2934011
>>2934013
The 645D's sensor has a nice color rendering to it, but it's a painfully slow camera to work with in every way imaginable. Think 5~8 seconds from exposure to image preview with histogram, and god help you if you shot a burst.
It didn't even have all that much more DR compared to my Canon 5D2, but no disgusting pattern noise either. I won't say you missed out on much, either go straight to 645Z or literally any other camera with a Sony sensor in it if you want crazy DR.

>>2934018
Nice pic, that's film tho.

>>2934022
K-1 has an in-camera stabilization feature. Might not be the best, but it's there in case I don't have a tripod.

>>2934022
Isn't it super easy to focus with a UWA lens or am I missing the point?

>>2934026
Already got my K-5. Saved enough to upgrade.

>>2934027
>>2934029
Alright, it's a good thing then.

>>2934018

Jesus titty-fucking Christ that's awesome.

OP 1.6x will let you get everything in focus at f5.6 at hyperfocal distance which lets you run a higher shutter speed. Also you will have cheaper ultrawide glass.

FF is tits for dynamic range and pretty much everything else this guy said >>2934010

>>2934032
>Isn't it super easy to focus with a UWA lens or am I missing the point?

Well, a 14mm at f/8 will be sharp everywhere starting at like 3 feet even if set to infinity. So the hyperfocal stuff only applies to longer lenses and/or if you have shrubs or something fairly close to the camera.

>>2934038
>if you have shrubs or something fairly close to the camera.

Which all non-boring landscape pictures have.

>>2934039
Can't tell if bait or stupid.

>>2934040
Read any book on composition, kiddo.

>>2934018
This picture looks awesome because the photographer was in the right place at the right time, not because it was shot on 645.

File: IMGP6624.jpg (229KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1000x662px

>>2934037
S-should I trust Sugar guys? Didn't he have a creepy stalker episode for two years?

>>2934038
I see. I'm committed to landscapes and my UWA lens. I'll just deal with the drawbacks for other focal lengths.

>>2934039
>>2934040
Yes. Landscapes generally have the subject faaaaaar away, even for telephoto lenses.

Anyway, here's some telephoto landscapes I've made in the past.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 (Windows)
Photographer	Vic Vera
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	634
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Created	2013:08:12 23:40:33
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

Fuji Xpro2.
If you need FF for landscapes you're compensating detail for interest or light. Stop and get better instead.

File: Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg (2MB, 3000x2402px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2402px

>>2934039
>>2934042
nigga pls

File: IMGP4424-Edit.jpg (318KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1000x663px

>>2934046
Nah, I just want a wider frame.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 (Windows)
Photographer	Vic Vera
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	634
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1546 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1546 dpi
Image Created	2013:05:18 07:13:45
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2934046
fuji has no ultrawides

Shit, I don't actually have that much telephoto landscape shots.

>>2934050
What a sad system to get into.

>>2934050
>8mm
>12mm
>14mm
>16mm
>10-24mm
Maybe you just want wider numbers for no reason.

>>2934048
You should learn what you're talking about before looking at new kit

>>2934058
Awwwww

>>2934052
>>2934054

psst, OP.. dont listen to those FAGS

upgrade to patrician mode, get medium format film.

>>2934056

lmaooooooooooooo TINY sensors with TINY field of view. pathetic really.

>>2934060
And where the fuck will I have it developed? I'd get a medium format film in a heartbeat if I could have it developed in the landmass I'm stuck in.

>>2934066
>landmass

where the fuck are you OP, tell us

>>2934056
8mm is fisheye.
12mm is 18mm FF equivalent, and OP is talking about 12-14mm.

>>2934069
An 8mm can be defisheyed into a 12mm.
If you think you need 12mm ff equivalent I think it's your first wide and you don't know what you need. You do not need wider than 16 or 18. Period.

>>2934069
>2-14mm
Unnecessary. Too wide, you'll have to crop often.

File: am i gursky yet.jpg (997KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 1500x1125px

>>2934052
I do not find long telephoto to be particularly useful for landscapes. There are rarely small features that I want to zoom in to, and for really distant stuff the air currents spoil the picture. 98% of the time I use it it's for manmade objects.

>>2934073
>You do not need wider than 24 or longer than 50. Period.

Fixed.

>I like when anonymous faggots on 4chan pretend to know more about photography than all the photographers and lens makers.

>>2934073
>An 8mm can be defisheyed into a 12mm.

Yeah, that'll help sharpness a lot for those landscapes, and I just love not seeing the shots properly before I get home and process them.

I swear, the Fuji internet defence force these days is becoming worse than Pentax.

>>2934081
The 8mm lens you're talking about is incredibly high resolving and can take the loss. Is it isi that used to post straightened fisheyes?

>>2934081
Honey if you think "landscapes = wide as I can go" then you've got a lot to learn.
Wide is for landscape. Ultra wide is for building interiors and putting your camera in a subjects face.

You won't find any classic landscapes shot wider than 16mm.

>>2934080
I meant 16 or 18 on fuji, 24 or 28 ff

>>2934083
>incredibly high resolving and can take the loss
At small apertures, you're limited by sensor resolution, not lens resolution. Not even Tim Buckley can take the loss.

Also
>using isi as an example

no you are better off with m43 they are more compact to carry around long walks, you dont need a fancy expensive tripod and plus they are much sharper.

>>2934088
>At small apertures, you're limited by sensor resolution, not lens resolution
6000x4000 is not limiting
t. Photographer since 10mp was high

>>2934088
>At small apertures, you're limited by sensor resolution, not lens resolution
These are the worthless comparative anecdotal info that fills your mind when you spend less time taking photos than talking about them. What a load of crock.

>>2934096
>6000x4000 is not limiting on Fuji
Fixed.
It is on FF with really good lenses.

>>2934099
Oh, the old "go take photos" meme when you have no argument.

I also like how you ignored the problem with not having proper preview of framing.

>>2934088
Enjoy your f/22 diffraction, faggot.

>>2934046
This is the shittest of recommendations.

You know, go ahead and spend as much as a full frame camera on a much worse camera that is really not designed for landscapes and really unideal for them. Even pay for that optical viewfinder which isn't even usable with any wide lenses.

Great idea, 10/10, I'm clapping in real life.

>>2934103
>It is on FF with really good lenses.
No, it's not. You just think the gear treadmill is a valid way to improve your photography.
If you do not block the memory you will regret this conversation in your future.

>>2934103
>I also like how you ignored the problem with not having proper preview of framing.
Probably because this problem is poorly expressed and nonexisting

>>2934113
Reddit tier response with reddit tier presumptuous ignorance.

>>2933994
Correction, the K-3 has no pixel shit, it is the K-3II that has that goddamn tasty feature.

>>2934122
>toy camera gets mocked
>r-reddit

belly is aching from all this irl laughter.

>>2934122
The Xpro 2 is a great camera, that's great for many things. But it's the LAST camera I would EVER bring for landscapes. What a fucking disastrous idea. Are you a photographer? No right? No photographer could be that stupid.

Especially because the xt2 is such a good landscape camera. If you want to be a Fuji fucktard at least shill the right body. Jesus.

>>2934130
What makes one better than the other?

>>2934129
>toy camera
Sorry I only speak to adults my dude

>>2934117
>I have no argument again so I'll just call him a gearfag

>>2934122
>I have no argument again so I'll just call him a redditor

>>2934119
Seeing your image with massive barrel distortion is a nonexisting problem?

>>2934133
>out of arguments
>call him a kid

brilliant argument pal.

>>2934132
Body design, control layout, screen articulation, EVF, vertical controls, build quality. The xt1 was a tank, the xpro2 is a bit fragile regardless of added seals.

In past mirrorless designs, larger bodies have also had better long exposure noise performance due to heat dissipation.

The body style sports better L brackets and letter lenses on a tripod without sag, especially with large filters on the end of the lens.

>>2934134
>Seeing your image with massive barrel distortion is a nonexisting problem?
What's an evf again?
Or are you saying you can compose with a fisheye? Improve your knowledge of how it distorts and you can.

You gearfags and newfags are on a 2005 knowledge level and it is massively embarrassing to the board.

>>2934032
>K-1 has an in-camera stabilization feature. Might not be the best, but it's there in case I don't have a tripod.
My K-3 has a more limited in-body stabilization and it is better working for me then optical stabilization. I have a couple of lens with OS and after trying them out I stayed with in-body SR, gives better results. Just don't forget to wait for the little hand icon popping up in the viewfinder saying SR has locked in.
IS, both in-body and in-lens is no real substitute for a good tripod though. Invest at least in a manfrotto be-free or similar travel tripod.

>>2934139
>the xpro2 is a bit fragile
???>>2934139

>>2934139
>The body style sports better L brackets and letter lenses on a tripod without sag, especially with large filters on the end of the lens.
No wonder you get called a gearfag. You are a flaming equipment queer.

File: world.jpg (119KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x800px

OP, please come back and tell us what landmass.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1024
Image Height	1024
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:11:14 08:03:29
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	800

>>2934143
Go to a store and try one. Then tell me if you want this thing out exposed in the wilderness for hundreds of hours. My guess is, no.

>>2934045
Get a Tamron 70-200/2.8 Macro for cheap FF compressed angles. Super-super sharp.

>>2934147
I've used one for hundreds of hours in the wilderness.
What seems fragile? The shutter button only wobbles because it's constructed in two redundant layers for water protection; if you managed to break it off somehow there's a second button beneath it.

>>2934149
>What seems fragile about it
>The shutter wobbles and sometimes breaks off
??????
OK guy

>>2934140
>>2934145
Please go away. You're embarrassingly bad even at shitposting.

>>2934149
Your backyard or the starbucks downtown are not "wilderness"

>>2934152
>if you managed
No one has AFAIK
Have you used one? Or just held one in a store?

>>2934153
14 posters, 76 replies, how many are yours? I already see 10

>>2934141
>IS, both in-body and in-lens is no real substitute for a good tripod

Depends on what you're shooting. No IS will help you hand-hold a 300mm lens for a ten-second exposure, but I'm almost never using a tripod since I've got a camera that can reliably do 1/4s handheld exposures with a fifty (or 1s exposures on a monopod)

>>2934160
true but the prime subject here is landscapes and if you want to blur some clouds or smoothen out water, no IS will help you get that pin-sharp image.
Taking back a stop from the advertised stabilization is possible for an experienced shooter, even 1 stop more if you are extra steady but long exposures are strictly tripod territory.

>>2934158
Isi, go to bed. Don't keep daddy waiting too long.

>>2934169
Moopco, check your world clock, it's 3pm where isi lives, she's probably out in a cowfield eating mushrooms and taking cow portraits.

>>2934173
Or getting rammed from behind by her uncledaddy to buy a new lens.
I mean have you seen her face? Typical inbred jawline and empty stare.

File: isiqt.jpg (147KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 960x960px

>>2934178
>empty stare
warm, inviting stare

File: dsf8834-edit.jpg (139KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x666px

>>2934178
>I mean have you seen her face? Typical inbred jawline and empty stare.
You mean "his"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:09 19:15:13
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-2.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2934181
>warm, inviting
I see you have no experience with girls. That stare there tells you are just a trophy, a piece of fashion accessory she will throw away next week. That stare tells you worth absolutely nothing to her. Also the angle and selfie shows she is in love with herself.
I know that stare too well and learned to interpret it as cold, empty and merciless.

>>2934219
kek sure is mra in here

>>2934003
>>2934012
>I don't know about things like hyperfocal distance, but by fucking god I'm going to try to sound like I'm a god of landscape photography

File: 1353274018554.gif (453KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 250x188px

>>2934003
>literally what the fuck is hyperfocal

>>2934219
trying this hard to not be a kissless virgin

>>2934219
this, she isn't smiling with her eyes

>>2934252
You think you know what you're talking about, but hyperfocal distance is the basic addition of landscape photography's complex division - when it comes to precise focus. Learn more than photo pre-101 before arguing on the internet or you'll just remain the laughing stock of your peers.

>>2934303
>focusing at infinity is the "complex division of precise focus" that's far more complicated than hyperfocal distance.
wew lad

>>2934305
No, the infinity focus guy is retarded, don't get me wrong. Prioritizing close features using a diffraction calculator to determine CoC on the final display medium might be a start for you, and give you a taste of just how complicated it'll get. Once you start involving movements, you'll see just how much more there is for you to learn.

Epic meme kid.

>>2934307
daww, a little math hurts your brains?