[ElJamoquio]

And who says don't change aperture? I say exactly the opposite.

You consistently compare images on APS-C shot at F/8, for example, and say...

You will see lots of large format style imges (but not as static!) nowadays due to APS (or smaller sensors). Particularly in travel photography. Images impossible to shoot on FF at that angle of view.

...that it's impossible to shoot the same image on 36x24, when in fact the only thing a photographer has to do is shoot at F/11.



Next, you usually say that then the shutter speed of the 36x24 will have to be unacceptably low for such a picture.

I'll then re-inform you that you can maintain the same shutter speed, and shoot at higher ISO on FF.

You'll then say that the SNR will be unacceptably high.

I'll tell you (again) that the SNR will be the same when printing as the APS-C camera.

You'll ask what the point is to have a FF camera at all.

I'll say that you'll have better resolution, can use smaller lenses, different lenses, less lenses, use zooms instead of primes, have a better viewfinder, enable smaller DOF when desired, have better SNR when less DOF is not critical or is desired, etc.

[Kerrowdown]

I just wish Pentax would give us the FF now and be done with it.

Then those who want it, can have it, those that don't, wont have to buy it.

Because it will stop threads like this going on and on.

Me yes, I will be one, that will be buying a couple of FF when available.

[Ash]

I just wish Pentax would give us the FF now and be done with it.

Then those who want it, can have it, those that don't, wont have to buy it.

Because it will stop threads like this going on and on.

Me yes, I will be one, that will be buying a couple of FF when available.

This is just far too logical and making too much sense to be allowed on this forum, mate!
We may have to wait a little while longer yet, but I think the wait will indeed be over if we give Ricoh the chance to develop a great product.
Those who know they don't need one need not buy one. But those that want one will have to ensure they have a few extra bucks saved up to save disappointment.

[Kerrowdown]

This is just far too logical and making too much sense to be allowed on this forum, mate!

Thanks Ash, it's not just me then.

[zxaar]

The lenses giving the same image (angle of view) will have different focal lenghts and different close focusing distances so it is not just a question of stopping down. If you are one of those (I'm not) who insist that the smaller format lens must display the exact same DOF wide open in order to compare them, the smaller formats lens will also have more apertures to choose from (as most lenses in reality display the same minimum aperture), display more maximum DOF and obviously closer minimum focusing distances.
Control over DOF means being able to control DOF over a range (or getting the DOF you want). A larger range give you larger control; it has nothing to do with absolute values except from the fact that enough DOF is an absolute, ie the image is unsucessful if not properly in focus, and the degree of out of focus is a relative and dependent on aestetics and taste. It has nothing to do with absolute thinness. If it had, a 8X10 large format camera would have had great control over DOF; in fact, it hasn't without tilt/shift movement. In fact, every large format photographer will tell you that control over DOF for him (or her) means more of it (ie more DOF).

That some want thinner DOF than what can be achieved with APS is fine by me but having more DOF than can be achieved with FF (at the same angle of view), eg near/far relationships, is also control over DOF and very much so.

That is you assuming every lens you want is available in APC or smaller formats. For example I would love to replace 85mm F1.2 in APC or m43. Do you have replacement in mind that could give me better DOF control with same framming. While you are at it also suggest to me how I can replicate DOF control of 50mm F1.2 on my k-x.

Assume same framming that is i want to take same shot with both formats.

[Class A]

To get 100% increase in resolution over 16mp you need 64Mp. This is a fact.

If you do not change the format size as well.

That's were your maths is wrong.

[Tesfaye]

If you do not change the format size as well.

That's were your maths is wrong.

I do not care who is right or wrong, although I think Pål has got some points. I would love a full frame though, and some good wide-angle lenses. For lots of reasons, APS-C is likely to remain my most used system due to weight.

[Digitalis]

nice to see this thread is going strong...just look at that optimism for a full frame camera...

[jsherman999]

The lenses giving the same image (angle of view) will have different focal lenghts and different close focusing distances so it is not just a question of stopping down. If you are one of those (I'm not) who insist that the smaller format lens must display the exact same DOF wide open in order to compare them, the smaller formats lens will also have more apertures to choose from (as most lenses in reality display the same minimum aperture), display more maximum DOF and obviously closer minimum focusing distances.
Control over DOF means being able to control DOF over a range (or getting the DOF you want). A larger range give you larger control; it has nothing to do with absolute values except from the fact that enough DOF is an absolute, ie the image is unsucessful if not properly in focus, and the degree of out of focus is a relative and dependent on aestetics and taste. It has nothing to do with absolute thinness. If it had, a 8X10 large format camera would have had great control over DOF; in fact, it hasn't without tilt/shift movement. In fact, every large format photographer will tell you that control over DOF for him (or her) means more of it (ie more DOF).

That some want thinner DOF than what can be achieved with APS is fine by me but having more DOF than can be achieved with FF (at the same angle of view), eg near/far relationships, is also control over DOF and very much so.

Good April fool's joke, for a while I thought you were serious!

Oh. You were.

Ok, I feel like we've explained this so much already, but it just doesn't seem to take...

For the same FOV and aperture and distance to subject, the FF image will have 1.3 stops less DOF than aps-c.

Example:

50mm f/2.8 FF, 35mm f/2.8 aps-c, taken from same position



You can stop the FF image down those 1.3 stops to match the aps-c shot if you wish, and you can't always go the other way with aps-c - until they make affordable, good 13mm f/1.8, 33mm 1.0, etc, etc lenses. This is what is meant by 'more DOF control', and it's not theoretical, it's very practical and you notice the capability and flexibility in the field right away.

Example - I wish I had an aps-c example of this at 35,mm f/1.8 to show you, but from this distance 35mm 1.8 on aps-c just doesn't 'float' the subject quite as much:

50mm @ f/1.8 FF == 34mm f/1.1 on aps-c


So to summarize - the FF shot can match the aps-c shot DOF - aps-c can't always go the other way. More DOF contol.

Now, aps-c has other advantages especially at telephoto when you take pixel density, size & cost in with the image-equivalency equation - but for most practical shooting situations and considering existing/possible lenses, FF gives you more DOF control.




.

[SyncGuy]

Good April fool's joke, for a while I thought you were serious!

Oh. You were.

Ok, I feel like we've explained this so much already, but it just doesn't seem to take...

For the same FOV and aperture and distance to subject, the FF image will have 1.3 stops less DOF than aps-c.

Example:

50mm f/2.8 FF, 35mm f/2.8 aps-c, taken from same position



You can stop the FF image down those 1.3 stops to match the aps-c shot if you wish, and you can't always go the other way with aps-c - until they make affordable, good 13mm f/1.8, 33mm 1.0, etc, etc lenses. This is what is meant by 'more DOF control', and it's not theoretical, it's very practical and you notice the capability and flexibility in the field right away.

Example - I wish I had an aps-c example of this at 35,mm f/1.8 to show you, but from this distance 35mm 1.8 on aps-c just doesn't 'float' the subject quite as much:

50mm @ f/1.8 FF == 34mm f/1.1 on aps-c


So to summarize - the FF shot can match the aps-c shot DOF - aps-c can't always go the other way. More DOF contol.

Now, aps-c has other advantages especially at telephoto when you take pixel density, size & cost in with the image-equivalency equation - but for most practical shooting situations and considering existing/possible lenses, FF gives you more DOF control.




.

Nicely put jsherman... This is what i don't quite get it as to why some people don't seem to understand when the idea of wanting a FF is broached.

It's not about more bokeh, it's not about high iso, it's not about the DoF, and it's also not about the cool factor.
It's all about FLEXIBILITY. In another words, MORE OPTIONS in one's photographic considerations.

If it's really all just about the above factors stated, why in the world do people buy a "proper" camera?
Heck! Shoot with a PnS, or even, a mobile phone then... -_-"..

Putting it across back to them, you don't need an APSC camera to get a picture, it's a want right? So why get a DSLR in the first place themselves?

Because one will have more OPTIONS and FLEXIBILITY right?

[Rondec]

If you read the forum here, you would believe that narrow depth of field is the goal of all photographers. The reality, is that for most images, (a) depth of field is secondary to content with regard to the value of an image and (b) more images suffer from lack of depth of field than the reverse.

Full frame does offer some narrow depth of field options with wide angle focal lengths that are not present with APS-C, but I really don't think that is make or break with regard to the format.

[cali92rs]

If you read the forum here, you would believe that narrow depth of field is the goal of all photographers. The reality, is that for most images, (a) depth of field is secondary to content with regard to the value of an image and (b) more images suffer from lack of depth of field than the reverse.

Full frame does offer some narrow depth of field options with wide angle focal lengths that are not present with APS-C, but I really don't think that is make or break with regard to the format.

You can step down from f11 to f16 to achieve equivalent DOF with any lens out there.
The same is not true going from f1.4 to f1.0. It is possible going from 2.0 to 1.4 in a lot of case, but your paying a huge size and cost pentalty.
I think your point is well taken saying that most times more DOF is necessary and desireable. But it would be nice to have the option when desired to get less DOF without those penalties, if they are available at all.

[monochrome]

I'm not very good. I remember just a few things I learned 40 years ago on a school newspaper Spotmatic. (I think it is exceedingly interesting that my daughter followed the same path 25 years later with a K1000.)

On 35mm film using a telephoto lens I want to isolate a subject 1/10 distant in feet the FL in MM @ f/5.6, so for a 200mm lens I would isolate a subject at 20ft. That gives me a Total DoF of about 1 foot and I would want my focus to place the subject in the far half of the in-focus area when possible.

The same lens on a Pentax APSc DSLR gives me 0.67 feet which is usually enough for a floral shot or a small bird, but doesn't work as well for a portrait. The same shot at f/8 gives me 0.94 foot on APSc with the same 19.5 - 20.5 limits (rounded). That's good enough for newspaper work, I think. Backgrounds might differ slightly between f/5.6 and f/8, so subject placement has to be altered to isolate the subject the same way. Big Whoop.

Using any DoF table I can calculate the differences between APSc and FF for any lens I own. The idea is to make my subject fit between the limits of the focus area at an f/stop (or select an f/stop that lets my subject fit) while having a pleasing 3-D quality.

I can't use 0.14 feet (50MM @ 5 feet @f/1.2 on APSc) any more than I can use 0.21 feet (50MM @ 5 feet @f/1.2 on FF).

But at f/5.6 I get that magical 1 foot again on FF, and 0.67 feet on APSc. I don't know very much about this, but is there some kind of a pattern here? There's got to be some math.

Is all this argument really about 4" at f/5.6?

[jsherman999]

Is all this argument really about 4" at f/5.6?

It's about a range of DOF depending on the FOV, distance to subject, and aperture, and makes all your common shooting situations just a bit... different when you move between formats.. So no, it's not just all about 4'' at f/5.6

.

[jsherman999]

If you read the forum here, you would believe that narrow depth of field is the goal of all photographers.

Only if you read it quickly.

It's not that narrow depth of field is the ultimate goal, it's just an equivalency measurement that's misunderstood quite a bit, so it tends to get talked about the most.

If more DOF control were all FF offered over aps-c, I'm not sure I'd bother with it. As it stands it's ether a nice perk, or a huge gain, depending on your perception and needs.

Look at it this way - why do you shoot aps-c, and not just micro-4/3? Two big reasons might be that the noise and DOF control is a bit better with aps-c, right? Exactly the same argument holds true going up the scale to aps-c vs FF, except the difference is even greater there. No mystery, it is what it is, and it's hard to see what there is to argue about.

(At least now we have a Full Frame section, so any arguments that occur in here are because some aps-c advocates wandered in to start trouble!)

.