[Pål Jensen]

Wrong. For example the only lens that can match 77Ltd@FF with APS-C IQ-wise is leica summilux 50/f1.4 asph. And it will cost me about $4000. .

This is also a straw argument. Of course you can find lenses for larger formats that is cheaper than those for smaller ones. But that is the exception, not the rule.

[Pål Jensen]

Not sure the value of the m9 will hold forever (it has limitations and when the next gen comes out it will suffer a bit. Leica lenses on the other hand have the best cost of ownership of any lens. they mostly gain in value.

Funnily enough this is also true for those Pentax lenses some find overpriced. Eg the FA* 200/4 Macro, the A* 135/1.8 and probably the Limiteds too if Pentax had discontinued them.

[Kryscendo]

Anybody think maybe the next series of cameras from Pentax might actually be released at the same time.

Just think of the headlines: "Pentax announces three new DSLRs." One to replace the K-r. One to replace the K-5 and then of course the full-frame. That would be a hell of an announcement.

[jsherman999]

This is complete bogus argument.

It absolutely is not.

99.99% of all photography is not shot at F:1.4 or wider apertures;

Probably 90% of photography is shot at smaller apertures than f/1.4 (f/1.4 --> f/22 that is) (not 99.99%,) but probably over 50% of photography is shot at apertures larger than f/5 (f/1.0 --> f/5 that is.) In this range, at the wide to mid-telephoto focal lengths have a distinct advantage for FF over aps-c.

For example, the majority of folks would probably wish that when shooting their f/2.8 zooms wide-open, they could retain the nice f/2.8 DOF and pleasing background blur and subject isolation while somehow gaining the sharpness and reduced CA that zoom shows at f/4.5, say. FF allows you to do that. You get the f/2.8 DOF at the f/4.5 (sharper) aperture for the same FOV.

If I shoot my 50 1.8 at f/2.8 on FF, it's sharper than my 35 1.8G wide-open on aps-c (of course) - yet has the same FOV/DOF. (Note: I shoot it at f/1.8 --> f/2.8 all the time - nicer subject isolation at typical shooting distances.)

(below, f/1.8 50mm on FF == about 35mm f/1.2 on aps-c. Price a 50 1.8 vs a 35 1.2. )


And for anyone who wants the same DOF for that FOV, you simply stop down to get it.

More DOF control. Any photographer would want it. (I would think.)

just look at any newspaper, magazine or art gallery. Those images that are actually shot at F:1.4, most of them are due to getting fast enough shutterspeed not for shallow DOF.

Not true. My local paper features shots taken at f/2.8 or higher with 20, 24, 35mm lenses or focal lengths all the time in daylight, in order to isolate the subject while retaining a sense of setting. The best shot I've seen in my paper in a while was taken outside at a funeral wake, daylight, subject about 15 feet away - I emailed the photog; 24mm f/1.4 shot wide-open on FF. Beautiful, stunning shot. Un-reproduceable on aps-c from that position.


.

[rawr]

Why does FF always end up being a 'I shoot wide open all the time therefore FF is best' debate? Discussions about 'isolating the subject whilst retaining a sense of setting' etc etc only indicate a preference for a particular photographic cliche.

It's like arguing people's preferences in music. Not useful.

[dgaies]

Why does FF always end up being a 'I shoot wide open all the time therefore FF is best' debate? Discussions about 'isolating the subject whilst retaining a sense of setting' etc etc only indicate a preference for a particular photographic cliche.

Except that Jay is pretty clear in the post above that the advantage of FF is the ability to shoot wide open and have more DOF control, not that you have to (or should) use it for every shot.

[Pål Jensen]

More DOF control. Any photographer would want it. (I would think.)

Not true. My local paper features shots taken at f/2.8 or higher with 20, 24, 35mm lenses or focal lengths all the time in daylight, in order to isolate the subject while retaining a sense of setting. The best shot I've seen in my paper in a while was taken outside at a funeral wake, daylight, subject about 15 feet away - I emailed the photog; 24mm f/1.4 shot wide-open on FF. Beautiful, stunning shot. Un-reproduceable on aps-c from that position.

.

Not more DOF control but less DOF at the same magnification and aperture thats all. Ask MF photographers if the larger format give them more control over DOF; answer: it doesn't - it create problems usually solved by using large format with tilt and shift
Your paper is pretty unique by shooting at F:2.8 and with FF. The majority of new photography is shoot with APS. Hardly any news photography is dependent on shallow DOF anyway; you can bet most of them would have prefered more DOF at the same aperture.
As has been shown further up, theres no problem isolating the subject with APS if thats what you want. The percentage of people wanting less DOF than this are so few, and worthwhile images hardly exist, that building an argument around it is silly.
Fast lenses were primarily made for shooting in low light at the time quality images couldn't be made at more than 100ISO.....

---

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 12-09-2011 at 08:37 PM.

[Winder]

This is complete bogus argument. 99.99% of all photography is not shot at F:1.4 or wider apertures; just look at any newspaper, magazine or art gallery. Those images that are actually shot at F:1.4, most of them are due to getting fast enough shutterspeed not for shallow DOF. 99.99% of all images that indeed have shallow DOF can be shot on any format used for DSLR's.
The main problem with photography; ie in 99.99% of cases, is getting enough DOF. In fact, larger format provides a limitation; there are images I simply cannot shoot with the 645 system because I can't get enough DOF - whereas 35mm, not to mention APS can. Thats why many photographers used LF over MF due to the DOF issue.

Since the majority of images taken today are take with cell phones you are right. F/1.4 is not used relativity often. On my K-7 I stay around f/2.0-f/4.0 on the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Even on my Canon 5D (85L) I shoot around the same aperture (f/2.0-f/4). I agree that F/1.2 has limited applications on the 85L because the DoF is so narrow you need a static subject and you need to be using a tripod to get consistent shots. But what would it cost to make a 55mm F/0.8 that is really sharp wide open and has fast accurate AF? $5,000? $7,000? The 5D/85L is probably a little slower than my K-7 with the Sigma 50mm HSM, but the 85L is a really accurate lens even with the 5D's rather clunky AF.

I don't think you can produce APS-C lenses that match FF performance for a reasonable price. A 55mm F/0.8 is pretty exotic and adding fast accurate AF to it would put it 3x the price of the 85L. The Sony CZ 135mm f/1.8 is a $1,500 lens with screw drive, but is is razor sharp at f/1.8. What would a 90mm f/1.4 cost that 50% sharper. These lenses not be "just as good" as the 85L or the 135mm CZ. They have to be sharper at wider apertures and provide much better resolution since the APS-C has to be enlarged 1.5X just to be as big as an image captured on a FF camera.

I'm not sure what you are shooting with a 645 that you can not stop down far enough for to get the DoF you need. I'm not a landscaper, but a I know a couple who still shoot MF film and I have never heard them complain about not getting enough DoF. Are you doing macro work with a 4x5 field camera?

[Pål Jensen]

Except that Jay is pretty clear in the post above that the advantage of FF is the ability to shoot wide open and have more DOF control, not that you have to (or should) use it for every shot.

Again, not more DOF control but less DOF at the same aperture and magnification. As APS and FF can use the same lenses the control over DOF is equal. However, the thin DOF is generally a problem which is why we stop down our lenses 99% of the time. The cases where even thinner DOF than can be created with APS is needed(?), is so absurdly rare that I have yet to see a single image where it is mandary - most would in fact improved with stopping down.
At the other end however, there's the posibility of approaching endless DOF which is several magnitude more useful in photography (if in doubt take a look at the majority of published images).
All you do in terms of DOF when going from APS to FF is to move a step towards the thin end of the DOF spectrum. This you loose on the deep end. The result is that with APS you can get sufficient DOF for the subject at a wider aperture meaning that you can shoot at a faster shutter speed than for the same image on FF at the same ISO. You'll get better image quality with the larger format and that is the main reason for using it.

[Pål Jensen]

with the 5D's rather clunky AF.

I don't think you can produce APS-C lenses that match FF performance for a reasonable price. A 55mm F/0.8 is pretty exotic and adding fast accurate AF to it would put it 3x the price of the 85L. The Sony CZ 135mm f/1.8 is a $1,500 lens with screw drive, but is is razor sharp at f/1.8. What would a 90mm f/1.4 cost that 50% sharper. These lenses not be "just as good" as the 85L or the 135mm CZ. They have to be sharper at wider apertures and provide much better resolution since the APS-C has to be enlarged 1.5X just to be as big as an image captured on a FF camera.

I'm not sure what you are shooting with a 645 that you can not stop down far enough for to get the DoF you need. I'm not a landscaper, but a I know a couple who still shoot MF film and I have never heard them complain about not getting enough DoF. Are you doing macro work with a 4x5 field camera?

It is meaningless to equalize various formats. An F1.4 lens is an F:1.4 lens regardless of format. At the same ISO you get the same exposure regardless of format. But formats have different DOF at the same aperture and magnification, and different image quality. Thats a property of the format not the lens.

Your wide angle lens on you MF camera have the same DOF at the same apertures 50mm lens on you FF camera. Try to get a typical wide-angle near-to far image with you 50mm lens and you get the idea. The most used aperture on a Pentax 6X7 is typically F:22 (based on the shots with data I've seen published with this outfit).
You can also go the MF section on this forum where you'll new 645D users who mistakes lack of DOF as focusing issues in spite of shooting at F:8...

[Winder]

It is meaningless to equalize various formats. An F1.4 lens is an F:1.4 lens regardless of format. At the same ISO you get the same exposure regardless of format. But formats have different DOF at the same aperture and magnification, and different image quality. Thats a property of the format not the lens.

Your wide angle lens on you MF camera have the same DOF at the same apertures 50mm lens on you FF camera. Try to get a typical wide-angle near-to far image with you 50mm lens and you get the idea. The most used aperture on a Pentax 6X7 is typically F:22 (based on the shots with data I've seen published with this outfit).
You can also go the MF section on this forum where you'll new 645D users who mistakes lack of DOF as focusing issues in spite of shooting at F:8...

Then companies are spending a fortune trying to do the meaningless. Pentax produced the 55mm DA* to replicate an 85mm. Most of the APS-C lenses are are build to be equivalent to their FF big brothers.

Yes, F/1.4 lens is always an f/1.4 lens, but that is not the point. F/1.4 on an APS-C appear different because of the magnification like you said. All that is true, but in photography appearance is what matters. You need faster/sharper lenses to get the same IQ from APS-C that you get from FF. The magnification not only affects DoF, but it also magnifies noise and "grain" in the image. If you use the exact same lens at the exact same settings the APS-C image will show more noise and have lower quality as you enlarge the image.

I realize it is a format issue. My point is to compensate for the format issue you need faster/sharper lenses that peak in sharpness at wider apertures than what you need on a FF camera to achieve the same result. Thus really high quality ASP-C lenses will be more expensive than FF glass. IF you think equalization is meaningless you need to write a letter to all the lens and camera manufactures and tell them they are wasting a lot of money trying to do just that. Seems to be a lot of demand to replicate the focal lengths and performance of FF lenses.

[jsherman999]

Again, not more DOF control but less DOF at the same aperture and magnification.

Which equates to more DOF control when you realize that you can simply stop down to match the aps-c DOF for that FOV if you wish with no penalty - you can't always open up a lens wider to do the opposite.

Consider: A typical 50mm lens shot at f/4 is blisteringly sharp at the plane of focus, probably at it's peak MTF in the center. Most 35mm lenses are at f/4 as well. But 35mm at f/4 on aps-c, depending on the subject distance, maybe doesn't really isolate the subject very well. f/2.4 gives you that nicer isolation, but you miss that f/4 acuity, that pop. 50mm @ f/4 on FF gives you that peak sharpness with the nicer f/2.4 DOF. and it's just an option. You can stop down even past f/4 if you want more DOF. With the extra 1+ stops (at least) of noise control from the bigger sensor, shutter speed isn't a problem when you stop down because you can just reclaim that stop with an ISO bump with no additional noise. If you need to, if light is a problem in the shot.

Consider II: A subject is far enough away that you can shoot your 50mm f/1.8 at f/2 on FF and still get the whole subject in focus, within the DOF. To get the same 'look' on aps-c, you'd need to be shooting a 35mm f/1.3 lens - wide-open. Think for a moment 1) how much a 35mm f/1.3 would cost, 2) how big it would be, and 3) how a 35mm f/1.3 would probably perform with regards to acuity and CA - wide-open at f/1.3, on a high-MP aps-c sensor.



.

[ironlionzion]

You guys are spending wayyyy too much time explaining the advantages of a larger aperture for a given FOV in FF as opposed to APS-C. Some people will never understand the difference.

[RXrenesis8]

There is nothing you can do with an APS-C sensor that you cannot do with an equivalent 135-format sensor and cropping.

Full Stop.


(This includes everything everyone has been arguing about.)



I'm going to go to sleep now content that I have won all the arguments on the internet. It is a pleasant feeling...

[Oog]

To make it a slightly simpler explanation: If the size of the circle of confusion produced at a FF sensor were the same as that produced at an APS-C sensor, then the DOF for the same lens, e.g., 50 mm, on both formats, would be the same (look up the equations used for calculating DOF). However, because there is a crop factor of 1.5x typical for APS-C, you have 2 choices to produce an equivalent image to FF: 1) change to a shorter focal length on APS-C that is equivalent to FF, or 2) keep the same lens on APS-C and move back (greater focus distance). Either way there will be greater DOF in the final image on APS-C. This difference is smaller at close distances, e.g., 10 feet or less. So that head-and-shoulder shot made with a portrait lens from 7 ft away on FF and 10 ft away on APS-C should look very similar at f/2.8 and printed 8x10.

To be even more precise though, since the circle of confusion is considered to be slightly smaller on APS-C than FF, that in itself contributes to more DOF on APS-C compared to FF.

Confused?

Now resolution-wise, THAT's a whole different story....I'm very glad I didn't spend $2400 on a 12 Mpix Nikon D700 and went for a $600 12 Mpix K-r instead, as they have basically the same resolving power, all other things being equal (but the D700 has, or should have, better SNR with it's slightly larger pixel pitch). K-5 owners rejoice, you have more resolution than a D700!!!!