Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-07-2012, 07:41 AM   #121
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
But you didn't said anything of this, you just said that 20mm is wide angle on 135 format, do you expect us to read your mind or something?
Nice try but if you would read post #61, this is what I said:

QuoteQuote:
Good point on the viewfinder. Also, wide angle lenses such as the FA 20 would be truly and ultrawide on FF compared to the DA 21 LTD on aps-c.
Do you see the part about "compared to DA 21 on aps-c? You started bickering with me before I ever mentioned the 135 format in a separate discussion later in the thread.


Last edited by Blue; 07-07-2012 at 07:49 AM.
07-07-2012, 07:46 AM   #122
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
Is FF absolutely necessary though when MP's are now running in the double digits? I mean if you have a higher MP camera doesn't that compensate a lot for it not being FF? I would think so. Honestly I don't notice a lot of difference between my film and my digital work. I have a slightly bigger field of view with my film cameras I think, but it's really not a whole lot different. I can't even imagine needing a FF camera unless I was in the business of taking pics for large billboards or something. Using my 35mm SLR's I usually scan the negative and end up cropping a bit anyway. So what's the difference really?
Its definitely not absolutely necessary, but the mp count has gone up in full frame as well. However, there are a lot of other things to consider like the potential for a large optical viewfinder and the use of the wide angle lenses and ultra wide angle lenses and FOV on full frame (135) compared to aps-c. There are other reasons for full frame as well.
07-07-2012, 07:55 AM   #123
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteQuote:
and the use of the wide angle lenses and ultra wide angle lenses and FOV on full frame (135) compared to aps-c. There are other reasons for full frame as well.
Actually with the release of the Sigma 8-16 that argument is pretty much only in favour of APS-c. At 8mm on FF it's pretty much useless, doesn't even fill the frame. On APS-c it's an ultra wide comparable to anything available on FF. Meanwhile, at the long end... with sensors of equal MP... APS-c still gets you more magnification because of the higher density sensor. FF has to be more MP to have any advantage, and is therefore intrinsically more expensive... although if you want the more Mp, still a good value. The wider brighter viewfinder is a point we may never be able to argue. It's just most of us don't feel limited by that.
07-07-2012, 08:07 AM   #124
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Actually with the release of the Sigma 8-16 that argument is pretty much only in favour of APS-c. At 8mm on FF it's pretty much useless, doesn't even fill the frame. On APS-c it's an ultra wide comparable to anything available on FF. Meanwhile, at the long end... with sensors of equal MP... APS-c still gets you more magnification because of the higher density sensor. FF has to be more MP to have any advantage, and is therefore intrinsically more expensive... although if you want the more Mp, still a good value. The wider brighter viewfinder is a point we may never be able to argue. It's just most of us don't feel limited by that.

Advantages of FF:

1. Intrinsic 1.5x better resolution
1a. Not having to purchase/carry half of your lenses
2. Smaller, cheaper lenses is an advantage or
2a. Much faster lenses or
2b. Easier-implemented larger/brighter viewfinder

07-07-2012, 08:08 AM   #125
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Actually with the release of the Sigma 8-16 that argument is pretty much only in favour of APS-c. At 8mm on FF it's pretty much useless, doesn't even fill the frame. On APS-c it's an ultra wide comparable to anything available on FF. Meanwhile, at the long end... with sensors of equal MP... APS-c still gets you more magnification because of the higher density sensor. FF has to be more MP to have any advantage, and is therefore intrinsically more expensive... although if you want the more Mp, still a good value. The wider brighter viewfinder is a point we may never be able to argue. It's just most of us don't feel limited by that.
I don't think people that are interested in a full frame plan on running the Sigma 8-16mm/4.5-5.6 on it. In fact, I was thinking more along the lines of a K or A 15/3.5 and the K 18/35 as well as the FA 20/2.8. I suspect a 16mm/5.6 lens would really suck on a full frame body anyway.

I have to give you credit, using the 8-16mm Sigma as a case against the need for full frame is novel. I wonder why Nikon and Canon never figured that one out? Even Sigma has a full frame body.
07-07-2012, 08:32 AM   #126
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
I don't think Sigma has a full frame body. Could be wrong, I'm not that familiar with all their products.

And I think that normhead's primary point was that you can't go wider on FF than you can on APS-C... at least among easily available lenses. Heck I guess it's true for 'all' lenses as there's a 4.5mm fisheye APS-C.
07-07-2012, 08:49 AM   #127
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I don't think Sigma has a full frame body. Could be wrong, I'm not that familiar with all their products.

And I think that normhead's primary point was that you can't go wider on FF than you can on APS-C... at least among easily available lenses. Heck I guess it's true for 'all' lenses as there's a 4.5mm fisheye APS-C.
You are correct. The Sigma SD1 is just priced like a full frame at $2299. For some reason I thought it was FF.

Sigma SD1 Merrill Digital SLR Camera C26900 B&H Photo Video

As far as Norm's wide angle argument, 8mm FOV on aps-c isn't like an 8mm view on 135. I used to have a manual focus full frame 8mm Sigma fish-eye. You could get you nose and toes in the frame with it.

Last edited by Blue; 07-07-2012 at 09:15 AM.
07-07-2012, 09:03 AM   #128
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteQuote:
And I think that normhead's primary point was that you can't go wider on FF than you can on APS-C.
Exactly...

You can get as wide as FF on an APS-c. It was always just a matter of the lens makers cating up with the format, not somethin intirinsic to the lens.

But, using a16 Mp APS-c and 16 Mp FF, you still have a magnification advantage with APS-c. An APS-c 300 F4 lens is still equivalent to a a 450 F4 lens on an FF. And an F4 450 on FF if it was available would cost you more than 2 or 3 APS-c systems, just by itself. FF has to have the same pixel density or better to have an advantage. So it would be pointless to look at an FF camera under 24 Mp if you're set up with APS-c. Under 24 Mp, all you're getting is a bigger sensor (and viewfinder) and depth of field options that may (or may not) ever come into play for you, depending on your style of shooting.

07-07-2012, 09:06 AM   #129
Senior Member
bkpix's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Creswell, Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 279
BTW, Conor Doherty said in a FaceBook post on June 28 that Pentax doesn't do it for him anymore, as he needs FF:

i'm about 95% canon now... needed full-frame, needed tethering. wish canon made lenses as good as pentax, wish pentax made cameras as good as canon.
07-07-2012, 09:13 AM   #130
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Exactly...

You can get as wide as FF on an APS-c. It was always just a matter of the lens makers cating up with the format, not somethin intirinsic to the lens.

But, using a16 Mp APS-c and 16 Mp FF, you still have a magnification advantage with APS-c. An APS-c 300 F4 lens is still equivalent to a a 450 F4 lens on an FF. And an F4 450 on FF if it was available would cost you more than 2 or 3 APS-c systems, just by itself. FF has to have the same pixel density or better to have an advantage. So it would be pointless to look at an FF camera under 24 Mp if you're set up with APS-c. Under 24 Mp, all you're getting is a bigger sensor (and viewfinder) and depth of field options that may (or may not) ever come into play for you, depending on your style of shooting.
Your flailing in the air with this Norm. Your 8-16mm lens has a FOV equivalent to 12mm on 135 and as I pointed out hasn't seemed to slow down Nikon or Canon one damn bit (see below). Plus the long focal length arguments is moot. The reason I say that is the FA* 300/4.5 was actually smaller and lighter than the DA* 300/4 and the DA* 200/2.8 is the same size as the FA* 200/2.8, it is a bit heavier. These lenses are expensive even on aps-c. If you think I'm joking, go to BH and buy a DA* 60-250/4 or DA* 300/4. The would still work on a digital full frame body.

Canon Full Frame 8-15mm/4 L FE USM.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_8_...4l_fisheye_usm

Canon 14mm/2.8L II USM (not quite 12mm FOV) any wider and it would be a FE

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_14mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

Nikon in addition allows the use of their DX lenses on their full frame bodies by having a crop mode.

Last edited by Blue; 07-07-2012 at 09:24 AM.
07-07-2012, 09:24 AM   #131
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Nice try but if you would read post #61, this is what I said:

Do you see the part about "compared to DA 21 on aps-c? You started bickering with me before I ever mentioned the 135 format in a separate discussion later in the thread.
Preciesly what i mean you said that 20mm on FF is wide angle and 20mm on APS-C isn't and i said that 20mm is even more wide angle on medium format so i asked you what the point was of what you said.

And what did you do, you began to argue with me about 20mm and wide angle of medium format.
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
At 25, there is probably a lot you don't see the point of. I never mentioned medium format because I was clearly comparing full frame (135) and aps-c. But 20mm is even wider on large format. However, I am not aware of a 20mm for Pentax 6x7 and the FA 25/4 is the widest on the smaller format 645 and even smaller 645D. Medium format fits a different niche whether it is film or digital.
Really you are the one that made it escalate again be being so vague with what you mean.

Why on earth couldnt you say that the AOV of the LENS is different on 135 then on aps-c instead of arguing about millimetres and what is wide angle and not and me not seeing the point, you're making it so hard for yourself.

I of course also know that FA20mm is wide angle on 135 and not on APS-C so i asked you what there is so significant about that.



ps. what do you mean with this sentence "You started bickering with me before I ever mentioned the 135 format in a separate discussion later in the thread." i never made it a problem that you said FF or 135 or arent you saying that?
07-07-2012, 09:32 AM   #132
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Plus the long focal length arguments is moot. The reason I say that is the FA* 300/4.5 was actually smaller and lighter than the DA* 300/4 and the DA* 200/2.8 is the same size as the FA* 200/2.8, it is a bit heavier. These lenses are expensive even on aps-c. If you think I'm joking, go to BH and buy a DA* 60-250/4 or DA* 300/4. The would still work on a digital full frame body.
I think you're missing the point that you need to use the 300mm on 135 if you want to get the same AOV (view) as the 200mm on APS-C and i doubt you are saying that the 300mm is lighter and cheaper then the 200mm.
07-07-2012, 09:36 AM   #133
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 443
I own two K-5's a K-7 and a K10D. I will always have a Pentax high-end aps-c dslr camera to go with my DA Limited and DA* lenses. I do own the DFA lenses and the FA Limited lenses. So I just might buy a FF Pentax dslr camera if it has the features I want. Most likely if thy come out with DFA* 12-24, DFA*24-70 and DFA*70-200 and will buy these lenses before I buy the FF camera. So I will not be an early adopter of a FF Pentax but will have a personal lens roadmap to move me in that direction.
07-07-2012, 10:51 AM   #134
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Preciesly what i mean you said that 20mm on FF is wide angle and 20mm on APS-C isn't and i said that 20mm is even more wide angle on medium format so i asked you what the point was of what you said.

And what did you do, you began to argue with me about 20mm and wide angle of medium format.


Really you are the one that made it escalate again be being so vague with what you mean.

Why on earth couldnt you say that the AOV of the LENS is different on 135 then on aps-c instead of arguing about millimetres and what is wide angle and not and me not seeing the point, you're making it so hard for yourself.

I of course also know that FA20mm is wide angle on 135 and not on APS-C so i asked you what there is so significant about that.



ps. what do you mean with this sentence "You started bickering with me before I ever mentioned the 135 format in a separate discussion later in the thread." i never made it a problem that you said FF or 135 or arent you saying that?
Again, nice try. I was discussing the 135 (i.e. full frame) and aps-c and you brought up the MF. I also discussed some points about mf when you brought it up. I also pointed out to you that the MF film and digital was a completely different niche and clearly pointed out how large mf gear is relative to 135 gear. You like to talk in circles.

QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
I think you're missing the point that you need to use the 300mm on 135 if you want to get the same AOV (view) as the 200mm on APS-C and i doubt you are saying that the 300mm is lighter and cheaper then the 200mm.
No, I was demonstrating that full frame 300mm lenses and 200mm lenses DO NOT have to be larger than our current Pentax aps-c 200 and 300mm lenses. That particular point had nothing to do with AOV or FOV. But since you like to obfuscate this conversation by dragging in mf, I will take this opportunity 300mm on 6x7 has a wider FOV/AOV than on 135. It is also a wider FOV on 6x7 than it is on 645 film which is also a wider FOV than on 645D. Very little medium format discussion is directly related to a full frame digital body and the niche it fills. I find it amusing that you campaign against full frame 135 digital yet you pound the drum for a camera lens combo that costs $14,000 (Adorama pricing) and is relatively large. Do you ever actually do any photography? We have discussed the points on this so move on to something else.

:sarcasm:
07-07-2012, 04:22 PM   #135
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
Nice try? and I like to talk in circles, really look at yourself what you're doing all this time, i can point to every conversation we had if you want.
You start to discuss something that was totally beside the point you intinally want to make instead of explain what you meant the first time. That's what i mean with that you're so vague and confusion, the only thing you can say straight are the insults for the rest you twirl around the subject matter can't distracted all the time. You're doing it again with your comment, i already said i misunderstand you in what you where trying to say and that's why i brought in the MF not to discuss it but to make my point clear but you didn't understand that it seems... so instead of explaining you meant that the FA20 lens and how it's different on APS-C and FF you start to discuss focal lengths with me... what do you mean besides the point...

Well great but since the Pentax actually uses a FF mount it isn't that strange that the lenses are just as big you know...
Besides you first talk about equivalent FOV in the sentence before that, do you actually see what i mean that you're so confusing. I really doubt that you actually notice...

Actually no not at the moment, working out lighting for a movie that i need to record and light next month do you actually take photos?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
availability, expensive, fa, full-frame, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, system, troll
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 Lens Selection - Please Help Eliglass Pentax K-5 11 05-26-2011 10:58 PM
Help me choose my Pentax lens selection Mr_Canuck Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 04-14-2011 11:01 PM
lens selection k20d radeb Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 8 12-26-2010 08:45 AM
Help with telephoto lens selection pacsman128 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 11-26-2010 08:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:57 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top