[glennm]

Somehow, I doubt that. Either the "so-so glass" is not really "so-so", or the "best glass" is far from being the "best" - or we're not comparing lens-related image quality (e.g. by talking about noise).

exactly, we are NOT talking about lens related image quality. we are talking about the limitations of squeezing more digital info on a small sensor. i said at the start, i do not have first-hand experience. i do not and have never owned full frame. i have read comments of those who do and have, however. what i heard is that, lenses being equal, FF is significantly better than ASP-C. what i heard is that, lensers being somewhat (not grossly) different, FF is still better. i am sure you could stage situations where asp with hotrod lenses outperform ff. but to me it is simple common sense that having twice the area to record pixels is a common sense first step to better imaging, not fine-tuning the lens technology in the hunt for better IQ

[m8o]

I guess it depends upon your definition of "so-so". What good is it to shoot a FF camera with a lens which is soft around the edges? Or one in which you have to stop down to f8 to start getting good sharpeness?

...or purple fringing or chromatic aberrations. And that soft lens around the edges on the cropped sensor is going to be all that much softer on the FF.

It all comes down the garbage-in, garbage-out; no such thing as garbage-in, renovated & freshly painted garbage-out. <lol> So ya, if that statement enters into anyone's opinion in any way, it seriously flaws/negates any conclusion that's based on it.

[glennm]

...or purple fringing or chromatic aberrations. And that soft lens around the edges on the cropped sensor is going to be all that much softer on the FF.

It all comes down the garbage-in, garbage-out; no such thing as garbage-in, renovated & freshly painted garbage-out. <lol> So ya, if that statement enters into anyone's opinion in any way, it seriously flaws/negates any conclusion that's based on it.

i never said you could make a crappy lens great. poor lenses existed in the film days and they would still be poor in digital, ff included. i would like to be shown though why superior film days lenses would not still be superior if mounted to a ff digital system.

[Rondec]

exactly, we are NOT talking about lens related image quality. we are talking about the limitations of squeezing more digital info on a small sensor. i said at the start, i do not have first-hand experience. i do not and have never owned full frame. i have read comments of those who do and have, however. what i heard is that, lenses being equal, FF is significantly better than ASP-C. what i heard is that, lensers being somewhat (not grossly) different, FF is still better. i am sure you could stage situations where asp with hotrod lenses outperform ff. but to me it is simple common sense that having twice the area to record pixels is a common sense first step to better imaging, not fine-tuning the lens technology in the hunt for better IQ

Of course, if the lenses are equal, you can do a lot better with full frame than APS-C. On the other hand, the lenses seldom are equal. The different sensors stress lenses in different ways. Full frame sensors stress lenses in their corners a lot more and that is where "cheap" lenses suffer the most anyway. APS-C crops out those corners and extreme borders, but puts a lot more stress on the center of a lens.

However, new APS-C lenses are not more expensive than full frame options. The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II runs 2200 dollars, the Pentax 50-135mm f2.8 runs about 800 dollars. You can find plenty of similar options. The only really cheap lenses give something up (autofocus, auto metering, sharpness).

[glennm]

Of course, if the lenses are equal, you can do a lot better with full frame than APS-C. On the other hand, the lenses seldom are equal. The different sensors stress lenses in different ways. Full frame sensors stress lenses in their corners a lot more and that is where "cheap" lenses suffer the most anyway. APS-C crops out those corners and extreme borders, but puts a lot more stress on the center of a lens.

However, new APS-C lenses are not more expensive than full frame options. The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II runs 2200 dollars, the Pentax 50-135mm f2.8 runs about 800 dollars. You can find plenty of similar options. The only really cheap lenses give something up (autofocus, auto metering, sharpness).

lenses certainly ARE equal if you have the option of mounting them on either an ASP-C or a FF.

full frame lenses stress the corners a lot more? how. what are the engineering specs on this.

you seem to think that old lenses and cheap lenses are the same. the fact is, some superior optics were manufactured many years ago. show me why these superior old optics would "suffer around the corners" in the digital world. if you say it, please show it. i am willing to be proven wrong.

[civiletti]

...[b]ut the fact that turning the sensor 90° into portrait mode can yield extra pixels for some aspect ratios -- and that that advantage disappears for an (amlost) square sensor -- let's me guess that 3:2 is already very close to a scientifically computed optimum.

Statistically computed, perhaps, though it could be that most photographers, like me, compose within the given frame. As far as end use, the value of minimal cropping depends. For electronic screen viewing, any dslr will yield much more info than can be shown, so maximizing image size is not critical. Large prints, more often than not are made in classic proportions or, these days, printer paper proportions.

Digital stitching makes long and narrow images much easier to produce, negating, it seems to me, much of the value of 3:2 and more extreme frame proportions.

[m8o]

i never said you could make a crappy lens great. poor lenses existed in the film days and they would still be poor in digital, ff included. i would like to be shown though why superior film days lenses would not still be superior if mounted to a ff digital system.

No you didn't say 'crappy lens', correct. BUT YOU DID NOT SAY SUPERIOR LENS ON FF DIGITAL EITHER. Yes, I would suspect with absolutely every thing else being equal that would be superior. You did say "The benefit of FF is that you can hang so-so glass on the camera and make images superior to APS-C systems with the best glass."

So-so denotes what? Any combination of:

poor light transmission requiring any combination of higher iso, wider aperture or longer shutter
some tinting of the light transmitted thru it
from soft when at or near wide open to just plain soft and not even ever sharpening-up all that much
and/or dramatic drop-off in sharpness at the edges and more-so at the corners. (effect of which which FF will magnify)
chromatic aberration (often of the lateral form)
purple fringing

....and there's no way a lens offering some degree of those failings [i.e. "so-so"] is going to be superior to the best glass used on our cropped sensors just because a FF sensor was used. [!] So just 'cuz you've read things and someone wrote something to the effect of what you quoted above does not make it correct and true. ... being another one of those "I'm gunna switch if Pentax doesn't..." guys doesn't work to your favor either. Maybe you just should switch if you can't be happy with what you have and you instead think it's solely the tool that's going to give you the breathtaking photographs we all strive for.

[TaoMaas]

you seem to think that old lenses and cheap lenses are the same. the fact is, some superior optics were manufactured many years ago. show me why these superior old optics would "suffer around the corners" in the digital world. if you say it, please show it. i am willing to be proven wrong.

You said, "The benefit of FF is that you can hang so-so glass on the camera and make images superior to APS-C systems with the best glass." That's why folks are disagreeing with you. In short, bad lens on FF vs the best lenses on APS-C...APS-C wins. ANY lens on FF vs the same lens on APS-C, most times FF wins.

[glennm]

No you didn't say 'crappy lens', correct. BUT YOU DID NOT SAY SUPERIOR LENS ON FF DIGITAL EITHER. Yes, I would suspect with absolutely every thing else being equal that would be superior. You did say "The benefit of FF is that you can hang so-so glass on the camera and make images superior to APS-C systems with the best glass."

So-so denotes what? Any combination of:

poor light transmission requiring any combination of higher iso, wider aperture or longer shutter
some tinting of the light transmitted thru it
from soft when at or near wide open to just plain soft and not even ever sharpening-up all that much
and/or dramatic drop-off in sharpness at the edges and more-so at the corners. (effect of which which FF will magnify)
chromatic aberration (often of the lateral form)
purple fringing

....and there's no way a lens offering some degree of those failings [i.e. "so-so"] is going to be superior to the best glass used on our cropped sensors just because a FF sensor was used. [!] So just 'cuz you've read things and someone wrote something to the effect of what you quoted above does not make it correct and true. ... being another one of those "I'm gunna switch if Pentax doesn't..." guys doesn't work to your favor either. Maybe you just should switch if you can't be happy with what you have and you instead think it's solely the tool that's going to give you the breathtaking photographs we all strive for.

i stand corrected. the so-so glass comment was the jist of comments i had read from ff users. i can only assume they knew what they were talking about. let me rephrase. with ANY lens, poor, superior, in between, you will get better imaging on the FF simply because you are not crowding the digital info into too small a space. ff users i have read stated that they got better results with mid-range lenses in ff than they did with high-end lenses in ASP-C. granted, you can claim this as heresay or that they were llying, but it has the ring of truth to me. let others investigate and judge accordingly.

i dont want to get hung up on lenses and their respective arguing points. lenses are just like camera bodies. there are poor ones, better ones, and superior ones. i have nothing against using the highest quality lens available if you can afford it. likewise i don't understand why you resist the same logic with camera bodies. for me, i had rather spend once on a superior camera body that gives me better results all other things being equal than spending multiple times on lenses to accomplish the same purpose.

[deejjjaaaa]

However, new APS-C lenses are not more expensive than full frame options. The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II runs 2200 dollars, the Pentax 50-135mm f2.8 runs about 800 dollars. You can find plenty of similar options. The only really cheap lenses give something up (autofocus, auto metering, sharpness).

countless time it was said that 70-200/2.8 on FF is not the eq. to 50-135/2.8 on APS-C... you need f4 FF zoom for f2.8 APS-C zoom, or f2 APS-C zoom to compare w/ f2.8 FF zoom

[TaoMaas]

likewise i don't understand why you resist the same logic with camera bodies. for me, i had rather spend once on a superior camera body that gives me better results all other things being equal than spending multiple times on lenses to accomplish the same purpose.

It's because it all starts with the glass. Your lens starts the whole imaging process. If your lens is lame, it won't matter how good of a body you have it attached to. Think about it in terms of the old film lenses you were talking about. If they were great lenses in their day, they are still probably pretty darned good now. In comparison, how many film/digital bodies have those lenses seen come and go over the years? The lenses endure...the bodies do not.

[glennm]

It's because it all starts with the glass. Your lens starts the whole imaging process. If your lens is lame, it won't matter how good of a body you have it attached to. Think about it in terms of the old film lenses you were talking about. If they were great lenses in their day, they are still probably pretty darned good now. In comparison, how many film/digital bodies have those lenses seen come and go over the years? The lenses endure...the bodies do not.

we don't disagree after all. my whole point has been that i want to use my good old glass to its optimum. like you said "they are still pretty darned good now". and true, bodies come and go but lenses endure. my point is that ff would let my old lenses perform as they were engineered to.. i will buy pentax ff for this reason if it is offered and not priced too exorbitantly. i will do this knowing that the body will eventually give in to technology and need upgrading.... but i want the lenses to survive.

[jon.partsch]

This just in: In keeping with Pentax' legacy of quality, at Photokina Pentax will announce an all-new 6mp digital 8x10 view cam with enormous pixels that you can clean with the included sable-hair brush. They will also announce a new line of limited-series leaf shutter lenses. The new camera comes complete with a built-in espresso maker and a robotic photo assistant in the visage of Ansel Adams - all WR, of course

[PentaxRev]

I will be pleased when Pentax does produce a full frame DSLR, and I believe they should and will produce one, but I don't believe I'll buy one.
Will it produce better results than the K-7 I now own, of course, but for the serious amateur who is never going to make money with their camera is it that much better? I don't think it so in most situations. Also, I enjoy the 1.5 crop factor that gives me more reach. Pentax can't please everyone with what they do, but the main thing to me is I want good future development and I want Pentax to be around twenty years from now. They need to pursue the path that will make them profitable both now and for the next generation of photographers as well.

[Kunzite]

with ANY lens, poor, superior, in between, you will get better imaging on the FF simply because you are not crowding the digital info into too small a space.

No kidding. Put a Coke bottle on a "FF" and one of those lovely Limiteds on the APS-C, and the "FF" still "wins"?
I think you're looking for excuses to buy a "FF" camera. Just do it. But, prepare to spend some $$ when you'll find out that you can't get the result you're desiring with "so-so" lenses.