[ElJamoquio]

A 50 1.2 creates a shallow DOF on APSC that's barely useable. The DOF on FF will be even more narrow. I'm very intersted in what kind of situatiation a photographer would actually need 50mm 1.2 on FF.

FF with a 50mm f/1.2 has a 8 foot DOF at 10 yards, according to some common assumptions. Online Depth of Field Calculator

At the hyperfocal distance, everything between 40 yards and infinity is in focus. That's at least half of my sunset photos, where every bit of ISO reduction helps.

Personally I'd still probably use a 1.4, though.

[topace]

A 50 1.2 creates a shallow DOF on APSC that's barely useable. The DOF on FF will be even more narrow. I'm very intersted in what kind of situatiation a photographer would actually need 50mm 1.2 on FF.

The same sort of equivalence holds true stepped down a few steps. Shooting the 50mm at f/3 would be around the same as 35mm f/2, which actually exists. But by then, you'll be shooting the 50 stepped down, usually with a marked increase in several IQ properties.

As for the specific question of the usability of 50/1.2 on FF, I guess I'll find out, since I have one coming in.

What becomes easier on APS-C is of course deep DOF, which can definately be interesting. Even if a FF pentax is released, unless it's 2.25 times the amount of pixels of their APS-C flagship, I'll probably keep an APS-C around for deep-DOF macro.

[Alizarine]

In my place MF is used only in the advertising world mostly =)) FF is the "in thing" for big-buck-pro's here.

even though some of them could've been taken just as good with a D40 or K-m, lol

[Cannikin]

A 50 1.2 creates a shallow DOF on APSC that's barely useable. The DOF on FF will be even more narrow. I'm very intersted in what kind of situatiation a photographer would actually need 50mm 1.2 on FF.

False. Contrary to popular belief, a given lens, aperture and distance on FF will have deeper apparent DOF than the exact same lens, aperture and distance on APS-C when viewed at the same image size. Go ahead, plug in 50mm f/1.2 into any DOF calculator for FF and APS-C and see what it gives you.

This is because APS-C is viewed at a higher magnification when displayed at the same image size, so the circle of confusion becomes smaller. That is to say, the distinction between "out of focus" and "in focus" becomes finer and easier to distinguish: what is judged to be "in focus" on FF may be considered "out of focus" on APS-C.

The "DOF advantage" of FF comes from the fact that to get the same field of view you need a different lens/focal length. The shorter focal lengths used by APS-C have deeper DOF at a given distance and aperture than longer focal lengths used on FF, thus you need a larger aperture on APS-C to "compensate".

Btw, if 50 f/1.2 on APS-C is "barely useable", what does that make the FA 77 on FF (50 f/1.2 on APS-C has approximately the same DOF/FOV as 75mm f/1.8 on FF), not to mention 85 f/1.4?

---

Last edited by Cannikin; 10-17-2012 at 10:44 PM.

[twitch]

A 50 1.2 creates a shallow DOF on APSC that's barely useable. The DOF on FF will be even more narrow. I'm very intersted in what kind of situatiation a photographer would actually need 50mm 1.2 on FF.

f/1.2 doesn't mean a narrow DOF, only a relatively narrower one as the DOF is hugely dependent on FL & distance to subject. There are plenty of cases when someone would want a DOF of 2 feet instead of 4, or 1 foot instead of 2.

[Allison]

Just take a look at ones local market.
1. Is the photographer a career professional and/or artistic professional, r part-time pro.
2. How long have they been doing photography, how many professional clients, and what does the portfolio look like.

In Pittsburgh, PA there are nine professional photographers that do weddings with either high end full frame's and also offer medium format. Naturally not every one of their jobs is medium format. Let me also specifically mention; that's part of my market. Last calender year (2011) I did eight wedding that were done mostly with medium format at the wedding event. Five of those weddings were enough to pay for A Hassy with three lens' and then some. Naturally that's also not including all of the other work I've done.

I am not getting into this beyond this last post, but I am going to address these last few things before I let it go.

Don't knock the "part-time pros". Just because someone has another job doesn't mean that they aren't putting full-time work into it. I have to have a day job because I need health insurance. my husband is self-employed and a pre-existing condition makes me uninsurable on my own...but when I work for a corporation I am guaranteed coverage. It is merely a fact of life in the USright now. Would I like to be just a photographer? Of course. As it stands, I got to work for 8 hours, plus my one hour lunch and my horrible commute in Pittsburgh and then I come home to work. I an working at photography typically from 7-11 each night Monday thru Friday. Saturday? Well that is getting up early and shooting all day. Sunday? Usually a portrait session or two followed by editing from 4-11. I put more than full-time 40 hours into my, as you called it, "part-time pro" status.

And the portfolio of someone not using a medium format can be pretty good. The camera and the lenses are just part of the tools - like an artist with his brushes and paints. Can they help you do a better job, certainly. But let's be serious, gear isn't the only thing that factors into making a great image. The photographer comes first. I have seen some pros in our market with film medium format portfolios that are awful...they have all of the right tools, but none of the artistry.

It is funny that we are in the same market. I have clients ask me if I shoot digital or film...I have had clients ask about crop sensors or full frame...but no one has asked about if I am shooting medium format or not. Most are just concerned that they are going to get the digital images with rights. Are there photographers in Pittsburgh firing off some rolls of MF, yes, but there are plentry of other, qualified, quality professionals in this market that aren't shooting medium format at all.

You shouldn't forget that not every couple can afford a pretentious, stuck-up photographer like yourself. Yeah, we have the platinum wedding set in Pittsburgh....I am on the preferred vendor list for some of those venues. But don't forget that in the steel town that you are living in there are also a lot of couples who don't have a $25k+ budget. According to you they should just get crap because they can only afford $1-2k on their photographer. Just because they can't afford you doesn't mean that there aren't photographers in the Pittsburgh market who are going to deliver them beautiful photographs of their wedding.

[Fontan]

I am so good that I outshoot all pros with any equipment, only with iPhone cam. My clients thank God everyday for my talent.

[gazonk]

I am so good that I outshoot all pros with any equipment, only with iPhone cam. My clients thank God everyday for my talent.

That might actually be a business idea: "your wedding instantly in retro look on Instagram! The guests can enjoy the photos while the father-in-law is speaking!"


(Actually I'm a bit amazed that the wedding photography industry is such a big thing - people are putting far too much money and prestige into weddings and still most if them get divorced )

[Clavius]

f/1.2 doesn't mean a narrow DOF, only a relatively narrower one as the DOF is hugely dependent on FL & distance to subject. There are plenty of cases when someone would want a DOF of 2 feet instead of 4, or 1 foot instead of 2.

Of course, I already knew that. I've used my 55 1.2 on both my APSC K5 and my FF 5D. Maybe it's just my style of shooting or my personal preference, but having a DOF that kan fit only one thin person on a distance of 50 meters is not often needed. (=understatement.)

Ever wondered why there is no, say 50 1.4, for medium format?

I have to admit, it's fun using my Porst 55 1.2 on FF with the large viewfinder... But I always use it stopped down. It's hyper-sharp then.

But I'll repeat: it may be just me. Look at the examples on the ƒ1.2 thread here on PF. There are so many portraits there that have eyes in focus, but noses and ears out. And flowers with the middle in focus and the petals towards and away from the viewer out of focus. It's not even funny anymore. It's horrifying.

[gazonk]

Of course, I already knew that. I've used my 55 1.2 on both my APSC K5 and my FF 5D. Maybe it's just my style of shooting or my personal preference, but having a DOF that kan fit only one thin person on a distance of 50 meters is not often needed. (=understatement.)

I said in another thread a couple of weeks ago that my DA35 Ltd. can do most of what I would use my M-50/1.7 for when I still used my LX (In fact, in terms of pure light capture, it can even do more, because the K-5 is fine up to ISO 3200, and I would have needed ISO 1000 film to match that @ f/1.7 with the LX. And then I haven't even counted the SR advantage...). The reason is that on most of the occasions where I used the M-50/1.7, I stopped down to f/2.8 anyway, and would have stopped down to f/4 if my film had been fast enough.

But there's one class of images where I miss really thin DoF: When I use the DA35 Ltd. at f/2.8 at distance of several meters and want to isolate the subject from its background. Those subjects and situations do exists (for instance it may just be that the background is visually noisy) - they're just not very common.

[Alizarine]

But I'll repeat: it may be just me. Look at the examples on the ƒ1.2 thread here on PF. There are so many portraits there that have eyes in focus, but noses and ears out. And flowers with the middle in focus and the petals towards and away from the viewer out of focus. It's not even funny anymore. It's horrifying.

but some photogs really, really love bokeh. I don't understand it myself. It does make a photo look good a lot of times, but to some, it's like... everything. I don't know, but I guess it's not my cup of tea too.

[Allison]

but some photogs really, really love bokeh. I don't understand it myself. It does make a photo look good a lot of times, but to some, it's like... everything. I don't know, but I guess it's not my cup of tea too.

I think utilizing the shallowest depth of field possible is just a trend right now.so is cross processing/instragram like processing. These trends do go away after a while - look at the whole everything in black and white with one thing in color trend. It was here, very popular, and now it is not as popular any more.

[Raffwal]

I have been wondering what the heck this thread is about. But now I figured it out, it's about the syndrome called "FF Underdevelopment" that is affecting the company.

[PentaxMom Felua]

FF
Fully Fulfilled.
Eyes that see. A hart that feels. And cares. And maybe a photographer registers. To show you what it is like. Through haze and pixels, we see. And are touched.
A photographers desire fulfilled.
FF, a true dream. Full Fulfillment.
Not one dollar changes that.
Whether you have that one dollar or not.
Nor the tool you use.

[Medium FormatPro]

But don't forget that in the steel town that you are living in there are also a lot of couples who don't have a $25k+ budget

And how many people throughout the entire state still work in a mill?

Perhaps we should "google" the state of Pennsylvania to find out how many people in the state have degrees and then what the average yearly income is for each resident.

I've also done weddings for far less than 1k on occasion; even sometimes literally donating time and services to people who cannot quite afford it.


About the hardware... Sure one can get quality results, even with the soon to be phased out Q, but also not having equipment can also serve to limit ones results as well. But it's also about more than the image sensor. It is about the lens, and also much more than the lens - it's quite suprising too see someone out there with higher end gear (whether it's a K-5 or even an F5) and then have a 2k lens on it, and then still how many people have quality lighting to back it all up. Again, technically one could almost get away with a flash that costs less than fifty dollars - or perhaps much more than a multiple 1k per flash set-up.

A bit more about a 1k wedding. Think of how much the typical photographer would make on a 1k wedding?

How much per hour in wages for the event(S)? How much just to print the results? How much to color balance and calibrate to the bride? How much for other editing? Also noting that most quality wedding albums easily exceed one hundred dollars each. Now we're talking that the photog would almost be making minimm wage for that - especially if they "legally declare" that income.