[normhead]

About 60% better.

...and, of course, the real reason for me to use FF is that it's cheaper to get the pictures I want.

Well then you'd be doing folks a favour by showing them what kind of pictures you want, with what equipment, and why they are better and cheaper with FF using comparatively equal lenses. Maybe someone else shoots your style and would be interested in seeing what you can do. Obviously people who don't want the same type of picture you do, are going to have to do their own research, but you might save some folks who think like you, some time. We can check out prices etc. if we are interested. Obviously things are only going to be cheaper if people do exactly what you did. You can blow a pile more money on FF equipment than you can on APS-c. To Start off with a Nikon D800 and have the same functionality with better IQ I'd be looking at 10K for the starter kit covering 14 mm- 200 mm, with now primes or long zooms. That wouldn't even get me close to the 8- 670 equivalent FoV I have with my APS-c kit, which cost considerably less than 10k.. Like most things going larger increases cost exponentially.

Oh course it's possible you shoot in a niche where FF is cheaper. I'm sure many would like to know what that niche is.

[Rondec]

I understand the differences between the two formats, but honestly, Norm is right in the sense that art is very separate from tech. The question is whether you can make the photos that you envision when you go out shooting. I can't always, but the reason is not because I am lacking a 28mm f1 lens or, a 15mm f2 lens. Having those on my camera would do nothing to change my ability to capture the scenes before me, but would only make my camera/lens combo larger. I don't print at 30 by 20 (nor do most of the folks who post here) and honestly, I have a "nice" grouping of focal lengths between 15mm and 300mm.

Having a D800 would be nice in some respects, but I have to say that for most of what I shoot, it wouldn't make any difference one way or the other.

[Lorant]

Well..my D800E + 14-24 f2.8 its delivered tomorrow and next weekend Im on a dark sky location over 2k meters altitude with the center of the milky way high on the moonless sky..yet..when our unicorn appears probably early next year..will be at least as excited as now..

[normhead]

Well..my D800E + 14-24 f2.8 its delivered tomorrow and next weekend Im on a dark sky location over 2k meters altitude with the center of the milky way high on the moonless sky..yet..when our unicorn appears probably early next year..will be at least as excited as now..

You're going to post us some images I hope. We have a non-Pentax section of the forum.

[rawr]

it's cheaper to get the pictures I want.

What sort of shooting do you do?

[ElJamoquio]

What sort of shooting do you do?

1) landscape type stuff (often stitched)
2) wildlife
3) macro

I like to have at least a speed of F/2.8 on APS-C and really prefer 1.8. I tried the 16-50 and didn't like it, which leaves me to primes.

[normhead]

The lens in that range is the Tamron 17-50. Better edges, better control of CA, defintiely better for stitching.

[rawr]

landscape

At f2.8 or f1.8? Where the lens is usually the softest?

This D800E guy I've been admiring recently does a lot of great panoramic landscapes but even though he uses a f2 50mm Zeiss a lot, (with filters) I would be surprised if he ever went down below f4 because he certainly wants DOF and sharpness more than anything else:

Flickr: Craig Holloway's Photostream

[rawr]

The lens in that range is the Tamron 17-50. Better edges, better control of CA, defintiely better for stitching.

Sure is. A while ago a [casually shot from the car] K-5 pano I made with that lens was turned into a ~4 metre wide wall poster at a nursing home. It did the job to the satisfaction of the interior designer and the printer.


Mt Lindesay from Summerland Way panorama

[jsherman999]

That's because it's largely a useless concept... the concept that an image has to be exactly a certain way, and that one should try and emulate what one does with one system on another system ...

That's not what the concept of equivalence is used for, Norm, and you should know that by now.

It simply describes a relationship between formats, and (for example) how a certain lens will look in FOV/DOF on any format in which it shares a mount.

Understanding the concept means you will understand whether or not you personally, depending on your typical shooting, would gain anything by changing or adding formats. Simple as that - thus, very useful.

.

suggests that photography is a technical medium in which it is important to exactly create a specific image and that images that aren't created exactly that way are somehow lacking. it's a very rigid way of looking at photographic systems. That is "techcraft". The assigning of non-existent technical requirements to artistic media. You can study your graphs and tables, any of which have the ability to be a complete mis-representation, and doesn't present any information you can't absorb more usefully or practically by looking through the viewfinder. Information is useless without context, and those who promote this concept of "equivalency" tend to focus on very narrow measurable criteria to the exclusion of all else, including the context in which those criteria need to be understood.

Very impressive rant, Norm!

You realize that understanding simple things like FOV, DOF, and noise and how to maximize their effectiveness within your budget are not esoteric tangents, getting in the way of your art? That understanding them actually can make the pursuit of your art easier? That it can save you time, money and headaches?

Like the social sciences, there are things you have formula for and things you don't. Being able to measure some things but not others, and some very important things, micro-contrast and it's effect on the appearance of sharpness, how the control of CA affects the appearance of sharpness etc. or deliberately leaving them out of the discussion creates a narrow discussion based on depth of field, or dynamic range etc. things that can be measured.

Microcontrast, CA, everything you mention above is independent of format and has no bearing on a discussion of the differences between formats. Not sure why you're mentioning them, other than to try to lend weight to your argument by using nice-sounding concepts and declaring them on your side

SO you have those for whom "equivalency" is not understood (in it's limited technical explanations) who look through a camera lens and examine the images and you understand perfectly without the mumbo-jumbo. Then you techies who have tried (like Psychologists) to turn a soft science into a hard science., and spend way to much time reading numbers and charts to prove things that present only part of the picture.

The folks who look through the lens and 'see' equivalence are not mutually exclusive from the ones who can describe it's simple math and physical concepts. You seem to value the first and do not value the second, but they're usually coming from the same person.

I think you 'get' equivalence very well, Norm, you just seem to get very agitated when its described in a precise way and when it can be used to give examples of occasions where it doesn't favor your current format. You should get over that.

.

[DanWeso]

Well then you'd be doing folks a favour by showing them what kind of pictures you want, with what equipment, and why they are better and cheaper with FF using comparatively equal lenses. Maybe someone else shoots your style and would be interested in seeing what you can do. Obviously people who don't want the same type of picture you do, are going to have to do their own research, but you might save some folks who think like you, some time. We can check out prices etc. if we are interested. Obviously things are only going to be cheaper if people do exactly what you did. You can blow a pile more money on FF equipment than you can on APS-c. To Start off with a Nikon D800 and have the same functionality with better IQ I'd be looking at 10K for the starter kit covering 14 mm- 200 mm, with now primes or long zooms. That wouldn't even get me close to the 8- 670 equivalent FoV I have with my APS-c kit, which cost considerably less than 10k.. Like most things going larger increases cost exponentially.

Oh course it's possible you shoot in a niche where FF is cheaper. I'm sure many would like to know what that niche is.

fwiw

It is my opinion that many DSLR users probably don’t need the level of equipment being produced today. That is not going to stop manufacturers from improving their products and people buying the latest and greatest equipment. We all benefit from this cycle. We all have different needs, desires, skill levels, dedication and monies to spend. I did not need FF, but went that route when the upgrade choices were between a K-5II and a D600. Below is the cost of my investment and suits my needs perfectly for a hobbyist. If/when I feel the need to improve my lens selection, it will be done. Landscape and macro are my preferences and while the 14-24 2.8 is on my desires list, I can’t justify it even though the money is in the bank. To each his own.

D600 $2103.99
Nikon 20mm F/2.8D $557.00
Nikon 35mm F/2D $225.00*
Nikon 50mm F/1.8D $124.95
Nikon 85mm F/1.8G $496.95
Nikon 105 f/2.8D $425.00*
Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 $349.00
Metz ME50AF1N $208.75
------------------------------------------------
total $4365.69

*used

[DanWeso]

Well..my D800E + 14-24 f2.8 its delivered tomorrow and next weekend Im on a dark sky location over 2k meters altitude with the center of the milky way high on the moonless sky..yet..when our unicorn appears probably early next year..will be at least as excited as now..

Congratulations on the purchase! That will be one nice setup.

[ElJamoquio]

At f2.8 or f1.8? Where the lens is usually the softest?

Of course. I have some (IMO) beautiful shots done wide open to keep shutter speed down. They're after sunset, of course.

[Paul MaudDib]

OK now that's just offensive, I didn't address wide angle lenses, nor specific cases, nor did I imply that there might not be reasons for wanting a specific lens or sensor, for a specific case. Unlike yourself, I do not assume I know what people want ("People want the field of view the lens can actually deliver, " and I've definitely left it open for people to choose what they wish with my blessing. I simply refuse to accept most of the reasons advanced for using a full frame camera.

You do indeed assume that you know what we need better than we do, I'll cite you right here.

That's because it's largely a useless concept... the concept that an image has to be exactly a certain way, and that one should try and emulate what one does with one system on another system suggests that photography is a technical medium in which it is important to exactly create a specific image and that images that aren't created exactly that way are somehow lacking.

I know what field of view I want for my shot, if you think that's a useless concept then I don't know what to tell you. And yes, I think my image should be exactly a certain way, the way I imagine and want it. Somehow you apparently think this makes me a bad photographer, I guess because you don't like the word "equivalence" or something?

Let me put it another way, if I build up a collection of really nice paintbrushes and then a new paint comes out that doesn't work with the paint well with them, why is your automatic response "buy another set of expensive paintbrushes"? Do you still feel this way even given the existence of things like the Speed Booster?

Frankly that would be a great way to make a much cheaper quasi-full frame camera - build the telecompressor right into the DSLR/mirrorless body. That's how Nikon made their E-series of DSLRs, that's how Konica made the RD-170 DSLRs. It would be an extra-deep K-5, or a K-01 with something useful put in the space provided by that stupid long register. It would cost far less than an actual full frame sensor and you would get the bonus of extra speed too.

[Mohawk]

That is sooo tempting... I am seriously considering dumping all my Pentax gear but those damn pancake lenses makes me hesitate. If only Pentax would post some teaser pics of their new FF!

fwiw

It is my opinion that many DSLR users probably don’t need the level of equipment being produced today. That is not going to stop manufacturers from improving their products and people buying the latest and greatest equipment. We all benefit from this cycle. We all have different needs, desires, skill levels, dedication and monies to spend. I did not need FF, but went that route when the upgrade choices were between a K-5II and a D600. Below is the cost of my investment and suits my needs perfectly for a hobbyist. If/when I feel the need to improve my lens selection, it will be done. Landscape and macro are my preferences and while the 14-24 2.8 is on my desires list, I can’t justify it even though the money is in the bank. To each his own.

D600 $2103.99
Nikon 20mm F/2.8D $557.00
Nikon 35mm F/2D $225.00*
Nikon 50mm F/1.8D $124.95
Nikon 85mm F/1.8G $496.95
Nikon 105 f/2.8D $425.00*
Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 $349.00
Metz ME50AF1N $208.75
------------------------------------------------
total $4365.69

*used