[cbope]

Given the volume of currently manufactured and legacy glass this tilts the market very much in favour of FF above certain price points regardless of equivalency, angles dancing on the heads of pins arguments.

I would argue that the lens favor is more for APS-C. Why? I can use an FF or APS-C lens on an APS-C body without compromises. If I have an FF body, I cannot use APS-C without significant risk of major vignetting or a drop in sensor resolution, like Nikon's DX mode on FF bodies.

With Pentax's current lens lineup, launching an FF body would come with a very restrictive new lens selection, as there are currently only 5 or 6 FF compatible lenses in the Pentax catalog. The FA Limiteds, FA 50, and the D FA macros, are FF. Pretty much everything else is APS-C. Even taking legacy glass into account, the number of lenses will still be higher on APS-C.

[Andi Lo]

I would argue that the lens favor is more for APS-C. Why? I can use an FF or APS-C lens on an APS-C body without compromises. If I have an FF body, I cannot use APS-C without significant risk of major vignetting or a drop in sensor resolution, like Nikon's DX mode on FF bodies.

Other than Sigma 10-20, DA limiteds and telephoto lens longer than 300mm, I'd argue that all aps-c only lenses have at least one FF equivalent with similar cost / performance (not weight/size). Sell the lens and rebuy the FF version, or keep an APS body just for that particular lens, like I did with DA 40.

You're right that Pentax lineup isn't primed for FF. They need to issue at least 17-40, 24-70, and (unfortunately) a new version of 60-250. There are tons of third party options for these three lenses but I dont think Pentax likes that

[StrasburgBarry]

Most, but not all large format photographers use their lens and camera movements to increase not decrease depth of field. My wife uses almost only her 16-45 and 10-20 lenses so moving to FF means either she loses the FF advantage or she needs to buy new lenses and that is a waste of money which we may or may not have. She has been waiting for 20 years for new kitchen cabinets as the 100 year old ones are showing their age. When she did need to make large prints (60 by 80 inch) she borrowed a FF D3 with a 14-24 lens and a 30 year old medium format film camera whoses images were the only ones she used. So medium format film is practical and financially feasible for everyone to go to except for John who would not have room in his motorcycle bag for a Fuji GX680

My point is so many feel that their desire for large prints or shallow depth of field images is universal and it is not. I love that my K-r is so small especially after using D1X, D2X and D200 cameras however others think the K5 is too small. Camera size preference is also not universal. Many talk about the need to print large however I normally print my MF images onto 8X10 paper, not because that is as large as the quality will go or that it is the largest my equipment will cover as neither of those is true but because I like to view them in my hands as a portfolio. I have actually made larger images from my cropped sensor images than from my 4X5 only due to a desire for a certain image to be large. The need or desire to print large is also not universal.

My point is that all this FF or more megapixel arguements are always based on "if I want or need something then everyone wants or needs the same thing". Shallow depth of field often looks gimmickey I understand that I might not be in the majority for what my wants or needs are but I do not think that most of the arguements for or against are anything other than people extrapolating thier own preferences to the rest of us.

Note to redrockcoulee: Swings and tilts on a 4 x 5 camera can increase the depth of field in one plane only and the camera MUST be on a tripod. For instance, shooting a railroad track going off into the distance can be sharpened by tilting the lens forward slightly so that the farther distant track is sharply focused on the screen and film. BUT this only works in the plane of the railroad tracks. The face of someone standing ON those tracks in the distance will be distorted and out of focus.

If you are at all concerned about depth of field, using a longer focal length lens to achieve the same angle of view on a larger format sensor or film guarantees less depth of field for the longer focal length at equivalent f-stops.

[Pål Jensen]

Yes, less DOF, meaning more options as you can always stop down. The slower shutter when stopped down is counterbalanced by the one stop gain in ISO, so the speed point is rather moot even though it's a slower lens. FF generally results in more options, at the cost of weight and size..

If one subscribe to that "law of equivalency" (I don't) that F:4 on FF is equal to F:2.8 on APS you really do not get anything but thinner DOF wide open with FF. You do not get more DOF options. The APS lens will have one more stop to choose from as lenses in reality have the same minimum aperture giving a larger range of DOF for APS. If you compare lenses with the same maximum aperture you just shift the DOF range one stop towards shallower DOF with FF. But the APS lens typically has shorter close focusing distance and higher maximum magnification along with the possibility of more DOF with the potential of giving images you can't get on FF.
You gain less noise on every ISO with FF vs APS provided the sensors are the same generation. This means that you get the FF advantage regardless of what ISO you are using. You can crank up the ISO on APS as well, but the realtionship between APS and FF is constant. You have to compare apples to apples. We can only assume that user of an APS camera choose it because he is happy with the image quality it provides.
The speed point isn't moot because photographers tends to use their cameras to their best advantages regardless. They don't crank up the ISO unless they have to. And if anything, FF users will be more quality concious than smaller format users. Thats presumably why they bought an FF camera. But with FF you risk to have to increase ISO more often than with APS to get the image.

---

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 10-02-2013 at 09:15 AM.

[Pål Jensen]

A major relevant, market factor between FF and APS-C is that there is interchangeability of many, many lenses. Given the volume of currently manufactured and legacy glass this tilts the market very much in favour of FF above certain price points regardless of equivalency, angles dancing on the heads of pins arguments.

But you can turn this argument around. Many FF lenses turns into something way more compelling on APS than on FF. My FA* 200/4 Macro on an APS camera is a case in point. Not only does it provide 50% larger than life-size macro posibilities (try to find that on any FF lens on an FF camera), it have angle of view of a 300mm lens on FF but the size and weight of 200mm lens. As macro photographers needs all the DOF they can get the lens give me the speed of F:4 with the DOF of about F:5.6 on FF. A 300/5.6 or F:4 Macro with 50% larger than life size magnification doesn't exist on FF and if it had you couldn't afford it or lift it....

[normhead]

But you can turn this argument around. Many FF lenses turns into something way more compelling on APS than on FF. My FA* 200/4 Macro on an APS camera is a case in point. Not only does it provide 50% larger than life-size macro posibilities (try to find that on any FF lens on an FF camera), it have angle of view of a 300mm lens on FF but the size and weight of 200mm lens. As macro photographers needs all the DOF they can get the lens give me the speed of F:4 with the DOF of about F:5.6 on FF. A 300/5.6 or F:4 Macro with 50% larger than life size magnification doesn't exist on FF and if it had you couldn't afford it or lift it....

No kidding, not to mention that on APS-c you have the use of all those APS-c lens that can't be used on FF systems, and all the FF lenses. There's way more lens selection on APS-c.

[kadajawi]

You don't get extra DOF but less DOF. In addition, the APS lens wil give more DOF, larger maximum magnification( for similar lenses) and larger range of DOF. However, hardly anyone buy long telephoto lenses for its absolute shallowness of DOF. They buy lenses for speed; ie the ability or lack thereof of shooting in lower light with faster shuterspeeds. F:2.8 lens is an F:2.8 lens regardless of format and mm variations in DOF wide open is way down on most photographers list of priorities when making images.

Hm, I disagree? I see plenty of photogs using a 70-200 2.8 in broad daylight cause they get that nice bokeh.

@Andi Lo: But several pro photographers are switching from FF to mFT or fixed lens Fuji cameras...

[normhead]

Other than Sigma 10-20, DA limiteds and telephoto lens longer than 300mm, I'd argue that all aps-c only lenses have at least one FF equivalent with similar cost / performance (not weight/size). Sell the lens and rebuy the FF version, or keep an APS body just for that particular lens, like I did with DA 40.

You're right that Pentax lineup isn't primed for FF. They need to issue at least 17-40, 24-70, and (unfortunately) a new version of 60-250. There are tons of third party options for these three lenses but I dont think Pentax likes that

OK, I'll bite, the 60-250 is razor sharp, has beautiful bokeh and is about 2 years old, and is one of my fastest focusing lenses. Why do they need a new version of it?

I don't think they could sell me a new version of this lens, I like the one I have...So I'm interested in hearing what your issues are... (cause you always have an interesting view point, usually not mine, but valid from your perspective.)

[Pål Jensen]

Hm, I disagree? I see plenty of photogs using a 70-200 2.8 in broad daylight cause they get that nice bokeh.

Bokeh is not the same as thin DOF....
You will get the same bokeh with the lens on an APS camera.

[kadajawi]

Bokeh is not the same as thin DOF....
You will get the same bokeh with the lens on an APS camera.

I phrased it wrong... I meant for that shallow DoF. They want that seperation between subject and background. Now admittedly with that 2.8 an APS-C sensor would still get ridiculous amounts of blur, but people do shoot fast lenses just to get things out of focus. I sometimes shoot with a 1.8 at 1.8 in broad daylight (if possible), even though that means going to 1/8000. I simply want to get the background out of focus.

[Andi Lo]

If one subscribe to that "law of equivalency" (I don't) that F:4 on FF is equal to F:2.8 on APS you really do not get anything but thinner DOF wide open with FF. You do not get more DOF options. The APS lens will have one more stop to choose from as lenses in reality have the same minimum aperture giving a larger range of DOF. In addition the APS lens typically has shorter close focusing distance and higher maximum magnification along with the possibility of more DOF with the potential of giving images you can't get on FF.
You gain less noise on every ISO with FF vs APS provided the sensors are the same generation. This means that you get the FF advantage regardless of what ISO you are using. You can crank up the ISO on APS as well, but the realtionship between APS and FF is constant. You have to compare apples to apples. We can only assume that user of an APS camera choose it because he is happy with the image quality it provides.

Ok let me put it this way: I want to do a half body portrait, to achieve I that can either:

Use 50mm/1.4 on APS, f/2, I use iso 100
I also have a Tamron 28-75/2.8 on FF that I zoom to 75mm, f/2.8, I use iso 200

The shutter speed and resulting images from these two setup will be identical, but with FF I just gained 28-74mm and can shoot at f/2.8. You can argue that in APS I could make the aperture opening even wider, but to do that I can also use an 85mm prime on FF, but now I have two options instead of one, one of which I simply dont have with APS.

I think we simply shoot different things, and you may be mostly shooting subjects where FF won't matter or is actually a disadvantage. My most used lenses when I was mainly pentax is the 35,40, and 50mm and the Sigma 10-20mm. For the primes I also shoot very often at its widest apertures, so I benefit quite a bit by switching.

To be honest I'm not very well versed in macro. When I do "macro" I only ever shoot with thin DOF, whether on APS on FF. So like you said if you regularly shoot things up close (macro) or really far (telephoto), you'll be better of with APSC.

I never said that APS users are not happy, it's more about if you're not happy, FF may be your answer as it gives more options. I always hear people here say "I want this xx mm lens that has f/x aperture, I hope pentax / sigma / whoever makes one soon". For example If you want a 16-50/2, 24mm/1.4 or 50-150/2 APSC lens, you can get it today in FF, and for not much more than the APS equivalent that have one less stop of DOF options.

OK, I'll bite, the 60-250 is razor sharp, has beautiful bokeh and is about 2 years old, and is one of my fastest focusing lenses. Why do they need a new version of it?

The 60-250 doesn't cover FF, I pointed it out in response to someone saying that Pentax doesnt have enough FF lenses.

Sometimes I forgot that this lens is also a great APSC optimized that no other manufacturer offers... At the long end it's close to twice as long as the 70-200 on FF

@Andi Lo: But several pro photographers are switching from FF to mFT or fixed lens Fuji cameras...

That's because Pentax doesnt push the DA limiteds strongly enough, otherwise they might switch to Pentax

[Pål Jensen]

No kidding, not to mention that on APS-c you have the use of all those APS-c lens that can't be used on FF systems, and all the FF lenses. There's way more lens selection on APS-c.

Another very interesting example is the 77Limited lens. While it is OK on FF it turns into a lens with a very compelling angle of viw on APS. It seems to me that the lens see the world like I do when i concentrate on something. It gives a very natural perspective in tune with how I see the world.
If Pentax makes an FF camera they should make an 115 Limited

[mamethot]

I have a feeling of déjà vu...

[Pål Jensen]

Andi Lo: what prevents you from using 200ISO on your APS camera?
I don't understand what you mean by this sentence: "The shutter speed and resulting images from these two setup will be identical, but with FF I just gained 28-74mm and can shoot at f/2.8".

FF give you different options not more numerically.

[Winder]

People seem to be forgetting that a FF like a D800 has an APS-C crop mode that gives you a 16MP APS-C image with full use of all APS-C lenses. Effectively giving you 2 cameras in one body and the cost of the D800 then becomes very reasonable compared to say someone who used a Canon 5DIII and a 7D for a second body.

A FF body can take advantages of both FF and APS-C lenses if designed properly. I don't want to bust anyone's APS-C fantasy world bubble, but the "advantages" of APS-C are non-existent against properly designed FF body. Since the K-mount is designed around a FF mount and mirrorbox, there will never be a big difference in the size of an APS-C or FF body that uses K-mount.