[*isteve]

ding ding ding

need more people to understand this.

-_____________-

system A for work type Z

system B for work type K

No, really, we get it. How often do you need to be told that? These arguments are as old as photography. LF vs MF and 35mm arguments were exactly the same. Stop putting words in peoples mouths.

I shot MF and 35mm for a while. However, with APSC digital I can now make A2 colour prints which are acceptably sharp with little visible grain up to ISO200. They enlarge much better than 35mm colour negatives and although 645 has more detail, digital is cleaner and sharpens better so I can often get away with it.

How many people do YOU know who regularly need to print larger than A2?

Of course, like MF, FF has some advantages....if you dont mind the bulk and the cost (and the filesizes of the latest 24MP cameras).

If I did weddings and events, or some types of photojournalism, then I could see the point of a low resolution FF camera with a bigger VF for available light work. An extra stop is always nice, though for static objects I would take SR.

If I was a pro shooting architectural work and interiors for magazines, then rectilinear wide angles and wide T&S lenses would be useful.

And yes with 24MP I can print a size larger, up to A1, where I really am putting 645 film in its place. It seems to make all those 24MP digital backs look a bit long in the tooth as well. A replacement for 645 film? Probably. It has similar resolution AND less noise.

It has a long way to go though before it can challenge higher res 645 digital and LF film, and it probably never will (its probably limited to about 30MP, just as APS is limited to around 15MP by the available optics).

APS-C is limiting, depending on what you want done, if you cant understand that ( *isteve, and others), then stop trying to persuade the rest of us that we are idiots for seeing value in a full frame format.

Actually, I never used the word idiot, you did.

You keep claiming APS is "limiting" but failing to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why this is "limiting" your photography. Sure FF has merits, as it should for the extra more money, but if you dont do the kind of stuff I described above, I cant see how it would limit you.

I just pointed out why the shallow DOF "limitation" is overdone and largely irrelevant in real world. If you have an issue with that, point out the flaws in the argument. (Hint: One of them is not that I have my head in my ass - try a different approach).

We're trying our best to showcase situations where a Full Frame might be advantageous, but you shoot us down every time, hand waving and all, when the fact of the matter is that you are outright wrong.

1. Your showcase was a flop.
2. Please show me where I was wrong.

Seriously? Get your head out of your ass and stop being dicks.

As this is an internet forum, not a redneck bar, and as you are not carrying a hockey stick, this form of argument tends not to be very effective. You can say anything you like but...
1. I DONT CARE.
2. It makes you look inarticulate

We want full frame, let us dream, but dont tell us that its useless or has no merit.

Never said it was useless or had no merit. Dream on. Just get your facts straight, and read what people are actually writing and you might learn something, though I seriously doubt it.

[*isteve]

I've said it before but I can repeat it: one in a million published images have so narrow DOF that it isn't readibly available in any system (and now I'm being generous). The main problem, when there is a DOF problem, is in 99,9999% of the cases too little DOF...

I agree. Its probably the most overstated myth in photography right now.

[jay]

I agree. Its probably the most overstated myth in photography right now.

BUT ISTEVE, MY PHOTOS WUD LOOK BETTER IN SHALLOW DEPTH OF FIELD WONT THEY CUZ THATS WHAT THE PROS USE RIGHT SO IT MUST BE THE SECRET TO THAT "PRO SHOT"

Ha. I couldn't agree with you on this issue more.

And, as I've said before -- those FF advocates looking for shallower depth of field? Why not start threads asking for faster glass? A 200mm f/2.2 or 2.5 lens for APS-C would be about the same size as a 200mm f/2.8 full-frame lens. Perhaps Pentax should come out with some super-fast lenses.

They'd look and feel about the same as full-frame counterparts -- and probably be in the same price range as well. But, one extra advantage they'd have is their faster apertures would be great for available-light photography.

I know several journalists who would jump ship and come over to Pentax if they'd design f/2.0 versions of their zooms, and f/1.2 - f/1.4 versions of their standard primes.

Those guys need as much light as they can get.

[Wheatfield]

BUT ISTEVE, MY PHOTOS WUD LOOK BETTER IN SHALLOW DEPTH OF FIELD WONT THEY CUZ THATS WHAT THE PROS USE RIGHT SO IT MUST BE THE SECRET TO THAT "PRO SHOT"

Ha. I couldn't agree with you on this issue more.

And, as I've said before -- those FF advocates looking for shallower depth of field? Why not start threads asking for faster glass? A 200mm f/2.2 or 2.5 lens for APS-C would be about the same size as a 200mm f/2.8 full-frame lens. Perhaps Pentax should come out with some super-fast lenses.

They'd look and feel about the same as full-frame counterparts -- and probably be in the same price range as well. But, one extra advantage they'd have is their faster apertures would be great for available-light photography.

I know several journalists who would jump ship and come over to Pentax if they'd design f/2.0 versions of their zooms, and f/1.2 - f/1.4 versions of their standard primes.

Those guys need as much light as they can get.

<Pentax's Law>
Most of us aren't the one trick ponies that you need to make us out to be.
But if this is what you need to do to close the discussion, carry on.
</Pentax's Law>

[whatever7]

BUT ISTEVE, MY PHOTOS WUD LOOK BETTER IN SHALLOW DEPTH OF FIELD WONT THEY CUZ THATS WHAT THE PROS USE RIGHT SO IT MUST BE THE SECRET TO THAT "PRO SHOT"

Ha. I couldn't agree with you on this issue more.

And, as I've said before -- those FF advocates looking for shallower depth of field? Why not start threads asking for faster glass? A 200mm f/2.2 or 2.5 lens for APS-C would be about the same size as a 200mm f/2.8 full-frame lens. Perhaps Pentax should come out with some super-fast lenses.

They'd look and feel about the same as full-frame counterparts -- and probably be in the same price range as well. But, one extra advantage they'd have is their faster apertures would be great for available-light photography.

I know several journalists who would jump ship and come over to Pentax if they'd design f/2.0 versions of their zooms, and f/1.2 - f/1.4 versions of their standard primes.

Those guys need as much light as they can get.

Because a lens like that would cost more than a FF body itself. You must not familiar with the Olympus 14-35mm 2.0 and 35-100mm 2.0 zooms. They are ridiculously heavy and expensive. As a matter of fact, I have only seem a out door shot of them in a review article.

These pair of lenses have demostrated that extra fast lens on smaller sensor is a bad economic and ergonomic design.

I already told the guy who post the photo a few pages back stop getting into that kind of fight. I am not interested arguing why FF is better technically. If you don't see it, whatever. More power to you. I just want Pentax make it, at a competitive ptice.

[Gooshin]

blah blah blah

just like you were to lazy to quote me calling everyone an idiot, and instead extrapolated on what i said to draw such a conclusion,

i'm just going to not bother going through this thread to point out how this post of yours is just a defensive backtracking trying to cover up all the bullshit you were saying.

How do you like them apples?

[awo425]

'Course, we're probably never end the FF/APS debate, as - and I understand this may come as a shock to some who post threads titled as provocatively as this one - most people out there are different to yourselves.

Yep.

Sorry.

It's true, it's true. It's very, very difficult to make the whole of humanity think as one single, homogenous mass, though lord knows some have tried.

People, as it stands, have different opinions. Different wants and needs. It's the human condition. Part of it, anyway. It's what makes this world rich and unique (as well, admittedly, violent and malignant on occasion.)

So, when someone starts a thread that basically states, as here, "People who are different to me are bad, smelly doo-doo-heads", that someone doesn't come across as a visionary beacon of straight-talking common sense - they come across as "petulant, whiny, arseholes who are throwing a tantrum."

So, let's dispel a few 36x24mm-related myths:

People who want 36x24mm sensors are bad photographers and can't hack having to use a smaller sensor:

Half true. That's what's called a "loaded" statement: welding two statements together, one positive, one negative, but giving only one chance to confirm or deny said statement. If you say, true, I can't stand ("hack") having to be limited to the APS format, you're confirming you're a bad photographer. If you say, instead, no, I am a good photographer, then you can't complain about the format size.

Of course, the answers to both the statements in the loaded statement are purely subjective, and, of course, unrelated.

People who want a 36x24mm sensor are closet Canonists/Nikonians. Pentax does APS-C, 35mm is Canon's (and later, after Nikon launched the D3) and Nikon's turf:

Ah, yes, the "love it or leave it, but never mention it" rule. Well, not so much a rule as an ideology. I forgot that every time you mention the words "Canon" or "Nikon", god kills a kitten. And that, somehow, over the years, 35mm was patented by these two companies. And whittling it down with Occam's good old Razor, therefore, Pentax should never, ever, ever include a feature that Canon or Nikon has on their cams. So, what, that means no viewfinder, no mirror, no battery, no bodyshell, no screws to hold it together, no copper in the PCBs, no PCBs at all, no lens mount, no buttons, no tripod thread, no LCD, no...

YOU sound like a Canonist/Nikonian, and are probably a plant by these rival companies to discredit Pentax and have its loyal followers, who would lay down their lives for the company if need be, switch to the tools of Satan!

Are you serious, or just quoting from Arthur Miller's The Crucible?

No one expects the Pentax inquisition!

Anyway, it's been well-known that if Pentax ever makes a 35mm-frame DSLR, they will send their jackbooted thugs around to smash all of my beloved APS lenses, then kill my family as an example of what'll happen to me if I ever mention the APS system again:

Well, no. Pentax won't. Apart from all the ethical and legal problems such actions would pose, there's the sad story of Hoya making the entirety of Pentax's Corporate Espionage - Jackbooted Thugs, Assassinations, and Torture Division in the wake of the takeover. Sorry.

No one here's suggesting that Pentax should dump all APS-C related products as soon as they make a 36x24mm sensored camera.

But that can't be! I am such a loyal follower of Pentax, it makes sense that Pentax would enforce such loyalty with such brutality, as it would make more Pentaxians as fanatical as I!

That's...that's rather disturbing.

Well, then, at any rate, I'm can take perfectly good photos with my Pentax gear. Don't know why you'd need anything else. Besides, in a coupla years, the APS-C sensor's gonna be as good as the 35mm sensors are today.

First part: good on you. I'm glad the gear suits your purposes. Second part: people are different to you, as elaborated previously.

Third part: why wait? If the APS-C sensors of tomorrow are only going to be as good as today's 35mm ones, how good are the 35mm sensors of tomorrow gonna be?

You, sir, are a smelly doo-doo-head! I'm going to hold my breath until you agree with me!

Duly noted.

wow, that was really fun to read. thanx a bunch.

[*isteve]

just like you were to lazy to quote me calling everyone an idiot, and instead extrapolated on what i said to draw such a conclusion,

i'm just going to not bother going through this thread to point out how this post of yours is just a defensive backtracking trying to cover up all the bullshit you were saying.

How do you like them apples?

More playground semantics and scatalogy? Disappointing but expected. See ya.

[artobest]

This thread is mad. Insane. Bonkers. I love it!

For my part, I'd say that shallow depth of field is another creative tool. Not only does it isolate the subject, it creates a painterly wash-like effect on close-up portraits etc. I shoot with my 50/1.4 wide open all the time for just this effect. I'm not a pro. I'm not pretending to be one, either. I just like the way it looks.

[*isteve]

This thread is mad. Insane. Bonkers. I love it!

For my part, I'd say that shallow depth of field is another creative tool. Not only does it isolate the subject, it creates a painterly wash-like effect on close-up portraits etc. I shoot with my 50/1.4 wide open all the time for just this effect. I'm not a pro. I'm not pretending to be one, either. I just like the way it looks.

Yes, at portrait lengths I agree, its a useful artistic tool. And on APS cameras you can exploit it quite adequately with a nice cheap $200 lens.