[eddie1960]

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!

Then Sinar will respond with an gigapixel iso 1000000 8x10 back and all other companies will go out of business and we will all have sherpas to go out and take what can only be art since it is the best gear ever

[MRRiley]

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.

Oh I knew that.... but the grain is not coming from the sensor... it is a post-processing gimmick, so not germaine to the capabilities of the different sized digital sensors.

[jsherman999]

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!

Actually you both were correct With regards to DOF/FOV, there is no physical reason why aps-c can't achieve the exact same image as FF, it's just that there may not be existing lenses for aps-c that can do it (23mm f/0.9, etc) or if you get into a range where there are lenses that can do it, they would have to be prohibitively large and expensive (35mm f/1.2, etc.) At around 200mm, that lens advantage ends and kinda flips towards aps-c.

[Fogel70]

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.

This apply most for DSLR design, as DSLR with APS-C sensors use mirror box designed for FF. If going mirrorless with a shorter register distance it is much easier to design wide angle lenses for APS-C sensor format without the same size penalty.

[jsherman999]

...
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.

Careful I never even shot film, and I 'crave' the look. I guess 'crave' is the wrong word - I appreciate it, enjoy it in my photography at times. It effectively expands the aperture range of my lenses, and I'm all about the lenses.


.

[Aristophanes]

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.

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.

Have you ever true to focus a Mamiya 80/1.9 for 645 and get anywhere near a sharp shot? Go ahead, try it. It's the fastest glass ever made for MF There's a trade off between focus fall off and sharpness, so a 28/0.93 creates an optical and aesthetic problem and IQ sameness.

You do realize that fast glass from the 70's and 80's was developed and marketed precisely to give a "soft focus" look. Later companies made slower glass with deliberate soft focus characteristics at lower prices.

[Pål Jensen]

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!

This is utter nonesense. If anything, APS give you more DOF freedom relevant for real life photography than FF as you get one more stop DOF at the same magnification and apertrure something that is more useful in 99.99% of photography. There aren't a single image with look you can't reproduce on APS in National Geagraphic, newspapers or fine art galleries. There are no 33/0.8 cause there no need for it. Minuscule DOF is a problem, not a solution for 99.999999999% of photography.

[Raffwal]

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.

Perhaps so - and many if not most Pentax users here wish Ricoh/Pentax to release a FF model. However, I'm not sure if "mika." is serious or not, trolling or not. While he states the opposite, it seems that by his practical definition, the ultra thin DOF is what differentiates a good photograph from a snapshot. While a thin DOF may be desirable in some circumstances, a much larger DOF may be optimal in another. A FF can produce pictures that APS-C cannot, but I bet even the opposite holds true in some situations. Also, it seems a bit narrow-minded to consider only the DOF and FOV as the defining aspects as there are many more even in the technical sense, not to mention the artistic aspect.

But I guess it was a boring day in Canada...

[Pål Jensen]

Perhaps so - and many if not most Pentax users here wish Ricoh/Pentax to release a FF model. However, I'm not sure if "mika." is serious or not, trolling or not. While he states the opposite, it seems that by his practical definition, the ultra thin DOF is what differentiates a good photograph from a snapshot. ..

Not a single photographer has bought an FF camera for DOF reasons. Thats only done by armchair technogeeks who have run out of other arguments (if you can't make decent images why not let everything be out of focus and call it art?).
I would sure like to have an FF camera myself primarily cause I can't afford a 645 and I already have the lenses....

[Pål Jensen]

Here's a snapshot-like pic taken on a full size digital sensor. But this snapshot-like pic taken on a full size sensor looks better than 99% of anything I've seen taken with an APS-C camera. Can you not see this?

No. I cannot see this. What I'm seeing as a totale failure and a snapshot. An image that is technically (and artistically) imperfect. It is unpleasant to look at due to most of it is out of focus without any reason for why it is out of focus; it gives a nauseating feeling. We do not see whats the subject of this image. Is it the two persons in front? Is it the guy on the left? This image would have been much better if everything was in in focus; it should have been shot with the Q perhaps. Then it would have looked like it was made by someone who master elementary photographic technique.

[jsherman999]

This is utter nonesense. If anything, APS give you more DOF freedom relevant for real life photography than FF as you get one more stop DOF at the same magnification and apertrure something that is more useful in 99.99% of photography. There aren't a single image with look you can't reproduce on APS in National Geagraphic, newspapers or fine art galleries. There are no 33/0.8 cause there no need for it. Minuscule DOF is a problem, not a solution for 99.999999999% of photography.

Nonsense. You're going too far the other way, kinda being the anti-Mika in this part of the thread.

The 'FF look' is very real. If you don't have first-hand experience with the aesthetics, simple math and and an understanding of equivalence backs that up, and a survey of the lenses available and their costs brings it home in a practical way.



.

[mika.]

FF is garbage by this argument what you really want is 6x7, and until there is a 6x7 sensor all digital will be garbage.

While it's true that 6x7 compresses the bokeh more than FF, the effect or the look I'm talking about (though less pronounced on FF) can still be discerned on FF given the right lenses.



bokeh compression/decompression:

FF
|--------------------------------------|
|
| 1- 2---3--------4-----------------5
|
|--------------------------------------|


APS-C
|--------------------------------------|
|
| 1 ------1------ 2---------------- 3
|
|--------------------------------------|

-- distance from photographer -->
Numbers indicate the amount of focus/defocus

[VoiceOfReason]

I took these when I was still using the kit lens that came with my Kx and auto mode! Of course I did have to manually focus (and I kinda sucked at it then). Bokeh? A little.







Yeah, I know macro is cheating, but it has bokeh!

I can do loads better now with my better lenses and now that I know how to use my camera manually. Of course I like landscape pics better, so I want it ALL in focus if I can get it! I've even had people ask where they can get some of my pics, and while I don't think I am quite good enough to sell them, I do enjoy taking them.

I may screw off this weekend and see what I can do for bokeh on my Kx, and next weekend with the new K5 I ordered today. You may not like ASPC, but it certainly beats the P&S cameras I used for years, and I'm certainly happy with it!

[Mareket]

Canon develops world's largest CMOS sensor, shoots 60fps video in moonlight -- Engadget

If it's not taken on this sensor it's clearly garbage. This things excretes on APS-C from a great height, urinates all over FF, eats 645 for breakfast and openly mocks 6x7 in public. We're all amateur photographers because we aren't shooting on this. The REAL pros (there aren't any in existence good enough) shoot on this. They don't need lenses because the sensor is so big it just commands the photons to go to the right place.

Now we all know we're inferior and that it's the equipment that's limiting us, lets all go and buy M9s.

[mika.]

No. I cannot see this.

Well, what the hell do you know, you live in Norway!