[Aristophanes]

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.

You need to understand that optical science and "focus and defocus" has absolutely nothing to do with sensor size, and that the same effect exactly can be duplicated on any optic with scalable, equivalent f-stop and decent glass regardless.

This applies to film as well, and always has. I shoot 135, 120 (645 and 6x9), and have taken my run at 8x10. This alongside FF and APS-C digital.

You're trying to force your subjective, aesthetic observations as optical performance when 150 years of photographic knowledge says otherwise. It's getting embarrassing to read.

[Asahiflex]

You need to understand that optical science and "focus and defocus" has absolutely nothing to do with sensor size, and that the same effect exactly can be duplicated on any optic with scalable, equivalent f-stop and decent glass regardless.

The "fullframe look" is not a fairy tale. The effect of a 35mm f/1.4 wide open on FF cannot be mimicked on APS-C. The effect of a 50mm f/1.2 wide open on FF cannot be mimicked on APS-C. The effect of a 28mm f/2 wide open cannot be mimicked on APS-C.

Or please tell me where I can buy a 23mm f/0.93, a 33mm f/0.8 or a 19mm f/1.33 to use on APS-C? While theoretically possible, your statement in reality only works at longer focal lengths (beyond 50mm). And please don't tell me that we shouldn't shoot wide open. We do because we can!

[MRRiley]

Mika,

Somehow I don't think anyone here cares about what you consider art and what you consider a snapshot. You really need to stop worrying about how crappy other peoples photos are and worry about your own. I do have to wonder if any of the shots you've posted are your own or if you have misappropriated them from other photographers without giving them proper credit.

If the former, and they are your own photos, then nothing in them beyond the shallow DOF and bokeh is anything special and the only thing I see of note is in the one of the girl walking by the storefront with what appears to be grain in the face of the out of focus man in the foreground. This tends to indicate that it is a film photo rather than a digital one. It IS hard to get grain out of a APS-C sensor, but it is just as hard to get it out of a full frame sensor, so I don't see the point of posting a film photo to gripe about some quixotic battle you have embarked on between APS-C and FF.

If the latter, and they were taken by other photographers, then the only thing you are again demonstrating (besides not understanding IP rights) is that your idea of a "non-snapshot" photo is shallow DOF and smooth bokeh (and perhaps "grain"). This tends to indicate that your idea of "art" is rather specific. Not "wrong" mind you, because art is in the eye of the beholder, but I do consider it sadly limited.

What I don't understand is why, if the sensor cannot produce what you crave, are you using Pentax DSLRs. Hoping for an eventual FF platform? May happen with Ricoh at the helm, but I'm not counting on it with the 645D available. Perhaps you should just sell off all your Pentax gear and buy a FF Nikon or Canon. Then every photo you take will become "art" and you will make skads of money. Then you can buy Pentax and smash all the APS-C sensors and start making FF cameras.

Mike

p.s. flickr is a poor poor place to find anything other than snapshots anyway. While some good photographers do use flickr, the shots there are mostly casual, so do not lend themselves to an analysis of the capabilities of something like APS-C vs FF. I suggest you surf some real photo sites, like photo.net, zenfolio, smugmug, or the like.

[MRRiley]

The "fullframe look" is not a fairy tale. The effect of a 35mm f/1.4 wide open on FF cannot be mimicked on APS-C. The effect of a 50mm f/1.2 wide open on FF cannot be mimicked on APS-C. The effect of a 28mm f/2 wide open cannot be mimicked on APS-C.

Or please tell me where I can buy a 23mm f/0.93, a 33mm f/0.8 or a 19mm f/1.33 to use on APS-C? While theoretically possible, your statement in reality only works at longer focal lengths (beyond 50mm). And please don't tell me that we shouldn't shoot wide open. We do because we can!

The effects of any FF lens CAN be achieved on APS-C. It's just that the exact lens equivalents have not been produced for many reasons, the primary one being the cost of engineering and production when compared to "demand." There simply are not enough photographers demanding those lens capabilities and characteristics to make building these high-cost lenses available.

And when you get down to it... the much ballyhooed "full frame" look is only craved by purists who believe for some reason that the 35mm size and form factor was some kind of mystical photographic nirvana. 35mm was what it was. It looked the way it did. MF was several things and they were what they were. Digital APS-? and FF and MF are what they are and look the way they do. There is nothing intrinsically better or worse in any of them.

Is a Picasso ink drawing less "art" than a Picasso oil painting? I don't think anyone would argue that point. Likewise a photo taken with any camera can attain "artistry." The reason and motivating force behind the art is the mind and skill of the artist/photographer... not the medium in which he works or the quality of his tools. The medium and the tools just have to be "good enough" to achieve his aims.

If your "aims" can only be achieved with the form factor and lenses suitable to 35mm full frame, then buy FF bodies and lenses and use them. That this is your requirement, though, does not invalidate tools used by other artists who by their skill and imagination can produce art just as well.

Mike

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 01-06-2012 at 05:22 AM.

[Caat]

They do both.

In fact, the Q, like the Nikon V1/J1, si an attempt to do mirrorless without eating into the larger sensor DSLR advantage. The major issue for this attempt is the awful pricing strategies.

The market strategy is actually quite simple and time-tested: Most enthusiasts buy and use more than one camera. This increases revenues and especially after-market sales. Nikon and Pentax appear to be saying that if you want smaller bodies and lenses, then we're going small. Not the m4/3 not-really-pocketable "small", but closer to the P&S upgrade crowd.

Does this strategy have legs compared to the Sony NEX move? Hard to say. I think the pricing is death to the concept.

However this appears to be the game for Pentax alongside APS-C DSLR's. Ricoh has its side bet with the GXR module system , but that's not gained any real traction to overcome the market share weakness which plagues both Ricoh and Pentax as a brand.

I agree overall. I think the Q could be taken in interesting directions and I think it could be very popular if it were, say, £200 with a standard lens (zoom or prime). But as you say its current price is the barrier. I myself might be inclined to pick up a Q were they to produce a top quality macro - the DoF of the small sensor could make it actually quite good in this genre of photography.

I just wonder whether Pentax/Ricoh have the resources or confidence to support Q, K and 645 adequately.

Personally I think Pentax was taken by surprise with the move from cameras as tools to cameras as consumer electronics. Panasonic seems to have been particularly successful in driving the market into its home territory in recent months - or at least successfully hiving off the mirrorless market into this category. Canon and Nikon were buffered from this by the fact that professional photographers are actually invested in a brand and aren't consumers in the same way as the average purchaser of a camera.*

Their professional base helped them develop a general consumer base by attracting people to the brand. I think Pentax and Minolta suffered from this general market shift earlier because they were that much smaller without the same professional buffer. However Nikon and Canon's market shares are now feeling the same effects as technology has enabled the production of further categories of cameras (e.g. mirrorless) which they have not tried to exploit. DSLRs I believe will shrink to a niche category. The question is whether Pentax/Ricoh choose to stick with them to that point - however far away that may be.


* I don't like the way non-professionals refer to being 'invested' in a mount. They aren't, not in the way professionals are.

[Asahiflex]

The effects of any FF lens CAN be achieved on APS-C. It's just that the exact lens equivalents have not been produced for many reasons, the primary one being the cost of engineering and production when compared to "demand." There simply are not enough photographers demanding those lens capabilities and characteristics to make building these high-cost lenses available.

And that's the point. Wide angle lenses which are relatively easy to produce for fullframe (not necessarily the ones I mentioned in my earlier post; this also applies to lenses with a more normal f/stop) are very expensive on APS-C if you want the same FOV and DOF. As such FF is more suitable for wide angle to normal shooters and APS-C for normal to telephoto shooters.

And when you get down to it... the much ballyhooed "full frame" look is only craved by purists who believe for some reason that the 35mm size and form factor was some kind of mystical photographic nirvana. 35mm was what it was. It looked the way it did. MF was several things and they were what they were. Digital APS-? and FF and MF are what they are and look the way they do. There is nothing intrinsically better or worse in any of them.

Is a Picasso ink drawing less "art" than a Picasso oil painting? I don't think anyone would argue that point. Likewise a photo taken with any camera can attain "artistry." The reason and motivating force behind the art is the mind and skill of the artist/photographer... not the medium in which he works or the quality of his tools. The medium and the tools just have to be "good enough" to achieve his aims.

If your "aims" can only be achieved with the form factor and lenses suitable to 35mm full frame, then buy FF bodies and lenses and use them. That this is your requirement, though, does not invalidate tools used by other artists who by their skill and imagination can produce art just as well.

You're completely right and I don't question that. In the end it's all about our preferences as a photographer. Which is just as valid.

[TaoMaas]

I did not and will not inhale the marketing propaganda that you have.

Oh, you've inhaled marketing propaganda! It's just that you've inhaled the FF propaganda, not APS-C. If you can't see that, then your observations are obviously skewed. (...not that 99% of the posters didn't see that already.)

[gazonk]

I just wonder whether Pentax/Ricoh have the resources or confidence to support Q, K and 645 adequately.

I'm optimistic, I think that in a few months they may be supporting Q-, K-, 645- and ?-format adequately. Didn't the auto 110 and the 645 shortly co-exist? So in that time frame they were supporting 110-, K-, 67- and 645- mounts

[ZizZ^]

It IS hard to get grain out of a APS-C sensor, but it is just as hard to get it out of a full frame sensor

Not really though! I did a comparison with a friend who has a film camera. We captured the same scene. He with he's film canon AE1 and me with my pentax k5.
I then added some grain with a filter from a good PP program and the results were almost identical.

Just wanted to point out you can get very convincing grain in PP.

[Zygonyx]

* I don't like the way non-professionals refer to being 'invested' in a mount. They aren't, not in the way professionals are.

Let's say they are "spent" on their own money , which is an even less comfortable situation.

[infoomatic]

believe it or not ... RICOH has already produced FULLFRAME cameras!!! Wuaaah! And I am one of the lucky owners ... but, silence, it's top secret and this product probably won't be launched this year. *SCNR*

[eddie1960]

Yes. It does not matter what lens you mount on an APS-C camera. The perspective is wrong, and what you get is garbage.

FF is garbage by this argument what you really want is 6x7, and until there is a 6x7 sensor all digital will be garbage. what a crock. Yes there are some advantages to FF and I would like to see one, but Ff has its drawbacks as well. Hell I have a friend who makes 4foot by 6 foot prints from a p/s as the basis for her artwork (and her pieces command quite high prices)
I'm as much of a gearhead as anyone but I would never make the argument that apsc is only good for snaps. I guess Benjikan only sells snapshots to Harper's Bazaar then? (as just one example)

[eddie1960]

You need to understand that optical science and "focus and defocus" has absolutely nothing to do with sensor size, and that the same effect exactly can be duplicated on any optic with scalable, equivalent f-stop and decent glass regardless.

This applies to film as well, and always has. I shoot 135, 120 (645 and 6x9), and have taken my run at 8x10. This alongside FF and APS-C digital.

You're trying to force your subjective, aesthetic observations as optical performance when 150 years of photographic knowledge says otherwise. It's getting embarrassing to read.

Many times I've disagreed with you Aristophenes but this is bang on and blatantly obvious to anyone who takes more than a millisecond to think about it.

[ZizZ^]

APC-S cameras like a K5 or d7000 or even earlier or lesser bodies are good enough for almost anything. It all depends on the photographer.

But of course there is no way in denying the superiority of a FF when it comes down to image quality...

[gazonk]

APC-S cameras like a K5 or d7000 or even earlier or lesser bodies are good enough for almost anything. It all depends on the photographer.

But of course there is no way in denying the superiority of a FF when it comes down to image quality...

Sure, but even the best FF camera will only output "garbage" compared to a 645D. And suppose Pentax suddenly surprised everyone with a full frame 645D - or even a 67D - then the wonderful images of 645D photographers would turn to garbage over night, too! What a tragedy, let's hope they don't do that!