[Pål Jensen]

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.

I once saw a fantastic picture shot APS with Pentax 24mm lens at F:22 with flowers close to the front element and landscape and the mountains in the background; everything in focus. If I had seen that image without knowing what it was I would have said it was an image that could only be shot with large format with that DOF and perspective....

[StephenHampshire]

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....

My 35mm film days (Mamiya, Canon)were happily filled with 24mm, 28mm and 35mm shooting with f2.8 lenses. Since my digital SLRS have all been Pentax and thus APS-C I miss the cheap and cheerful wide angles. The 35mm DA-L is nice, but too long, the DA Ltd 15mm is F4 and too expensive! FF would refresh my wide of standard heart!
I do use a rather nice Sigma Miniwide 24mm, keep missing out on the A/F version, just my luck for one to turn up on Fleabay a day after I'd spent out too much on the DA70 Ltd.....

[RonHendriks1966]

Well I almost never use f22, but the one challenge on DPReview that I won was with f22:

Eneloop Chess!: Digital Photography Review

[drougge]

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.

Assuming equivalent f-stop range you have the same DOF control regardless of format. Your complaint seems to be that lenses for larger formats don't stop down far enough, even if you don't state it like that.

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.

And here your complaint seems to be that larger sensors are not as good as smaller sensors. Because that 300/4 on FF lets in just as much light as the 200/2.8 on APS-C (ignoring that it's not exactly a stop of difference). Thus, using twice the ISO on the FF should, given sensors that are as good per area, give the same image. The advantage being that you can also sacrifice thick DOF for shorter exposure, an option you don't have in the APS-C case.

Plus of course not everyone shoots mostly long lenses, and too thin DOF really isn't a common problem with wide angles on any small format.

None of which mean that APS-C isn't better for you, but it does no one any good if you misunderstand why it's better.

[ElJamoquio]

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.

The only other thread I've seen such a comparison in was so easy to tell the difference that I thought it was a trick. I said so in that thread.

[ElJamoquio]

The bottom line is that a FF sensor/camera like the D800 has can do everything a K5 can do and can do far more at the wide end, create smaller DOF with more compromised lenses (and with all lenses) and allows for much lower equivalent ISO.

The tradeoff is a more expensive camera. In general those cameras are larger and heavier as well but I do not believe that the largeness is a requirement - i.e. the 5D Mk II and the 7D are the same size. I think Pentax should be expected to make a FF slightly larger than the K5 but not much bigger.

[falconeye]

I once saw a fantastic picture shot APS with Pentax 24mm lens at F:22 with flowers close to the front element and landscape and the mountains in the background; everything in focus.

Pål, you really stress the minimum aperture argument.

In this particular example, you are correct (not that I think the equivalent aperture of f/15 from an FF lens would have looked that different ...). But correct is correct.

Nevertheless, let's also look at the reason why you are correct...

It is the somewhat arbitrary availability of lenses for the various formats, i.e., their properties.

E.g., look at 70mm on APSC vs. 100mm on FF. The FF lens stops down to F32 while the APSC lens only stops down to F22. Now, there is no difference in the photo anymore.

This is so because both 70mm/22 and 100mm/32 are a 3mm apertures. And e.g., if an 24mm/22 or 1mm aperture can be made (as showcased by your APSC lens), then obviously a 1mm aperture or F32 can be made for the equivalent 36mm lens too...

So, why isn't it made?

Very simple: lack of demand. Only very few people ever want to shoot at F32 or F45. Focus stacking is a much better alternative preserving more resolution.

This lack of demand means the market decided your theoretical advantage for APSC is considered irrelevant by vendors.

To be clear: This is a marketing division's decision only. There is no technical reason why the minimum aperture expressed in mm should be larger for FF, comparing two equivalent lenses. To make it larger saves a tiny bit of cost over the APSC lens only.


Second view about the tiny aperture argument:

F/22 on APSC or F/32 equivalent is F/4 for a mobile phone or F/5.6 for some P&S cameras or the Q. And because diffraction replaces the AA filter, you'll get superior image quality from a P&S then. So, if this particular use case is so important, I'll suggest you don't even use use APSC for it. It will disappoint in comparison. And don't believe APSC maintains any advantage in IQ over a P&S at tiny apertures. It doesn't, it is inferior in all categories, including noise, except if you use a longer exposure time on APSC, i.e., if you ave plenty of light or work from a tripod. Then you have a valid point though (except that then focus stacking may be preferrable).

Some more thought: there are screw filters with a hole to provide a tiny aperture (pinhole etc.) too. They work well with normal to tele lenses. Just like ND filters, they shouldn't be ignored in discussing the tiny aperture argument.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 04-28-2012 at 10:12 AM.

[Aristophanes]

Only very few people ever want to shoot at F32 or F45.

And they are shooting large format:

Large Format Photography Forum

[falconeye]

And they are shooting large format:

Large Format Photography Forum

Yeah, but if I say what I said, I mean it in 35mm equivalent terms. An aperture stop is an arbitrary number without specifying the format or meaning it in 35mm equivalent terms.

E.g., there is an American photographer with a camera filling a truck shooting at F/200. Because otherwise, he doesn't have enough DoF for portraiture work...

[Coeurdechene]

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)

I think you're exagerating a lot here...maybe it's not your thing so you don't use it and see it much...i've seen some great portraits made on FF at f1,2, f1,4 or f1,8..with those apertures you get very dreamy or filled with character portraits and you get to chose which part to enphatize (usually the eyes, but not always i've see some great portraits that didn't, on purpose). Then in fashion and glamour photography those wide apertures are used a lot...I'm gonna dig up some examples.

And then you ignored a very good argument raised by several people: the ability on FF to stop down a bit, getting the best performance spot of the lens while retaining the same FOV than with an equivalent lens wide open.

The tradeoff is a more expensive camera.

It won't be much of a tradeoff if the next batch of FF cameras hits the market at the predicted prices...some thing that tips us off in that direction is the possibility that nikon itself leaked the d600 rumors, specs and pricepoint. All this seem consistent with the fact that Canon is mantaining the 5dII as an entry level FF, a d600 that improves every aspect of it at a similar resolution and at a slight less expensive price point doesn't seem so far fetched. Canon will then be forced to compete somehow delivering something better than the 5dII, cheaper than the 5dIII, and in close quarters with the d600. Or they'll have to compete in prices, either way it's a good thing for us because it'll drive FF prices down.

[RonHendriks1966]

Very simple: lack of demand. Only very few people ever want to shoot at F32 or F45.

Did that once for the sun with 2xtc, but still very bright.

[ElJamoquio]

It won't be much of a tradeoff if the next batch of FF cameras hits the market at the predicted prices...some thing that tips us off in that direction is the possibility that nikon itself leaked the d600 rumors, specs and pricepoint

Believe me, I agree. I would own a Pentax FF right now if they offered one, and I'd probably own two.

Right now the 5DIII and the D800 have stolen Pentax's thunder. Between the D800 and the D3200 Nikon now has a commanding lead in terms of body performance and have a nice mix of entry level and pro lenses as well.

Right now the only 'niches' that are left are really the low margin niches or the low-population niches, like the $1800 FF camera, mirrorless FF, MF, etc.

For the record, I believe the 'we don't have enough resources/customers to be a full-line manufacturer' is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Pentax/K-mount don't have any room for error because they don't have much market presence because they don't have a lot of good P&S's and don't have pro equipment for 90%+ of pro photographers.

[Coeurdechene]

For the record, I believe the 'we don't have enough resources/customers to be a full-line manufacturer' is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Pentax/K-mount don't have any room for error because they don't have much market presence because they don't have a lot of good P&S's and don't have pro equipment for 90%+ of pro photographers.

Well that's true if you just consider the photo division...i think Nikon is a lot more fragile and much more in that position that pentax right now. Pentax has ricoh behind, big diversified company who can decide to invest heavily at a loss to escape that "selffulfilling prophesy". If they are really serious about it they can release a good FF, while continue to devellop great features/price bodies. While at a disadvantage in AF and flash systems pentax has deivered good build, stabilized bodies compared to entry-level or midrange Canon or Nikon wich are also more expensive. If Ricoh invests enought they can become a strong player in dslr market.
Why i feel Nikon is more vulnerable is because they rely solely in camera market, wich is shrinking on the consumer end and ain't growing fast on the dslr's to keep it from being less profitable from point n shoot declive. Ricoh on the other hand is a bigger enterprise with other profitable ventures....we'll see the strategy they finally decide, but the rumors and MRSP policy point to an effort to build a more complete lineup and consolidate it's image as a serious contender. Maybe we'll see a K FF, a K-z and a K5 replacement capable of competing against Nikon offerings in a near future. My doubts are if they will be able to devellop a state of the art AF AND a flash system that'll be comparable to Nikon's, Canon or Sony (we'll see if they deliver that 101 cross point AF promised:P) in such a short period of time.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well I don't know, but this info tells me different:

Ricoh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nikon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess both are part of a bigger group.

[Coeurdechene]

You're right..didn't count Nikon was part of the mitsubishi group...although i'm not sure if rricoh has more leeway in develloping Pentax, or if Nikon being part of a looser group relies more on it's benefits to invest on R&D or has the same kind of backing pentax may have with Ricoh..it would be nice if someone with the knowledge explained.