[drougge]

I have read the reasons why people want a FF camera. However, I would like to see a couple of photos taken with a FF camera and someone explain to me why they cannot be taken with a 1.5X crop sensor camera. I seriously expect someone to be able to answer this.

Does it have to be about the final image? I want to enjoy using the camera. I great finder is an important part of that, FF helps there. (And MF helps more, but it's not economically realistic, FF is.)

So for me, the camera I enjoy using is the camera I use, and therefore the camera that takes the best (only) images for me. (Not that I don't enjoy my K5.)

I can't get enough D0F and having an FF would make it worse.

An FF with the same pixel pitch as your APS-C makes nothing worse, you can crop an identical image.

[eddie1960]

Don't hold your breath, I've been begging for months.

The one guy who did post a comparison FF and APS-c, I liked the APS-c better. For myself, for every time I want narrower DoF and my 50 1.7 or Tamron 90 macro won't get it done, there are 20 times I can't get enough D0F and having an FF would make it worse. ANd on 80% of my shooting altogether DoF is not an issue. So a Full frame would be of benefit to me 1% of the time and it would cost 100% more. ANd it still wouldn't help me, because I won't carry a camera I use 1% of the time unless it fits in my pocket. Even when FF would be better, APS-c images of the same scene aren't bad. But , for some people, the heart has to have the heart has to have... there's no other way to explain it.

For what you shoot norm apsc is a sweet spot - FF biggest benefit being better wides available but that is moot since Pentax no longer makes those wides, (and I'm guessing the DA 21 covers most of your needs there) so it would still require a brand transition
If you shoot sports or something requiring a machine gun approach then i see the move to nikon ff (but with a D4 not a D800)
there are times i've wished i had a machine gun capable camera with a nice fast zoom, but not often enough for me to make the switch. if I did however i doubt i would be waiting on Pentax to fulfill my needs I'd just make the leap. Hell they are all only tools the end result is what counts and that is easily more reliant on the togs skills than the camera once you reach a certain level of gear
And of course if you are a Bokeh whore and are dying to have such narrow DOF you will struggle to get an accurate focus then FF is better.
a Better arguement i've seen is the ability to achieve the bokeh quality of a one stop faster lens on apsc so if you have a 50 -135 2.8 you can on FF theoretically achieve the same DOF at f4 on a 70-200 2.8 and be closer to the lenses sweet spot for performance.

[jsherman999]

I have read the reasons why people want a FF camera. However, I would like to see a couple of photos taken with a FF camera and someone explain to me why they cannot be taken with a 1.5X crop sensor camera. I seriously expect someone to be able to answer this.

I'll just paste what has come before , and give a new summary: If you spend time with both formats, you'll start to appreciate the differences. Asking to see a two-shot comparison is not going to help very much, just like posting a two-shot comparison between a Limited and a regular lens won't help much, and would cause almost anyone to claim there's no real value in the Limiteds.

Basically: You get about 1.3 stops more DOF control from the same FOV, same distance to the subject with FF. Practical example: 50mm f/2.8 on FF = 35mm f/1.8 on aps-c (approx,) and 35mm f/1.8 on FF = 23mm f/1.2 on aps-c. As you can see, in the wide to normal range (even moving into short telephoto) the aps-c lenses will be harder to come by, more expensive, or even impossible to come by.

(You also get at least a stop better noise control at similar ISOs, a larger viewfinder, and advanced features like state-of-art AF.)

A few folks like Norm and Pål are choosing to crank up the Ornery meter about this and be willfully obstinate, even though it's been explained countless times. Unfortunately, it clouds the issue for folks new to the question. It seems to be primarily aps-c strict-landscape shooters who are having a problem imagining the value, here.

Anyway here's my latest posting on this:

But the point is that those people constitute a so small part of the photographic comunity that percentages is not a useful measuring standard. Hence, the argument is moot as the vast majority struggles to get sufficient DOF.
What has become a fetish is impossibly thin DOF (in theory; in practise it has very little value).

As has been stated countless times: it's not just about 'razor thin DOF.' It's also about being able to get sharper on the plane of focus with perhaps less CA while being able to retain that smaller DOF. For example, 50mm f/2.8 on FF is bitingly sharp, sharper than my 35mm at f/1.8, but it gives the same DOF as the 35 wide-open - while retaining that f/2.8 sharpness. When the subject (say, a person) is a certain distance away, the DOF has perhaps expanded to hold them, to 'float' them from the background in a way that's a bit harder to do with aps-c with available lenses.

And sometimes it just brings a 'look' wide-open that you start to notice with many iterations:

Below taken by darrenleow, 50mm f/2 (equiv to about 35mm f/1.3 on aps-c)


Me, 180mm f/2.8 (equiv to about 120mm f/1.8 which afaik doesn't exist - my 77ltd wide-open gets close to this on aps-c, but it's just not as long.)





50mm f/1,8 (= 35mm f/1.2)

I have never seen any image in any newspaper, book, or magazine or fine art prints ever that had so thin DOF that it couldn't have been shot with APS.

I see it all the time. Perhaps you're just not attuned to it - I'm sure newspaper editors are. There was a beautiful, striking shot of a girl standing at a gravesight in the Mpls Satr Tribune last year - widish, very environmental-portrait-style, but the subject was isolated and the picture just worked. It was so wonderful that I emailed the photographer to ask - 35 f/1.4 shot wide-open on FF.

It is a non issue.

If it's a non-issue, then bothering to shoot with Limited lenses is a non-issue as well, because the difference between a Limited and an equivalent good FA, or a good M, K or Tak lens isn't as great as the difference the format change brings to your lenses.

For example, if I were to shoot a series of random shots with my M 85 f/2 and 77ltd, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Or if I shot some random shots with both my FA 50 1.7 and 77ltd, not matching FOV, you wouldn't be able to pick out the FA 50 shots with any regularity. After time, you'd probably grow to prefer the typical 77ltd shot - but the small-sample blind test would fail. In other words - this preference that comes with iteration is what we're talking about, what really matters. If you say it doesn't matter with FF, then it doesn't matter with anything, and we can throw away our Limiteds, free of this illusion!

Anyway, the 'more DOF control' - and that's what it is, not simply 'less DOF', considering the available lenses - is only one aspect to consider. For me it's really only about the third most important attribute the format brings.



.

[cali92rs]

Basically: You get about 1.3 stops more DOF control from the same FOV, same distance to the subject with FF. Practical example: 50mm f/2.8 on FF = 35mm f/1.8 on aps-c (approx,) and 35mm f/1.8 on FF = 23mm f/1.2 on aps-c. As you can see, in the wide to normal range (even moving into short telephoto) the aps-c lenses will be harder to come by, more expensive, or even impossible to come by.

Great post Jay. I think this needs to be driven home.
You can use a 31mm f/1.7 LTD wide open to get the approximate DOF and FOV of a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D stopped down to f/2.8.
With that configuration, the 50mm will be much sharper than the 31mm.
Oh, and the 50mm is about $800-$900 cheaper.

[eddie1960]

Great post Jay. I think this needs to be driven home.
You can use a 31mm f/1.7 LTD wide open to get the approximate DOF and FOV of a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D stopped down to f/2.8.
With that configuration, the 50mm will be much sharper than the 31mm.
Oh, and the 50mm is about $800-$900 cheaper.

and if you could shoot the 31LTD on FF you could never duplicate it on apsc, no lens out there comes close to that particular mix (I know of no 21 1.2 made - and if there was one it would cost even more than the fa31.)

[cali92rs]

and if you could shoot the 31LTD on FF you could never duplicate it on apsc, no lens out there comes close to that particular mix (I know of no 21 1.2 made - and if there was one it would cost even more than the fa31.)

11647 Leica 21mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M ASPH Wide Angle Lens for M System - USA

Umm, yea, costs a tad more than a 31mm ltd

[beholder3]

[deleted]

---

Last edited by beholder3; 08-12-2013 at 01:43 AM. Reason: [deleted]

[eddie1960]

11647 Leica 21mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M ASPH Wide Angle Lens for M System - USA

Umm, yea, costs a tad more than a 31mm ltd

forgot about that one, i tend to try not to think about leica. I'm about as likely to own a great leica system as I am to have a fleet of ferraris

[RonHendriks1966]

But how often is such an image with narrow DOF really interesting and would we need the extra thin DOF a FF could deliver?

K-5 and FA*85mm and f1.4

[monochrome]

I think the key point here is that many enthusiast photgraphers can do what they want to do with APSc, more choose to make do with APSc because of the price (until recently) of FF boides, and a large number of dSLR owners don't even know what theyt don't know.

At the same time some enthusiast photographers and many (if not most) professional photgraphers can cite at least one valid benefit of FF (though that citation varies by segment of the Pro population). Yet other professional photographers (on this Forum, rparmar makes the claim) say they regularly sell m4/3 images into print media, so FF is not a universal professional requirement.

There is not one definitive answer whehter one format is more suited than another format to all users at all times. There is not a definitive answer which format is better or best until we decide what defines good; and good is not universal, it is individual (although the Golden comes close, Jay).

Ultimately Pentax Ricoh Imaging will either offer a FF body (and I think they will within 12 months) or they won't. Those of us who must have a FF body will get one from Nikon or Canon or Sony (or maybe Sigma). Possibly the K-mount will die. Or it won't.

The decision is up to each individual.

[monochrome]

But how often is such an image with narrow DOF really interesting and would we need the extra thin DOF a FF could deliver?

FA*85mm and f1.4

I don't care what format you used, that is an interesting image.

[drougge]

Are FF 450/2.8s the same price as 300/2.8s on APSC?

I would recommend Falk's article on equivalence.

[bossa]

Below taken by darrenleow, 50mm f/2 (equiv to about 35mm f/1.3 on aps-c)


.

The second I saw that picture of the dog on the other thread I knew it'd be almost impossible to shoot it on APS-C.

Using my iPhone DOF calculator I get the following:

FULLF: 50mm F/3.2 @ 2 meters: DOF = 309.02mm
APS-C: 31mm F/1.8 @ 2 meters: DOF = 304.89mm
APS-C: 35mm F/2.3 @ 2 meters: DOF = 305.63

FULLF: 50mm F/2.62 @ 2 meters: DOF = 252.52mm
APS-C: 30mm F/1.40 @ 2 meters: DOF = 252.75 (Sigma)

FULLF: 50mm F/2.00 @ 2 meters: DOF = 192.44mm
APS-C: 30mm F/1.07 @ 2 meters: DOF = 192.86mm
APS-C: 31mm F/1.14 @ 2 meters: DOF = 192.13
APS-C: 35 mm F/1.45 @ 2meters: DOF = 192.01

FULLF: 50mm F/1.40 @ 2 meters: DOF = 134.55mm
APS-C: 30mm F/0.75 @ 2 meters: DOF = 135.02
APS-C: 31mm F/0.80 @ 2 meters: DOF = 134.88mm
APS-C: 35mm F/1.02 @ 2 meters: DOF = 134.91

FULLF: 50mm F/1.20 @ 2 meters: DOF = 115.3mm
APS-C: 30mm F/0.64 @ 2 meters: DOF = 115.18
APS-C: 31mm F/0.68 @ 2 meters: DOF = 114.61mm
APS-C: 35mm F/0.087 @ 2 meters: DOF = 115.03

As stated earlier the lenses would be sharpening up on FF at the smaller apertures and clearing up CA and PF etc too...

[beholder3]

I would recommend Falk's article on equivalence.

I would recommend accepting reality first.

[bossa]

If Pentax has no plans to bring out a FF DSLR then I would hope RICOH would release a FF sensor module K mount adapter for GXR. The logic of making a modular camera and leaving out the K mount (which you own) seems decidedly odd. It's hard to believe that the would ignore it unless they have 'other plans'.