[Nicolas06]

100% agree with normhead, for most image there will be almost no visible difference.

Sure on some case the FF get an edge and if you know your gear you'll use it to its strengths but this is not the night and day affair some people want us to think of.

[beholder3]

and "Then your "normal" is apples versus oranges..."

APS-c- ISO 100, ƒ5.6, 1/50s
36x34- ISO 100, ƒ8, 1/50s
Both capture the same same image and will same ISO noise performance can be measured on both for the same ISO.
Everyone happy?

Not.

One of the two now is exposed -1 EV versus the other, or simply put: quite a bit "darker". I would not consider this "the same image". And few people would.

[kenspo]

I think this discussion is starting to get ridiculous! Happy with APS-C and dont need FF? Fine for you! In my line of work, there is a BIG difference between FF and APS-C. Even Nikon's old D700 walks all over K-3 II on ISO. Only reason i still are loyal to my contract, is that i really belive in what is coming and Ricoh are real good to me.

I got warned about the stupidity on this forum..too bad i didn't belive it was this bad.

[Nicolas06]

APS-c- ISO 100, ƒ5.6, 1/50s
36x24- ISO 100, ƒ8, 1/50s
Both capture the same same image and same ISO noise performance can be measured on both for the same ISO.
Everyone happy?

The most common case were FF get a benefit and justifiy the better number is:
APS-c- ISO 100, ƒ5.6, 1/400s
36x24- ISO 50, ƒ8, 1/100s
The FF picture will have better quality, more dynamic range, more definition etc... The only practical issue is that to really see it you would need a 60" print and an high end FF with 36MP+.

Another case is:
APS-c- ISO 1600, ƒ/2, 1/50s
36x24- ISO 3200, ƒ/2.8, 1/50s
Noise is comparable but the FF guy can use an f/2.8 zoom (like a 70-200) while on APSC you'd need a fast prime. This is quite common case for shooting events (weddings...) and maybe the biggest reason for a pro to get an FF.

And of course ultimate shallow deph of field
APSC ISO 100 f/1.4 24mm
36x24 ISO 100 f/1.4 35mm
When you want to isolate a big subject with a WA, there always too much deph of field. If you can't use a tele instead (not enough working distance to have the whole,subject) or if you want the perspective rendering of a WA instead of a tele, then you need a fast WA. But that's a very specific use case.

[normhead]

They use these exposure settings because they measure noise, using equivalent DOF would not change anything as they then have to compensate with shutter speed to not under exposure the FF image, and the larger sensor will still capture twice as much light and the ISO noise performance would be exactly the same.

They use these exposure settings because they measure noise,

Setting don't measure anything.

using equivalent DOF would not change anything as they then have to compensate with shutter speed to not under exposure the FF image,

No they wouldn't, they would have to change ISO to maintain shutter speed, which is what I did.

There is no logical reason for going with your assumptions of how this should be done, You are simply trying to justify how all mistaken people did it.

[Zygonyx]

I think this discussion is starting to get ridiculous! Happy with APS-C and dont need FF? Fine for you! In my line of work, there is a BIG difference between FF and APS-C. Even Nikon's old D700 walks all over K-3 II on ISO. Only reason i still are loyal to my contract, is that i really belive in what is coming and Ricoh are real good to me.

I got warned about the stupidity on this forum..too bad i didn't belive it was this bad.

Happy new year ken,
Let's hope the waiting gets only shorter now

[kenspo]

Happy new year ken,
Let's hope the waiting gets only shorter now

Happy New Year! And the waiting is getting shorter as we speak

[jatrax]

I got warned about the stupidity on this forum..too bad i didn't belive it was this bad.

This isn't bad. When it gets really bad you click the little button on top that says "Unsubscribe from this thread". Usually when they start arguing about stuff like the above I just tune out. I'm not technical enough to understand what they are talking about anyway. And the only thing that matters to me is what MY pictures look like so whatever someone else needs/wants is irrelevant to me.

Glad you are sticking with Ricoh, it must be frustrating not having the gear you have been told about. But hopefully it will not be much longer.

[Fogel70]

There is no logical reason for going with your assumptions of how this should be done, You are simply trying to justify how all mistaken people did it.

Are you going to contact all test sites that test camera and tell them they are doing their comparisons wrong, and tell DxOmark that they have to change the way they draw their graphs, so that FF cameras at ISO400 is compared with APS-C at ISO200 and mft at ISO100?

[gaweidert]

I think this discussion is starting to get ridiculous! Happy with APS-C and dont need FF? Fine for you! In my line of work, there is a BIG difference between FF and APS-C. Even Nikon's old D700 walks all over K-3 II on ISO. Only reason i still are loyal to my contract, is that i really belive in what is coming and Ricoh are real good to me.

I got warned about the stupidity on this forum..too bad i didn't belive it was this bad.

Amen.

Yes I am going to get a full frame when it comes out. Simple reason. My old eyes simply do a lot better with a full frame viewfinder. Plus if it has a split image viewfinder with a wonderful micro prism circle around it I will be in hog heaven. If not, maybe a viewfinder from one of my old Ricoh XRM's or Pentax film cameras will work in it.

[Dave L]

Plus if it has a split image viewfinder with a wonderful micro prism circle around it I will be in hog heaven. If not, maybe a viewfinder from one of my old Ricoh XRM's or Pentax film cameras will work in it.

Amen to that! I fear we will have to still rely on very imperfect autofocus (many shots I've missed due to that, GRRR) but if it were to have the split image thing it would be a big selling point for me, I really miss them from my MX days. Never have really got on with ground glass screens but i know there would be big technical issues to overcome to get split screen focussing working properly.

[luftfluss]

I got warned about the stupidity on this forum..too bad i didn't belive it was this bad.

Anticipation makes people crazy...

You Tube

You Tube

[Nicolas06]

Happy New Year! And the waiting is getting shorter as we speak

I understand that is not as good for you to use an APSC theses days but so what do you do? Do you have to always have a Pentax while waiting for the FF? Or do you happen to use an FF from another manufacturer in the meantime?

If you can't use anything else than Pentax and you are actually making money from your photos, outside of the Ricoh contract did you notice a relevant drop in income due to lower quality pictures coming from having only an APSC body?

[kooks]

I think this discussion is starting to get ridiculous! Happy with APS-C and dont need FF? Fine for you! In my line of work, there is a BIG difference between FF and APS-C. Even Nikon's old D700 walks all over K-3 II on ISO. Only reason i still are loyal to my contract, is that i really belive in what is coming and Ricoh are real good to me.

I got warned about the stupidity on this forum..too bad i didn't belive it was this bad.

[Ptitboul]

And of course ultimate shallow deph of field
APSC ISO 100 f/1.4 24mm
36x24 ISO 100 f/1.4 35mm
When you want to isolate a big subject with a WA, there always too much deph of field. If you can't use a tele instead (not enough working distance to have the whole,subject) or if you want the perspective rendering of a WA instead of a tele, then you need a fast WA. But that's a very specific use case.

This is because the lens makers did not put that much effort in making wide angle lenses with large aperture for APS sensors. There is no impossibility of making a 24/1.0 lens for APS having roughly the same size and price as a 35/1.4 lens for FF. But it does not exist.
If you look at Lenses and sensor format you can see that the 23/1.4 for APS made by Fuji is similar to the 35/2.0 for FF made by Nikon or Canon (but more expensive). There is almost no f/1.0 lens for APS, but Mitakon is starting to prove that it is feasible.