This post is to merely provide examples of 35mm full frame (FF) versus APS-C.
I used my K1000 loaded with Kodak Gold 200 and my *ist D set to ISO 200.
Every picture I used a tripod with a quick release head so that I could change cameras without moving the legs of the tripod.
I pointed the very certain of the matte focusing screen at the same spot in each correlating example. This nearly eliminates any error in similar composition due to differences in viewfinder coverage, 91% for the K1000 and 95% for the *ist D, if I recall correctly.
On all of the pictures, except the “bokeh” tests, I first used the same lens to show equivalent perspective and then I used my small variety of zooms to show equivalent field of view.
Perspective vs. Field of View
If you use a certain focal length lens and stay the exact same position, it doesn't matter what format you use, the pictures will have the same perspective, but the smaller the format the more cropped the image will be.
To obtain the same field of view, you have to use different focal lengths depending on the format. This is where the 1.5 comes into play with APS-C versus FF.
This is where the give and take comes into play on the whole APS-C vs. FF arguments. Either you use the same focal length lens on the APS-C camera to obtain a cropped version of the FF perspective OR you use an equivalent field of view focal length. The problem with the equivalent field of view focal length is that there will be less “compression” in the image as compared to the FF perspective. With less compression the depth of field changes which may or may not be desirable.
I plan to demonstrate these differences in the pictures I took. I'm not claiming one format is better than the other, each has their strengths and weaknesses. Please don't bash one format or the other or get into a heated/pointless debate. This post is purely for examples of both formats, you make your own conclusions.
First Example Hanging Plant in the Gazebo
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
K1000 - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ f5.6 1/250
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ f5.6 1/250
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 34mm/5.6 1/250
34*1.5 = 51, closest I could get to 50mm with my zoom.
Third Example Pool from the Gazebo
For this example, I first took the picture with the K1000 where the edges of the gazebo posts were just on the edges of the frame. I then backed up with my *ist D on the tripod to get similar framing.
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
K1000 - Pentax-M 50/2 @ 5.6 1/500
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-m 50/2 @ 5.6 1/500
Fourth Example Apple in the Kitchen
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
K1000 - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 34mm/4 1/10
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Kiron 28/2 @ f2 1/50
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60
Backed up about 1.5 feet and raised up about 4 inches.
Fifth Example Apple on it's Side (Bokeh Comparison)
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
K1000 - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60
Sixth Example Closest Focusing on Apple
This is the closest my 50/1.4 would focus.
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
K1000 Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/30
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/30
In the following tests, I first took the portrait with my K1000 then used the same focal length on my *ist D and then used an equivalent focal length on my *ist D. I stayed in the same place for each example and for subsequent examples, I tried my best to pick a distance that kept the subject the same size and place in the viewfinder.
Seventh Example Telephoto Portrait
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
K1000 - Pentax-FA 80-200 @ 200mm f8 1/60
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-FA 80-200 @ 200mm f8 1/60
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Star D 135/2.8 @ f8 1/60
135*1.5=202.5
Eighth Example Mid-Telephoto Portrait
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
K1000 - Star D 135/2.8 @ f8 1/250
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Star D 135/2.8 @ f8 1/250
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 90mm f8 1/250
Ninth Example Normal Portrait
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
K1000 - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ f8 1/250
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ f8 1/250
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
*ist D - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 34mm f8 1/250
Tenth Example Wide Portrait
Click on the image to view it in a larger size
K1000 - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 28mm f8 1/250
I don't have a wide enough focal length to compare on my *ist D.
Edit: Film was developed and scanned at a local Walgreens and Digitals were shot in Pentax RAW and automatically converted to jpeg by Google Picasa 3 when uploaded.
I have a K10D and a KM...both of which have more MP in their sensor and are more advanced technologically than an istD.
I also have 3 Pentax film cameras...an S1a, ES II and K1000.
I'm surprised at the obvious differences in quality between the K1000 and the istD .
Although I think my 3 Pentax film cameras produce great quality pictures..so does my K10D and KM.
I'm surprised at the quality of the pictures taken with your istD digital camera compared to your K1000. Your K1000 takes very good photos what I would expect but the pix from your digital....? But your digital isn't in the same class as your K1000.
I don't know how to explain that.
Both my K10D and KM take great pictures...every bit as good and I think better than my film Pentaxes...even better than my old Leica Rangefinder.
I must say, regardless of FF or APSC the film shots look great compared to the istD, clearly a win for the film there.
Originally Posted by lesmore49
I'm wondering if your istD is working properly ?
Originally Posted by jboyde
That 7th example really shows the difference of film latitude btw film and digital, at least how the istD is concerned.
Indeed to all. Yes, my *ist D sucks, it is very old, which is why I prefer my K1000s to digital right now and also why I cannot wait for my K-7 to arrive!
Now I love film but I think saying that Digital is yet to catch up with film on these kind of shots is kind of unfair. Why? If you compare the lenses he used for the FOV comparisons, the better lenses are on the K1000. For the shots that uses the same lens and still look somewhat worse, I do think all digital images need some postprocessing to capture its real beauty. The op didnt state whether he pp'd the images or not, but I'm assuming that it's not pp'd. Some of the shots are also not corrected on white balance department
Film and digital has it's good points, but I do think that Digital has indeed caught up with film in these kind of "normal" shots.
The DOF difference cannot be contested, though, Film (Full frame) does have way more DOF control...
FOV compression wise I think they're just different, not better. Although to be fair I do enjoy 50mm on film slightly more than 35mm on APS-C, if anything for the DOF control.
film rules, not to burst your bubble but film is still much better than the k7 in my HUMBLE opinion
And yes, I love film more than digital but a K-7 would definitely be better than my *ist D. My film will never be replaced.
Originally Posted by Andi Lo
The op didnt state whether he pp'd the images or not, but I'm assuming that it's not pp'd. Some of the shots are also not corrected on white balance department
Thanks for pointing this out.
Film was developed and scanned by a local walgreens.
Digitals were shot in Pentax RAW and converted automatically to jpeg by Google Picasa 3, without my input for PP.
And yes, I love film more than digital but a K-7 would definitely be better than my *ist D. My film will never be replaced.
Thanks for the work zplus!
I do think your *ist D's meter is off by about 1 stop, and the white balance needs to be corrected, but there's no doubt about the difference in tonal gradation and dynamic range.
My own much less formal comparisons tend to support what you've shown, which is one reason I still shoot film as often, if not more than, digital.
Without 100% crops and knowing the post production, this isn't a FF vs aps-c, but a film vs digi thread. I have to say, the film shots are miles better, the colours and tones are far beyond anything the digi produced.
Without 100% crops and knowing the post production, this isn't a FF vs aps-c, but a film vs digi thread. I have to say, the film shots are miles better, the colours and tones are far beyond anything the digi produced.
Again in defense of digital, I think digital definitely needs some sort of PP to bring out the magic. This is also what's nice about film IMHO, they cost money but not much time to get good results in terms of DR, contrast, and colors (just drop it at Walgreens), while digital is almost exactly the opposite
Using 50mm as it's intended to be used though... that's priceless
And thanks for the work zplus! I am already feeling the effect of FOV change since using film and trying out 35/2 on digital and this thread shows it really well.
Looking over these fairly quickly I'd say you likely have a better feel for film. Some of the focus and exposure on the digital images are off. And also I am doubting you use post-processing to its best, something that really must be done for digital to shine. This is not meant so much as a criticism as encouragement to really look closely at what you are doing and how it can be made better. Even with the K-7.
I see no reason digital cannot be as good as 35mm film, though certainly particular looks are easier with film.
shrine
bedside table
Both of those are shot with the K20D but I wouldn't say they scream of "digital".
