[maxfield_photo]

So people are hoping they can pay thousands of pounds/dollars/whatever more so they can have reduced DoF and for their lenses to be wider? Why?

You ask "Why?" as if there needs to be more reason than that. That's it; that is the end unto itself.

• Thinner DoF for a given framing,
• Wider angles for a given lens and subject distance,
• A brighter, easier-to-focus OVF.

Those three things are all painfully obvious the first time you pick up an APS-C after shooting film for years. Less obvious is the amount of noise upon enlarging because there have been great strides in this area, and digital DR now exceeds all but the best black and white film.

I hear newcomers to full frame say "Once you go full frame, you never want to go back," well for film shooters, the other side of that same coin is, "Once you go APS-C, you're going to miss your old 35mm frame". APS-C just feels cramped, it makes me claustrophobic, photographically speaking.

---

Last edited by maxfield_photo; 12-02-2011 at 10:00 AM.

[eddie1960]

I think a large number of us asking for FF have shot film in the past and miss all 3 things you mention. The DOF is of less concern to me since on Film I rarely shot 1.4 since it's so razor thin and I would have to focus bracket 3-4 shots to be certain i got the focus right. Now of course i may do the same (or use LV ) with no cost factor (aside from the camera itself of course)
that Big OVF though I really miss that (heck compared to my Bronica ETRSI with a prism the FF OVF looks like APSC )

[Mareket]

I guess if it means that much to people then that justifies the price then. Thankfully we have such a huge number of options that people can pick and choose the best system for them. I never learnt with a film camera, so the huge OVF and frame are kind of a luxury to me, though not one I'm really that desperate for. I do reckon that Sony has set the ball rolling for the death of OVFs though. If EVFs can sort out their DR, which they inevitably will do, then they'll be incredible. You could do everything all without ever having to move the camera from your eye, and you could see exactly how the image will look. No more shooting and adjusting for exposure, you can do it straight away and see the effects. You could compose in B&W! Sorry, got a bit excited there. I love OVFs and all, but I would rather like a camera with a FF size viewfinder that can show me everything and anything I want to know without having to move.

I'm just annoyed with FF because I only have APS-C, and get perfect shots with it, yet I'm told I can't assist because I need an FF and 70-200 f/2.8. That does my head in.

[eddie1960]

I never learnt with a film camera, so the huge OVF and frame are kind of a luxury to me, though not one I'm really that desperate for.

Well you're a lot younger than me. Being a guy who shoots MF almost exclusively with a pretty strong reading glass prescription I can use it for certain. when you break 50 you'll get it

I'm just annoyed with FF because I only have APS-C, and get perfect shots with it, yet I'm told I can't assist because I need an FF and 70-200 f/2.8. That does my head in.

That is Stupid to some degree. i understand why a tog may want any second shooter to use the same brand so they can pool resources and workflow isn't complicated by different Raw standards. Given those brands are likely Canikon the requirement for Ff makes some sense because the lenses targeted at APSC are not of the same caliber in Canikonland


EDIT : DR is not the only issue with EVF there is a frame rate lag thing happening too. Personally i've yet to see an EVF that comes close (I do however like the Fuji X100 idea of having both)
If you really want to experience what good optical is like (even better than SLR) shoot with an original leica M3 with a 35/50/90or 135 (and the optic adapter for the 35). It is just so good. Big Bright contrasty. Fast to focus and the subject doesn't disappear when you click the shutter. RF has limited applications but these focal lengths cover most shooting. The Voigtlander (bessa) finders are also very good
If your a sports or Macro guy of course there are other better choices obviously

---

Last edited by eddie1960; 12-02-2011 at 09:45 AM.

[Ben_Edict]

Yes, but that's because exposure is defined in terms of cd/m^2, i.e., light intensity per a unit area. If you keep the exposure constant, the camera with the larger sensor will collect more total light (same light per unit area but there are more unit areas). The increase in total light helps to bring down the noise (the signal to noise ratio, actually).

No, I don't think the larger total light gathering area of a FF sensor helps to bring down noise. Because the total area as such is not the denominator of the noise. The noise starts at the photosite level. The reason, why FF cameras tend to have less noise is, because they single photosite is bigger and thus less noisy. The signal-to-noise ratio of the sensor should not be confused with our perception of noise, anyway - which is a different thing.

And here a larger sensor might bring the exact same advantage into the game, as MF and LF cameras did with film: you need less magnification of the RAW image, when printing to the same print size, as you would need for an APS-C RAW.

Nevertheless, in my personal view the noise topic is not of much interest anymore. The progress in that area has been huge and APS-C cameras do easily fullfill my personal needs in terms of s/r. The only thing, that might bother me, is the increase in DOF and the setting in of diffraction effects, which is both a hallmark of the smaller sensors. That is the reason, why I rarely use a lens, slowlyer than /2.8, except for extreme wide angles, where a thin DOF is a moot point...

Ben

[Chex]

Well my fastest lens is a 50mm f1.7. I can't even imagine how narrow the DoF close focusing a 50mm f1.2 would be on a FF, but I sure would love to try it!
I'm just wondering why Pentax doesn't come clean about if they are planning a FF at all, or when.. sure it shows your competitors your entering their market, but what would it really change other than possibly keeping some existing Pentax users from jumping ship because they are tired of waiting.. or saving people from painfully waiting in anticipation for a long time and not delivering said product and having them change camera systems simply out of frustration.

[Winder]

Well my fastest lens is a 50mm f1.7. I can't even imagine how narrow the DoF close focusing a 50mm f1.2 would be on a FF, but I sure would love to try it!
I'm just wondering why Pentax doesn't come clean about if they are planning a FF at all, or when.. sure it shows your competitors your entering their market, but what would it really change other than possibly keeping some existing Pentax users from jumping ship because they are tired of waiting.. or saving people from painfully waiting in anticipation for a long time and not delivering said product and having them change camera systems simply out of frustration.

My 85L on my 5D is pretty challenging at f/1.2. You need a tripod and a static subject. The 5D AF is pretty average and there is no way it could track a subject at f/1.2. When I first got it I was determined to "master" f/1.2..... But working events and dealing with people moving around in below average light it did not take long to realize f/2 - f/2.8 is about as wide as you can use handheld with moving people and have a good number of keepers. Maybe with the AF of the 1DX you could do better, but on a 5D original..... frustration is a good word. 85L does not have fast (by USM standards) AF anyway. Of course the 85L is a wonderful lens with excellent bokeh and when you nail a shot at f/1.2 it really pops. People over play the DoF difference. What is possible and what is practical are not always the same thing. Pentax needs more accurate AF (smaller points that allow for more accurate focus) before f/1.2 lenses are of any real use.

I want to see a re-introduce the A*135mm f/1.8 with SDM (or an improved AF motor) and modern coating. The FA*85mm with improved AF and coatings. and the 50mm f/1.2 in an AF version. Those three lenses go a long way.

[Clinton]

So people are hoping they can pay thousands of pounds/dollars/whatever more so they can have reduced DoF and for their lenses to be wider? Why?

Because of the diffraction limit, higher iso performance, and perceived shallower depth of field.

The first is simply impossible to get around. Once a sensor hits a certain resolution, you get to shoot at wider and wider apertures to use that resolution. Right now, on the K-5, at a reasonable viewing distance, the diffraction limit is around F13 (see here: Understanding Lens Diffraction and Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks )

Bigger sensors from the same gen will almost certainly always outperform smaller sensors at the same ISO settings. This gets better all the time, but there are some laws of physics that will eventually limit this as well.

Finally, there is a perceived thinner depth of field that occurs from the frame being less cropped.

[Class A]

The reason, why FF cameras tend to have less noise is, because they single photosite is bigger and thus less noisy.

This is a common misconception.

Please read the article "DxOMark - More pixels offset noise!".
It is irrelevant how big photosites are. The only thing that matters is the size of the sensor (assuming sensor implementation details being kept constant).

FF sensors are larger, hence they carry the potential for less noise (provided you obtain the same exposure, which either means lowering the shutter speed or raising the ISO setting, compared to APS-C setttings).

[Mareket]

Would I really be able to see the difference in a 7x5.5 print or an A4 album shot between FF and APS-C? Like, would you be able to point out which was shot with which?

And you don't need twice the light to get the same exposure on a pixel in a FF sensor, nor half the light. Surely? If 1 bazillion photons bring energy to a pixel of a 24MP camera, be it a FF, APS-C, MF, M43 or anything, it'll read a certain charge and get to the proper exposure. The pixel doesn't care whether it's in a bigger sensor, only how many photons it's absorbing. Maybe a bigger pixel has a larger area so it can collect more photons, but that just means the result is cleaner at lower ISO. You won't get the same exposure by just changing the ISO by itself.

Which brings me back to my original benefit of APS-C, in that I can shoot at f/1.2 with an 85mm or whatever and work excellently in low light with tight framing and DoF that isn't impossible to work with. Is that right or not? I understand all the other benefits of FF, and it's downfalls.

Also, the 70-200 f/4 is an incredible lens yeah, but being a Pentax user, I can't use it. Also I couldn't shoot at f/2.8, and the 5D mark II sure doesn't look a whole stop better in ISO performance. And even then I'm sure you couldn't tell the difference at generic web sizes that I generally use. But anyway, for any given lens, the general performance at whatever angle of view will appear better because the more extreme corners are lost aren't they? The 70-200 f/4 looks incredible on FF, but it probably looks even more incredible on APS-C, albeit it's suitable for a different purpose.

[Emacs]

5D mark II sure doesn't look a whole stop better in ISO performance.

It's almost a stop better.
And IMO it's even better due to fact when shooting the same FOV the similar objects covers 2.25 times more area on 5D mkII and thus there are much more details on the latter.

[Mareket]

Yarr I admit that when you crop them down FF looks amazing. But for full size use, I'd reckon you'd never tell the difference unless you were enlarging them to massive sizes, which people rarely ever do.

And I guess the 5D may not be a full stop better but the D3S blows anything out of the water, so the argument is valid there. And I just remembered that with bigger pixels comes less demand on the optics so lenses look better on FF than on APS-C. But I still think the difference is only noticeable for critical situations, for general prints and albums you'd never see the difference, and then you have the lightweight benefits of APS-C.

Pentax do need to give people a reason to buy Pentax. Methinks FF won't be enough. If they had a FF camera with the low ISO, fast AF, and lens selection, just like the D3S, why buy the Pentax instead of the D3S? Or even if it competed with the D800, there's not really any reason to buy Pentax over another brand. Ricoh are an insane company when it comes to cameras though, so hopefully they'll bring a reason to the table, and it'll be awesome. In the mean time, I'm happy with the K-5, and I really don't think spending an extra grand on a FF would really bring me a grands worth of benefits.

[falconeye]

Would I really be able to see the difference in a 7x5.5 print or an A4 album shot between FF and APS-C?
...
The 70-200 f/4 looks incredible on FF, but it probably looks even more incredible on APS-C, albeit it's suitable for a different purpose.

It is my strong impression that you don't work hard to gain a better understanding of what you are talking about. I know, I sound arrogant by saying this, but it is my strong impression.

E.g., the two sentences above: It is the meaning of equivalent body/lens/ISO combinations that no difference is visible. But if you can't find an equivalent combo, then you face a factor 2 of difference which you personally may be able to see or not. I don't say you need this extra factor. But it is there.
...
And the 70-200/4 on APS-C would become a 100-300/5.6 equivalent. The latter kind of lenses typically have no corner probs, so what are you talking about?
...
And I won't talk about photons with you...

[Emacs]

Yarr I admit that when you crop them down FF looks amazing. But for full size use, I'd reckon you'd never tell the difference unless you were enlarging them to massive sizes, which people rarely ever do.

And I guess the 5D may not be a full stop better but the D3S blows anything out of the water, so the argument is valid there. And I just remembered that with bigger pixels comes less demand on the optics so lenses look better on FF than on APS-C. But I still think the difference is only noticeable for critical situations, for general prints and albums you'd never see the difference, and then you have the lightweight benefits of APS-C.

Pentax do need to give people a reason to buy Pentax. Methinks FF won't be enough. If they had a FF camera with the low ISO, fast AF, and lens selection, just like the D3S, why buy the Pentax instead of the D3S? Or even if it competed with the D800, there's not really any reason to buy Pentax over another brand. Ricoh are an insane company when it comes to cameras though, so hopefully they'll bring a reason to the table, and it'll be awesome. In the mean time, I'm happy with the K-5, and I really don't think spending an extra grand on a FF would really bring me a grands worth of benefits.

I don't see any reason to compare the at pixel level but when printed with particular size. Rhe FF looks much better in this case due to plethora of reasons (increased local contrast for the same lenses, lesser demand on the lens resolution and so on)

[RonHendriks1966]

I don't see any reason to compare the at pixel level but when printed with particular size. Rhe FF looks much better in this case due to plethora of reasons (increased local contrast for the same lenses, lesser demand on the lens resolution and so on)

Well I love to buy a camera that can print larger and still holds it's ground. I know K-5 can, so I assume that any FF (or APS-H if you wish) should do.