If An FF Does Debut...

lytrytyr · 12-04-2012, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by normhead

WIth a 1.5 crop, a 24 MP camera is the same pixel count as a K-5 per inch so no. (1.5 x 16 is 24.)

Pixel count scales by area, so 16MP on APS-C
would scale up to 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36 MP on FF.

You'd need a D800 to get the "reach" of a K5.
The cropped D600 image is more like a K10.

normhead · 12-04-2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Pixel count scales by area, so 16MP on APS-C
would scale up to 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36 MP on FF.

Thanks, I knew the number but didn't understand how to get there.... I'll know next time.

abacus07 · 12-04-2012, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by normhead

WIth a 1.5 crop, a 24 MP camera is the same pixel count as a K-5 per inch so no. (1.5 x 16 is 24.) So still one camera. YOu get the same picture essentially but smaller. But if you expand the K-5 image to the same size (24 MP) as a D600 image they look almost identical. So really no advantage. I've done it a few times with the test pictures from Imaging Resource) so I'm pretty confident that's true. If you want to blow up some images that show a difference I'll look at them, but, I've done my work on this issue to my satisfaction, and while words are nice, really, what my eyes see is worth more than what somebody says.

You're actually making the argument that APSC doesn't offer a reach advantage. It would of course be silly to automatically crop a FF image but the discussion is regarding how an APSC DSLR suddenly makes your 300mm lens longer. It doesn't. It's simply a crop.

here is an example from this thread

Quote:

2. I like shooting sports - what I would lose in "reach" would probably kill me!

normhead · 12-04-2012, 08:16 PM

If you have a 16 MP FF camera and a 16 MP APS-c camera, you will have more reach with the APS-c with the same lens. If you fill your frame with the subject on the APS-c, you will not be able to fill the frame, with the same lens on the FF. That's what we're talking about. So when does the APS-c advantage end? When the FF gets to the same pixel pitch as the APS-c or more. One camera does that right now, the D800. With every other full frame, especially those 24 MP and under, you won't get the same reach.

It's really pretty simple.

People will try and counter this with all kinds of crazy arguments... that don't address the issue as I've framed it, which by the way as a photographer , is the only one that matters. People really tie their knickers up in a knot trying to avoid this obvious fact.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 12-04-2012, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

Pixel count scales by area, so 16MP on APS-C
would scale up to 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36 MP on FF.

You'd need a D800 to get the "reach" of a K5.
The cropped D600 image is more like a K10.

Fair enough. APS-C still has a few years then.

**Ash** · 12-04-2012, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by normhead

If you have a 16 MP FF camera and a 16 MP APS-c camera, you will have more reach with the APS-c with the same lens.

Incorrect, Norm. It is simply a matter of the APS-C cropping more of the image off giving you 'less' of the image area to work with for the same lens and focal distance. This shouldn't be confused with 'reach'.

Originally posted by normhead

If you fill your frame with the subject on the APS-c, you will not be able to fill the frame, with the same lens on the FF. That's what we're talking about.

And that's precisely the crop factor of the APS-C doing this. The advantage of 'reach' is lens focal length dependent. The advantage of 'more photo in the frame' is sensor-size dependent.

jpyykonen · 12-04-2012, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by snake

You should never, ever definitely buy something not even released yet just because it has the name on it you want. If it's a stinker, then what's the incentive from manufacturers to do better when they know they have people that will buy any junk they make?

Most likely that would be the only FF (digital) camera that will take my Pentax primes without adapter

So I don't have much choice, do I?

Over almost 10 years (since the *istD) I haven't seen Pentax camera that has been "stinker". I never buy anything because of the name, but because of confidence and trust. I have no reason to assume that the not-yet-released unnamable camera would be "stinker" as Pentax has always did very well with the budget they've had. Trust is earned over the years.

**Ash** · 12-04-2012, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by jpyykonen

Over almost 10 years (since the *istD) I haven't seen Pentax camera that has been "stinker".

Yep. Haven't disappointed me yet after 7 bodies. And I'm also brand agnostic - but I have liked Pentax products - especially their bodies and Limited lenses.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 12-06-2012, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by jpyykonen

Over almost 10 years (since the *istD) I haven't seen Pentax camera that has been "stinker".

That sets a real high bar indeed. Even the stinky K-01 would have no challenge hopping over it.

**Rondec** · 12-06-2012, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

That sets a real high bar indeed. Even the stinky K-01 would have no challenge hopping over it.

Have you used a K-01?

**Pål Jensen** · 12-06-2012, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Incorrect, Norm. It is simply a matter of the APS-C cropping more of the image off giving you 'less' of the image area to work with for the same lens and focal distance. This shouldn't be confused with 'reach'..

That is only true if you mean by the same lens litterally the same lens and not a lens with the same focal lenght. Smaller format give you indeed more reach at the same focal lenght. Or, the same reach at a shorter focal lenght.
Saying that APS is just a cropped APS is not very meaningful as FF is just cropped 645 which is cropped 6X7 which is cropped 4X5 which is cropped 8X10 ad infinitum. Does this give any useful information?

normhead · 12-06-2012, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Incorrect, Norm. It is simply a matter of the APS-C cropping more of the image off giving you 'less' of the image area to work with for the same lens and focal distance. This shouldn't be confused with 'reach'.

And that's precisely the crop factor of the APS-C doing this. The advantage of 'reach' is lens focal length dependent. The advantage of 'more photo in the frame' is sensor-size dependent.

That's incredibly semantical.. practically, you need a 600 FF on a 16 MP lens to fill the frame the same as a 400 mm on APS-c 16MP lens would. If you don't want to call it reach fine. What do you want to call it? All that matters is on APS-c you get functionally the same image on a shorter lens. I don't know why everyone has to dance around this fact of life. Everyone wants to correct you when you point it out, point out flaws in your diction or expression.

No one wants to face the fact. I notice you pointed out the "incorrect part" but couldn't express the correct part, even though I know you know what I'm talking about. Everyone seems to feel they have the right be totally obstructionist on this issue.

Why is that?

**Ash** · 12-06-2012, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by normhead

you need a 600 FF on a 16 MP lens to fill the frame the same as a 400 mm on APS-c 16MP lens would. If you don't want to call it reach fine. What do you want to call it?

It's just called crop. You get no extra detail/IQ from the same lens put on an APS-C camera as opposed to a FF camera. There is just more periphery captured in a FF shot. And yes, of course, the same thing applies with a 645 vs a FF, and a 67 format vs a 645. The point is that FF is a good compromise between FoV and cost effectiveness for the general consumer. Plus it means we can use the FA limiteds straight onto the camera and get more frame to work with. A good reason to keep the FA Limiteds still selling...

Originally posted by normhead

All that matters is on APS-c you get functionally the same image on a shorter lens.

No, man. That's only true if with the shorter lens on the APS-C you stand CLOSER to the subject than with the longer lens on a larger format camera. There is no extra REACH. If you stand at the same subject to camera distance and shoot with a shorter lens, you get a crop of the same FoV on an APS-C compared to a FF camera or any other larger camera.

See here: Crop Sensor (APS-C) Cameras and Lens Confusion
plus you've been through this already in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-technique/187306-aps-c-does-...ld-view-3.html

If you're still not convinced, see it diagramatically from Bob Atkins' article above:

and a practical example:

**Rondec** · 12-06-2012, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Ash

It's just called crop. You get no extra detail/IQ from the same lens put on an APS-C camera as opposed to a FF camera. There is just more periphery captured in a FF shot. And yes, of course, the same thing applies with a 645 vs a FF, and a 67 format vs a 645. The point is that FF is a good compromise between FoV and cost effectiveness for the general consumer. Plus it means we can use the FA limiteds straight onto the camera and get more frame to work with. A good reason to keep the FA Limiteds still selling...

No, man. That's only true if with the shorter lens on the APS-C you stand CLOSER to the subject than with the longer lens on a larger format camera. There is no extra REACH. If you stand at the same subject to camera distance and shoot with a shorter lens, you get a crop of the same FoV on an APS-C compared to a FF camera or any other larger camera.

See here: Crop Sensor (APS-C) Cameras and Lens Confusion
plus you've been through this already in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-technique/187306-aps-c-does-...ld-view-3.html

If you're still not convinced, see it diagramatically from Bob Atkins' article above:

and a practical example:

Well, as far as I can tell, you get additional magnification as long as pixel density is higher on the APS-C than on full frame (often true). If you have a D700 (12 megapixels) and a K5, there is no cropping the D700 to equal the K5 image, even if the K5 image is really just a crop of the D700 image.

Currently the only full frame camera that could crop to a 16 megapixel APS-C image is the D800, otherwise there is some extra reach with the APS-C sensor versus the full frame ones (although this is not based on the crop factor, but pixel density).

abacus07 · 12-06-2012, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

Well, as far as I can tell, you get additional magnification as long as pixel density is higher on the APS-C than on full frame (often true). If you have a D700 (12 megapixels) and a K5, there is no cropping the D700 to equal the K5 image, even if the K5 image is really just a crop of the D700 image.

Currently the only full frame camera that could crop to a 16 megapixel APS-C image is the D800, otherwise there is some extra reach with the APS-C sensor versus the full frame ones (although this is not based on the crop factor, but pixel density).

Are you really expecting the mythical Pentax FF camera to use an old sensor like the D700? The discussion is about the loss of reach if someone upgrades to the Pentax FF when it is released.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What would you do if Pentax does not announce a FF for 2013?	LeDave	Pentax DSLR Discussion	125	08-08-2012 08:38 PM
Would you buy the first FF if it is a K-01 or wait for the FF DSLR?	slackercruster	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	07-18-2012 10:09 PM
How does THIS impact your hopes for FF	iCrop	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	27	06-05-2012 11:52 AM
Does this indicate a FF problem.	Mychael	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	9	11-20-2011 11:23 AM
If pentax release a FF, wouldn't they have to release a FF wideangle.	pcarfan	Photographic Technique	10	12-26-2009 04:45 PM

12-04-2012, 01:58 PM	#61
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by normhead WIth a 1.5 crop, a 24 MP camera is the same pixel count as a K-5 per inch so no. (1.5 x 16 is 24.) Pixel count scales by area, so 16MP on APS-C would scale up to 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36 MP on FF. You'd need a D800 to get the "reach" of a K5. The cropped D600 image is more like a K10.

12-04-2012, 02:02 PM	#62
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	Quote: Pixel count scales by area, so 16MP on APS-C would scale up to 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36 MP on FF. Thanks, I knew the number but didn't understand how to get there.... I'll know next time.

12-04-2012, 07:21 PM	#63
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	Originally posted by normhead WIth a 1.5 crop, a 24 MP camera is the same pixel count as a K-5 per inch so no. (1.5 x 16 is 24.) So still one camera. YOu get the same picture essentially but smaller. But if you expand the K-5 image to the same size (24 MP) as a D600 image they look almost identical. So really no advantage. I've done it a few times with the test pictures from Imaging Resource) so I'm pretty confident that's true. If you want to blow up some images that show a difference I'll look at them, but, I've done my work on this issue to my satisfaction, and while words are nice, really, what my eyes see is worth more than what somebody says. You're actually making the argument that APSC doesn't offer a reach advantage. It would of course be silly to automatically crop a FF image but the discussion is regarding how an APSC DSLR suddenly makes your 300mm lens longer. It doesn't. It's simply a crop. here is an example from this thread Quote: 2. I like shooting sports - what I would lose in "reach" would probably kill me!

12-04-2012, 08:16 PM	#64
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	If you have a 16 MP FF camera and a 16 MP APS-c camera, you will have more reach with the APS-c with the same lens. If you fill your frame with the subject on the APS-c, you will not be able to fill the frame, with the same lens on the FF. That's what we're talking about. So when does the APS-c advantage end? When the FF gets to the same pixel pitch as the APS-c or more. One camera does that right now, the D800. With every other full frame, especially those 24 MP and under, you won't get the same reach. It's really pretty simple. People will try and counter this with all kinds of crazy arguments... that don't address the issue as I've framed it, which by the way as a photographer , is the only one that matters. People really tie their knickers up in a knot trying to avoid this obvious fact.

12-04-2012, 10:32 PM	#65
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by lytrytyr Pixel count scales by area, so 16MP on APS-C would scale up to 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36 MP on FF. You'd need a D800 to get the "reach" of a K5. The cropped D600 image is more like a K10. Fair enough. APS-C still has a few years then.

12-04-2012, 10:52 PM	#66
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by normhead If you have a 16 MP FF camera and a 16 MP APS-c camera, you will have more reach with the APS-c with the same lens. Incorrect, Norm. It is simply a matter of the APS-C cropping more of the image off giving you 'less' of the image area to work with for the same lens and focal distance. This shouldn't be confused with 'reach'. Originally posted by normhead If you fill your frame with the subject on the APS-c, you will not be able to fill the frame, with the same lens on the FF. That's what we're talking about. And that's precisely the crop factor of the APS-C doing this. The advantage of 'reach' is lens focal length dependent. The advantage of 'more photo in the frame' is sensor-size dependent.

12-04-2012, 10:57 PM	#67
jpyykonen Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 191	Originally posted by snake You should never, ever definitely buy something not even released yet just because it has the name on it you want. If it's a stinker, then what's the incentive from manufacturers to do better when they know they have people that will buy any junk they make? Most likely that would be the only FF (digital) camera that will take my Pentax primes without adapter So I don't have much choice, do I? Over almost 10 years (since the *istD) I haven't seen Pentax camera that has been "stinker". I never buy anything because of the name, but because of confidence and trust. I have no reason to assume that the not-yet-released unnamable camera would be "stinker" as Pentax has always did very well with the budget they've had. Trust is earned over the years.

12-04-2012, 11:37 PM	#68
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by jpyykonen Over almost 10 years (since the *istD) I haven't seen Pentax camera that has been "stinker". Yep. Haven't disappointed me yet after 7 bodies. And I'm also brand agnostic - but I have liked Pentax products - especially their bodies and Limited lenses.

12-06-2012, 12:52 AM	#69
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by jpyykonen Over almost 10 years (since the *istD) I haven't seen Pentax camera that has been "stinker". That sets a real high bar indeed. Even the stinky K-01 would have no challenge hopping over it.

12-06-2012, 04:39 AM	#70
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor That sets a real high bar indeed. Even the stinky K-01 would have no challenge hopping over it. Have you used a K-01?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2012, 01:35 PM	#71
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Ash Incorrect, Norm. It is simply a matter of the APS-C cropping more of the image off giving you 'less' of the image area to work with for the same lens and focal distance. This shouldn't be confused with 'reach'.. That is only true if you mean by the same lens litterally the same lens and not a lens with the same focal lenght. Smaller format give you indeed more reach at the same focal lenght. Or, the same reach at a shorter focal lenght. Saying that APS is just a cropped APS is not very meaningful as FF is just cropped 645 which is cropped 6X7 which is cropped 4X5 which is cropped 8X10 ad infinitum. Does this give any useful information?

12-06-2012, 01:52 PM	#72
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	Originally posted by Ash Incorrect, Norm. It is simply a matter of the APS-C cropping more of the image off giving you 'less' of the image area to work with for the same lens and focal distance. This shouldn't be confused with 'reach'. And that's precisely the crop factor of the APS-C doing this. The advantage of 'reach' is lens focal length dependent. The advantage of 'more photo in the frame' is sensor-size dependent. That's incredibly semantical.. practically, you need a 600 FF on a 16 MP lens to fill the frame the same as a 400 mm on APS-c 16MP lens would. If you don't want to call it reach fine. What do you want to call it? All that matters is on APS-c you get functionally the same image on a shorter lens. I don't know why everyone has to dance around this fact of life. Everyone wants to correct you when you point it out, point out flaws in your diction or expression. No one wants to face the fact. I notice you pointed out the "incorrect part" but couldn't express the correct part, even though I know you know what I'm talking about. Everyone seems to feel they have the right be totally obstructionist on this issue. Why is that?

12-06-2012, 06:07 PM	#73
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by normhead you need a 600 FF on a 16 MP lens to fill the frame the same as a 400 mm on APS-c 16MP lens would. If you don't want to call it reach fine. What do you want to call it? It's just called crop. You get no extra detail/IQ from the same lens put on an APS-C camera as opposed to a FF camera. There is just more periphery captured in a FF shot. And yes, of course, the same thing applies with a 645 vs a FF, and a 67 format vs a 645. The point is that FF is a good compromise between FoV and cost effectiveness for the general consumer. Plus it means we can use the FA limiteds straight onto the camera and get more frame to work with. A good reason to keep the FA Limiteds still selling... Originally posted by normhead All that matters is on APS-c you get functionally the same image on a shorter lens. No, man. That's only true if with the shorter lens on the APS-C you stand CLOSER to the subject than with the longer lens on a larger format camera. There is no extra REACH. If you stand at the same subject to camera distance and shoot with a shorter lens, you get a crop of the same FoV on an APS-C compared to a FF camera or any other larger camera. See here: Crop Sensor (APS-C) Cameras and Lens Confusion plus you've been through this already in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-technique/187306-aps-c-does-...ld-view-3.html If you're still not convinced, see it diagramatically from Bob Atkins' article above: and a practical example:

12-06-2012, 06:14 PM	#74
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by Ash It's just called crop. You get no extra detail/IQ from the same lens put on an APS-C camera as opposed to a FF camera. There is just more periphery captured in a FF shot. And yes, of course, the same thing applies with a 645 vs a FF, and a 67 format vs a 645. The point is that FF is a good compromise between FoV and cost effectiveness for the general consumer. Plus it means we can use the FA limiteds straight onto the camera and get more frame to work with. A good reason to keep the FA Limiteds still selling... No, man. That's only true if with the shorter lens on the APS-C you stand CLOSER to the subject than with the longer lens on a larger format camera. There is no extra REACH. If you stand at the same subject to camera distance and shoot with a shorter lens, you get a crop of the same FoV on an APS-C compared to a FF camera or any other larger camera. See here: Crop Sensor (APS-C) Cameras and Lens Confusion plus you've been through this already in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-technique/187306-aps-c-does-...ld-view-3.html If you're still not convinced, see it diagramatically from Bob Atkins' article above: and a practical example: Well, as far as I can tell, you get additional magnification as long as pixel density is higher on the APS-C than on full frame (often true). If you have a D700 (12 megapixels) and a K5, there is no cropping the D700 to equal the K5 image, even if the K5 image is really just a crop of the D700 image. Currently the only full frame camera that could crop to a 16 megapixel APS-C image is the D800, otherwise there is some extra reach with the APS-C sensor versus the full frame ones (although this is not based on the crop factor, but pixel density).

12-06-2012, 06:59 PM	#75
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	Originally posted by Rondec Well, as far as I can tell, you get additional magnification as long as pixel density is higher on the APS-C than on full frame (often true). If you have a D700 (12 megapixels) and a K5, there is no cropping the D700 to equal the K5 image, even if the K5 image is really just a crop of the D700 image. Currently the only full frame camera that could crop to a 16 megapixel APS-C image is the D800, otherwise there is some extra reach with the APS-C sensor versus the full frame ones (although this is not based on the crop factor, but pixel density). Are you really expecting the mythical Pentax FF camera to use an old sensor like the D700? The discussion is about the loss of reach if someone upgrades to the Pentax FF when it is released.