Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-19-2012, 03:44 AM   #151
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
Close, but no. I used a depth map with a focus blur generator that allows customization of highlight shape and luminosity to allow the OOF effect to increase with distance. No idea whether something like that exists in the PS world, probably it does but I use the focusblur GIMP plugin (Using Depth of Field with SL Snapshots - WU-Gallery)
Thanks

09-19-2012, 03:59 AM   #152
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
Hard to go wrong with a D800. There is enough resolution for it to be used as a good APSC too. Two cameras in one for your money.... cant be bad lol. Another bennafit of the top end FF is simple build quality. The D4 is rated at 400,000 actuations. That appeals to me greatly. A superb camera that should last for life. A nice thought !
09-19-2012, 04:27 AM - 1 Like   #153
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by westmill Quote
Hard to go wrong with a D800. There is enough resolution for it to be used as a good APSC too. Two cameras in one for your money.... cant be bad lol. Another bennafit of the top end FF is simple build quality. The D4 is rated at 400,000 actuations. That appeals to me greatly. A superb camera that should last for life. A nice thought !
I suspect you'd wear out your shutter finger before the shutter.
09-19-2012, 05:40 AM   #154
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,683
geeze, I get up in the morning and everything is resolved, where's the fun in that?

OK, after all this, all you had to say to make this point would have been..

You're image quality with a smaller sensor will deteriorate more with enlargement, because you're enlarging the circles of confusion. Now there's a concept that's been around forever, has nothing to do with sensor size or pixel density or any thing digital. As for all that confusing stuff about sensor size and DoF. Those concepts are shortcuts, and should be tossed. What they conceal is that enlargement causes loss of DoF, not sensor size. What they conceal is that as you enlarge your FF image, you also lose DoF. And that will be true whether you have a 12 MP D700 or a 36 MP D800. The limitation is not in the MP, the limitation is in the sensor size. So in the end, as it always does... it comes back to, use the largest sensor you can for a given situation. Making me think, for my landscapes , I want to be shooting MF. The fact that the Nikon D800 is close to the 645D in pixel count doesn't really help if in DoF.

The key is not the DoF difference. The key issue is the effects of enlargement. The DoF issue is an effect of enlargement.


Last edited by normhead; 09-19-2012 at 07:11 AM.
09-19-2012, 09:47 AM   #155
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,570
For a 12" x 18" print FF has to be enlarged 12.7x compared to 20.3x for APS-C (Canon) and 50.8x for 4/3. To match the IQ of a full frame APS-C needs more resolution and very, very good glass. Olympus 4/3 SHG glass is bigger, heavier, and just as expensive as the Canon and Nikon FF equivalents, because Olympus knows its images have to be enlarged 4x as much. Every flaw will be enlarged 4x as much. Noise is enlarged 4x as much.

If you ever get the chance to view a gallery of 20" x 24" Polaroids I would highly recommend it. Then prints some APS-C images at that size and compare. I see lots of APS-C images that are really sharp and amazing on a computer screen that is illuminated, but when printed at a large size on a reflective media they look flat and lose that "3D" pop that people talk about. For the vast majority of the population APS-C is more than enough. People can resort to printing on canvas or post processing to hide a lot of the differences. Of course most people will never print big enough to need more than APS-C.
09-19-2012, 10:40 AM   #156
Veteran Member
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You're image quality with a smaller sensor will deteriorate more with enlargement,
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Now there's a concept that's been around forever, has nothing to do with sensor size
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The limitation is not in the MP, the limitation is in the sensor size
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
in the end, as it always does... it comes back to, use the largest sensor you can for a given situation
Well, even if you contradicted yourself a few times in that sentence, at least you've conceded that sensor size does matter (at least I think you have).
09-19-2012, 11:13 AM   #157
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
For a 12" x 18" print FF has to be enlarged 12.7x compared to 20.3x for APS-C (Canon) and 50.8x for 4/3. To match the IQ of a full frame APS-C needs more resolution and very, very good glass. Olympus 4/3 SHG glass is bigger, heavier, and just as expensive as the Canon and Nikon FF equivalents, because Olympus knows its images have to be enlarged 4x as much. Every flaw will be enlarged 4x as much. Noise is enlarged 4x as much.

If you ever get the chance to view a gallery of 20" x 24" Polaroids I would highly recommend it. Then prints some APS-C images at that size and compare. I see lots of APS-C images that are really sharp and amazing on a computer screen that is illuminated, but when printed at a large size on a reflective media they look flat and lose that "3D" pop that people talk about. For the vast majority of the population APS-C is more than enough. People can resort to printing on canvas or post processing to hide a lot of the differences. Of course most people will never print big enough to need more than APS-C.
Thats true indeed. That has never changed. My first ever digital camera was the Olympus E1 which was only 5 million pixel. I obviously compared them a lot to my 35mm neg and 645 neg prints. I judged that the Olympus had about the same amount of detail as my 35mm neg prints on 12" x 16" prints. The 645 prints had notably more detail though. Later when the D300 was introduced I simply could not ignore it. That produces easily as much detail as my medium format cameras. Now with K5 and its 16 milion pixels. I now have medium format quality in a tiny camera... wonderful ! A i took some pics as a favour for a girl friend of mine a few years back and gave her a few prints and a CD. She took the CD into some where or other and had a 3ft by 5ft pic made from the CD. So i just had to go over and have a nose lol. I had never before shot a pic of this size, and I was not sure what to expect. I had a vision of it looking all grainy and lacking in contrast and detail etc. When I saw it though... oh my...
I couldnt believe just how good sharp and detailed it was. That was with the D300 wayyyy before I had the pentax. It learnt me a good lesson. Before she had that print blown up to that size I would have thought twice about accepting a client wishing an enlargement of that size. Obviously the K5 would be even better so now I would not hesitate. It makes you realise just how large the bigger formats will print too. I have no doubt watsoever that a D800 could produce a billboard size print. Although even that is no match for a medium format.
09-19-2012, 12:24 PM   #158
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Denver
Photos: Albums
Posts: 570
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The DoF issue is an effect of enlargement.
You forgot viewing distance. If you don't enlarge an APS-C image to the same size print as an FF image print then it follows that you will view it from a correspondingly closer distance, which will put you right back at square one with the DoF being greater on the FF image in our earlier scenario of both images being captured with the same focal length, from the same distance, and with the same aperture value. If you want to be a real stickler, you can throw visual acuity into the mix of what affects DoF post image capture together with final image size and viewing distance.

A couple of excerpts from the webpage that that handy little DoF calculator is on that I keep referring to. You really ought to check it out.
QuoteQuote:
the maximum circle of confusion (CoC), is based on the camera sensor size (camera type), viewing distance and print size.
QuoteQuote:
As the viewing distance increases, our eyes become less able to perceive fine detail in the print, and so the depth of field increases (max. CoC increases). Conversely, our eyes can perceive finer detail as the print size increases, and so the depth of field decreases (max. CoC decreases).



Last edited by TomTextura; 09-19-2012 at 12:46 PM.
09-19-2012, 01:49 PM   #159
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,208
i quit, it's a lost cause. Cheers !
09-19-2012, 10:49 PM   #160
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,240
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
bossa, this is what you need to understand , try and get it this time
We're still waiting for you to get it, Norm.

QuoteQuote:
there is no such thing as equvalent DoF.
There is a concept of equivalence, which simply describes a relationship between the two formats, and allows you to predict what a given lens will look like on both formats, or decide what lens to use that would give you the same FOV on both formats, or same DOF on both formats, or same FOV and DOF on both formats, etc, etc.

Saying that this relationship doesn't exist is like saying the equation (3 x 4) = (2 x 6) is untrue and a dirty lie !!


QuoteQuote:
You get the exact same DoF with each lens on each system, but one is smaller than the other.
One FOV will be smaller than the other if the same lens was used on both systems, if that's what you meant. I'm assuming that you also realize this means the images are radically different then as well.

QuoteQuote:
This lame theoretical construct of "Equivalent DoF " is a red herring. The only question is, is each lens useful on each system. And the answer is yes. SInce each lens is just as useful on each system, there is no advantage between one system to the next.
There are several advantages to using larger sensors - more DOF control with the available lenses is one advantage to FF, many find.

QuoteQuote:
They all have utility on the system, especially since they share the same mounts and are exactly the same lenses. Therefor one system is not in any way "more useful" on one system than the other. The utility is exactly the same.
Most folks would disagree. For example, a fast-50 is much, much more useful on FF than on aps-c, in my opinion, for my uses. I also think that a 300mm lens is at least as useful on aps-c as FF, perhaps more useful on aps-c if the pixel densities are not favoring the FF body.

QuoteQuote:
As an APS-c user, you don't even think about what you could do with an FF. There is no equivalency.
(3 x 4) != (2 x 6) - that's a dirty lie!


QuoteQuote:
But there are an increasing number of lenses for APS-c that cannot effectively be used on FF systems. So in terms of overall utility APS-c comes out ahead.
Only for those who have chosen to invest in those particular lenses.

QuoteQuote:
You can argue that FF comes out ahead in it's ability to capture extremely narrow depth of field. If that's a strong element of your photography, then FF is for you.
Or if you like to stop down to gain some additional sharpness and contrast while retaining a nice subject isolation.

QuoteQuote:
PS the fact that you don't understand what we were saying talking about your flower shot in no way makes them moronic, it just means you didn't see the point/ we were making.
Also, I'm not sure you're trying to understand the point he was making, because it's easier to get pedantic about the flowers.

QuoteQuote:
The 20 MP Canon 6D looks on paper like it's going to outperform both the D800 and the D600 in low light capability, so once again there's a caveat.
Highly unlikely, if the 5DIII vs. D600 is any indication.

QuoteQuote:
LL performance is a function of pixel size,
Mostly wrong, it's about sensor area and basically, pixel QE.

QuoteQuote:
so when you've gone to a high density sensor, like the D800, you've probably lost that edge.
D800 'low light score' on DxOmark is among the highest there, higher than any Canon made, almost as high as the D3s.

QuoteQuote:
There simply is no system that does it all. You have to understand you're shooting style and decide what's best for you.
Correct.


QuoteQuote:

Do I often shoot wide open in an attempt to narrow my depth of field?
If the answer is no, APS-c is fine for you.
If the answer is yes go FF or MF.
That would be a very incomplete and misleading set of questions to ask if you were thinking about a major decision about a camera. Wrong questions lead to irrelevant answers and dumb conclusions.

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 09-19-2012 at 11:00 PM.
09-20-2012, 02:06 AM   #161
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
Sheesh.... Pretty long debate on this...

I dunno much and can't contribute anything but one reason why i "want" a full frame...

1) VF - I really love the view from my Super A.. Quoting from someone here somewhere, APS-C VF is like looking at an image at the end of a long dark hallway..

09-20-2012, 03:22 AM   #162
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by SyncGuy Quote
Sheesh.... Pretty long debate on this...

I dunno much and can't contribute anything but one reason why i "want" a full frame...

1) VF - I really love the view from my Super A.. Quoting from someone here somewhere, APS-C VF is like looking at an image at the end of a long dark hallway..

Lol that is so old. Not heard it for ages mmmmm I think things have moved on from those days. Although it can still be true of some of the budget entry cameras I guess. You still do get a bit of a larger viewfinder of course but I cant say as I ever notice the swap over from one to another that much these days. There are those that love a big viewfinder though.
09-20-2012, 03:38 AM   #163
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
Another good reason for going FF could be simple choice. If you want a pro quality spec camera APSC cameras is usualy a case of its this one or nothing. Like K5 D300 D7 etc
If you buy full frame you get multiple choices so its far easier to choose the camera for your specific needs. For me it would have to the D4. Others may choose a D800 or even D600 or a D3x etc. All are different with different specs and all great and or better in different arenas of photography.
09-20-2012, 03:53 AM   #164
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,411
I would love my three amigos to sing in the right key. Plus all the other technical advantages mentioned.
I would still pair it with a high-end APS-C though....
09-20-2012, 07:29 AM   #165
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,683
I have to admit, I did have a few issues with the way the term CoC was being applied, but I've gotten straightened out.. but I have to ask, where is the formula that shows me what a great photograph is? All the DoF charts etc. don't answer the question... what am I trying to achieve? Am I trying to achieve the sharpest image with the most DoF, the most technically perfect image?

You'd have to prove that technical superiority is directly related to artistic superiority.

It must really piss you guys off, the artistic recognition Andy Warhol got for taking pictures with a polaroid camera with a plastic lens.

To use a tennis analogy... you can have a guy who practices every day who has pinpoint control, and who should win 100% of the points. But I can still take a chance , guess where he's going, disguise my movement, get there early, wind up and crush the ball and win the point. Because I have enough skills to play with anyone. Not win as many points as anyone, but to give them a game.

IN tennis I have to decide, do I want to practice enough to be technically as good as that guy. I don't, it's not worth it to me. But I can still win the odd point.

Well with my APS-c camera I have enough , to win a point.

It must really piss you off that so many pros use APS-c.

Continue with your illustrations of technical superiority. I just feel l sorry for anyone who listens to them and goes FF , for technical reasons. Photography is not science. It is not defined by technical specifications, and if it was, they were exceeded by primitive cameras, a hundred years ago. They are certainly more than exceeded by APS-c.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cons, cost, dof, ff, lens, macro, photo industry, photography, pros, telephoto
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:33 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top