Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-03-2016, 05:08 AM   #241
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Not if you compare comparable pictures with the same DoF. As soon as the pictures are technically comparable the noise performance automatically is the same.
The normal procedure to compare noise is to compare at the same ISO with same light conditions.

QuoteQuote:
There are enough people shooting groups of subjects (where you need a predefined DoF not equal the minimum) wondering why the FF advantage in noise is zero.
I don't think anyone says that you always can use the advantage of larger sensors in every image. but there are situations where larger sensors have advantages. FI when the smaller sensor camera can't give you shallow enough DOF, or when you want to stop down the lens for better IQ and still get limited DOF.

Another reason for large aperture lenses is to use large aperture in low light conditions when no other option can give you acceptable images. As long as you don't have faster lenses that can compensate for cameras using smaller sensors, then larger sensor will have an advantage.
I believe these reason are why most of us use large sensor cameras instead of small sensor cameras.

QuoteQuote:
If you discount the difference in DoF between FF/APSC as irrelevant then that is fine (though has been argued over by trillions of threads).

Just be aware that if you compare the noise of pictures with different DoF you also have to accept that comparing a mFT 300mm F4 lens to a FF 600mm F4 lens is the only right approach.
I guess if you want to use the same FOV and DOF in the images and use equivalent lenses, it then should be mft 300/2.8 compared with a FF 600/5.6.

QuoteQuote:
Either you apply the equivalence rule of thumbs to your comparisons or you don't. People tend to do cherry picking on this for propaganda reasons.


01-03-2016, 06:37 AM   #242
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,561
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Not if you compare comparable pictures with the same DoF. As soon as the pictures are technically comparable the noise performance automatically is the same.
Assuming you're going to compensate with a higher iso, then sure. If you also have the option of a longer shutter or turning up the lights, it's a win for the FF even at the same DoF. This covers many practical uses (of course not all of them).
01-03-2016, 07:26 AM   #243
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,868
QuoteOriginally posted by bertwert Quote
This is mainly for the sake of argument, but...
A 400/2.8 will probably be sharper at f/5.6 than a 400/5.6 at f/5.6.
It is not totally stupid.
Well anyone can say anything that comes into their head, mouths are like that, especially those with a tendency towards Turrets Syndrome, that doesn't make "anything that comes into their head" true.

---------- Post added 01-03-16 at 09:28 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
The normal procedure to compare noise is to compare at the same ISO with same light conditions.
You mean the endless pro full frame drivel that gets posted on the web? That's not science. That's marketing propaganda. Apparently that's your "normal."

Several of the scientists have stated clearly, equivalence doesn't favour one format over another, it doesn't say one format is better than another.. But endless propaganda spouting zealots have framed it that way, despite their warnings.

But you tell me, what is the value of comparing different systems, if you aren't comparing the same image? If you don't start with creating the same image same shutter speed, same DoF, there is no point in comparing at all. All those hours of internet posts declaring that 36mm images gave you better signal to noise were false, because they had to change the DoF in the image to make it true. It' so simple it's hard to believe we missed it all those years. But it was nothing more than a slight of hand.

There is one series of images you can take wide open with a 36mm sensor you can't take with APS-c. Any image for which you stop down one stop or more, you can take the same image with APS-c, with the same Signal to noise ratio, because you have to shoot one shoot one stop higher ISO on the 36mm image to maintain depth of field.

That is what equivalence really says.

Last edited by normhead; 01-03-2016 at 07:40 AM.
01-03-2016, 07:53 AM   #244
bxf
Site Supporter
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,121
In my humble view, FF's advantage shows up when being able to obtain an appropriate shutter speed is more important than obtaining a specific precise DOF.

01-03-2016, 09:09 AM - 1 Like   #245
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hampshire UK
Posts: 280
For me, one obvious FF advantage will be to make my limited set of primes more useful at the wide end and whenever heavy cropping isn't needed (subject isn't well beyond the frame-filling range). It will in particular help to close the gaps between my DA* 300, 100DFA macro and 40mm primes without buying new lenses or using my lower quality zooms. Expensive way to do it yes, but it will mitigate the cost (whatever that is).
01-03-2016, 09:21 AM   #246
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,561
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But you tell me, what is the value of comparing different systems, if you aren't comparing the same image? If you don't start with creating the same image same shutter speed, same DoF, there is no point in comparing at all.
Shutter speed and apertures are compromises. Equivalence can show you what settings you would have needed to get the same photo on a different format, and it can also show you if you've been given more (or less) room to pick your compromises. It gives you a reference point for the same image, it's not forcing you to shoot this way. For example, a landscape shooter with aps-c and iso100, f/11, 1/30s could use FF with iso 200, f/16, 1/30s. Or, if the scene is static and they have a tripod, iso 100, f/16, 1/15s and you'll get the same DoF and subject movement (since there isn't any in the first place). There's no free lunch (as your tripod has to be stable @1/15s), but some of them are pretty cheap and just as tasty.

If you want all your comparisons between formats to have identical shutter speeds and DoF, that's up to you. But we often have some wiggle room in the settings, and knowing whether a different format opens up room for improvement can be handy. Likewise, figuring out what compromises you have to make to get a noise advantage on FF can be handy (how much DoF do I have to sacrifice? How much blur will a longer shutter cause? Can I now justify some high powered broncolors)?
01-03-2016, 09:33 AM   #247
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,868
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Shutter speed and apertures are compromises. Equivalence can show you what settings you would have needed to get the same photo on a different format, and it can also show you if you've been given more (or less) room to pick your compromises. It gives you a reference point for the same image, it's not forcing you to shoot this way. For example, a landscape shooter with aps-c and iso100, f/11, 1/30s could use FF with iso 200, f/16, 1/30s. Or, if the scene is static and they have a tripod, iso 100, f/16, 1/15s and you'll get the same DoF and subject movement (since there isn't any in the first place). There's no free lunch (as your tripod has to be stable @1/15s), but some of them are pretty cheap and just as tasty.

If you want all your comparisons between formats to have identical shutter speeds and DoF, that's up to you. But we often have some wiggle room in the settings, and knowing whether a different format opens up room for improvement can be handy. Likewise, figuring out what compromises you have to make to get a noise advantage on FF can be handy (how much DoF do I have to sacrifice? How much blur will a longer shutter cause? Can I now justify some high powered broncolors)?
But, you can make exactly the same compromises on APS_c, except of shooting wide open. That's what confuses people, this constant "you can get an advantage with 36mm on every shot". No you can't. You can get an advantage on 36mm where you are shooting wide open and narrower DoF either doesn't matter or is what you are going for.

It is so funny, 36mm protagonists get technical, until it's pointed out that equivalence really means, and then they get all fuzzy and start talking wiggle room as if there is more wiggle room on one than the other. Please stop. If you shoot 100 ISO, 5.6 APS-c and 200 ISO 8 36mm, there is the same wiggle room on both, until you are shooting wide open on APS-c. Then you get one stop more "wiggle room" on 36mm.

FF propagandists are always trying to fudge this point, to make it sound like on every image, 36mm gives you more. 36mm gives you more, in specific situations, it's not across the board. And in some situations 36mm gives you considerably less. So it's always a trade off. If you want the extra whatever that 36mm gives you, you have to give up the extra APS-c gives you. There is no free 36mm lunch.

That's why many in my field carry both 36mm and APS-c cameras when they go out, that way, they get the best of both. And there are enough advantages to both, to make that worth while.

I don't blame folks for the FF line of thought, it has been supported by many different photographers and websites, and it's proponents have been relentless, the problem with it is, most of it isn't true.

Anyone who uses the term "FF" is a suspect in my mind. FF is not a technical term, and anyone who uses has a fuzzy mind. When you start defining things in terms of technical sizes of the senosors, it's pretty easy to pick out what laid of hogwash there is that has been published. When you see the claims for 36x24 instead of the magical sounding Full Frame, you see what a bunch of hogwash most of it is. It's a format with many advantages based on convenient size etc. but there's nothing magical that gives it better IQ and noise etc. than everything else. If you cut a bunch of different size sensors out of the same wafer, there's absolutely nothing magical about the 36x24 sensor.

Especially once it sinks in, every time you increase sensor size, you reduce DoF for the same focal length lens. No exceptions, no getting around it.

Last edited by normhead; 01-03-2016 at 09:54 AM.
01-03-2016, 09:43 AM   #248
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You mean the endless pro full frame drivel that gets posted on the web? That's not science. That's marketing propaganda. Apparently that's your "normal."

Several of the scientists have stated clearly, equivalence doesn't favour one format over another, it doesn't say one format is better than another.. But endless propaganda spouting zealots have framed it that way, despite their warnings.
It's not that I favor one format above the other. I don't think FF is something I will jump on anytime soon.

Equivalence have to be applied after measurements are done otherwise we end up with very strange data. And we must the use the smallest sensor format used as reference as otherwise all test would not be equivalent. It will end with using f/22 when measuring APS-C cameras and f/32 on FF so the result can be compared with all formats used, and equivalent with measurements done on smartphones and other small sensor cameras.

Equivalence has it's use when comparing different formats, but to apply equivalence when measuring IQ on cameras will just not work.
Should we also apply equivalence when measuring other things too? FI measure resolution on FF at f/32, so the result can be compared with a smartphone?

QuoteQuote:
There is one series of images you can take wide open with a 36mm sensor you can't take with APS-c. Any image for which you stop down one stop or more, you can take the same image with APS-c, with the same Signal to noise ratio, because you have to shoot one shoot one stop higher ISO on the 36mm image to maintain depth of field.
You only have to shoot with one stop higher ISO if the shutter speed is at limit, if not you can still use same ISO for both formats and slower shutter speed on FF to still have an advantage of FF.


Last edited by Fogel70; 01-03-2016 at 09:56 AM.
01-03-2016, 10:03 AM   #249
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,868
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
It's not that I favor one format above the other. I don't think FF is something I will jump on anytime soon.

Equivalence have to be applied after measurements are done otherwise we end up with very strange data. And we must the use the smallest sensor format used as reference as otherwise all test would not be equivalent. It will end with using f/22 when measuring APS-C cameras and f/32 on FF so the result can be compared with all formats used, and equivalent with measurements done on smartphones and other small sensor cameras.

Equivalence has it's use when comparing different formats, but to apply equivalence when measuring IQ on cameras will just not work.
Should we also apply equivalence when measuring other things too? FI measure resolution on FF at f/32, so the result can be compared with a smartphone?
QuoteQuote:
Equivalence has it's use when comparing different formats, but to apply equivalence when measuring IQ on cameras will just not work.
One of the differences between formats is it' is and always has been possible to get higher resolution using larger formats, that is possible buy not necessarily so in the digital world. It was true in every circumstance in the film world. Make a list of FF cameras, and the D750, 6D, A7 and D610 do not give you noticeably higher resolution, than a K-3. The D810 and A7r do, but that is function of pixel density, not sensor size. The D810 outperforms both a K-3 and a D750 in resolution. It's not a sensor issue. So once again, you can get better IQ with some cameras. You can also get better resolution out of a Lumix FZ1000 one inch sensor than you can out of a Canon 6D in specific circumstances, but you don't see me crowing that a 1 inch sensor gives me better IQ than a 36mm sensor. Yet that's exactly what you just did in your above post, only giving the advantage to the 36mm sensor. One is as misleading as the other.

And in any case, IQ is not the same as resolution. Some very high quality images have very low resolution.

It's time for photographers in general to take the the term IQ as applied by the measurebators, and put it on the back burner, and start talking about what it aesthetically pleasing. AP. In the real world AP trumps IQ every time. No one gives a crap what some guy with a testing bench says the IQ is if the image isn't AP. Lets keep this in focus.

Now if you want to say AP is dependant on IQ, good luck with that. I can't think of a single source that would be relevant at resolutions higher than 6 MP. And that is not even considering AM, Artistic Merit, which even trumps AP. IQ defined as resolution, is pretty much the bottom of the ladder in terms of evaluating images, and should be one of those factors near the bottom of the list when discussing photographic images.

People with no AM or AP ability focus on IQ and they desperately want it to be important. It's much less important to folks who excel at AM and AP, though they often pay an appropriate amount of attention to IQ as well but not necessarily int eh same way. I've met wedding photos still shooting 12 MP Canon 36x24 areas, they like the AP, and they provide superior a AM.

It is quite possible to prefer 36x24 based on finding it more aetheitcaly pleasing, but, that's a value judgement not shared by everyone. It can't be stated as a general assumption or a given property.

Last edited by normhead; 01-03-2016 at 10:30 AM.
01-03-2016, 10:16 AM   #250
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
Pay attention that every new info about FF is laid every 2 weeks. I hope we will see next news till January, 7-8.
01-03-2016, 10:17 AM   #251
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And in any case, IQ is not the same as resolution. Some very high quality images have very low resolution.
I said IQ because I wanted to include all measurements you can do. (noise, DR, resolution, tonal range, color sensitivity...)
01-03-2016, 10:22 AM   #252
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,561
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But, you can make exactly the same compromises on APS_c, except of shooting wide open. That's what confuses people, this constant "you can get an advantage with 36mm on every shot". No you can't. You can get an advantage on 36mm where you are shooting wide open and narrower DoF either doesn't matter or is what you are going for.
I did not say there is an advantage of FF with every shot, I don't think anyone says this.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It is so funny, 36mm protagonists get technical, until it's pointed out that equivalence really means, and then they get all fuzzy and start talking wiggle room as if there is more wiggle room on one than the other.
I made no such universal implication, just that it's sometimes the case you have room for improvement, and using "equivalent settings" can help show you if this is the case or not.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you shoot 100 ISO, 5.6 APS-c and 200 ISO 8 36mm, there is the same wiggle room on both, until you are shooting wide open on APS-c.
You'd have room here to move the ISO of the FF down, but not the aps-c (assuming both have base iso100). You may be able to make it up with shutter speed or lights, or maybe not, it depends on what you're doing. You continually leave this possibility out and at the same time cry foul whenever someone doesn't mention circumstances that would put aps-c in a better light.

It may also not matter one whit, iso 100 on aps-c may be good enough for what you're doing (iso 3200 on aps-c may already be good enough). You may also get stuck on FF if you're pushed at the other end of the DoF spectrum. We could go on for ages here, there are many variables and mentioning all of them will take a few weeks and leaving some of them out is not a sufficient justification to cry "propagandist". Individuals can decide what's relevant to them and focus on that subset.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
FF propagandists are always trying to fudge this point, to make it sound like on every image, 36mm gives you more.
Who has said this? Seriously?

The strongest statements I've seen for FF are that from a pure picture taking standpoint, you'll at least break even as you can just crop down to aps-c. And yes, everyone accepts that there is some leapfrogging in sensor technologies (k3 was king at resolution per unit area for a few years in the apsc/FF world). And yes, everyone accepts that the areas where you have advantages with FF will not apply to everyone else. And yes, everyone accepts that there is more to it than a pure picture taking standpoint (weight, cost, af, fps, viewfinder, stuff you already own, etc.).

I get the impression that anti-FF propaganda propagandists are opposed to FF propaganda that has a minimal amount of existence.
01-03-2016, 10:26 AM   #253
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,344
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
The normal procedure to compare noise is to compare at the same ISO with same light conditions.
Then your "normal" is apples versus oranges. In any at least semiprofessional comparison it is "normal" to have the whole result static with only the one item being looked at changing. All you can say is you get less noise with less sharpness in the depth of the picture.
In practise this means you only get a noise advantage when using the fastest possible lens for that angle of view and wide open. For any applications where the photographer deliberately chooses a certain non-wide-open aperture for some reason, the noise advantage is gone. I once was told that being able to freely choose aperture is a big thing for a photographer...

QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Assuming you're going to compensate with a higher iso, then sure. If you also have the option of a longer shutter or turning up the lights, it's a win for the FF even at the same DoF. This covers many practical uses (of course not all of them).
And why would you not use longer shutter times or turning up the lights on the smaller sensor? I guess if you can do it for one contestant, you can do it for both and then the "win" is a tie again.

I think it is valuable for any photographer to understand that most of the advertised "advantages" actually are just trade-offs: Think a 36Mpx FF versus 12Mpx APSC:
a) you can benefit from better resolution, but need to sacrifice noise and dynamic range to do so. You will never be able to get both.
b) you can benefit from better noise, but need to sacrifice DoF / sharpness in the depth of the picture. You will never be able to get both.

This is just for understanding. Making judgements ("A is better than B") is another thing.
01-03-2016, 10:33 AM   #254
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,369
How long do you think it's going to take for the K1 to go on backorder ?
01-03-2016, 10:42 AM   #255
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,561
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
And why would you not use longer shutter times or turning up the lights on the smaller sensor? I guess if you can do it for one contestant, you can do it for both and then the "win" is a tie again.
Absolutely! Unless you're already at the base iso for the aps-c that is, then you've no room to similarly improve the aps-c. Of course this isn't always the case, but it's certainly not a rarity either.

And it's worth mentioning again that your aps-c image at base iso (or even much higher) may already be good enough for what you're doing.
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!
adventure, aps-c, buffer, camera, cameras, crop, crop mode, da lenses, dx, ff, ff sensors, frame, guys, image, images, k1 pics, lenses, light, mode, mp, pentax news, pentax rumors, post, range, sensor, sensors, shutter, sports
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which of the K1* bodies works best with M-lenses? gavinhw Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 02-27-2016 01:02 PM
D FA lens with full performance on new K1? Uncle Pete Pentax Full Frame 15 12-17-2015 05:25 AM
Difference in writing time between shooting with DA lenses and K lenses pirivirus Pentax K-5 6 04-08-2013 06:18 PM
News Two new smc Pentax-DA* lenses added to the Lens Review Database Update Ole Site Suggestions and Help 2 12-13-2008 09:25 PM
First Pics with New DA 50-200 CDP Post Your Photos! 4 05-21-2007 05:25 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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