"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...."
"I have to disagree. I really like that shot. I do agree that this would be the perfect scene for a portrait though." "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. " "/facepalm The point of using a particular length lens is the distortion and how much of the stuff around you you can get in the frame. By the same token we could use a 100mm imaginary lens and stand back 6ft but now all you have is the swing and a window behind it in frame. what's the point of a wide angle apart from all wide angle stuff you can fit in the frame."
Perhaps, but in this case you would get the same field of view, the subject would be the same size and the DOF would be the same. In fact with less perspective distortion it might even look better.
"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."
"Wait you don't use a tripod? you infidel. also I don't get the argument about fall off,ect . IF you were using a 16-50 @ 16 on a FF to get the same as on a aps-c you'd zoom in to 25.6. Good bye fall off distortion and diffraction"
First I am not always allowed to use a tripod, but thats not really my issue. Since a 16-50 does not work on a FF camera, thats not really relevant, but lets compare it with the Canon 24-105 F4 since they perform the "equivalent" role.
So lets say I want deep DOF on the Pentax at 24mm and F10. In this case the COF is 0.02, the DOF goes from 5ft to infinity. Loss of resolution due to diffraction from peak is only 10% at the centre and nothing at the edges.
Looking at the Canon 24-105 on a 5Dmk2, we would need to shoot at 36mm and F16. In this case the COF is 0.03mm and the falloff in resolution is closer to 25% (extrapolating from Photozone numbers).
Even though I am now using a 21MP full frame camera, I have now reduced my resolution to more or less the same level as the Pentax (so I can't print appreciably bigger). If I had started with a 12MP FF camera, I would now have more resolution on the APSC camera for scenery shots.
Again rather a waste of the extra money.
You are of course correct, light falloff is not a problem at F16, but it is a serious problem on a lot of wide lenses on FF when shooting wide open. It would not usually show up on film.
"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." "Don't you have that backwards? on a FF that 50 1.4 would be equivalent to an 80mm on a APs-C."
No, I would need at 85 mm lens on an FF camera to achieve the same FOV and perspective as a 55mm lens on an APSC camera.