Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-27-2012, 10:47 PM   #316
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,774
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You know, that sounds simplistic, but I find it to be true as well in my own personal shooting, which is probably part of the reason I travel with my aps-c kit as much or more than my FF kit. I'm usually not shooting in low-light as much when I travel, size matters a bit more, and I'm not isolating my subjects quite as often.... because I want more 'environment' in the shot when it's a new environment.

For example, these shots wer wide-open (35ltd @ f/2.8) because I needed the light, not because I wanted less DOF - in this case, a bit more DOF worked a little better to help define the background maybe a tad more:



In this one, however, I had hoped to retain the cloud structure while making the shoreline down there a bit more dreamy, removed, and the woman more isolated - 35mm @ f/2.8 on aps-c didn't quite get me what I was after, but I still like the flavor of the shot (35mm f/2.8):



On this one, I had been in Tennessee reading Civil War photography books all day and wanted to try some 'Civil war' looks out - or as close as I could get with what I had - and FF gave me a nice subject float here, from that distance and FOV (50mm f/1.8 on FF):



But of course, you can always stop down with FF if you do want to increase DOF (50mm f/8 on FF)


Jay, thanks for sharing your thoughts as well as nice samples.

06-28-2012, 12:46 AM   #317
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,509
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
You must be joking. At F:1.4 you get so thin DOF on an APS camera with an 85mm lens that you can hardly get the whole face in focus.
I know professional protrait photographers. Their fastest lens is F:2.8....
I have to agree here. Not that I shoot a lot if portraits, but f/2.4 on my DA70 is often too shallow.
06-28-2012, 12:50 AM   #318
Senior Member
paulusje's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 135
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
On this one, I had been in Tennessee reading Civil War photography books all day and wanted to try some 'Civil war' looks out - or as close as I could get with what I had - and FF gave me a nice subject float here, from that distance and FOV (50mm f/1.8 on FF):
First of all, thanks for sharing your thoughts and some great samples JSherman999!

Shots like that 'Civil war' shot are what makes me want to (also) have a FF kit. It's not just the 'subject float' as you describe it, but also a different (more detailed) look due to the bigger sensor size/resolution.
I do a lot of (full body) street portraits and a FF setup would allow me to stay closer to the subject with the same lens, allowing me to communicate more directly with the subject. I often use a fast 50 mm for that now and (even if I were to use it wide open) it would not give me that subject isolation you could get with FF.
06-28-2012, 01:08 AM   #319
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,191
I would only go FF for the wider FoV... so the 28-70 FL would once again make sense for a good go-rounder kit. Since going wide on APS-C is so expensive....

06-28-2012, 01:50 AM - 1 Like   #320
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteQuote:
Originally posted by ElJamoquio The data from DxO on the D800 and the D7000 shows that equivalency is quite true.
Please, don't use the term equivalency here. The data basically shows that the sensor technology is the same.

Except that you mean that equivalency means that equivalent cameras (when using the same sensor technology) deliver indistinguishable image quality. But that's true by definition or laws of nature, whatever you prefer.
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
You can't make formats equal without making them the same size.
Formats aren't equal, cameras are equivalent. I really don't know what problem you have, Pål. It is simple physics and people don't normally argue against the obvious. It's like argueing that two different glasses of beer can't be equivalent because they may have different shapes and therefore, aren't equal. If all what matters is how much beer they can temporarily store between bottle and stomach
06-28-2012, 02:36 AM   #321
Veteran Member
richard balonglong's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Baguio City, Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 350
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
I would only go FF for the wider FoV... so the 28-70 FL would once again make sense for a good go-rounder kit. Since going wide on APS-C is so expensive....
True..! The 28-70mm is really perfect on FF, also good on aps-c but on sudden situations the 28mm on aps-c isn't enough.
06-28-2012, 03:36 AM   #322
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
QuoteOriginally posted by richard balonglong Quote
True..! The 28-70mm is really perfect on FF, also good on aps-c but on sudden situations the 28mm on aps-c isn't enough.
I don't think it's wide enough on full frame either. I prefer 24mm width on my standard zoom.
06-28-2012, 03:57 AM   #323
Veteran Member
richard balonglong's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Baguio City, Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 350
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't think it's wide enough on full frame either. I prefer 24mm width on my standard zoom.
Yup, not wide enough, but the range is good for general use. Me too, if I have a 24-70mm, I would prefer that one...

06-28-2012, 05:21 AM   #324
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteQuote:
How so? I was as close to the subject as I could be, didn't want any further cropping, in some cases wasn't using all of the zoom range, and had more DOF than I would've liked. FYI I don't have permission to share, I could probably get it, but I'm not sure how it would help understand a fundamental technical limitation of APS-C when compared to FF.
And how do you know FF would have been good enough? How do you know you didn't need 645? I'm beginning to think, you really don't need FF, unless you have some really wide lenses. If you don't own an F 1.4 lens.. you can narrow your DoF buy buying wider , much cheaper than a whole new camera system. Personally, I don't own a 1.4, so saying my wallet talks louder than my voice for sure narrow DoF isn't as important to me as some.

So another qualifier...

If you don't own a lens capable of opening to F 1.4... you probably don't need FF. ANd if you're like me... you probably want to try F 1.4 lenses before investing in an extremely expensive FF system. I certainly can't argue with the guys who do a lot of shooting wide open at 1.4 claiming they need more control of DoF. They've proved to themselves their shooting style demands it. Personally I only shoot F 1.8, my fastest lens in low light. If you're like me, and most shooters, I've never felt the need to buy a super fast lens...and most of my shooting is done between 4 or 5.6 for sharpness... and 8-16 for depth of field. Full frame would not be an advantage for me at all.







I do just fine without it.

None of the above were shot at maximum aperture, I could have had narrower DoF if I wanted it. It's not at all relevant to most of my shooting. ANd 99.99 of my shots are like that. ANd 99.99% of the time , shooting FF wouldn't improve my pictures. There simply is no technical issue separating FF and APS-c 99.99 percent of the time for 99% of APS-c shooters.

For the rest, the guys with the 1.4 lenses who have pretty much exhausted their APS-c options... maybe FF will make you happy. It's worth a try.

Last edited by normhead; 06-28-2012 at 06:30 AM.
06-28-2012, 07:14 AM   #325
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Please, don't use the term equivalency here. The data basically shows that the sensor technology is the same.

Most people quickly recognize that resolving power for an equivalent picture is much higher (say 1.5x time higher, as we'd expect) for a FF camera/lens.

Most people have no problem accepting that you can stop down on a FF camera+lens with a different focal length and get, in theory, the same picture (one of the major difference between theory and reality is that the resolution of the FF camera will be 1.5x better, all else the same).

The problem most people (who don't accept equivalency) have is accepting that the above two statements are relevant to any discussion or decision.

Boiled to technical language, the problem most people have is, in my opinion, understanding that the DOF can be the same between two formats while maintaining the same SNR. Unfortunately in the past there hasn't really been APS-C and FF cameras using, basically, the 'same' sensor.... to my knowledge, at least, and I'm not a sensor historian.

Given the specs of the D7000 and the D800 it is reasonable to hypothesize that sensor technology is/was the same for those two cameras. I don't think people have too much of a problem accepting that; the pixel SNR is exactly the same for both according to DxOMark.

Then, to show that 'equivalency' is relevant, and there is zero downside to FF from a final-picture-standpoint, I need to show that SNR for a downsampled image is the same at FF ISO = (APS-C ISO)*(1.5)^2. Which of course DxOMark shows for me.

I was a bit 'loose' in using equivalency when really describing two sensors as being the same, but at the same time I was trying to "prove" equivalency (in AOV, DOF, *and* SNR) to people who won't have problems accepting two sensors being the same.


So hopefully the pentaxforums group can then move on to discussions of better DR and SNR at the low-iso end because FF will give you lower SNR at the same ISO... the tradeoff being smaller DOF at highest aperture. I.e., at F/22 or F/32 or wherever your lens stops, the DOF of FF will be smaller than that of APS-C. I don't recall it being a problem for me, and of course you could just crop at that point.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 06-28-2012 at 08:54 AM.
06-28-2012, 07:21 AM   #326
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteQuote:
Most people quickly recognize that resolving power for an equivalent picture is much higher (say 1.5x time higher, as we'd expect) for a FF camera/lens.
Nothing compares to an electron microscope for resolving power. DxO can show you the technical stuff about sensors.. they just can't show you if it's in anyway appropriate to what you're doing.

Assuming the largest file I'll probably ever need of looking at on a screen is 2400 pixels wide, I need to know if a down sampled image from an FF @ 2400 is any different from an APS-c also downsized to 2400 pixels wide. If we're talking about prints, I need to know if a print taken at 6000 pixels wide on an FF looks better than one taken at 4800 pixels wide on an APS-c. Those things aren't disclosed by DxO stats. People make assumptions.... but a great deal of the time , assumptions turn out to be untrue. Other factors come into play.

Last edited by normhead; 06-28-2012 at 07:26 AM.
06-28-2012, 07:42 AM   #327
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Denver
Photos: Albums
Posts: 570
@Norm. Do you remember this from a few pages back?
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
But projecting this ideal on every other photographer ignores their needs in the line of photography being pursued.
Did I actually say this somewhere or did you just make it up?

Well, if you didn't project your ideals on other photographers before (and I'd say you have more than on one occasion) you just did in your last post.
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There simply is no technical issue separating FF and APS-c 99.99 percent of the time for 99% of APS-c shooters.

You continue to display a belief that technical differences don't exist, even though they absolutely do, and that you are a better judge of other photographer's needs and wants than they are. Why? It's honestly baffling and, I hate to say it, rather irritating.

Last edited by TomTextura; 06-28-2012 at 07:43 AM. Reason: add clearer spacing
06-28-2012, 07:54 AM   #328
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteQuote:
Well, if you didn't project your ideals on other photographers before (and I'd say you have more than on one occasion) you just did in your last post.
Was there some value to that post besides being a personal attack on me? Discuss the ideas, leave the personal crap out of it. You have this idea about me projecting my ideals. as if everyone doesn't do that to some degree including yourself.. , you're just reacting because you have some other ideals that for some odd reason, you assume are completely objective. BS, you're as biased as the next guy. I gave a bit of advice for people considering FF, and I explained why I gave that advice. Now how long do you want to argue with me about me? Who do you think might be the expert, on me?

Why am I even of interest. I don't care to discuss me, why do you?
06-28-2012, 08:43 AM   #329
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Nothing compares to an electron microscope for resolving power. DxO can show you the technical stuff about sensors.. they just can't show you if it's in anyway appropriate to what you're doing.

Assuming the largest file I'll probably ever need of looking at on a screen is 2400 pixels wide, I need to know if a down sampled image from an FF @ 2400 is any different from an APS-c also downsized to 2400 pixels wide. If we're talking about prints, I need to know if a print taken at 6000 pixels wide on an FF looks better than one taken at 4800 pixels wide on an APS-c. Those things aren't disclosed by DxO stats. People make assumptions.... but a great deal of the time , assumptions turn out to be untrue. Other factors come into play.
I've done stitching that, even at screen resolution, I could tell the difference between the downsized 100 megapixel and the 'standard' k-5. YMMV.
06-28-2012, 08:51 AM   #330
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Denver
Photos: Albums
Posts: 570
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Was there some value to that post besides being a personal attack on me? Discuss the ideas, leave the personal crap out of it. You have this idea about me projecting my ideals. as if everyone doesn't do that to some degree including yourself.. , you're just reacting because you have some other ideals that for some odd reason, you assume are completely objective. BS, you're as biased as the next guy. I gave a bit of advice for people considering FF, and I explained why I gave that advice. Now how long do you want to argue with me about me? Who do you think might be the expert, on me? Why am I even of interest. I don't care to discuss me, why do you?
I'm not personally attacking you. I'm not calling into question your character in any way. I'm not discussing you personally either. I am discussing your posts and the ideas expressed in them.

We both share a love for photography. We very well could share many opinions in common, be they photography related or otherwise. What I have done is pointed out where you contradicted yourself on this thread so that you can have a chance to reconsider your position and explain yourself if you like. I did say that the posts where you dismiss facts and people's personal preferences rub me wrong and I stand by that. Allow me to explain why. If I have a question and want a recommendation and you give advice, that's one thing. If I make a statement that is technically wrong, which I've done a number of times, I will appreciate being corrected. It's another matter though when you tell me, and others, what the appropriate features to want from a camera are, especially when someone is stating what they want and are not asking you what they should want. When someone says they want something and you second guess that by telling them they don't need it, that's not adding anything to the discussion, that's not informative. The fact remains that the K-mount can support a FF sensor. Publicly expressing the desire for Pentax to produce a FF camera is well within reason and shouldn't have to keep being second guessed, especially when all that's being said is that the facts don't matter and that personal tastes aren't valid.

Maybe you should consider how someone who would like Pentax to offer a FF, such as myself, would take your following statement from earlier in this thread.
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
As far as I can tell the whole FF thing is an attempt to say.. I am so much more advanced than you I am not surprised that you can't figure out what I'm doing. You don't understand my love of extremely narrow depth of field because you're a dolt with no sense of style or composition, and if you aren't dying for full frame it's simply because you don't understand."
That's basically saying that I, and many others, are doing nothing more than being pretentious by expressing our desire for a Pentax FF. Not exactly a compliment, now is it?

I am being direct and a bit snarky but please don't take it too personally. Take whatever value you will from this and my previous post.

Last edited by TomTextura; 06-28-2012 at 09:44 AM. Reason: add: "and the ideas expressed in them"
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!
cameras, dslr, frame, full-frame, pentax, pentax full frame, rumor, rumors, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 02-13-2012 10:09 AM
The full frame Pentax that never was dj_saunter Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:55 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