[jsherman999]

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).

That difference could be a big deal, or not, depends on the subject. But things are happening outside of the zone of acceptable sharpness, also. What about the deeper background of each of those shots? (I guess for portraiture the deeper background is meaningless if it's in-studio, but what about something like:

180mm f/4 (120mm FOV equiv, with f/2.5 DOF equiv, f/4 sharpness at plane of focus)




(180mm f/2.8, equiv to about 120mm f/1.8)




(I realize those shots may be meaningless without an equiv aps-c shot for context, just trying to demonstrate with what I have available.)

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.

Personally I don't really think it's a huge deal either. It is what it is, and can be useful at times, other times it doesn't matter to the shot one bit. Any 135-er who gets obnoxious about it might be getting defensive and trying to justify their big FF purchase.

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.

Agreed, my macro kit is the K20D + Dine 105!

Long telephoto also is where acceptable lenses start getting scarce for FF. ("acceptable' meaning something I could afford. Or lift.)

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.

I can't see myself giving up asp-c any time soon, too many great lenses, too many advantageous applications.

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

Wait until all that's available in the aps-c space is EVFs! (let's hope not.)



.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 05-15-2011 at 11:53 PM.

[Rondec]

I hate to say anything, but I don't think those shots tell much. The issue of depth of field is only partially related to format size. It is related as well to distance to subject, aperture, and focal length. I have a hard time seeing the difference between those shots and shots that I get from my 50-135 f2.8 zoom. The photos are great photos, but it isn't the format that makes them such.

[jsherman999]

I hate to say anything, but I don't think those shots tell much. The issue of depth of field is only partially related to format size. It is related as well to distance to subject, aperture, and focal length. I have a hard time seeing the difference between those shots and shots that I get from my 50-135 f2.8 zoom. The photos are great photos, but it isn't the format that makes them such.

There's always the danger of a 'so what' response whenever shots are posted without context. The numbers are the numbers - the 50-135 does not go to f/2.5, but more importantly it isn't as sharp at f/2.8 as that 180 prime is at f/4, so even if you shot the 50-135 at 120mm f/2.8 from the exact same distance, it wouldn't be quite as sharp at the plane of focus. If you did stop the 50-135 down to f/4 or f/5 or so to match the sharpness, the deep background would clarify on you. Also, the 50-135 does not go to f/1.8, so the last two shots would not even be possible from that position with it.

Of course there's no clear way to know subject distance and to judge such things from those shots, but you should be able to extrapolate how things would look with your aps-c options from the math. Perhaps I should have just referred to this other concurrent post where I was able to post side-by-side images:

(from --> this thread.)

.

...

I don't know how many times I made a variation of your request back in 2008 or so, and rarely was anyone able to produce a web-sized image that convinced me of anything.

Really, I think it takes iterations. To really demonstrate it I'd need to shoot an aps-c equiv shot each and every time I shot a FF shot, and then the 'look' would start to be more apparent to you if I showed you these dozens of shots, every day. A two-image sample often gets mistaken for an attempt at a definitive example, and usually just brings a lot of 'so what' responses.

A quick analogy: in a blind test, how many people would care about the difference in images between the $200 DA 35 f/2.4 and $900 FA 31ltd? If a good photographer shot both and presented a few shots in a forum, most people might be able to tell the difference wide-open, but the same folks would say, "so what? That $900 lens doesn't seem like such a big deal to me, now."

Yet, if you personally were to shoot with both for a while, you'd probably start to notice subtle differences and might start to really prefer the 31ltd.

Same deal, kinda, with FF, but the difference it can make to your overall photography is even greater than the difference between the 31ltd and the DA 35 2.4.

In my case, I bought the D700 long before the K-5 was available, and nothing in aps-c came close to it with regard to IQ. Now, the K-5/D7000 is only about a stop behind in ISO, and exceeds it in DR (at base ISO.) I didn't buy it for the DOF control, but grew to appreciate that aspect more & more at a lot of different FLs.

I hate comparison test shooting, but here's one image combo that gives you an idea of what you would start to notice (slight framing difference, same distance to subject though) :

35mm f/2.8 on aps-c, 50mm f/2.8 on FF



.

[Andi Lo]

(from --> this thread.)

That's a great comparison shot! I've always felt that FF really has something special DOF wise, but I think this just cements it I've always understood that this is true for across formats, looking at those two pics it just clicks even more: All things equal, longer focal lengths will ALWAYS be blurrier in the background, and therefore 50mm FF >> 35mm APSC in terms of background separation. Yeah, I know it's not that simple... but it's a rule I find easy enough to understand For close up shots it matters much less. The more distance you have with the subject, the more the difference shows.

K-5 really does have a special look that the 5DII can't achieve due to its newer sensor, but the reverse is also true since 5DII is FF and it also have higher resolution (not a direct function of being FF).

[Emacs]

I hate to say anything, but I don't think those shots tell much. The issue of depth of field is only partially related to format size. It is related as well to distance to subject, aperture, and focal length. I have a hard time seeing the difference between those shots and shots that I get from my 50-135 f2.8 zoom. The photos are great photos, but it isn't the format that makes them such.

I'm very doubt you can achieve such a crisp image with 120mm on APS-C (1.5 lesser magnification, so the image would be blurrier). Although I might be wrong, I would like to be, hope APS-C fans will show something similar )

[Rupert]

Not a factor for my shooting desires, the bokeh from my K5 and certain lenses is fully adequate for my pleasure. I understand the subject, but also realize we are in a specific group of critics, those highly involved in photography.

I can't tell you how many times I have produced what would be considered a nice bokeh shot by those here, only to show it in print and have someone say "Great shot, it's ashamed the background is so blurry". We are not all the same. are we?

Mailed this to my Mom this weekend....the reply....."Son,why can't you get the backgrounds in focus?" I hear it more often that you might imagine.......
[IMG] [/IMG]
Best Regards!

[jsherman999]

Not a factor for my shooting desires, the bokeh from my K5 and certain lenses is fully adequate for my pleasure. I understand the subject, but also realize we are in a specific group of critics, those highly involved in photography.

I can't tell you how many times I have produced what would be considered a nice bokeh shot by those here, only to show it in print and have someone say "Great shot, it's ashamed the background is so blurry". We are not all the same. are we?

Mailed this to my Mom this weekend....the reply....."Son,why can't you get the backgrounds in focus?" I hear it more often that you might imagine.......
[/url] [/IMG]
Best Regards!

Very pleasing, both the subject crispness and the bokeh.

.

[JohnBee]

Mailed this to my Mom this weekend....the reply....."Son,why can't you get the backgrounds in focus?" I hear it more often that you might imagine.......

HAHA!

Same here.
Amazing to hear people say that, especially when we consider that it is human vision which set the precedence for OOF rendering.

Still most people aren't aware of that and find themselves saying such things without actually knowing the difference.

I recall an experiment that I read about awhile back where people were asked which images they preferred from a set of focus stacked images(perfectly clear), and those with soft OOF renderings and most everyone agree'd on the DOF versions where subject isolation were concerned. However on images such as landscape/scenery, the general preference was with the fully focused scenes.

[johnmflores]

Sounds like a bunch of you folks can go to a photo gallery and tell which photos were taken with FF, which were taken with APS-C, and otherwise. Kudos to you then - you've got better eyes than me...

[jstevewhite]

HAHA!

Same here.
Amazing to hear people say that, especially when we consider that it is human which set the precedence for OOF rendering.

I'm not certain in what sense you mean this. The blown out OOF backgrounds are completely unlike anything we see with our own eyes (except for those of us that can focus very, very close with our eyes). You don't see a person in full length - or head and shoulders, for that matter - with a background that's a smooth blur. The focal length of the human eye is somewhere between 17 and 24 (on average), with an f-number of between f2 and f4. My 18mm f2.8 lens doesn't produce backgrounds that look like that.

Still most people aren't aware of that and find themselves saying such things without actually knowing the difference.

I recall an experiment that I read about awhile back where people were asked which images they preferred from a set of focus stacked images(perfectly clear), and those with soft OOF renderings and most everyone agree'd on the DOF versions where subject isolation were concerned. However on images such as landscape/scenery, the general preference was with the fully focused scenes.

Not all art directors like that 'look', either. I remember battling my Hassy for enough DOF to please certain ADs. As a commercial photographer it was much more common for me to need MORE DOF than LESS DOF.

Honestly, I think we photographers like it (the blown-out blurry background) so much because it lets us differentiate our equipment. If your photograph is *about* anything - which much photography is - then putting the subject in the environment is important, not taking it out. Great for portraits and still lifes, though.

[jstevewhite]

Sounds like a bunch of you folks can go to a photo gallery and tell which photos were taken with FF, which were taken with APS-C, and otherwise. Kudos to you then - you've got better eyes than me...

I had a stack of 8x10s printed from images I took on APS-c and from FF images I found (and liked) in full res on the web. Nobody could reliably pick out which was which. That's why I continue to say that FF is a preference for the guy behind the camera (Oh, I'd love to have a FF viewfinder on my K-5!!!) rather than an objective, 'viewer side' quality benefit. I mean, let's face it - the ultimate goal of photography is often purely aesthetic.

[jsherman999]

If your photograph is *about* anything - which much photography is - then putting the subject in the environment is important, not taking it out. .

Which is why my favorite 'portrait' lens right now is probably the DA 15ltd

[jstevewhite]

Which is why my favorite 'portrait' lens right now is probably the DA 15ltd

But those can't be good images! You can see the background!

(j/k - love the shots!)

[jsherman999]

Sounds like a bunch of you folks can go to a photo gallery and tell which photos were taken with FF, which were taken with APS-C, and otherwise. Kudos to you then - you've got better eyes than me...

Kinda my whole point - looking for that defining image (especially on the web) is nearly impossible. You can however pick the format and equipment that will make it easier to get the kind of images you want.

The GH2 for example can often get shots that the D3X + 24-70 2.8 cannot, because you can't whip that huge D3X + whopping lens out of your pocket for an opportune snapshot. However if you were to spend a day street shooting with the D3X, and then printed out the results and compared to the GH2's printed results, you'd have the illusion of them being pretty much interchangeable - because you wouldn't know what went in to getting each image, and thus didn't know that it was much easier to do typical street shooting with the GH2.

Take the images out of the context they were created in, and they can all look the same. The journey to that final 'good' image is easier if the format is used at it's strengths.


.

[Rondec]

Sounds like a bunch of you folks can go to a photo gallery and tell which photos were taken with FF, which were taken with APS-C, and otherwise. Kudos to you then - you've got better eyes than me...

Particularly when you are talking about web resolution...