[normhead]

I'm not going to review the whole thread, but a couple of points...Please stop comparing the prices of ƒ 2.8 glass, with the prices of ƒ4 glass. Everyone knows ƒ4 glass is cheaper. And ƒ4 on FF does not have all the advantages of 2.8 glass even if you are thinking about equivalency. AF will be better, low light exposure is the same on both systems, and for exposure an ƒ4 FF lens is a stop behind an ƒ2.8 lens on both systems. Regardless of how many time people say it ƒ4 is not ƒ 2.8 except in narrow DoF and narrow DoF is not a universally appreciated characteristic. If you're speaking to the whole forum equivalency doesn't apply. If you're speaking only to the "narrow DoF" club then ƒ2.8 APS-c is ƒ4. I'd appreciate it if there was a separate thread to make and discuss that point.

On that theme, it would be also nice to help illustrate what the whole DoF issue, if there was am nice APS-c plus FF thread, where people post narrow DoF images from any format one after the other. The subject isolation through narrow DoF club or something. I'm not interested in that issue, but I could easily cross post from "show us your bokeh" from time to time.

I'd also like to confirm, that everyone I know who shoots FF, has way more money than they need and can go out and buy whatever they want. I believe my buddy with the D4X paid over $9000 for his camera and his lens collection is extensive. As an amateur, he probably spends what would be a quarter of my yearly income just going places to take pictures. Ya, he has a great job, that he can get time off from on request. Another guy is COO of Cisco.

Of my 4 FF buddies, one helps support himself with a wedding photography business and also shoots photos for gallery exhibits, and he shoots Canon. Neither of the D800 guys needs or makes money from their cameras.

The wildlife guy near me, who sells his photos from his place of employment, also shoots Canon FF.

SO my informal poll of shooters, based inn my limited knowledge.
Pros use Canon FF
Rich people use Nikon FFs.

Others use APS_c.

Of course, it's a very small sample.

The simple fact is many of us shooting Pentax can get the images to fulfill our needs from a K-30. It's not usually about need when people buy cameras. For most it's about cost. And for those for whom it isn't about cost, the discussion is completely different, from those for whom it's not.

I know some spin things so FF is cheaper. But I don't know one person buying a camera on a budget, who bought fast glass for narrower DoF. Of the things people buy cameras for, getting the thinnest DoF is way down the list for the vast majority of people. And for most beginners, it's not even on the list. For most people having an 18-200 zoom is like heaven and an un-affordable luxury. Places where you have folks obsessing about narrow DoF are not representative of the APS-c market as a whole.

[ElJamoquio]

Please stop comparing the prices of ƒ 2.8 glass, with the prices of ƒ4 glass.

No, it's incredibly relevant in the FF forum.

[normhead]

No, it's incredibly relevant in the FF forum.

And incredibly irrelevant in the APS-c forum. My reason for possibly going FF would be more resolution in landscape images and close up wildlife images, not narrow DoF. It's a niche issue, always has been. If you went thorough the "Show your bokeh" thread you'd see dozens of my narrow DoF images, all taken with APS-c. If narrow DoF is your niche then equivalence is important. If you're the average guy taking a narrow DoF image every now and then because circumstances warrant it then the narrow DoF advantage isn't relevant, whether you are shooting APS-c of FF.. For 85% of FF aperture settings, there is an equivalent setting for APS-c, and many of those APS_c settings will provide satisfactory narrow DoF results. That's the side of equivalence, FF proponents try to hide. My narrow DoF image in this thread is shot a ƒ8. Even for narrow DoF, extreme settings are not often necessary.

[cali92rs]

For 85% of FF aperture settings, there is an equivalent setting for APS-c. That's the side of equivalence, FF proponents try to hide.

And the "equivalent" aperture settings are worse for the crop sensor. Diffraction sets in at a larger aperture for smaller sensors, dynamic range is worse, signal to noise is worse.
The fact that it may or may not show up in a particular print or screen size does not mean that it doesnt exist. The question is whether you are willing to pay for the increased performance.

[ElJamoquio]

And incredibly irrelevant in the APS-c forum.

Somewhat irrelevant, I agree. I wish you'd stop bringing it up so often.

My reason for possibly going FF would be more resolution in landscape images and close up wildlife images, not narrow DoF. It's a niche issue, always has been. If you went thorough the "Show your bokeh" thread you'd see dozens of my narrow DoF images, all taken with APS-c. If narrow DoF is you niche then equivalence is important. If you're the average guy taking a narrow DoF image every now and then because circumstances warrant it. For 85% of FF aperture settings, there is an equivalent setting for APS-c. That's the side of equivalence, FF proponents try to hide. My narrow DoF image in this thread is shot a ƒ8. Even for narrow DoF, extreme settings are not often necessary.

You're not going to get me to bite, sorry.

Could you please show me where someone said FF sensors would be the same price as APS-C?

[normhead]

And the "equivalent" aperture settings are worse for the crop sensor. Diffraction sets in at a larger aperture for smaller sensors, dynamic range is worse, signal to noise is worse.
The fact that it may or may not show up in a particular print or screen size does not mean that it doesnt exist. The question is whether you are willing to pay for the increased performance.

But in many cases, there is no increased performance. The setting used on APS-c are as good as it gets. The question is are you willing to pay for increased performance, when you want it. And the answer to that depends entirely on how often you want it and how important to you it is. Many of the images I posted in this thread would be good images taken on a 12 MP 4/3 camera, with a kit lens. Not every image needs more than a point and shoot.. For many images a K-5 is overkill. For many of us, having a K-3 is like a luxury. having an FF would be more of a luxury, and having an FF would not improve the majority of our shots. If I can shoot at 5.6 on APS-C for a landscape, I have more chance of having more of my image in focus, because I have more DOF at 5.6 than I do with an FF camera. And I'm in my lens's sweet spot for resolution. But honesty, because I understand the trade-offs inherent in everyday photography, for me, I can live with them. ƒ5.6 on APS-c or F8 on FF, when I could possible use ƒ4 to ƒ11 on APS-c or ƒ5.6 to ƒ16 on FF, it doesn't make any difference. You have enough latitude that you use either system without penalty. I don't know who these people are who propose that you have to have this one ƒ-stop with this one system for the "correct" exposure are. But they are wrong. Only in low light is there ever any real horse trading on these issues. And in bright light you're not going to be using ƒ1.4 on your full frame anyway, because you don't have a fast enough shutter speed to do that.

The biggest fault of the whole FF focus, is not that it's wrong, it's that you have to understand that it's not relevant all the time. Before going FF I would take the time to figure out how often I'd use it. When I bought my film 645 it became my surrogate FF camera. I also have film cameras I can use that are obviously FF. So I''m sort of trying to take those cameras out whenever I know I'm going to have a FF type image, thinking if I have an FF camera, I'll take it anywhere I'd take my film cameras, because they offer what APS-c doesn't. I've never taken them out. The film is still in the freezer. I just don't have many opportunities, when I wouldn't have something more all purpose like my APS-c camera.

Obviously not everyone is like me, but I'd suggest some kind of analysis before venturing into the FF world. You may want FF , you may not, but even if you do, that's no reason to make statements about FF that are in essence errors of omission. Sometimes you say something is true but nobody cares. It's kind of like saying "I like Blue Cheese try some" to some one who is lactose intolerant. The shots that are hard for me to get are wildlife images.


The simple fact is right now, going out with my K-3 + DA*60-250 and A-400 gives me the best chance to get a chance wildlife image while out hiking. I will not carry an FF camera as well, when APS-c does so much of what FF does, and is better for what I really want. I can give up what FF does that APS_-c doesn't. That is reality. It has nothing to do with FF vs APS-c per se, it has to do with maximizing your opportunities with the best possible equipment for what you do.

Assuming that FF is somehow that choice for everyone is just wrong. My choices are right for a few people, FF is right for a few people, there's huge number in the middle for whom it doesn't matter. Because they don't make use of the extremes of their equipment. They haven't experienced a 1.4 lens. They have't bought even a 100 macro, much less a long lens. Everything they do falls within the parameters of APS-c and FF capabilities, and it makes no difference which system they choose, so they choose the cheaper.

[mecrox]

I'm not going to review the whole thread, but a couple of points...Please stop comparing the prices of ƒ 2.8 glass, with the prices of ƒ4 glass. Everyone knows ƒ4 glass is cheaper. And ƒ4 on FF does not have all the advantages of 2.8 glass even if you are thinking about equivalency. AF will be better, low light exposure is the same on both systems, and for exposure an ƒ4 FF lens is a stop behind an ƒ2.8 lens on both systems. Regardless of how many time people say it ƒ4 is not ƒ 2.8 except in narrow DoF and narrow DoF is not a universally appreciated characteristic. If you're speaking to the whole forum equivalency doesn't apply. If you're speaking only to the "narrow DoF" club then ƒ2.8 APS-c is ƒ4. I'd appreciate it if there was a separate thread to make and discuss that point.

On that theme, it would be also nice to help illustrate what the whole DoF issue, if there was am nice APS-c plus FF thread, where people post narrow DoF images from any format one after the other. The subject isolation through narrow DoF club or something. I'm not interested in that issue, but I could easily cross post from "show us your bokeh" from time to time.

I'd also like to confirm, that everyone I know who shoots FF, has way more money than they need and can go out and buy whatever they want. I believe my buddy with the D4X paid over $9000 for his camera and his lens collection is extensive. As an amateur, he probably spends what would be a quarter of my yearly income just going places to take pictures. Ya, he has a great job, that he can get time off from on request. Another guy is COO of Cisco.

Of my 4 FF buddies, one helps support himself with a wedding photography business and also shoots photos for gallery exhibits, and he shoots Canon. Neither of the D800 guys needs or makes money from their cameras.

The wildlife guy near me, who sells his photos from his place of employment, also shoots Canon FF.

SO my informal poll of shooters, based inn my limited knowledge.
Pros use Canon FF
Rich people use Nikon FFs.

Others use APS_c.

Of course, it's a very small sample.

The simple fact is many of us shooting Pentax can get the images to fulfill our needs from a K-30. It's not usually about need when people buy cameras. For most it's about cost. And for those for whom it isn't about cost, the discussion is completely different, from those for whom it's not.

I know some spin things so FF is cheaper. But I don't know one person buying a camera on a budget, who bought fast glass for narrower DoF. Of the things people buy cameras for, getting the thinnest DoF is way down the list for the vast majority of people. And for most beginners, it's not even on the list. For most people having an 18-200 zoom is like heaven and an un-affordable luxury. Places where you have folks obsessing about narrow DoF are not representative of the APS-c market as a whole.

I'd have though it pretty relevant. Apart from the question of how much light is hitting a sensor, whether APS-C or FF, it looks as if manufacturers are putting some effort into FF f4 zooms, in order to keep down sticker prices and weight/complexity. It's part of their efforts to broaden the appeal of FF, at a guess. Given the excellent performance of modern sensors, f4 is the new f2.8 on FF in a sense - unless you are a professional and/or can afford the high-end FF f2.8 lenses. Most of us cannot and they are massive beasts anyway. I'd have thought a Canon 6D kit with two f4 zooms is a fair example of an alternative to the Pentax kit if someone wants to go in that direction. The really fast stuff and the razor-thin DoF can be left to primes after all unless, as I said, you have the money for the full-on zooms.

Your informal poll is v. interesting. I've recently started having coffee weekly with three or four fellow photographers from here. In our group, sensor formats don't get a look-in - they are never discussed. Not interesting; only the images matter. A straw poll yesterday showed unanimity around the notion that future cameras will all be smaller, mirrorless and EVF, and with much better connectivity to other devices. But they will also become much more expensive as the old compact market drops away and smartphones continue their march. None of us much relishes soldiering on with the classic DSLR for another five years. We comprise Nikon, Fujifilm, Olympus, Sony-Minolta and Pentax owners. Still a lot of film shot. No Canonets. A camera we all admire is the Sony RX10. It's too expensive here for what it is, but it packs everything into one pretty darn well and you can still get some quality images from its 1" sensor.

[jsherman999]

Assuming that FF is somehow that choice for everyone is just wrong. .

Straw man.

.

[northcoastgreg]

With same-gen bodies (AFAIK) there always has been a DR advantage to FF once you move up from base ISO. (What's changed is that the D800 has now claimed the base ISO as well.)

The remark was made in response to the suggestion that landscape photographers would be interested in FF because of the greater dynamic range. About 99.5% of my landscape pics are shot at base ISO, so the fact that FF has more DR at higher ISOs is irrelevant to me (and to most old school landscape shooters).

If you were willing to buy gently-used, you may be surprised at how much FF kit you could buy for $2600. In the near future you may be making the choice between a new $1200 FF camera and a $750 aps-c camera with similar specs, save for the larger sensor. Would you choose the aps-c camera so readily then if the savings was only $400 or so?

I wouldn't compromise on glass merely to get larger sensor size. I have shot with APS-C and four-thirds sensors. If you compare the best sensors from each platform (say, the K-5iis to the OM-D EM-5), there are advantages to the larger APS-C sensor (cleaner files at base ISO, more dynamic range, better high ISO performance). However, in terms of practical output, those advantages require a pretty sharp eye to notice. The biggest differentiating factor in image quality (other than the skill of the photographer) is usually the quality of the lens. And when I talk of quality of lens, I'm not just talking resolution. I'm talking microcontrast, color rendition, overall rendering, etc. -- in short, the aesthetic qualities of images produced by the lens, not just how well it performs on numerical tests. Now while the difference between FF and APS-C sensors is greater than the difference between four-thirds and APS-C, generally, the same rule applies. The lenses play a bigger role in image quality than sensor size, at least in prints I peruse at local critique sessions and at galleries. I can sometimes guess that an image is taken with an APS-C camera, but that's because it's shot on a mediocre lens. None of the local FF shooters shoot with anything less than expensive Canon L glass. In bi-monthly critiques, I probably see more than 120+ prints from 30+ photographers. Among the most technically accomplished prints, I can't tell whether they were shot with an APS-C or FF sensor. Maybe I could tell with super large prints, but at 18 by 12, 16 by 20, 16 by 24 -- there just is no significant difference.

For me, it's all about the glass. Give me the right glass, and any sensor four-thirds or larger is fine by me. Bigger sensors are better, but in terms of practical output, sensor size is not all that important. And there's no way I would move to FF if I had to use cheap, "gently used" FF lenses. I'm not interested in shooting the Tamron 28-75 or the Canikon 50/1.8. Undoubtedly nice lenses, but I'm not trading the aesthetic qualities I'm getting with my Pentax glass for just to attain greater resolution or more DOF control. That's not even a lateral move, it's a step downward. Give me a slew of F mount Zeiss primes, and the D800 starts to look interesting. That's at least a clear step upwards. Short of that, I'm not interested in FF. But those Zeiss lenses, not to mention the D800, are well beyond my means.

I would also add that when we talk about spending $2,600 on a system, we're not being entirely realistic. In the real world, many photographers have already invested in systems. They're not starting from scratch. They already own several APS-C lenses, and a surprising number of them are satisfied with what they have. Many of them are shooting with slower APS-C zooms (and yes, those lenses are less expensive and lighter than anything with comparable FOVs in FF). They don't care about DOF at wide to normal focal lengths. I must have seen over a thousand prints from local photographers over the last year. Not one of them featured narrow DOF at a wide or normal focal length. All the narrow DOF shots I 've seen were taken with telephotos: mostly macos and wildlife shots. Now I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with narrow DOF shots at wide or normal focal lengths. I just don't see it as a driving force in the market. On the other hand, many APS-C shooters tell me they like the 1.5 crop factor, because it's makes their long glass "longer." (And good luck trying to explain to them that they can crop to match their APS-C FOVs on FF!) Many of the "FF is the future" people seem to be operating under the delusion that everyone thinks like themselves and is constantly lusting for something new, better, and more exciting. But most of the APS-C shooters I know personally are perfectly content with what they have now and don't want to go to the trouble or expense of moving on to FF.

[normhead]

Straw man.

.

I wasn't aware that this was a formal debate... sometimes argument, sometimes discussion.... if we are going to start applying the rules of formal debate, then, we all need to stay on topic, which was, Full frame will never be cheaper than APS-c, but I think we wore that one out on the first page. I do get annoyed with straw man arguments when someone makes up stuff and says I said it. But that's more like lying than a straw man argument. But I usually don't mind fictitious straw men.

Could you please show me where someone said FF sensors would be the same price as APS-C?

Could you please find it yourself since you're so interested? I'm not reading back through every post I read in the last week to find it. I'm not sure that's what was said, it may have been meant that the cheapest full frame cameras would be cheaper than the most expensive APS-c cameras, which is already true, and I'd buy that except for the part where he said, when that happened APS-c would be wiped out. There, that's enough, you'll know the quote when you see it. Good reading.

I'd have thought a Canon 6D kit with two f4 zooms is a fair example of an alternative to the Pentax kit if someone wants to go in that direction.

And I would have thought comparing Pentax kit to Canon and Nikon kit would have been a fair comparison, but comparing Nikon or Canon kit to Pentax DA*s? That's a bit ridiculous. Why not compare the 35 ƒ2.4 to L glass? You'd end up thinking "my god Pentax is a great deal."

Sometimes I think if I didn't post a response, you'd think I was ignoring you...


Oh and on another note, I'll try and get some definitive K-3 vs K-5 noise comparisons tomorrow, it's been a buy week. I'll post them in their own thread. My impression is the K-3 is worse. But I've been wrong before, only few times mind you ..

[boriscleto]

ISometimes I think if I didn't post a response, you'd think I was ignoring you...

This has been a difficult thread to follow. On many pages your posts are the only ones that aren't blank.

[ElJamoquio]

Full frame will never be cheaper than APS-c,

moving goalposts

[Ash]

FF glass is generally not cheaper than that of APS-C, given equivalent specifications.
FF sensors aren't cheaper than APS-C ones, given equivalent specifications, for the same reason.
FF is clearly not for everyone, and has its advantages in resolution and DR with the right glass to pair it with.
Everything else is less pertinent to the cause of this argument.

[ElJamoquio]

FF glass is generally not cheaper than that of APS-C, given equivalent specifications.

Given the same aperture, you're correct. Given the same capability, you're wrong.

Have we said this enough times yet?

FF sensors aren't cheaper than APS-C ones, given equivalent specifications, for the same reason.

No one has ever argued differently, FWIW.

[normhead]

Given the same aperture, you're correct. Given the same capability, you're wrong.

Have we said this enough times yet?



No one has ever argued differently, FWIW.

If you say something over and over to someone it isn't true for, it's still not true for them.You don't have to desire narrow DoF photographs. You could just as easily think as I do, that the wider DoF on APS-c of almost every lens is an advantage. Because we're shooting a lot of images where the issue is not achieving narrow DoF but getting as much DOF as we can and as much sharpness as we can in the same image. You don't want people to ignore your mindset. But you continually ignore there's and revel in telling them, their view point isn't valid. With so little respect for the experience of others, you're hardly in a position to be asking for equal recognition for other.

The simple fact is for some shooters, narrow DoF matters
For some shooters wide DOF, and shooting longer with lighter glass matters.

I wouldn't try and say you shouldn't shoot the way you do and pretend that my way is the only legitimate way of doing it, but every time you claim more capability for FF, you're wrong. Shooting with my 60-250 I have as much subject magnification as D800 user shooting with about a 400mm lens. Because reach and magnification are important to me, using a lens on APS-c has more capability. IN the crop area, I can get more resolution with APS-c and my A-400 than a D-800 with with a 660 mm lens.

SO which lens and body is more capable depends on what you're shooting. You can't just say "Given the same capability, you're wrong.". You have to define the context. In one context he's wrong, in another context you're wrong.

Personally I shy away from making this type of statement because there is no one liner that encapsulates "the right answer." As I used to tell my students, "there often is no 'right answer', but sometimes there's an answer that's right for you." The right answer is way more complicated than a simple assertion of right or wrong. To imply that it is, it's impossible not to put your own preferences and shooting practices in the position of being more important than other's. That's just rude.

On another note... I started this thread an I've attempted to read the posts and hear everyone's point of view... but it's been 11 pages, it's been way more than I thought it would be, and I'm ready to move on to the next topic, feel free to keep it going as long as you find it interesting. However i can't promise I'll be here to respond to anything past this point.