Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-06-2014, 08:01 PM   #31
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
DO I have to say everything twice.. the thread was start as per usual, because someone enamoured with FF made a ridiculous post about FF becoming cheaper than APS_c.
I don't know what you're talking about, but as a likely system, that person's already correct.

Let's price out a normal zoom (f/2.8 on APS-C, f/4 on FF) with a normal fast lens (50mm f/1.8 on FF, 35mm F/1.1 on APS-C) maybe a wide angle prime (24mm F/2 on FF, 15mm F/1.3 on APS-C) or whatever.

Obviously it depends on what actual lenses you're going to get, but if you want F/2.8 on APS-C you'd probably spend less on FF right now.

01-06-2014, 08:03 PM   #32
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,750
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
It's better than an f/2.8 from 16-50 equivalent. So it's better.
It's also longer. So it's better.
It's also WR. Or have you taken one apart, or seen one taken apart, and compared it to the 16-50?
As a FF lens and faster to boot it'll focus better, all else the same.

I know I'll never change your mind and don't care. I hope you aren't influencing others however.
You are saying a 2.8 lens is the equivalent to a 3.5 to 4.5 lens, that a DA* is equivalent to a kit lens, etc.?
This is the type of argument that FF proponents are fond of making. No commentary should be necessary.

But I would ad, they make these argument, because that's all they've got.

D610 +24-85= $2200
K-3 + 17-70 = $1750 both today's prices at henry's with the 610 $300 off on sale.

The 17-70 has more range and is constant ƒ4 so arguably a better lens. We can play this game all night.

Last edited by normhead; 01-06-2014 at 08:09 PM.
01-07-2014, 04:25 AM   #33
Senior Member
Timd's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cape Town, SA
Posts: 251
I've been watching the trend in hard drive prices. If you select a hard drive capacity, it reduces in price over time. Just when it gets below a magical price level, it is discontinued and unobtainable - you have to buy the bigger capacity. I suspect that as the sensor price reduces, the camera cost goes down, but the user's expectations go up demanding better features which offset the sensor saving. Comparing like-to-like, FF will always be more expensive than APC. However, a low spec FF could be cheaper than an APC with more features and the FF could be considered affordable. This I think is the excitement when the D600 was introduced.

I for one, would stick with APC. The only reason for FF (for me) is the bigger viewfinder; all other differences are disadvantages in my mind. I can quite see why some might like FF.
01-07-2014, 04:58 AM   #34
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
So then why is a D600 + 24-85 cheaper than a K3 + 16-50?

What is your fascination with FF, anyway? Why do you turn so many threads into FF threads? Or then start FF threads?
Nikon's advantage is in having a good chunk of that market -- something that Pentax doesn't have. That said, the 24-85 is a slowish lens. For what it is worth, when the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is available in the K mount, you will be able to purchase it with a K3 body for 300 or 400 less than your D600 and 24-85 combo.

I will just say again that the goal of most photography is not narrow depth of field or equivalence. People buy lenses based on (a) focal length (which equals angle of view on a specific format) and (b) aperture (ie light gathering ability). A 50-135 f2.8 lens on APS-C will give equivalent shutter speeds to a 70-200 f2.8 lens on full frame -- which is all most of us care about. If I can shoot with a decent shutter speed in a dark room with my f2 lens and keep my iso at 3200 or below, then APS-C is adequate. If I need to go to iso 6400, then is when I feel like I would benefit from full frame. Fortunately, I don't need to go there often, but I understand that there are some who do.

For most of photography history, narrow depth of field was a side effect of using wide aperture lenses, not the goal (which was adequate shutter speeds for the iso film you had in your camera).


Last edited by Rondec; 01-07-2014 at 05:07 AM.
01-07-2014, 05:27 AM   #35
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You are saying a 2.8 lens is the equivalent to a 3.5 to 4.5 lens, that a DA* is equivalent to a kit lens, etc.?
That's like saying the Canon 24-105L is a 'kit' lens because it comes in a kit, which of course is silly.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But I would ad, they make these argument, because that's all they've got.
Absolutely not everything, but all I have time to try to teach you today - or rather, correctly inform the people you're misinforming.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
D610 +24-85= $2200
K-3 + 17-70 = $1750 both today's prices at henry's with the 610 $300 off on sale.

The 17-70 has more range and is constant ƒ4 so arguably a better lens. We can play this game all night.
The 17-70 has less range on both the wide side and the long side too with very minor cropping, and of course is over a stop slower in performance.

We can't play this game all night, you have more time than I do.
01-07-2014, 05:31 AM   #36
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,912
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Nikon's advantage is in having a good chunk of that market -- something that Pentax doesn't have. That said, the 24-85 is a slowish lens. For what it is worth, when the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is available in the K mount, you will be able to purchase it with a K3 body for 300 or 400 less than your D600 and 24-85 combo.
Not really. The difference is smaller than that. Where I live, D610 + 24-85mm = £1769. K3 + Sigma 18-35 f1.8 = £1688 which is almost level-pegging. I don't think I'd buy either combo though I would buy either camera. An equivalent combo, perhaps, is Canon 6D + 24-70mm f4 = £2149, K3 + DA* 16-50mm f2.8 = £1998, a difference of £151.

It's very hard to balance these things since the K3 is a superior body to either the D610 or the 6D, imho. More metal, serious WR, good buffer, 1/8000th and the shutter rating alone is way above either of them. Like a server-grade 2TB disk versus a consumer-grade 3TB disk. One has to decide what one is really looking for.

OTOH, it may be that in practice, one gets more than one stop of advantage with FF. It depends on the lens. If an APS-C lens needs to be stopped down further than the FF one, I mean, to obtain best results. I think this is probably true of some wider lenses on APS-C - like the DA 15mm or the DA 21mm.

Last edited by mecrox; 01-07-2014 at 05:39 AM.
01-07-2014, 05:32 AM   #37
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Nikon's advantage is in having a good chunk of that market -- something that Pentax doesn't have. That said, the 24-85 is a slowish lens. For what it is worth, when the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is available in the K mount, you will be able to purchase it with a K3 body for 300 or 400 less than your D600 and 24-85 combo.
The question then is whether or not a, say, D7100 + 18-35 f/1.8 (not very wide or very long) is cheaper than D600 + Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, for example.


QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I will just say again that the goal of most photography is not narrow depth of field or equivalence. People buy lenses based on (a) focal length (which equals angle of view on a specific format) and (b) aperture (ie light gathering ability). A 50-135 f2.8 lens on APS-C will give equivalent shutter speeds to a 70-200 f2.8 lens on full frame -- which is all most of us care about. If I can shoot with a decent shutter speed in a dark room with my f2 lens and keep my iso at 3200 or below, then APS-C is adequate. If I need to go to iso 6400, then is when I feel like I would benefit from full frame. Fortunately, I don't need to go there often, but I understand that there are some who do.

For most of photography history, narrow depth of field was a side effect of using wide aperture lenses, not the goal (which was adequate shutter speeds for the iso film you had in your camera).
I will say again (if you permit me) that equivalence is actually very important when you're considering what size of sensor you want to purchase (which is part of what this sub-forum is about).



...they're exactly the same, the only difference is what the number is in the exif. That's completely irrelevant.

So then, it comes down to other factors, like camera weight, camera cost, lens cost, lens weight, size, distortion, bokeh, etc. Usually those things (except camera cost and camera weight) skew slightly in favor of FF. Sharpness, CA, colors skew heavily in favor of FF.
01-07-2014, 07:26 AM   #38
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,750
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
The question then is whether or not a, say, D7100 + 18-35 f/1.8 (not very wide or very long) is cheaper than D600 + Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, for example.




I will say again (if you permit me) that equivalence is actually very important when you're considering what size of sensor you want to purchase (which is part of what this sub-forum is about).



...they're exactly the same, the only difference is what the number is in the exif. That's completely irrelevant.

So then, it comes down to other factors, camera cost, lens cost, lens weight, size, distortion, bokeh, etc. Usually those things (except camera cost and camera weight) skew slightly in favor of FF. Sharpness, CA, colors skew heavily in favor of FF.
Equivalency is a very small part of lens performance. As usual, you try and make a point by focusing on a very narrow area of lens performance, while ignoring others. For exposure,ƒ 2.8 on FF is the same as ƒ2.8 on APS-c. And even based on equivalency, an APS-c camera can do anything an FF camera can do for 95% of images that can be taken with the camera.

These are the attributes or lens performance.

Focal length
Aperture as it relates to the regulation of light transmission
Resolution
Aperture as it relates to Depth of Field

While the in Aperture (equivalency) it is a formula explaining how DOF in one system relates to DoF in another. By nature it explains how the systems are the same, not how one is better. But equivalency also says that for 85% of the Aperture settings, there is an equivalent setting on the other system.

I've long suspected that the reason you don't post pictures on the forum, is it would be embarrassing to your argument to have people analyze your photos to see how often you actually use your camera wide open, because for equivalency to matter, you'd have to use your camera wide open at ƒ1.4 all the time. Otherwise you'd have no argument. I tend to use ƒ5.6, as it's the sharpest setting on the majority of lenses, on both APS-c and FF.
You have always said for what you shoot, FF is cheaper. But no one has a clue what you shoot, or even if you ever take any images. IN that sense you have only no credibility, and I'm probably the only one who even takes the time to point out the fallacy of this non-sense.

I could see posting a bunch of great pictures, that couldn't be done with an APs-c camera, which is problematic in itself, because the fact that you took a picture with an FF camera, usually in no way implies you couldn't have taken it with APS-c. But every now and then some one comes in with an FF image shot at ƒ1.4 or an image that for some other set of circumstances could only have been taken with an FF camera, so it's unlikely but not impossible. And if someone who was a fan of that style wanted to know how you took the image, it would be informative to tell them to buy FF. it would make their life easier. To anyone not a fan of that style, telling them FF is cheaper, is misleading. Because only for those who make a habit of shooting wide open, is equivalency even relevant. For most ƒ-stops, equivalency doesn't determine you can't do something, it tells you how you can do something in an equivalent fashion. Many FF proponents have flipped it on it's head.

So except for a few people, and you haven't even shown us that you are one of them, they can buy a K-3 with a DA 18-135, and have a more practical, functional system than buying a D610 and 24-85 or whatever it is, and save $500. One system has more range, the other can produce narrower DoF, so roughly equivalent depending on what you treasure. The APS-c won't do as narrow DoF, but the D610 can't do telephoto. It would need a 200mm lens to be equivalent to the K-3 with Kit.

The systems are roughly equivalent with both not having important features the other doesn't, but the APS-c is cheaper.

FF is only cheaper, if you need a really good camera. IN which case, MF is cheaper, 4x5 scanning backs are cheaper, even though they may run you $100,000 K. After all according to FF proponents it's only the cheapest if it performs certain tasks best, and there are certain things only a Scanning back on a 4x5 will do best. SO does that mean the 4x5 $100,000 is the cheapest. It is for people who need that capacity. The fallacy of the argument is apparent to most, but not all. Saying a camera system is the cheapest for one set of circumstances, does not mean it's the cheapest camera. The qualifier must always be added.

What exactly is FF the cheapest for? An arbitrary level of DoF , CA control etc, accepted by a very few people as a standard. The fact that almost everyone who shoots APS-c has already rejected those standards, is lost on these poor proselytizers.


Last edited by normhead; 01-07-2014 at 07:58 AM.
01-07-2014, 07:35 AM   #39
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
an APS-c camera can do anything an FF camera can do for 95% of images that can be taken with the camera.
It'll take the same picture, with worse color, worse sharpness, worse CA for those 95%, and of course can't take the other 5% at all (indoors, sports, late sunset etc).

If you're buying f/2.8 lenses for APS-C - you feel that need - then APS-C will often/usually be more expensive, to boot.

So we're on the same page now, no more starting threads or hijacking threads req'd, right?
01-07-2014, 07:45 AM   #40
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I've long suspected that the reason you don't post pictures on the forum, is it would be embarrassing to your argument to have people analyze your photos to see how often you actually use your camera wide open, because for equivalency to matter, you'd have to use your camera wide open at ƒ1.4 all the time.
False premise and irrelevant. I've told the forum a number of times why I don't post my pictures here. I've posted them on other forums, but I've stopped doing that, too.

F/1.4 doesn't matter. The tipping point is about F/4 - if you use only F/4 on APS-C stay on APS-C. If you go faster, by and larger, use FF.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But no one has a clue what you shoot
Everything.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
or even if you ever take any images. IN that sense you have only no credibility, and I'm probably the only one who even takes the time to point out the fallacy of this non-sense.
Huh? Arguing against me, rather than the discussion at hand?


QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I could see posting a bunch of great pictures, that couldn't be done with an APs-c camera, which is problematic in itself, because the fact that you took a picture with an FF camera, usually in no way implies you couldn't have taken it with APS-c.
That's actually *my* argument. Please don't make me say this again, it's about the 50th time, right? You ******CAN****** take EXACTLY the same pictures with BOTH (for 95% of pics). So it comes down to other factors, factors in which FF lenses generally beat APS-C, or factors in which FF lenses always beat APS-C.


QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
So except for a few people, and you haven't even shown us that you are one of them, they can buy a K-3 with a DA 18-135, and have a more practical, functional system than buying a D610 and 24-85 or whatever it is, and save $500.
Uh, you're not arguing against me, you're arguing with me. If you want an F/4 (APS-C equivalent) lens, buy APS-C. You like F/5.6. Buy APS-C, no question.
01-07-2014, 07:57 AM   #41
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
an APS-c camera can do anything an FF camera can do for 95% of images that can be taken with the camera.
True... But then it is also true that an M4/3 camera can do anything an APS-C camera can do for 95% of images that can be taken with the camera. From 1 to crop 1.5 to crop 2.0. Eventually, the difference is big enough to notice. To each his/her own compromise.

NB, the difference in surface area between 645D and FF is not even half the difference between APS-C and FF. From FF to 645D is a crop factor of 0.78.

Ontopic: Of course APS-C sensors are always going to be cheaper then FF sensors. You get more, you pay more, simple. That doesn't mean that silly things aren't going to happen. The Olympus OM-D is ludicrously expensive, double the average APS-C camera. And people are buying it too. I can't (or won't) get my head around that.
01-07-2014, 08:15 AM   #42
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,170
FF will be available for cheaper prices than now... it will take time, but it will happen.
That is the doom of electronics... things gets cheaper over time while technology "evolves". It just started, give it 5-10 more years.
01-07-2014, 08:31 AM   #43
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,750
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
It'll take the same picture, with worse color, worse sharpness, worse CA for those 95%, and of course can't take the other 5% at all (indoors, sports, late sunset etc).

If you're buying f/2.8 lenses for APS-C - you feel that need - then APS-C will often/usually be more expensive, to boot.

So we're on the same page now, no more starting threads or hijacking threads req'd, right?
You have never shown there is a discernible difference, only a theoretical one. Since photography is a visual art, only what can be discerned by the eye is what is relevant. Arguing over the interpretations of bunch of numbers is pointless.
01-07-2014, 08:48 AM   #44
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,750
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
True... But then it is also true that an M4/3 camera can do anything an APS-C camera can do for 95% of images that can be taken with the camera. From 1 to crop 1.5 to crop 2.0. Eventually, the difference is big enough to notice. To each his/her own compromise.

NB, the difference in surface area between 645D and FF is not even half the difference between APS-C and FF. From FF to 645D is a crop factor of 0.78.

Ontopic: Of course APS-C sensors are always going to be cheaper then FF sensors. You get more, you pay more, simple. That doesn't mean that silly things aren't going to happen. The Olympus OM-D is ludicrously expensive, double the average APS-C camera. And people are buying it too. I can't (or won't) get my head around that.
Exactly... photography is a visual art, all that matters are the things that are visually apparent. Arguing about a bunch of numbers is pointless. The first thing that should be incumbent on anyone proposing to to discuss equivalency or any other such notion, should be to demonstrate visually, as in a couple of photographs, that the distinctions they are discussing are visually discernible. In most of the tests where people have made the effort to visually establish the concept of equivalency, the results have been inconclusive. You can argue the numbers forever, but if you can't see it, it's not there. I know there are bacteria, but i don't go looking for them with my naked eye.

Although I have run into a number of folks who are so biased towards FF that if they know which is which, they will always describe the FF image as better. It's only when they don't know which image is which that they are capable of an un-biased opinion.

Anyone who looks at their APS-c images and thinks they need, more resolution, shallower DoF, etc. should certainly look at FF. Anyone who looks at their FF images and wants the same should look at MF. Anyone who looks at their MF images and feels they are lacking might want to look at 4x5. It's like the wheel of fortune. But you have to want those things. BY the same measure, if you're happy with your APS-c images, you might want to check out 4/3. Maybe you can get away with even less size. The assumption that you will only be happy moving up in cost is simply mistaken, many are already shooting with a better camera than they need to stay happy and motivated to take pictures.

Should everyone strive for the most expensive equipment, absolutely not. Everyone should strive for the equipment that suits them. Forget the numbers, look at the pictures.

Last edited by normhead; 01-07-2014 at 09:08 AM.
01-07-2014, 09:05 AM   #45
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You have never shown there is a discernible difference, only a theoretical one.
Absolutely. To date I haven't conducted experiments to show you. But when I do panoramas with APS-C, I like the picture better. When I do panoramas with FF, I like the picture better.

When I take a pic with FF, I like the picture better. A best-pic on APS-C isn't going to be better or worse than on FF. But I'll be able to print it larger.
Closed Thread

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!
aps-c, camera, cost, curve, dslr, ff, ff sensors, film, photography, price, prices, scale, sensors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Suggestion Stop the FF infection ... of the other threads - read on. jpzk Site Suggestions and Help 59 03-18-2015 11:30 AM
K-5II or K-5IIs - which one will you choose if the price is the same? frank Pentax K-5 54 06-20-2013 03:45 PM
This Foron Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 10 06-12-2009 04:14 PM
This Forum Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 45 06-09-2009 06:44 PM
Rumors confirmed! The new Pentax will be FF! B051LjKo Pentax News and Rumors 7 01-11-2008 04:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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