[jstevewhite]

Alright, check these photos out I found online. They were shot on a full frame and they look amazingly sharp and have a specific look to them. Is this possible on the K5 with good glass?

Frank Scallo Photography - Blog - Family Session: Golden Hour @Devine

Of course it's possible with APS-C (not my picture - check the name at the bottom and look through his gallery).




The only part of that "particular look" that's related to FF is the DOF@FOV. It requires more work with an APS-C system, though (I've shot a couple recent tests with my 180mm f2.5 wide open and my 100 f2.8 wide open using stitching that look very much like this, as an exercise). I would say, however, if the bulk of the images you create are going to look like this, by all means, go FF, it will save you time.

I routinely stitch images together. Outside in good light wide open with a 180mm f2.5, even in the golden hour, at ISO 100, I can often get 1/1000 shutter speed. With that shutter speed I can almost use the continuous high to acquire a stitching set. I've been mostly shooting the subject in one shot (so they don't have to sit still) and adding several frames on either side (using manual focus and exposure, of course), above, and below, and the result is amazing. When I get a chance, I'll do some that aren't just tests of my dog in the backyard and post 'em. You can see 'em all over flickr, though.

I'd ask myself, though, if I wanted to dedicate my money, my time, and my creativeness, to replicating the style of another photographer, or if it's just a style that I want in my arsenal. If that's the images I want to produce, then FF or bust. If I want to do that once in a while, then it's worth the extra work, IMO, to carry the lighter gear and save the FF money - and stay with Pentax glass, which I why I came here to start with.

[Rupert]

I'm going to go out on a limb......and say that if you shoot wildlife and don't have a lens budget in the $5K++ bracket, APS-C is the way to go, no question about it. Getting closer is not an option with most wildlife for most shooters in most situations.

Tame "wild" Squirrels might be an exception, but there are not a whole lot of those around, and I own most that are.....

Out on a limb......it's a safe bet!



Best Regards!

[Wheatfield]

Alright, check these photos out I found online. They were shot on a full frame and they look amazingly sharp and have a specific look to them. Is this possible on the K5 with good glass?

Frank Scallo Photography - Blog - Family Session: Golden Hour @Devine

That has as much to do with post processing as the camera used.
The full frame advantage has to do with the size of the viewfinder than anything else at this point.

[crossover37]

Of course it's possible with APS-C (not my picture - check the name at the bottom and look through his gallery).




The only part of that "particular look" that's related to FF is the DOF@FOV. It requires more work with an APS-C system, though (I've shot a couple recent tests with my 180mm f2.5 wide open and my 100 f2.8 wide open using stitching that look very much like this, as an exercise). I would say, however, if the bulk of the images you create are going to look like this, by all means, go FF, it will save you time.

I routinely stitch images together. Outside in good light wide open with a 180mm f2.5, even in the golden hour, at ISO 100, I can often get 1/1000 shutter speed. With that shutter speed I can almost use the continuous high to acquire a stitching set. I've been mostly shooting the subject in one shot (so they don't have to sit still) and adding several frames on either side (using manual focus and exposure, of course), above, and below, and the result is amazing. When I get a chance, I'll do some that aren't just tests of my dog in the backyard and post 'em. You can see 'em all over flickr, though.

I'd ask myself, though, if I wanted to dedicate my money, my time, and my creativeness, to replicating the style of another photographer, or if it's just a style that I want in my arsenal. If that's the images I want to produce, then FF or bust. If I want to do that once in a while, then it's worth the extra work, IMO, to carry the lighter gear and save the FF money - and stay with Pentax glass, which I why I came here to start with.

Yea I use that technique too. Here's a shot from a session I had this week using that stitching method. I love it but it's not possible all the time with portraits, especially with kids. It seems the resolution is at another level with FF but maybe I'm just imagining it.

Attached Images

 

[Wheatfield]

Yea I use that technique too. Here's a shot from a session I had this week using that stitching method. I love it but it's not possible all the time with portraits, especially with kids. It seems the resolution is at another level with FF but maybe I'm just imagining it.

I didn't see anything in the full frame example you showed that couldn't be done with APS-C and a good lens.
I am not seeing anything in the example you posted above that could be improved upon simply by changing cameras.

If you are looking at low resolution screen images on flikr and thinking you are seeing the advantage of 135 format over APS-C format, you need to rethink.
What you are seeing is the advantage of good image processing.

[jstevewhite]

Yea I use that technique too. Here's a shot from a session I had this week using that stitching method. I love it but it's not possible all the time with portraits, especially with kids. It seems the resolution is at another level with FF but maybe I'm just imagining it.

That's a gorgeous image and I don't think FF would add anything to it. And as the stitched resolution of my random "dog tests" ( portraits of my dog Luna, since my daughter isn't patient enough to guinea pig for me ) are often well above 30-40 mpixels when I get done, I'd say I think your resolution concern is in your imagination

[jstevewhite]

I didn't see anything in the full frame example you showed that couldn't be done with APS-C and a good lens.
I am not seeing anything in the example you posted above that could be improved upon simply by changing cameras.

If you are looking at low resolution screen images on flikr and thinking you are seeing the advantage of 135 format over APS-C format, you need to rethink.
What you are seeing is the advantage of good image processing.

Yeah, I think you're right, Wheatfield; all I can figure is that he's seeing the difference in image PP style.

[Winder]

I own a FF Canon 5D and an APS-C K-7. I shot for 3 years with an Olympus E-3 (4/3). The differences are overblown. Yes there are times when FF has an advantage and there are times when 4/3 has an advantage. My biggest complaint with the E-3 was the DR and a camera like the K-5 definitely moves into FF territory when it comes to IQ. The difference in DoF is not significant in 95% of the pictures you are going to take. Razor thin DoF is just not very practical most of the time.

[crossover37]

Thanks guys for the compliment on my photo.

Maybe it is my imagination. I think it may also be the fact that you get a wider view with similar dof when compared to an aps-c with the same focal length since it's not a cropped view.

[Wheatfield]

Thanks guys for the compliment on my photo.

Maybe it is my imagination. I think it may also be the fact that you get a wider view with similar dof when compared to an aps-c with the same focal length since it's not a cropped view.

Well, yes. That's why you go to a shorter focal length to correct the FOV.
Here's a dirty little secret: The 135 format people will crow about how much better that format is because they can get shallower DOF, but unless they have scads of money to outlay for an 85/1.4 (or 85/1.2 in the case of Canon) APS-C has the ability to get less DOF in portraiture. The 50/1.2 is a nice FL for portraiture on the APS-C format, but is too short on 135 format...
The whole thing is rather a canard anyway, the difference in real terms is more theoretical than practical anyway.
Also, resizing and sharpening for the web has a habit of mucking up the out of focus areas as well, so again, what you are seeing most often is differences in post processing, not differences caused specifically by the change in format.
Rather than over analyzing web sized image comparisons that will get you nowhere, you would do well to work your post processing with the intent of emulating what you are seeing that you like.
Getting a D700 will not guarantee you the same results as that flikr image you showed, since you don't know how it was processed anyway.

[JohnBee]

Of course it's possible with APS-C (not my picture - check the name at the bottom and look through his gallery).




The only part of that "particular look" that's related to FF is the DOF@FOV. It requires more work with an APS-C system, though (I've shot a couple recent tests with my 180mm f2.5 wide open and my 100 f2.8 wide open using stitching that look very much like this, as an exercise). I would say, however, if the bulk of the images you create are going to look like this, by all means, go FF, it will save you time.

Most impressive image!

[FullertonImages]

As far as getting the FF looks goes, or great sharp shots, with crushed out backgrounds goes, it's much of a function of choosing location and how you shoot. F/stop is one thing tha determines the background bokeh, but the other, and possible bigger one, is subject-to-background distance. You can really get a lot done by choose locations where there's a lot of depth behind you subject, and allowing it all to just fall off into oblivion. I just started thread sharing some yoga images I shot in a daffodil field. I was able to obtain a all the DOF fallof I wanted with the 200/2.8 just by shooting against a deep scene, and standing pretty far from the subject. And thanks to the telephoto compression, it doesn't look like the scene is that deep. From me to her is probably about 75 feet, and from her to the background is probably another 50. I think a lot of times, since telephotos make backgrounds look much closer, people get fooled into thinking they are. Then when you head out to shoot, and setup what you thought you saw, you get frustrated at how in focus the BG is. But by moving a lot further off the BG than you thought, you can achieve surprising results.

But the real issue is much less about format, FF vs aps-c, and is much more about lens options. Sensor format does matter and FF does have an advantage in that respect. But lens selection is a much bigger issue for us Pentax shooters. When I have the same lens options as FF'ers, I'm totally satisfied with the amount of DOF I can achieve (50/1.4, 200/2.8...). But the real issue is the amount of very vast lenses, generally associated with FF, or FF systems, that we don't have. Like 24/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2, 200/2, 300/2.8 and so on. If I could have those lenses, I would be completely happy shooting with aps-c. The DOF disadvantage we have due to the smaller format is much less considerable than the disadvantage of not having access to an array of fast primes. I think very high on Pentax's list of things to make should be something to the tune of 20/1.8, 30/1.4, 135/1.8 and 500/4. As much as there is a decent list of things that we all like to pine after from the other systems, as a professional shooter, the thing I miss the most, is the selection of fast primes. The Pentax DA* zooms are absolutely top notch and can rival anything else out there. The few DA* primes are great, but there just aren't enough of them. Especially with the rise in DSLR film making, fast primes are %50 of the attraction to everyone. Even if Pentax straightened things out with manual video controls and more frame rate options, I think film makers would still pass it up due to the lack of fast primes.

Cheers,

Ben

[jsherman999]

Here's a dirty little secret: The 135 format people will crow about how much better that format is because they can get shallower DOF, but unless they have scads of money to outlay for an 85/1.4 (or 85/1.2 in the case of Canon) APS-C has the ability to get less DOF in portraiture. The 50/1.2 is a nice FL for portraiture on the APS-C format, but is too short on 135 format...

My 85 f/1.8D cost me $285. It would bring you about the equivalent of a 55mm f/1.1 or 1.2 on aps-c in terms of FOV and DOF.

Frankly, I don't know many FF portrait shooters who shoot wide-open, anyway, the DOF is too shallow (just like it would almost always be too shallow to shoot at 50mm f/1.2 on aps-c.) What FF can bring you there is the ability to stop down to get better contrast and color while keeping the background from gaining too much clarity. 85mm shot at f/4 would get you that pop and sizzle at the focal plane while looking like a 55mm f/2.5 shot with regards to DOF. (Also, I've not seen an f/1.2 lens that has really good portrait-worthy bokeh wide-open - some in fact look downright funky. Your typical 85mm actually has better bokeh at f/2.8 than most lenses wide-open.)

Again, not that big of a deal to most people in most situations - but it is a fact.

As I said several times in this thread and others, the additional DOF control at your traditional FOVs is the gravy that comes with FF. Few people buy it just for that.

Rather than over analyzing web sized image comparisons that will get you nowhere,

Exactly.

you would do well to work your post processing with the intent of emulating what you are seeing that you like.

Creating the excellent shot of the model above is a lot of work . You'll have to decide at some point if your time accrued doing such things is worth the cost delta between the 'entry' FF lenses and cameras (which are superb, 'entry' is relative,) and the top-end aps-c bodies.

And, if you feel have all the DOF control you'd ever need and then some at the FOVs you like to shoot, there is no FF advantage for you with regard to DOF control.


.

[Wheatfield]

My 85 f/1.8D cost me $285. It would bring you about the equivalent of a 55mm f/1.1 or 1.2 on aps-c in terms of FOV and DOF.

Frankly, I don't know many FF portrait shooters who shoot wide-open, anyway, the DOF is too shallow (just like it would almost always be too shallow to shoot at 50mm f/1.2 on aps-c.) What FF can bring you there is the ability to stop down to get better contrast and color while keeping the background from gaining too much clarity. 85mm shot at f/4 would get you that pop and sizzle at the focal plane while looking like a 55mm f/2.5 shot with regards to DOF. (Also, I've not seen an f/1.2 lens that has really good portrait-worthy bokeh wide-open - some in fact look downright funky. Your typical 85mm actually has better bokeh at f/2.8 than most lenses wide-open.)

Again, not that big of a deal to most people in most situations - but it is a fact.

As I said several times in this thread and others, the additional DOF control at your traditional FOVs is the gravy that comes with FF. Few people buy it just for that.

I really think that the 135 guys make a lot of noise about very little.
Check a DOF calculator and see what you are really getting. It's a matter of inches at best.

Here's an example:
Nikon D700 with an 85mm lens at f/4 focused at 10'.
Near limit is 9.53ft, far limit is 10.5 ft, for a total of .99 ft (12 inches near as anything)

Move to the K7 with the 55/1.4 also at f/4 focused at 10' and the near limit is 9.27ft, far limit is 10.9ft for a total DOF of 1.59 ft (around over 1ft 7 inches).

Personally, and this is coming from a portrait shooter whose been doing it for 40 years, it isn't that big a deal, and the ones who make a big deal of it are pretty much blowing smoke because they think they have a point to make.

The other side of the coin is that the APS-C shooter can acquire more DOF, and sometimes it does matter. It's a lot easier to shoot macro with APS-C than 135 format, for example.

Sometimes people blow off one format for another without giving things much in depth thought. I really think the DOF of 135 vs. APS-C debate is one of those times.

However, those nice big 135 format viewfinders beat the heck out of APS-C viewfinders.

[jstevewhite]

However, those nice big 135 format viewfinders beat the heck out of APS-C viewfinders.

I'll certainly agree with you here. But I think that has to do partly with the register distance and the required eye-to-screen distance. Move it closer and use a stronger diopter, and the APS-C screen would 'look' the same size.