Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-08-2012, 11:25 AM   #916
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 465
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Nobody has ever said that each format don't have their usages and advantages; quite the opposite. However, that exact DOF at one aperture only as the constant for comparing formats is plain silly and irrelevant for 99.99% of photographic usages, but I am perfectly aware that for some (the 0.01%) do want that. However, it is not useful for generalization which is whats being done. And this is the axe I have to grind; not that some wants it.
Nobody has ever said that the thinner DOF of FF is useful for all photos all the time. But some do want that capability when they need it to realize their creative vision.

QuoteQuote:
Furthermore, you get the impression from these discussions that you cannot get very shallow DOF from APS. This is not true; it is only about a stop difference. In fact you will not be able to tell if an image was shot at F:2.8 or F:4 with a 200mm lens; and in fact, in more cases than not, getting more DOF at that wide aperture is a bonus. I have never seen a pubished picture with shallower DOF than is possible on APS or distinguishable from what is possible with APS. Based on the nature of the images you'll actually see out there, you'll see that more DOF at the same magnification, shooting distance and numerical aperure is abonus not a disadvantage in 99.99% of the cases. And note, I have no problems with the 0.01% fraternity as long as they don't claim the DOF at the widest aperture (and that aperture only) is the holy grail of Photography of which formats are to be compared.
Are we reading the same thread? I don't get that impression at all. Not even close! To the contrary, this thread clearly explains the difference between the formats: about 1stop wrt DOF. To claim that playing in that one stop realm not available in APSC format is useless simply because it's not appropriate to play there all the time is ludicrous.

05-08-2012, 11:33 AM   #917
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Never have said that anyone is stupid. I'm saying that:

a) paper thin DOF is a red herring based on the fact that the vast majority of images ever shot do not display shallower DOF than what can be achieved with APS.
b) that the equivalency computation leads to misleading conclusions because exact DOF wide open (and wide open only) as only constant when comparing formats is irrelevant for solving most photographic problems.

BTW I'll buy a Pentax FF camera the moment it is released.
a) But DOF smaller than everything in the image is useful. Wide angle is useful. Both these statements are sometimes true for the same image. Even if the focus isn't right by the camera.
b) The equivalence holds when stopping down. And the equivalence isn't talked about to "solve photographic problems", it's talked about to let people know what lens would be needed to give the same capabilities on a different format. This is useful, even more so when only one of the lenses exist. No matter what properties you want, I really don't understand why you don't want to know what specification is needed to get them.
05-08-2012, 11:33 AM   #918
Pentaxian
v5planet's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,904
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Never have said that anyone is stupid. I'm saying that:

a) paper thin DOF is a red herring based on the fact that the vast majority of images ever shot do not display shallower DOF than what can be achieved with APS.
The vast majority of photos ever taken were shot using equipment that is not optically capable of producing wide angle images with DOF narrower than can be achieved by APS-C. This is because equipment capable of doing so is either too expensive (FF) or too impractical (film) for the average consumer; even the average dslr consumer, whom himself represents just a small subset of the larger pool of camera owners.

Subject isolation by way of DOF control is very aesthetically pleasing to many people. If it weren't, no one would ever talk about bokeh or ever think about shooting wider than f/8 unless lighting conditions demanded it. The fact that we don't see more wide angle images with DOF subject isolation is because people can't afford to do it. It is NOT because it doesn't look good, is impractical, or is somehow not 'successful', which is a word you used to describe that type of image, whatever that means. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how this image, shot wide open at 24mm f/1.4, would be more 'successful' if the little girl were lost amongst a flat, featurelessly sharp background: http://www.kenrockwell.com/katie/images/2010/2010-04/D3R_1462-600.jpg. On full frame she pops out with depth and acuity, drawing your attention despite the bright colors of the background.

What we're talking about isn't using the narrowest depth of field possible for every focal length with every lens every single time. You're right, there's not much need to narrow the depth of field possible at longer focal lengths like your image of the small mammalian subject. It is about tasteful subject isolation in wide angle imagery, especially in settings where you don't have control over how objects are placed relative to one another, i.e. situations where you need to rely on DOF to restrain the focus of the viewer's eyes.
05-08-2012, 12:20 PM   #919
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
BTW: does anyone want thinner DOF than this? It is shot at F:5.6 with an APS camera....


Nice shot!

.

05-08-2012, 12:40 PM   #920
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,160
We can argue whether ultra thin DOF is needed or not, but one thing is certain shooting a 70 - 200 2.8 @ F4.0 versus a 50-135 @ f2.8 though DOF will be pretty much the same the 70-200 should outperform the 50-135 since stopping down to f4.0 will give near optimum performance on most lenses.

the same will of course hold true looking at fast primes I can shoot an 85 @ f2.0 rather than wide open at 1.4 versus a 55 @ 1.4. the 85 should have better sharpness just from being stopped down a bit

If I want a good fast wide prime for shooting streets I can use a 24 f2.0 on FF and shoot in very dim lighting, I don't know of a 16 that even exists for that purpose. For that matter I can shoot a 28 1.8 sigma on FF and there is alternately nothing in apsc that gives me the aperture option. on wides from a distance the dof becomes less problematic
but on apsc the wide options are very limited and the fast wides are almost non existent (certainly there is nothing to equal the 24mm 1.8 sigma in an apsc lens (16 1.2??)

so there are more reasons than DOF for wanting FF. For me the reach issue where you get more apparent reach on an apsc is irrelevant. I rarely shoot longer than 100 mm but i shoot wide frequently. and the crop factor reach is moot with the D800 36mp versus a 16mp since the d800 cropped to apsc is 16mp. So even if I'm shooting birds i can track them better with the bigger ovf and a 300 then crop it to 16mp

Even if the Pentax is a 24mp the crop is more than acceptable for a reasonable size print.
05-08-2012, 12:58 PM   #921
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
shooting a 70 - 200 2.8 @ F4.0 versus a 50-135 @ f2.8 though DOF will be pretty much the same the 70-200 should outperform the 50-135 since stopping down to f4.0 will give near optimum performance on most lenses
Camera to subject distance will also be different. This too is important.
Improved signal to noise ratio is a theoretical, and likely practical, advantage to FF. This too can be important.
05-08-2012, 01:08 PM   #922
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 131
I have no burning desire to own a FF DSLR in the near future. My APS-C cameras serve my needs just fine.

That being said, making a statement like this is IMO ignorant,

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
However, that exact DOF at one aperture only as the constant for comparing formats is plain silly and irrelevant for 99.99% of photographic usages
Thin DOF is an incredibly useful artistic tool, and just because you choose not to use it for what you shoot, or appreciate it does not mean that it is irrelevant. Having the ability to use a DOF thinner than APS-C can give does not mean you have to use it, it's just another tool that someone else may find useful.. Sure, not every time they take a picture, but it's certainly not 'silly and irrelevant'. I would also like to see the data that your '99.99%' statistic came from.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
b) Nobody (at least practically speaking) use a wide angle in order to exclude things via DOF anyway.
Nobody?.... What are these?

66_366 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
(not my images)

Again, just because you don't, doesn't meant that no one else does.
05-08-2012, 01:45 PM   #923
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,714
Gee, on and on it goes. I haven't been here for about 50 pages, what did I miss, a short synopsis anyone?

05-08-2012, 01:50 PM - 1 Like   #924
Veteran Member
RXrenesis8's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Orlando, FL (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 523
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Gee, on and on it goes. I haven't been here for about 50 pages, what did I miss, a short synopsis anyone?
  • Some people want FF, some people find it pointless.
  • When asked about FF Pentax reps smile and/or laugh.
  • Innummerable rumors
05-08-2012, 01:58 PM - 1 Like   #925
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,714
Thanks for that. I'll drop in again in another 50 pages or so. Let me know if there's any breaking news.
05-08-2012, 02:02 PM   #926
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,159
QuoteOriginally posted by RXrenesis8 Quote
  • Some people want FF, some people find it pointless.
  • When asked about FF Pentax reps smile and/or laugh.
  • Innummerable rumors
Good summary
05-08-2012, 03:25 PM   #927
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Good summary
You forgot the weasel. (well, I liked it.)


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 05-08-2012 at 10:39 PM.
05-08-2012, 03:28 PM   #928
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
FF will eat up the "pro" APS-C segment, the $1,500-$2,000 MSRP segment, not the volume models like the rebel and D3200/D5100 end. That end of the segment is being eaten by m4/3s. NEX & Fuji.
Canon have just reported a 30% DSLR sales increase. Most of this increase is due to strong entry level DSLR sales killing the myth that mirrorless is eroding entry level DSLR sales from below. Nikon is also selling all they can.
Cheaper FF, if it will happen, is just a further fragmentation of the digital camera market and won't change anything either; just give us more options.

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 05-08-2012 at 03:36 PM.
05-08-2012, 03:35 PM   #929
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Canon have just reported a 30% DSLR sales increase. Most of this increase is due to strong entry level DSLR sales

Source?
05-09-2012, 01:38 AM   #930
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Camera to subject distance will also be different. This too is important.
No it won't, that was the point of him chosing lenses with equivalent focal lengths (very close at least). This thread is confused enough without getting the things I think everyone agrees on wrong. (I'm sure he thought it obvous the longer lens would be shot on the bigger format, as I do, but I suppose he should have said it. The internet is after all the perfect place for misunderstanding.)
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 09:41 PM. | 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