Why can't they?

jkomp316 · 10-17-2015, 08:11 PM

why did they make apsc size sensors to begin with?

oscaletrains · 10-17-2015, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

"Attitude" might not be the best word. I just mean that this issue is only a problem if you can only see the world at a FF angle of view. I honestly have trouble understanding this problem though for sure it comes up a lot. I shot film for many, many years. When I transitioned to digital it was APS-C. I have no problem with preconceived notions of what a lens is "supposed" to look like. It is what it is when looking through the viewfinder for goodness sake. Trying to make it something else is just not going to work.

If you really want the "FF" experience with your existing glass try a Sony A7 or wait for a Pentax FF digital.

As Adam noted the device you mentioned does exist but from the early reviews I remember no one was very happy with the results and of course there is not one for k-mount anyway.

Just curious but do you use all primes? I mostly use zooms for work and primes only for fun which might be why I have no problems with this.

I'd say that maybe I got so used to what a photo looked like AT the FL that was stamped on the lens that it now just always seems disconcerting to me.

**boriscleto** · 10-17-2015, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by jkomp316

why did they make apsc size sensors to begin with?

Economics. More APS-C sensors fit on a wafer. And they could be made with a single mask, a FF sensor requires 3. So a FF sensor has 3 times the likelihood of having a defect.

oscaletrains · 10-17-2015, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Tony Belding

If you want to stretch your mind, try shooting with a Pentax Q7 for a while. The "normal" lens is 8.5mm.

I have some of the Q stuff. That 5x factor is great for stretching a lens with the K adapter for sure. In fact, one of my Q's is attached right now to a 400mm lens with a 2x adapter waiting for a clear full moon night. But the 08 wide angle is what, equal to 18mm at best?

**jatrax** · 10-17-2015, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by oscaletrains

I'd say that maybe I got so used to what a photo looked like AT the FL that was stamped on the lens that it now just always seems disconcerting to me.

Yep, I can understand that. But I also know shooters that carry both FF and APS-C bodies and swap back & forth depending on what they want to achieve. Personally I rarely look at the focal length, since I use zooms I just adjust the focal length to what I want it to look like. I suppose that would be harder with primes.

oscaletrains · 10-17-2015, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

Yep, I can understand that. But I also know shooters that carry both FF and APS-C bodies and swap back & forth depending on what they want to achieve. Personally I rarely look at the focal length, since I use zooms I just adjust the focal length to what I want it to look like. I suppose that would be harder with primes.

With a FF body the lens would be stamped correctly pretty much, so it would have no use for such a device unless you wanted your UWA's to be a stop faster and a wee bit wider than stamped. For someone like me, I'd just leave the things attached to the APSC bodies all the time unless I needed as long a reach as possible for something...and then I'd probably use the Q with adapter instead anyway?

**jatrax** · 10-17-2015, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by oscaletrains

With a FF body the lens would be stamped correctly pretty much,

Nope. You are missing the point. 50mm on FF is NOT "correct" it is just what that field of view is. It is no more or less "correct" than a 50mm on APS-C or m4/3. Someone who started shooting m4/3 is used to that angle of view and if they picked up a FF camera with 50mm lens it would very different, but not wrong. Someone who shoots with the 645z using a 50mm is going to expect a very different image.

Seriously, how long have you been shooting APS-C? I would think you would have adjusted within a reasonable amount of time. I guess if you shoot film as well that might be difficult but if you are APS-C only it is what it is.

Here is what you are looking for by the way: Amazon.com : Metabones Canon EF Lens to Sony E-Mount Camera Speed Booster ULTRA : Electronics But as far as I can tell it is only available to mirrorless cameras. I assume the registration distance required to fit it in precludes making it work on DSLR mounts but I have no experience with it so that could be wrong.

LensBeginner · 10-18-2015, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by oscaletrains

You wouldn't want an accessory that makes your lens a stop faster AND a wider FOV? Ok, whatever. I would.

More glass, lower IQ.
Then there's the business side of it: large cost per unit, low volumes.

Waratah · 10-18-2015, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Tony Belding

If you want to stretch your mind, try shooting with a Pentax Q7 for a while. The "normal" lens is 8.5mm.

Doesn't get any more normal than this

Pentax A*1200mm F8 and Pentax Q10. Effective focal length: 6.6 metres!

LensBeginner · 10-18-2015, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Waratah

Doesn't get any more normal than this

Pentax A*1200mm F8 and Pentax Q10. Effective focal length: 6.6 metres!

Please don't add to the OP's confusion, it's not an "effective" focal length, it's only an equivalence with respect to field of view. Focal length stays 1200mm

mcgregni · 10-18-2015, 02:48 AM - **1 Like**

Don't we choose focal lengths, and therefore lenses, based on how far away things are and how much magnification is needed in order to make things big enough on our sensor ..? We can only do that by eyeballing things through the viewfinder and making the required adjustments. Sensor size makes no difference at all to that process.

I shot film slrs for a few years before aps-c and you do remember certain reference points, like 24mm (which was the wide end of my standard zoom), 85mm (which was the long end), 105mm (which was my portrait/macro length).

Now I have the same 'feel' for 14mm, 18mm, 55mm, 70mm, 300mm, all based on the extremes of my ranges. You get an instinctive feel for what to choose before starting to shoot. But I would say this process is part of understanding the CAMERA (based around the sensor size), and not really anything to do ' feelings' about lenses.

**clackers** · 10-18-2015, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by oscaletrains

so why not a converter that would work the opposite...and make that 50mm lens REALLY react like a 50mm lens on the DSLR instead of 75mm?

You don't want to put some piece of glass between your nice lens and sensor, Oscaletrains. ☺

Just put on your good 35mm and you get that 'normal' FoV without interfering with the optics.

**jatrax** · 10-18-2015, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by mcgregni

Now I have the same 'feel' for 14mm, 18mm, 55mm, 70mm, 300mm, all based on the extremes of my ranges. You get an instinctive feel for what to choose before starting to shoot. But I would say this process is part of understanding the CAMERA (based around the sensor size), and not really anything to do ' feelings' about lenses.

Well said!

**Canada_Rockies** · 10-18-2015, 08:31 AM

The only time I ever thought about "equivalent focal length" was when I bought my K10D in 2007. I thought about it long enough to decide that I would buy the DA* 16-50 for the situations when I used the 24-90 on my MZ-S. And then, I had always had LBA aimed at the 20mm lenses, so when I could by K10D, grip and DA 12-24 as a kit I thought to myself "18mm! yahoo!" and bent my credit card a bit.

The numbers on the lenses meant not much after I bought them. I just looked through the viewfinder and if the field of view wasn't available with the lens on the camera, I would pick either the next wider (16-50 -> 12-24) or the next longer (16-50 -> 55-300).

For those who don't know this old curmudgeon, I have been a Pentax SLR user exclusively since 1961. If a 75 year old curmudgeon can work without the mathematical gymnastics, I would think anyone could.

pathdoc · 10-18-2015, 09:00 AM

You need to have a good grasp of the FOV you are going to get, because at the end of the day that's what governs composition (if moving back and forth is not an option), but that is all.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help!! My Series 1 105 Macro-- they say it can't be fixed?!?	conbio	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	04-18-2015 07:56 PM
Pentax, why can't they market more effectively ?	lesmore49	General Photography	18	10-21-2014 02:46 PM
Why can't they make...	slip	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	04-22-2012 09:25 AM
Why can't they make something like this...	regor	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	22	03-20-2010 01:16 PM

10-17-2015, 08:11 PM	#16
jkomp316 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 227	why did they make apsc size sensors to begin with?

10-17-2015, 08:11 PM	#17
oscaletrains Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 172 Original Poster	Originally posted by jatrax "Attitude" might not be the best word. I just mean that this issue is only a problem if you can only see the world at a FF angle of view. I honestly have trouble understanding this problem though for sure it comes up a lot. I shot film for many, many years. When I transitioned to digital it was APS-C. I have no problem with preconceived notions of what a lens is "supposed" to look like. It is what it is when looking through the viewfinder for goodness sake. Trying to make it something else is just not going to work. If you really want the "FF" experience with your existing glass try a Sony A7 or wait for a Pentax FF digital. As Adam noted the device you mentioned does exist but from the early reviews I remember no one was very happy with the results and of course there is not one for k-mount anyway. Just curious but do you use all primes? I mostly use zooms for work and primes only for fun which might be why I have no problems with this. I'd say that maybe I got so used to what a photo looked like AT the FL that was stamped on the lens that it now just always seems disconcerting to me.

10-17-2015, 08:18 PM	#18
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by jkomp316 why did they make apsc size sensors to begin with? Economics. More APS-C sensors fit on a wafer. And they could be made with a single mask, a FF sensor requires 3. So a FF sensor has 3 times the likelihood of having a defect.

10-17-2015, 08:19 PM	#19
oscaletrains Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 172 Original Poster	Originally posted by Tony Belding If you want to stretch your mind, try shooting with a Pentax Q7 for a while. The "normal" lens is 8.5mm. I have some of the Q stuff. That 5x factor is great for stretching a lens with the K adapter for sure. In fact, one of my Q's is attached right now to a 400mm lens with a 2x adapter waiting for a clear full moon night. But the 08 wide angle is what, equal to 18mm at best?

10-17-2015, 08:58 PM	#20
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by oscaletrains I'd say that maybe I got so used to what a photo looked like AT the FL that was stamped on the lens that it now just always seems disconcerting to me. Yep, I can understand that. But I also know shooters that carry both FF and APS-C bodies and swap back & forth depending on what they want to achieve. Personally I rarely look at the focal length, since I use zooms I just adjust the focal length to what I want it to look like. I suppose that would be harder with primes.

10-17-2015, 09:22 PM	#21
oscaletrains Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 172 Original Poster	Originally posted by jatrax Yep, I can understand that. But I also know shooters that carry both FF and APS-C bodies and swap back & forth depending on what they want to achieve. Personally I rarely look at the focal length, since I use zooms I just adjust the focal length to what I want it to look like. I suppose that would be harder with primes. With a FF body the lens would be stamped correctly pretty much, so it would have no use for such a device unless you wanted your UWA's to be a stop faster and a wee bit wider than stamped. For someone like me, I'd just leave the things attached to the APSC bodies all the time unless I needed as long a reach as possible for something...and then I'd probably use the Q with adapter instead anyway?

10-17-2015, 09:56 PM	#22
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by oscaletrains With a FF body the lens would be stamped correctly pretty much, Nope. You are missing the point. 50mm on FF is NOT "correct" it is just what that field of view is. It is no more or less "correct" than a 50mm on APS-C or m4/3. Someone who started shooting m4/3 is used to that angle of view and if they picked up a FF camera with 50mm lens it would very different, but not wrong. Someone who shoots with the 645z using a 50mm is going to expect a very different image. Seriously, how long have you been shooting APS-C? I would think you would have adjusted within a reasonable amount of time. I guess if you shoot film as well that might be difficult but if you are APS-C only it is what it is. Here is what you are looking for by the way: Amazon.com : Metabones Canon EF Lens to Sony E-Mount Camera Speed Booster ULTRA : Electronics But as far as I can tell it is only available to mirrorless cameras. I assume the registration distance required to fit it in precludes making it work on DSLR mounts but I have no experience with it so that could be wrong.

10-18-2015, 12:17 AM	#23
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by oscaletrains You wouldn't want an accessory that makes your lens a stop faster AND a wider FOV? Ok, whatever. I would. More glass, lower IQ. Then there's the business side of it: large cost per unit, low volumes.

10-18-2015, 01:03 AM	#25
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by Waratah Doesn't get any more normal than this Pentax A*1200mm F8 and Pentax Q10. Effective focal length: 6.6 metres! Please don't add to the OP's confusion, it's not an "effective" focal length, it's only an equivalence with respect to field of view. Focal length stays 1200mm

10-18-2015, 02:48 AM - 1 Like	#26
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	Don't we choose focal lengths, and therefore lenses, based on how far away things are and how much magnification is needed in order to make things big enough on our sensor ..? We can only do that by eyeballing things through the viewfinder and making the required adjustments. Sensor size makes no difference at all to that process. I shot film slrs for a few years before aps-c and you do remember certain reference points, like 24mm (which was the wide end of my standard zoom), 85mm (which was the long end), 105mm (which was my portrait/macro length). Now I have the same 'feel' for 14mm, 18mm, 55mm, 70mm, 300mm, all based on the extremes of my ranges. You get an instinctive feel for what to choose before starting to shoot. But I would say this process is part of understanding the CAMERA (based around the sensor size), and not really anything to do ' feelings' about lenses.

10-18-2015, 04:10 AM	#27
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by oscaletrains so why not a converter that would work the opposite...and make that 50mm lens REALLY react like a 50mm lens on the DSLR instead of 75mm? You don't want to put some piece of glass between your nice lens and sensor, Oscaletrains. ☺ Just put on your good 35mm and you get that 'normal' FoV without interfering with the optics.

10-18-2015, 08:15 AM	#28
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by mcgregni Now I have the same 'feel' for 14mm, 18mm, 55mm, 70mm, 300mm, all based on the extremes of my ranges. You get an instinctive feel for what to choose before starting to shoot. But I would say this process is part of understanding the CAMERA (based around the sensor size), and not really anything to do ' feelings' about lenses. Well said!

10-18-2015, 08:31 AM	#29
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	The only time I ever thought about "equivalent focal length" was when I bought my K10D in 2007. I thought about it long enough to decide that I would buy the DA* 16-50 for the situations when I used the 24-90 on my MZ-S. And then, I had always had LBA aimed at the 20mm lenses, so when I could by K10D, grip and DA 12-24 as a kit I thought to myself "18mm! yahoo!" and bent my credit card a bit. The numbers on the lenses meant not much after I bought them. I just looked through the viewfinder and if the field of view wasn't available with the lens on the camera, I would pick either the next wider (16-50 -> 12-24) or the next longer (16-50 -> 55-300). For those who don't know this old curmudgeon, I have been a Pentax SLR user exclusively since 1961. If a 75 year old curmudgeon can work without the mathematical gymnastics, I would think anyone could.

10-18-2015, 09:00 AM	#30
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	You need to have a good grasp of the FOV you are going to get, because at the end of the day that's what governs composition (if moving back and forth is not an option), but that is all.