Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-04-2009, 11:22 AM   #61
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by Bill Stickers Quote
if we extrapolate this argument then we will all be shooting on an camera phone. cause that'll be good enough. It's not IQ we want it's the DOF. Which is a fucntion of aperture and focal length.

Whilst this was taken with a MF it illustrates my point perfectly. There is about 2ft DOF. this was taken with a 50mm f/1.4. If you were to repeat this with an aps-c you'd only have the center 3rd in frame. So you'd walk back another 10 ft to get the rest of it and guess what the buildings in the bg are now twice* as focused and completely ruin the image. but wait you say. you could use a 100mm lens. and i say how many 100 f/1.4's do you know of.
50mm F1.4 lens for 645? Hmm, new one on me.

Now anyone can pick a single instance which illustrates a point, but it doesnt make a case one way or the other.

For most WA shots I would be shooting scenery or interiors which would mean I usually want more, not less, DOF and greater sharpness. With APSC I dont have to stop down as far, raise the ISO, suffer as much edge falloff or distortion, or suffer too much diffraction softening. For many uses, its actually more useful.

On the rare occasions where I do want less DOF at wider angles, then FF has some advantages, but I could also argue that shallow DOF is more important at portrait lengths, and while a cheap 50/55 F1.4 actually makes a good, affordable portrait lens on APSC with a nice shallow DOF, to actually improve on this with a FF camera I would need a 75-85mm lens faster than F2.2.

Data for 10ft shooting distance ( and using the best available lens on Pentax, ie the 55 F1.4 - I could use the 50 F1.4 and the difference would be even bigger)

APSC
Pentax DA* 55mm F1.4
DOF @ F1.4 = .56ft (or 7" - enough for a blurry background)
Price = 350 (and the camera is now 550 so a total of 900 for a premium lens)

FF
Canon EF 85mm f1.8
DOF @ F1.8 = .44ft (or 5" - not a lot better in real terms)
Price = 350 (plus 2200 for the camera and I am now up to 2550 with a cheap lens and no IS or sealing)

Canon EF 85mm F1.2
DOF @ F1.2 = .29ft (under 4" now, but....)
Price = 1,800 (so now I have a premium lens, but I have just spent 4000 or 5X the price just to get less DOF in a portrait shot...and I still dont have IS)

Nikon AF 85mm F1.4D
DOF @ F1.4 = .35ft
Price = 850 (so total price with a 1,800 D700 is $2,650 or 3X the price....still no IS and still no weather sealing)

So to get significantly shallower DOF at normal portrait lengths you would need at least 3X the budget for Nikon and for Canon you need nearly 5X for something I can emulate in Photoshop in 20 minutes on a K20D.

Sorry, to me thats more or less academic.

I've yet to see any FF proponent post a single picture that demonstrates the benefit unambiguously, and just as many examples which show what excellent value APSC is. Considering all the noise, thats pretty damning. In fact some of the same folks would do well to see what some folks are shooting on entry level K2000's with a kit lens before taking out their credit cards....

05-04-2009, 11:25 AM   #62
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: madison
Posts: 239
Shallow DOF with wide angle lenses.

This picture was taken with a FA35/2 wide open on a film body. On an APS digital body, I would need something like 24/1.4 to achieve the same DOF and perspective. As far as I know, Pentax never made any 24/1.4. Even if they made one, it will be a whole lot more expensive than FA35/2

05-04-2009, 11:25 AM   #63
jay
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Everything agreed except:

- FF mount and APS-C sensor don't go together in the long run (a worst of both worlds effect).
Yes. An oft-forgotten point to mention.


QuoteOriginally posted by Bill Stickers Quote
...you could use a 100mm lens. and i say how many 100 f/1.4's do you know of.
Yes. Again, this was mentioned in the K-7 megathread by Falconeye.

I mentioned the fast f/2.0 Oly zooms they designed for 4/3rds to give the same DOF characteristics of full-frame (well, of APS-C).

That was my biggest complaint for pentax designating the 55/1.4 as the "digital replacement" for the 85/1.4, or the 50-135/2.8 as the replacement for 80-200/2.8.

It's easier to make large-aperture lenses for smaller systems -- but that damn FF frame mirror is f**cking up everyone's shit. especially for wide-angles.

That's why, again, the NX system is interesting. Even a new APS-C system that featured a scaled down mirror box would help significantly.

But for telephoto designs, it doesn't matter much. I would assume the DA* lenses are f/2.8 as opposed to f/2.0 is to keep them cheaper and lighter. A 50-135 f/2.0 would look identical on a K20D as a 70-200 2.8 looks on a Canon FF. And, actually, it'd probably weight/cost the same, too. Assuming they really made use of that smaller image circle size -- which some suggest hasn't been done -- some of the DA* lenses unnecessarily cover full-frame.

And, as pointed out -- the argument works backwards, too. Maybe I want to shoot a 300mm lens at f/2.8 and get more than an inch of depth of field?

a 50-135 f/2.0 would cost/weigh the same as a 70-200 2.8 on full-frame -- BUT, at the equivalent DOF, it'd be faster! Cool!


QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
50mm F1.4 lens for 645? Hmm, new one on me.
....Yeah, I noticed that, too. I have an 80mm f/1.9 for my Mamiya 645, and I thought that lens was the fastest MF lens in production.

QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
In fact some of the same folks would do well to see what some folks are shooting on entry level K2000's with a kit lens before taking out their credit cards....
love it! too true!

QuoteOriginally posted by cousinsane Quote
Shallow DOF with wide angle lenses.

This picture was taken with a FA35/2 wide open on a film body. On an APS digital body, I would need something like 24/1.4 to achieve the same DOF and perspective.
Yup, that's the drawback with APS-C. Your tele lenses reach nice and far, but wide-angle lenses aren't very wide, and have too much depth.

BUT! As mentioned, this could be easily corrected with a redesigned mirror box that is shrunk, or no mirror box at all (a la NX). If you could move the lens closer to the sensor, even by a few mm, all the sudden, a 24 / 1.4 would be much easier to design. It'd be about the size of the 35/2, weigh about the same, and would be inexpensive to manufacture.

If the EVF in the NX is as good as we'd hope, we could see a lot of pros carrying one around -- and Samsung could start designing outrageous wide-angle lenses (10mm f/1.4 would be about the size of the Pentax 14/2.8!)

So, we'll have to see :-)

Last edited by jay; 05-04-2009 at 11:43 AM.
05-04-2009, 11:39 AM   #64
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by jay Quote
Yes. An oft-forgotten point to mention.
And, as pointed out -- the argument works backwards, too. Maybe I want to shoot a 300mm lens at f/2.8 and get more than an inch of depth of field?
That's what makes Nikon's handling of full frame so much better then Canon's. You don't have to choose. You can use one camera to shoot both formats. Their D3X is ridiculously expensive, but next year this time they should have that same sensor in a D700x. After they do that you could have a 10mp APS-C camera and a 24mp FF camera in one body for under $3k. Even when you do mount a DX lens to the D700 and it grays out the unusable area in the view finder it's still a nice looking view. Easily better then any of the pentamirror SLR's. I assume Pentax will do something similar when/if they finally release a FF camera seeing as how they're so big on backwards compatibility.

05-04-2009, 11:47 AM   #65
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
Size does matter.

QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
I recently saw a Nikon D700 with the grip and it is also a HUGE camera and something I would not like to carry around. The K10D is is about as large a camera as I want to carry. A FF camera would be way out of my price range anyhow and I would probably never buy one.
At least to some people. For many of us, smaller is better when it comes to photographic gear that we have to haul around on our necks, backs and shoulders.

Relevant to the FF vs. APS-C discussion, let us talk specifics: The very fine FF Nikon D700 weighs 995gms and a standard zoom, the Nikon 24-70/2.8, weighs 900gms for a total weight of 1895gms (4.17lbs). In comparison, the excellent APS-C K20D weighs 715gms and a comparable zoom, the Pentax DA*16-50/2.8, weighs 565gms for a total weight of 1280gms (2.816lbs).

So, the Nikon kit outweighs its Pentax counterpart by 615gms (1.35lbs), which is a 48% difference. Moreover, the Nikon lens is 133cm in length, as opposed to 99cm for the Pentax. That added length increases the torque that is placed upon the body part that has to carry the camera and lens. To me, schlepping such a load for hours at a time is unpleasant and fatiguing, and it detracts from my picture taking experience. Others may disagree and insist that one should be willing to carry any load in order to get the "best" possible picture. Perhaps I would be forced to agree if I were convinced that the D700 takes appreciably better pictures. In some cases it may, but in others it may not. In any case, I will choose the smaller lighter kit, because it is more enjoyable to use and gives excellent results.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 05-04-2009 at 12:24 PM.
05-04-2009, 11:57 AM   #66
jay
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
That's what makes Nikon's handling of full frame so much better then Canon's. You don't have to choose. You can use one camera to shoot both formats. Their D3X is ridiculously expensive, but next year this time they should have that same sensor in a D700x. After they do that you could have a 10mp APS-C camera and a 24mp FF camera in one body for under $3k..
Yeah, it's a great move by Nikon -- they did plenty of market research and testing, and figured out that there's a niche for this. And they're a wonderful manufacturer.

The trick is -- is there a niche in the Pentax community for this? Obviously, Hoya doesn't think so. They're going with the 645.

Again, you're looking at the format -- Nikon had dozens of full-frame lenses they kept around. Pentax ditched their whole full-frame line (save the limiteds) and moved to APS-C.

At some point, you have to realize not every camera company should have the same product portfolio.

Maybe you haven't taken note of what we say to people who come to the forums and complain about Pentax not having full-frame: "If you want full frame, go buy a Nikon"

If it *is* really important to you, you'd have better luck selling off your Pentax gear and moving to Nikon than sitting around complaining -- if it's that important, than maybe Pentax isn't the right camera for you?

I think a lot of people landed into Pentax with the K10D -- it was inexpensive and full of features. And now they've gotten into photography, and are convinced they need full-frame. Unfortunately, Pentax is focused on outdoors photography -- small, light, weather-resistant bodies and lenses. They're probably NOT interested in building a camera body whose selling feature -- full frame -- requires you to buy lenses Pentax no longer manufactures.

It's all about the market.

Last edited by jay; 05-04-2009 at 12:04 PM.
05-04-2009, 12:02 PM   #67
jay
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
,...Others may disagree and insist that one should be willing to carry any load in order to get the "best" possible picture. Perhaps I would be forced to agree if I were convinced that the D700 takes appreciably better pictures.
Wonderful. And, to them, I would say, "Why bother with 35mm FF? Get 56 MP Leaf digital back, and invest in a MF system." Now THAT'S image quality right there.

But you're right. There's a point of diminishing returns. And I think APS-C is a perfect balance.
05-04-2009, 12:03 PM   #68
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
Relevant to the FF vs. APS-C discussion, let us talk specifics: The very fine FF Nikon D700 weighs 995gms and a standard zoom, the Nikon 24-70/2.8 weighs 900gms for a total weight of 1895gms (4.17lbs). In comparison, the excellent APS-C K20D weighs 715gms and a comparable zoom, the Pentax DA*16-50/2.8 weighs 565gms for a total weight of 1280gms (2.816lbs).
One problem here; you are comparing a magnesium clad camera to a plastic body camera. You should compare it to the D300 since they are basically the same camera body in two different formats. The D300 weighs 825gms and the Nikon 17-55mm weighs 755gm for a grand total of 1580gms (3.5lbs). Nikon obviously doesn't share Pentax's low weight mentality on their pro-grade bodies. So the bottom line is the full frame counterpart weighs 315gms more then the APS-C version. Is that really important to anyone? I drop turds that weigh more then that.

Besides, it's only a matter of time before Nikon stuffs a full frame sensor into a D90-type body. Then you will have a light weight full frame camera that weighs the same, or possibly even less, then the K20D.

05-04-2009, 12:12 PM   #69
jay
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
The D300 weighs 825gms and the Nikon 17-55mm weighs 755gm for a grand total of 1580gms (3.5lbs). Nikon obviously doesn't share Pentax's low weight mentality on their pro-grade bodies. So the bottom line is the full frame counterpart weighs 315gms more then the APS-C version. Is that really important to anyone?
Nikon puts weights into the base of their APS-C lenses so they balance better and so the FF lenses don't feel much heavier (that way, people don't shy away from them for the weight).

Anyway, you'd invest in a new, heavier camera, with new, heavier lenses (that have less telephoto reach) -- all this, just for slightly shallower depth-of-field?

If cousinsane really needs APS-C to have the same characteristics as a 35mm f/2.0 wide-open, go buy a Sigma 24/1.8; it'll be very similar. Slightly more expensive, but the costs would be recouped when you spend less on a body, and buy a 200 f/2.8 instead of a 300 f/2.8 FF.
05-04-2009, 12:13 PM   #70
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 944
Bottom line I don't think the 5D MKII is a flawless camera , far from that actually.

When I shoot side by side 5D with 27-70 or k20D with 31mm I love the pentax more .

So... for me FF yes., 5D MK2 no.

If pentax can come up with a "better " FF thats great.

For now I am happy I got pentax.

By the way my Canon friends complain just as much

But again I am not a pro and I do not shoot studio. So this is just my opinion.

I would like to have the lenses that fits both systems as my opinion can change .

So what I want is more D-Fa and FA lenses
05-04-2009, 12:14 PM   #71
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by jay Quote
Maybe you haven't taken note of what we say to people who come to the forums and complain about Pentax not having full-frame: "If you want full frame, go buy a Nikon"

If it *is* really important to you, you'd have better luck selling off your Pentax gear and moving to Nikon than sitting around complaining -- if it's that important, than maybe Pentax isn't the right camera for you?
Thats exactly what I did last month, but I do miss Pentax lenses. That is the reason so many people gripe about FF on here. They've used Pentax for so long and now feel like they're being ignored. I used a Pentax in college, and my first DSLR was also a Pentax. So, I still have a soft sport for Pentax and I want them to succeed. I'd sell my Nikon gear in a second and come back if Pentax would finally make a body worthy of those beautiful Limited lenses. Perhaps the K7 will be the one. Like most on here the sensor size and IQ bonuses aren't the issue. It's the build quality, auto focus, and most importantly; large FF view finders.

Believe it or not even without shake reduction I get more blur-free shots in low light simply because the AF is so much better. I believe the AF assist lamp is a big part of that though. I really hope that light next to the grip on the K7 is an AF lamp.
05-04-2009, 12:15 PM   #72
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by cousinsane Quote
Shallow DOF with wide angle lenses.

This picture was taken with a FA35/2 wide open on a film body. On an APS digital body, I would need something like 24/1.4 to achieve the same DOF and perspective. As far as I know, Pentax never made any 24/1.4. Even if they made one, it will be a whole lot more expensive than FA35/2

With all due respect, I cannot say that the DOF is shallow enough to add much of artistic merit to this shot. It just "is" but not for any good artistic purpose IMO. Perhaps if someone were sitting on the swing....

However, if you took this shot at 10ft your DOF on FF would have been about 3'. You could put a Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens on your APSC camera and stand 13 ft away, and hey presto, your DOF is now 3.2 ft.

Of course the Sigma is a new lens in current production, the 35 F2 is not.

Nor would you lose a lot by using a Sigma 24mm F1.8 and standing at 10 ft for a DOF of 3.9ft. If you think that would make a huge difference in this case I would argue otherwise. Thin DOF at WA still leaves details in the background irrespective of format. They are just "a bit fuzzy" which often looks like a mistake rather than artistic interpretation unless the subject in focus is suitably arresting.

But because the background still looks "a bit fuzzy" on APSC, you are still going to isolate the subject quite effectively. An extra 25% DOF means very little unless its the difference between almost OOF and totally OOF.
05-04-2009, 12:30 PM   #73
jay
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
With all due respect, I cannot say that the DOF is shallow enough to add much of artistic merit to this shot. It just "is" but not for any good artistic purpose IMO. Perhaps if someone were sitting on the swing....

However, if you took this shot at 10ft your DOF on FF would have been about 3'. You could put a Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens on your APSC camera and stand 13 ft away, and hey presto, your DOF is now 3.2 ft.

Of course the Sigma is a new lens in current production, the 35 F2 is not.

Nor would you lose a lot by using a Sigma 24mm F1.8 and standing at 10 ft for a DOF of 3.9ft. If you think that would make a huge difference in this case I would argue otherwise. Thin DOF at WA still leaves details in the background irrespective of format. They are just "a bit fuzzy" which often looks like a mistake rather than artistic interpretation unless the subject in focus is suitably arresting.

But because the background still looks "a bit fuzzy" on APSC, you are still going to isolate the subject quite effectively. An extra 25% DOF means very little unless its the difference between almost OOF and totally OOF.
Fail! Haha.
05-04-2009, 12:34 PM   #74
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
One problem here; you are comparing a magnesium clad camera to a plastic body camera. You should compare it to the D300 since they are basically the same camera body in two different formats. The D300 weighs 825gms and the Nikon 17-55mm weighs 755gm for a grand total of 1580gms (3.5lbs). Nikon obviously doesn't share Pentax's low weight mentality on their pro-grade bodies. So the bottom line is the full frame counterpart weighs 315gms more then the APS-C version. Is that really important to anyone? I drop turds that weigh more then that.
Weight is a problem, wherever it comes from. And the additional weight of the longer FF lenses is not something that you can ever escape in that format. The rumored Pentax K7 is said to be even lighter and smaller than the K20D. That will tip the scales (metaphorically only) even further in Pentax's favor.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 05-04-2009 at 12:54 PM.
05-04-2009, 12:43 PM   #75
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: madison
Posts: 239
Well, the Sigma 30 on APS has a normal field of view. I thought we are talking about wide angle.

You are right that the Sigma 24 on APS might get me close to a 35/2 on FF, but it kind of sucks to buy into the Pentax system only to use Sigma lenses .




QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
With all due respect, I cannot say that the DOF is shallow enough to add much of artistic merit to this shot. It just "is" but not for any good artistic purpose IMO. Perhaps if someone were sitting on the swing....

However, if you took this shot at 10ft your DOF on FF would have been about 3'. You could put a Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens on your APSC camera and stand 13 ft away, and hey presto, your DOF is now 3.2 ft.

Of course the Sigma is a new lens in current production, the 35 F2 is not.

Nor would you lose a lot by using a Sigma 24mm F1.8 and standing at 10 ft for a DOF of 3.9ft. If you think that would make a huge difference in this case I would argue otherwise. Thin DOF at WA still leaves details in the background irrespective of format. They are just "a bit fuzzy" which often looks like a mistake rather than artistic interpretation unless the subject in focus is suitably arresting.

But because the background still looks "a bit fuzzy" on APSC, you are still going to isolate the subject quite effectively. An extra 25% DOF means very little unless its the difference between almost OOF and totally OOF.
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!
aps-c, images, matter, mf, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, quality, sensors, size, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
View Previous postings - Help mickeyobe Site Suggestions and Help 2 11-26-2008 12:25 PM
Photo Postings and CR on this forum and Photographic Technique 3 07-03-2007 04:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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