[jstevewhite]

With regards to DOF, FF gives you more control at equivalent FOV and distance. Also still at least a one-stop advantage in ISO/noise performance (but no longer a DR advantage with the top aps-c bodies.) But this doesn't make FF 'better', few say that - just better for certain things, more capable for some applications.

Again, I'm not at all challenging the "I like it better" stance. That's always a reasonable argument, in my book.

I can't agree. Having shot with both formats for a little while now, 'moot' isn't how I'd describe the difference. But I wouldn't describe it as 'drastic', either.

I'll take your word for it.

I think that is pushing the analogy with respect to photography, but fine... Do you accept that there's a difference between Shiraz and Merlot, and that even if that difference is moot to 80% of casual wine drinkers, the difference does exist and is important to folks who drink wine more often? And that if a member of the 'I can't tell a difference' crowd were to drink wine more often, they'd eventually be able to discern a difference?

The point I was trying to make is that we (humans) *always* believe we are more discerning than we actually are. Every blind test of every kind demonstrates this over and over again. I *know* what people say are the differences between FF sensors and crop sensors, and I spent weeks poring over images from both looking for the differences, and most of the time it was impossible to identify. You shoot both, and I have no doubt you can identify *your* systems. The question is can you do the same thing with someone else's images. If there were some way to test it, I'd be willing to wager a few bucks that you (nor I, nor anyone else) could (in the scenario I described) identify with any reliability.

You don't need to 'create' a shooting scenario for any lens or any format to be able to appreciate the strengths that lens or format brings to the table. It seems as though you're concentrating on the DOF difference at equivalent FOV/distance, and finding that difference of 1.3 stops uninteresting and not significant - and that's fine - but that difference only gives you more control, it doesn't automatically make every FF shot "better". (I think control itself is better, though.)
.

Not just DOF, but all the claims of the "Pentax must make a FF camera to be considered a serious contender" or "Oh, you've got an APS/C camera; you can't shoot pro"... etc. And many people do, specifically, claim that FF is "better" than APS/C. Every now and again I get a wild hair and go look again, and still fail to find the difference. I know that *you* can see the difference - you are creating the images; and I think that your experience while you do so is valuable. OTOH, factual claims should work in reverse, too. If you can't see the difference without knowing about it already, the difference is moot. I think that's where we're crossing; it's not a test of relevance if you know in advance; blind tests are what determine "objective" relevance. I suspect that a blind test - even with experts - would be quite eye-opening for everyone. I also suspect that Nikon and Canon would not fund such a test.

[Rupert]

The fact that we are making comparisons of the K5 and FF must say something? The K5 is a match in most other ares beyond DOF......and even there if the circumstances and lenses are appropriate.
All these great features in a small compact body that doesn't require a forklift to maneuver......or twice the price plus very expensive lenses. I don't want to sound like some Fanboy, I'm just an old Squirrel Shooter, but hey guys, this here K5 is one damn fine camera, let's take a moment of prayer to the Pentax camera gods to say a word of thanks before we forget how far we have come!

[manishved]

Yes, I agree that we have come a long way. ALso love the lenses that Pentax makes - especially the LTD ones.

[Rupert]

Yes, I agree that we have come a long way. ALso love the lenses that Pentax makes - especially the LTD ones.

Would anyone that used the D or DS have imagined such a camera as the K5? I'm going to burn some incense right now to say my thanks!

Lenses....yes, the Ltd's are fine lenses...I only have one of them ....for now....but it is a Jewel!
Best Regards!

[jsherman999]

... and I spent weeks poring over images from both looking for the differences, and most of the time it was impossible to identify.

I think that might be an exercise in futility, because you're dealing with all kinds of photographers at all different skill levels. It may draw you to a false conclusion or make you think that no difference can ever be discerned.

You shoot both, and I have no doubt you can identify *your* systems. The question is can you do the same thing with someone else's images. If there were some way to test it, I'd be willing to wager a few bucks that you (nor I, nor anyone else) could (in the scenario I described) identify with any reliability.

I think you're discounting the personal nature of photography a bit too much - what should be important to you is how a format change would change your images, how it could enhance them (or not) or give you a bigger range of options in DOF control and shutter speed at equivalent noise levels. It's going to be hard to judge that by looking at a series of random images from different photographers.

I probably wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference between 50 shots taken by someone else with the Zeiss 35 and the new DA 35 f/2.4 if they were randomly assorted - however I know that if I shot the Zeiss along side the (actually very good) 35 2.4, I'd probably prefer my output from the Zeiss.

... If you can't see the difference without knowing about it already, the difference is moot.

This argument makes the difference between, say, the FA Limiteds and the regular FA line 'moot' also. At equivalent apertures, you rarely would be able to tell the difference betwen random shots taken with the FA 43ltd and the FA 50 1.7. But if you, yourself shot both and compared the output, you'd most likely prefer the 43 (in most cases.)

I think that's where we're crossing; it's not a test of relevance if you know in advance; blind tests are what determine "objective" relevance. I suspect that a blind test - even with experts - would be quite eye-opening for everyone. I also suspect that Nikon and Canon would not fund such a test.

Objective relevance - you might be able to get there more accurately by just considering the numbers, and extrapolating from that how relevant they would be to your photography: 1.3 stops DOF control at equivalent FOV and aperture, and currently between 1.5 and .7 stops better ISO performance, depending on who's measuring.

As far as I was concerned, the FF 'look' wasn't at the top of my list, I basically just wanted really fast AF and at least a stop better ISO performance - these things were really valuable for what I was shooting. Where I find the DOF control valuable is that, if I want to, I can stop down to aps-c equiv DOF and gain an extra 1.3 stops of sharpness on the target. I rarely am looking to get the absolute minimum DOF (although that's available.)


.

[jstevewhite]

I think that might be an exercise in futility, because you're dealing with all kinds of photographers at all different skill levels. It may draw you to a false conclusion or make you think that no difference can ever be discerned.

I think you're discounting the personal nature of photography a bit too much - what should be important to you is how a format change would change your images, how it could enhance them (or not) or give you a bigger range of options in DOF control and shutter speed at equivalent noise levels. It's going to be hard to judge that by looking at a series of random images from different photographers.

First, I want to thank you for remaining civil and reasonable. For my part there is a slight bit of "Devil's Advocate" involved, but not entirely. I'm still sussing out how I feel about it - and it's not a trivial thing, the FF vs APS/C - and you're getting the arguments I pose myself for "FF is not relevant to me".

In comparisons of images, I paid close attention to things like: is it a 'good' image? Is it properly focused, properly exposed, is the f-stop and shutter speed comparable? is there motion blur? - When comparing FF images with APS/C.

I completely agree with what you're saying about how the format can affect the way you work, and see, and interact with your system. I'm not challenging that in any way.

I probably wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference between 50 shots taken by someone else with the Zeiss 35 and the new DA 35 f/2.4 if they were randomly assorted - however I know that if I shot the Zeiss along side the (actually very good) 35 2.4, I'd probably prefer my output from the Zeiss.

Mmm.. that's a toughie. I'm a Zeiss fan from the jump (Used to shoot Hasselblad for that reason), but the very reason I chose Pentax was that, among the Japanese manufacturers, they come closest to that Zeiss/Leica/Schneider "look". My FA 35mm F2 is virtually indistinguishable from the output of the Distagon T* 35mm f2 ZK lens. The Zeiss has *slightly* better controlled flare, and the FA has *slightly* higher resolution at moderate f-numbers. The Zeiss is better in the corners, but not enough to see at anything less than 100%. Contrast (when light source is not in frame) is virtually identical, including local contrast. In the end I chose to keep the FA because I don't tie up money in names, only performance. If the 35mm 2.4 DA is in fact the same lens (as some have asserted) it might be a close call in a blind test. If we're talking "feel", of course, in the hand, the Zeiss wins hands down - it's a work of art.

This argument makes the difference between, say, the FA Limiteds and the regular FA line 'moot' also. At equivalent apertures, you rarely would be able to tell the difference betwen random shots taken with the FA 43ltd and the FA 50 1.7. But if you, yourself shot both and compared the output, you'd most likely prefer the 43 (in most cases.)

I think that is my argument. If I can't tell the difference in images, then the only relevance is my personal preference; it has nothing to do with the technical claims surrounding the lenses, and everything to do with the way I 'feel' when I look through it. I had the 35mm F2.8Ltd macro, and frankly, the FA 35mm f2 *spanks* it in day-to-day use. I decided it *was* moot, and sold it here on the forums. Yeah, it was heavy, and felt nice, but it's a lot of cash to tie up in aesthetics that don't affect the final image. (And yes, the ltd was a macro, but the Schneider D Xenon 100mm f2.8 macro - the samsung lens - was sharper and had better working distance at the same magnification).

Objective relevance - you might be able to get there more accurately by just considering the numbers, and extrapolating from that how relevant they would be to your photography: 1.3 stops DOF control at equivalent FOV and aperture, and currently between 1.5 and .7 stops better ISO performance, depending on who's measuring.

As far as I was concerned, the FF 'look' wasn't at the top of my list, I basically just wanted really fast AF and at least a stop better ISO performance - these things were really valuable for what I was shooting. Where I find the DOF control valuable is that, if I want to, I can stop down to aps-c equiv DOF and gain an extra 1.3 stops of sharpness on the target. I rarely am looking to get the absolute minimum DOF (although that's available.)
.

So what if I want *more* DOF instead of less? This is one of the things about FF advocates (I'm not trying to paint you with that brush; I'm just trying to address it with someone who is reasonable) that amazes me. Go to the Nikon FX forums, or the Canon FF forums, and suggest you want greater DOF; they'll then present to you an argument that shows how the APS/C format has *less* depth of field. I'm not kidding.

I get it, really I do. You have a vision, and it allows you to reach that vision more... directly. That's far from the question, though, of "can you make the same image with an APS/C camera".

In the film days, I always used MF when possible, unless the client would pay for 4x5 - but I was a commercial photographer, and now I'm a systems engineer who is a photographic hobbyist. Furthermore, I satisfied myself with my K20D that unless I was shooting Velvia or Elite ISO 50, my K20D produced prints that were as good as the ones from my Hassy. I suspect that if I were to repeat that test, the K-5 supercedes both of those, as well. I also suspect that FF is *not* as different from APS/C as my Hassy was from my Canon gear. But being a techno-geek, I still wonder, and I don't want to have to buy a FF system to prove it to myself.

[dlacouture]

Go to the Nikon FX forums, or the Canon FF forums, and suggest you want greater DOF; they'll then present to you an argument that shows how the APS/C format has *less* depth of field. I'm not kidding.

Actually, it's true...
Shooting the same lens, at the same aperture and focus distance, you'll have less DoF on APS-C...

Of course you won't have the same FoV, but those damn Canikonians won't stop at this small point of detail to prove you wrong!!!

I'll also add that truly equivalent lenses are not more expensive/big/heavy in FF than in APS-C, and it can even be the other way around, actually...

Take the 50-135/2.8 (136 x 76,5 mm, 685 g, 950€), and the Canon 70-200/4 (172x76 mm, 705 g, 590€)... The Canon will give you a slight aperture advantage, for only 3.6cm more and 20g, and 360€ less!!!

Same story between the Canon 17-55/2.8 (83,5x110,6 mm, 645 g, 890€) and the 24-105/4 (83.5x107 mm, 670 g, 990€ but more range)...

---

Last edited by dlacouture; 04-22-2011 at 12:28 AM.

[Rondec]

Actually, it's true...
Shooting the same lens, at the same aperture and focus distance, you'll have less DoF on APS-C...

Of course you won't have the same FoV, but those damn Canikonians won't stop at this small point of detail to prove you wrong!!!

I'll also add that truly equivalent lenses are not more expensive/big/heavy in FF than in APS-C, and it can even be the other way around, actually...

Take the 50-135/2.8 (136 x 76,5 mm, 685 g, 950€), and the Canon 70-200/4 (172x76 mm, 705 g, 590€)... The Canon will give you a slight aperture advantage, for only 3.6cm more and 20g, and 360€ less!!!

Same story between the Canon 17-55/2.8 (83,5x110,6 mm, 645 g, 890€) and the 24-105/4 (83.5x107 mm, 670 g, 990€ but more range)...

The thing about this argument is that it assumes (wrongly) that people buy lenses based on depth of field. I know very few people who buy based on depth of field. Rather, they buy their lenses based on aperture and field of view. The other thing is that your prices and sizes are on the "non-IS" versions. IS versions are quite a bit more expensive and bigger.

I really think that when you come down to it, depth of field is the smallest reason to select a full frame camera. Bigger viewfinder, faster auto focus, better dynamic range (up to the K5/D7000 sensor was available), and better high iso all are much more important reasons to take a full frame camera over APS-C.

There are very few photos where the small amount of increased depth of field from full frame to APS-C actually really makes a difference. Particularly, if you are shooting different lenses (DA *55 versus FA *85), most of what you will see will be the differences in rendering of different lenses, rather than the differences in format size.

[Schraubstock]

Hi guys

Please forgive me for my contribution here, but I look at my camera as a device to take pictures. It is not a "DOF Recording Apparatus". (And before anybody shoots me down here, I do know and understand the importance of DOF).

But when I take a picture and it is well framed, the lighting is right, the subject matter is interesting, the colours are captured well and everyone who sees it say "wow that's beautiful" this is more important to me than any perceived variation in DOF (and sometimes even sharpness) a different lens or format would have given me. You can argue until the cows come home over format, DOF and the merits of this and that lens, it is how I use the lens that I happen to have up the front, understand its weakness and strength and take the picture accordingly. Isn't that what photography is all about ? I think you understand what I am trying to say here. Then again perhaps I am wrong.

Of course I also would like to have the latest and best equipment, no doubt about it. But I also know the level of technology in digital photography these days is already of such high standard that it starts to outperform our needs. Sure, the understanding and sharing of knowledge is important and welcome but don't let it become analysis to paralysis and lose the bigger picture over it. (Pun unintended)

Just my two bob's (cents in your country) worth and please don't be too hard on me with your criticism.

(I'm really quite a nice guy, if I had any friends they could confirm this).

Greetings from sunny Melbourne

[Rupert]

Hi guys

Please forgive me for my contribution here, but I look at my camera as a device to take pictures. It is not a "DOF Recording Apparatus". (And before anybody shoots me down here, I do know and understand the importance of DOF).

But when I take a picture and it is well framed, the lighting is right, the subject matter is interesting, the colours are captured well and everyone who sees it say "wow that's beautiful" this is more important to me than any perceived variation in DOF (and sometimes even sharpness) a different lens or format would have given me. You can argue until the cows come home over format, DOF and the merits of this and that lens, it is how I use the lens that I happen to have up the front, understand its weakness and strength and take the picture accordingly. Isn't that what photography is all about ? I think you understand what I am trying to say here. Then again perhaps I am wrong.

Of course I also would like to have the latest and best equipment, no doubt about it. But I also know the level of technology in digital photography these days is already of such high standard that it starts to outperform our needs. Sure, the understanding and sharing of knowledge is important and welcome but don't let it become analysis to paralysis and lose the bigger picture over it. (Pun unintended)

Just my two bob's (cents in your country) worth and please don't be too hard on me with your criticism.

(I'm really quite a nice guy, if I had any friends they could confirm this).

Greetings from sunny Melbourne

Agree, and I will burn a stick of incense to the Pentax gods for you in thanks for the K5, a fantastic camera in every regard.
BTW-Otis said he will be your friend.....if I were you I'd pass on that offer.
Best Regards!

[Schraubstock]

BTW-Otis said he will be your friend...

Wannabe a Friend?
Please ask Otis to submit an application together with his CV and a once only non refundable application fee of AU$25.00 :ugh:

Please Note: It is with great regret having to inform you that until further notice we are unable to accept US Currency as legal tender.

Greetings from sunny Melbourne

[Rupert]

Otis said never mind......he's pretty busy, and all he really wanted was to show you one of his rope tricks.....
[IMG] [/IMG]

Best Reqards!

[Schraubstock]

Otis said never mind......he's pretty busy, and all he really wanted was to show you one of his rope tricks.....
[/url] [/IMG]

Best Reqards!

He is not sulking is he?

[HEEGZ]

That has got to be one of my favorite squirrel shots ever!

[jsherman999]

So what if I want *more* DOF instead of less?

Stop down?

This is one of the things about FF advocates (I'm not trying to paint you with that brush; I'm just trying to address it with someone who is reasonable) that amazes me. Go to the Nikon FX forums, or the Canon FF forums, and suggest you want greater DOF; they'll then present to you an argument that shows how the APS/C format has *less* depth of field. I'm not kidding.

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.

I also suspect that FF is *not* as different from APS/C as my Hassy was from my Canon gear. But being a techno-geek, I still wonder, and I don't want to have to buy a FF system to prove it to myself.

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".


.