Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-19-2015, 12:23 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 328
(feel free to label the following as an ingnorant rant): I have spent 35 years photographing with larger formats up to 8x10 and immediately saw that this guy's arguments are full of #$%!!. All you have to do is get away from the "magical" full-frame (ie: 36x24mm), which this guy seems to feel is the gold standard of photography and has no understanding of lenses/focal length/aperture and their relation to film format. I love my K-3 and the 24 MP images and most of the lenses I am using are vintage Pentax-A glass. The image crop factor is the only thing that makes a difference. I love being able to put an A-135 f/2.8 on my camera and know it will effectively be a 200 f/2.8. The only reason I would want a FF camera, other than having increased resolution from a 36MP sensor (and perhaps a greater dynamic range), would be to use the greater angle of view available from my FF lenses such as my FA 20-35. I will continue to happily use my ff lenses on my K-3.

I agree he seems to live in a Canikon world as well.

02-19-2015, 12:37 PM   #47
Veteran Member
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,361
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I could make the same wish for 5 minutes in the future.

Made more difficult by the fact that FF is probably the most flexible digital sensor size. It's not that it has nothing to offer.... just some folks go overboard.
Oh snap! I was willing to let them die of natural causes!
02-19-2015, 12:37 PM - 1 Like   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
QuoteOriginally posted by jeverettfine Quote
(feel free to label the following as an ingnorant rant): I have spent 35 years photographing ......I love being able to put an A-135 f/2.8 on my camera and know it will effectively be a 200 f/2.8. .
200 f/4.

You could just consider it a "135 f/2.8" on aps-c and leave it at that, because that's what it is.

If you do want to go with 35mm equivalence, "200 f/4". If you consider it a "200 f/2.8" you're mixing/matching the conversion in a way that doesn't fully describe how it performs on the new format (aps-c.)

Last edited by jsherman999; 02-19-2015 at 01:01 PM.
02-19-2015, 12:47 PM - 1 Like   #49
Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,124
QuoteOriginally posted by jeverettfine Quote
(feel free to label the following as an ingnorant rant): I have spent 35 years photographing with larger formats up to 8x10 and immediately saw that this guy's arguments are full of #$%!!. All you have to do is get away from the "magical" full-frame (ie: 36x24mm), which this guy seems to feel is the gold standard of photography and has no understanding of lenses/focal length/aperture and their relation to film format. I love my K-3 and the 24 MP images and most of the lenses I am using are vintage Pentax-A glass. The image crop factor is the only thing that makes a difference. I love being able to put an A-135 f/2.8 on my camera and know it will effectively be a 200 f/2.8. The only reason I would want a FF camera, other than having increased resolution from a 36MP sensor (and perhaps a greater dynamic range), would be to use the greater angle of view available from my FF lenses such as my FA 20-35. I will continue to happily use my ff lenses on my K-3.

I agree he seems to live in a Canikon world as well.
135mm is 135mm, f/2.8 is f/2.8. The FOV and DOF change between sensor (or film) sizes, but that's it.

02-19-2015, 12:53 PM - 1 Like   #50
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by jeverettfine Quote
(feel free to label the following as an ingnorant rant): I have spent 35 years photographing with larger formats up to 8x10 and immediately saw that this guy's arguments are full of #$%!!. All you have to do is get away from the "magical" full-frame (ie: 36x24mm), which this guy seems to feel is the gold standard of photography and has no understanding of lenses/focal length/aperture and their relation to film format. I love my K-3 and the 24 MP images and most of the lenses I am using are vintage Pentax-A glass. The image crop factor is the only thing that makes a difference. I love being able to put an A-135 f/2.8 on my camera and know it will effectively be a 200 f/2.8. The only reason I would want a FF camera, other than having increased resolution from a 36MP sensor (and perhaps a greater dynamic range), would be to use the greater angle of view available from my FF lenses such as my FA 20-35. I will continue to happily use my ff lenses on my K-3.

I agree he seems to live in a Canikon world as well.
Ya ya, I started on 8x10 film as well. It's pretty clear these guys who have pronounced FF the be all and end all would be laughed out of my house should they turn up here. The humiliation would be endless. Back in the film days, everyone knew, if you're a serious photographer, 35x24 is a joke. Now you have these little still wet behind the ears newbies endlessly pronouncing the superiority of 35x24 cameras. They suffer supreme lack of historical context or format experience. But they have read the endless Full Frame propaganda that endlessly is promoted by various camera companies and their minions. To the great unwashed they are gods. To those with any photographic sense at all, they are clowns. I guess we are doomed to endless arguments between the two.

Even a knowledge of recent history.... most of the great photographers of the 20th century and many of the best of the 21st shot larger than 35mm, would inform them. Instead they go on parroting the party line as put out there buy 35mm producing companies, basically attempting to rewrite history and con everyone too young to know better.
02-19-2015, 12:59 PM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
let it out Norm!

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Ya ya, I started on 8x10 film as well. It's pretty clear these guys who have pronounced FF the be all and end all would be laughed out of my house should they turn up here. The humiliation would be endless. Back in the film days, everyone knew, if you're a serious photographer, 35x24 is a joke. Now you have these little still wet behind the ears newbies endlessly pronouncing the superiority of 35x24 cameras. They suffer supreme lack of historical context or format experience. But they have read the endless Full Frame propaganda that endlessly is promoted by various camera companies and their minions. To the great unwashed they are gods. To those with any photographic sense at all, they are clowns. I guess we are doomed to endless arguments between the two.

Even a knowledge of recent history.... most of the great photographers of the 20th century and many of the best of the 21st shot larger than 35mm, would inform them. Instead they go on parroting the party line as put out there buy 35mm producing companies, basically attempting to rewrite history and con everyone too young to know better.
Translation: Norm's having a bad day.

Norm, why does any comparison between FF and aps-c mean (to you) that FF is being declared "better" than any other format? Especially larger formats?

.
02-19-2015, 01:07 PM   #52
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,177
Why APS-C specialized lens matter? Yes it does matter a lot !!! But it's not what all of you have been thinking about so far, it is distinct benefit.
A APS-C is a lens that has a smaller image circle, hence you can't be used on a full frame camera , so, as a customer, if you buy a full frame camera , you also have to buy a new lens.
And that's it: you have to spend twice the money, so that very essential for your preferred brand to get more money from you.
Therefore, you should buy an APS-C specialized lens , and then, buy a FF specialized lens, and it's not good if you first buy a FF compliant lens.

02-19-2015, 01:13 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 328
Oh, Norm, let's just ignore the youngsters

1: Make a photo using an 8x10 camera with a 250mm lens.
2: crop a 35x24mm piece out of anywhere on the photo.
3: Make a photo using a 35mm camera (FF) with that same 250mm lens and make a full frame print. (film works best)
4: Compare the two images and they will be identical in depth of field and perspective.

Every young photographer should learn to use a view camera. It will teach them more about the nature of the camera than almost anything I know of.
02-19-2015, 01:15 PM - 1 Like   #54
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Translation: Norm's having a bad day.

Norm, why does any comparison between FF and aps-c mean (to you) that FF is being declared "better" than any other format? Especially larger formats?

.
Because of the nonsense FF proponents spout. Because the whole idea of equivalence in promoted on the web is based on FF, when FF is one of about a dozen formats, because everyone who promotes FF seems to value what FF has to offer, and undervalues all the other formats.

But now that I answered your question Jay, how about answering one of mine.

Have you ever once noticed that I always mention FF is the most versatile digital format? But that it doesn't appeal to everyone?
SO how does that fit your theory?

QuoteQuote:
Norm, why does any comparison between FF and aps-c mean (to you) that FF is being declared "better" than any other format? Especially larger formats?
I have to admit, my posts tend to be reactions to people saying totally dumb stuff, in that sense they tend to debunk the hogwash put out there by the gullible. And FF proponents seem to have some kind of monopoly of the gullible. The difference being, I have quite a few posts explaining exactly why folks should be gravitating towards FF rather than APS_c. I find most of the ignorant FF protagonists go on and on about FF as if no other format exists with endless nonsense. FF gives you twice the light, (unless you use half the ISO), Your worst lens on FF is better than your best lens on APS-c ( unless of course you're comparing 12 or 20 MP FF to 24 Mp APS-c, in which case FF loses rather badly, and your best lens on FF is worse than your worst lens on APS-C) ƒ2.8 APS-c is the same as ƒ4 FF (unless you're calculating an exposure.) This stuff just gets repeated over and over again without qualification.

So maybe you can explain to me as one who has posted some of this nonsense, why is it so important to you to bend the truth by posting incomplete information, that always seems to make FF better than it is?

Last edited by normhead; 02-19-2015 at 04:56 PM.
02-19-2015, 01:16 PM   #55
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 328
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Why APS-C specialized lens matter? Yes it does matter a lot !!! But it's not what all of you have been thinking about so far, it is distinct benefit.
A APS-C is a lens that has a smaller image circle, hence you can't be used on a full frame camera , so, as a customer, if you buy a full frame camera , you also have to buy a new lens.
And that's it: you have to spend twice the money, so that very essential for your preferred brand to get more money from you.
Therefore, you should buy an APS-C specialized lens , and then, buy a FF specialized lens, and it's not good if you first buy a FF compliant lens.
Right, "Follow the Money". The camera business is a "business" after all.
02-19-2015, 01:26 PM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 421
Worst thing you can do is not to buy any lenses. I mean, that's what photography is about

Just buy more lenses, aps-c, ff, whatever
02-19-2015, 01:33 PM   #57
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by jeverettfine Quote
Oh, Norm, let's just ignore the youngsters

1: Make a photo using an 8x10 camera with a 250mm lens.
2: crop a 35x24mm piece out of anywhere on the photo.
3: Make a photo using a 35mm camera (FF) with that same 250mm lens and make a full frame print. (film works best)
4: Compare the two images and they will be identical in depth of field and perspective.

Every young photographer should learn to use a view camera. It will teach them more about the nature of the camera than almost anything I know of.
IN fact one of my friends sons is doing just that. When his school dropped their film section, he bought a 4x5 view camera 3 lenses and all their remaining film stock, and he's doing amazing shots with it. He knows more about the possibilities of photography right now, than those who only ever shot digital will ever know. OH and, he's still in first year. Meanwhile what is he learning in class? The use of strobes on his Nikon. When I took photography lighting was a separate course. Our studio teacher taught lighting which started with fixed lights, so you could move the lights around and see the effects of their placement, we went on to flash and strobe later, after mastering studio lighting. Taking the use of strobe as part of a section on photography and camera use, defies my imagination. But hey, it's a new world out there.
02-19-2015, 04:19 PM   #58
Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,124
I had a pro photographer that came into work to do some pictures and video for my company tell me a photography degree is a horrible waste of money. He saw my backpack and a lens case at my desk, recognized that it was definitely photography stuff, and came over to BS with me about it for 20 minutes or so and look at my gear.
02-20-2015, 08:17 AM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 328
I slept on this overnight and came to the conclusion that the video is one of the worst photography tech lectures I have ever seen, especially the stuff about multiplying the aperture.
The f/stop is a function of the diameter of the aperture to the focal length of the lens and it does not change AT ALL when the sensor size or film size changes. It is like saying a 300mm f/5.6 lens made for an 8x10 camera is not an f/5.6 when used with 4x5 film or 6x7 film. A 50mm f/2 will always be a 50mm f/2 regardless of whether you camera is FF or APS-C. The 1.5 multiplier is simply a way of comparing the angle of view of a lens on different formats.
The reason Nikon and Canon do not want photographers to use vintage lenses on the new cameras is that they want to sell more lenses. Thank heaven Pentax has a somewhat different view. I admit they crippled the lens mount, but that is the most they have done.
02-20-2015, 09:08 AM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 421
It's clear that aperture is the same, no matter which sensor is behind the lens. Also, the focal length is the same, just the field of view is smaller.

If what he says is true, than to get the same exposure on FF and APS-C, you would set faster shutter speed on bigger sensor, if the other two factors are set to same values (ISO and F stop)?

Need to take an aspirin after this lol
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!
250mm, aps-c, aps-c lenses, camera, dxo, equivalence, ff, film, format, frame, images, ir, iso, k-3, k-5, k-mount, lens, lenses, link, pentax lens, people, photo, photography, post, quality, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why are FF images so much more pleasing than APS-C? chaza01 Pentax Full Frame 259 12-12-2019 10:04 PM
Best affordable APS-C normal lenses? Bradley981 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 23 09-25-2014 02:25 PM
APS-C Lenses on Sony A7r interested_observer Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 4 04-06-2014 09:12 AM
Tilt shift lenses made for Pentax APS-C bodies Buckeye Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 11-12-2010 07:43 AM
Why doesn't Tokina make Pentax mount APS-C lenses? hyyz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 04-02-2010 12:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:25 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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