[Rondec]

Keep in mind that the 'turbo button' is only one feature, not the entirety of the difference. It just seems to be the one that gets misunderstood (and argued about) the most.



Person A: This apple is blue!

Person B: Actually, it's red, see...

Person C: Quit flogging the apple issue, person B!!

Person B: OK.



.

I have never said that full frame isn't capable of more narrow depth of field than APS-C. It is capable of quite a bit less depth of field, particularly in wide angle lenses, where there aren't nearly as many fast options for APS-C. What I have argued is that it comes at a cost and that cost is probably unnecessary for most photographers. When I listen to people talk about the subject, they tend to gravitate in two directions. On one hand, you would believe that a shot like this is impossible with APS-C without some type of weird photo-shopping.




And on the other hand that a shot like this:




would have benefited from less depth of field.

I will just say that in my opinion, the reasons to go full frame are for better high iso capability, for printing larger, and for better dynamic range (as long as you choose Sony or Nikon) -- particularly in higher iso settings and maybe for better viewfinder (this may all change in the age of EVFs). I just don't think that depth of field is that big a deal, or a reason to choose a format for the majority of photographers.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 01-04-2014 at 05:07 PM.

[monochrome]

Ron over these last weeks I think you've hit on (or started posting, or I've started noticing) the erudite response to the general question of format as well as the "reason" for Pentax; these are tools, they have purposes, one is often better for a purpose than another; Pentax has a place where it shines or is at least the equal of another so that we who prefer the aesthetic character of a Pentax need not compromise.

I wish this message could be shouted from the mountaintops, burned into the psyche of the photographic community, accepted as the reason one would shoot with Pentax, so that on the "Are we really that rare?" thread people could start to post someone said, "Oh, you have a Pentax - do you shoot (Birds or Landscapes or whatever it is)? and we could reply, "Yeah, it's a great camera for what I do." and they would get it.

We're not there yet, but I hope that's part of the plan.

[Uluru]

I have never said that full frame isn't capable of more narrow depth of field than APS-C. ...

And on the other hand that a shot like this:
...
would have benefited from less depth of field.

Eh? I presume you wanted to say the opposite in both cases.

[Rondec]

Eh? I presume you wanted to say the opposite in both cases.

My point is that the pursuit of ultimate narrow depth of field, which seems to drive some to full frame is not the real goal of photography and yet, to hear some, if you can take a photo that's narrow with APS-C, it would have been even better with full frame, because you could make it more narrow. I don't believe that. The reasons for full frame are there, but they aren't just the pursuit of narrow depth of field -- at least for me.

Edit: There are few times that I look at an image and think: "That would have been a better image with less depth of field," but there are plenty of times where I think the reverse.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 01-05-2014 at 06:37 AM.

[SyncGuy]

As of right now, every camera out there is a compromise. The D800 has a slow frame rate and huge files. Its "turbo button" also costs more than a thousand dollars more than a K3. The D600 loses something with regard to frame rate, build, buffer, and maximum shutter speed -- and it still costs more than the K3. As of now, I have a nice stable of Pentax glass and am not particularly enamoured with the turbo button (I mostly shoot landscapes). If Pentax comes out with full frame, my wife will probably get one, because she shoots a lot of portraiture and some weddings and it will be more useful for her. But flogging the narrow depth of field horse just doesn't do much for me. Particularly not when you realize the cost it comes at.

Woah.... Chill guys... Everyone has an opinion on each format and i believe each have their own style of photography.
I started the initial question because as was stated by Rondec, my style of photography is very much akin to his wife's; portraiture, hence i stated that i believe i am with the wrong brand.

But to wrap it up, there is no right or wrong about which format to go. It simply boils down to each individual's style of shooting and i believe it is not good to attempt to convince anyone on whether there is a need for larger format or smaller format. Rather, the best advice is to recommend accordingly to their needs.

Ultimately, i believe no one can argue the fact that having the option to exercise the flexibility in DoF control from a larger format compared to a smaller one is a big plus point. And no, not even the excuse of taking a step backward or forward.. LOL!

As was mentioned by Monochrome, it would be awesome if conversations would be carried out towards "individual's style of photography"..
World peace.....

[normhead]

It's quite simple, there are those willing to carry heavier glass, heavier systems for one extra stop of DoF, and those that don't think it's worth it. Conflicting opinions apparently. But neither side is going to change because of the values of the others, nor should they. Peace will be obtained, when folks stop pimping their photographic preferences as if there are some "facts" that will alter others perceptions of the issue. Facts have nothing to do with it. it's personal preference. It's all about respecting other people's choices.

The obnoxious pimping of one system focusing on it's advantages and ignoring it's disadvantages is by nature confrontational. And what we have here with a bunch of FF proponents (and 4/3 proponents, and NEX proponents etc. etc. ) is the inability to process the fact that many people here, have experience with both systems, and 8x10 view and medium format, and 110 and 6x6 and practically every other type of camera, who will tell you the difference between FF and APS-c in the grand things is relatively insignificant, as is the difference between 4/3 and APS-c. Like almost every other aspect of photography, you need to skip a step for meaningful difference. But that's just my take.

Some folks have a finer sense of "difference". And there's nothing wrong with that, until they assume that others need their guidance on the issue, are somehow less informed than themselves, and start preaching a doctrine to the crowd.

There is nothing wrong with anyone, who decides to shoot only with a Q, 4/3, APS-c , FF and MF or 4x5 scanning back..or any combination there of. It is quite possible for anyone to know everything there is to know about photography and intelligently choose any one of those options, to all of them, and any combination thereof. It's is not up to other to criticize their choice or point out it's limitations.

Criticizing the limitations of others choices is not a sign of intelligence. Believe it or not, there are a great number of us who completely understand the limitations of APS-c, and still choose to use it 90% of the time. I have 6x6 , 645 and 35mm film cameras at my disposal, and access to a very good scanner. We don't need lectures on the benefits of FF. In front of a class, I'd be happy to give lectures on the benefits of FF, and every other system on the planet. It's important that learning photographers understand and explore the options. So, having some impertinent know it all come on hear and constantly harp on the advantages of one system or the other like they are the be all and end all of knowledge about photography is truly annoying.

There is one point in the development of photographers, when they discover for themselves that system that is best for their style. And they may even start to work with that system almost exclusively. I don't mean to temper anyone's enthusiasm. Finding your system is a wonderful thing. But there's no reason to assume that the system that's right for you is right for everybody. And posting pictures and quoting selected facts that support your choice isn't necessary. They will always be lacking for everyone aware of all the facts. Emphasizing some facts, just means you don't value others.

Until you can take joy in your choice while at the same time respecting the choices of others, your knowledge is incomplete, and emotionally, you're immature and confrontational. Supporting one format, doesn't mean you're smarter than anyone else. it just means you've figured out what's good for you. And personally, I think a lot of the push back against formats that aren't your favourite, is the insecurity you have about the choice you're made. Trying to stamp out the niggling little doubts about the absolute utility of one system or another, by converting others to the system, instead of examining your own work and choices.

As a former teacher, I cannot imagine launching into the kind of one sided diatribe favouring one format or another, you see here all the time. When I see one sided propaganda, I often try to present some balance, but I'm not advocating one system or another.

If you were in my class, you'd use every format available in on appropriate assignments. I've had students do narrow DoF on point and shoots. SO when I see people say you have to have FF for narrow DoF, my second year students would be laughing at you. But deciding what camera was best for an individual is an individual decision.

Listen to the one format blow hards if you choose, but balance what they say with a practical understanding of all relevant formats, practical in the sense of using every system and finding out what you resonate with. Listening to the blow hards pushing one format or another on the forum is next to worthless. That's why they have schools for photography. And that's why so many of us who post a lot of images and can enjoy our photography without reference to format etc. stay out of this type of discussion. (I have some personality flaw that keeps me from being able to do that.) It is just so hard to explain to those with extremely narrow points of view, just what they are missing without eliciting one of these diatribes of outrage.

I think a lot of the time, some of the more belligerent format enthusiasts think I stop posting in a thread, because they are right and i am wrong, more often it's just I've grown tired of the insolence, belligerence and ignorance. I'm getting to be too old for this baloney. But over 1000 students went through my High School photography program, the one I built from scratch, and 4 or 5 of them went on to do post secondary work in photography, and many others found jobs in the industry or in related industries, or use photography as part of their duties in other jobs, so I can't be doing anything too wrong.

Sometimes I think those pushing one system over others are like proselytizers seeking religious converts. I hate Jehova's witnesses and format proponents. They are pretty much the same thing. Just show me pictures, and maybe a few examples of pictures you'd like to learn how to take and tell me how much money you have to spend, , and I'll tell you what you need to take them. Prejudging, and saying one system is better than all the others for everything and everyone is for the mentally challenged, who can't see the big picture. And for them, it doesn't matter what you say, they will never understand the big picture.

And I bet 99% of the site doesn't give a crap about this whole issue. They just like the pictures they take and camera they have and might like to learn to do a little bit more, take advantage of a few features they don't know about, gain a bit of incremental knowledge, using the system they have. Some knob coming on with a bunch of FF propaganda is a total geek. We tolerate them, because, it just might happen, that there might actually be one person on the site from time to time, who actually would be a candidate to use an FF camera as their only camera. I have a number of friends who are like that. So having a few people helping beginners understand what FF has to offer, is not such a bad idea. It would be nice if they weren't so damed obnoxious about it.

When hanging out with other photographers, the goal is to assimilate as much of what they know that you don't. Because believe it or not, no matter how much you've learned, others have gotten into niches where they know different stuff that might help you in what you do. A confrontational attitude doesn't help that, neither does a one sided promotion of a specific format.

[Dr Orloff]

I'd like both a full frame and APSC body. I guess I'll have to beat myself up.

[normhead]

I'd like both a full frame and APSC body. I guess I'll have to beat myself up.

I suppose many of us, at least I'd like to have everything from a Q to a 4x5 scanning back, it's a matter of cost.

[dansamy]

I'd like a MILC, APS-C & FF. I'd only want the MILC if it could be truly diminutive. u4/3 or Q size. But I'd want a sensor at least 4/3, maybe just a smidge smaller. Not compact PnS sized.

[ElJamoquio]

It's quite simple, there are those willing to carry heavier glass, heavier systems for one extra stop of DoF

I haven't seen anybody criticizing another's choice (except, perhaps, you, when you ask 'has anyone else have this opinion?')

I criticize when you point out old-wives-tales that aren't always or aren't usually true, like when people point out "FF has heavier glass!".

Not true, or not always true, or true, depending on what you're comparing. You treating it like an absolute is when people respond.

[ElJamoquio]

Criticizing the limitations of others choices is not a sign of intelligence...

So, having some little snot nosed , wet behind the ears little dweeb

Stay classy, norm.

[normhead]

I will still keeping my Pentax but no longer wait for Pentax FF, I'm going for Sony A7r. No need to wait... if FF Pentax is out might be too expensive since it take that long to develop, I'm sorry if you were offended....

Good luck dude, you hung in as long as you could. Maybe post some over in the A7r thread, and I believe you can still posts in the Pentax contests etc.as long as you are using Pentax glass, so, turn up and post every now and then.

[MJSfoto1956]

AFAIK, among the old Nikon 80-400, Canon 80-400, Sony 80-400 (both old and new) and new Nikon 80-400, the new Nikon comes out sharpest and the old one last. That's what I read, don't have any of the lenses. What's your source?

E.g., when refering to DxO lens tests of the 80-400 when paired with a D610 or A99 (same resolution), the Nikon wins for all scores. Although I admit that the sharpness field maps at 400/5.6 show an ever so slight advantage for the Sony.

Maybe, you got a bad copy or have AF tuning problems?

Actually, found my copy of the Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm quite sharp and focused properly, but that it "chattered" when trying to focus and sometimes switched focus even when shooting bursts of three images in a row. I have never experienced that behavior with any of my other Nikkor lenses. So I don't think this is a bad copy with regard to AF tuning or sharpness for that matter.

As for my source: it is DxOmark data itself. While they don't publish *all" their data, they do provide hints that one can use to extrapolate. A key thing to remember with Dxomark is that they rate the "system" not the lens. As such, one never sees an FX lens providing a better score on a DX body unless the bodies being compared are a new DX vs an old FX. By plugging DxO data into a spreadsheet I have been able to extrapolate that the Sony 70-400mm is a "better" lens than the Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm.

To wit: The four images attached show the Sony data @ 400mm @ f/5.6 on the old A900 (which has an older 24Mp design and is 2 stops less capable than the newer D800 sensor). Note in particular how poor the Nikkor is with regard to vignetting (DxOmark score is biased towards low light behavior and vignetting affects that score significantly) By comparing other DxO data for A900 behavior with certain lenses that are common across brands (e.g. Sigma, Tamron, etc.) and using a "comparable" body (in the case of the A900 the nearest would be the Nikon D3x) and then finding comparable lens scores between the D3x and D800, one can reasonably ascertain that the Sony 70-400mm delivers about 10% better sharpness and would likely get a DxOmark score about 3 points higher on the same camera if pitted directly against the Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm (don't hold your breath for that to ever happen).

[jsherman999]

I'd like both a full frame and APSC body. I guess I'll have to beat myself up.

I own and shoot both, in fact it's the only way to 'know' peace!

[normhead]

Stay classy, norm.

Post altered.