[gatorguy]

On that note, the KP with the DA15, DA40XS and the FA77 is an unbeatable kit. I actually prefer it in lieu of the K-1 if I'm going to be walking for a while. Otherwise I know that the K-1 is amazing with the A20 and FA85. My FA31 sees very little use in comparison to my other stuff.

Only thing you're missing for your KP is a DFA100WR...
(Now I've gone and done it)

[HarisF1]

Only thing you're missing for your KP is a DFA100WR...
(Now I've gone and done it)

I've got one but haven't thought to carry it
The 18-135 goes into the bag instead but never gets any use!

[normhead]

I've got one but haven't thought to carry it
The 18-135 goes into the bag instead but never gets any use!

Some people just don't do macro. Personally, I can't use my old FA 50 1.7 or 35 2.4, not doing macro is not going to work. My 18-135 does good pseudo macro, which is usually what I shoot. SO that definitely doesn't work for me. On the K-1 I'll use the 100 macro as a walk around. It's a little long for that on APS_c but I have Sigma 70 macro of that.

[Lord Lucan]

I went from FF film to my *ist without giving it a thought ...... But honestly, who goes out and buys a lens without regards to the focal length? ....... [I] had already ordered the *ist D ......., I didn't even know I had a crop camera.

Who goes out and buys a camera body without regards to the format?

[HarisF1]

Who goes out and buys a camera without regards to the sensor or film format?

Many first time buyers.

[audiobomber]

Would anybody except a complete newbie not understand this and they aren't going to make much sense of the convoluted reasoning over DOF or resolution either.

Actually, it's not unusual in Canon world to buy a FF standard zoom to use on APS-C. When I started out in digital with a Pentax, I had a friend who was also getting started but with a Canon 40D. He thought 28mm was a good place for a dividing line. Start with a 28-70, add an ulltrawide and tele lens later. Since I was accustomed to 36mm FOV on my previous digicams, I must say this made sense to me as well. If i hadn't been shooting Pentax, I may have gone with a FF standard zoom.

I'm sorry, Dan, but it seems to me you're trying to make sense of his video by skipping over the many things that don't. Especially over how he's making a point in (ab)using "equivalence".

If you want to figure out if a 28-70mm is or not wide enough on a certain format, you must not use any form of "equivalence". Any needless reference to another format is a confusion generating mistake, and that is a fact.
Lenses should be compared based on their own characteristics, without preconceived ideas. Actually I do not believe that the 24-70 f/2.8 II - to use the current version, and not the ancient one launched in 1993 - is any worse than any EF-S 18-55mm, closed down 1-2 stops (i.e. at about the same apertures).

You make a valid point. I disagree with his use of the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 to compare with a 24-70mm f2.8. He should have used a premium APS-C lens like a 17-50 or 17-55 f2.8. Also, using the Overall Score for sharpness is not very wise. Much better to use the actual measurements at each aperture in the Measurements -> Sharpness -> Field Map screen.

[normhead]

Who goes out and buys a camera body without regards to the format?

I was an Program Plus user, and came in to look at a DSLRs. I had a A 200 ƒ4 macro, A Tamron 35-300 Adaptal and I can't remember what else. My only concern was "will these lenses work on my new body?" Having been totally film except for point and shoots up to that points, it never occurred to me that the same mount would work for two different formats. It may have said APS_c on the box, but APS-c is not a film format. In film it would have been called "half frame". A bit of clever marketing by the camera companies.

If it had said "half frame " on the box instead of APS+c I would have picked up on it and been appalled. But, that would have been a mistake. MY K-3 blows my program plus out of the water, in any way imaginable. And I don't have to own a colour darkroom to get the results i want.

IN any case, as a photography teacher, still working then and having used every format available it never occurred to me Pentax would make a camera that looked like my Program plus, was about the same size as my Program Plus, but was half frame. And to tell you the truth, I can't think of an instance where it made a difference. Digital is not film, you start where you start. You finish where you finish. APS-c to FF is not a huge difference. The only people who made a point of looking down their noses because I was shooting half frame were snobs (I certainly didn't) , and I could care less what any of them think.

My criteria is "does the camera do what I want it to do?" The rest is fluff.

Is that explained thoroughly enough?

[audiobomber]

I remember reading Understanding Exposure ten years ago and wondering why my Canon A720 IS 35-210mm "f2.8-4" did not look like his FF images when I used the same exposure settings.
F2.8 is NOT f2.8..

[normhead]

I remember reading Understanding Exposure ten years ago and wondering why my Canon A720 IS 35-210mm "f2.8-4" did not look like his FF images when I used the same exposure settings.
F2.8 is NOT f2.8..

What? The exposures didn't work? The images aren't the same, but the exposure worked. That's the point. You can use one camera as the light meter for the other, in fact I several times used the *ist as an exposure meter for older film cameras. Because ƒ4 is ƒ4.

If you want to talk about DoF that's different.

Having trained on 8x10, 4x5, 5x7, 645, 120 , 35mm, various snapshot all in ones etc. it never occurred to me that one picture could even take an equivalent image to another. And in many ways they can't even with the theory of equivalence applied.If you back up so you use a 50 on APS-c for the same Field of View as the same 50 on APS-c, the amount of "flattening" you see in the image depends on distance, so the larger distance creates different effect, not the same picture. If you use a 35 at the same distance, you won't have the same field curvature or spacial characteristics and the lens may have different design characteristics And it's not the same picture. What is this fascination with getting the same picture? Why is it necessary.

If you want the same images as someone else, buy exactly what he has. You have to do that anyway. Messing around with thinking equivalence will get you exactly the same image is a myth. It will get you in the ballpark, but after that, other variables will take over. IN that sense, there is no such thing as equivalence. Just some ball park numbers that don't take into account variations in lens design and how distance from the camera affects the image.


If you wanted resolution in film days, you used 8x10, a little less maybe 4x5, portability and quality 645, portability was the big thing, 35mm, don't want to mess with your camera, $5 throw away. And I always knew if i wanted shallow DOF, use a fast 50 with 35mm. Some of the photos that got me accepted at Ryerson were taken that way. The difference between 50mm, because I very soon after buying my *ist D I bought the FA 50mm 1.7 was so negligible I just went on shooting as i always had and didn't really notice a difference. If you get close, wide open you get shallow DoF, APS-c or FF.

My experience has taught me, if you like a scene, always take multiple exposures at different apertures. Don't count on one Aperture to get it done for you.

I swear these "you gotta have FF for narrow DoF" people are nut cases.

But in all fairness, I have never bought a lens trying to emulate someone else's photos. Or even wanted too. One of the things we learned was photo reproduction, so if I want some one else's photo, I'll put it on a copy table and copy it.

I always tell people, if you like my image, buy it. Sure you can go with the same camera to the same place and take an image, but it won't be this image.

People spend way to much time thinking about this stuff. Just get the pictures you want.

[surfar]

fluff.

Is that explained thoroughly enough?

Yes,teacher!

[normhead]

Yes,teacher!

Good, I can get on with my life. I have to process today's images.

[surfar]

I should have said X teacher,but you are not in that system!

[mohb]

What is this fascination with getting the same picture? Why is it necessary.

Lack of imagination or confidence?

[Lord Lucan]

may have said APS_c on the box, but APS-c is not a film format.

APS-c is a film format. Advanced Photo System - Wikipedia

It stands for Advanced Photo System - Classic, which was a hybrid film/digital casette medium that was doomed from the outset to be overtaken very rapidly by full digital, as anyone with half a brain could have seen at the time. I remember when it was introduced discussing it with others with a general air of disbelief. The 16mm x 25mm APS-c format was adopted (more-or-less) as a sensor size in early DSLR cameras possibly because some camera makers already had the lens designs for it, and back then FF digital sensors were very expensive to make.

But you surely already knew that. Perhaps you did not spot it on the box, or it was never there. I always do a bit of prior research before I buy stuff.

[Kunzite]

I remember reading Understanding Exposure ten years ago and wondering why my Canon A720 IS 35-210mm "f2.8-4" did not look like his FF images when I used the same exposure settings.
F2.8 is NOT f2.8..

F/2.8 is f/2.8.
Problems arise when people insist on giving it additional meaning, then wondering why it doesn't work. And an entire pseudo-theory is born out of that.