[monochrome]

Will be what?

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,

[Sandy Hancock]

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,

Nice monochrome.
Is that your own work?

[eddie1960]

Nice monochrome.
Is that your own work?

ROFLMAO

[monochrome]

Nice monochrome.
Is that your own work?

Perhpas I should clarify the rather broad reference.

Pentax must die and be reborn to the FF, but what if the dream after life is worse than life?

[falconeye]

Sorry, Falk, but it's at the end of a long day here. What is an "APS-C style lens"?

see below

Or a FF lens made with a smaller max aperture to reduce size/cost, basically giving up some of the FF advantage and 'matching' aps-c. Any f/4 zooms for example (24-70 f/4, 70-200 f/4)

Mosty what I meant, cf. below.
Thanks.

Question to those who may know: What is the most expensive lens to make: a high quality 16-50/f2.8 covering APS-C with good corner-to-corner quality, or a 24-70 f/4 with equally good FF coverage?

As I don't cease to say: FF is cheaper. I treat that topic in one of my papers.

No it won't unless the former have a minimum aperture of F:32 which they usually don't....

The minimum aperture usually scales too. E.g., a 300mm may stop down to F32 while a 200mm may only stop down to F22 (as then both holes have same ~9mm size). But it's not a very relevant point beyond F22 anyway.

Of course, thanks. Now that I'm moderately awake, I'll cheerfully acknowledge that I should have known that.

No, I did not mean the APSC image circle.
(AFAIK, such lenses are called APSC lenses )

So, what are APSC-style lenses? These are lenses which are popular with APSC cameras, with their properties translated to 35mm equivalent terms to make them independent of the sensor size.

E.g., the DA* 50-135/2.8 constant aperture zoom is the equivalent 70-200/4 APSC-style lens. It does exist for Canon FF or Olympus FT (35-100/2). Cheapest for FF, most expensive for crop 2. And Tokina is to bring the lens to Nikon FF.

Other examples would be an equivalent 22/5.6 pancake wide angle (DA15) etc. Or a 18-36/5.6 WA zoom (DA12-24). You get the idea...

At Nikon, I see a recent trend to launch APSC style lenses for FF.

[Sandy Hancock]

Pentax must die and be reborn, but what if the afterlife is worse than life with the dream?

And all that we see, or seem, is but a dream within a dream....

[monochrome]

And all that we see, or seem, is but a dream within a dream....

I concede, more because I have to work today and I can't play English Major quote tag but I will say at times I've thought that digital images on a monitor push into Poe's metaphor.

[Pål Jensen]

It ain't it's "only" advantage, you get more depth of field control, .

Wrong! If anything, you get less DOF control the larger the format atlthough the term is misleading. If you go as large as large format (LF) you need to add tilt and shift to get control over DOF. To be precise APS and FF give exactly the same control over DOF when using lenses with the same aperture range; APS is shifted about a stop towards larger DOF. As 99,999 of all images shot by humankind, and I'm not even slightly exagregating, are shot with DOF no shallower than can be achieved with APS, the argument is moot. FF is at a disadvantage.
I shot with APS, 35mm and MF. You'll experience that for the same image you will use a longer shutterspeed with larger format. This is another disadvantage.

[Pål Jensen]

E.g., the DA* 50-135/2.8 constant aperture zoom is the equivalent 70-200/4 APSC-style lens. .

This equivalency is irrelevant for photography for most. Hardly anyone buy lenses for a specific DOF wide open but for exposure freedom (like low light shooting) and brightness of viewfinders. Hence, these lenses are not equal. In addition they will not display the same DOF range which is more relevant than absolute DOF in mm's wide open. They will not give the same exposure at the same DOF when used at the formats they are designed for; exposure is important for photography. Not to mention shutterspeed which may be the difference between an image and no image (due to technical quality).
If you then equalize the formats in order to give them the same output quality you are removing the reasons for using a larger format over a smaller one in the first place.
The equivalency postulate is misleading.

[gazonk]

No it won't unless the former have a minimum aperture of F:32 which they usually don't....

Well, actually you're probably not right here (see Falk's comment).

To what I really said : I might be a shallow hipster, but I certainly think it's useful to use f/2.8 on e.g. my DA35 Ltd. for shallow DoF effects. I'm not obsessed by dreamy bokeh, but sometimes shallow DoF works better, IMHO. However, I think f/2.8 on a standard zoom on a FF camera with a sensor performing well on high ISO is simply overkill, so I don't see the need for Pentax to make a 24-70 f/2.8 for their initial FF camera release. A 24-70 f/4 will be just fine (or 24-105 - I think Canon sells a lot of those with their 5d's). Then make sure the 60-250 works well on FF (maybe it only needs a new petal hood?) and we only need something like a 16-35 f/4 to have a fine initial setup.

[ElJamoquio]

Wrong! If anything, you get less DOF control the larger the format atlthough the term is misleading. If you go as large as large format (LF) you need to add tilt and shift to get control over DOF. To be precise APS and FF give exactly the same control over DOF when using lenses with the same aperture range; APS is shifted about a stop towards larger DOF. As 99,999 of all images shot by humankind, and I'm not even slightly exagregating, are shot with DOF no shallower than can be achieved with APS, the argument is moot. FF is at a disadvantage.
I shot with APS, 35mm and MF. You'll experience that for the same image you will use a longer shutterspeed with larger format. This is another disadvantage.

The FF sensor is larger and far more photons hit each pixel for an equivalent resolution. Thus numerically equal ISO's do not have equivalent noise for an equivalent photo.

The bottom line is that when all considerations are equal you can shoot at a higher ISO and thus use the same shutter duration. It is not a disadvantage.

[falconeye]

This equivalency is irrelevant for photography for most.

It seems to be for you and for the record, I'll leave you alone on this topic from now on. Happy shooting

[ElJamoquio]

This equivalency is irrelevant for photography for most. Hardly anyone buy lenses for a specific DOF wide open but for exposure freedom (like low light shooting) and brightness of viewfinders.

I think a lot of people buy lenses for DOF. Assuming your assumption is more correct than my assumption, though... even at the same DOF the 'quality' of a lens will generally be much better for a FF. In other words, when you're shooting an APS-C for a given scene you might choose to shoot it wide open, where most lenses do not perform well technically, whereas for the equivalent DOF on FF you would be able to shoot closer to the 'best' part of the lens.

Low light shooting is equivalent given all other things equivalent as I mentioned in the prior post.

Brightness of viewfinders is either equivalent or better for FF depending upon your assumptions (viewfinder area and speed of lens). If you have the same speed of lens and the same viewfinder area, the FF will be brighter. If you have the same speed of lens and a larger FF viewfinder (which most people seem to prefer) then the brightness will be the same. If you have the same viewfinder area and 'equivalent' lenses (FF slower) then the brightness will be the same.

[Pål Jensen]

The FF sensor is larger and far more photons hit each pixel for an equivalent resolution. Thus numerically equal ISO's do not have equivalent noise for an equivalent photo.

The bottom line is that when all considerations are equal you can shoot at a higher ISO and thus use the same shutter duration. It is not a disadvantage.

You do not choose one format over another to get equivalent resolution. Quite the opposite in fact. All this equavalency talk may be interesting armchair talk but is is irrelevant for almost all. Cameras and lenses are not DOF measuring instruments where the only thing that matters is exact DOF wide open (but strangly enough not range of DOF). They are instruments for talking pictures.

Keep the physics in mind;

1) A larger format will give better image quality than a smaller one at the same ISO all things equal.
2) Different formats give different DOF at the same magnification, focus distance and numerical aperture.

You cannot equalize yourself away from these facts unless as an intellectual excersize with little value for real life photography, or if to trade away the main reason for using another format in the first place. At which point the whole excecise becomes pointless.

[Pål Jensen]

Well, actually you're probably not right here (see Falk's comment).
.

I am right
We were talking abot 24-70 (FF) and 16-45 lenses here not super telephotos which Falk brought up (actually; people buy super telephotos for magnification; speed for exposure freedom and ease of focusing. APS has a definitive advantage as the wide open DOF of, say, a 400/2.8 is a problem not a solution). What you do with the equivalency experiment is to only regard the DOF wide open and not take into consideration the reality; namely that lenses have a range of DOF. Hence, you need F:32 on that FF lens to make it "equivalent" DOF-wise (but not otherwise) in your example.

But the whole point is that formats are not equal in the first place and the reason for them is that they aren't. Hence, equalizing them is an excercise in futility...