[falconeye]

The whole thing is folly because formats aren't equivalent. Trying to making them so is nonsense.

Please don't comment on something you didn't read. Thanks.

[ElJamoquio]

The whole thing is folly because formats aren't equivalent. Trying to making them so is nonsense. Eg. I could say that the DA 560/5.6 is the equivalent of a 840/5.6 on FF. Then someone could say that it isn't really equivalent cause they don't have exactly the same DOF at the same numerical apertrure! As if anyone cares! :ugh:

No one has ever bought into a lens or camera with the demand that DOF is exactly 5.6 cm at 1.5 metres at a certain magnification and aperture value!

But they certainly have bought cameras based on 'I need more control over DOF'. Equivalent camera comparisons are important because they tell people whether a 50mm 1.4 will have more control over DOF than a 77mm 1.8, or a hypothetical 75mm 1.2, etc...

[Pål Jensen]

But they certainly have bought cameras based on 'I need more control over DOF'. Equivalent camera comparisons are important because they tell people whether a 50mm 1.4 will have more control over DOF than a 77mm 1.8, or a hypothetical 75mm 1.2, etc...

This is a persistent myth. You have no more control over DOF with FF. You have exactly the same control over DOF with APS or FF. However, you have one stop less DOF with FF than APS at the same magnification, shooting distance and aperture value. That is a minus in 99% of photography.

Nobody (I hope!) have ever been in the field insisting on shooting at a certain aperture value, at a certain magnification and distance and wished they had an APS camera instead of the FF they are using in ordet to get enough DOF (unless you need to shoot at F:22!). What you do in reality is realizing that formats aren't equal (thats why they are different formats - yes I'm also a rocket scientist), and stop the lens down!

[eddie1960]

This is a persistent myth. You have no more control over DOF with FF. You have exactly the same control over DOF with APS or FF. However, you have one stop less DOF with FF than APS at the same magnification, shooting distance and aperture value. That is a minus in 99% of photography.

Nobody (I hope!) have ever been in the field insisting on shooting at a certain aperture value, at a certain magnification and distance and wished they had an APS camera instead of the FF they are using in order to get enough DOF. What you do in reality is realizing that formats aren't equal (thats why they are different formats - yes I'm also a rocket scientist), and stop the lens down!

If you read Falk's article if you compare true equivalents there is no difference (same pixel pitch same effective focal length same effective F stop.

of course the reality is there are no direct effective comparisons possible since the product doesn't exist. a 50 1.4 on 16mp apsc though should come pretty close to the 77 ltd on a hypothetical Pentax using the 36MP sensor coming on the D800. Rendering may well be different though as pesky things like lens coatings, type of glass and number and style of blades on the aperture all effect the outcome as well. making it all kind of moot in most cases
Real world though shooting with 2.8 zooms I can get better subject isolation shooting FF at 2.8 (less DOF) @ 70/75 mm than I can on the DA50-135 @ 50mm and 2.8. Or I can stop down the Ff lens to f 4.0 and get the same level of isolation but sharper edge to edge performance (at a price premium of course, at the same price i would have to drop to a fixed f4.0 zoom on the FF losing the low light advantage of the faster lens)
But if you want a wide fast lens you have a much better chance of getting that on the FF. Performance wise I can think of no APSC wide that would give the same wide open shooting possibility the Nikon 24 1.4 would on FF (or for that matter that a leica 1 1.4 on an m9) For anyone shooting a lot of dusk/night street photography those pairings beat anything offered by any apsc camera

it goes the other way as you point out there are times the extra DOF afforded by apsc are in your favour as well. M4/3 has an even bigger advantage here and an even bigger problem getting a good fast wide

In many ways apsc hits a sweet spot (why Pentax,Canon,Nikon and Sony all chose it I assume before there was a good FF sensor available)

I own and oly as well and the 4/3 (now m4/3) made little sense to me as a guy who always wanted a bigger format and if i won a good lottery the first thing i would buy would be a MF camera not a FF
But since no big lottery win seems to be on the horizon (i'd have to actually buy a ticket for that) I have to live withing the parameters set by my paycheck. If the K5 replacement comes out at $1500 with all the Bells and whistles (24MP huge iso performance, great video performance ....etc) and a CCD based FF comes out with a lower FPS, no Video more limited High iso) for $2000 it would be a no brainer for me I'd buy the FF, If the FF is 36MP and Nikon D800 level at the price of a D800 I'd say great but I'll take the APSC for now (I'm sure others would feel different)
Thing is the $2000 idea could easily be a camera fitting with the unique in the market idea, and later as sensor pricing changes and brand market share goes up the higher end cmos variant can come out as a compliment as well
The other consideration is noise performance. If the sensors are same generation historically the FF has had about 1 stop better low light performance. Tech being what it is though apsc goes through more generations so it catches up to the FF before the FF is replaced. then the new FF comes out and the cycles starts again

---

Last edited by eddie1960; 02-28-2012 at 11:02 AM.

[gazonk]

This is a persistent myth. You have no more control over DOF with FF. You have exactly the same control over DOF with APS or FF. However, you have one stop less DOF with FF than APS at the same magnification, shooting distance and aperture value. That is a minus in 99% of photography.

You keep repeating this, but the fact is that many p&s-ers upgrading to larger format are looking for one thing: "bokeh".
That's why manual 0.95 lenses sell relatively well...

[eddie1960]

You keep repeating this, but the fact is that many p&s-ers upgrading to larger format are looking for one thing: "bokeh".
That's why manual 0.95 lenses sell relatively well...

well you need 0.95 on m4/3 to get the performance of 1.4 on apsc or 1.9 on FF - but on apsc and FF you can get it in AF

But I agree. Sites like Flickr have made a much wider number of people aware of the concept of bokeh and how to acheive it and the realization they don't need to be a pro to take a moderately good portrait
The concept of Bokeh has really taken a massive hold on the popular imagination in photography (which I find very funny since it's happened at the same time that people began pixel peeping and demanding ridiculous edge to edge sharpness when on film people did the opposite and sought out good center performance and even bout lenses deliberately soft at the edge to get better portraits )

[gazonk]

The concept of Bokeh has really taken a massive hold on the popular imagination in photography (which I find very funny since it's happened at the same time that people began pixel peeping and demanding ridiculous edge to edge sharpness when on film people did the opposite and sought out good center performance and even bout lenses deliberately soft at the edge to get better portraits )

Hehe - so true!

[Clavius]

The concept of Bokeh has really taken a massive hold on the popular imagination in photography (which I find very funny since it's happened at the same time that people began pixel peeping and demanding ridiculous edge to edge sharpness when on film people did the opposite and sought out good center performance and even bout lenses deliberately soft at the edge to get better portraits )

True... But back then there was no PP in Photoshop or lightroom, with which you can add vignetting when you want it. Or leave it sharp edge to edge when you want

[eddie1960]

True... But back then there was no PP in Photoshop or lightroom, with which you can add vignetting when you want it. Or leave it sharp edge to edge when you want

you could pp in the darkroom you know but it took more practice no automate hit a preset and be done then

[Pål Jensen]

You keep repeating this, but the fact is that many p&s-ers upgrading to larger format are looking for one thing: "bokeh".
That's why manual 0.95 lenses sell relatively well...

What has this to do with APS vs FF? Are you talking about APS P&S? I could post images with paper thin DOF and you (or anyone else) couldn't tell if it was shot with FF or APS. It has been done before on on this forum if in doubt....

[gazonk]

What has this to do with APS vs FF?

I'm just pointing out that this has almost become a fetish...

I could post images with paper thin DOF and you (or anyone else) couldn't tell if it was shot with FF or APS. It has been done before on on this forum if in doubt....

Sure... but the point is that with very fast lenses on FF cameras, the thin-DoF-obsessed have more possibilities than with APS-C. To recreate my experiments with thin DoF as a teenager (with MX and the 50mm/1.7 kit lens), I would need a non-existing 33mm f/1.1 for my K10D.

[Pål Jensen]

I'm just pointing out that this has almost become a fetish...



Sure... but the point is that with very fast lenses on FF cameras, the thin-DoF-obsessed have more possibilities than with APS-C. To recreate my experiments with thin DoF as a teenager (with MX and the 50mm/1.7 kit lens), I would need a non-existing 33mm f/1.1 for my K10D.

But the point is that those people constitute a so small part of the photographic comunity that percentages is not a useful measuring standard. Hence, the argument is moot as the vast majority struggles to get sufficient DOF.
What has become a fetish is impossibly thin DOF (in theory; in practise it has very little value).

I have never seen any image in any newspaper, book, or magazine or fine art prints ever that had so thin DOF that it couldn't have been shot with APS.
Most of those shown on the net would have improved upon stopping down
It is a non issue.

[gazonk]

I have never seen any image in any newspaper, book, or magazine or fine art prints ever that had so thin DOF that it couldn't have been shot with APS.
Most of those shown on the net would have improved upon stopping down
It is a non issue.

I think you may underestimate the number of people obsessed with this. And you're far too rational

[Eigengrau]

I have never seen any image in any newspaper, book, or magazine or fine art prints ever that had so thin DOF that it couldn't have been shot with APS.
Most of those shown on the net would have improved upon stopping down
It is a non issue.

This is my feeling exactly. The biggest argument for FF is thinner DoF, but as it is my 50/1.4 is at the very limit of useful when I shoot it wide open. On a bigger sensor I'd be stopping down more for focus, cranking up ISO more to compensate, and in general losing out vs. shooting APS-C.

[ElJamoquio]

This is my feeling exactly. The biggest argument for FF is thinner DoF, but as it is my 50/1.4 is at the very limit of useful when I shoot it wide open. On a bigger sensor I'd be stopping down more for focus, cranking up ISO more to compensate, and in general losing out vs. shooting APS-C.

You should read falk's article. You might change your opinion - and say that the biggest argument for FF is better IQ at an equivalent price point.