[DAZ]

At what point is more meaningless?

If camera A = $1000 and camera B = $2000.

Camera A 4 stops DR.

Camera B 5.2 stops DR.

Then just about everyone that can afford camera B will get it.

Camera A 20 stops DR.

Camera B 21.2 stops DR.

I think that most would pick camera A in this case.

It is the same for DOF. How small is needed? With high ISO at some point you have a star light system. How many pixels for a 8x10 or a 24x36? There will always be some that will need more and will pay as much as they can to get it but for the rest at some point cost is the most important point. It is not that something is not measurably better, it is that what is measured become insignificant. The percentage willing to pay for these differences will continue to become smaller until they too become insignificant.

Most people with a camera do not have a big expensive camera and lenses. For them the measured differences have become insignificant to the cost and size. As those cameras will also improve but the percentage willing to pay for the big expensive cameras and lenses will shrink. Their will probably for the foreseeable future be enough interested in a big expensive camera and lenses to make it worth while to make them but as the measured differences become insignificant between the big expensive cameras and lenses then things like cost will drive the choices.

The first cameras were what we call now large format (like a 12x12). When the technology got better then medium format was used the most. Then later small format (35mm) was the most used. LF and MF did not go away the just become a much smaller percentage and less significant so less was spent improving them then SF.


APS-C is looking like it is going to be the new SF. It has the price and size advantage. The question then becomes is FF good enough for those that need more or will those that need more at any price they can afford go to the new MF systems?

DAZ

[dosdan]

I want the 645D simply because I want to take portraits with only one mustache hair in focus .

Please, let's not get ridiculous. With the 645D & the right lens you be able to explore new vistas of portraiture like being able to effectively isolate a nose from its distracting background: the rest of the face.

Dan.

[RBellavance]

The first cameras were what we call now large format (like a 12x12). When the technology got better then medium format was used the most. Then later small format (35mm) was the most used. LF and MF did not go away the just become a much smaller percentage and less significant so less was spent improving them then SF.

APS-C is looking like it is going to be the new SF. It has the price and size advantage. The question then becomes is FF good enough for those that need more or will those that need more at any price they can afford go to the new MF systems?

This is pretty much exactly how I feel. APS-c is already more than good enough for the vast majority of photographers. The 24x46 DOF "advantage" is a non-issue for the vast majority of people. I really think APS-C sensors are the "new 135 format" of the digital era, and 24x36 sensors are the "new medium-format".

I guess we'll see in 5-10 years how this all turns out.

[Pål Jensen]

This is pretty much exactly how I feel. APS-c is already more than good enough for the vast majority of photographers. The 24x46 DOF "advantage" is a non-issue for the vast majority of people. .

Actually shallower DOF at same magnification and shooting aperture is a disadvantage in 99,99% of photography....

[kittykat46]

A lot of the time, I find I'm opening up the aperture to cope with low-light, and the shallower DOF is actually a not-really-welcome side effect. With usable ISO 6400, I might be using that a lot less.

Of course, with portraits and still-life, very thin DOF helps to isolate the subject for artistic purposes.

[northcoastgreg]

The biggest things that full frame brings to the table are the ability to manipulate depth of field and bigger viewfinder. The biggest negatives (and these are really big to me) are cost and size.

This comes pretty close to my position. FF is, on the whole, better than APS-C; it's pointless to argue otherwise. But the question is whether the superiority is worth the cost. And here I don't mean just the cost of the camera (which is really not that significant any more), but the glass as well. High quality FF zoom glass costs more than the k-5. For many hobbyists (especially those with wives and families) the cost is prohibitive.

Size matters as well. If I were wealthy, I'd probably buy the Nikon D3x and a couple of tilt-shift lenses. That's a combination that can't be reproduced on APS-C (at least not for the type of landscape work I would wish to do with it). But I'd still keep my Pentax APS-C camera and lenses; and I wouldn't be surprised if I wound up using the Pentax gear more than the rather large and cumbersome Nikon stuff.

[Pål Jensen]

Size matters as well. If I were wealthy, I'd probably buy the Nikon D3x and a couple of tilt-shift lenses. That's a combination that can't be reproduced on APS-C (at least not for the type of landscape work I would wish to do with it). .

Sure? I'm pretty certain that with APS you get so much DOF that tilt and shift lenses aren't needed.

[northcoastgreg]

Sure? I'm pretty certain that with APS you get so much DOF that tilt and shift lenses aren't needed.

It's not just about DOF; it's about optimizing focus where you want and about perspective control. Now granted, you can come pretty close to duplicating what you would get with FF and a tilt-shift lens on APS-C, using wide DOF and changing perspective in post. But there is an advantage, however small, in the FF setup. Look, if there were no FF advantages at all, if APS-C was just as good (nearly as good doesn't count, as there are always people who will pay huge amounts for small advantages), FF systems would never sell at all. There are advantages to FF; the problem is these advantages are not large enough to justify, in the minds of many (if not most?) DSLR users, the cost of upgrading to an FF system.

[rparmar]

Sure? I'm pretty certain that with APS you get so much DOF that tilt and shift lenses aren't needed.

Not at all. First of all, shift is for another purpose (as I am sure you realise!). A small degree of tilt can put an entire landscape into focus at an aperture optimal for your lens (f/8 say). No need to stop down to some diffraction-limited small aperture.

This is the same at either sensor size. Unless you make thesensor so small that the image is rubbish anyway -- hello point and shoot!

There is no direct equivalent for this technique. If Pentax really wants to support landscape photographers they need to release a tilt/shift adapter for K-mount and 645D. Immediately!

(Or be radical and introduce in-camera focus-stacking. That would be a game-changer.)

[kittykat46]

.......

Size matters as well. If I were wealthy, I'd probably buy the Nikon D3x and a couple of tilt-shift lenses. That's a combination that can't be reproduced on APS-C (at least not for the type of landscape work I would wish to do with it). ......
.

I've tried shots with a tilt-shift lens on a Canon 7D before - so its not an APS-C issue.
The effect may well turn out different on an FF camera - I didn't have one to compare with.

[ohyouloveme]

One question - will depth of field be different on APSC and full frame cameras? i thought that would be dependent only on the focal length of the lens used??

my apologies if the answer was somewhere in one of these 11 pages!!

One question - will depth of field be different on APSC and full frame cameras? i thought that would be dependent only on the focal length of the lens used??

my apologies if the answer was somewhere in one of these 11 pages!!

FF cameras have less depth of field.


Also read some rumors that 5D mark 3 is going to have a 28MP sensor with 102k ISO. Also 6 fps even with all those megapixels. Should be interesting to see how much IQ has improved over the mark 2.

[DAZ]

One question - will depth of field be different on APSC and full frame cameras? i thought that would be dependent only on the focal length of the lens used??

my apologies if the answer was somewhere in one of these 11 pages!!

DOF is dependent on focal length, aperture, distance to subject, sensor (film) size, pixel pitch (CoC), print size (and viewing distance from print) and what you consider expectable in focus. If all other variables are held the same then the larger sensor (film) size will have less DOF. If you are comparing APS-C to FF (135) and change only aperture then there is about 1 stop between the 2. If you are willing to change any or all the variables you can get about the same DOF. As a percentage of photos then more photos could (can) use more DOF then photos that with less DOF. As a side note Ansell Adams was a founding member of the f/64 group and this group use cameras with much bigger then 135 for their photos. DOF for FF is probably not the most important difference between the 2 formats.

DAZ

[dosdan]

FF cameras have less depth of field.

Not at the same subject distance, aperture & FL.

Try for yourself with the Nikon D3 & D90 with this calculator:

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Using these criteria (same subject distance, aperture & FL), you could claim that "FF has a greater DOF than APS-C"

You have to compare them at the same framing/AOV. Either the APS-C will be further back, or the FF will need to be moved closer. Then, FF DOF is less.

Dan

[dosdan]

FF cameras have less depth of field.

continuing on:

Comparing FF & APS-C: to get the same AOV with the same lens you would need to move 50% further away with APS-C compared to FF.

The total number of photons falling on each sensor is different due to the different sensor sizes. Hence a 1.3 stops better S/N ratio for FF due to its bigger sensor area if both sensors are using the same level of technology.

Now consider this:
100mm FL, f/4, subject distance 10m.

APS-C camera (Pentax K20D) DOF = 1.59m
FF camera (Nikon D3) DOF = 2.41m

Where the reduction in DOF occurs with FF is when we try for the same AOV at the same distance.

Take: 100mm FL, f/4, subject distance 10m.
See AOV calculator here: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

AOV (horiz.) on FF = 20.4 degrees.
AOV (horiz.) on APS-C (1.5x) = 13.7 degrees.


To get the same AOV on the FF as on the APS-C (13.7 degrees), both at 10m distance from the subject, we need to use a 150mm FL lens. But now the DOF on the FF is only 1.05m. So we have the same AOV on both systems but, in doing this, we have reduced the DOF on the FF.

To get back the DOF, we close down the FF's aperture to f/6.3 (1.3 stops down from f/4) =
150mm FL, f/6.3, 10m = 1.59m

We're back to the same DOF as the APS-C with
100mm FL, f/4, 10m = 1.59m

So, to get the same AOV & DOF at the same subject distance, we require 1.3 more stops of aperture reduction (f/6.3) on the FF 150mm FL system compared to the APS-C 100mm FL system (f/4) which nullifies the sensitivity advantage of FF.

So, depending on how you qualify it, you could also claim that "FF has the same DOF as APS-C".

This is the concept of "equivalence" in the two systems, FF & APS-C, i.e. trying as best we can to compare apples with apples, as expounded here: Equivalence


Dan.