Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-09-2012, 05:01 PM   #346
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
It's math:

Online Depth of Field Calculator

FF sensor using a 55/1.2 w/subject at 2 meters renders :

Depth of field
Near limit 1.96 m
Far limit 2.05 m
Total 0.09 m

An APS-C sensor using the same lens, same distance to subject:

Depth of field
Near limit 1.97 m
Far limit 2.03 m
Total 0.06 m

For a grand total DOF difference of .03 meters.

3cm

Good luck measuring that on a 2D image. I doubt any trained eye can make that adjudication. Those who claim to see the difference are in la-la land. Pros I know who use FF do not do so for DOF effects, but for higher resolution and better low-light performance.

ROFL

They also would be completely different images, as the FOV would be radically different - of course the measurable "DOF" would be almost the same if you allow the FOV to vary, Bob Atkins points this out nicely!

You would need about a 36mm f/.085 or something silly like that to get the equivalent image on aps-c.

(C'mon, Aristophanes, you know this stuff (don't you?). Why try to spread false info?)


.

03-09-2012, 07:58 PM   #347
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Of course I'll be able to tell the difference between those two pictures - one will be cropped to half the area of the other.
FOV. Not DOF.

Go to an equivalent FL and the difference is still in the cm's. You might notice in shots approach the near focus limits of a lens. Might.
03-09-2012, 08:04 PM   #348
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Of course I'll be able to tell the difference between those two pictures - one will be cropped to half the area of the other.
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
ROFL

They also would be completely different images, as the FOV would be radically different - of course the measurable "DOF" would be almost the same if you allow the FOV to vary, Bob Atkins points this out nicely!

You would need about a 36mm f/.085 or something silly like that to get the equivalent image on aps-c.

(C'mon, Aristophanes, you know this stuff (don't you?). Why try to spread false info?)


.
You don't NEED the f/0.85 because, quite frankly, most photos the difference is not noticeable. I've tried with prints and it is bloody hard to see.

It's a difference of perception rather than empirically proven observation.
03-09-2012, 08:28 PM   #349
Pentaxian
jeffshaddix's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,371
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
FOV. Not DOF.

Go to an equivalent FL and the difference is still in the cm's. You might notice in shots approach the near focus limits of a lens. Might.
Comparing with equivalent FOV is the only way to do it, no one is going to use a 55/1.2 the same way on FF vs APS-C.

With the same DOF calculator you linked:
If you're using the 55/1.2 on FF, then the APS-C equivalent is a ~36mm/0.85 (good luck finding this).
If you're using the 55/1.2 on APS-C, then the APS-C equivalent is ~85/2 (an 85/1.4 @ f/2 is almost surely sharper and better optically than your 55/1.2 @ 1.2).

And of course the difference is in centimeters, the total DOF difference between your 55/1.2 on APS-C @ f/1.2 vs f/2 is only 4 centimeters, but I guarantee you'll see a drastic difference in image rendering.

Edit: Based on your post while I was typing, maybe you specifically wouldn't see a meaningful difference in your prints between f/1.2 and f/2, but a lot of us would. I see a major difference in rendering between f/1.4 and f/2 with my Nokton 58/1.4. Perhaps we're just persnickety.


Last edited by jeffshaddix; 03-09-2012 at 08:36 PM.
03-09-2012, 08:38 PM   #350
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
FOV. Not DOF.

Go to an equivalent FL and the difference is still in the cm's. You might notice in shots approach the near focus limits of a lens. Might.
50mm f/1.4, 2 meters: 13 cm DOF
35mm f/2.4, 2 meters: 46 cm DOF

I think I can tell the difference.
03-09-2012, 09:29 PM   #351
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffshaddix Quote
And of course the difference is in centimeters, the total DOF difference between your 55/1.2 on APS-C @ f/1.2 vs f/2 is only 4 centimeters, but I guarantee you'll see a drastic difference in image rendering.
Drastic?

Don't tell us, show us.

The f/2 will be sharper.

It will entirely depend on the subject.
03-09-2012, 09:40 PM   #352
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
50mm f/1.4, 2 meters: 13 cm DOF
35mm f/2.4, 2 meters: 46 cm DOF

I think I can tell the difference.
Show. Don't tell. Post photos with EXIF to demonstrate. Enough talk.

FF FA 50/1.4
Depth of field
Near limit 1.94 m
Far limit 2.07 m
Total 0.13 m

APS-C Sigma 30/1.4
Depth of field
Near limit 1.88 m
Far limit 2.13 m
Total 0.25 m

You have to severely constrain the subject to visibly notice, and do so across a huge sample of photos.

I'm not arguing there is no difference, I am arguing that it is one thing on paper and another visibly manifest. There's a reason why major manufacturer lens designers are not making these super-fast lenses much anymore, like the 1.2's. It's a combination of visible difference vs. cost and the very limited # of times the cost is realized in the shot. We find it very hard to see a stop of difference 2D rendered. So is it worth it for the $3,000 camera body?

And, frankly, from an aesthetic perspective, most of these types of shots start to look the same. It's turning into the equivalent of the 1980's soft focus lens. Oooohh.....
03-09-2012, 10:39 PM   #353
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
The dog picture shown earlier in this thread would be impossible using APS-C without a 33mm F1.2 lens. That picture was taken at F2 so I'll use that as a starting point for my DoFo iPhone DOF calculations. The cameras are D700 & D7000.

FULLF 50mm F/2.0 @ 2000mm DOF = 192.44mm (1,908.40<->2,100.84)
APS-C 33mm F/1.3 @ 2000mm DOF = 193.65mm (1,907.85<->2,101.50)
APS-C 30mm F/1.4 @ 2000mm DOF = 252.75mm (1,881.58<->2,134.33) (sigma)
APS-C 31mm F/1.8 @ 2000mm DOF = 304.89mm (1,859.11<->2,164.00) (FA LTD)

The Sigma would get close but would be wide open and lack contrast and the 31LTD would be way off the mark.

So even a 'cheap' standard lens on a FF would outperform expensive LTD lenses on APS-C and come up sharp and contrasty and with a few F stops to spare if it were a faster lens.

03-09-2012, 10:52 PM   #354
Veteran Member
RXrenesis8's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Orlando, FL (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 523
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Show. Don't tell. Post photos with EXIF to demonstrate. Enough talk.
Clicking each photo navigates to the EXIF info page.



Vina | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



Election in Luxembourg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I'll let you guess which one is the FF 50 1.4 and which is the APS-C 35 1.4.

Last edited by RXrenesis8; 03-09-2012 at 11:10 PM.
03-09-2012, 11:42 PM   #355
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 820
I don't understand this debate. There is a difference? Sure. Are there cameras that allow you to have the results you desire? Sure. Go out and you'll find cameras new or used with sensors from 12 to 38 MP with the magical dimension of 24x36mm.
It's really the same situation a Canon or Nikon shooter that want to shoot medium format has to face. Go out and buy a Pentax, a Mamiya or a Hasselblad. Or lament forever that your brand doesn't make a medium format, while others happily makes picture.
03-09-2012, 11:58 PM   #356
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
When you have a number of FF lenses it almost seems pointless to have to buy another lot for a bigger sensor. Many people, myself included, have, more or less, learned the ropes in the APS-C format and that comes with a degree of awakening. Beyond that you then need to decide if bigger is really more where you're art is concerned. I started shooting with a K2 and ended up with a LX and MX many years ago but I sold them for a song when I went all out into music (pardon the pun). It's only over the past 8 months, since I've been back into photography, that I have begun to understand what's going on intuitively with regard to format after being away for 28 years. So, as many others are doing, I'm trying to work out if it's worth the journey across to another brand for the FF experience.

Last edited by bossa; 03-10-2012 at 12:09 AM.
03-10-2012, 12:47 AM   #357
Veteran Member
darrenleow's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chicago
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 541
QuoteOriginally posted by Chex Quote
On a side note.. I missed a D3 on fleabay the other day.. It ended up going for $2028.... Peanuts for that camera! I tried to bid at the last few sec.. And someone else must have beat me by 1/2 a second... Doh!
Don't feel too bad.. that D3 didn't sell because it was under the seller's reserve price
03-10-2012, 01:10 AM   #358
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
When you have a number of FF lenses it almost seems pointless to have to buy another lot for a bigger sensor. Many people, myself included, have, more or less, learned the ropes in the APS-C format and that comes with a degree of awakening. Beyond that you then need to decide if bigger is really more where you're art is concerned. I started shooting with a K2 and ended up with a LX and MX many years ago but I sold them for a song when I went all out into music (pardon the pun). It's only over the past 8 months, since I've been back into photography, that I have begun to understand what's going on intuitively with regard to format after being away for 28 years. So, as many others are doing, I'm trying to work out if it's worth the journey across to another brand for the FF experience.
I understand this, I have been into pentax from 1981 to 2003, then switched to digital with a coolpix, then three years later I came back with istD and then K10D and started to buy only used FF lenses (I sold all the ones I had previously, minus F*300/4,5). But since then, I opened my eyes, saw that Pentax had reasons to try to enter digital medium format, she did it successfully, to me it seems evident that it's a niche where it can become a big player, while with FF it will be always a secondary player. I am not saying it should or it shouldn't enter FF, I have no idea how much viable for the company it would be. What I am saying is that if one wants to shoot FF, it should stop to loose time waiting for a FF camera, and buy one that does exist. Many years ago, when I wanted to do Large Format, I didn't started to wonder win Pentax would begin to make large format lenses and large format view cameras, I simply bought some from other manifacturers. The fact there are a lot of FF Pentax lenses out there to Ricoh-Pentax means little, I think, since they have been sold long ago. I have no hope in a FF from Pentax, I wonder why people spend so much time here trying to affirm the superiority of full frame to the unfaithful ones instead of simply buy one and be happy.
03-10-2012, 01:38 AM   #359
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
I understand this, I have been into pentax from 1981 to 2003, then switched to digital with a coolpix, then three years later I came back with istD and then K10D and started to buy only used FF lenses (I sold all the ones I had previously, minus F*300/4,5). But since then, I opened my eyes, saw that Pentax had reasons to try to enter digital medium format, she did it successfully, to me it seems evident that it's a niche where it can become a big player, while with FF it will be always a secondary player. I am not saying it should or it shouldn't enter FF, I have no idea how much viable for the company it would be. What I am saying is that if one wants to shoot FF, it should stop to loose time waiting for a FF camera, and buy one that does exist. Many years ago, when I wanted to do Large Format, I didn't started to wonder win Pentax would begin to make large format lenses and large format view cameras, I simply bought some from other manifacturers. The fact there are a lot of FF Pentax lenses out there to Ricoh-Pentax means little, I think, since they have been sold long ago. I have no hope in a FF from Pentax, I wonder why people spend so much time here trying to affirm the superiority of full frame to the unfaithful ones instead of simply buy one and be happy.
i have to agree. There are countless FF threads going back 5 years or more on this forum.. If it really means that much then there's only one answer.
03-10-2012, 04:03 AM   #360
Forum Member
Jan67's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 84
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
And, frankly, from an aesthetic perspective, most of these types of shots start to look the same. It's turning into the equivalent of the 1980's soft focus lens. Oooohh.....
Aristophanes, allow me one personal question.
What was the reason you bought D700 and couple of Nikon lenses?
Would you do it once again ?

EDIT: Please understand this question from the FF vers APSC point of view.

Last edited by Jan67; 03-10-2012 at 10:50 AM.
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!
dream, frame, full-frame, pentax, pentax full frame
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
Full Frame Pentax a pipe dream? Athiril Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 08-18-2008 02:10 AM
My Dream of a K20D, crushed..... Mr Hyde Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 04-10-2008 02:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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