[normhead]

False. You can shoot nearer or at your lenses 'sweet spot', gaining sharpness and contrast, and get 1.3 stops more subject isolation than you would on aps-c.

It's interesting how quickly you reject anything favouring APS-c, usually without any kind of consideration. A more thoughtful person would consider that in some images the APS-c image might be the best combination of subject isolation and sharpness, in the lens' sweet spot.

A more thoughtful person would consider that subject isolation is not always achieved by narrow depth of field, and would know that narrow depth of field is an artistic conceit not relevant to the whole photographic community.

A more thoughtful person, would have read further back in my post, where I mentioned that showing a an image in one format, in no way informs people as to what could have been accomplished with another. In fact, those people on the forum who have done side by side FF and APS-c images completely illustrate this point. It seems to be about 50-50. IN my own threads shooting wider and narrower DoF the vote has probably gone about 70% in favour of the wider DoF image. But then, the forum is mostly APS-c shooters, that's probably what you'd expect.

The attempt to reduce this topic to single variables and clear winners is an injustice to the topic. And the endless assumptions about which system is better based on technical distortions doesn't help. I carry one system,. and my choice is based on carrying the one system, that is lightest, cheapest, and will give me the highest percentage of keepers among the images i take. Right now, just based on much of what I've read on the forums, I'd probably be better investigating 4/3 right now instead of FF. And I'm definitely thinking of carrying a Q to use with my A-400 for small birds. There simply is no be all and end all system that's good for everything.

But, base camera price.. a APS-c compared to FF, always is cheaper, and more bang for you buck, unless you believe that subject isolation through obliterated OoF areas in the image, the more obliterated the better, is the most desirable form of subject isolation. And for that minority, their opinions are pretty much irrelevant to the rest of us. I don't need to know what system is best for dental photography either.

I'm happy the FF shots and thoughts thread exists. Thanks for that. People of that persuasion need to find their perfect system, and develop the techniques that bring them joy. The assumption that everyone should go that route is unwarranted. But telling people who shoot APS-c that we can't do what we do with our systems because FF is a bit better at that one thing... what's with that?

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-07-2014 at 10:34 AM.

[normhead]

Sure, I do need to do more research. But I can still see it, and I can still throw out a few numbers.

The difference being you haven't established yourself as someone capable of unbiased research. And, I know this is hard for you but "photography is a visual art" It's what you see that matters. Numbers representing partial and compartmentalized technical evaluations count for nothing.

[jsherman999]

... does not in any way change the fact that I can live without it.

Do you think the entirety of the FF debate exists simply to try to convince you otherwise? (Is PF perhaps just your dream...?)

You're the one who typically starts these discussions, and you misrepresent things enough to invite correction, and then you get inflamed at being corrected.

You're feeding this cycle, continually - you should own up to that if you're being honest.



.

[jsherman999]

It's interesting how quickly you reject anything favouring APS-c, usually without any kind of consideration.

Keep in mind I currently own two aps-c cameras and one FF camera. I've owned a total of five aps-c cameras since 2007, and have probably taken upwards of 85,000 aps-c shots since then. 'consideration' is not lacking on my part.

.

[Rondec]

I think I should say a couple of things. First of all, I shoot Pentax because of the glass. I like the lenses I have and whether there are replacements in other brands, I am not particularly interested in starting over again. Second, I am not particularly interested in "perfection." A D800 or D600 might improve my shooting five percent. Maybe it would improve it 10 percent (how does one quantify these things?). But I feel like the sensors in the K5 II and K3 are not holding me back. If I ever do and if there isn't a new body from Pentax that meets my needs, then maybe I would consider switching brands. In addition, I am not sure where the pursuit of "perfection" stops. Is it a 1D? A D4? A 645D? A Phase One? I just don't know, but for someone who shoots as a hobby and likes to take photos of my family, a K3 is "adequate" and doesn't break my family's budget.

Currently, Pentax is an APS-C only brand and so, of course, this tends to be a crop-centric forum (this sub-forum being the exception). Even if Pentax comes out with a full frame camera this year (which I would likely buy), I wouldn't plan to get rid of my crop cameras or to talk them down to others.

Obviously, there is a continuum. I have no problem with those who choose four thirds. It is two stops removed from full frame in performance, but it is also smaller and has some very sweet lenses. If I owned an Olympus camera, I would shoot with it happily and do the best I could to take the best photos I could. And I doubt that I would feel "restricted" by the depth of field issues that seem to plague this discussion. I would be more frustrated by the lack of an optical viewfinder, as I am pretty traditional in this respect and not a big fan of EVFs.

There are plenty of reasons to want full frame -- high dynamic range (particularly at higher isos), lower noise, and better coverage of wide angles. But APS-C cameras are pretty good at this point and it isn't like shooting one of those confines you to photography purgatory until someone dies and leaves you enough money to buy a full frame system.

[normhead]

Do you think the entirety of the FF debate exists simply to try to convince you otherwise? (Is PF perhaps just your dream...?)

You're the one who typically starts these discussions, and you misrepresent things enough to invite correction, and then you get inflamed at being corrected.

You're feeding this cycle, continually - you should own up to that if you're being honest.



.

That's funny Jay, because that's exactly what I think you do.. For example look in this thread... my main point is FF sensors will never be the same price as APS-c sensors. You'd think that was a straightforward statement. But, look at the response spinning the numbers to pretend FF is cheaper. Exactly who is cluttering up the thread. FF proponents who are so tied into the FF is better syndrome, that they can't leave a simple unassailable fact alone. They have to add their two cents worth. The FF debate exists because FF user can't stop pimping the advantages of their system to APS-c users, most of whom are already aware.

I picked this particular topic, because it's got to be quite obnoxious of late. FF users, using complete spin and fabrication to say FF is or will be cheaper. Someone has to maintain some sanity.

Keep in mind I currently own two aps-c cameras and one FF camera. I've owned a total of five aps-c cameras since 2007, and have probably taken upwards of 85,000 aps-c shots since then. 'consideration' is not lacking on my part.

.

Ya, but all you tell people about is why they need FF. I have 5 APS-c, 2 waterproof, 3 35mm film an 645 film, a foveon DP2. If owning a pile of different formats is the criteria, I'm right up there with you. SO stop telling people what you think I think and arguing with yourself, as if I had something to do with it.

[jsherman999]

So your theory rests on the need to take pictures in bad conditions. The problem being that pictures taken in bad conditions are often bad pictures. Many of us just avoid taking pictures in bad conditions.

Wow. I should have thought of that. Avoid taking pictures in bad conditions! It's as simple as that!

If I could do that, Norm, I could stick with my iphone:



Unfortunately, I don't have studio lighting set up in my kitchen or on the hockey rink or auditorium or a lot of places I like to capture stuff like this:

That's not really an argument I can relate to.

I know. If you remember I pointed that out a few posts ago. Do you think it's possible a lot of other people could relate to it, though?

.

[normhead]

This is where I say, if I took those images with APS-c could you tell the difference, and you've got nothing. Same old same old. Don't make me start criticizing the images you post. I don't do it because I'm polite, not because I can't. For example, the kid with the phone, the lighting makes it look like his face is puffy. If that's what I'm missing, ya, I don't want that.

A lot of the time you post these images , and quite often they are very nice images, but that doesn't mean they mean what you think they mean, or that they demonstrate anything but you can take a nice picture with that camera. IN terms of arguing format, one picture means nothing. Only two images can present both sides of the issue.

And that's just one situation. If you want to examine the utility of one system as compared to another, it's going to take a lot of images and a lot of analysis. For myself, I'm going to leave it that in the grand scheme of things APS-c and FF are pretty close, FF is a little more flexible with unlimited funds, and APS-c is a little more flexible with limited funds... but you'd expect that FF would have a higher top end, because it costs more.

It all seems quite reasonable to me. What's your beef?

[Rondec]

This is where I say, if I took those images with APS-c could you tell the difference, and you've got nothing. Same old same old. Don't make me start criticizing the images you post. I don't do it because I'm polite, not because I can't. For example, the kid with the phone, the lighting makes it look like his face is puffy. If that's what I'm missing, ya, I don't want that.

Don't be mean Norm. It's a snapshot and a very cute photo. Most of what I take falls in the same category. Certainly not great art, but that's ok, isn't it?

[mrNewt]

This is where I say, if I took those images with APS-c could you tell the difference, and you've got nothing. Same old same old. Don't make me start criticizing the images you post. I don't do it because I'm polite, not because I can't. For example, the kid with the phone, the lighting makes it look like his face is puffy. If that's what I'm missing, ya, I don't want that.

Yea Norm, that was a little uncalled for... on that theme, with all do respect your photos don't tend to be Discovery channel material either.
(And before you go there I know my photos sucks anyways).

You both should agree that you have different values and opinions on this matter and let it be at that.

And yes, that picture of the kid is very cute... with a little cropping (1:1) and PP will be even a better image .

[tim60]

In addition to the yield factor problem for FF sensors referred to earlier, another inherent reason for FF sensors being expensive is that they are bigger, and therefore need to be built on a bigger chunk of material. Processing the material to the required purity is very expensive.

There is no point talking about future prices, because when the future comes I will compare my options with whatever is available at that time. The price of one product changes, but so do the prices of everything else, and the stuff available to choose from. And most of us have a small enough income we need to make some choice because we cannot get it all.

[ElJamoquio]

That's funny Jay, because that's exactly what I think you do.. For example look in this thread... my main point is FF sensors will never be the same price as APS-c sensors. You'd think that was a straightforward statement.

It is completely simple statement. You've said that someone has actually contradicted it but I haven't ever seen it.

[jsherman999]

I think I should say a couple of things. First of all, I shoot Pentax because of the glass. I like the lenses I have and whether there are replacements in other brands, I am not particularly interested in starting over again.

So you really would like to see a K-mount FF body, no?

Second, I am not particularly interested in "perfection." A D800 or D600 might improve my shooting five percent. Maybe it would improve it 10 percent (how does one quantify these things?). But I feel like the sensors in the K5 II and K3 are not holding me back. If I ever do and if there isn't a new body from Pentax that meets my needs, then maybe I would consider switching brands. In addition, I am not sure where the pursuit of "perfection" stops. Is it a 1D? A D4? A 645D? A Phase One? I just don't know, but for someone who shoots as a hobby and likes to take photos of my family, a K3 is "adequate" and doesn't break my family's budget.

Fair enough, well said. I should say that I was on track to buy some very expensive lenses for my aps-c camera when I thought I'd try out someone's D700 a few years ago... and then was able to more than get by with a $110 50 1.8 and a bunch of similar lenses for years when I but the bullet and bought a D700. I'm here to attest that folks like Falk Lumo are right - you can save money on lenses with FF as long as you are more swayed by IQ/performance than you are by equipment collecting.

That said I still want a FF K-mount body to shoot Limiteds on. I feel like everything I like best about the equipment end of photography would be met by that combo.

.

[jsherman999]

For example, the kid with the phone, the lighting makes it look like his face is puffy. If that's what I'm missing, ya, I don't want that.

His face is puffy, Norm, he's 18 months old and has baby fat. Anyway, way to stay classy.

.

[ElJamoquio]

This is where I say, if I took those images with APS-c could you tell the difference, and you've got nothing. Same old same old.

A 24MP image downsized to 0.5MP is about the same as a 16MP image downsized to 0.5MP. So I'm not sure how you'd be able to tell on your computer.