Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-21-2013, 07:14 PM   #166
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,538
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
To get the same image you need to shoot at one stop slower shutterspeed on FF than on APS. This means that in order to freeze action (for example) you need to crank up the ISO thereby loosing the high ISO advantage. I know all about this;I've shot two different formats for 15 years and there are no free lunches.
+1 I agree, though with the Leica S2 and 645D using those cameras handheld I prefer to keep my shutter speeds at f/x2 - meaning if i'm using a 35mm lens, my shutter speeds will be two stops higher than the focal length to eliminate any chance of camera shake.

02-21-2013, 08:52 PM - 1 Like   #167
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,939
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
You use a larger format in order to get better image quality.
And you get the better image quality (even without boosting ISO).

What you cannot get is the same exposure and greater print size at the same time. That would be the "free lunch" you are talking about. If you print an FF image to the same size as an APS-C image (i.e., you don't want to exploit the "print bigger" potential of FF) then you do not need to boost your ISO.

In short, froeschle was completely right.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
EG. my FA* 200/4 Macro have turned into something totally wonderful when used on APS: It now goes to 50% larger than life size (compared to FF) for Macro.
Whatever you fancy about your FA* 200/4 on APS-C, you can get the same by cropping an FF image (provided that the FF camera has the same pixel pitch as the APS-C camera; D800 vs K-5 is an example for the latter).

Think about it. The FF camera (in crop mode) gives you everything the APS-C camera can give you. No loss of anything whatsoever. The only difference is that the FF camera can give you more, if you want it.

FF is a superset of APS-C. There are no advantages to APS-C (other than accidental real-world circumstances, e.g., that APS-C sensor typically have higher pixel pitch than FF sensors), but there are advantages to FF.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
The price difference between FF and APS is not marginal. Comparable bodies are about twice the price.
The Canon 6D and Nikon D600 are just the beginning of past margins coming down.
02-21-2013, 10:11 PM   #168
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Whatever you fancy about your FA* 200/4 on APS-C, you can get the same by cropping an FF image (provided that the FF camera has the same pixel pitch as the APS-C camera; D800 vs K-5 is an example for the latter).

Think about it. The FF camera (in crop mode) gives you everything the APS-C camera can give you. No loss of anything whatsoever. The only difference is that the FF camera can give you more, if you want it.

FF is a superset of APS-C. There are no advantages to APS-C (other than accidental real-world circumstances, e.g., that APS-C sensor typically have higher pixel pitch than FF sensors), but there are advantages to FF.
Agreed. I hope Pentax incorporates the 1.3X crop mode of the D7100 (2X crop vs FF). Then m4/3 users will have to stop saying stuff like "a 300mm lens is 600mm equivalent on 4/3, and APS-C is only 450mm".
02-22-2013, 12:22 AM   #169
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,538
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
There are no advantages to APS-C
So the fact that most lenses designed for APS-C just happen to be smaller than their FX format equivalents is just a marketing gimmick to you?

Think about it, if APS-C cameras didn't exist and the industry demanded cameras be either full frame or nothing, Pentax wouldn't exist as we know it. Pentax, Nikon,Canon, Leica,Olympus, Minolta,Sony,Ricoh,Fuji,Hasselblad,Contax - basically the whole industry wouldn't be anywhere near as diverse as it is today if people weren't willing to accept APS-C (and smaller sensor format) cameras.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
but there are advantages to FF.
Horses for courses, you know there are advantages to 8X10 format too, the ability to use camera movements with a massive variety of lenses - some of which are diffraction limited.


Last edited by Digitalis; 02-22-2013 at 12:28 AM.
02-22-2013, 12:27 AM   #170
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
..and sell twice as much...
Yep and this is exactly what I criticized (and Falk didn't like it but would I always agree with him) about the cheap FF from Canikon.
This more of a financial/strategic decision than anything else. They offer something more, indeed. But the lines don't really move.
Only the advanced APS (D7000 - K5 etc.) cams will go somewhat lower. True "pro" APS will remain at the same price or more expensive than cheap FF. And with cheap FF they offer cheap (relatively) bodies (cheap bodies for FF meaning D7000/60D kind of body).

Entry to ticket to FF is lower than before? Yep, you have to give up a couple thing to get that: shutter specs, fps, flash sync, buffer etc.
It's fine for some people but often not. This means many people will get a cheap FF AND keep an advanced APS-C body.
Not that it wasn't the point at all. It was. Consumer screwed again
Not that Pentax would do any different if they could. They should, as a company.
02-22-2013, 12:37 AM   #171
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,538
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Entry to ticket to FF is lower than before? Yep, you have to give up a couple thing to get that: shutter specs, fps, flash sync, buffer etc.
Pentax did the same thing with the 645D... the Leica S2 costs considerably more* and it uses basically the same sensor.

*Current price for a new Pentax 645D (body only) $9900 AUD - Leica S2 Black (body only) $27,390 AUD
02-22-2013, 02:27 AM   #172
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,939
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
So the fact that most lenses designed for APS-C just happen to be smaller than their FX format equivalents is just a marketing gimmick to you?
If you compare equivalent lenses -- e.g., APS-C f/2.8 lenses with f/4 FF lenses -- then the FF lenses are not always larger. The size of most lenses is largely determined by its "speed", not by the size of the image circle it produces.


QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Think about it, if APS-C cameras didn't exist and the industry demanded cameras be either full frame or nothing, Pentax wouldn't exist as we know it. Pentax, Nikon,Canon, Leica,Olympus, Minolta,Sony,Ricoh,Fuji,Hasselblad,Contax - basically the whole industry wouldn't be anywhere near as diverse as it is today if people weren't willing to accept APS-C (and smaller sensor format) cameras.
Your whole premise ("industry demanded") doesn't make sense to me.

I'm happy for people to love APS-C and it was/is a good stop-gap technology. But its time for high-end full-frame mount DSLRs is running out.


QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Horses for courses, you know there are advantages to 8X10 format too, the ability to use camera movements with a massive variety of lenses - some of which are diffraction limited.
Again, not sure why you wrote this. I made a point about the FF format not having the downsides that are often attributed to it, but still offering advantages. I never said anything about FF being the ultimate format.
02-22-2013, 03:02 AM   #173
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,538
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
If you compare equivalent lenses -- e.g., APS-C f/2.8 lenses with f/4 FF lenses -- then the FF lenses are not always larger. The size of most lenses is largely determined by its "speed", not by the size of the image circle it produces.
The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L is bigger than the Tamron 16-50mm f/2.8 DX format lens - this is a fact.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I'm happy for people to love APS-C and it was/is a good stop-gap technology. But its time for high-end full-frame mount DSLRs is running out.
I agree, but I don't think that as soon as a FX format camera comes out that it should suddenly be abandoned.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I never said anything about FF being the ultimate format.
I don't think there is an ultimate format, each has its strengths and weaknesses.

02-22-2013, 03:03 AM   #174
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 311
Hmm interesting I didn't know that a 200mm f4 becomes a 300mm but f5.6 on APS-C... I.e I wouldn't need a 70-200mm f2.8 to match my 50-135mm f2.8 but a 70-200mm f4, based on the statements above.

Is this true? Have I understood correctly?
02-22-2013, 03:25 AM   #175
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
The FF equivalents complicate matters. Always consider lens focal lengths and apertures as they are indicated. Apparent conversions are given as equivalents when taking the crop factor into account. It's helpful for marketing but not for the photographer.
02-22-2013, 05:18 AM   #176
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
There is proof: 3 > 5.

Indeed, time will prove you wrong.
Please tell me you don't teach mathematics.
02-22-2013, 06:14 AM   #177
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
In the camera-world mathematics, 3 is greater than 5
02-22-2013, 07:11 AM   #178
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kaunas
Posts: 1,452
QuoteOriginally posted by Pheo Quote
Hmm interesting I didn't know that a 200mm f4 becomes a 300mm but f5.6 on APS-C... I.e I wouldn't need a 70-200mm f2.8 to match my 50-135mm f2.8 but a 70-200mm f4, based on the statements above.

Is this true? Have I understood correctly?
No. 200mm lens doesn't become anything. It's 200mm lens no matter on what camera it is mounted on.

We, probably, need to speak about equivalent pictures. Picture taken on APS-C camera with 200mm lens @f/4 will look more or less the same (angle of view, depth of field) as picture taken on fullframe with 300mm lens @ f/5.6
02-22-2013, 07:27 AM   #179
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by Edvinas Quote
No. 200mm lens doesn't become anything. It's 200mm lens no matter on what camera it is mounted on.

We, probably, need to speak about equivalent pictures. Picture taken on APS-C camera with 200mm lens @f/4 will look more or less the same (angle of view, depth of field) as picture taken on fullframe with 300mm lens @ f/5.6
I agree with Edvinas. but to complete the story, the f4 aperture will expose one stop faster. Probably the FF body will have about one stop less noise, so that may even out too. Just raise ISO one stop with the 300mm f5.6 on the full frame, keep the same shutter speed.

Last edited by audiobomber; 02-22-2013 at 08:01 AM.
02-22-2013, 07:29 AM   #180
Veteran Member
RBellavance's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Near Montréal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by Pheo Quote
Hmm interesting I didn't know that a 200mm f4 becomes a 300mm but f5.6 on APS-C... I.e I wouldn't need a 70-200mm f2.8 to match my 50-135mm f2.8 but a 70-200mm f4, based on the statements above.

Is this true? Have I understood correctly?
Yes and no. A picture taken at 50mm & f/2.8 on APS-C will look the same (angle of view & depth of field) as one taken at 75mm & f/4.0 on a full-frame.

However, the different apertures mean that, if you want to use the same shutter speed, the full-frame must use an ISO sensitivity one stop higher than the APS-C (thereby negating the advantage the full-frame has in that respect).

Also, but limiting yourself to exactly equivalent lenses aperture-wise, you would deny yourself the thinner DOF possibilities of the fulle-frame.

In a nutshell: if the intent is to only take equivalent pictures, one is probably better off not switching formats in the first place The decision to "upgrade" to full-frame should be motivated by the desire to make use of the capabilities it offers over APS-C, IMHO.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax cameras, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Minikina 2013 vsl 01/02.06.2013 in Wiesbaden veraikon General Talk 9 05-27-2013 10:37 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #251 27 Jan 2013 through 10 Feb 2013 Dr Orloff Weekly Photo Challenges 54 02-10-2013 11:59 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #250 20 Jan 2013 through 3 Feb 2013 Douge Weekly Photo Challenges 43 02-03-2013 09:45 PM
PENTAX Introduces New K-5 II & K-5 IIs DSLR Cameras Versatile cameras feature newly d Adam Homepage & Official Pentax News 18 09-13-2012 07:14 AM
NEW Pentax Lens Roadmap 2012/2013 oddesy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 331 04-07-2012 02:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top