[bertwert]

Do people still use manual lenses for moving subjects? What am I missing here?

I can't make a witty comment having just sold the A 400... but I must presume that's a satirical question as there are many fine action shots on the forum here with manual focus lenses

I haven't been able to shoot for the last wee while, but I find even with the modern AF (on the 150-450) I'm still defaulting to MF - but that could be my lack of experience and knowledge of using AF

[i_trax]

I just bumped into one of my old photos , yes it is MF.

[wadge22]

I too shoot in manual focus much of the time, because I have quite a few manual focus lenses. If my subject is moving, I will shoot moving subjects in manual focus.
That said, if I know in advance that I'm going to be shooting birds in flight, I will probably use my one suitable AF lens (and still rarely get good shots).

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

So, you get to decide for everyone how much DoF is needed.

ƒ32 is not enough ? and if you think you have any more of a ability take advantage of any increase for use of macro at ƒ32 with a cropped sensor you don't not above ƒ 32

. Simple fact, to keep your shutter speed up to freeze action, having the same DoF on APS-c at 5.6 as an FF at ƒ/8 gets you more shots without motion blur in poor light.

This can be cone with FF also, in the very same light I can use the same shutter speed and DOF

That makes no difference to anything. I can post images one taken APS-c one taken FF where even though the FF is then with double the light, the images are identical.

You did post a 1 stop difference in one of your post and then you even seen a difference but could not understand why

As norm already explained because you may want faster shutter speeds?

what stopping you from using a faster shutter speed in FF ?

---

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 01-01-2022 at 01:49 AM.

[Rondec]

There isn't one format that is better. APS-C cameras tend to be smaller and a little cheaper for the features they offer. If Pentax releases a full frame camera that has similar specifications to the K-3 III it will be a thousand dollars more.

As for macro photography, I don't think there is actually much difference between the two in practice. Depth of field is determined by distance to subject and aperture and often with macro subjects you are at your minimum focus distance. Yes, you can stop down a bunch with either sensor size, but at a certain point you start getting softening due to diffraction and you discover fairly quickly that you just need to do focus stacking, if you are able. This is true for both full frame and APS-C.

As for Canon keeping around lower end SLRs, I think the point still stands. Long term support from Canon is not going to be there for SLRs. The fact that you can still buy a T9i and kit lens and consumer telephoto will satisfy some people, but those who need/want higher end gear are going to need to figure out if they are comfortable switching over to a MILC -- either from Canon or a different brand.

[Pål Jensen]

As for macro photography, I don't think there is actually much difference between the two in practice. Depth of field is determined by distance to subject and aperture and often with macro subjects you are at your minimum focus distance. Yes, you can stop down a bunch with either sensor size, but at a certain point you start getting softening due to diffraction and you discover fairly quickly that you just need to do focus stacking, if you are able. This is true for both full frame and APS-C..

There's a huge difference in macro; on APS 1:1 fills 50% more of the frame than 1:1 on FF. Or you can use longer working distance for the same frame filling....

[normhead]

You did post a 1 stop difference in one of your post and then you even seen a difference but could not understand why

No, I'm talking about the 11 images I posted with a poll to see if anyone could tell the difference. It came out 50/50, guess work, with most people admitting it was guess work. The poll had ~90 responses. 90 people are wrong, you're right, typical.

This can be cone with FF also, in the very same light I can use the same shutter speed and DOF

If it's the same, there's no FF advantage.

Here I'll make it easy for you.

APS-c ƒ/5.6- 40mm@10 ft _ 100 ISO _ 1/30s _ DoF = 4.46 ft
FF___ ƒ/8 _ 60mm@10 ft _ 100 ISO _ 1/15s _ DoF = 4.15 ft
FF___ ƒ5.6 - 60mm@10 ft _ 100 ISO _ 1/30s _ DoF = 2.87 ft
FF has twice the opportunity for motion blur to achieve less DoF

SO what exactly can you do? You didn't say.

Maybe try it yourself
https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Maybe post some example scenarios.
Shooting at the base ISO (for max IQ), same light is a worthless stat. It makes no difference to IQ. But that's how you frame it to try and make something out of nothing. Talk about a stat that has no practical meaning for your best shots. At base ISO or even 200 ISO or 400 ISO in most cases, there is no demonstrable difference. The 90 people in my poll agree. It's not just me.

If you leave out the total light nonsense, you have nothing.

I admit, you did trick me once by using "total light" instead of base ISO. Fool me once.....

I sometimes get caught by the sophistication of people skilled at deflecting. "Total light " is one such deflection. I could be proven wrong but my poll of 90 people showed this to be correct. Total light makes almost no difference to IQ across different formats (barring comparisons of degraded images at 64,000 ISO or something.) But I'll be happy if someone else wants to run a poll with 11 or more images, 5 pairs and a solo, to show I'm wrong. I like to deal with practical results. I just use the math to explain those results.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-01-2022 at 08:04 AM.

[bobbotron]

It's interesting, in my local club there are a ton of Nikon shooters, and only one of the bunch has gone to the Z system. The rest have a huge collection of expensive DSLR/slr lenses like us Pentax folks, and do great work with them. Going to be a challenge for them to move over.

[normhead]

It's interesting, in my local club there are a ton of Nikon shooters, and only one of the bunch has gone to the Z system. The rest have a huge collection of expensive DSLR/slr lenses like us Pentax folks, and do great work with them. Going to be a challenge for them to move over.

Only better results demonstrated by the Z system users might help with that. The reasons for switching to MILCs is as far as I can tell largely subjective. In terms of IQ, MILCs so far are not an improvement (well except for Canon who had terrible DR in their OVF lines.) And many of us care more about IQ than having the latest gizmo.

[Kunzite]

Only better results demonstrated by the Z system users might help with that. The reasons for switching to MILCs is as far as I can tell largely subjective. In terms of IQ, MILCs so far are not an improvement (well except for Canon who had terrible DR in their OVF lines.) And many of us care more about IQ than having the latest gizmo.

A lot of the development going on with MILCs goes against image quality improvements. I'm talking about speed - fast readout rates - and autofocus - on-sensor PDAF.

[i_trax]

A lot of the development going on with MILCs goes against image quality improvements. I'm talking about speed - fast readout rates - and autofocus - on-sensor PDAF.

and also the styling,
I love my new Nikon Zfc , with the real leather retro casing , the smell , feel and looks are just "orgasmic",
Also it feels really at home next to my Pentax MX-1.

[bobbotron]

Only better results demonstrated by the Z system users might help with that. The reasons for switching to MILCs is as far as I can tell largely subjective. In terms of IQ, MILCs so far are not an improvement (well except for Canon who had terrible DR in their OVF lines.) And many of us care more about IQ than having the latest gizmo.

They're great for some situations, I'd love to get a Z5 for manual glass. That said, I'm still loving my DSLRs and old film cameras, great battery life.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Here I'll make it easy for you.

APS-c ƒ/5.6- 40mm@10 ft _ 100 ISO _ 1/30s _ DoF = 4.46 ft
FF___ ƒ/8 _ 60mm@10 ft _ 100 ISO _ 1/15s _ DoF = 4.15 ft
FF___ ƒ5.6 - 60mm@10 ft _ 100 ISO _ 1/30s _ DoF = 2.87 ft
FF has twice the opportunity for motion blur to achieve less DoF

Yes if you completely ignore that you can raise the iso of the FF camera and have the same DOF and The same Shutter speed Yes very simple and that is only if you are shutter speed limited with macro . A great deal of macro work that I do this is not even a issue. May be less that 10% of the time I am shutter speed limited when it comes to macro work

And I don't have a clue as to why you are comparing a 40mm to 60mm and then conclude that one has more DOF ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And as for DOF advantage it really is lens dependent take my most used lens for macro work it the 60mm and it will stop down to ƒ32 if I want something similar to that there is the 35 cropped and it only stops down to ƒ22 so pray tell where is this DOF benefit ?
There is a reason as to why the 35 macro only goes to ƒ22

[ffking]

In Japan the availability of Nikon and Canon DSLRs and lenses seems to be drying up quite quickly. In the case of Nikon, they have the D6, D850, D780, D500, and D7500 available, but the numbers of retailers stocking these has dropped below those sticking Pentax. The D500 in particular seems to be selling out fast. In the case of Canon, they have more bodies available are in better supply. The real shocker is lens availability. Canon only has about four APS-C lenses available and Nikon has five. The rest are almost sold out. Full frame lenses have better availability, but already getting patchy. I believe the blogger Kimio Tanaka posted something a few months ago showing that 24 Canon lenses had disappeared in the last year.

The big question is what does this say about demand for DSLRs - are stocks small due to running down for some time quietly or are people buying up while they can because that's what they actually want?

[normhead]

And I don't have a clue as to why you are comparing a 40mm to 60mm and then conclude that one has more DOF ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Same field of view. Same image, from the same position and distance from the subject.
Think of equivalence.

I used a DoF calculator to generate the numbers for DoF, and I posted the results and gave you the link so you could try it yourself. You can check the numbers on line if you wish.

"Yes if you completely ignore that you can raise the iso of the FF camera and have the same DOF

You can also raise the ISO of the APS-c camera and have more DoF. SO what? You can raise the ISO (and reduce the aperture size) of any camera and have more DoF. That has nothing to do with anything.

Your determination to believe anything but the truth is rather astounding.

And you keep asking me to elaborate on one of the most basic concepts and making up bogus reasons why it's not true? Why? Do you want to understand, or do you just want to argue?

The basic concept... at the same field of view, distance, shutter speed and ISO a smaller sensor gives you more DoF than a larger sensor.

If you change the ISO you aren't talking about the same thing anymore. It's no longer apples to apples. But that's what this discussion always comes down to, I have to ask how many ways can you compare apples to oranges by changing the basic given parameters to avoid the basic truth that every other photographer I've ever met, seems to understand.

Why are you debating this? You seem to have some kind of emotional attachment to being demonstrably in error. Do you see anyone else backing you up here?

I have to ask, what would you accept as proof of concept. Obviously what I'm offering is beyond your grasp.

You must feel like Custer.