[normhead]

Again, you're being dismissive of other photographer's needs and wants that suit their own shooting style and preferences. For rectilinear ultra-wide angle the Sigma 8-16 is really the only option. A nice lens, no doubt, that is on my wish list but... is one option all photographers ever want/need?

Lets just clear up on who's being dismisive, hint , it isn't me. And how can you disagree with me and then agree with me in the same sentence? The point was, the 8-16 gives APS-c shooters an option. So stop saying the option isn't there. Now if you want to say the 8-16 doesn't give you a an option at 2.8 or lower, fine, but that's very different from no option. Now with the Samyang 2.8 10mm rectilinear another option. It's intersting you bring up the 31 1.7, but the equivalent to that in APS-c is the 21, which is hardly an ultra-wide angle even on FF. FF proponents have continually harped on the lack of good ultra wides in APS-c. There are getting to be more and more options all the time. Maybe it's time to give that one a rest. That's all I'm saying. Since the sigma has very little barrel distortion @ 12 mm, you have to ask what are your 18 mm options in FF that are going to give you an equivalent. That's a far cry from the 31 you're talking about. The Sigma 8-16 is not an FF lens, so don't even think you can say you can always use the SIgma on an FF.

With the quality of the 8-16 catching attention on every platform, that part of the FF advantage has definitely left the barn. The 20mm full frame primes seem to be all 2.8. Pentax has the 14 mm 2.8 which is pretty much an exact duplicate of those 20 mm 2.8 lenses. I'm not seeing the FF advantage. The only advantage you might point out is that the 31 1.7 is faster than the 14 or 15 mm lenses by more than a stop. But that applies to one focal length and one lens. With the Samyang 10mm prime coming in at 2.8 this battle is over. As was inevitable. APS-c has closed the gap. It was possible before these two releases that APS-c didn't have ultra-wide options. FF proponents seriously need to drop that from their list of anti APS-c arguments. Really, it was just a matter of time. There was never a theoretical reason for that being true.

[TomTextura]

And how can you disagree with me and then agree with me in the same sentence?

Easy, agree with you on one matter and disagree with you on another. I thought I made it pretty clear that where I agree with you is that having a decent slow ultra wide angle option is covered with the Sigma 8-16mm and that where I disagreed with you is that the fast regular wide angle options (24mm to 35mm) are largely not yet on option for APS-C and may never be because they would have to have huge, expensive apertures. FF takes the prize when it comes to fast wide angle.

The only advantage you might point out is that the 31 1.7 is faster than the 14 or 15 mm lenses by more than a stop. But that applies to one focal length and one lens.

No, not just one focal length and not just one lens. I mentioned the FA 31 by name because I own it but I also mentioned, multiple times, the wide angle range between 24mm and 35mm. I also mentioned the FA*24 f1.8, and the Sigma 20 and 24mm f/1.8. Didn't you read those parts of my post?

Having a full frame Pentax body would even help the normal AOV focal lengths by letting a 50mm f/1.4 do on FF what no 35mm lens can do on APS-C, in terms of DOF. To think/believe that there's no advantage to FF or that the advantage shouldn't mean anything to any photographer in any situation is flatly and boldly wrong. I thought you understood this. Of course, the advantages of FF come at a price (expense, size, and weight) that make it not worth it to everyone. Personally, I would like to exploit the advantages of both FF and APS-C, and I'd like to do it with the same mount and some of the same glass, and with the great ergonomics and rendering that Pentax offers. What's wrong with that? Nikon, Canon, and Sony all make it possible to run a dual FF/APS-C kit. Pentax is missing a very small part of the equation for them to make it possible too.

[westmill]

It's definitely not about the number of pixels or the file size. Smaller sensors put a higher demand on the lens system. Attach an old medium format lens to a APS-C and you'll be disappointed, because you are essentially using a small cropped portion of the entire image projection. Attach that 50 yr old medium format lens to it's proper medium format body and...what do you know....a sharp image!

And people keep saying that on the long end you lose out with FF. That's false, since APS-C is just a cropped FF, you could just crop your FF photo and get the exact same "reach" as your cropped sensor. Assuming same pixel pitch and lens of course.

I agree with you Westmill; I have no doubt that APS-C is "good enough" for mostly everyone but the most demanding professionals. Smaller point and shoot sensors are so good now that many people don't even take full advantage of them! Going back to the car analogy, I'm sure all of us can do with 50 hp VW bugs. But, year after year, the industry offers stronger cars and we upgrade. I have a 200hp GTI. Do I take full advantage of it's power and handling? Nope. Do I enjoy it? Yup! Of course, if VW didn't offer a compact sports car, I wouldn't blame VW and spend my time on forums complaining and begging. I'd just buy one from another company!

I see your line of thought here but we are obviously talking of todays top of the line aspects of todays cameras and lenses, and of course its about file sizes. Also you are only half right about cropping with FF cameras. The D300 and D700 are both 12 milion pixel cameras. If you crop down to DX size on the D700 you are only using about 5 milion pixels. Things are never as simple as they first appear to be. Your car thing is good lol and very true.

[newmikey]

Having a full frame Pentax body would even help the normal AOV focal lengths by letting a 50mm f/1.4 do on FF what no 35mm lens can do on APS-C, in terms of DOF.

You definitely are right about that, no discussion possible. The DOF calculator gives the following:
At 5m focussing distance and f1.4 on an APS-C (f.i. with the Samyang 35mm/f1.4) the DOF is 1.16m - on FF (with f.i. a 50mm/f1.4) it would be about 30cm less.
At 10m that becomes 4.86 and 3.48m, a difference of 1m38cm, which is sizeable. Finally, at 44m the APS-C's DOF will extend to infinity where the FF's far end is at 129m beyond the subject you focus on.

Bringing that back to practical and human proportions however, I'd say that at least to me limited DOF at longer focusing distance at that particular wide-open f1.4 becomes a bit less important to me - that's no longer a portrait distance and with a 35mm it becomes more of a landscape distance. I'd want more DOF, not less, and that's exactly what I'm getting.

At the closer distances and wide-open, which I'd associate with portraits and such, the differences certainly should be clearly visible and clearly a FF has a big advantage here. 30cm at a portrait distance (or rather with 35mm an upper body shot) should be enough to keep a whole head in sharp focus where you'd only want the eyes f.i.

For me, and I stress for me only, that does not mean that much. I shoot landscapes, architecture, some animal action and closeups/(semi)macro - I actually want more DOF, not less or better yet: the amount of DOF APS-C allows me is just right for the type of shooting I do. I think we need to stop ignoring the fact that there definitely is a sizeable difference that for certain types of photography can meke or break a shot.

To think/believe that there's no advantage to FF or that the advantage shouldn't mean anything to any photographer in any situation is flatly and boldly wrong.

I agree, but do accept that for many photographers that certainly can be the case.

Of course, the advantages of FF come at a price (expense, size, and weight) that make it not worth it to everyone.

As I tried to explain, decreased DOF can either be a boon or a curse so for many, it also becomes a price. Now with the QC of most lensmakers, using a FF without the option for microadjustments to finetune specific body-lens combinations (as it now seems the D600 lacks those) seems like a very tricky thing which leaves a lot to chance, too much IMHO.

Personally, I would like to exploit the advantages of both FF and APS-C, and I'd like to do it with the same mount and some of the same glass, and with the great ergonomics and rendering that Pentax offers. What's wrong with that? Nikon, Canon, and Sony all make it possible to run a dual FF/APS-C kit. Pentax is missing a very small part of the equation for them to make it possible too.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that but to call developing a FF body a "very small part of the equation" seems like underestimating the effort required, the drain on financial resources and marketing might very well be able to bring a small P&L like Pentax within Ricoh to its knees.

I also feel you may possibly be overestimating the number of people running around (or wanting to) with two bodies to begin with, not even thinking about such specific requirements as one FF and one APS-C with shared glass.

So technically, you're spot on. Financially and statistically I see some issues.

[bossa]

The FF wide angle advantage disappeared with the release of the Sigma 8-18, which has virtually no barrel distortion right down to 12 mm. SO that arguement is done. although I have no doubt it will continue to be trotted out over and over.

As is the arguement that all things being equal an you can just crop an FF image to get the same image you would with an APS-c. Unless of course the camera is a K-5 which outperforms all but the most high end FF cameras on the market. Unless you're talking a camera with similar dynamic range.. like the D800, you're talking through your hat. Things are never equal, and in dynamic range the K-5 may have equals but it hasn't been surpassed. SO what you're talking about in the real world is a cropped FF image that while the same size as a K-5 image, doesn't have the dynamic range or colour depth. So in essence, an inferior cropped image. I'd be the first to admit you probably don't care to much about the difference, but that's no excuse for stating things backwards to try and make a point by imagining that all things could ever be equal in two different camera systems. ANd despite what's been said a 200mm F 2.8 lens is measurably lighter and cheaper than the 300 2.8 you'd have to have to match it in FF. Most of my images taken at 250mm have to be cropped. Cropping them further in an FF. TO be workable the FF has to have a higher pixel density, as in the D800, the D600 will have to produce a better image than the K-5 at the same magnification to be any better at all. And given what Pentax coaxed out of the sensor in the K-5, I'm not sure that will be true.ALl Pentax needed to do to bury the D600 in my mind would have been come out with a 24 Mp sensor. When that is done any advantage the D600 FF has over a K-5 will be gone, if Pentax can keep the DR and colour depth on the new sensor. At that point, a cropped D600 image will be considerably less magnification than a K-* image using the same lens. I suspect that will happen some time next year.

I have a Sigma 8-16 for my K-5 and, whilst I love that lens, its not in the same league as my Zeiss 21/2.8 on my D800E. To suggest otherwise would be a joke. My Zeiss 21/2.8 (that's f/2.8 and not f/4.5 ) is sharp wide open and the micro-contrast and resolution is astonishing. That lens is sharp right into the corners unlike 90% of other WA lenses I have tried. Also, The Sigma, set to 14mm @ F/4.5 has a DOF of 1.18 meters when the POF is 1 meter away whereas the Zeiss would have a DOF of 0.4 meters. The ability to Isolate a subject using focus still exists with such a lens unlike the Sigma. There's also the ability to stick with low ISO for noise control as well.

If we are looking at 'equivalence' then your comment about the 200/2.8 = 300/2.8 is incorrect because the APS-C 200/2.8 is 'equivalent' to a 300/4 on FF. A 200/1.8 APS-C lens would be necessary to match a 300/2.8 on FF for FOV and DOF. The 200 is still a 200 on any format and so it's DOF is related to it's absolute focal length and not just the crop factor and aperture alone.

The 24MP APS-C sensor you suggest would 'bury a D600" would fail as the diffraction limit is around f/8 and that's usually where Pentax lenses are at their sharpest. The diffraction limit of a 16mp Sensor is around f/16 and that's probably why Pentax stayed with that sensor. This is really the point at which you start making FF cameras if you want higher quality images.

Being stubborn doesn't make you right.

[normhead]

To think/believe that there's no advantage to FF or that the advantage shouldn't mean anything to any photographer in any situation is flatly and boldly wrong.

But how about you considering this, in many (not every) but many situations, there is no advantage to FF. There may not be as many situations depending on your shooting style where APS-c has an advantage as there are when FF has an advantage, or again depending on your shooting style, APS-c may be better for you than FF. You can not flat out say FF is better for everyone. Well you can, but you'd be wrong. I personally don't envision a situation where I would leave my APS-c home, but there might be a situation where I'd take and APS-c and an FF.

Having a full frame Pentax body would even help the normal AOV focal lengths by letting a 50mm f/1.4 do on FF what no 35mm lens can do on APS-C, in terms of DOF.

That's why I've never said that either. What I did say was that a 50 mm f 1.4 on an FF has the same DoF as a 50mm f 1.4 on an APS-c camera. The FF is just bigger. Sometimes that's good sometimes it's not.

Every camera format has it's strengths and weaknesses. FF included. It's not the perfect anything. It's just as specific size of sensor.

But sometimes there are advantages to using APS-c
If you have a 24 Mp full frame and a 24 Mp APS-c, the APS-c will give you more magnification on your long lenses.
And APS-c give you more DoF for a particular image, especially important in macro, but even more important in day to day shooting where increasing your DoF often makes for a better picture. For those pictures where less DoF is important FF gets the nod, but that wouldn't be 10% of the images I take. FF guys tend to make it sound like there is no control of DoF on an APS-c camera like it was a small sensor point and shoot... and that's just rubbish. Even when narrow DoF ius desirable, 90% of the time, DoF on APS-c is good enough. At least for me.
APS-c can handle narrow DoF just fine....



The extra stop of DoF on APS-c system often lets you use your lens at it's sharpest f stop (in many cases 5.6) and still have adequate DoF.



I've seen jsherman's images where he clearly can demonstrate the advantages of FF , but even he doesn't say FF always gets the best shot. So in the future do us a favour, when you make these broad sweeping statements about the superiorty of FF, please qualify appropriately. No one takes your blanket statements at face value. They just don't mean anything. You may not lose as much carrying just an FF system as you lose carrying just an APS-c system, it's debatable but I'll take jsherman's word for it that for his shooting style, but even in his world, APS-c is as good or better 50% of the time and FF is as good or better 70% - 80% of the time. Unless you're carrying both an FF system and an APS-c system sometimes you're not going to get the best shot. That's just a fact of life. No system has it all.

Except maybe the D800. And it stands out because it seems to have achieved very good IQ with a very high pixel density. However you can be sure, over the 4 year production life of the D800 other camera companies will restore the order of things. This is a snapshot in time where the D800 is the latest greatest thing. There will be another latest greatest thing, and who knows, maybe it will come from Pentax. The k-5 after all, was once the latest greatest thing, and is still better than 98% of what's out there.

[TomTextura]

The DOF calculator gives the following: At 5m focussing distance and f1.4 on an APS-C (f.i. with the Samyang 35mm/f1.4) the DOF is 1.16m - on FF (with f.i. a 50mm/f1.4) it would be about 30cm less. At 10m that becomes 4.86 and 3.48m, a difference of 1m38cm, which is sizeable. Finally, at 44m the APS-C's DOF will extend to infinity where the FF's far end is at 129m beyond the subject you focus on. Bringing that back to practical and human proportions however, I'd say that at least to me limited DOF at longer focusing distance at that particular wide-open f1.4 becomes a bit less important to me - that's no longer a portrait distance and with a 35mm it becomes more of a landscape distance. I'd want more DOF, not less, and that's exactly what I'm getting. At the closer distances and wide-open, which I'd associate with portraits and such, the differences certainly should be clearly visible and clearly a FF has a big advantage here. 30cm at a portrait distance (or rather with 35mm an upper body shot) should be enough to keep a whole head in sharp focus where you'd only want the eyes f.i. For me, and I stress for me only, that does not mean that much. I shoot landscapes, architecture, some animal action and closeups/(semi)macro - I actually want more DOF, not less or better yet: the amount of DOF APS-C allows me is just right for the type of shooting I do. I think we need to stop ignoring the fact that there definitely is a sizeable difference that for certain types of photography can meke or break a shot.

All good points.

To think/believe that there's no advantage to FF or that the advantage shouldn't mean anything to any photographer in any situation is flatly and boldly wrong.

I agree, but do accept that for many photographers that certainly can be the case.

I realize that. That's why you can't ever lump everybody together in the same boat.

Now with the QC of most lensmakers, using a FF without the option for microadjustments to finetune specific body-lens combinations (as it now seems the D600 lacks those) seems like a very tricky thing which leaves a lot to chance, too much IMHO.

Definitely agree. Not having in-body focus adjustment is a big omission on the D600, an arguably much bigger deal than either the reduced flash sync speed or lack of pc sync port.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that but to call developing a FF body a "very small part of the equation" seems like underestimating the effort required, the drain on financial resources and marketing might very well be able to bring a small P&L like Pentax within Ricoh to its knees. I also feel you may possibly be overestimating the number of people running around (or wanting to) with two bodies to begin with, not even thinking about such specific requirements as one FF and one APS-C with shared glass. So technically, you're spot on. Financially and statistically I see some issues.

"Very small part of the equation" probably was an overstatement. Still, the mount is there, some of the glass is there, and the know-how is certainly there. I would think, can't say I know, that the financial component can be covered by Ricoh so long as they are willing. As far as the number of potential adopters, a large portion of the demand for a Pentax FF already exists with the current customer base and another portion is waiting to be created after Pentax has the supply. Demand in the market can be created if what is being supplied is attractive enough. I wholeheartedly believe that Pentax will be able to attract a decent number of current Nikon and Canon users (edit: probably a few Leica users too) if/when they release a FF camera. In-body SR and a broader DR are two things that spring to mind that could be enticing. I haven't been waiting for anywhere close to as long as some have for a Pentax FF so I still have a good amount of patience, and with any luck the timeline I have in mind for going FF will coincide with the timing of Pentax actually releasing one. I'm crossing my fingers but not holding my breath.

---

Last edited by TomTextura; 09-16-2012 at 12:44 AM.

[falconeye]

The D600 does have AF fine tune, look it up on Nikon USA website.

And those citing physics in this discussion, I kindly recommend the following read:
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/FullFrame.pdf

[TomTextura]

But how about you considering this, in many (not every) but many situations, there is no advantage to FF. There may not be as many situations depending on your shooting style where APS-c has an advantage as there are when FF has an advantage, or again depending on your shooting style, APS-c may be better for you than FF. You can not flat out say FF is better for everyone. Well you can, but you'd be wrong.

I have considered that and I agree, hence why I'm quite happy with my K-5 kit. I never claimed that FF was always better.

Having a full frame Pentax body would even help the normal AOV focal lengths by letting a 50mm f/1.4 do on FF what no 35mm lens can do on APS-C, in terms of DOF.

That's why I've never said that either.

Never said you did. I threw that in as an additional point to make in the whole FF vs. APS-C discussion.

What I did say was that a 50 mm f 1.4 on an FF has the same DoF as a 50mm f 1.4 on an APS-c camera.

Wrong. It's especially wrong if you try to get the same AOV. I figured you already knew that and would be making a case that the extra DOF on APS-C is more advantageous.

Every camera format has it's strengths and weaknesses. FF included.

Agree again, and effectively said the same earlier.

I've seen jsherman's images where he clearly can demonstrate the advantages of FF , but even he doesn't say FF always gets the best shot.

I've seen jsherman's work too; he is a talented photographer and knows his stuff. I didn't realize though that you two were on the same page regarding FF vs APS-C. Did I ever say that FF will always get the best shot? I'll answer that for you, I didn't ever say that. I'm getting mixed signals from you; on the one hand you say that the Sigma 8-16 has ruled out any wide angle advantage that FF once had over APS-C but on the other hand you are acknowledging that there are advantages to FF that have been clearly demonstrated.

So in the future do us a favour, when you make these broad sweeping statements about the superiorty of FF, please qualify appropriately. No one takes your blanket statements at face value. They just don't mean anything.

What "broad sweeping statements" exactly are you referring to? I'd really like to know as I don't recall making any. I made an effort to very clearly qualify my statements, sorry you didn't pick up on that. As a matter of fact, it was your blanket statement that motivated my post in the first place. Let me refresh you memory by quoting what you said again:

The FF wide angle advantage disappeared with the release of the Sigma 8-18

I did my best to point out that the Sigma 8-16, while a nice lens and good for ultra wide angle, did not at all make the FF advantage for wide angle disappear. For that advantage to disappear we would need some insanely fast and expensive wide focal length lenses to come out. I think I'd rather put my money towards a FF body, hopefully a Pentax one, than wait for a lens that will likely never exist and that still won't give me some of the other advantages that I would get with a FF body.

You may not lose as much carrying just an FF system as you lose carrying just an APS-c system, it's debatable but I'll take jsherman's word for it that for his shooting style, but even in his world, APS-c is as good or better 50% of the time and FF is as good or better 70% - 80% of the time. Unless you're carrying both an FF system and an APS-c system sometimes you're not going to get the best shot. That's just a fact of life. No system has it all.

Cool, I can agree with you again. Like I said before, I can see where FF would suit me for my style. Most of the time I get along fine without but I will eventually want to have what FF has to offer. I understand perfectly well that that is not the case for everyone.

[TomTextura]

The D600 does have AF fine tune, look it up on Nikon USA website.

Whadaya know, you're right. I've seen several people say that it didn't and just assumed they were right. Well, if I were to go Nikon I'd still definitely want to have the 1/250 flash sync speed that they have on many of their other cameras, which the D600 does not.

[bossa]

The D600 does have AF fine tune, look it up on Nikon USA website.

And those citing physics in this discussion, I kindly recommend the following read:
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/FullFrame.pdf

Thanks I had already read it.

PS: Reading it again .. thanks for the link.
The graph explains best what we all want to know. The DA*50-135 as an f/4 equivalent and the 60-250 as a f/6 lens puts things in some perspective. As you point out, it's the lenses outside the dark yellow area on the graph which give the advantage to FF.

[bossa]

The D600 does have AF fine tune, look it up on Nikon USA website.

And those citing physics in this discussion, I kindly recommend the following read:
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/FullFrame.pdf

Looking at your graph again I see there's nothing coming anywhere close to the Nikkor 200 f2 (or the Nikkor 400/2.8). That lens would make a wonderful 300/2.8 (f/3) on APS-C and seems unique according to the graph (with regard to Nikkor lenses at least).

[bossa]

D800E & Zeiss 21mm @ f/2.8 (100% crop)


Pentax k-5 & Sigma 8-16mm @ f/7.1 and 14mm (100% crop)


D800E & Zeiss 21mm @ f/2.8


Pentax k-5 & Sigma 8-16mm @ f/7.1 and 14mm


The Sigma was a bit soft at the maximum wide-open aperture of f/5.6 @ 14mm (maybe due to some motion blur)

The difference in the DOF is obvious but I should have also adjusted the exposure a little more for the Pentax to try to match the Nikon.

[ironlionzion]

What "broad sweeping statements" exactly are you referring to? I'd really like to know as I don't recall making any. I made an effort to very clearly qualify my statements, sorry you didn't pick up on that. As a matter of fact, it was your blanket statement that motivated my post in the first place. Let me refresh you memory by quoting what you said again:

I'd just give up. You can directly quote contradictions, blatant errors, logical fallacies, but the argument will never end. I've given up.

[tkj365]

In reading this, and seeing the very interesting comparisons of the two, I have learned more than I will ever need to know about the differences between FF and APS-X cameras. What I did like was the comparative difference in the images that were posted -- showed a lot that I never would have figured out by reading. It seems the end result is that no one camera will fit everyone. For me, I will stick with APS-C for a few years (just got an upgrade) and maybe go to FF from there if the cost ever becomes near reasonable. Thanks.