Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-29-2013, 09:03 AM   #16
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Why would you want to create the same thing?
You don't necessarily want to create "the same thing". With FF, you simply have the option to recreate anything you can do with aps-c - and you can't always go the other way, because they don't make lenses for aps-c that allow you to. FF is a superset of aps-c.

If you want to match an aps-c shot, you can with FF. You can't always match an FF shot with aps-c.

QuoteQuote:
You can make excellent images with various sensor-format camera's but they are different in many ways. While all the above images are very nice, there is no pressing need to have that thin DOF in images to make them exceptional.
Of course not, but wouldn't it be nicer to have expanded options, a wider range of DOF/FOV control available?

.

12-29-2013, 10:42 AM   #17
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,678
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You don't necessarily want to create "the same thing". With FF, you simply have the option to recreate anything you can do with aps-c - and you can't always go the other way, because they don't make lenses for aps-c that allow you to. FF is a superset of aps-c.

If you want to match an aps-c shot, you can with FF. You can't always match an FF shot with aps-c.
Going a bit off topic here, but wouldn't the same be true with MF being a superset of FF?

Just wondering if I should get a 645D just to be done with all the FF talk
12-29-2013, 11:05 AM   #18
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
You provide examples and discussion pertaining to DOF, even though I specifically said "Due to the nature of the subject, DOF is not an issue".
I assumed by "DOF is not an issue" you meant "maintaining adequate DOF is not an issue."

If that's not what you meant, then I'm sort of confused about what you're asking. Equivalence pertains to (mostly) the DOF for a given FOV. If you take DOF out of the picture, then aperture is only affecting shutter speed, and there would be less difference between formats. If that's what you're asking... but it's a partial question that's going t lead you to an incorrect interpretation of things.

You can get the same FOV and shutter speed by shooting 35mm f/1.8 on aps-c, but the image would be different (more DOF and more noise.)

.

QuoteQuote:
My annoyance with equivalence is not that it exists, but rather because people repeatedly make statements that imply that you must have (for example) a 35mm f1.1 to achieve the same results you'd obtain with a 50mm f1.8, while apparently failing to take into consideration the fact that this is true only some, and not even necessarily most, of the time.


You can indeed get about the same image from a 35mm on aps-cas you can with a 50mm on FF as long as you select the aperture that will allow it. Meaning, 50mm f/2,8 == 35mm f/1,8. But what if you shoot the 50mm at f/2, or f/1.8, or f/1.4? You can't match that with aps-c with existing lenses.

How about a standard f/2.8 zoom? A 24-70 2.8 on FF is not the same as a 16-50 2.8 on aps-c. You would need a 16-50 f/1.8 on aps-c to allow the same subject isolation. (this is why the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is so exciting - an affordable, sharp lens that matches some of what you get with a 24-70 2.8 on FF.)
12-29-2013, 11:09 AM   #19
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by savoche Quote
Going a bit off topic here, but wouldn't the same be true with MF being a superset of FF?
Yes!

QuoteQuote:
Just wondering if I should get a 645D just to be done with all the FF talk
If you can stomach the $8000 body and $5000 lenses, go for it! (although you may want to save up for the coming 645D II.)

.

12-29-2013, 11:22 AM - 1 Like   #20
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: California
Posts: 21
JSherman99- Nice pics, btw!
12-29-2013, 11:34 AM - 1 Like   #21
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,678
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
If you can stomach the $8000 body and $5000 lenses, go for it! (although you may want to save up for the coming 645D II.)

.
The II might not be that far away; I just noticed that the Norwegian Pentax shop has reduced the 645D from $15000 to $10000.

But no, I'll stick with my K-5 for now. No need for anything bigger sensor-wise. If someone should ever make an FF no physically bigger than the K-3 and with a nice, big, bright OVF, then maybe...
12-29-2013, 12:40 PM   #22
Veteran Member
DavidSKAF3's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Tompkins County, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 542
QuoteOriginally posted by savoche Quote
The II might not be that far away; I just noticed that the Norwegian Pentax shop has reduced the 645D from $15000 to $10000.

But no, I'll stick with my K-5 for now. No need for anything bigger sensor-wise. If someone should ever make an FF no physically bigger than the K-3 and with a nice, big, bright OVF, then maybe...

I'm glad to hear this from you. You know. Because I just got a brand new K-5. I like to joke around that it was the very last, totally brand new K-5 to be had anywhere, since the K-5 has now been pretty thoroughly eclipsed by several newer models. I guess it's become sort of like what a DC-3 is to an A380. But seriously, I really like it, and I want to be content with it.


However I always have a constant itch I guess to have the latest thing or whatever, even though admittedly I'm not a very knowledgeable or experienced photographer, and probably wouldn't know what to do with the latest thing if I did! I am sure I am unique in this regard, and nobody else ever feels the same way at times. LOL


But I am really enjoying my new camera, despite the many horrible shortcomings that people keep pointing out, like it's got a lumpy top deck and whenever you go into manual mode you have to constantly turn knobs and push buttons to make the pictures come out right. Or that the lens comes right off if you turn it counter-clockwise. (And frankly, just between you, me, and the cuckoo clock, I don't see how they could have missed this flaw during the design phase. It is quite bizarre, don't you think? Like they meant it to be this way!)


And then there is the shame, ridicule and mockery I have to endure whenever I go around town carrying it on my neck. The cajoles. The exhortations. The mumbled derogatory comments of passersby.

And every now and then, when I hear the approaching roar of that Harley Davidson Nikon Df biker gang, I have to run like the dickens and hide in the bushes. I heard those guys put a guy in the hospital just for publicly displaying a WG-1 on their turf!


And then there are those persnickety Canon Rebel soccer moms, half-politely smirking at me in the grandstands when I'm at the kid's matches at the high school. I know what they're thinking.


Even that guy with the K-3 down the street keeps scrawling epithets on my door when I'm away to always remind me I have an old, outdated Pentax model. The spray paint he used last time took hours to remove.


It's really rough, but I intend to stand my ground, K-5-wise. I guess I'll always be the guy holding the banana in that Van Gogh painting. But I like my new old K-5, gosh darn it!

Last edited by DavidSKAF3; 12-30-2013 at 12:24 AM.
12-29-2013, 12:53 PM - 1 Like   #23
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
The Power of the Limiteds compels you!

QuoteOriginally posted by davids8560 Quote
...


And then there is the shame, ridicule and mockery I have to endure whenever I go around town carrying it on my neck. The cajoles. The exhortations. The mumbled derogatory comments of passersby. And then, every time I hear the roar of that Harley Davidson Nikon Df biker gang approaching, I have to run and hide in the bushes....

And then there are those persnickety Canon Rebel soccer moms half-politely smirking at me in the grandstands when I'm at the kid's matches at the high school. I know what they're thinking.... ... but I intend to stand my ground, K-5-wise. I like my new old K-5, gosh darn it!
The Pentaxian FA dark magic can obliterate all those enemies with just one mind surge. It's good of you to hold back, to show mercy, for they know not what they do...

.

12-29-2013, 01:07 PM   #24
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,678
I'm keeping the evil forces at bay even without the use of any FA magic - just using my very, ehm, Limited DA magic

But I suppose we all lust for the latest and greatest from time to time, dreaming that it will turn us into better photographers. I am painfully aware, however, that my wonderful K-5 is so much more capable than I am. Yes, the K-3 is better in many ways, as is the D800e, and the 1Dx or whatever, but none of them will make me a better photographer, and I highly doubt I will produce better pictures with any of them.

So I'll keep shooting with the trusty K-5 till the day it dies.

Or until the day I cave in and buy the latest and greatest!

Meanwhile I keep acquiring new lenses in the hope that they will turn me into a better photographer...
12-29-2013, 01:28 PM   #25
Veteran Member
DavidSKAF3's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Tompkins County, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 542
I have heard that Leica or somebody has actually designed and produced the perfect DSLR, but that it's so advanced and so awesome that they actually disguised it as a superzoom or a D70 or something disomfusculating, and only the few people who have them so far actually know what they really are underneath their ordinary bodies. And they have to take an oath of secrecy on top of paying millions of dollars for them to keep quiet about the whole thing. Only a very exclusive group of people are said to have them. An astronaut who needs it for moon work, some NSA staffers, a Hollywood mogul, Canadian singer Celine Dion, David Beckham, and some some Greek tycoon who lives on a 200-foot yacht with cruise missiles and bikini-clad supermodels in the Aegean archipelago. That's about it. You really have to be connected to get one. Even the slick high-end insider sales guys in the secret VIP showroom lounge and champagne jacuzzi nightclub disco in the basement at B&H Photo in New York don't know about it. If people found out the zenith of DSLR design has already actually been realized, it could collapse the stock market, topple democracy, and alter history. I'm talking pandemonium. Cats and dogs openly living together. Starbucks beans in Mister Coffee machines. So mum's the word. Ssssh! And remember, you didn't hear this from me. Some guy in North Dakota who talked about it ended up in a wood chipper.

Last edited by DavidSKAF3; 12-29-2013 at 04:28 PM.
12-29-2013, 01:42 PM - 1 Like   #26
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,678
QuoteOriginally posted by davids8560 Quote
I have heard that Leica or somebody has actually designed and produced the perfect DSLR, but that it's so advanced and so awesome that they actually disguised it as a superzoom or a D70 something, and only the few people who have them so far actually know what they really are underneath their ordinary bodies. And they have to take an oath of secrecy on top of paying millions of dollars for them to keep quiet about the whole thing. Only a very exclusive group of people are said to have them. An astronaut who needs it for moon work, some NSA staffers, a Hollywood mogul, Canadian singer Celine Dion, and some some Greek tycoon who lives on a 200-foot yacht with cruise missiles and bikini-clad supermodels in the Aegean archipelago. That's about it. You really have to be connected to get one. If people found out the zenith of DSLR design has already actually been realized, it could collapse the stock market, topple democracy, and alter history. I'm talking pandemonium. Cats and dogs living together. So mum's the word. Ssssh! And remember, you didn't hear this from me. Somebody else who talked ended up in a wood chipper.
Hey, you're not supposed to talk openly about what the K-5 really is...
12-29-2013, 01:52 PM - 1 Like   #27
bxf
Site Supporter
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,121
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by davids8560 Quote
And then there is the shame, ridicule and mockery I have to endure whenever I go around town carrying it on my neck.
Your solution:

Vello Hand Grip Strap for DSLR (Black) HGS-1 B&H Photo Video

12-29-2013, 10:04 PM   #28
Veteran Member
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 847
The depth of field argument is indeed rather overrated, so its good that is just one tiny reason why some people want a FF body.

I would have a 645D if I could afford it for the image quality, a properly taken medium format image with even an average lens always looks super high quality compared to smaller formats. I seriously consider a 645N every once in awhile since I still do film, but I don't want to buy a whole new set of lenses.

Thus my need for a Pentax FF DSLR, I want to keep my current set of lenses which have exactly the field of view I want them to when used on a FF body.
In the mean time I continue to use my 35mm film cameras as I enjoy film, have a darkroom, and despise the FOV a crop sensor gives me.
All my lenses are required to be compatible with all my cameras, but if you would like to buy me the A15 F3.5 I will consider my need for a FF DSLR temporarily satisfied as I will be able to get closer to what my 24mm can do with FF. At least until I try the 15mm on my film bodies and then I will fall in love with its world encompassing wideness and immediately demand a FF DSLR again.
12-30-2013, 04:39 AM - 1 Like   #29
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
What lens and setting do I need in order to obtain the "same" (in practical terms) image with my APS-C camera. Do I need your theoretical f1.1 lens, or will a 31mm/35mm f1.8 do?
That depends on what you mean by "practical terms".

Someone may state that in practical terms it does not matter whether you photograph the assassination of Kennedy with a fisheye or a telephoto lens. Both times it is about the same subject. Where do your tolerances stop?

QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
If the latter, does it not mean that this constant obsession with equivalence is exaggerated, in the sense that it is not always applicable?
I don't see an "obsession with equivalence". I see equivalence being used as a tool to compare lenses between different formats.

Equivalence is of course not a doctrine that prescribes that you must take a photo in one format exactly in the same way that you would have taken it on a different format.

You are obviously free to stop down to even f/8 on your 35mm lens in your example. Why would you not, if you want to?

The one thing you cannot claim, however, is that with a 35/1.8 lens on APS-C you can achieve the same as with a 50/1.8 lens on FF. Because that is physically impossible. You may not care about the loss, but it is still there.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ole Quote
On an APS-C camera you'd use a 35mm lens (or 31mm if you have that one) at F1.8, ISO 100. It's that simple.
Ole, unfortunately, it is not that simple.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ole Quote
The light level transmitted is not affected. F1.8 is F1.8 no matter what.
This is incorrect.

You could might as well state "50mm is 50mm, no matter what".

Of course the focal length (50mm) and maximum aperture (f/1.8) do not change when you move the lens from one camera to another. However, the meaning of both "50mm" and "f/1.8" change when you switch between different formats.

While "f/1.8" always achieve the same "exposure" independently from the format, the total amount of light can be vastly different. The reason that an image made with a Q and an f/1.8 lens is noisier than that made with a D800 and an f/1.8 lens is because the D800 sees a much larger amount of total light. The exposure (amount of light per unit square) is identical, but there are a lot more unit squares within the sensor of the D800. That's why it makes sense to calculate the equivalent aperture of the lens on the Q which would be ~f/11. This maximum aperture of f/11 makes it obvious that the Q is not only unable to create images with shallow DOF but also that it collects a lot less light (over 5 stops less).

So larger formats are not only about DOF control but also about collecting light. Bearing in mind, however, that it is not the larger sensor per se that collects more light, but that there are faster lenses available for larger sensors. The small sensor of the Q could collect the same amount of light -- provided and can be built with the necessary dynamic range -- but it would be prohibitive to build a lens for the Q that has an FF-equivalent maximum aperture of f/1.8.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ole Quote
No format is "better", it's all about trade offs.
This is not true either.

All else being equal (including pixel-pitch), the larger format only has advantages. No trade-offs.
You may argue that the D800 with its larger sensor that matched the pixel pitch of a top APS-C camera (K-5) was an exception, but the fact that most APS-C sensors have higher pixel-pitch than FF sensors is just an empirical circumstance. It does not mean that going larger with the sensor size has intrinsic disadvantages.

QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
My annoyance with equivalence is not that it exists, but rather because people repeatedly make statements that imply that you must have (for example) a 35mm f1.1 to achieve the same results you'd obtain with a 50mm f1.8, while apparently failing to take into consideration the fact that this is true only some, and not even necessarily most, of the time.
I see your point but nevertheless it makes sense to assume that people exploit the capabilities of their lenses instead of just using an 50/1.8 on FF as if it could not do more than a 35/1.8 on APS-C.

Be that as it may, note that even if I never use the range of f/1.8-f/2.8 on a 50/1.8 on FF then it will perform much better at f/2.8 than your 35/1.8 lens on APS-C at f/1.8. You could say that "in practical terms" you just stop down your APS-C lens to f/2.8 to make it perform better but then the FF guy can just as well stop down to f/4 and the lens will perform even better.

Also note that if the FF camera uses the same AF system, the AF errors (there are always small tolerances in AF) will be smaller by a factor of 1.5 due to the smaller enlargement required. You may want to check out the article "True reasons for FF".
12-31-2013, 04:42 AM   #30
bxf
Site Supporter
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,121
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
While "f/1.8" always achieve the same "exposure" independently from the format, the total amount of light can be vastly different. The reason that an image made with a Q and an f/1.8 lens is noisier than that made with a D800 and an f/1.8 lens is because the D800 sees a much larger amount of total light. The exposure (amount of light per unit square) is identical, but there are a lot more unit squares within the sensor of the D800. That's why it makes sense to calculate the equivalent aperture of the lens on the Q which would be ~f/11. This maximum aperture of f/11 makes it obvious that the Q is not only unable to create images with shallow DOF but also that it collects a lot less light (over 5 stops less).
I must shamefully admit that your reply requires more effort in reading ( esp in conjunction with the technical stuff at LumoLabs) and thinking than I'm willing to expend on the subject, which, as we know, has been debated ad nauseum in other posts/forums.

However, I'd like to focus on the quoted text. Sure, what you write makes some sense, at least superficially. But, if I take a shot at Fn ISO xxx with APS-C, and you shoot your FF with same aperture and ISO, and if I get a clean shot, then all this extra light that the FF manages to collect has no practical significance. And whereas I can appreciate "perfection" as an admirable pursuit, it has to be conceded that such perfection sometimes yields limited, if any, practical benefits.
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, f1.8, ff, full-frame, image, lens, pentax, question
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I Just Want to Whine..... Rupert General Talk 27 04-29-2013 03:15 PM
Do You Ever Just Want To.... magkelly General Talk 22 02-22-2012 11:23 AM
Just want to say Hello... SpicyLizard Welcomes and Introductions 2 01-29-2012 09:55 AM
People Just want to share dycz Post Your Photos! 5 10-23-2009 06:38 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:49 PM. | 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