Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-09-2015, 06:27 AM - 1 Like   #376
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Grand Rapids
Photos: Albums
Posts: 193
There are so many lenses i want to use, but are ruined by the aps-c crop factor and loss of depth of field. Extra resolution, color, dynamic range, etc are just icing on the cake. 5 years ago, FF was not affordable to me. Now you can buy a D610 / A7R for under $1200... the price difference between FF/APS-C has almost disappeared. My ideal full frame would be a mirrorless Sony A99 so i can use any lens, but still have weather sealed and good ergonomics / build quality. I really dont like to handle the A7 / A7 MKII. Honestly, i love fuji's but i dont see FF in their roadmap.

07-09-2015, 10:50 AM   #377
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,226
QuoteOriginally posted by plooksta Quote
My point is mainly that the FF advantage has been significantly squeezed over the last ten years, to the point where, in ordinary use, you aren't going to see a major difference between equivalent 24MP APS-C sensors' and 24MP FF sensors' images. The 645 sensor is 1.7X the FF size and FF is 2.3X the APS-C size. The 645 sensor is however 3.8X the APS-C sensor size. That is a significant difference, one I'd def get excited about (especially when I see the gorgeosity coming out of the 645Ds and Zs). It is currently out of my budget though, but I do see masses of old manual 645 lenses on the market for relatively peanuts. We will see what price the FF camera comes in at, but I'd wager you could pay as much for it, with some high quality lenses as you would for a 645 and some used manual lenses.

Something to get even more excited about would be a full size 645 sensor. I don't know if Pentax will do that eventually. I guess one day it will come.
The point that is brought up most of the time is with regard to "equivalence." The idea that you can compare lenses on different size sensors by a formula that adjusts both focal length and aperture. With this in mind, a 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C gets compared to a 70-200 f4 on full frame. When you do this comparison, you find that if your goal is shallow depth of field, no other size sensor can get as shallow as full frame (unless you go up to film medium/large format).

I think the countervailing argument is that if you actually need more depth of field, then full frame does you little good, as once you stop down to APS-C equivalence, you lose your benefit of full frame. That is to say, if you shoot at f2.8 on APS-C and iso 1600 and f4 and iso 3200 on full frame, you will have similar dynamic range, noise and of course depth of field. The only way you get a real benefit is if you are willing to tolerate less depth of field.
07-09-2015, 10:57 AM - 1 Like   #378
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The only way you get a real benefit is if you are willing to tolerate less depth of field.
That is correct if you focus on a "low-light" advantage, but note that FF has more advantages, such as decreased impact of AF inaccuries, higher-dynamic range (assuming same generation sensor technology), etc.
07-09-2015, 11:32 AM   #379
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,226
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
That is correct if you focus on a "low-light" advantage, but note that FF has more advantages, such as decreased impact of AF inaccuries, higher-dynamic range (assuming same generation sensor technology), etc.
The higher dynamic range is only visible at higher iso than base iso and only on older cameras (D7200 has same dynamic range at base iso as the D810 and the D610 and significantly better than Canon models) and if you follow dynamic range curves, the D7200 tracks really close to the D810 and D600 up to iso 12,800 (Nikon overstates the iso on every single one of their models the same way).

As to auto focus inaccuracies, this is theoretically true, but not something that I have found that is problematic on either size sensor in real life.

I really end up finding the three things that are real and observable in real world shooting are: shallow depth of field, bigger print size, and better optical viewfinder.

07-09-2015, 04:52 PM   #380
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 354
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I really end up finding the three things that are real and observable in real world shooting are: shallow depth of field, bigger print size, and better optical viewfinder.
For me, the biggest advantage is wider FoV for a given lens. I'm often taking photos in relatively constricted spaces, and I haven't learnt how to walk through walls.
07-09-2015, 05:03 PM   #381
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,226
QuoteOriginally posted by krazykat Quote
For me, the biggest advantage is wider FoV for a given lens. I'm often taking photos in relatively constricted spaces, and I haven't learnt how to walk through walls.
Maybe.

Maybe folks are just silly expecting that lenses that performed a certain way on 35mm film will have the same angle of view on APS-C. You just need additional lenses, that's all.

Considering that you can go to 8mm on APS-C, the extra "width" you get with full frame (assuming you use the right lens) is minimal. The difference is merely that the APS-C lenses don't have as fast equivalent apertures (this is quite significant on the very wide end of things). If you don't need a 14mm f2.8 equivalent lens and usually shoot stopped down a little with your 14mm lens, then shooting with a 10-20 or 8-16 lens is probably fine.
07-09-2015, 07:08 PM   #382
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 354
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Maybe.
No, for me it's "definitely".

If I want something that renders like the FA 31 and has the FoV that the FA 31 has on 35mm then I need to use it on a FF sensor.

What is subjective is how much users want/need the FoV change. For me it's a much bigger deal than a bigger, brighter viewfinder or bigger prints, but I suspect I'm in the minority. Nevertheless, for me it's a big deal.
07-09-2015, 07:14 PM   #383
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,226
QuoteOriginally posted by krazykat Quote
No, for me it's "definitely".

If I want something that renders like the FA 31 and has the FoV that the FA 31 has on 35mm then I need to use it on a FF sensor.

What is subjective is how much users want/need the FoV change. For me it's a much bigger deal than a bigger, brighter viewfinder or bigger prints, but I suspect I'm in the minority. Nevertheless, for me it's a big deal.
How about if you want something that renders like the DA 15 and has the same flare resistance, small size and contrast on 35mm?

I'm so used to shooting crop cameras that I'm trying to figure out how to match my APS-C line up on a full frame camera.

07-09-2015, 08:08 PM   #384
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 354
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
How about if you want something that renders like the DA 15 and has the same flare resistance, small size and contrast on 35mm?

I'm so used to shooting crop cameras that I'm trying to figure out how to match my APS-C line up on a full frame camera.
Use the FF in crop mode? (TBH, I'd probably just pull out my trusty K-3.)
07-09-2015, 08:17 PM   #385
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,831
Panorama/ stitching software (MS ICE, Hugin, LR6, Autopano) kinda removes the field of view advantage of FF (for non-moving subjects). In many situations (eg architectural interiors), even if you have a rectilinear 14mm FF ultra-wide at hand, it's not going to be enough.
07-09-2015, 11:04 PM   #386
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 354
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Panorama/ stitching software (MS ICE, Hugin, LR6, Autopano) kinda removes the field of view advantage of FF (for non-moving subjects). In many situations (eg architectural interiors), even if you have a rectilinear 14mm FF ultra-wide at hand, it's not going to be enough.
Yep, for non-moving subjects - this is the key thing for me. I mostly do portraits, no way I can stitch a head and torso shot of my 18 month old together!
07-10-2015, 06:53 AM   #387
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,831
QuoteOriginally posted by krazykat Quote
no way I can stitch a head and torso shot of my 18 month old together!
I absolutely know what you mean. Sometimes panoramas can be unkind to young people's moving heads and torsos. And feet.


Running girl panorama [fail] - Back Alley Gallery on Flickr
07-10-2015, 11:03 AM   #388
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Panorama/ stitching software (MS ICE, Hugin, LR6, Autopano) kinda removes the field of view advantage of FF (for non-moving subjects).
the ff advantage returns when stitching 36mp landscape panoramas think "omg"
07-10-2015, 11:29 AM   #389
ACG
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 55
For me it was the ability to use my old Pentax glass at their intended focal length on a 36mp ff sensor which provided a massive step up in resolution from a m4\3 system.
This has allowed for excellent a2 prints.
Whilst the resolution is awesome, it has been the dynamic range of the sensor that has impressed most.

If you aren't going to print big, I really can't see the point in the expense. Expense for better bokeh or low light performance?

I think the delay in Pentax releasing a ff system has almost turned pentaxians into grail hunters!! They may end up similarly disappointed. Their grail will be miles behind the latest offering from Sony at the time of release, I suspect.
07-10-2015, 01:05 PM   #390
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 260
QuoteOriginally posted by ACG Quote
If you aren't going to print big, I really can't see the point in the expense. Expense for better bokeh or low light performance?
Yes! I rarely print above A4.
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 09:59 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