Has the K-5 changed your perspective on Full Frame dSLRs

Cannikin · 10-23-2010, 03:20 AM

FF does not have anything inherently to do with DOF. The apparent DOF advantage FF cameras appear to have is an artifact of distance to subject.

For a given focal length, to obtain the same "magnfication" (relative amount of space the subject takes up in the frame) one has to move closer to the subject with an FF than an APS-C. Because you are closer to the subject with an FF, this causes the DOF to be shallower. If you stand in the same spot with the same lens/focal length at the same aperture, the DOF on the FF and APS-C cameras will be exactly the same. The only thing different is that the subject will be smaller relative to the entire frame on the FF.

It makes sense if you think about it. The lens doesn't care what sensor is behind it. An FA lens will produce exactly the same image whether what's behind it is FF, APS-C, MF, film or nothing at all. The reason it's called a "crop factor" is because it literally is a crop of the image of the lens: the APS-C sensor will capture a smaller portion of the image than the FF, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the same image, and therefore the same DOF.

ogl · 10-23-2010, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by Cannikin

FF does not have anything inherently to do with DOF. The apparent DOF advantage FF cameras appear to have is an artifact of distance to subject.

For a given focal length, to obtain the same "magnfication" (relative amount of space the subject takes up in the frame) one has to move closer to the subject with an FF than an APS-C. Because you are closer to the subject with an FF, this causes the DOF to be shallower. If you stand in the same spot with the same lens/focal length at the same aperture, the DOF on the FF and APS-C cameras will be exactly the same. The only thing different is that the subject will be smaller relative to the entire frame on the FF.

It makes sense if you think about it. The lens doesn't care what sensor is behind it. An FA lens will produce exactly the same image whether what's behind it is FF, APS-C, MF, film or nothing at all. The reason it's called a "crop factor" is because it literally is a crop of the image of the lens: the APS-C sensor will capture a smaller portion of the image than the FF, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the same image, and therefore the same DOF.

Maybe I'm poor in English, but...it's absolutely nonsense.

Explain us, please, how to get the same photo in terms of DOF at APS-C camera
as you can get with FF camera + 50/1.4 wide-opened.

Or with FF + 31/1.8 wide-opened, or with 43/1.9 wide-opened.

Cannikin · 10-23-2010, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Maybe I'm poor in English, but...it's absolutely nonsense.

Explain us, please, how to get the same photo in terms of DOF at APS-C camera
as you can get with FF camera + 50/1.4 wide-opened.

Or with FF + 31/1.8 wide-opened, or with 43/1.9 wide-opened.

Did you not read my post at all, or did you just read the first sentence and jump to post?

A given lens at a given focal length, subject distance and aperture will always produce the same image no matter what is behind it. The image is produced solely by the lens and therefore the DOF has nothing to do with the sensor. An image is nothing but projected light rays. This is a very simple fact that should be incredibly obvious.

An FF sensor does not have "magical blurring capabilities" any more than film did. Explain how a piece of 36x24mm chemical coated plastic (film) would somehow change anything about the image as opposed to cutting that piece of film up into a piece of 24x16mm chemical coated plastic?

The reason why FF appears to have shallower DOF at the same magnification is because you are standing closer to the subject to get the same magnification. If you stand in that very same spot with an APS-C camera, the lens will produce the same image with the same DOF, but the APS-C sensor is only recording a smaller portion of it.

cbaytan · 10-23-2010, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Maybe I'm poor in English, but...it's absolutely nonsense.

Explain us, please, how to get the same photo in terms of DOF at APS-C camera
as you can get with FF camera + 50/1.4 wide-opened.

Ogl, you might wanna read this page if you didn't yet, or even maybe translate to your language with translate.google.com

Depth of Field by Bob Atkins

Last edited by cbaytan; 10-23-2010 at 05:21 AM. Reason: preventing nationality mistakes

ogl · 10-23-2010, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Cannikin

Did you not read my post at all, or did you just read the first sentence and jump to post?

The problem is APS-C system has no such fast lenses. You can't get the same photo with APS-C camera as you can get with FF with 31/1.8 wide-opened in terms of DOF.

ogl · 10-23-2010, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by cbaytan

Ogl, you might wanna read this page if you didn't yet, or even maybe translate to your language with translate.google.com

I don't need to read something about DOF, 'coz I know it very good. You can use any DOF calculator in the web and understand what I mean.

cbaytan · 10-23-2010, 06:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ogl

I don't need to read something about DOF, 'coz I know it very good. You can use any DOF calculator in the web and understand what I mean.

Using a DOF calculator to understand you?? Well....

Wheatfield · 10-23-2010, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Maybe I'm poor in English, but...it's absolutely nonsense.

Explain us, please, how to get the same photo in terms of DOF at APS-C camera
as you can get with FF camera + 50/1.4 wide-opened.

Or with FF + 31/1.8 wide-opened, or with 43/1.9 wide-opened.

This is like comparing the quality of one beach to another by counting grains of sand and saying this one is vastly superior because it has a bucket more sand than that one.
I'ts just not that important.

**eccentricphotography** · 10-23-2010, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Cannikin

FF does not have anything inherently to do with DOF. The apparent DOF advantage FF cameras appear to have is an artifact of distance to subject.

For a given focal length, to obtain the same "magnfication" (relative amount of space the subject takes up in the frame) one has to move closer to the subject with an FF than an APS-C. Because you are closer to the subject with an FF, this causes the DOF to be shallower. If you stand in the same spot with the same lens/focal length at the same aperture, the DOF on the FF and APS-C cameras will be exactly the same. The only thing different is that the subject will be smaller relative to the entire frame on the FF.

It makes sense if you think about it. The lens doesn't care what sensor is behind it. An FA lens will produce exactly the same image whether what's behind it is FF, APS-C, MF, film or nothing at all. The reason it's called a "crop factor" is because it literally is a crop of the image of the lens: the APS-C sensor will capture a smaller portion of the image than the FF, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the same image, and therefore the same DOF.

actually at 5 feet away a 55/1.4 Pentax on a K5 with have .14 DOF. A pentax K1000 with an 85/1.4 will have a .08 DOF. Do the math.

Cannikin · 10-23-2010, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by eccentricphotography

actually at 5 feet away a 55/1.4 Pentax on a K5 with have .14 DOF. A pentax K1000 with an 85/1.4 will have a .08 DOF. Do the math.

They're at different focal lengths, so of course the DOF is different.

Note that I specifically said:

Quote:

If you stand in the same spot with the same lens/focal length at the same aperture...

**eccentricphotography** · 10-23-2010, 02:45 PM

I find the aps-c sensor shallow enough for creative purposes. Recently I used my super tak 50/1.4 wide open on a music video shoot @ 3 ft away from the lead vocals. Produced a perfect razor thin focus plane. Nice bokeh

**eccentricphotography** · 10-23-2010, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Cannikin

They're at different focal lengths, so of course the DOF is different.

Field of view for the purpose of photography is about the same. So you'll achieve the same photo with a very noticeable DOF difference.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 10-24-2010, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by ogl

I don't need to read something about DOF, 'coz I know it very good. You can use any DOF calculator in the web and understand what I mean.

Yes, but did you try to understand what he meant?

falconeye · 10-24-2010, 08:24 AM

Can everybody please refrain from mentioning DoF when it comes to FF? It becomes incredibly boring.

Originally posted by Cannikin

A given lens at a given focal length, subject distance and aperture will always produce the same image no matter what is behind it. The image is produced solely by the lens and therefore the DOF has nothing to do with the sensor. An image is nothing but projected light rays. This is a very simple fact that should be incredibly obvious.

Cannikin, please don't use this thread to do your resarch regarding DoF. Thank You.

As a starting point, please note that some image properties are defined at an image level rather than a pixel level. In your example, you're right, the lens is rendering the same pixels but not the same images as an FF image simply has more of them. DoF is defined at an image level and therefore, your statement can be proven to be wrong. However, I won't do it in this thread...

I recommend reading the article on equivalent lenses on Luminous Landscape before replying, too.

aleonx3 · 10-24-2010, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Can everybody please refrain from mentioning DoF when it comes to FF? It becomes incredibly boring.

Cannikin, please don't use this thread to do your resarch regarding DoF. Thank You.

As a starting point, please note that some image properties are defined at an image level rather than a pixel level. In your example, you're right, the lens is rendering the same pixels but not the same images as an FF image simply has more of them. DoF is defined at an image level and therefore, your statement can be proven to be wrong. However, I won't do it in this thread...

I recommend reading the article on equivalent lenses on Luminous Landscape before replying, too.

In deed, it is incredibly boring - with the amount details one can get from high ISO images from APS-C sensor, the advantage of FF over APS-C is getting smaller and smaller.

I don't think I will ever need a FF, but that is just me. Unless of course, I want the bragging rights of owning expensive camera.

View Poll Results: Has the K-5 changed your perspective on Full Frame dSLRs?
I never wanted/needed a FF dSLR	177	50.86%
I've changed my mind - I don't want/need a FF dSLR anymore	59	16.95%
I've changed my mind - I want/need a FF dSLR now	8	2.30%
I've always wanted/needed a FF dSLR and still do	104	29.89%
Voters: 348. You may not vote on this poll

10-23-2010, 05:06 AM	#78
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by ogl Maybe I'm poor in English, but...it's absolutely nonsense. Explain us, please, how to get the same photo in terms of DOF at APS-C camera as you can get with FF camera + 50/1.4 wide-opened. Or with FF + 31/1.8 wide-opened, or with 43/1.9 wide-opened. Did you not read my post at all, or did you just read the first sentence and jump to post? A given lens at a given focal length, subject distance and aperture will always produce the same image no matter what is behind it. The image is produced solely by the lens and therefore the DOF has nothing to do with the sensor. An image is nothing but projected light rays. This is a very simple fact that should be incredibly obvious. An FF sensor does not have "magical blurring capabilities" any more than film did. Explain how a piece of 36x24mm chemical coated plastic (film) would somehow change anything about the image as opposed to cutting that piece of film up into a piece of 24x16mm chemical coated plastic? The reason why FF appears to have shallower DOF at the same magnification is because you are standing closer to the subject to get the same magnification. If you stand in that very same spot with an APS-C camera, the lens will produce the same image with the same DOF, but the APS-C sensor is only recording a smaller portion of it. Last edited by Cannikin; 10-23-2010 at 05:22 AM.

10-23-2010, 05:23 AM	#80
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Cannikin Did you not read my post at all, or did you just read the first sentence and jump to post? The problem is APS-C system has no such fast lenses. You can't get the same photo with APS-C camera as you can get with FF with 31/1.8 wide-opened in terms of DOF. Last edited by ogl; 10-23-2010 at 05:30 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Full frame sensor for DSLRs	aheritage	Ask B&H Photo!	1	06-01-2010 07:15 AM
PROJECT 52-2-27 Perspective: Frame-It	mithrandir	Weekly Photo Challenges	22	01-18-2010 09:18 PM
Your Full Frame is Here!!!	Das Boot	Pentax News and Rumors	15	04-05-2009 09:02 AM
DA 10-17 on full frame?	nixcamic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	09-23-2008 07:12 PM
Why the Obsession with Full Frame (FF) DSLRs	fwbigd	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	02-05-2008 08:27 AM

10-23-2010, 03:20 AM	#76
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	FF does not have anything inherently to do with DOF. The apparent DOF advantage FF cameras appear to have is an artifact of distance to subject. For a given focal length, to obtain the same "magnfication" (relative amount of space the subject takes up in the frame) one has to move closer to the subject with an FF than an APS-C. Because you are closer to the subject with an FF, this causes the DOF to be shallower. If you stand in the same spot with the same lens/focal length at the same aperture, the DOF on the FF and APS-C cameras will be exactly the same. The only thing different is that the subject will be smaller relative to the entire frame on the FF. It makes sense if you think about it. The lens doesn't care what sensor is behind it. An FA lens will produce exactly the same image whether what's behind it is FF, APS-C, MF, film or nothing at all. The reason it's called a "crop factor" is because it literally is a crop of the image of the lens: the APS-C sensor will capture a smaller portion of the image than the FF, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the same image, and therefore the same DOF.

10-23-2010, 04:40 AM	#77
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Cannikin FF does not have anything inherently to do with DOF. The apparent DOF advantage FF cameras appear to have is an artifact of distance to subject. For a given focal length, to obtain the same "magnfication" (relative amount of space the subject takes up in the frame) one has to move closer to the subject with an FF than an APS-C. Because you are closer to the subject with an FF, this causes the DOF to be shallower. If you stand in the same spot with the same lens/focal length at the same aperture, the DOF on the FF and APS-C cameras will be exactly the same. The only thing different is that the subject will be smaller relative to the entire frame on the FF. It makes sense if you think about it. The lens doesn't care what sensor is behind it. An FA lens will produce exactly the same image whether what's behind it is FF, APS-C, MF, film or nothing at all. The reason it's called a "crop factor" is because it literally is a crop of the image of the lens: the APS-C sensor will capture a smaller portion of the image than the FF, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the same image, and therefore the same DOF. Maybe I'm poor in English, but...it's absolutely nonsense. Explain us, please, how to get the same photo in terms of DOF at APS-C camera as you can get with FF camera + 50/1.4 wide-opened. Or with FF + 31/1.8 wide-opened, or with 43/1.9 wide-opened.

10-23-2010, 05:17 AM	#79
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Originally posted by ogl Maybe I'm poor in English, but...it's absolutely nonsense. Explain us, please, how to get the same photo in terms of DOF at APS-C camera as you can get with FF camera + 50/1.4 wide-opened. Ogl, you might wanna read this page if you didn't yet, or even maybe translate to your language with translate.google.com Depth of Field by Bob Atkins Last edited by cbaytan; 10-23-2010 at 05:21 AM. Reason: preventing nationality mistakes

10-23-2010, 05:24 AM	#81
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by cbaytan Ogl, you might wanna read this page if you didn't yet, or even maybe translate to your language with translate.google.com I don't need to read something about DOF, 'coz I know it very good. You can use any DOF calculator in the web and understand what I mean.

10-23-2010, 06:51 AM - 1 Like	#82
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Originally posted by ogl I don't need to read something about DOF, 'coz I know it very good. You can use any DOF calculator in the web and understand what I mean. Using a DOF calculator to understand you?? Well....

10-23-2010, 09:06 AM	#83
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by ogl Maybe I'm poor in English, but...it's absolutely nonsense. Explain us, please, how to get the same photo in terms of DOF at APS-C camera as you can get with FF camera + 50/1.4 wide-opened. Or with FF + 31/1.8 wide-opened, or with 43/1.9 wide-opened. This is like comparing the quality of one beach to another by counting grains of sand and saying this one is vastly superior because it has a bucket more sand than that one. I'ts just not that important.

10-23-2010, 02:24 PM	#84
eccentricphotography Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 182	Originally posted by Cannikin FF does not have anything inherently to do with DOF. The apparent DOF advantage FF cameras appear to have is an artifact of distance to subject. For a given focal length, to obtain the same "magnfication" (relative amount of space the subject takes up in the frame) one has to move closer to the subject with an FF than an APS-C. Because you are closer to the subject with an FF, this causes the DOF to be shallower. If you stand in the same spot with the same lens/focal length at the same aperture, the DOF on the FF and APS-C cameras will be exactly the same. The only thing different is that the subject will be smaller relative to the entire frame on the FF. It makes sense if you think about it. The lens doesn't care what sensor is behind it. An FA lens will produce exactly the same image whether what's behind it is FF, APS-C, MF, film or nothing at all. The reason it's called a "crop factor" is because it literally is a crop of the image of the lens: the APS-C sensor will capture a smaller portion of the image than the FF, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the same image, and therefore the same DOF. actually at 5 feet away a 55/1.4 Pentax on a K5 with have .14 DOF. A pentax K1000 with an 85/1.4 will have a .08 DOF. Do the math.

10-23-2010, 02:38 PM	#85
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by eccentricphotography actually at 5 feet away a 55/1.4 Pentax on a K5 with have .14 DOF. A pentax K1000 with an 85/1.4 will have a .08 DOF. Do the math. They're at different focal lengths, so of course the DOF is different. Note that I specifically said: Quote: If you stand in the same spot with the same lens/focal length at the same aperture...

10-23-2010, 02:45 PM	#86
eccentricphotography Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 182	I find the aps-c sensor shallow enough for creative purposes. Recently I used my super tak 50/1.4 wide open on a music video shoot @ 3 ft away from the lead vocals. Produced a perfect razor thin focus plane. Nice bokeh

10-23-2010, 03:03 PM	#87
eccentricphotography Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 182	Originally posted by Cannikin They're at different focal lengths, so of course the DOF is different. Field of view for the purpose of photography is about the same. So you'll achieve the same photo with a very noticeable DOF difference.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-24-2010, 07:53 AM	#88
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by ogl I don't need to read something about DOF, 'coz I know it very good. You can use any DOF calculator in the web and understand what I mean. Yes, but did you try to understand what he meant?

10-24-2010, 08:24 AM	#89
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Can everybody please refrain from mentioning DoF when it comes to FF? It becomes incredibly boring. Originally posted by Cannikin A given lens at a given focal length, subject distance and aperture will always produce the same image no matter what is behind it. The image is produced solely by the lens and therefore the DOF has nothing to do with the sensor. An image is nothing but projected light rays. This is a very simple fact that should be incredibly obvious. Cannikin, please don't use this thread to do your resarch regarding DoF. Thank You. As a starting point, please note that some image properties are defined at an image level rather than a pixel level. In your example, you're right, the lens is rendering the same pixels but not the same images as an FF image simply has more of them. DoF is defined at an image level and therefore, your statement can be proven to be wrong. However, I won't do it in this thread... I recommend reading the article on equivalent lenses on Luminous Landscape before replying, too.

10-24-2010, 09:13 AM	#90
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by falconeye Can everybody please refrain from mentioning DoF when it comes to FF? It becomes incredibly boring. Cannikin, please don't use this thread to do your resarch regarding DoF. Thank You. As a starting point, please note that some image properties are defined at an image level rather than a pixel level. In your example, you're right, the lens is rendering the same pixels but not the same images as an FF image simply has more of them. DoF is defined at an image level and therefore, your statement can be proven to be wrong. However, I won't do it in this thread... I recommend reading the article on equivalent lenses on Luminous Landscape before replying, too. In deed, it is incredibly boring - with the amount details one can get from high ISO images from APS-C sensor, the advantage of FF over APS-C is getting smaller and smaller. I don't think I will ever need a FF, but that is just me. Unless of course, I want the bragging rights of owning expensive camera.