Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-01-2013, 11:37 AM   #751
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,428
Jay - my point was - rather sarcatically put - YES IT IS!!. By moving myself and my subject I can, in fact, make identical shots with different Fields of View (different Aspect Ratios) at a certain f/stop. That is, I can always arrange things so that I get my 12" of Depth of Field at f/5.6.

If, however, I can't move myself or can't move my subject then by mathematical definition I cannot make the same shot with 0.67 of the FoV as I can with 1.00 of the FoV. There will be times that the physical limitations of the world simply prevent me getting my 12" of DoF. I'm simply shocked that otherwise apparently intelligent members don't believe DoF matters.

Of course, I could shoot 4x5 or 6x7 or a box camera and have a LOT more options. And noise is another matter entirely.


Last edited by monochrome; 04-01-2013 at 11:43 AM.
04-01-2013, 11:39 AM   #752
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 696
I'm with Pål on this one. But I'm coming to APS-C from the MUCH smaller Olympus XZ-1, where the tiny sensor and lens gives fantastic depth of field -- you don't have to even think about it -- at full tele, the small lens is at 24mm (112mm equivalent).

So I'm having to remember about DOF with my K-01. Lots of notes from Dofmaster! Move up to a full frame? Aargh! That would be even worse! Yes, I would get better image quality. The FF sensor has 2X the area, something like that? A lot more-light-gathering ability, much better in low light, and a lot more fast lenses -- cheap now -- out there to take advantage of it. Like my old A-type 50mm f/1.4.

But is the difference great enough to justify the cost -- and the extra DOF bother? Not for me. Photography is compromise... and APS-C is the sweet spot!

EDIT -- apology. Didn't realize I was posting this in the FF section -- was looking for Pentax news this morning re new cameras, and ended up here... am NOT trying to start an FF vs APS-C argument. You know, wouldn't it be neat if our cameras had a DOF app in the software? Like an onboard Dofmaster? Wouldn't have to carry around my notebook...

Last edited by jon404; 04-01-2013 at 11:46 AM.
04-01-2013, 11:41 AM   #753
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by SyncGuy Quote
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?
Yes, it's about flexibility and some enhanced capabilities in challenging shooting situations. Same reasons apply as to why we shoot DSLRs over bridge cameras and P&S's in the first place!
04-01-2013, 11:43 AM   #754
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Jay - my point was - rather sarcatically put - by moving myself and my subject I can, in fact, make identical shots with different Fields of View (different Aspect Ratios) at a certain f/stop. That is, I can always arrange things so that I get my 12" of Depth of Field at f/5.6.

If, however, I can't move myself or can't move my subject then by mathematical definition I cannot make the same shot with 0.67 of the FoV as I can with 1.00 of the FoV. There will be times that the physical limitations of the world simply prevent me getting my 12" of DoF. I'm simply shocked that otherwise apparently intelligent members don't believe DoF matters.

Of course, I could shoot 4x5 or 6x7 or a box camera and have a LOT more options. And noise is another matter entirely.
Ah, I see. yes. Also keep in mind the changing perspective if you move, too, even if you don't have a wall behind you.

04-01-2013, 11:44 AM   #755
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
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!)

.
I shoot with APS-C over four thirds, because Pentax doesn't make a four thirds camera and I like my lenses. I would someday like a full frame camera, as long as I don't lose in body stabilization. But it won't be for more narrow depth of field. It would be for better viewfinder and (hopefully) improvement in auto focus.

The reality is that APS-C, comparing Pentax to Olympus, has no benefit with regard to depth of field, because Olympus has fast lenses available (expensive, but still) and Pentax has relatively slow, small lenses. But, you still have a hard time beating a lens like the DA 15 limited with other set ups, because it isn't a lens where the benefit comes from narrow depth of field, but rather large depth of field and great rendering and colors/contrast.
04-01-2013, 11:52 AM   #756
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
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.
I just remember when I first got my FA 50 1.4 and was shooting on film. I fell in love with f1.4 and f2.0 -- up until I got my first rolls of film back and discovered that I had a bunch of soft, out of focus photos. It turned out that when I shot at f4, I just got better results. I would take a photo of my kids and one was in focus and the other, not at all, otherwise.

For most of photographic history, narrow depth of field was viewed more as an undesirable side effect of having more light gathering ability, than something great, in and of itself.
04-01-2013, 12:15 PM   #757
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Berlin
Posts: 865
Though having both formats available, I just can advice anybody to check e.g. 500px for the shots one admires and then have a look at the exifs. I had to realize, that I prefer one the one hand architecture and landscapes where the extended DOF control is not required and on the other hand most portraits I liked were mostly shot with an aperture a Sigma 30/1.4 would deliver as well. There are only a few exceptions which I would like to realize but which are not possible with APS-C.... same goes for the "Some Full-frame shots & thoughts"-Thread in the forum... only a few candids which require FF (AF is of course another issue).

In the end it boils down to the creativity of the photographer. There are amazing shots taken with simple (APS-C) setups. I'll try very hard this year not to buy any lenses for either format and see what happens.
04-01-2013, 01:34 PM   #758
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by jon404 Quote
I'm with Pål on this one. But I'm coming to APS-C from the MUCH smaller Olympus XZ-1, where the tiny sensor and lens gives fantastic depth of field -- you don't have to even think about it -- at full tele, the small lens is at 24mm (112mm equivalent).
If you want to mimic small-sensor DOF, go to Av or TAv mode and set the aperture to f/11 on 36x24 or f/8 on APS-C. I haven't calculated anything - just ballpark guesses - but somewhere around there you'll get the DOF you're looking for.

You'll still have loads more resolution with the larger format. If the resolution and viewfinder, et. al., doesn't matter to you, then you're probably better off with a 4/3rd camera.

04-01-2013, 01:37 PM   #759
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The reality is that APS-C, comparing Pentax to Olympus, has no benefit with regard to depth of field, because Olympus has fast lenses available (expensive, but still)
Micro-4/3rds has the 20mm Panasonic, right? It's equivalent to a 40mm f/3.5 or something on FF?
... And some Voigtlander that's really fast that's about $1k and is a 50mm f/1.9 or so on FF?

4/3rds doesn't have anything (that I'm aware of) that would compare to a 35mm f/2.4 (~22mm f/1.6 or so)
4/3rds doesn't have anything that I'm aware of) that would compare to a 50mm f/1.8 (35mm f/1.2 or so)

I could be way off of course, I don't know that much about micro-4/3rds, and know even less about 4/3rds, and of course I'm not sure which system you're comparing to Pentax.
04-01-2013, 02:30 PM   #760
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Micro-4/3rds has the 20mm Panasonic, right? It's equivalent to a 40mm f/3.5 or something on FF?
... And some Voigtlander that's really fast that's about $1k and is a 50mm f/1.9 or so on FF?

4/3rds doesn't have anything (that I'm aware of) that would compare to a 35mm f/2.4 (~22mm f/1.6 or so)
4/3rds doesn't have anything that I'm aware of) that would compare to a 50mm f/1.8 (35mm f/1.2 or so)

I could be way off of course, I don't know that much about micro-4/3rds, and know even less about 4/3rds, and of course I'm not sure which system you're comparing to Pentax.
I don't know. Olympus has a 17mm f1.8 and a 12mm f2. Voigtlander makes 17, 25, and 42mm lenses that are f0.95. Anyway, if you look at the DA limiteds, the very fastest one is the DA 70 which is just f2.4. The FA limiteds (I own 2) are very nice, but not exactly a whole lot cheaper than the Voigtlanders.
04-01-2013, 03:38 PM   #761
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,428
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Also keep in mind the changing perspective if you move, too, even if you don't have a wall behind you.
I was sort of trying to keep it simple - within the limits of my intellect.
04-01-2013, 05:59 PM   #762
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't know. Olympus has a 17mm f1.8 and a 12mm f2. Voigtlander makes 17, 25, and 42mm lenses that are f0.95. Anyway, if you look at the DA limiteds, the very fastest one is the DA 70 which is just f2.4. The FA limiteds (I own 2) are very nice, but not exactly a whole lot cheaper than the Voigtlanders.
Voigtlander 17mm f/0.95: $1250 , has no AF, is a bit slower and a bit longer than the 31mm F/1.8, and is $300 more expensive.
Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95: $1200, has no AF, is the same speed and a bit longer than the 43mm f/1.9, and is $600 more expensive
Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95: $1200, has no AF, is quite a bit slower and the same length as the 50mm f/1.4, and is $800 more expensive
Voigtlander 42mm f/0.95: not introduced yet, will probably be $300-700 more than the 77mm


If you compare the FA's to the Voigtlanders I suspect you'll have to spend $1500 more (hey, that difference will buy you a full-frame camera!) and have far worse resolution to boot.

What's the AF price advantage in the market... $200? $400? per lens...?
04-02-2013, 03:19 AM   #763
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Voigtlander 17mm f/0.95: $1250 , has no AF, is a bit slower and a bit longer than the 31mm F/1.8, and is $300 more expensive.
Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95: $1200, has no AF, is the same speed and a bit longer than the 43mm f/1.9, and is $600 more expensive
Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95: $1200, has no AF, is quite a bit slower and the same length as the 50mm f/1.4, and is $800 more expensive
Voigtlander 42mm f/0.95: not introduced yet, will probably be $300-700 more than the 77mm


If you compare the FA's to the Voigtlanders I suspect you'll have to spend $1500 more (hey, that difference will buy you a full-frame camera!) and have far worse resolution to boot.

What's the AF price advantage in the market... $200? $400? per lens...?
Are you comparing these to full frame lenses, or to FA limiteds mounted on APS-C, which is all that Pentax has? Because the Voigtlander 17 is more the equivalent of a 26mm f1.3 lens mounted on a K5 body. Yes, they are expensive, but it makes micro four thirds at least equivalent to APS-C when it comes to narrow depth of field.

I agree that neither format matches up particularly well against full frame, at least when it comes to narrow depth of field, but Pentax doesn't exactly have a set of speedy primes, either.
04-02-2013, 04:24 AM   #764
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by jon404 Quote
wouldn't it be neat if our cameras had a DOF app in the software? Like an onboard Dofmaster? Wouldn't have to carry around my notebook...
Just use the DOF preview in liveview. (Not the one in the VF.) It doesn't just give you a number, but actually shows you how the DOF is going to end up.
04-02-2013, 04:37 AM   #765
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
I find the on-lens DoF markings most useful. I don't often study them before the shots I take, because I have a fair idea what aperture I'd like to get the DoF I need for the shot before I take it.
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!
change, cp, ff, full-frame, interview, pentax, photokina, question, time, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax Full Frame dand33 Welcomes and Introductions 5 10-16-2012 07:50 AM
K30, K5n, K3 and maybe full-frame at Photokina... frankfanrui Pentax News and Rumors 638 09-06-2012 07:08 AM
Pentax To Announce the K-3 Full Frame DSLR At Photokina Danny Delcambre Pentax News and Rumors 662 09-04-2012 05:05 PM
Tokina plans 16-28mm F2.8 for full-frame. Is that a singht? i83N Pentax News and Rumors 20 03-03-2010 02:19 AM
Any plans for full frame soon? FrancisK7 Photographic Technique 2 09-22-2008 07:15 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:56 PM. | 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