Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-25-2011, 02:03 PM   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Stop down?
LOL. The point was to illustrate the relative nature of the conversation. One must presume that, at the same FOV, if I want more DOF at the same aperture, then APS-C is looking fairly attractive.

QuoteQuote:
There are circumstances where APS-C has less DOF.

The most succinct and accurate overview I've seen on the DOF issue between formats was put forth by Bob Atkins a couple years ago - I'll paste it below. Read and understand these simple points, and you 'get' the whole issue:

For an equivalent field of view, an APS-C crop sensor camera has at least 1.5x MORE depth of field that a 35mm full frame camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format needs a lens with 1.5x the focal length to give the same view).

Using the same lens on an APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, the APS-C crop sensor camera image has 1.5x LESS depth of field than the 35mm image would have (but they would be different images of course since the field of view would be different)

If you use the same lens on an APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and crop the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the APS-C crop image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL

If you use the same lens on an APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, then shoot from different distances so that the view is the same, the APS-C crop sensor camera image will have 1.5x MORE DOF then the full frame image.

Close to the hyperfocal distance, the APS-C crop sensor camera has a much more than 1.5x the DOF of a 35mm full frame camera. The hyperfocal distance of a APS-C crop sensor camera is 1.5x less than that of a 35mm full frame camera when used with a lens giving the same field of view.


Yeah, I get all those points. I've had many a rousing debate about macro work (my personal passion) and FF vs APS/C. At 1:1 reproduction, DOF is identical between the two formats.

I think for me it boils down to: "Until I see an image that can be made with a FF that can't be made with APS-C, FF isn't really a material consideration from a technical standpoint."

QuoteQuote:
I had an extended PM conversation with Thom Hogan a little while ago - if I were to summarize his core philosophy on the issue, it would be: "If you have to ask why you "need" FF, the answer will be: "You Don't".
.
Fact is, I'm a systems engineer. I don't "need" a camera at all. So while your friend's advice is certainly humorous, that's also its only value. Many people said the same thing about MF back in the day, and it had exactly the same content - it's a humorous, semi-elitist, reductionist joke. Difference is, back in "the day", even amateur photographers could see the difference between 8x10s from my Hassy and 8x10s from my Canon gear. Doesn't seem to be the case with APS-C vs FF, and the cost gradient is much higher, as nearly as I can tell.

04-25-2011, 02:35 PM   #77
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 412
I dunno, hard to say. I'm no expert, but I can't think of many advantages many full frames have over the k-5. I do know what you're saying about the "look", but I think that look has a lot to do with the fact that the full frame image you see has been produced by a 20 megapixel+ sensor, combined with an quite expensive lens. These images can often be pushed hard in post processing as well. I've read a lot of techy talk about how the physics of how light is handled by full frame versus apsc, but I think the look comes down to a good quality sensor, which most full frames have. I've taken mostly portraits with the k-5 and there is nothing more to be desired . It's hard to beat a k-5 with the updated sensor, solid construction (more solid than canon/nikon, and lens backcompatability). I don't have full frame, nor have any experience, but the the k-5 has the look.....minus a bit of field of view.... Here are some examples:





















Last edited by outsider; 04-25-2011 at 02:41 PM.
04-25-2011, 02:40 PM   #78
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by outsider Quote
I dunno, hard to say. I'm no expert, but I can't think of many advantages many full frames have over the k-5. <snip> I don't have full frame, nor have any experience, but the the k-5 has the look.....minus a bit of field of view.... Here are some examples:
Hey, wait a minute... those look like they were shot with a Sigma 85 1.4!
04-26-2011, 08:45 PM   #79
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
LOL. The point was to illustrate the relative nature of the conversation. One must presume that, at the same FOV, if I want more DOF at the same aperture, then APS-C is looking fairly attractive.
But why would you require that it be the same aperture? If you stop down 1 or 1.3 stops, you're getting the same DOF for that FOV, with the added benefit of a sharper point of focus (assuming you're not approaching refraction limits, or shooting a dog of a lens on FF that's actually far softer at equiv apertures than the lens you're shooting on aps-c.) If shutter speed becomes an issue at that 1.3-stop aperture difference, increase ISO accordingly - you have the headroom to do so before you reach the aps-c noise level.

The point here is - any DOF you would achieve on aps-c is re-creatable on FF - the opposite is not true.



QuoteQuote:
Yeah, I get all those points. I've had many a rousing debate about macro work (my personal passion) and FF vs APS/C. At 1:1 reproduction, DOF is identical between the two formats.
I have never seen anyone successfully claim any DOF-related advantage for FF with macro. My Macro kit is my K20D + Lester Dine 105 2.5. Sweetness.

QuoteQuote:
I think for me it boils down to: "Until I see an image that can be made with a FF that can't be made with APS-C, FF isn't really a material consideration from a technical standpoint."
That's fine, but I think you're setting yourself up doing it that way, because like I said up there ^^, I've never seen a FF image that made me have to have a FF camera. It was mainly understanding what that extra 1.5 stops of ISO, extra DR (this was before K-5,) and fast AF would be able to bring me. The DOF control was the wine that came with the meal.

(and the 'can't be made with aps-c' part is easy - I can show you an FF shot at 35mm, f/1.8 that 'can't be made on aps-c' - because no-one makes a 23mm f/1.1 lens. But even that shouldn't be something you'd weight heavily, IMO, unless you really need that particular FOV/DOF combo personally for something.)

I'd suggest your best path here would be to think about what the numbers would mean for your photography, and maybe try a FF body if possible, vs. going out searching for that holy-grail image that convinces you. Remember, it's all the photog anyway when you're seeing that 'wow'.


QuoteQuote:
Fact is, I'm a systems engineer. I don't "need" a camera at all.
Me too, and me either. (Well, not for income, but for family captures - yes, I do 'need' a DSLR for that.)

QuoteQuote:
So while your friend's advice is certainly humorous, that's also its only value. Many people said the same thing about MF back in the day, and it had exactly the same content - it's a humorous, semi-elitist, reductionist joke.
My fault for removing so much context there - he (Thom Hogan) was actually not trying to be funny, was serious, and has advised many people who have emailed him asking whether or not he thinks they should add a FF body to their kit to not do so. On his latest trip to Patagonia, he took only aps-c (I believe.)





.


Last edited by jsherman999; 04-26-2011 at 08:54 PM.
04-26-2011, 10:15 PM   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
But why would you require that it be the same aperture?
For the EV, of course

QuoteQuote:
The point here is - any DOF you would achieve on aps-c is re-creatable on FF - the opposite is not true.
Yeah.

QuoteQuote:
I have never seen anyone successfully claim any DOF-related advantage for FF with macro. My Macro kit is my K20D + Lester Dine 105 2.5. Sweetness.
I've got a Dine ringlight. Great stuff.

I think the operative word is 'successfully'; I've seen lots claim that FF is better for Macro, with DOF being a component of the argument.

QuoteQuote:
My fault for removing so much context there - he (Thom Hogan) was actually not trying to be funny, was serious, and has advised many people who have emailed him asking whether or not he thinks they should add a FF body to their kit to not do so. On his latest trip to Patagonia, he took only aps-c (I believe.)
.
Yeah, I'm not leaving Pentax anytime soon. I'm having too much fun with the K-5, honestly. And i've never owned a zoom (and I owned L glass in Canon film) comparable to the 50-135 DA* I have. And the 100mm f2.8 Xenon D Macro Schneider is as good as any other macro I've ever used, and has better color rendition than most of them.

And I have shot with a FF camera. Decent glass, although the lenses weren't what I would call comparable to what I use on my K-5 ( like the FA 35 f2 , DA* 50-135, etc). In the end, it was a big, clunky, heavy bee-otch and the images didn't seem to have any obvious ... "visual advantage"? So many sell the FF as the MF against the APS-C's 35mm. I think that comparison is *massively* overblown; I don't think the difference between the APS-C and FF from the same manufacturer is NEARLY as large as the difference between, say, my (ca 198x) T-90+100mm f2.8 SSC and my (ca 197x) Hasselblad ELM+150mm Zeiss Sonnar (RIP).

Thanks again for the reasonable discussion. It's been informative and fun
04-27-2011, 06:25 AM   #81
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
Personally, I find out it ridiculous when people insist some cropped camera can be on par with FF: it's a pure bullshit, it's 1.5 (= crop factor) times easier for the FF lens to reach APS-C's details for the same FOV. It helps very much being sharp from the wide open. You just can't reach the same level with APS-C lens without stressing its characteristics which leads to degrading in many important parameters, since each lens is the balance of them. So … speak for yourself if you don't want FF. I need FF to utilize 31, 43 and 77+85. Especially for 31.
04-27-2011, 07:23 AM   #82
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,792
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
Personally, I find out it ridiculous when people insist some cropped camera can be on par with FF: it's a pure bullshit, it's 1.5 (= crop factor) times easier for the FF lens to reach APS-C's details for the same FOV. It helps very much being sharp from the wide open. You just can't reach the same level with APS-C lens without stressing its characteristics which leads to degrading in many important parameters, since each lens is the balance of them. So speak for yourself if you don't want FF. I need FF to utilize 31, 43 and 77+85. Especially for 31.
If you really "need" FF then you had better change systems. If your business was depending on the advantages of FF, then I assume you would have already done it. There will be no FF from Pentax anytime soon.

I have been using a Canon 5D for almost 5 years now. I shot with an Olympus E-3 for almost 3 years. I picked up my first APS-C (K-7) back in June 2009. If Olympus was still investing in 4/3 and expanding the system I would still be using it. Larger sensor will always have an advantage of having larger photosites and the ability to capture more information. The K-5 is the first APS-C body that for all practical purposes exceeds the IQ of my 5D. The DoF issue is WAY overblown and razor thin DoF is only an advantage in certain types of photography.

Your comments:
"I find out it ridiculous when people insist some cropped camera can be on par with FF: it's a pure bullshit, it's 1.5 (= crop factor) times easier for the FF lens to reach APS-C's details for the same FOV"

Go put a 300mm F/2.8 on an Olympus E-5 and take it out for some bird or wildlife photography. It is a nice portable package for 600mm. Now go get a Nikon D3x and duplicate that with the same IQ and reach. 2x TC degrades IQ way too much. Cropping a 12MP D3x file down to equal the FoV of the 12MP E-5 means you end up with a 3MP image that has seriously been degraded.

There is a reason that Canon professionals don't want Canon to stop production of the APS-H 1DIV. Sports/wildlife/news all like the added reach and DoF that they get.

Pentax is NOT going to develop a FF anytime soon. The people who really "need" a FF system "need" to move to Canon/Nikon/Sony.
04-27-2011, 07:53 AM   #83
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote

Go put a 300mm F/2.8 on an Olympus E-5 and take it out for some bird or wildlife photography. It is a nice portable package for 600mm. Now go get a Nikon D3x and duplicate that with the same IQ and reach. 2x TC degrades IQ way too much. Cropping a 12MP D3x file down to equal the FoV of the 12MP E-5 means you end up with a 3MP image that has seriously been degraded.

There is a reason that Canon professionals don't want Canon to stop production of the APS-H 1DIV. Sports/wildlife/news all like the added reach and DoF that they get.

Pentax is NOT going to develop a FF anytime soon. The people who really "need" a FF system "need" to move to Canon/Nikon/Sony.
It's also worth noting that APS-C is "better" for macro (I put better in quotes because there are specific macro goals served better by FF, but I'm talking the general case); DOF is almost entirely dependent on aperture and final magnification at macro (1:2 and greater), and at 1:1 magnification, higher pixel-density wins, as it records more details. FF requires greater magnification to achieve the same LOD, which reduces DOF... (provided lenses are of similar designs).

04-27-2011, 08:14 AM   #84
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
So, the question is strange Hoya behaviour: cameras are expensive, lenses are expensive ⇒ there should be a reason why it's happening. May be they provides better IQ? Only FA ltds and DA* 55 do this against corresponding canon and nikon primes, but they lose being compared to counterparts on FF. Star zooms are worse than Canon L's and Nikkors. Compactness? They definitely will lose to samsung in this area (I see some tiny fast primes with character for their NX series).
BTW I'm a hobbyst photographer, so no business here. I only want to have autofocus LTDs with FF since I tried them on my LX.
04-27-2011, 08:19 AM   #85
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
So, the question is strange Hoya behaviour: cameras are expensive, lenses are expensive ⇒ there should be a reason why it's happening. May be they provides better IQ? Only FA ltds and DA* 55 do this against corresponding canon and nikon primes, but they lose being compared to counterparts on FF. Star zooms are worse than Canon L's and Nikkors.
BTW I'm a hobbyst photographer, so no business here. I only want to have autofocus LTDs with FF since I tried them on my LX.
I do find it strange that Pentax has released new FF capable ltds since going digital. Of course, it's entirely possible that the current stock of FA LTD are old new stock, I suppose. I am not privy to production numbers. Or perhaps at the time of their production, Pentax considered a FF, but have changed their minds since, and either don't feel the need to re-tool.
04-27-2011, 08:25 AM   #86
Senior Member
Mr_Canuck's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 293
QuoteOriginally posted by outsider Quote
I don't have full frame, nor have any experience, but the the k-5 has the look.....minus a bit of field of view.... Here are some examples:
Outsider just said it, in pictures..... great models, very well done shots. Amazing bokeh.

I shot with the top-shelf 100mm f/2 and 200mm f/2.8 Minolta lenses on both an apsc Sony a700 and a full-frame a850. The more important matter was the quality of my shot. But I'll grant there is a perceptible difference. It depends on your intended use. When doing a crazy enlargement it's probably the megapixels that make a difference. And for some commercial or landscape work you'll probably care about overall sharpness. But I didn't register any difference for my uses, including wedding and landscape work. And that K5 sensor is pretty darned impressive. I'll take a quality photo over the digital data in terms of priorities. If someone else cares more about the pixel details, go for it.
04-27-2011, 08:27 AM   #87
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Mr_Canuck Quote
Outsider just said it, in pictures..... great models, very well done shots. Amazing bokeh.
<snip>
I'll take a quality photo over the digital data in terms of priorities. If someone else cares more about the pixel details, go for it.
Do you think it needs to be an either/or?
04-27-2011, 08:46 AM   #88
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,792
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
So, the question is strange Hoya behaviour: cameras are expensive, lenses are expensive ⇒ there should be a reason why it's happening. May be they provides better IQ? Only FA ltds and DA* 55 do this against corresponding canon and nikon primes, but they lose being compared to counterparts on FF. Star zooms are worse than Canon L's and Nikkors. Compactness? They definitely will lose to samsung in this area (I see some tiny fast primes with character for their NX series).
BTW I'm a hobbyst photographer, so no business here. I only want to have autofocus LTDs with FF since I tried them on my LX.
Are they really expensive? The Canon 5D sold for $3,200 when it came out over 5 years ago. The Canon 5DII came out at $2,600.

Digital MF has traditionally sold for $30,000+ this past year Pentax rolled out the 645D for $10,000.

In 2000 Canon introduced the EOS-D30 which listed for $2,900. Featured a 3.1MP sensor.

Does the $1,400.00 K-5 really sound that expensive? The quality and features that can be bought today for $1,400 blows away professional cameras from 7 years ago at well under 1/2 the price.

And before you go knocking the Canon and Nikon primes you should go use them. There are an awful lot of professionals making really good money with those lenses. The 85L is in a class all of its own.
04-27-2011, 09:01 AM   #89
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Are they really expensive? The Canon 5D sold for $3,200 when it came out over 5 years ago. The Canon 5DII came out at $2,600.

Digital MF has traditionally sold for $30,000+ this past year Pentax rolled out the 645D for $10,000.

In 2000 Canon introduced the EOS-D30 which listed for $2,900. Featured a 3.1MP sensor.

Does the $1,400.00 K-5 really sound that expensive? The quality and features that can be bought today for $1,400 blows away professional cameras from 7 years ago at well under 1/2 the price.

And before you go knocking the Canon and Nikon primes you should go use them. There are an awful lot of professionals making really good money with those lenses. The 85L is in a class all of its own.
I don't disagree with your assessment re: price at all, but I do have two points.

Professionals making money with lenses has little or nothing to do with the quality of the lenses. I made more money with my Canon FD 85f1.8 that had 20-30 short, fine scratches on the front element and had brassing all over it than with any piece of L glass I had owned. Every brand has a history, and nearly all have had pro lenses that didn't quite live up to the marque, but lots of pros still used 'em happily.

Also, the other day I was looking for a list of all the Pentax 85mm lenses and came across this: (relevant to your discussion re 85L) Canon 85mm f1.2 L v Pentax SMC 85mm f1.4

He compares a Canon 85L 1.4 with an old A* 1.8 mounted on a C400D. I particularly like this quote:

"That is an immensely impressive capture by the Pentax SMC A wide open, against the Canon half a stop down. You'll have to excuse me while I go a bit purple here, becuase that is the sharpest 'corner' I ever seen any lens produce at this aperture (f1.4). Just stunning. "

The Pentax doesn't trounce the Canon, but it's certainly an all-around match for the L glass. That's why I chose Pentax when I gave up film; I'm no longer a pro, so I don't need the greater accessory/lens/support diversity of Canon, and I can go where the glass leads me. I had a couple of Pentax cameras and a couple of lenses, and I always liked the "look" of the Pentax images better than the Canon, but... I mean, the T90, and the range of Canon lenses... And I still think the T90 is the greatest manual focus 35mm camera ever made.
04-27-2011, 10:23 AM   #90
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Are they really expensive? The Canon 5D sold for $3,200 when it came out over 5 years ago. The Canon 5DII came out at $2,600.
I'm talking about why K-5 is about the same price with 7D. 5DmkII is in its own league.
QuoteQuote:
The 85L is in a class all of its own.
I don't think so. For me, FA* > A* > 85L for portrait shooting. 85L is just not as boring as other canon primes and it's significantly overrated. But I prefer 77Ltd to all of them: It has enough sharpness from the wide open, it doesn't lose tones.
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!
camera, dslr, frame, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, photos
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame or improved AF. What do you want in the "K-8"? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 73 06-04-2010 11:35 AM
News Category Prefixes added to "Post Your Photos" Forum! Adam Site Suggestions and Help 10 11-13-2009 12:50 PM
Nikon's 1998 vintage "full frame" DSLR pingflood General Talk 5 07-25-2009 05:44 PM
How does the camera "know" where the first frame starts? pbo Pentax Medium Format 9 07-08-2009 08:23 AM
German c't calls K-7 "full frame" falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 3 05-24-2009 11:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:14 AM. | 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