[ElJamoquio]

<pictures>

Loved your pics. Especially the last one. Great shot.

[ElJamoquio]

You missed one point, though: A 300mm f/4 is usually longer and heavier than a 200mm f/2.8, so APS-C could still be the best choice for a nature photographer worried about backpack weight. Now, with the recent 24-36mp sensors, this difference may diminish, too, because you could simply use a 200mm on a FF body and crop - but then on APS-C you could use a 24mp sensor and crop to 400-600mm equivalent and still have the lead...

You can crop a 36MP FF to 16MP with no loss in quality compared to a native APS-C camera.

You can crop a 24MP APS-C to anything; but you're really more limited by current lenses than the sensor at that point.

[Pål Jensen]

Right, but I don't think Pal was talking about that, he was talking about having to use a slower shutter speed at f/4 than f/2.8, making them 'not equivalent.' But in fact, that's covered by the idea of equivalence - as I was getting at, "simply bump ISO one stop if that's an issue - it won't be any noisier on FF, and you'll have the same FOV, DOF and shutter speed as aps-c - if that's what you want." You can't always go the other way with aps-c.
.

You can bump the ISO on the APS camera as well. The image quality differences are the differences inherited in the formats; this can't be "equalized" if you want to compare apples with apples as opposed to oranges.
In addition the differences in DOF is about one stop; usually not even visible. The idea that the constant is DOF wide open as the benchmark for comparison is nothing less than silly as thin DOF wide open is a problem for 99,999% of images ever taken, and again I'm not exagregating, whereas cost, size and shutterspeed is not unimportant.
APS have several advantages over FF just like FF have several advantages over medium format. What you gain with larger format is image quality. Theres nothing magical about 35mm.
The fact is that more DOF at the same numerical aperture is a bonus for the vast majority of shooting situations (that is also one of the advantages 35mm has over medium format). Claiming otherwise is to make the weird the norm.

[Pål Jensen]

You can crop a 36MP FF to 16MP with no loss in quality compared to a native APS-C camera.

You can crop a 24MP APS-C to anything; but you're really more limited by current lenses than the sensor at that point.

Cropping an FF camera is waste of money; why not use an APS camera? And the comparison becomes meaningless. Besides, you can crop APS as well. Below is a 40% crop from the K-7 at 1000 ISO. I can only imagine what a crop from the K-5 or 24mp APS sensor will look like....

[Pål Jensen]

You can crop a 36MP FF to 16MP with no loss in quality compared to a native APS-C camera.

You can crop a 24MP APS-C to anything; but you're really more limited by current lenses than the sensor at that point.

Cropping an FF camera is waste of money. And the comparison becomes meaningless. Besides, you can crop APS as well. Below is a 40% crop from the K-7 at 1000 ISO (no noise reduction; no tweaking). I can only imagine what a crop from the K-5 or 24mp APS sensor will look like....





BTW: does anyone want thinner DOF than this? It is shot at F:5.6 with an APS camera....

(Don't know why this message turned up twice; I was only editing it. It can't be deleted either!)

[boriscleto]

Cropping an FF camera is waste of money; why not use an APS camera? And the comparison becomes meaningless. Besides, you can crop APS as well. Below is a 40% crop from the K-7 at 1000 ISO. I can only imagine what a crop from the K-5 or 24mp APS sensor will look like....

This was cropped from 16 MP to 6 MP, K-5 at 500 ISO.




This was cropped to 9 MP, ISO 3200

[cfraz]

You can bump the ISO on the APS camera as well. The image quality differences are the differences inherited in the formats; this can't be "equalized" if you want to compare apples with apples as opposed to oranges.
In addition the differences in DOF is about one stop; usually not even visible. The idea that the constant is DOF wide open as the benchmark for comparison is nothing less than silly as thin DOF wide open is a problem for 99,999% of images ever taken, and again I'm not exagregating, whereas cost, size and shutterspeed is not unimportant.
APS have several advantages over FF just like FF have several advantages over medium format. What you gain with larger format is image quality. Theres nothing magical about 35mm.
The fact is that more DOF at the same numerical aperture is a bonus for the vast majority of shooting situations (that is also one of the advantages 35mm has over medium format). Claiming otherwise is to make the weird the norm.

99.999%? When you first started this campaign against reason you claimed it was 99%. What happened - recount, hanging chads? Your argument is just plain silly regardless of the percentage you choose to insert there. Let me illustrate. Since 92.638% (if you can make up bogus stats, so can I) of prints are 8 X 10 or smaller, there is no use for a printer that prints up to 11 x 17. 94.310% of hand drawn pictures are done by crayon and hung on a refrigerator. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever buy fine oil paints, or chalk, or make a frame, or go to a museum.

The point is the chosen medium is useful and pleasing to *some* people *some* of the time. I like looking at photos where the subject appears completely in focus. I am also inspired and motivated by many photos that show a shallow depth of field which is impossible to produce using APSC format. For *me* the percentage of pictures in that second category is much higher than 0.001%.

If your intent with these posts is to convince people that they really don't like what they claim to like, I don't see that many are convinced. On the other hand, if your intent is to convince people that you are biologically incapable of grasping that someone else's aesthetic preferences are different than yours, keep on posting - I think you are succeeding beyond your wildest dreams.

Your insistence that no one should ever use that 1 stop extra of narrow DOF on a FF camera seemingly leads you to employ the most convoluted arguments to try and refute the concept of lens equivalence (nothing more or less than the mathematical relationship between aperture, FOV and sensor size), and that's not helping your cause.

[eddie1960]

99.999%? When you first started this campaign against reason you claimed it was 99%. What happened - recount, hanging chads? Your argument is just plain silly regardless of the percentage you choose to insert there. Let me illustrate. Since 92.638% (if you can make up bogus stats, so can I) of prints are 8 X 10 or smaller, there is no use for a printer that prints up to 11 x 17. 94.310% of hand drawn pictures are done by crayon and hung on a refrigerator. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever buy fine oil paints, or chalk, or make a frame, or go to a museum.

The point is the chosen medium is useful and pleasing to *some* people *some* of the time. I like looking at photos where the subject appears completely in focus. I am also inspired and motivated by many photos that show a shallow depth of field which is impossible to produce using APSC format. For *me* the percentage of pictures in that second category is much higher than 0.001%.

If your intent with these posts is to convince people that they really don't like what they claim to like, I don't see that many are convinced. On the other hand, if your intent is to convince people that you are biologically incapable of grasping that someone else's aesthetic preferences are different than yours, keep on posting - I think you are succeeding beyond your wildest dreams.

Your insistence that no one should ever use that 1 stop extra of narrow DOF on a FF camera seemingly leads you to employ the most convoluted arguments to try and refute the concept of lens equivalence (nothing more or less than the mathematical relationship between aperture, FOV and sensor size), and that's not helping your cause.

Pal doesn't need FF (or MF apparently) so he can't see why anyone else may want it

The arguement of FF over MF to support the arguement for apsc over FF falls apart imo when you realise in film days many people shot MF because 35 couldn't give them what they wanted (iq DOF whatever)

and the ever changing phony stats don't help.

Sure most of my shots don't need FF DOF. Some though would benefit from it as well. Some would benefit from the higher iq of a d800 as well for that matter

What I don't get is the argument against a FF existing. Many seem to want it (for whatever reason) many don't. No-one has said only make FF cameras (though I can see that day in the not to distant future for fully featured enthusiast cameras since the rumour of sub $2000 nikons surfaced)
One will come whether Pal wants it or not, it will sell and because the line will be a more complete line it will help draw new users provided the marketing is in place

[drougge]

BTW: does anyone want thinner DOF than this? It is shot at F:5.6 with an APS camera...

And you conveniently ignore the existance of wide angles of course. Or do you perhaps claim that f/5.6 at say 16mm gives a thin DOF? (The point, as usual, is that not all people shoot the same things you do, and their needs may be different. So stick to your APS-C, and let others have bigger formats if they want. (And why not get something even smaller? There is nothing magical about APS-C either, and if smaller is the same as better in your world, I don't see why you should stop there. (Why yes, I am a bit annoyed at you.)))

[Pål Jensen]

The point is the chosen medium is useful and pleasing to *some* people *some* of the time. I like looking at photos where the subject appears completely in focus. I am also inspired and motivated by many photos that show a shallow depth of field which is impossible to produce using APSC format. For *me* the percentage of pictures in that second category is much higher than 0.001%. .

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.

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.

The equivalency is also wrong. If you compare the lenses that are actually computed via this equivalency theory you'll find that you get more DOF control with APS as that equivalent lens have a larger aperture range to choose from; hence more DOF control - hence not equivalent after all.

[Pål Jensen]

Pal doesn't need FF (or MF apparently) so he can't see why anyone else may want it

Wrong. I shoot MF mainly. I use three formats. APS, 35mm and 645. Therefore I know what the advantages and disadvantages are with the different systems in real life instead of armchair computation with little or no real life photographic relevance.
When using different formats you will notice that for the same image, you will use longer shutter speed the larger the format. You'll also notice that you get less and less control over DOF the larger the format; this is why large format need tilt/shift in order to control DOF to any meaningful extent at all. This is the drawback with larger formats + size, weight and cost obviously. However, they have other advantages...

[Pål Jensen]

And you conveniently ignore the existance of wide angles of course. Or do you perhaps claim that f/5.6 at say 16mm gives a thin DOF? (The point, as usual, is that not all people shoot the same things you do, and their needs may be different. So stick to your APS-C, and let others have bigger formats if they want. (And why not get something even smaller? There is nothing magical about APS-C either, and if smaller is the same as better in your world, I don't see why you should stop there. (Why yes, I am a bit annoyed at you.)))

I am conveniently ignoring it because;
a) 24mm at F:5.6 don't give paper thin DOF either
b) Nobody (at least practically speaking) use a wide angle in order to exclude things via DOF anyway.

APS is the defacto sweetspot right now in terms of quality vs cost collaborated with the sales numbers at 95% of DSLR sales. I do think that many will go smaller when quality if sensors are getting better. Some will go larger but that is what happens when the market fragments even further.
It is not about that people don't shoot the same things as I do; I do shoot all kinds of things. It is about the fact that images with DOF thinner that what is possible/make a difference with what is possible with APS virtually don't exist; at least not successful ones. So it is no argument suitable for generalizations. However, getting faster shutter speed for the same images is a bonus under many circumstances. As most images are defacto not shot wide open for shallow DOF, and indeed usually at a smaller aperture for a certain DOF, exposure is a more relevant constant for comparison between format than exact DOF wide open (and wide open only).

[eddie1960]

Wrong. I shoot MF mainly. I use three formats. APS, 35mm and 645. Therefore I know what the advantages and disadvantages are with the different systems in real life instead of armchair coimputation with little or no real life photographic relevance.
When using different formats you will notice that for the same image, you will use longer shutter speed the larger the format. You'll also notice that you get less and less control over DOF the larger the format; this is why large format need tilt/shift in order to control DOF to any meaningful extent at all.

I use all 3 as well, and it is the use of 35mm that makes me want a FF digital (mostly because I never have the time for scanning and processing my film)
Medium format I can live with film (the bodies are all way out of my reach)

[drougge]

I am conveniently forgetting it because;
a) 24mm at F:5.6 don't give paper thin DOF either

Of course not.

b) Nobody use a wide angle in order to exclude things via DOF anyway.

Because getting a wide angle with this ability is a problem, not because it can't make a good image.

APS is the defacto sweetspot right now in terms of quality vs cost. I do think that many will go smaller when quality if sensors are getting better.
It is not about that people don't shoot the same things as I do. It is about the fcat that images with DOF thinner that what is possible/make a difference with what is possible with APS virtually don't exist; at least not successful ones. So it is no argument suitable for generalizations. However, getting faster shutter speed for the same images is a bonus under many circumstances.

As you just said, 24mm does't give particularly thin DOF. But a 24/2.8 can give some isolation. A 16/4 gives two stops less, but is about the APC-C equivalent in terms of size and price. (And a 16/2 doesn't as far as I know exist at all.)

The sweet spot for price seems to be moving to FF, and you seem to resent it. Others would like to be happy, not told that their wishes are stupid.

[Pål Jensen]

The sweet spot for price seems to be moving to FF, and you seem to resent it. Others would like to be happy, not told that their wishes are stupid.

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.