Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-01-2013, 02:53 AM   #166
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 591
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
In my own hypothetical experience using my brand-new-to-me MZ-S and FA50/1.4 and then my K-01 and FA 50/1.4, both at f/5.6, in order to achieve a similar DoF (about 12" from near limit to far limit) I merely have to back up about 20% (1 foot) and move the subject about 20% farther away from the background (2 feet) with the K-01. I suppose I ought to actually do something like this and post up

Of course that isn't always practical, but the reality is FF is sufficient to achieve a certain effect, but it isn't absolutely necessary.

IM not-so-H (in fact, actually somewhat arrogant) O, for anyone less than a true, large-printing pro, or a pro who actually sells to NatGeo, FF is like a red Ferrari. It is mostly an exercise in testosterone display, either by the user or the client.

Of course I would probably . . . .
In my hypothetical experience, the fishing on Mars is really great at this time of year.

As a large-printing pro for over 30 years, I view a quality full-frame body as a logical extension to the Pentax system- or the lack of one as a logical reason for jumping brands at my next upgrade.

08-01-2013, 03:14 AM   #167
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
Large printing pros are a rapidly declining market (sadly).

We know this because Ford paper and a host if other print support companies are on trouble or have gone away in the last few years.

I'm not saying his is a good thing for the art of photography. I'm saying print capabilities are becoming a very small driver o purchasing decisions.

The reason why Sigma is offering a 1.8 zoom is because their math shows that APS cameras will remain affordable for about 80%+ of the market while FF is simply far too expensive and may actually reach market saturation faster than APS, and may have much slower upgrade (aka consumer reinvestment cycles).

It all depends in how willing the sensor manufacturers are to commoditize FF. sensor production as what happened to APS, and whether a very large segment of consumers would still jump given the huge leap in IQ offered by APS. The industry has a very strong incentive to keep FF in a very high price tier relative to both perceived and actual IQ benefits to the consumer. And FF cameras are quite large where a bi chunk of the market is going the other way.
08-01-2013, 06:42 AM   #168
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,407
QuoteOriginally posted by noser Quote
I have a 50 1.2 and while I've not used it on a FF (even film), the challenge with 1.2 is that care must be taken to get an interesting or significant part of the image in focus due to shallow dof. So it's a game of distances, dof, and subject contrast and texture to get a nice image. Not impossible, but not for snapshots either.

As you suggest, things at 1.4 and 2.0 are much improved, and at least with my copy images are much crisper and the image is not generally 'soft' like it is at 1.2. Unless I'm doing beauty shots I actually prefer one of my AF 50's.

I managed to pick up that lens attached to an old film body for $35, but had I paid 10x or 20x more, with the intention of getting results like an 85 1.4 on FF, I would have been VERY disappointed.
I have said several times, but depth of field is a poor reason to use a particular format. Narrow depth of field is no panacea -- it is a one trick pony that gets old pretty fast. At least that's what I gather from the f1.2 thread.

This is a photo of my son with the DA *55 at f2 -- maybe the photos would have been better shot at f1.4 or f1.2, but I doubt it. In the majority of situations, too narrow depth of field in portraiture isn't a great thing...


08-01-2013, 09:10 AM   #169
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I have said several times, but depth of field is a poor reason to use a particular format.
I agree that if the greater DOF control were all FF had to offer over aps-c or m43, it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade for most. As it is, it's a nice bonus that you do notice, especially when you stick to the same FOVs you used in aps-c.

QuoteQuote:
This is a photo of my son with the DA *55 at f2 -- maybe the photos would have been better shot at f1.4 or f1.2, but I doubt it. In the majority of situations, too narrow depth of field in portraiture isn't a great thing...
Nice shot, that would have been equivalent to about an 83mm f/3.2 shot on FF. Here's where part of the bonus kicks in - if you had shot that with say the Nikon or Canon 85 at f/3.2 (or the wonderful FA 85 on Pentax FF), you'd have the same DOF for that FOV, but would have had a sharper plane of focus, with perhaps a few more of the benefits that come with stopping down a bit (less CA, etc.) The difference between the 55 at f2 and the 85's at f/3.2 would be subtle, but noticeable, and the image would 'pop' just a bit more for you.

After a while you may become accustomed to this 'pop'. That's all it's about, nothing radical or revolutionary, just more of the good stuff available to you.

Think: Micro 4/3 vs. aps-c. No-one here would argue that overall, considering the gamut of lenses available to both formats, that m43 gives you the same control over DOF/FOV as aps-c.. because they'd be wrong. If they insisted that "well, m43 gives me enough control anyway, I can just step back, etc, etc," you might answer: "yes, but 'enough control' is always a personal decision, and varies from shooter to shooter. If you want more control, more options while shooting, you'd probably choose aps-c over m43."

Exactly the same argument applies one tier up. You can't agree with one without agreeing with the other.

Here's a 120mm f/1.8 shot on aps-c ** - just a little different look than I can get with my 77ltd in FOV/DOF wide-open:

.




** of course, 120mm f/1.8 aps-c really == 180 f/2.8 on FF
.

08-01-2013, 09:27 AM   #170
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I agree that if the greater DOF control were all FF had to offer over aps-c or m43, it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade for most. As it is, it's a nice bonus that you do notice, especially when you stick to the same FOVs you used in aps-c.
Yes, it is indeed a bonus.

But (at the risk of causing apoplexy in some people) if I have a photo with too much depth of field, I often use Lens Blur in Photoshop! And by using it as a smart filter (which can be done) I have variable depth of field.

I would prefer to have an FF sensor and suitable lenses, (I used 35mm film for over 40 years before switching to digital), because Lens Blur doesn't give exactly the same effect. But it can often give the same sort of "pop".
08-01-2013, 10:21 AM   #171
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I agree that if the greater DOF control were all FF had to offer over aps-c or m43, it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade for most. As it is, it's a nice bonus that you do notice, especially when you stick to the same FOVs you used in aps-c.



Nice shot, that would have been equivalent to about an 83mm f/3.2 shot on FF. Here's where part of the bonus kicks in - if you had shot that with say the Nikon or Canon 85 at f/3.2 (or the wonderful FA 85 on Pentax FF), you'd have the same DOF for that FOV, but would have had a sharper plane of focus, with perhaps a few more of the benefits that come with stopping down a bit (less CA, etc.) The difference between the 55 at f2 and the 85's at f/3.2 would be subtle, but noticeable, and the image would 'pop' just a bit more for you.

After a while you may become accustomed to this 'pop'. That's all it's about, nothing radical or revolutionary, just more of the good stuff available to you.

Think: Micro 4/3 vs. aps-c. No-one here would argue that overall, considering the gamut of lenses available to both formats, that m43 gives you the same control over DOF/FOV as aps-c.. because they'd be wrong. If they insisted that "well, m43 gives me enough control anyway, I can just step back, etc, etc," you might answer: "yes, but 'enough control' is always a personal decision, and varies from shooter to shooter. If you want more control, more options while shooting, you'd probably choose aps-c over m43."

Exactly the same argument applies one tier up. You can't agree with one without agreeing with the other.

Here's a 120mm f/1.8 shot on aps-c ** - just a little different look than I can get with my 77ltd in FOV/DOF wide-open:

.




** of course, 120mm f/1.8 aps-c really == 180 f/2.8 on FF
.
I don't think there is any particular argument between four thirds and APS-C, except that I can't mount my k mount lenses and have them auto focus on one of those cameras. Obviously, there are some plenty fast lenses for four thirds, particularly the voigtlanders, that get to speeds that are available for Pentax cameras.

I just don't shoot a photo thinking "how little depth of field can I get?" Rather, I know where the sweet spot is for a particular lens (for the DA *55 it is f2 and narrower) and then choose my framing after that. And the things you mention are more a factor of the lens used, rather than format. A lens can be engineered in such a way that it is sharp wide open, or it can require stopping down to get there. Olympus lenses (like the 75mm) are diffraction limited. They are basically as sharp wide open as at f4. So no big deal which you shoot at. The bigger the sensor, the harder it is to have lenses that are that good across the frame and most wider angle full frame lenses require stopping down to get sharp borders.
08-01-2013, 10:52 AM   #172
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote

I just don't shoot a photo thinking "how little depth of field can I get?"
Neither does any FF shooter... if you think that, you missed my point.

QuoteQuote:
Rather, I know where the sweet spot is for a particular lens (for the DA *55 it is f2 and narrower) and then choose my framing after that.
FF gives you more DOF options after your lenses hit their sweet spot. With me, while shooting aps-c, I'd often like the lens's sharpness at f/4, but I'd like it's subject isolation at f/2.8, for example. FF gives me both at the same time when shooting at f4.

QuoteQuote:
And the things you mention are more a factor of the lens used, rather than format.
Exactly true. If the lenses were always possible to make affordable and at a certain size or smaller, we wouldn't need the larger formats.

.
QuoteQuote:
The bigger the sensor, the harder it is to have lenses that are that good across the frame and most wider angle full frame lenses require stopping down to get sharp borders.
But those borders are not even present in the aps-c shot using the same lens!
08-01-2013, 12:04 PM   #173
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Neither does any FF shooter... if you think that, you missed my point.



FF gives you more DOF options after your lenses hit their sweet spot. With me, while shooting aps-c, I'd often like the lens's sharpness at f/4, but I'd like it's subject isolation at f/2.8, for example. FF gives me both at the same time when shooting at f4.



Exactly true. If the lenses were always possible to make affordable and at a certain size or smaller, we wouldn't need the larger formats.

.


But those borders are not even present in the aps-c shot using the same lens!
The borders are present. If I view a photo at a certain print size, projection size then I see the borders on both images -- I assume of course, that I am shooting with my DA *55 on my K5 and the 85 f1.8 on my D800 (that I don't own, but still...). Differences will be able to visualized based on size of print/projection, but certainly I will see the borders in both situations. Anyway, it is a false choice. With many lenses (DA 15, DA 35 limited, DA * zooms), the full frame borders don't exist, the lens is an APS-C lens and so stick it on full frame and you don't see anything more. The same with the Olympus lens I mentioned.

08-01-2013, 04:58 PM   #174
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,246
The original question -- Why FF? -- isn't really that hard to answer.

One can argue all day long that FF gives you better dynamic range, better AF accuracy, better pop (sharpness to fuzzy ratio), more DOF control, etc. I've done that myself.

But it really comes down to this: Either you dig the different look of FF or you don't.

If the images of jsherman999 and others posted here and in the Full-Frame Shots thread float your boat then you are in the market for an FF.

If you don't see the difference to APS-C shots then going FF wouldn't make any sense for you.

I personally cannot fathom anyone not seeing the significant difference between these FF samples and what you can get from an APS-C camera (with the available lenses), but I'm certainly happy for anyone to feel differently.
08-01-2013, 05:07 PM   #175
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The original question -- Why FF? -- isn't really that hard to answer.

One can argue all day long that FF gives you better dynamic range, better AF accuracy, better pop (sharpness to fuzzy ratio), more DOF control, etc. I've done that myself.

But it really comes down to this: Either you dig the different look of FF or you don't.

If the images of jsherman999 and others posted here and in the Full-Frame Shots thread float your boat then you are in the market for an FF.

If you don't see the difference to APS-C shots then going FF wouldn't make any sense for you.

I personally cannot fathom anyone not seeing the significant difference between these FF samples and what you can get from an APS-C camera (with the available lenses), but I'm certainly happy for anyone to feel differently.
The question isn't really "what is better?" But, "what is good enough?" For the hobby photographer the answer may be quite different from a professional and may even vary based on an individual's income and what style of photography they shoot.

I probably will purchase a full frame Pentax when it is available, but I have no illusions about it making a night and day difference in my photography -- either skills or final images.
08-01-2013, 05:47 PM   #176
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote

One can argue all day long that FF gives you better dynamic range, better AF accuracy, better pop (sharpness to fuzzy ratio), more DOF control, etc. I've done that myself. .
Most of this are myths. You do not get better AF accuracy with FF; larger formats demand tighter AF precision (Smaller formats use shorter focal lenghts for the same angle of view. Shorter lenses are less critical for focusing. A very small format need no focus at all; fixed focus. Incidentally, shorter focal lenghts display shorter focus throws making them faster to focus).

You get one stop less DOF at the same aperture with FF (or one stop slower shutterspeed at the same DOF. Incidentally, you do not need to use the same aperture when comparing formats) in most cases hardly visible (just try the DOF preview on your camera). Less DOF do not necessarily give more "pop" - it is dependend on subject, subject/background distance, distance to subject, the character of the background, the lens distortion characteristics and aperture etc. You may find that having the background delineated to some extent give more pop than simply having it washed out beyond recognition.
Also note that most thin DOF images posted here and elswhere will never be considered for publication anywhere because the subject isn't entirely in focus. Ie they don't meet the mandatory technical standards. And/or they would have been improved upon stopping down.

You get exactly the same DOF control with APS as with FF. It is just transposed wholesale (what you gain in one end you loose in tne other) one stop toward thinner DOF for FF. Ie if you want thinner DOF than APS can acheive wide open, FF is the choice (although the effect is usually slight). However, if you want more DOF, and most importantly, more DOF at the same exposure (which is the case most of the time judging from the photos people actually take), APS has the advantage. Remember also that the degree of out of focusness is a subjective thing and never absolute whereas having thing in focus is not (subjective that is; within reason). If you compare lenses with the same angle of view and the same DOF widen open for APS vs FF, that some people insist on for some strange reasons (why should lenses have the same DOF wide open? why not the same DOF stopped down? Or the same shutterspeed wide open at the same ISO? Or the same close focusing distance. or all of the above to be truly equivalent -impossible!), then APS have in fact more DOF control as it has one more stop to choose from (in reality as lenses usually have the same minimum aperture) and the fact that it focus closer than the FF lens (for the same angle of view).
DOF means depth of field. Depth. Controlling it does not means as little depth as possible. It means being able to set a range of DOF; the DOF you want being thin or wide.
Another point is that most fast lenses are bought due to the fact that you can shoot at faster shuterspeeds in low light. Thats why they are called fast. However, theres no logic that says that people that shoot in low light wants or demand thin DOF! That is something that comes into play due to the laws of optics; rather unfotunate laws! In fact, the thin DOF is more often than not a problem. You can use it creatively but it is a highly artificial visual statement that don't mix well with our perception of reality. This explains why you never see a painting with paper thin DOF!

The advantage with FF is better image quality (that is if it is not generation behind the APS sensor you compare it with. By image quality I mean both resolution, noise and dynamic range if anyone is in doubt) and bigger optical viewfinder. And of course the subjective things like preferences for the format particulars; many are used to the 135mm film format and prefer to work with it. The rest are red herrings.

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 08-01-2013 at 07:11 PM.
08-01-2013, 06:07 PM   #177
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,246
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Most of this are myths.
No, they are not.

To anyone with open ears, I'd be happy to explain in detail why they are facts, not myths.

I'm sorry to say that I will not extent this offer to you, Pål, because I know from experience that you are not open to facts if they run against your beliefs.
08-01-2013, 10:33 PM   #178
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,093
I have followed the debate about DoF with interest (and not a little bewilderment at the technicalities of the erudite arguments). I think it would be revealing if we could have a poll on the lines of "why I bought a FF camera" or maybe "why I want/need a FF camera". When I bought my D800, DoF was not even near the top of my list of considerations. For my type of photography, I usually like more rather than less depth. I used to shoot medium format in film days (but not as much as I should have, because a) the gear was more expensive, and b) it was far heavier. But I liked the incredible detail it could capture. Moreover, medium format had a "look" to it. I even went as far as buying a Toyo 5X4 view camera (madness, I know), but that saw little use because it was such a faff to carry around and set up - in fact, it's still in my attic. So, for me, the D800 is sort of medium-format lite. It can pack in almost as much detail as the 645D (which I can't afford), but is only a little less portable than my K-5. I know there is more to photographic quality than mere detail, but I hope you follow my drift.

Admittedly, there are times when I want to restrict DoF - mainly for portraiture, but it's seldom a critical factor. For this, I normally use my Nikon 85mm f1.8 or the venerated 77mm Limited wide open. I'm usually pleased with the outcome of either. I have even been known (horror of horrors) to add a little Gaussian blur to a background that I felt was a little obtrusive. Of course, this is rarely satisfactory, and nothing like having decent bokeh from a classic lens (I had never heard the term "bokeh" until relatively recently; now it seems like an obsession for many photographers) (have you noticed I write in parenthesis a lot...?).

Let's face it, we have the 35mm format because Oskar Barnack mucked about with movie film. The normal format at that time - and for many years later - was 120 or larger. I'm not sure why 35mm gained the ascendant - perhaps because of the convenience of having film in a cassette, or maybe a host of other factors. Nevertheless it became mainstream, notwithstanding a number of other larger and smaller formats vying for supremacy. So, if we never had 35mm film, I am left wondering what would be the "ideal" size and format for a camera sensor. Funnily, the 3x2 format of 35mm never fitted with photographic paper sizes like 8x10, etc, but then again, hot dog sausages come in packs of six, while the rolls are eight at a time, and my bread never fits my toaster. Hey, it's an irrational world we live in.

So confess, why do you want/need/have bought a "full-frame" camera? Is DoF your main motivation? Or is it detail, IQ or just that you have a heap of legacy lenses? I'd love to know.
08-01-2013, 11:34 PM   #179
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Quote
Admittedly, there are times when I want to restrict DoF - mainly for portraiture, but it's seldom a critical factor. For this, I normally use my Nikon 85mm f1.8 or the venerated 77mm Limited wide open. I'm usually pleased with the outcome of either. I have even been known (horror of horrors) to add a little Gaussian blur to a background that I felt was a little obtrusive. Of course, this is rarely satisfactory, and nothing like having decent bokeh from a classic lens (I had never heard the term "bokeh" until relatively recently; now it seems like an obsession for many photographers) (have you noticed I write in parenthesis a lot...?).
Have you tried Lens Blur instead? A bit more realistic and controllable. (It is what I use in the circumstances that you describe).

(Not perfect, and I find my DA* 55mm f/1.4 useful if I want genuine shallow depth of field in a portrait).
08-02-2013, 12:07 AM   #180
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,093
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
Have you tried Lens Blur instead? A bit more realistic and controllable. (It is what I use in the circumstances that you describe
Good point. Gaussian blur tends to give a sort of dreamy effect, but lens blur is probably more convincing. I'll try it next time.
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!
24x36mm, aps-c, benefit, depth, ff, field, filter, frame, frame pentax, fuji, full-frame, goldilocks, iq, iso, noise, pentax, picture, resolution, sensor, terms
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing? LFLee Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 11-02-2012 12:55 PM
Why is the K7 so terrible? or rather why am i having such a problem with it? runslikeapenguin Pentax DSLR Discussion 60 05-01-2012 01:16 PM
Why do people want a Full Frame sensor? RobG Pentax DSLR Discussion 98 02-15-2012 09:12 AM
Is there such a thing as a decent superzoom (for Pentax)? DanielT74 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 06-21-2011 05:57 AM
Full-Frame Image Sensor Holy Grail - Why? stewart_photo Pentax DSLR Discussion 82 10-10-2007 03:00 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:41 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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