Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-27-2012, 09:11 AM   #856
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
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.
some good points here

If I shoot to theoretically equivalent lenses one on apsc and the other on FF (so the 50-135 versus the 70-200 f4) there is no real benefit in the larger format from an ability to stop down to better performance though. But if I move to using a 70-200 2.8 and stop it down to f4 it will very likely be sharper edge to edge. Direct prime comparisons are tougher since apples to apples FOV and magnification is tough to acheive. In any case many people shoot wide open for portraiture where softer edges aren't a drawback
Wide angle for landscapes may have more benefit, but the loss of deeper DOF means I will have to stop down a little further than on apsc, so where i may be able to get the desired look at F* on apsc (pretty likely where the lense is at it's best) on FF I may have to move to F11 where it's performance may begin to trail off

Iso is a better argument. You just need to look at the performance of the D800 sensor compared to the D7000 which is the closest direct equivalent to see the benefits
And odds are pretty good the 24mp FF sensor will do much better with noise on what will be the commonly available 24MP apsc sensor on an enthusiast body
For me the sensor performance will likely be the tipping point. The fact that I can achieve the same effects with lower priced lenses on FF is also a big draw, My 24-70 2.8 Sigma will actually benefit from FF because I will be able to stop it down to F4 in many cases where i now shoot 2.8 and better performance and where i've been shooting f4 i will be able to shoot 5.6 where the sweet spot Kicks in

OTOH I can shoot a tak 50 1.2 on apsc for peanuts but getting the same FOV DOF on FF will have me looking at a 77 LTD

04-27-2012, 09:53 AM   #857
Veteran Member
Coeurdechene's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: madrid
Photos: Albums
Posts: 833
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
If you go as large as large format (LF) you need to add tilt and shift to get control over DOF
That's because of how those cameras are made and operated...and i do not grasp why it's a disadvantage, it's called a technical camera for a reason and the degree of control it gives is just awesome. Been playing lately with a Sinar and man i want one of those!
I don't see how a larger format gives you "less" DOF control... It gives you complete control! at the cost of having to set up and operate a monster-like device.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Hardly anyone buy lenses for a specific DOF wide open but for exposure freedom
I don't know if that is true...i try to buy my lenses with the larger aperture, for the application i need i try to get them with wide apertures because i appreciate having the capacity to use DOF for certain effects. Till now my resources have limited me to get the two zooms i work with but i am planning on buying some fast primes to get those crazy shallow DOF pictures (almost picked a Canon FF just for it's 50 1,2). With today's High ISO capabilities the "exposure freedom" derived from fast lenses becomes less crucial. So maybe the DOF factor is becoming more important.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
They will not give the same exposure at the same DOF when used at the formats they are designed for
People ain't out there shooting on guesses, the cameras have light meters, so i do not see how this is relevant.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
APS has a definitive advantage as the wide open DOF of, say, a 400/2.8 is a problem not a solution
In those situations you can use 2,8 and crop, or on a Nikon use a crop mode directly (getting a convenient sized NEF)...that "advantage" of aps-c is a limitation on Field of view that may be convenient on some occasions, but it's still a limitation. On FF yo can do the same thing for those occasion where it's convenient while retaining the ability of taking photos with bigger FOV and shallower DOF when you want to.

Maybe, as you say, the equivalence reasoning ain't the right one to use...maybe you're right there. Then the question is do people want a larger format that enables them to do some things aps-c format isn't capable of doing? i'm pretty sure that lots of people don't get into FF because it's bodies price...it's the same reason that has pushed to shrink MF in digital age. I would undoubtely own a digital MF, manual focus, and with a rudimentary light meter if it was available at a reasonable price. If FF drops below 2000$ i'm sure we'll start to see more FF users.

And all the equivalence reasoning is done because manufacturers keep talking about equivalent FOV, they keep linking Aps-c to FF...and if we reason on those terms to manufacture an Aps-c system with the same capacities than a FF system is more expensive because of the lenses involved (i would like to know the cost of the equivalent 50 f1,4).

The only reason MF has shrinked in digital age is it's prohibitive price, on film days having a MF camera wasn't so rare as today...if a MF camera was affordable i would buy one because it can do some things and has a shooting style that ain't the same in a smaller format.

Last edited by Coeurdechene; 04-27-2012 at 09:59 AM.
04-27-2012, 10:15 AM   #858
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
If anything, you get less DOF control the larger the format
Wrong.

QuoteQuote:
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;
Correct, as long as you can find affordable 16mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.2, 33mm f/1.2, 120mm f/1.8, etc lenses for aps-c.


QuoteQuote:
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.
99.9999% ? Wow! How about getting f/4 sharpness while retaining f/2.5 DOF and subject isolation, for example? Any worth to that, ever? Also, getting a nice f/1.8 DOF from a lens that goes no faster than f/2.8, like a zoom for example... Yeah, no-one has ever made use of that!


QuoteQuote:
FF is at a disadvantage.
Advantage.


.
04-27-2012, 10:18 AM   #859
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
The equivalency postulate is misleading.
It absolutely is not. It's just describing a relationship.

04-27-2012, 10:32 AM   #860
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Wrong.



Correct, as long as you can find affordable 16mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.2, 33mm f/1.2, 120mm f/1.8, etc lenses for aps-c.




99.9999% ? Wow! How about getting f/4 sharpness while retaining f/2.5 DOF and subject isolation, for example? Any worth to that, ever? Also, getting a nice f/1.8 DOF from a lens that goes no faster than f/2.8, like a zoom for example... Yeah, no-one has ever made use of that!




Advantage.


.

this is an issue many refuse to see. However a direct equivalent lens (so an f4 zoom on ff versus the f2.8 on apsc offers no big benefit in gaining sharpness with the same dof or thinner dof. The thing is there is no direct replacement for the fast FF glass in apsc because it is too expensive.
Show me the DA 33 0.94 that replaces fa 50 1.4 on a FF for under $400
or the DA16 f1.4 that replaces an FA* 24 f2.0
or the DA 28 1.2 that can replace an FA43
Feasibly they could build an DA*50 1.2 that rivals the FA77 FOV DOF but it would be huge weigh more and likely cost a lot more as well
And there is little chance of me finding DA55 0.94 to replace an FA 85 1.4 (never mind the fact that i could also buy a cheap bower 85 1.4 and shoot MF at what would likely be 1/20 of what a 50 0.95 would sell for - heck the leica 50 0.95 is 40 times the price so....)

Under the 135 mm ff reach I think FF has a big advantage. the bigger longer reach still goes to apsc for now, but the advent of the D800 greatly reduces that advantage
04-27-2012, 11:26 AM   #861
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,509
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I am right
We were talking abot 24-70 (FF) and 16-45 lenses here not super telephotos which Falk brought up.
Fair enough.

But the argument is extremely silly - who uses f/22 anyway? I'm just a lowly amateur and may be doing things wrong, but I haven't even used f/22 for macros in the last 4 years (I just found 9 shots in total, the only one of them which wasn't totally rubbish was an experiment where I shot some flowers close up with a snow-covered hill in the background and didn't want that hill to be a totally unrecognizable soup of bokeh).
04-27-2012, 11:47 AM   #862
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Fair enough.

But the argument is extremely silly - who uses f/22 anyway? I'm just a lowly amateur and may be doing things wrong, but I haven't even used f/22 for macros in the last 4 years (I just found 9 shots in total, the only one of them which wasn't totally rubbish was an experiment where I shot some flowers close up with a snow-covered hill in the background and didn't want that hill to be a totally unrecognizable soup of bokeh).
I've shot F22 on 645 (about the max i would shoot it at for landscapes) but on apsc i've only used it to check for dust doing blue sky tests. never needed it on apsc (can't remember shooting it on 35 really either)
04-27-2012, 11:58 AM   #863
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,509
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
I've shot F22 on 645 (about the max i would shoot it at for landscapes) but on apsc i've only used it to check for dust doing blue sky tests. never needed it on apsc (can't remember shooting it on 35 really either)
Yes, I forgot to mention that several of those 9 shots were blue sky dust check shots

04-27-2012, 04:38 PM   #864
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
I use f/22 often - on APS-C.
I have a number of practical examples of its utility for slowing shutter speed during the daytime and ensuring maximal DoF. There are times when you don't need an ND filter or focus stacking, just stop down. I've seen no ill effect from diffraction on any of my lenses.
Also, the argument that FF has no advantage or is at a disadvantage to APS-C is simply incorrect.
Perhaps to some, even most, users, there is no practical advantage FF has over APS-C due to the already relatively thin DoF one can achieve with fast lenses on APS-C, but that does not mean there is no use or advantage to having the same lenses on a FF camera.
Why wouldn't we want to see some of the finest lenses in the FA limited series not be translated into their native format?
04-27-2012, 06:09 PM   #865
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,939
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
II've seen no ill effect from diffraction on any of my lenses.
Then you are not looking very closely.

At f/22 on APS-C, the resolution is diminished to the point where it corresponds to 2MP only.
04-28-2012, 01:17 AM   #866
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
On this entire equivalency topic...

Maybe, there is a misunderstanding involved here. A real understanding of equivalency is a prerequisite to talk about the influence of sensor size on photographic work. Without it, all statements about the topic will remain trivial at best, or misinformed and misleading otherwise. It sets a common ground to see and discuss the real merits of different sensor formats.

Equivalency is no attempt to negate the differences of sensor formats.

However, w/o reading about equivalency, it's understanding will usually remain partial adding to the confusion even further.
04-28-2012, 01:36 AM - 1 Like   #867
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,887
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
At f/22 on APS-C, the resolution is diminished to the point where it corresponds to 2MP only.
Not really though, It's softer but not that bad.
First picture f22, second picture 2MP, both jpegs from the camera.
Attached Images
   
04-28-2012, 04:18 AM   #868
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Wrong.

.
Right!
Lets take it to the extreme to illustrate the point. If you have 3X2meter sized sensor with a corresponding standard lens how much control over DOF do you think you'll get? Virtually zero.

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 04-28-2012 at 04:34 AM.
04-28-2012, 04:27 AM - 1 Like   #869
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
It absolutely is not. It's just describing a relationship.
No problem with the relationship. It is conclusion people make form it that is misleading. Eg saying an 300/4 on FF is equivalent to a 200/2.8 on APS as the DOF wide open is identical is perhaps correct but irelevant for 99.99% of the cases. The shallow DOF when shooting eg. wildlife or even landscape is a problem, not a solution. However, the shutterspeed used at F:2.8 is a solution for most an not a problem. Hence, for most long lens shooters a 300/2.8 is the real life photography equivalent of a 200/2.8 on APS. The difference in image quality is the tradeoff you get from choosing APS. The cost and size + extra DOF at the same exposure is the benefit.

Thin DOF as holy cow is totally irrelevant as 99,999% of all images do not display DOF thinner than what is possible with APS (in fact I've never seen such images in any books, magazines or art galleries). In addition, no one here can tell whether a picture is shot with APS or FF with regard to DOF; we have seen that in other threads.
Using a specialized usage as normative is totally misleading...

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 04-28-2012 at 04:37 AM.
04-28-2012, 04:34 AM   #870
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I use f/22 often - on APS-C.
I have a number of practical examples of its utility for slowing shutter speed during the daytime and ensuring maximal DoF. There are times when you don't need an ND filter or focus stacking, just stop down. I've seen no ill effect from diffraction on any of my lenses.
Also, the argument that FF has no advantage or is at a disadvantage to APS-C is simply incorrect.
Perhaps to some, even most, users, there is no practical advantage FF has over APS-C due to the already relatively thin DoF one can achieve with fast lenses on APS-C, but that does not mean there is no use or advantage to having the same lenses on a FF camera.
Why wouldn't we want to see some of the finest lenses in the FA limited series not be translated into their native format?
I don't think anyone have suggested that there are no advantages with FF. I for one would really like to use the limiteds at the angle of view they were meant for. On APS they turn into very odd focal lenghts in my opinion and hence I haven't used them much prefering the 16-50/2.8....
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 07:17 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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