[jsherman999]

im not following..... why because its in B&W and grainy with shallow DOF? What is "The photographic quality" you seek? These three things? If so, film is your answer!

Great shot, Tanner! was that a fast 50 on the Maxxum? What aperture (if you remember?)

[bwDraco]

Everyone, please don't feed the trolls... I'm getting tired of this flaming.

Anyway, I'm sick of this. It's obvious I'm not getting through.

From this quote, it's very clear that mika. posted flamebait. Let's not talk about FF vs APS-C on this thread again.

--DragonLord

[jsherman999]

You can't. Because of the crop factor, it's impossible with an APS-C sensor.

There's very little that's 'impossible' to do with an aps-c sensor, it's just that in some cases FF makes it easier, or when it comes to lenses, cheaper. And even then, it's only 1.3 stops difference in DOF for the same FOV, just enough for a taste of something different, not any radical departure.

Of course for some of us, that taste is all it took

My main thing is getting a 35mm f/1.2 FOV/DOF with an inexpensive-but-sharp 50mm lens, Getting a 13mm f/1.8 look from a 20 f/2.8, or getting a 120mm f/1.8 look from my 180 f/2.8, or stopping them down to f/4 to get incredible f4 sharpness on the focal plane while preserving an f/2.4 DOF look equiv. Nothing earth-shattering, just an expansion of FL/aperture capabilities and possibilities in the wide to normal range.

But It's really demonstrably false to say you can't get great images from aps-c or even smaller formats, so much so it's not worth going back & forth about.


.

[yeatzee]

Great shot, Tanner! was that a fast 50 on the Maxxum? What aperture (if you remember?)

yep it sure was Jay. If I remember correctly it was either wideopen or one stop down (F/1.7 or F/2)

[mika.]

There's very little that's 'impossible' to do with an aps-c sensor

I disagree. Take for example the image below. If you look at its various components (kid, trees, fences, etc.) and you examine their distance to the photographer, and then you examine the amount of their focus and defocus relative to their distance to the photographer, you cannot reproduce this on an APC-S sensor. If you have 2 focus components, you can somewhat get away with it, but even then the photo will look off. There will be something missing. The 1.5 crop factor just stretches the focus and defocus areas by too much.

[Eruditass]

I used the word 'perspective' earlier, but that's not really the correct word for what I'm trying to convey. The problem with the APS-C sensor is that it not only alters the perspective angle, but it also detrimentally alters the fields in-focus and out-of-focus and how so. And there's just no going around this.

I hope you didn't study physics or geometry.

[Ash]

Marco work?! You haven't clue of what I'm talking about. You're completely out to lunch!

Facepalm.

If you can produce work with the bokeh quality of the likes of Kerrick James, Mark Dimalanta and Godfrey DiGiorgi with their APS-C cameras, and then demonstrate how you need and can produce more of this quality with your FF camera, then you've got a valid point, albeit a small one.

But your arrogance is indeed getting in the way of a decent discussion.
By the way, all of your images here so far can *easily* be replicated on an APS-C camera, even a Pentax one.
You might also like to review jsherman999's thread giving us a taste here of FF results: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/110876...-thoughts.html, same guy who's saying APS-C is just about as capable as FF, but it may take a little more work to get comparative results.
There's no use denigrating APS-C given its relative affordability to the general public, and the good results that can be had from the format.
FF is in Pentax's radar, and will sure sell, but it won't transform people's photography the way described here.
Enjoy...

[fuent104]

[bwDraco]

The Exif data indicate that this was shot with a K-x and a manual 28mm lens. The lens is not even wide open - you can see pentagonal bokeh in out-of-focus highlights.

--DragonLord

[Couscousdelight]

Hey Mika, you are canadian, so, maybe, you can read a french text.
It was posted on Chasseur d'image forum, by a photo expert Olivier_P.
The sujbect is : Why is aps-c format better for landscapes : [ le format APSC ] ... sup
A very interisting stuff to read.
BTW, when you start with a statement like "The problem with Pentax today, is that NONE of their digital cameras can produce a decent photo." it sounds just like a troll, and you fail hard... If you want sweet bokeh, get a 645d, and, bokeh is not the only interesting thing in photo, a landscape shoter don't care about it.
regards,
Arno

[Oog]

Although I am a proponent of digital FF (and the announced D4 is making me drool), I really don't care about the difference in DOF between APS-C and FF:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/169020-macro-american-violin.html

[Bramela]

I don't what you are on,Mika, but whatever it is I suggest you get off it. You certainly can't be looking at the same photos I am.
I think a big wooden spoon for stirring would be the most apt and useful piece of equipment you need.

Get real, you are 1 against 1000"s on this Forum. So you are wasting your time and. more importantly, ours.

[gazonk]

The perspective is wrong, and what you get is garbage.

The perspective is wrong? You're just trolling, right?

[Kunzite]

Why the question mark?

[Emacs]

APS-C is better for bokeh? Hm, you better do not read these bullshit stories but point where are decent 21, 24 and 28mm alternatives for APS-C?