FF discussion and other rants

Gooshin · 02-12-2008, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by attack11

you said they were different arguments, i said they're not; ie - the same thing. who wants a stellar imagine with the 'wrong' dof? i've been working with the compromise of an aps-c sensor for a few years now and you can make things work; but it's never as good as it could be. you're also completely ignoring the fact that the ff will give you better noise performance at every iso sensitivity.

do you think an 85mm/f1.2 on a ff is going to look the same on a cropped sensor? if so that's pretty funny.

how can you possibly say that an image has WRONG depth of field? it simply has different depth of field, and you have a view finder and the DOF preview switch to compose your shots.

what if tommorow they start making medium format digital cameras, all of our lenses will then again be WRONG depth of field??

what a silly argument! Different and Wrong are not the same thing, why are you so frustrated by this?

attack11 · 02-12-2008, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

how can you possibly say that an image has WRONG depth of field? it simply has different depth of field, and you have a view finder and the DOF preview switch to compose your shots.

the lens is designed for 35mm. pretty simple.

Duplo · 02-12-2008, 10:05 AM

To quote myself from DPR:

Quote:

I tend to stay out of the FF vs. APS-C, APS-H, 4/3, P&S or MF discussion.
Because to me they are all different formats..
That is what there is to it. They are different.

What I do not get, is why people are defending APS-C as the holy grale. I have seen the same going on in the FF vs. MF debates, makes no sense there either.
Why is it so dangerous to admit that there is generally a qualitygain when moving to a larger sensor (when compared where each are at their optimum)?
Be it from P/S to APS, APS to FF or FF to MF.

That I do not understand.

Whether that quiality gain is justifiable, practical or necessary for any of us as a photographers is an entirely different thing to me and something we each have to figure out.
Sorry if I am totally off base or has confused anything down the line.

Gooshin · 02-12-2008, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by attack11

the lens is designed for 35mm. pretty simple.

do you always talk in axioms?

attack11 · 02-12-2008, 10:50 AM

yes, when discussing a technical variable.

Gooshin · 02-12-2008, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by attack11

yes, when discussing a technical variable.

stating that a 35mm lens is designed for a 35mm camera is not a dicussion, its a statement that doesnt go anywere.

its like if i asked you "do you like the weather today" and your reply was "the sky is blue because it is blue"

as you can see this would be a very absurd conversation.

its is beyond obvious that a lens from the film era is designed for a film camera

pentax was nice enough to allow legacy support, but if you take a close look all of their new development cameras they dont do full frame anymore, they are changing the mindset of photographers.

focal length remains focal length, the only change is its relationship to the outside world.

if you dont GET THAT, conceptually, i dont know what else to say, for someone in his 20's you have a very narrow view of the world.

attack11 · 02-12-2008, 11:13 AM

well, i'm done with your trolling.

falconeye · 02-12-2008, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Forget that cameras were traditionally 35mm. In fact they wern't at the beginning, they were bigger. just as FF is bigger than the sensor that was mounted in to them. Once camea manufacturers embraced the ASP-C sensor, they began building bodies for it, and today we have well engineered bodies (and shutters) built around the new standard.

Hi Lowell,

I like your logical way of reasoning, really!

I must point to the weak point in your chain of arguments, though. Manufacturers decided to mount 24mm sensors into 35mm bodies. This never happened with film. Would they have released 24mm digital bodies, with 24mm mounts and 24mm lenses (which would then be possibly better because of shorter mount-sensor distance), I would just buy your argument. Except for 4/3 however, they didn't and 4/3 isn't the format we discuss, it is APS-C.

The majority of engineers who build the first DSLRs after Olympus must have decided that cropped sensors are an intermediate step only not justifying to introduce a new mount.

BTW, Olympus introduced the 4/3 size along the lines of your argument. They ruled the early DSLR market. Since Canon and Nikon later introduced the APS-C size in 35 mm bodies, Olympus has lost this position.

I do not argue for or against FF here. I just wanted to illustrate that you chain of arguments was broken.

falconeye · 02-12-2008, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

for someone in his 20's you have a very narrow view of the world.

Dear Gooshin,

please, treat us other members with the respect you expect for yourself as well. If somebody doesn't understand you it could always be you're just wrong. You have crossed a thin border here...

nosnoop · 02-12-2008, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Duplo

What I do not get, is why people are defending APS-C as the holy grale....Why is it so dangerous to admit that there is generally a qualitygain when moving to a larger sensor

Actually, it's the other way round.
Most of the FF thread started off by people claiming that FF is the future and Pentax would be doomed without FF.

There is no doubt that IQ is improved by moving to a larger sensor. There is also no doubt that FF camera would cost much more. The main point which ignites most flames is whether Pentax need FF to survive or has FF in its future.

Most people don't realize how small the FF market segment is, and that Pentax cannot possibly make any money from a FF model at this point no matter how much better the IQ would be over K20D. The other poll in this forum speaks volume. People here don't just want a Pentax FF, they want a CHEAP Pentax FF. And that ain't going to happen for a long while.

Gooshin · 02-12-2008, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Dear Gooshin,

please, treat us other members with the respect you expect for yourself as well. If somebody doesn't understand you it could always be you're just wrong. You have crossed a thin border here...

he called me a retard in another thread, and i controlled myself. He does not respect me, not in any of the threads where he decided to poke his head in, i can only treat others as they treat me.

MRRiley · 02-12-2008, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by attack11

...SNIP...
do you think an 85mm/f1.2 on a ff is going to look the same on a cropped sensor? if so that's pretty funny.

Take that lens and put it on a K10D and take a photo, say of a coffee cup, at a particular distance from the camera. Then take the same lens and put it on a 35mm SLR and take a photo of the cup at the exact same distance. You will find that the obvious difference at this point is that the cup looks bigger in the photo shot with the K10D. This is an ILLUSION. The actual difference is the field of view not magnification or depth of field.

Scan the 35mm based image to be the same XbyY resolution as the DSLR's full size resolution. Then enlarge both images until the coffee cup is the exact same size in both prints. Print both images to the full frame size required to get the cup to be the exact same size. The 35mm based print will be approx 50% larger and there will be more space around the coffee cup than the print from the DSLR. This will also be the only difference... The DOF will be identical. The angular relationship of objects in the image will be identical.

Now cut out the 2 images to the same size (ie: crop the 35mm print) close your eyes and have someone mix them up. Assuming that the 35mm based image was properly digitally scanned to the same resolution as the image from the DSLR/aps-c and that both images were printed on identical media/paper I bet you couldnt tell which was which.

Mike

falconeye · 02-12-2008, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

He does not respect me, not in any of the threads where he decided to poke his head in, i can only treat others as they treat me.

Hi Gooshin,

no, you can treat them better and you can put him onto your ignore list. There is a German saying "Zum Streit gehören immer Zwei" ("it always needs two for a quarrel").

So, the choice is yours...

Myself, I will not carry this discussion any further.

falconeye · 02-12-2008, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by nosnoop

People here don't just want a Pentax FF, they want a CHEAP Pentax FF. And that ain't going to happen for a long while.

I think you are plain right, this is it.

This discussion must always be brought into a perspective of timeframe and budget.

wlachan · 02-12-2008, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by nosnoop

Actually, it's the other way round.
Most people don't realize how small the FF market segment is, and that Pentax cannot possibly make any money from a FF model at this point no matter how much better the IQ would be over K20D. The other poll in this forum speaks volume. People here don't just want a Pentax FF, they want a CHEAP Pentax FF. And that ain't going to happen for a long while.

The majority of Pentax users are very price sensitive I agree, but I suspect cheap FF might arrive sooner than most expected. There were no shortage of FF bashing from Nikon users too but look how everyone wants D3 now. The truth is should one day Pentax managed to produce FF K mount DSLR at affordable price, every APS-C defender today will buy one in no time.

02-12-2008, 10:05 AM	#18
Duplo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 924	My question to all of you? To quote myself from DPR: Quote: I tend to stay out of the FF vs. APS-C, APS-H, 4/3, P&S or MF discussion. Because to me they are all different formats.. That is what there is to it. They are different. What I do not get, is why people are defending APS-C as the holy grale. I have seen the same going on in the FF vs. MF debates, makes no sense there either. Why is it so dangerous to admit that there is generally a qualitygain when moving to a larger sensor (when compared where each are at their optimum)? Be it from P/S to APS, APS to FF or FF to MF. That I do not understand. Whether that quiality gain is justifiable, practical or necessary for any of us as a photographers is an entirely different thing to me and something we each have to figure out. Sorry if I am totally off base or has confused anything down the line.

02-12-2008, 12:10 PM	#27
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by attack11 ...SNIP... do you think an 85mm/f1.2 on a ff is going to look the same on a cropped sensor? if so that's pretty funny. Take that lens and put it on a K10D and take a photo, say of a coffee cup, at a particular distance from the camera. Then take the same lens and put it on a 35mm SLR and take a photo of the cup at the exact same distance. You will find that the obvious difference at this point is that the cup looks bigger in the photo shot with the K10D. This is an ILLUSION. The actual difference is the field of view not magnification or depth of field. Scan the 35mm based image to be the same XbyY resolution as the DSLR's full size resolution. Then enlarge both images until the coffee cup is the exact same size in both prints. Print both images to the full frame size required to get the cup to be the exact same size. The 35mm based print will be approx 50% larger and there will be more space around the coffee cup than the print from the DSLR. This will also be the only difference... The DOF will be identical. The angular relationship of objects in the image will be identical. Now cut out the 2 images to the same size (ie: crop the 35mm print) close your eyes and have someone mix them up. Assuming that the 35mm based image was properly digitally scanned to the same resolution as the image from the DSLR/aps-c and that both images were printed on identical media/paper I bet you couldnt tell which was which. Mike Last edited by MRRiley; 02-12-2008 at 03:48 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Micro Four Thirds discussion	juu	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	72	11-04-2010 01:42 AM
Streets Discussion	ajuett	Post Your Photos!	1	05-09-2010 03:49 PM
General K-7 discussion thread	blende8	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	05-24-2009 05:27 AM
Hitler rants about D3x (very funny you tube clip)	Adrian Owerko	General Talk	1	12-12-2008 05:10 PM

02-12-2008, 09:43 AM	#16
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by attack11 you said they were different arguments, i said they're not; ie - the same thing. who wants a stellar imagine with the 'wrong' dof? i've been working with the compromise of an aps-c sensor for a few years now and you can make things work; but it's never as good as it could be. you're also completely ignoring the fact that the ff will give you better noise performance at every iso sensitivity. do you think an 85mm/f1.2 on a ff is going to look the same on a cropped sensor? if so that's pretty funny. how can you possibly say that an image has WRONG depth of field? it simply has different depth of field, and you have a view finder and the DOF preview switch to compose your shots. what if tommorow they start making medium format digital cameras, all of our lenses will then again be WRONG depth of field?? what a silly argument! Different and Wrong are not the same thing, why are you so frustrated by this?

02-12-2008, 09:58 AM	#17
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	Originally posted by Gooshin how can you possibly say that an image has WRONG depth of field? it simply has different depth of field, and you have a view finder and the DOF preview switch to compose your shots. the lens is designed for 35mm. pretty simple.

02-12-2008, 10:15 AM	#19
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by attack11 the lens is designed for 35mm. pretty simple. do you always talk in axioms?

02-12-2008, 10:50 AM	#20
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	yes, when discussing a technical variable.

02-12-2008, 11:04 AM	#21
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by attack11 yes, when discussing a technical variable. stating that a 35mm lens is designed for a 35mm camera is not a dicussion, its a statement that doesnt go anywere. its like if i asked you "do you like the weather today" and your reply was "the sky is blue because it is blue" as you can see this would be a very absurd conversation. its is beyond obvious that a lens from the film era is designed for a film camera pentax was nice enough to allow legacy support, but if you take a close look all of their new development cameras they dont do full frame anymore, they are changing the mindset of photographers. focal length remains focal length, the only change is its relationship to the outside world. if you dont GET THAT, conceptually, i dont know what else to say, for someone in his 20's you have a very narrow view of the world.

02-12-2008, 11:13 AM	#22
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	well, i'm done with your trolling.

02-12-2008, 11:22 AM	#23
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Forget that cameras were traditionally 35mm. In fact they wern't at the beginning, they were bigger. just as FF is bigger than the sensor that was mounted in to them. Once camea manufacturers embraced the ASP-C sensor, they began building bodies for it, and today we have well engineered bodies (and shutters) built around the new standard. Hi Lowell, I like your logical way of reasoning, really! I must point to the weak point in your chain of arguments, though. Manufacturers decided to mount 24mm sensors into 35mm bodies. This never happened with film. Would they have released 24mm digital bodies, with 24mm mounts and 24mm lenses (which would then be possibly better because of shorter mount-sensor distance), I would just buy your argument. Except for 4/3 however, they didn't and 4/3 isn't the format we discuss, it is APS-C. The majority of engineers who build the first DSLRs after Olympus must have decided that cropped sensors are an intermediate step only not justifying to introduce a new mount. BTW, Olympus introduced the 4/3 size along the lines of your argument. They ruled the early DSLR market. Since Canon and Nikon later introduced the APS-C size in 35 mm bodies, Olympus has lost this position. I do not argue for or against FF here. I just wanted to illustrate that you chain of arguments was broken.

02-12-2008, 11:28 AM	#24
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Gooshin for someone in his 20's you have a very narrow view of the world. Dear Gooshin, please, treat us other members with the respect you expect for yourself as well. If somebody doesn't understand you it could always be you're just wrong. You have crossed a thin border here...

02-12-2008, 11:46 AM	#25
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	Originally posted by Duplo What I do not get, is why people are defending APS-C as the holy grale....Why is it so dangerous to admit that there is generally a qualitygain when moving to a larger sensor Actually, it's the other way round. Most of the FF thread started off by people claiming that FF is the future and Pentax would be doomed without FF. There is no doubt that IQ is improved by moving to a larger sensor. There is also no doubt that FF camera would cost much more. The main point which ignites most flames is whether Pentax need FF to survive or has FF in its future. Most people don't realize how small the FF market segment is, and that Pentax cannot possibly make any money from a FF model at this point no matter how much better the IQ would be over K20D. The other poll in this forum speaks volume. People here don't just want a Pentax FF, they want a CHEAP Pentax FF. And that ain't going to happen for a long while.

02-12-2008, 11:49 AM	#26
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by falconeye Dear Gooshin, please, treat us other members with the respect you expect for yourself as well. If somebody doesn't understand you it could always be you're just wrong. You have crossed a thin border here... he called me a retard in another thread, and i controlled myself. He does not respect me, not in any of the threads where he decided to poke his head in, i can only treat others as they treat me.

02-12-2008, 12:53 PM	#28
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Gooshin He does not respect me, not in any of the threads where he decided to poke his head in, i can only treat others as they treat me. Hi Gooshin, no, you can treat them better and you can put him onto your ignore list. There is a German saying "Zum Streit gehören immer Zwei" ("it always needs two for a quarrel"). So, the choice is yours... Myself, I will not carry this discussion any further.

02-12-2008, 12:57 PM	#29
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by nosnoop People here don't just want a Pentax FF, they want a CHEAP Pentax FF. And that ain't going to happen for a long while. I think you are plain right, this is it. This discussion must always be brought into a perspective of timeframe and budget.

02-12-2008, 01:00 PM	#30
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by nosnoop Actually, it's the other way round. Most people don't realize how small the FF market segment is, and that Pentax cannot possibly make any money from a FF model at this point no matter how much better the IQ would be over K20D. The other poll in this forum speaks volume. People here don't just want a Pentax FF, they want a CHEAP Pentax FF. And that ain't going to happen for a long while. The majority of Pentax users are very price sensitive I agree, but I suspect cheap FF might arrive sooner than most expected. There were no shortage of FF bashing from Nikon users too but look how everyone wants D3 now. The truth is should one day Pentax managed to produce FF K mount DSLR at affordable price, every APS-C defender today will buy one in no time.