[normhead]

Format size and editing are made easier through greater resolution. I routinely crop in PP to square or 5x7 or even 6x9. More MP's preserves rex while doing so. Native resolution has more importance for video for the application of PP shake reduction.

There is more resolution in a 645 than there is an any Nikon image, so what exactly would that be an argument for? Shooting with a 645? I routinely crop my 16 Mp images, sometimes to as much as half their size. And they are still good enough for what I do. Surely your argument isn't that you can't crop an APS-c image? That argument applies only when looking at a D800. And the D800 still loses to the 645D so where does that leave you?

I've heard it argued by a few pros that 12 Mp is all they need. What you're talking about is "How much overkill do I want?" You're also admitting that you aren't very good at composing in the viewfinder. Anything you can accomplish by with a heavy crop on a D800, you can accomplish in APS-c by changing lenses.

[jsherman999]

The biggest question I have after reading all the need for a full frame sensor ... is when did shallow depth focus become the driving force in photography? it seems that this to some is the most important aspect of a format or system and I do not know when that came into being. I do understand why it is desirable for many images or types of images.

I don't think it's the 'driving force', but it may seem that way because it's talked about so much... and the reason it's talked about so much is because so many folks just simply don't understand it, so it drives discussion, and then folks think that the level of discussion indicates level of importance.

That's simply it. If certain folks could understand the simple math, understand equivalence (after having it explained to them multiple times, in several different ways,) there would be a lot less discussion about 'DOF control' with available lenses. But some folks just refuse to understand, so the discussion continues. (And yes, I'm personally getting frustrated with two folks in particular. )


.

[eddie1960]

# 1 on my list is the OVF Norm. #2 is actually the wide angles (I'd like to shoot with a 35 FOV on FF for example, not currently an option on apsc. I'd also like to be able to achieve a little more OOF for subject isolation on that same 35 (also not possible on APSC) But I agree most of the time the extra DOF isn't what I would be in it for. If they actually put out a 24 1.8 like Nikon has It would answer the 35 issue quite well (aside from the ability to focus through a big OVF). Because I shoot in really crappy light frequently I like the idea of the extra stop of noise floor on comparable generation sensors, though I can be more than happy with 24mp in FF - I don't need 36. a 24mp using the tech of the current crop likely will provide better high iso performance with the larger photosites than the k5 or 36mp FF
I really just view a FF body as an extension of the current line in any case. whether you need it or not many people believe they do, many more think it's availability is required before they will look at a system (even though they may only ever buy a K30 level body they like to picture themselves owning the "pro" FF monster cam. For Pentax' future it's about having it as much as a marketing tool for the rest of the line as it is selling to the people desirous of it. I spent a hella long time selling this stuff (and other CE gear) and from experience I know you sell them what they want, not necessarily what is best for them, otherwise you lose the sale to someone else. So if people want FF or think they will want it in the future you have to be able to show them you are in the business. Even a hellish place like future shop has had FF camera in store for a long time (I sold the 5D there before I left the company - every person we sold it to could have been just as satisfied with a lower end body - and most are probably those idiots walking around with a high end kit in green mode with no clue as to why they can't get better pics (and I bet 25% of them now leave it home 98% of the time and use their phone)

[jsherman999]

I been asking the same question for over a year now.

Some people just spout the same thing over and over again.

Yes, you do tend to do that.

"You have more control over depth of field with an FF:
They ignore the corollary.. you have more control at the shallow end, traditionally the least desirable area.

I'd say it's the most desirable area. You really don't need as much DOF control past f/8 and smaller on either FF or aps-c cameras - you reach hyperfocal with a lot of lenses pretty quickly for one thing.

They also ignore that old maxim... out of focus areas in the foreground of an image tend to confuse the viewer...

I guess if the 'viewer' is easily confused and befuddled by much in life, that might be true. I just don't think that should be a major concern.

Most of the old film images that the FF guys hold up as example.. the photographer maximized his depth of field with the film he had in the camera and the light he had available. There are very few film images where the photographer actually shot with less depth of field than he had available.

In many of those applications, they really needed a certain level of DOF, and the reason they had to work so hard to get it was because those film capture areas were so very large. They had to stop down to f/32, etc, to get something we'd take for granted at f/5.6.

So, you're not describing some ideal aesthetic that we all should aspire to now, you're describing what 8x10, large format and later medium-format shooters had to do, with the tools available, to get that entire group of soldiers in focus, or that entire landscape sharp.

And, of course, with regard to aps-c vs. FF, with FF you can always stop down to match aps-c. You can't always go the other way. (I'm getting carpal-tunnel typing that.) If you want to bring up the "but you get diffraction at f/22 so aps-c is a better f/22 format!" argument, go ahead, but most folks are not shooting at f/22 more than a few times per year - even landscape shooters.

When I shoot macros and images where I want a good out of focus background area, shooting APS-c, it is very rare I actually shoot with the lens wide open. I often shoot the full range, wide open to in some cases 57. Often the picture taken at F 5.6 is the best image. Almost never the one shot at 1.7,2.4 or 2.8. This means FF wouldn't help me. I don't even use the narrow DoF capability that I have.

Cool.

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.

So you summarize the FF buyer as someone who's simply trying to show you personally up in some way? What happens when you finally get a FF camera yourself, or a MFD camera? Wouldn't you then become a member of this clueless crowd of format meanies?

Trust me, going through the FF thread seeing so many images that are unappealing, or could have been taken with an APS-c camera isn't going to help you understand this fascination. The concept of possibly having sharp 24 or 36 Mp images at some point down the line is of minor interest. Whether it's APS-c FF or MF, I'll deal with that when I need it.

More DOF control with available lenses, better noise control, better focus capability, and now (with 36MP FF) best DR ever created. These are simply descriptions of a tool's attributes. They are not value judgements about photographers. If those attributes are of no use to you.... and it's hard to imaginve how they couldn't be... then FF has no value to you.


.

Where is the format size on the list of priorities?

IQ comes first.

Then FF is your format after all!

Availability of the cost of appropriate lenses comes second. If I can't afford a the system I need, that becomes the first priority.

Here you are absolutely correct, and I agree. But FF doesn't need to be as expensive as you think. Certainly less expensive than MFD.

The number of mega pixels comes 3rd, although if I had a client willing to pay for large MP images and could pay for the system that produces the images he wants, that would put it first.

I used to feel that way as well, and it's still not first, but it's moved up. I think even the 24MP aps-c sensors are going to be great.

The last thing I'm interested in is the size of the sensor. Really, what kind of person thinks about that?

30,000 buyers per month, and that's just the D800. I guess everyone in that group is an idiot, and should just stick with aps-c!

It's crazy to talk about these things without demonstrating a need for an imagined characteristic.

Want, not need (unless you're a pro photog in competition with other photogs, then its more need.) (and none of the characteristics used in equivalence descriptions are imaginary.)

By that I mean like you tried with your APS-c and couldn't get it done, then were able to accomplish the objective with an FF camera. TO my knowledge, we don't have a single post in all the FF threads, that would fall into that category.

I've personally posted shots that couldn't quite be done with aps-c, at least without moving back through an existing wall, or suddenly growing to 12-feet-tall, or casting a spell that turned my prime into a zoom, or moving the background objects in relation to each other with my telekinesis, or increasing the QE of my sensor with a dial so ISO 6400 suddenly looked like ISO 1600, or zapped my f/2.8 lens into an f/1.8 lens. But of course, if you're just perusing the threads looking at images, you'd never know what went into getting those images, and you might mistakingly think "an aps- camera could have taken that shot."


.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 06-26-2012 at 01:54 PM.

[normhead]

If certain folks could understand the simple math, understand equivalence (after having it explained to them multiple times, in several different ways,) there would be a lot less discussion about 'DOF control' with available lenses.

You have exactly the same control of DoF with an FF camera you do with an APS-c. Just on the APS-c, the frame is smaller. A 50 mm 1.7 produces the same treatment of out of focus areas at the same distance, in a smaller area. You don't need math to understand that. People start with saying well if you have the same field of view, etc. but there is nothing about one filed of view or another that makes one more or less desirable than another in any kind of theoretical sense. I don't know how many times I have to say that, in how many different ways but with some people it just doesn't get through.

Save the math for math class. Photography is about taking images. I don't know how to put it simpler. If it doesn't show up in actual real images, or if it doesn't make your images better, it's not photography. It's math. Try selling your math. Or showing it to your rich uncle.

Ya Eddie, I agree with a lot there. And if and when Pentax comes out with an FF, I'm sure I'll give it a look. And if I have a rich uncle I don't know about who suddenly dies and leaves me a fortune, I'll give a 645 a look. But in the meantime, I'm not going to embellish the importance of things to justify my out of control desire for an FF camera.

At this point this FF thing has gotten so out of control... I'm going to start telling people I have an FF camera. I do, a Pentax Program Plus.... and an ME... just so they can go "oooh ahhhh."

After all, the ooooh ahhhh factor seems to be what it's all about. There is a bigger brighter viewfinder in my film bodies..., I even shoot with them every now and then. But when I show people my K-5 pictures, they aren't going to say "Hey... that was shot with an APS-c camera." are they?

[LFLee]

Hi normhead,

just stumble upon this thread to see if anyone have FF camera update. =)

But I think you don't need math to realize a FF have a shallow DoF than a APS-C camera? A MF will have even shallower DoF than a FF camera, is what I keep hearing from ppl, and seeing it myself.

It's good to love K5 and APS-C size, but I am sure if Pentax come out with FF, it will be a better camera, and I will be happy to have a choice to use FF. =)

Lee

[jsherman999]

At this point this FF thing has gotten so out of control... I'm going to start telling people I have an FF camera. I do, a Pentax Program Plus.... and an ME... just so they can go "oooh ahhhh."

Shoot a fast-50 for a couple weeks on your ME, scan and post the results here and I will probably ooh and ahh (for real) because that's the type of photography I do and love. I always like to see film shots. FF digital is just a cheaper, easier way to indulge that, for me. But if you do that, you'll have a hard time going back to that K5 viewfinder (or a FF digital viewfinder for that matter)

[normhead]

Yes, you do tend to do that.

But not as much as you do.

I'd say it's the most desirable area. You really don't need as much DOF control past f/8 and smaller on either FF or aps-c cameras - you reach hyperfocal with a lot of lenses pretty quickly for one thing

.

As I said DoF on APS-c is the same as on FF, it's just the frame that's smaller.

More DOF control with available lenses, better noise control, better focus capability, and now (with 36MP FF) best DR ever created. These are simply descriptions of a tool's attributes. They are not value judgements about photographers. If those attributes are of no use to you.... and it's hard to imaginve how they couldn't be... then FF has no value to you.

Nice you brought that up. Back when in the day you used to say the pixel density on a K5 meant you couldn't get as good noise control. Now that a D800 has the same pixel density, you've changed your tune. So which is it? The D800 sucks at noise control, or the K-5 could be as good as many FFs.

30,000 buyers per month, and that's just the D800. I guess everyone in that group is an idiot, and should just stick with aps-c!

By that definition every Pentax owner is an idiot.

So you summarize the FF buyer as someone who's simply trying to show you personally up in some way? What happens when you finally get a FF camera yourself, or a MFD camera? Wouldn't you then become a member of this clueless crowd of format meanies?

I'm summarizing the FF user as someone who for some quirk of artistic vision, needs something most people don't. Not something that is very likely to actually improve their photography. But you tell me. Are most of the 30,000 FF users, all intelligent educated in photography type users that have determined that for their photographic needs an FF is better. Hell there are a pile more educated photographers than I ever suspected. Next you'll tell me everyone who buys a Hummer needs it.

Then FF is your format after all!

Why? Why isn't MF?

I used to feel that way as well, and it's still not first, but it's moved up. I think even the 24MP aps-c sensors are going to be great.

And I would argue that you aren't going to noticeably improve on the IQ of a K-5 for the vast majority of the pictures you post, and the pictures you print. When you take a K-5 image and reduce it to 2400 pixels wide and take a D800 image and reduce it to 2400 pixels wide, you're going to have essentially the same image.

Want, not need (unless you're a pro photog in competition with other photogs, then its more need.) (and none of the characteristics used in equivalence descriptions are imaginary.)

Oh well then, want whatever you want. I want a 1000 mm lens that wieghs less than 6 ounces, but I don't go on an on about it.

OK, you dealt with the fluff.

Always too funny when someone picks apart your post, line by line, but leaves out the challenge.

I'll post it again in case you were so busy arguing with me that you missed it.

IN fact I haven't even seen a post from an FF user where he posts images taken at various F stops, showing that the widest one is the right one. That would be a really easy way to demonstrate the value of FF. Yet, no one has done it. It should be simple. Put your camera on your tripod, shoot from wide open to F-22 without missing a stop. Show us a sequence where you think the wide open shot is the best image. Because if you can't do that you can't prove you need FF.

Or if you're an APS-c shooter that thinks they need FF, why not show us an image where you think the APS-c image isn't narrow enough, where the loss of 1 stop of DoF made your picture less desirable, realizing that others looking at your sequence may not agree.

If FF is really demonstrably better for these shots, that should be easy to do...
And if you can't then FF isn't demonstrably better, although it may be better in your own mind. One can never argue what opinions people might have.

I'm not going to argue that an FF user couldn't contrive situations where they could meet this challenge. But it would demonstrate how meaningless this line of thought is. And it would demonstrate to everyone who tried it, how real their need for FF is. A much better way to make a decision than quoting math and DoF charts.

[TomTextura]

You have exactly the same control of DoF with an FF camera you do with an APS-c. Just on the APS-c, the frame is smaller. A 50 mm 1.7 produces the same treatment of out of focus areas at the same distance, in a smaller area. You don't need math to understand that. People start with saying well if you have the same field of view, etc. but there is nothing about one filed of view or another that makes one more or less desirable than another in any kind of theoretical sense.

I'm not sure if it's better described as painful or humorous to see how close you came to making an argument that would defeat your own resistance to the notion that FF might just give some photogs the options they want/need and then immediately pore gas on it and put a match to it.

[Ash]

OK, enough of the slinging match with the 'my format's better than yours' argument. Norm, saying that APS-C is the same as FF apart from the smaller frame concedes that there is an obvious advantage in FF having more in the frame to work with. For a given focal length, for sure there is no DoF difference for the same aperture, but for the equivalent FoV there will be. Getting it right in-frame is what would make the extra IQ advantage on FF appealing. No doubt you know this, but have asserted that no-one needs this extra IQ. If a photographer has no purpose with this extra headroom and is happy with the crop done in-frame with an APS-C, then all the power to that photographer. Horses for courses. But projecting this ideal on every other photographer ignores their needs in the line of photography being pursued.

There is nothing wrong with desiring the FF advantages even though Pentax APS-C cameras do quite well for most applications.

[normhead]

I'm not sure if it's better described as painful or humorous to see how close you came to making an argument that would defeat your own resistance to the notion that FF might just give some photogs the options they want/need and then immediately pore gas on it and put a match to it.

My argument is that there are a lot more people who think they need it than actually need it.

No doubt you know this, but have asserted that no-one needs this extra IQ

WHere did I say that? What I did was I offered a few simple tests to give yourself a chance to decide if you need it.

Norm, saying that APS-C is the same as FF apart from the smaller frame concedes that there is an obvious advantage in FF having more in the frame to work with.

Not exactly. Say you're shooting with a 50 mm lens. The image could be more appropriate for an APS-c frame or it could be more appropriate for FF frame. If you are carrying an FF camera you are carrying more weight and storing more information than you need even if you crop your image. In the instances where an APS-c frame is more appropriate to the subject, the FF camera has no advantage, whatsoever. If you change lenses you have the same issue. With the Sigma 8-16 you now have a lens that is smaller than an FF sensor, and the whole advantage of the larger FoV is pretty much negated. All you've done is warp my argument by always assuming that the FoV of the picture is desirable when viewed FF and lacking when viewed in APS-c. As I said above, if you don't like the FoV change lenses. That's true whether you have FF or APS-c. There is not always an advantage to FF. That gets turned on it's head when you're talking about a D700 compared to a K-5. Then the APS-c has the "over head" advantage. It's not an FF vs. APS-c advantage, it's a mega-pixel advantage.

Getting it right in-frame is what would make the extra IQ advantage on FF appealing. No doubt you know this, but have asserted that no-one needs this extra IQ.

Actually I what I said is, if I needed it I would buy it, but I don't actually need it. A bigger camera is always better. I don't carry an 8x10 or 4x5 or 645 either. And most people don't need one. ANd K-5 to D700, I suspect the K-5 would have the advantage in IQ.

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?

There is nothing wrong with desiring the FF advantages even though Pentax APS-C cameras do quite well for most applications.

And there's nothing wrong with pointing out that those advantages are way overstated by many. People can do what ever they want. People can argue Rolls Royces over VW beetles. You can also argue that the end result is the same. You get where you're going. I would argue, if you can't get where you're going with APS-c , try whatever you want. But don't make it sound like you're doing something "important" to every one that can't be accomplished on APS-c. Hell I was talking yesterday to a woman who takes pictures of cells through a microscope. If you think I told her she should just use APS-c , which is what you're implying I'd do, that's a little whacked. The right tool for the job. But let the job define it. Don't use the specs to define the job. That's back asswards.

I'm not arguing about any camera. But I feel at times obligated to point out that what's being tossed out there isn't really informative, and there are much better ways to determine if you'd like FF than reading through a bunch of math problems.

[TomTextura]

Want, not need (unless you're a pro photog in competition with other photogs, then its more need.) (and none of the characteristics used in equivalence descriptions are imaginary.)

Oh well then, want whatever you want. I want a 1000 mm lens that wieghs less than 6 ounces, but I don't go on an on about it.

The thing is, FF cameras aren't some unreachable fantasy whereas demanding a lightweight 1000mm lens is silly. There are many real and viable options for getting a FF camera from Nikon, Canon, and Sony. However, I believe that none of those options are as good as what Pentax could offer. That's meant as a complement to Pentax. I'm happy to join the ever growing clamor for Pentax to release a full frame camera. Adding another voice to the choir on a public forum is a great way to show increasing consumer demand.

[monochrome]

How soon before next March do y'all think I should start popping the corn? (C'mon - I'm just stirring the pot - hell I'm happy with what I get from a K-01!!. Actually it's a K-5 with a different Imaging engine and a 3" electronic viewfinder that you look at instead of through. Once you get accustomed to it it's fine.)

[redrockcoulee]

Ash

That is what my question was all about; I am well aware of the advantages of a larger sensor or larger piece of film. We found out that a puny 12 Megapixel full frame image is insufficient in making large prints, at least compared to a Fuji GX680. I also know from using both film and the K-r together about the lack of fast wide angle lenses. I seldom crop my medium format images and do not even print them large but I can if I want to and for even larger ones I have a 4X5 and larger film cameras. But it has never been my practice to shoot medium format or large format or even borrow the D3 or D4 simply because shallow depth of field is the ultimate goal.

My biggest concern and perhaps the only concern about Pentax coming out with a full frame is no matter what the camera is it will be too big too small not enough megapixels and too expensive and therefore the company will have less resources to invest in what they are currently doing. A full frame needs to be at least 36 megapixels or it will fail compared to the D800 however it must be as robust and as fast as the D4 and cheaper than a D600 or even the D400 or whatever Nikon has out. And better weather sealing that is currently available. And fully supported with new and inexpensive fast zooms and primes.

Can Pentax pull off a full frame camera that will satisfy those who are claiming that anything else is inadequate will still coming out with new and better APS-C ones? Not as easily as coming off with the other lines of cameras that are less of a competition to each other.

[normhead]

The thing is, FF cameras aren't some unreachable fantasy whereas demanding a lightweight 1000mm lens is silly.

You just ruined my day....