What is your best example for FF over APS-C?

leeak · 12-09-2008, 07:52 PM

I have been a K10D user for the past two years and I am curious to see what benefit a FF have over APS-C in terms of DOF control. Is there a shot taken with a FF camera you've seen that can't not be taken with a APS-C camera? TIA.

Lowell Goudge · 12-09-2008, 08:02 PM

I'm the wrong one to ask.

I like the great DOF at wide angle, and shoot wildlife also where the crop factor is an advantage for me

I guess you need to ask a landscape person

vanchaz2002 · 12-09-2008, 08:29 PM

I have over 10 lenses in fisheye or extra wide angel catagory under 20mm. They become much less useful with 1.5 crop factor.

Those lenses are cost a lot more than 28mm or 35mm lenses, even 24mm. It's just frasture that you can not get the best out of the expensive lenses.

leeak · 12-09-2008, 09:26 PM

Okay, let me be more specific here. I came across this particular photographer's work on flickr and I am very impressed with this portrait shots with such contrast, bokeh composition ...

What do you guys think? Are our beloved Pentax cropped sensor capable of producing similar results?

arbutusq · 12-09-2008, 10:00 PM

They are definitely capable of producing these results. The DOF on these pictures isn't particularly thin, the color and contrast look to me to be a result of PP more than FF. Bokeh varies from lens to lens and will be no better or worse on FF. Als bokeh is highly subjective IMO.

troyz · 12-09-2008, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by leeak

Okay, let me be more specific here. I came across this particular photographer's work on flickr and I am very impressed with this portrait shots with such contrast, bokeh composition ...

What do you guys think? Are our beloved Pentax cropped sensor capable of producing similar results?

Most certainly yes. #2 and #3 have lots of distance between the subject and the background (so you don't need thin DOF separate the two), and #4 and #5 look quite stopped down.

BTW, here are some truly razor-thin DOF portraits:
A Couple of Ways of Doing Something By Chuck Close and Bob Holman - - PopPhotoJanuary/February 2007
but they're not full-frame digital; they're daguerreotype!

Gooshin · 12-10-2008, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by leeak

I have been a K10D user for the past two years and I am curious to see what benefit a FF have over APS-C in terms of DOF control. Is there a shot taken with a FF camera you've seen that can't not be taken with a APS-C camera? TIA.

thinner DOF is just side effect being able to stand closer to the subject

but thats jsut icing on the cake

for non telephoto users, FF over APC just means more image realestate given your lens selection, particulary going into the wide end of things, where every mm starts to count more and more.

currently, as a pentax user, the only fast rectalinear lens available to us is the DA14

go FF and you have many more options.

expensive tilt-shift lenses used for architectural work can finaly be used for architecture

as for the bottom line quality of the actual image, thats a non ff/apc issue, both will make those images, you just need the right spacing and the right lens.

*NorrisTudor* · 12-10-2008, 04:38 AM

From what I have seen the main difference is a much better tonal spread. ie Greater contrast.

*pasipasi* · 12-10-2008, 05:35 AM

I had an A28/2.8 lens mounted once when my father picked up the body and looked through the vf and asked why the view is so cramped. I had to explain the crop factor to him. He's an old film slr user.

I still don't have a wide angle lens for my dslr apart from the kit lens, as I can't get anything good for cheap. I love my Kiron 28/2's thin but wide dof on my film bodies, not nearly as interesting on crop sensor. So more than anything I miss the cheap wide angle lenses. And I mean cheap, my Kiron cost about 40eur.

leeak · 12-10-2008, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by NorrisTudor

From what I have seen the main difference is a much better tonal spread. ie Greater contrast.

So, is the "better tonal spread" a result of FF or PP? Do FFs usually have more contrasty images compare to APS-Cs?

stevebrot · 12-10-2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by pasipasi

I had an A28/2.8 lens mounted once when my father picked up the body and looked through the vf and asked why the view is so cramped. I had to explain the crop factor to him. He's an old film slr user.

I still don't have a wide angle lens for my dslr apart from the kit lens, as I can't get anything good for cheap. I love my Kiron 28/2's thin but wide dof on my film bodies, not nearly as interesting on crop sensor. So more than anything I miss the cheap wide angle lenses. And I mean cheap, my Kiron cost about 40eur.

You may have noticed that your Kiron also performs much better in general on film. I have a 28mm Tamron that is only so-so with my K10D. The results are OK, but it seem to be lacking something. Put the same lens on my film camera with a decent high acuity film and...wow...detail and life!

Steve

P.S. The 18-55 kit is not too bad for wide angles. Too bad that distortion is the price to be paid for a reasonable FOV. I use the Zenitar 16/2.8 as my wide prime...a good lens, but tricky to use.

*Gus* · 12-10-2008, 12:38 PM

I would like to add that as long as you have reasonably even sharpness throughout the frame, distortion in digital photography is not that big of an issue. Software can easily take care of distortion (PTLens, DXO, etc...), albeit at the cost of losing a bit out of the edges in cropping.

denisv · 12-10-2008, 01:26 PM

To add insult to the injury, the same lens performs much better on FF than APS-C.

vs

Remember, this is the same lens tested on a 24mp Full Frame and a 12mp APS-C sensor.

I think it's clear that in the context of sensors "bigger is better".

stevebrot · 12-10-2008, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Gus

I would like to add that as long as you have reasonably even sharpness throughout the frame, distortion in digital photography is not that big of an issue. Software can easily take care of distortion (PTLens, DXO, etc...), albeit at the cost of losing a bit out of the edges in cropping.

That software correction comes at a price...discard a few thousand pixels here, clone a few thousand pixels there. The results are usually acceptable, but probably not the equal of a good rectilinear lens. (I might set up a test for this. I could shoot with both my Zenitar 16 and my Tamron 28 with the same framing and correct the scanned image in PT lens. If I do it, I will post a new thread.)

Edit: While I could do such a test, it would still be "apples and oranges" since the edge resolution on the Zenitar (like most ultra-wides and fisheyes) is sub-par. I suppose I could do the Zenitar on digital and the Tamron on film...)

Steve

*Gus* · 12-10-2008, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by denisv

To add insult to the injury, the same lens performs much better on FF than APS-C.
Remember, this is the same lens tested on a 24mp Full Frame and a 12mp APS-C sensor.

I think it's clear that in the context of sensors "bigger is better".

It's true that you have much better center detail on the FF camera in this example, but I must disagree here, the lens is showing much worse border performance (while this might be ok for portraiture, it's horrible for landscape/architectural). It usually produces worse vignetting as well. This is a common trade-off because you're always using the sweet spot of the FF lens when you mount it on an APS-C camera. The increased sharpness may be observed when using the same lens on two different APS-C cameras with different sensor resolutions so I wouldn't call it a full frame vs APS-C argument.