[nanok]

how did this turn into a "which is better" debate? does anybody recall what the original poster asked? are you seriously debating which of two formats is "better"? howocme nobody ever debates over medium format over 35mm? they are just "different", everybody knows that, right? does the confusion come from the fact that aps-c digital slrs look so much like 35mm film cameras (in size and format)? i'm amazed, it's been so "long", and people still seem to miss the obvious: it is a different format. this means a few things: any direct comparison is pointless, except if focused on a very specific usage pattern; regarding first point, if one says "ff looks "magic"", i often find they don't understand, or care to figure out, how their tools work, how they are to be used to achieve a certain purpose. there are of course people who know exactly which to use how and for what, according to their own needs, you will rarely hear those people say one is "better".

now back to the op: "the look" is 99% yours, the photographers. it depends on how you use your tools to achieve what you want, most importantly, you need to know what you want, to be able to reach that goal. the k-5, just like the k20d, k10d, k100d looks brilliant, if the photographer happened to take a brilliant shot, had a brilliant idea, etc. they suck when there's no purpose, or no execution (often neither). excellence doesn't come from gear, gear is just a tool which helps you get there easier, if you chose it according to your needs

different formats. for instance: with aps-c compared to 35mm, to achieve the same dof "look", you will need to step back, at same exposure (use a narrower field of view, that is). this means a smaller format will give you more working distance than a bigger one, it will also allow (or encourage) flatter perspective when doing portraits (which some people like, some don't). some people will prefer one or the other, other people couldn't care less, as the difference is not big enough for them, but all people who use whichever format successfully (or both), have something in common: they know exactly what they want to get, and of course how to get it (but that's easy, once you know the goal, it's trivial to figure out how to get there, it's just basic physics, nothing fancy, and _anybody_ can learn that. even i can teach that and understand that, what i cannot teach, understand, or do is taking great pictures, that takes vision, knowledge is not enough).

imho, figure out what you want to achieve (if money matters, using the cheapest alternative available, at first, with one note: make sure you enjoy using the gear, for some reason that's important for most photographers, gear does matter when it makes you feel good ), find pictures which are just as you would like yours to be, and figure out how to achieve that "look", and you will soon know if you're missing something only one format can give you, or you can get there either way, if you use your gear properly. don't chase for the magic "look" the gear is supposed to give your shots, that's just advertising, chase your vision first.

i hope this helped (unless you fell asleep by now)

[jstevewhite]

how did this turn into a "which is better" debate? does anybody recall what the original poster asked?

I dont know what it is but Full Frame portraits have a certain look to them. They look very nice and clean.

I think that's what made it a "which format is better" discussion. "nice and clean" is undoubtedly what one might want, whereas the alternative ... "not nice and dirty" is probably *not* what one would want in a portrait, yes?

And:

Personally, I find out it ridiculous when people insist some cropped camera can be on par with FF: it's a pure bullshit...

and many, many other instances. I think the assumption is that people want good image quality; you start with the best tools, your art rarely suffers. I'm not aware of many photographers that say "I don't need the best image quality I can get." (I've known a couple; one who posted a gallery exhibit of SX-70 images, for instance; another who posted an exhibit of 4x6 color prints glued to huge posterboards, arranged in clever ways).

If you think that people didn't argue about film formats, you obviously didn't spend a lot of time in photo clubs, pro camera shops, or reading photo magazines in the 80's. Words like "Every serious pro knows that they need to be shooting medium format" appeared in photo magazines, and many said things like "35mm is the price we pay for portability."

Shrug. So far I've seen no FF images that couldn't be made just as strong with a K-5, so *shrug*.

[Emacs]

Maybe you should research the article where Ken Rockwell compares the D300 with the D700 and finds virtually no advantage to the FF in most situations. Other than DOF for certain photos, he challenged his readers to pick which camera took which shot.
So I have to ask....which Ken showed up for your example? The FF Ken or the Cropped Ken? With Ken, he is like a box of Crackerjacks, the Prize is different every time.
Personally, my feeling is that the K5 has "stung" a lot of Nikon and Canon shooters, and we are now hearing them squeal. Sounds good to me!
Best Regards!

Ken is well known clown. But FF is really provides better results: it's easier for 105mm optical system to resolve details than for 70mm (70mm on 1.5x crop is the same as 105mm on the FF). When stopped down the difference becomes less noticeable (even unnoticeable I guess), but it's clearly visible at wide apertures.

[Winder]

I'm talking about why K-5 is about the same price with 7D. 5DmkII is in its own league.

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.

The K-5 has better IQ, DR, color depth, than the 7D. The K-5 has in-body image stabilization. 7D has better video and a better AF (not a huge difference, but the 7D is faster). As a long time (and current) Canon user, I think the K-5 is a better camera than the 7D. The 5DII is not in a league of its own unless you need HD Video the 5DII is probably the 3rd best option in its class. The D700 has better AF, build quality, & high ISO. The A900 has better build quality, better colors, much better VF, & is a really nice camera. As a longtime Canon user I was/am unimpressed with the 5DII. If I needed HD video it would be a different story.

The 85L is one reason I am still using Canon and I have not traded my 5D for a D700 or A900. It might be overrated, but it is the most desired overrated lens on the market. It is not like Canon has a hard time selling them for $2,000 each.

[Emacs]

The 85L is one reason I am still using Canon and I have not traded my 5D for a D700 or A900. It might be overrated, but it is the most desired overrated lens on the market. It is not like Canon has a hard time selling them for $2,000 each.

The 85L is better than any other canon prime, but there's a bunch of other portrait primes (Summilux 80 f1.4, CZ Planar 85 f1.4 for Contax, Pentax FA* and A* 85 f1.4, Pentax 77Ltd) that are simply better portrait performers than that L. There's nothing to say after even Sigma 85 f1.4 is on par with it.

[nanok]

I think that's what made it a "which format is better" discussion. "nice and clean" is undoubtedly what one might want, whereas the alternative ... "not nice and dirty" is probably *not* what one would want in a portrait, yes?

And:



and many, many other instances. I think the assumption is that people want good image quality; you start with the best tools, your art rarely suffers. I'm not aware of many photographers that say "I don't need the best image quality I can get." (I've known a couple; one who posted a gallery exhibit of SX-70 images, for instance; another who posted an exhibit of 4x6 color prints glued to huge posterboards, arranged in clever ways).

If you think that people didn't argue about film formats, you obviously didn't spend a lot of time in photo clubs, pro camera shops, or reading photo magazines in the 80's. Words like "Every serious pro knows that they need to be shooting medium format" appeared in photo magazines, and many said things like "35mm is the price we pay for portability."

Shrug. So far I've seen no FF images that couldn't be made just as strong with a K-5, so *shrug*.

steve, i think you missed my point (though your own is arguably valid). i don't think the original message said anything about one beeing better. for instance, if you want "nice and clean", i recommend canon, which has by default that well known "plastic look". i personally don't like it, i like my textures .

i didn't say people didn't argue, and it's true, i have never seen a photo club, and don't spend so much time on forums as others do, but my point was comparison is not linear: they are different formats, and each will be more or less useful for various applications, it depends a lot on the shooters personal preferences too. if you believe quality simply varies with format size, and that's it, just get a view camera, digital is like the 110 format of the "old days", by comparison. (what do you mean, it's big and cumbersome and slow to use and... it's better, right?)

[Winder]

The 85L is better than any other canon prime, but there's a bunch of other portrait primes (Summilux 80 f1.4, CZ Planar 85 f1.4 for Contax, Pentax FA* and A* 85 f1.4, Pentax 77Ltd) that are simply better portrait performers than that L. There's nothing to say after even Sigma 85 f1.4 is on par with it.

We will have to disagree. I'll take my 85L over the 77Ltd any time. The Sigma is actually more expensive than the 77Ltd, and I will buy the Sigma for my K-7 before I will buy the 77Ltd.

[jstevewhite]

steve, i think you missed my point (though your own is arguably valid). i don't think the original message said anything about one beeing better. for instance, if you want "nice and clean", i recommend canon, which has by default that well known "plastic look". i personally don't like it, i like my textures .

i didn't say people didn't argue, and it's true, i have never seen a photo club, and don't spend so much time on forums as others do, but my point was comparison is not linear: they are different formats, and each will be more or less useful for various applications, it depends a lot on the shooters personal preferences too. if you believe quality simply varies with format size, and that's it, just get a view camera, digital is like the 110 format of the "old days", by comparison. (what do you mean, it's big and cumbersome and slow to use and... it's better, right?)

No, I get your point, but we're not talking that sort of difference. The difference between a Canon APS-c machine and a Canon FF machine is like the difference between a consumer 35mm like the T50 (worst 35mm ever made) and a pro camera like the T90 (best manual focus 35mm ever made ), not the difference between a T90 and a Hasselblad EM, or a Hasselblad EM and a Linhof 4x5 or larger.

And image quality *does* vary with 'sensor size'; other controls are as you mentioned, an 11x14 is heavy and cumbersome. My argument is that FF and APS-c aren't really very different formats. The differences are ridiculously small when compared to the historical - or current - *real* differences in format. The difference, for instance, between a FF and an APS-c becomes a rounding error when compared to the 645D and other MF digitals, and equally so between the tiny p&s sensors and the big boys. They're clustered together like this:

ps ==============4/3=APS-c=FF==============MF.

Not really all that different, is my point.

[FullertonImages]

Although not to everyones tastes the 5DMK11 can produce sublime files with a certain creamy look and it does produce a cleaner file at higher iso's.

That's for sure! Canon files sure are creamy, but I prefer the sharp ones that come out of my Pentax!

[jstevewhite]

That's for sure! Canon files sure are creamy, but I prefer the sharp ones that come out of my Pentax!

You guys must be talking about OOC jpgs or something. The RAW stuff I've seen from 'em didn't look that way at all...

[Emacs]

We will have to disagree. I'll take my 85L over the 77Ltd any time. The Sigma is actually more expensive than the 77Ltd, and I will buy the Sigma for my K-7 before I will buy the 77Ltd.

LOL, since you found 7d gives overall better IQ than 5d, your opinion is, hm, shouldn't be paid any attention

[nanok]

No, I get your point, but we're not talking that sort of difference. The difference between a Canon APS-c machine and a Canon FF machine is like (...)

ps ==============4/3=APS-c=FF==============MF.

Not really all that different, is my point.

i tend to agree, though even the differences between p&s and aps-c can be much smaller than one would imagine, these days.

i think it's meaningless to talk about quality without taking into account your intended usage and sooting style. quality means nothing, on it's own. that was my point.

remember this "joke"?:

Kidding

[jstevewhite]

i tend to agree, though even the differences between p&s and aps-c can be much smaller than one would imagine, these days.

i think it's meaningless to talk about quality without taking into account your intended usage and sooting style. quality means nothing, on it's own. that was my point.

remember this "joke"?:

Kidding

I absolutely agree that the *standard* of "good enough" varies with application. P&S cameras in good light *are* creeping up on the others, in certain applications. I've read that bit in luminous-landscape before, and have no disagreement with his assessment, and he makes clear, easily understood caveats. It's rather like the observation that it's difficult to tell the difference between 4x6 images from a Canon with L glass and a Hasselblad with Zeiss T*. Not unexpected, and only true because the test is well within the "best quality" range for both machines.

That said, I'd have to take strong exception to the assertion that quality means 'nothing, on its own'. There *are* measurable factors for image quality, independent of the 'eye of the beholder'. The artist's job is to choose his tools, but that doesn't render independent measure of those tools irrelevant.

I freely admit that if you need to shoot images where the iris of one eye is in focus and everything else is blurry, a FF system is probably your better choice, although a MF will do it that much better still. If you need the absolute lowest noise, then the D3s is still your baby. OTOH, for the *other* 99.999% of images you shoot, the K-5 (coupled with the right glass, of course) will produce "better" images - that is, images that are more enlargeable, with very similar dynamic range, excellent color (better, IMO).

My real beef is not with people that say "I like FF better." My beef is with people who say things like "APS-c can't compare to FF" or "Any serious pro must use FF", or the stock agencies that won't accept Pentax images because they're not CaNikon. We can go out shooting, one with a K-5 and the other with a D3S or 1Ds mkIV, and at the end of the day the images will be *indistinguishable*. Not just indistinguishable at 16" enlargements, but completely indistinguishable (by other than the 'character' of the various sensors and recognizing the difference between 12mp and 16 mp).

[nanok]

I absolutely agree that the *standard* of "good enough" varies with application. P&S cameras in good light *are* creeping up on the others, in certain applications. I've read that bit in luminous-landscape before, and have no disagreement with his assessment, and he makes clear, easily understood caveats. It's rather like the observation that it's difficult to tell the difference between 4x6 images from a Canon with L glass and a Hasselblad with Zeiss T*. Not unexpected, and only true because the test is well within the "best quality" range for both machines.

obviously. that article is very funny, and i appreciate that somebody like recihman had the "strength" to swallow and say publicly. and he is very reasonable and well articulated, for sure.

but my point was not that it depends what good enough means, or not only that. my point was that raw, measurable image quality is not that important on it's own, in general (and this is one example why, but not the only one).

That said, I'd have to take strong exception to the assertion that quality means 'nothing, on its own'. There *are* measurable factors for image quality, independent of the 'eye of the beholder'. The artist's job is to choose his tools, but that doesn't render independent measure of those tools irrelevant.

i think that's because i still failed to make my point: it's not the eye of the beholder, it's what the photographer needs. and this, in most cases, is not just quality, and more quality is not always valuable, not to mention worth the money/constraints.you can never have too much quality, right, but this doesn't mean quality matters from a certain point on, especially when it requires a trade (for size, price, ability to do certain things even -- try to shoot sports with a view camera, you might find it a bit counterproductive, though the quality is, unarguably, much much better than a dslr)

I freely admit that if you need to shoot images where the iris of one eye is in focus and everything else is blurry, a FF system is probably your better choice, although a MF will do it that much better still. If you need the absolute lowest noise, then the D3s is still your baby. OTOH, for the *other* 99.999% of images you shoot, the K-5 (coupled with the right glass, of course) will produce "better" images - that is, images that are more enlargeable, with very similar dynamic range, excellent color (better, IMO).

you might be surprised, if you actually try the above

My real beef is not with people that say "I like FF better." My beef is with people who say things like "APS-c can't compare to FF" or "Any serious pro must use FF", or the stock agencies that won't accept Pentax images because they're not CaNikon. We can go out shooting, one with a K-5 and the other with a D3S or 1Ds mkIV, and at the end of the day the images will be *indistinguishable*. Not just indistinguishable at 16" enlargements, but completely indistinguishable (by other than the 'character' of the various sensors and recognizing the difference between 12mp and 16 mp).

- some serious pros might use p&s successfully, for applications which require it in their view, so that's obviously rubish.

- can't compare: i'm one of those people, my point being, as i said, it's a different format. if one wants linear comparisons, imho one should quit photography altogether, linear scales and photography don't work together. i think your point is that quality is not that far apart, which i guess is true, depending on your scale of comparison, but still doesn't help one make an informed choice, such choice can be made only understanding the differences and best uses of the two formats, and comparing to your needs and style. it's not just quality which is different.

- stock: who gives a shit, honestly. microstock is a plague anyway, imho, and any stock company having such practices is not even worth bothering with anyway. i will personally probably never shoot stock (though i wanted to when i was younger, and the market was different), mainly out of respect for professional photographers out there who need to make a living, and disrespect for people trying to buy high quality photography at high resolutions with unlimited rights for, literally, cents. i know strong pros can still sell just fine, and don't really care, but this is just my opinion

[jstevewhite]

i think that's because i still failed to make my point: it's not the eye of the beholder, it's what the photographer needs. and this, in most cases, is not just quality, and more quality is not always valuable, not to mention worth the money/constraints.you can never have too much quality, right, but this doesn't mean quality matters from a certain point on, especially when it requires a trade (for size, price, ability to do certain things even -- try to shoot sports with a view camera, you might find it a bit counterproductive, though the quality is, unarguably, much much better than a dslr)

Actually, this probably isn't even true if you could pull it off. 11x14 on the sidelines with, say, a 500mm lens, trying to shoot action, would have to be cropped down very close to the 35mm w 500mm lens, and 35mm lenses are sharper. Maybe this is what you're getting at, and I've never disagreed; there is, certainly, a component of "good for what purpose* in any analysis.

you might be surprised, if you actually try the above

I have. On a calibrated 24" Cinema display, no one - not one person - can reliably identify the images from my K-5, a D3S, or a 5d mkii. On 11x14 prints, no one - not one person - has been able to reliably pick the FF from the K-5. Try it. Go walking with your FF, and a K-5, and shoot the same stuff through the day. I compared images from a wildlife photo walk and images from a trip to the zoo. Again, no one has been able to identify the FF cameras.

My point is, back in the 80s and 90s, no photographer would have had difficulty picking the hassy images from the canon images if both were printed at 11x14.

- some serious pros might use p&s successfully, for applications which require it in their view, so that's obviously rubish.

We agree here. I've seen some macros from point and shoot cameras that make me go "wow".

- can't compare: i'm one of those people, my point being, as i said, it's a different format. if one wants linear comparisons, imho one should quit photography altogether, linear scales and photography don't work together. i think your point is that quality is not that far apart, which i guess is true, depending on your scale of comparison, but still doesn't help one make an informed choice, such choice can be made only understanding the differences and best uses of the two formats, and comparing to your needs and style. it's not just quality which is different.

My point is that their quality is *so* close together that in the vast majority of situations it's * indiscernible*. That only in carefully selected situations does the FF 'difference' show to even the trained eye. Unlike the P&S, which fall apart at enlargement.

- stock: who gives a shit, honestly. microstock is a plague anyway, imho, and any stock company having such practices is not even worth bothering with anyway. i will personally probably never shoot stock (though i wanted to when i was younger, and the market was different), mainly out of respect for professional photographers out there who need to make a living, and disrespect for people trying to buy high quality photography at high resolutions with unlimited rights for, literally, cents. i know strong pros can still sell just fine, and don't really care, but this is just my opinion

Yeah, I don't shoot stock, either. Still, it's an example of my point.