[Schraubstock]

Better, longer, shorter, higher, lower, faster, slower, bigger, smaller, brighter, dimmer, more, more more... I want it all and I want it now! Damn it! Just imagine what I could do if I had everything! What I have now is just not good enough. Whats the matter with those designers can't they see what I want? It's just not good enough! Pull up your socks!

Cheers

[Bart]

Not in Europe, where they are a match, at around 1000€...

Europe is quite a divers place: over here D7000 = 956,00 EUR and K5 = 1.079,00 EUR

[dlacouture]

Europe is quite a divers place: over here D7000 = 956,00 EUR and K5 = 1.079,00 EUR

I should have said "here in France"...
Anyway, I bought mine in october with the 150€ rebate on the 18-55 kit, so I paid 1020€ at the time, which is way less than what I paid for the K7 kit back in 2009 (around 1300€, IIRC)...

USA got ripped by the currency change rate, it seems...

[Asahiflex]

I dont know what it is but Full Frame portraits have a certain look to them. They look very nice and clean. Whenever I see pictures that look the way I'm trying to describe, they usually are full frame shots. I can live without the field of view difference (which would prevent me from moving closer to the subject to get less dof) but I'm wondering how the K5 portrait photos compare to a full frame like a 5D mark II any other FF's since the K5 sensor is one of the most advanced ever.

I have posted these in the Lens section before but here it goes: the K-5 with DA* 55/1.4 SDM compared with the 5D (MkI) with 83mm f/1.9 Takumar. The camera was at the same spot in both shots.

Where's the "fulframe" look? Isn't it just that full frame cameras are overrepresented in the category of good (!) portrait photographers?

DA* 55/1.4 on APS-C:


83mm f/1.9 Takumar on FF:

[TOUGEFC]

Excellent comparison Peter, its almost impossible to tell the difference.

[Rupert]

Great example images, and very convincing of the abilities of the K5. However, for FF dreamers it will not be sufficient. They are like a kid I knew in my early youth that was convinced he could fly like Superman if he only had a Superman cape. He finally got one for his birthday and promptly jumped off the roof of his house. He broke one leg and one arm. I'm pretty sure that those that move to a FF camera suffer similar disappointment. You will always be "you" no matter what camera you hold in your hands.
Regards!

[jsherman999]

I have posted these in the Lens section before but here it goes: the K-5 with DA* 55/1.4 SDM compared with the 5D (MkI) with 83mm f/1.9 Takumar. The camera was at the same spot in both shots.

Peter, EXIF tells me the aps-c shot is at f/1.4 and the FF shot is at f/1.9 - at those apertures, the DOF should look almost exactly the same between the two - there's about 1.3 stops difference in DOF between aps-c and FF with shots at equivalent FOV and aperture.

For instance - 35mm at f/2.8 on aps-c would have almost the same 'look' as 50mm shot at f/4.5 on FF. Shoot both at f/2.8, though, and the 50mm shot has 1.3 stops less DOF.

Examples below - framing is a little different, but distance to subject is the same:


.
35mm f/2.8 on aps-c:


50mm f/2.8 on FF:

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-21-2011 at 08:00 AM.

[aurele]

there's about 1.3 stops difference

(less than 1stop in fact. "F" value are (increase of 1 stop each time) : f1, f1.4, f2, f2.8.....

[Asahiflex]

Jay, of course you are completely right and I do know that. Full frame can always mimick APS-C, but the other way around is not always possible. To get the look of a 50mm f/1.4 wide open on FF one would need a 33mm f/0.95 lens on APS-C, and to my knowledge such a lens does not exist. But there are still enough ways to get a short DOF on APS-C. By using a longer FL, for instance.

Now where is my FF in a K-5 package?

[jstevewhite]

Jay, of course you are completely right and I do know that. Full frame can always mimick APS-C, but the other way around is not always possible. To get the look of a 50mm f/1.4 wide open on FF one would need a 33mm f/0.95 lens on APS-C, and to my knowledge such a lens does not exist. But there are still enough ways to get a short DOF on APS-C. By using a longer FL, for instance.

Now where is my FF in a K-5 package?

I understand the technical discussion of DOF, of course, but I'm not certain I agree with the real-world relevance. With my 35mm @f2, when my daughter's eyes are in focus, her ears are not; with the 50mm @1.4 in "head shot" framing, if her eyes are in focus, her eyebrows are not.

This is not to say I cannot construct an image that illustrates the difference; I'm saying that in "real world shooting", the difference is moot. I know that's a bold statement, but I've yet to see an image and say "Wow, that sucks, but I bet it would have been good if it were shot with FF!".

The human eye can distinguish between far more colors than it can identify. What I mean is, if I give you a bunch of color chips and have you identify, say, the two shades of green that are closest together that you can tell apart when they're side-by-side, then I take them and shuffle them and show them to you one at a time, you won't be able to tell which is which. The FF/APS-C debates remind me of this experiment.

[jsherman999]

(less than 1stop in fact. "F" value are (increase of 1 stop each time) : f1, f1.4, f2, f2.8.....

No, there's a 1.3 stop in difference between the formats when equivalent FOV is maintained at he same aperture and distance to subject. (Peter's two shots were just under one stop difference - f/1.4 vs f/1.9 - if that's what you were referring to.)

[jsherman999]

Now where is my FF in a K-5 package?

Oh baby. FF in K-5 package - maybe with a couple new lens introductions to go along with it - would shake up the industry more than any body since the D700. All of a sudden this place would be filled with CaNikon ship-jumpers.
(so be careful what you wish for. )


.

[jsherman999]

This is not to say I cannot construct an image that illustrates the difference; I'm saying that in "real world shooting", the difference is moot.

Not at all moot. The object usually isn't to try to achieve the smallest DOF possible. Consider this: Say you like (on aps-c) the sharpness of a lens at f/4, but you really prefer the DOF of, say, f/2.5 for certain shooting. You say "If only there was a lens that gave me that f/4 sharpness with the DOF of f/2.5."

If you shot FF, you may be able to find an equivalent FL that would allow that - like my 50 vs 35mm example above. 50mm f/4.5 = 35mm f/2.8 DOF and FOV, but you're getting some extreme sharpness there on the target at f/4.5 with the 50mm.

Also, when shooting beyond a certain distance the DOF has expanded enough that everything on the target is in focus in both formats, but the deeper background has a bit more blur, allowing the subject to 'float' more in the frame.

I know that's a bold statement, but I've yet to see an image and say "Wow, that sucks, but I bet it would have been good if it were shot with FF!".

If you do see such an image, let me know, because I haven't seen it either. Everything we're talking about here is subtle and only stands (I think) out when you've had a lot of iterations with both formats.

...The human eye can distinguish between far more colors than it can identify. What I mean is, if I give you a bunch of color chips and have you identify, say, the two shades of green that are closest together that you can tell apart when they're side-by-side, then I take them and shuffle them and show them to you one at a time, you won't be able to tell which is which. The FF/APS-C debates remind me of this experiment.

The success rate there would increase with experience with the colors and iterations. Wine tasting is also a great analogy; I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a merlot and a chiraz, but someone who has spent a lot of time drinking wine could tell immediately. An actual pro wine taster would be able to identify not only the type, but approximate year and grape used for a given wine.

You can also think of it this way - take a bunch of shots with the F 50 1.7 and FA 43ltd, mix them up - would you be able to tell the difference in them, pick out which ones are from which lens? I'll bet that 8 times out of 10 you couldn't, yet we don't question the 43ltd's pedigree - although in real-world shooting, a good photographer could make do with either.

The difference between images produced by the F 50 1.7 and 43ltd is much smaller than the differences available between FF and aps-c. This is why I tend to see diminishing returns by buying more and more expensive lenses for aps-c - I think it might be better, if you really want to get a different look and capability, to get a FF body and equip it with some more modest lenses.


.

[jstevewhite]

Not at all moot. The object usually isn't to try to achieve the smallest DOF possible. Consider this: Say you like (on aps-c) the sharpness of a lens at f/4, but you really prefer the DOF of, say, f/2.5 for certain shooting. You say "If only there was a lens that gave me that f/4 sharpness with the DOF of f/2.5."

If you shot FF, you may be able to find an equivalent FL that would allow that - like my 50 vs 35mm example above. 50mm f/4.5 = 35mm f/2.8 DOF and FOV, but you're getting some extreme sharpness there on the target at f/4.5 with the 50mm.

Yeah, but you're going at it from the other end. You're discussing a purely aesthetic difference and supporting it with a technical argument. My point was t'other way round. There's no argument against "I *like* FF better". That's perfectly reasonable. My argument is that the technical discussions are just window dressing; the *technical* difference is moot - on a par with discussions about which lens one prefers, rather than some functional, useful superiority of FF.

Also, when shooting beyond a certain distance the DOF has expanded enough that everything on the target is in focus in both formats, but the deeper background has a bit more blur, allowing the subject to 'float' more in the frame.

If you so see such an image, let me know, because I haven't seen it either. Everything we're talking about here is subtle and only stands (I think) out when you've had a lot of iterations with both formats.

That was kind of my point. I'd bet some change that if I took my K-5 and someone else picked up a FF of equivalent class and we slotted similar lens ranges and shot all day in the same environment, trading cameras every ten shots, then shuffled the images all together and handed them over to the group, I bet sorting them into FF and APS/C would fail to beat chance by any statistically significant amount. That's what I mean by "moot" in real-world application.

The success rate there would increase with experience with the colors and iterations.

Actually, it's impossible to close that gap. Our eye/brain systems are capable of discerning (seeing the difference between two colors observed simultaneously) far more colors than we can identify. It's neurology, not training. You can learn to identify *more*, and some people can naturally identify more, but typically we can identify ~1024 colors, but discern something like 256k.

Wine tasting is also a great analogy; I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a merlot and a chiraz, but someone who has spent a lot of time drinking wine could tell immediately. An actual pro wine taster would be able to identify not only the type, but approximate year and grape used for a given wine.

Actually, sommeliers have consistently failed to demonstrate such skill in scientific (blind) testing. A significant proportion of them have failed tests like identifying a white wine with red food coloring as such, rather than a red. Whole panels have marked *the same wine in two different bottles* as a five star winner and "undrinkable" in the same flight. It's been clearly illustrated that, while they are better at it than someone who doesn't study wine, their claims of skill are hyperbolic at best, disingenuous at worst.

You can also think of it this way - take a bunch of shots with the F 50 1.7 and FA 43ltd, mix them up - would you be able to tell the difference in them, pick out which ones are from which lens? I'll bet that 8 times out of 10 you couldn't, yet we don't question the 43ltd's pedigree - although in real-world shooting, a good photographer could make do with either.

The difference between images produced by the F 50 1.7 and 43ltd is much smaller than the differences available between FF and aps-c. This is why I tend to see diminishing returns by buying more and more expensive lenses for aps-c - I think it might be better, if you really want to get a different look and capability, to get a FF body and equip it with some more modest lenses.
.

But that's what I'm challenging. If, in fact, I have to create a situation where FF is clearly discernible from APS/C, then FF is a specialty format for that situation, much like a tilt-shift lens. If the difference isn't clearly visible in a large percentage of shots, then outside of that specialty application, FF is moot. (that's my argument right now, anyway; I'm still thinking it through).

[jsherman999]

Yeah, but you're going at it from the other end. You're discussing a purely aesthetic difference and supporting it with a technical argument. My point was t'other way round. There's no argument against "I *like* FF better". That's perfectly reasonable. My argument is that the technical discussions are just window dressing; the *technical* difference is moot - on a par with discussions about which lens one prefers, rather than some functional, useful superiority of FF.

With regards to DOF, FF gives you more control at equivalent FOV and distance. Also still at least a one-stop advantage in ISO/noise performance (but no longer a DR advantage with the top aps-c bodies.) But this doesn't make FF 'better', few say that - just better for certain things, more capable for some applications.

That was kind of my point. I'd bet some change that if I took my K-5 and someone else picked up a FF of equivalent class and we slotted similar lens ranges and shot all day in the same environment, trading cameras every ten shots, then shuffled the images all together and handed them over to the group, I bet sorting them into FF and APS/C would fail to beat chance by any statistically significant amount. That's what I mean by "moot" in real-world application.

I can't agree. Having shot with both formats for a little while now, 'moot' isn't how I'd describe the difference. But I wouldn't describe it as 'drastic', either.

Actually, it's impossible to close that gap. Our eye/brain systems are capable of discerning (seeing the difference between two colors observed simultaneously) far more colors than we can identify. It's neurology, not training. You can learn to identify *more*, and some people can naturally identify more, but typically we can identify ~1024 colors, but discern something like 256k.

I'll take your word for it.

Actually, sommeliers have consistently failed to demonstrate such skill in scientific (blind) testing. A significant proportion of them have failed tests like identifying a white wine with red food coloring as such, rather than a red. Whole panels have marked *the same wine in two different bottles* as a five star winner and "undrinkable" in the same flight. It's been clearly illustrated that, while they are better at it than someone who doesn't study wine, their claims of skill are hyperbolic at best, disingenuous at worst.

I think that is pushing the analogy with respect to photography, but fine... Do you accept that there's a difference between Shiraz and Merlot, and that even if that difference is moot to 80% of casual wine drinkers, the difference does exist and is important to folks who drink wine more often? And that if a member of the 'I can't tell a difference' crowd were to drink wine more often, they'd eventually be able to discern a difference?

But that's what I'm challenging. If, in fact, I have to create a situation where FF is clearly discernible from APS/C, then FF is a specialty format for that situation, much like a tilt-shift lens. If the difference isn't clearly visible in a large percentage of shots, then outside of that specialty application, FF is moot. (that's my argument right now, anyway; I'm still thinking it through).

You don't need to 'create' a shooting scenario for any lens or any format to be able to appreciate the strengths that lens or format brings to the table. It seems as though you're concentrating on the DOF difference at equivalent FOV/distance, and finding that difference of 1.3 stops uninteresting and not significant - and that's fine - but that difference only gives you more control, it doesn't automatically make every FF shot "better". (I think control itself is better, though.)



.