[jsherman999]

It has nothing to do with DOF as it is mostly irelevant. You also misuse the word DOF control; thinner DOF is not the same as more control over DOF.

OK. (I don't know what else to say at this point. I feel like we re-hash the same, evident information over and over again, to no effect.)

[rawr]

it's like I'm at home chatting with my wife and daughter...everything you say gets answered with "no it isn't" "thats not right" or "I'm not talking to you anymore"

LOL. That is such a valid analogy.

[monochrome]

lol, new thread heading - "FF rumor arguments, and DOF arguments" it's like I'm at home chatting with my wife and daughter...everything you say gets answered with "no it isn't" "thats not right" or "I'm not talking to you any more"

Post #345 = Thread Winner!! (You forgot, "Yabbut . . .")

I have a wife, two daughters, a daughter-in-law and an angry son. My favorite recent spousal rejoinder, during a conversation about Herman Melville: "Have you read the book?"

[TomTextura]

Listen up. You quoted me saying there were differences, (that are largely irrelevant to the every day shooter) but differences none the less and then claimed, right after the quote that I said there were no differences. I have three words for you... learn to read.

What I quoted you on:

There simply is no technical issue separating FF and APS-c 99.99 percent of the time for 99% of APS-c shooters.

Alright, I acknowledge that you're conceding a 0.01% difference. That's not much of a concession though. I'd actually say it's quite an overstatement but whatever. My bad for saying that you said there were no differences when you technically did say that there is a 0.01% difference.

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.

My preferences concerning FF vs. APS-C: purely subjective. The math/facts/physics concerning FF vs. APS-C: purely objective. I'm reacting because you seem to always throw out any objective difference that's ever explained in math or technical terms then proceed to tell people that they don't need FF when that's not even relevant because what's usually being said is that they want FF based on their subjectively and objectively qualified reasons. You have your reasons for shooting APS-C instead of some other smaller sensor camera or system. Would you like someone to repeatedly criticize your choice and tell you that you don't need APS-C because for 99.99% of your shots it won't make any difference? Maybe the more appropriate question is: Would you agree with their 99.99% assertion? Like I've said before, I just don't see the facts or people's own personal preferences as being things that are up for debate in any kind of meaningful way. Both facts and opinions can be valid but an opinion that a fact isn't valid is a silly opinion, IMO.

I apologize for irking you as I did. At this point I'm going to consider us at an impasse and be content agreeing to disagree. Truce?

[Williunck]

Jshermann and Tom, good posts guys, I mean it's a forum, we won't always agree all the time, but sometimes it's best to let it go, or take it to private. Cheers

monochrome and rawr - sometimes I just have to shrug and laugh, between the two of them I can't win.

[Aristophanes]

@normhead

On F1.4 lenses on APS-C for shallow DOF, I would love to use cheap f2.8 zooms for shallow DOF on FF too. F1.4 lenses are big and unwieldy... Not to mention normally not optimised for APS-C.

Also jay's samples with the downsampled 36mp vs 12mp images clearly shows the superiority of the D800 vs D700.

I had the Pentax FA* 24/2 in pristine, unused shape, and found it to be huge and unwieldy on both my K-x DSLR and Pentax 135 cameras. It was very heavy, requires a hood, and, frankly, delivered marginal DOF control and effect over my Tamron 17-50/2.8.

Basically from 28-60mm you get a decent size lens for f/2 or faster or things start to get very large, very fast. So, for everyday use, you really need to limit your FOV choices if you want to keep an FF lens reasonable.

Unless you go mirrorless, and take things up "a whole 'nother lebel."

[ihasa]

Luckily, if I've read this thread right, you don't *need* an f2 lens on FF though. Or at least, much less than you do on APSC. So as GTL says, you can get away with smaller, slower lenses.

[builttospill]

I had the Pentax FA* 24/2 in pristine, unused shape, and found it to be huge and unwieldy on both my K-x DSLR and Pentax 135 cameras. It was very heavy...

That's funny, I consider the FA*24 to be one of my lightest lenses. Certainly compared to my 80-200 it's small and light, but with the exception of the Limiteds, it's not very big on my K10D with attached grip.

[Aristophanes]

That's funny, I consider the FA*24 to be one of my lightest lenses. Certainly compared to my 80-200 it's small and light, but with the exception of the Limiteds, it's not very big on my K10D with attached grip.

Comparing a prime to a long zoom is silly.

The FA/24 is 405g, the FA 50/1.4 is only 220g, the 35/2 is 195g.

The FA 100-300 is 395g, but is a lot longer, for obvious reasons.

For a prime, the FA*24/2 is a large lens.

Just as a comparison, the Leica Summilux-M 24mm f/1.4 ASPH is 468g and the Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M f/ 3.4 ASPH Lens is only 285g.

Fast glass gets big and heavy faster than it attains FOV. With the Leica's lose ~ 2 stops and you lose almost half the size and mass. Now you see why high-ISO sensors are sooting a lot of problems.

[builttospill]

Comparing a prime to a long zoom is silly.

That was kind of my point, to be silly. I see the benefit of small SLR packages, as I love shooting with the MX and a small prime, but I also don't mind a bit of heft when shooting my K10D with attached grip or K2 DMD. The only reason I commented on your statement is because I found it interesting a lens I consider to be small compared to most of the lenses I use is too large for your taste. I've said it before, we're lucky to have so many options, both large and compact, for our cameras with the K-mount system. Wouldn't it be great if we had a FF to use with all those options?

[ogl]

Comparing a prime to a long zoom is silly.

The FA/24 is 405g, the FA 50/1.4 is only 220g, the 35/2 is 195g.

The FA 100-300 is 395g, but is a lot longer, for obvious reasons.

For a prime, the FA*24/2 is a large lens.

Just as a comparison, the Leica Summilux-M 24mm f/1.4 ASPH is 468g and the Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M f/ 3.4 ASPH Lens is only 285g.

It's not correct comparision. Leica lenses are RF lenses without AF.

Do you really feel 50-100 gramm of weight difference?

By the way,
Nikkor or Canon 24/1.4 are much bigger and heavier.

Canon
94x87mm
Weight 650g

Nikkor
83x88.5mm
Weight 620g


Zeiss ZE Distagon T* 25mm f/2
73x98mm
Weight 570g

Zeiss Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8
Dimensions 65x90mm
Weight 480g


Pentax is light and small

[TOUGEFC]

Pentax is light and small

The Pentax FA*24 may be lighter and smaller than the Canikon 24mm f/1.4's but its a full stop slower! And doesnt have a built in motor, I think the extra 220grams for an extra stop plus built in motor is certainly no deal breaker

[ogl]

The Pentax FA*24 may be lighter and smaller than the Canikon 24mm f/1.4's but its a full stop slower! And doesnt have a built in motor, I think the extra 220grams for an extra stop plus built in motor is certainly no deal breaker

That's why I also compared with manual Zeiss 25/2 and 25/2.8.

[ogl]

The Pentax FA*24 may be lighter and smaller than the Canikon 24mm f/1.4's but its a full stop slower! And doesnt have a built in motor, I think the extra 220grams for an extra stop plus built in motor is certainly no deal breaker

Motor is not heavier than screw-drive.

[TOUGEFC]

Motor is not heavier than screw-drive

I dont know about that, but if so..... an extra 220grams in weight is still certainly worth it for a lens that lets in twice the amount of light