[mrNewt]

But I'll be able to print it larger.

That is debatable as well... be careful in what you are walking in .

[jsherman999]

You are saying a 2.8 lens is the equivalent to a 3.5 to 4.5 lens,

In terms of equivalence with respect to aperture, no, it's better : f/2.0 - f/2.8.

This is one of the basic things I and others have been trying to get across to you, why equivalence matters in picking a system, and how FF can bring some advantages!

Now there are optical questions that could be addressed (how does the lens compare to the 16-50 optically,) but you were addressing the aperture range.

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 f/4 is equivalent to about a 26-105 f/6 on FF. You're comparing apples to kumquats again, Norm!



.

[ElJamoquio]

That is debatable as well... be careful in what you are walking in .

Anything is debatable. If someone feels like APS-C can be printed as large as FF I won't 'debate', I'll tell them they're wrong and move on.

The question of 'how big' APS-C can be printed while still looking good is debatable of course and is completely subjective. I have people telling me that every 24MP image can be printed to the same time, too, though, so there's plenty of misinformation out there.

[mrNewt]

Anything is debatable. If someone feels like APS-C can be printed as large as FF I won't 'debate', I'll tell them they're wrong and move on.

The question of 'how big' APS-C can be printed while still looking good is debatable of course and is completely subjective. I have people telling me that every 24MP image can be printed to the same time, too, though, so there's plenty of misinformation out there.

I know what you mean, but I've also seen the arguments around here.
For most it will be comparable because across the room they will both look the same .

[jsherman999]

A 50-135 f2.8 lens on APS-C will give equivalent shutter speeds to a 70-200 f2.8 lens on full frame

With over a stop more noise and 1.3 stops less DOF control. You can't use the term 'equivalent' unless you qualify it with "equivalent FOV only."

It's misleading to frame these debates as if aps-c shooters don't care about noise control of DOF control when the various aps-c DSLR forums here and on places like dpreview are filled with angst over sensor performance and the lens-centered forums are filled with lens speed obsessions... You're not really describing things accurately. Yes, people do care about DOF control and noise, some people care about it quite a bit - aps-c shooters (and m43 shooters) as much as anyone.

And you're doing the 'this apple is blue' thing when you keep repeating the 'most narrow DOF' mantra - it's about more subject isolation for the same sharpness/contrast on the plane of focus. I personally get more benefit from that at f/4 usually than f/1.8 or wider.


.

[jsherman999]

for equivalency to matter, you'd have to use your camera wide open at ƒ1.4 all the time. .

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.

For example, most f/2.8 zooms are not exactly brilliant wide-open - but can be nearly brilliant at f/4.5 or so. With FF you can shoot at f/4.5 and it would give you the same subject isolation an aps-c shooter needs to leave it wide-open for. Or, you can shoot it at f/2.8 and get f/1.8 equivalent, something aps-c can't match - until the Sigma 18-35 1.8 appeared, which matches some of the range. (Tell me Norm, why is that lens so popular and important if aps-c shooters get enough DOF control? )

I realize that you're a dedicated landscape shooter and that advantages like that are, in practice, meaningless to you, but most folks would realize an advantage in having more DOF control in the typical shooting they do.

.

[jsherman999]

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.

.

This is a question I often ask in these discussions: "why do you prefer to buy aps-c instead of m43?"

Then: Now, you should be capable of accepting the same answer up one tier.

.

[normhead]

Anything is debatable. If someone feels like APS-C can be printed as large as FF I won't 'debate', I'll tell them they're wrong and move on.

The question of 'how big' APS-C can be printed while still looking good is debatable of course and is completely subjective. I have people telling me that every 24MP image can be printed to the same time, too, though, so there's plenty of misinformation out there.

Someone might feel that both APS-c and FF can be printed larger than they'd ever print and that the whole point is meaningless. On comparisons of prints up to 24 x 36 there has never been an un-biased consensus on whether a D800 was visually superior to a K-01 image. Technically superior isn't an argument, but visually superior is. I keep saying it, you keep not getting it.

Photography is a visual art, what is important is the visual impact of the image, the technical aspects of the photo are secondary. You keep assuming that a D800 image viewed at 96 inches wide ( or som either arbitrary point) would be better than a K-3 image, but no one has actually done a side by side comparison to prove that. No one has ever been able to precisely determine the point at which the D800 image becomes better. Sure you can see a difference in detail, but does that improve the image? And that critical question seems to be 6 of one half dozen of the other situation. This has been the flaw in your argument since the beginning. You equate visual impact with technical superiority, without ever proving the point.

One of the other teachers on the forum tested his students to see if they could tell the difference between prints made at different resolutions, some twice as high as the others, and 90% of his students couldn't tell the difference between one printed at less than 90 DPI, and one's printed over 150 DPI. Everything I've seen in this regard would suggest that the human end of the equation has not been adequately explored or is even understood. Every expert I've read admits to having to deal with confusing results right up front. And not one has been able to, after careful research, to suggest that they have any understanding of what their results mean. Only the ignorant can profess to be knowledgeable on this topic, and they do so by making assumptions unsupported by research of any kind.

The experts throw out a few numbers and admit they need to do a lot more research.

[jsherman999]

One of the other teachers on the forum tested his students to see if they could tell the difference between prints made at different resolutions,.

This exact same test was done in the Olympus form on dpreview, m43 vs. aps-c, and few could tell the difference there as well. Why do we need aps-c, if this is the case, Norm? m43 is just as good and can be made smaller (and presumably somewhat cheaper,) right?

The answer is because at anything less than ideal shooting conditions, aps-c can give better images with existing lenses. It just can. Sometimes those differences don't matter to a lot of folks who buy m43 cameras, and a lot of those m43 buyers would be willing to come into a forum and argue with you that your K3 does not give any significant IQ advantage over an entry-level, modern m43 body at regular display sizes.

Are they right? Is there a reason to continue to buy aps-c DSLR in a m43 or smaller MILC world when excellent lenses are available for them?

(rhetorical questions aside, my thinking for a while has been that the best photography combo to own would be m43 MILC + FF DSLR. Covers everything brilliantly.)

.

[normhead]

This is a question I often ask in these discussions: "why do you prefer to buy aps-c instead of m43?"

Then: Now, you should be capable of accepting the same answer up one tier.

.

I do accept the answer for one tier up. And this is the point you have continually missed since our conversations began years ago. I completely accept that it's possible for someone to feel more comfortable shooting FF than APS-c, and always have. At some point in these discussions you have decided I think something else and have made it a point to correct me, continually on something i never said. That you and many others need full frame to fulfill your artistic vision does not in any way change the fact that I can live without it. My sig says it all. Every system is a set of comprises. APS-c is my favourite set of compromises. What bothers me is FF users who seem to pretend that they aren't making any compromises. Who can't admit that there are shooting scenarios when APS-c is the better system, and that who chooses FF and who chooses APS-c probably depends on what percentage of their time they spend shooting in the areas where one or the other is strong.

[cali92rs]

I realize that you're a dedicated landscape shooter and that advantages like that are, in practice, meaningless to you, but most folks would realize an advantage in having more DOF control in the typical shooting they do.

.

I would think less noise and more dynamic range would be important to landscape photographers as well.

[normhead]

This exact same test was done in the Olympus form on dpreview, m43 vs. aps-c, and few could tell the difference there as well. Why do we need aps-c, if this is the case, Norm? m43 is just as good and can be made smaller (and presumably somewhat cheaper,) right?

The answer is because at anything less than ideal shooting conditions, aps-c can give better images with existing lenses. It just can. Sometimes those differences don't matter to a lot of folks who buy m43 cameras, and a lot of those m43 buyers would be willing to come into a forum and argue with you that your K3 does not give any significant IQ advantage over an entry-level, modern m43 body at regular display sizes.

Are they right? Is there a reason to continue to buy aps-c DSLR in a m43 or smaller MILC world when excellent lenses are available for them?

(rhetorical questions aside, my thinking for a while has been that the best photography combo to own would be m43 MILC + FF DSLR. Covers everything brilliantly.)

.

The answer is because at anything less than ideal shooting conditions, aps-c can give better images with existing lenses.

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. My favourite pictures are all pictures that make full use of the DR available which means shooting 100 ISO to 400. To me your argument is that better cameras take better bad pictures. That's not really an argument I can relate to.

[ElJamoquio]

The experts throw out a few numbers and admit they need to do a lot more research.

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

[mrNewt]

Actually... funny thing...
Recently I have printed a few pictures myself and between K-01, my ex K-5 and current MX-1... on a 8.5x11... MX-1 prints looked the best.

All had some post-processing, all were RAW images to start with, all taken in the same lighting conditions and same subject (my son).
Go figure that one out .

[Rondec]

With over a stop more noise and 1.3 stops less DOF control. You can't use the term 'equivalent' unless you qualify it with "equivalent FOV only."

It's misleading to frame these debates as if aps-c shooters don't care about noise control of DOF control when the various aps-c DSLR forums here and on places like dpreview are filled with angst over sensor performance and the lens-centered forums are filled with lens speed obsessions... You're not really describing things accurately. Yes, people do care about DOF control and noise, some people care about it quite a bit - aps-c shooters (and m43 shooters) as much as anyone.

And you're doing the 'this apple is blue' thing when you keep repeating the 'most narrow DOF' mantra - it's about more subject isolation for the same sharpness/contrast on the plane of focus. I personally get more benefit from that at f/4 usually than f/1.8 or wider.


.

It is very much dependent on the lens and the situation. I agree that if you are shooting frequently at iso 6400, then full frame makes a difference. But it isn't like APS-C sensors are chopped liver at lower iso. It is an extreme as well to say that people "don't care about depth of field control or noise." Of course, everyone does care about both of those things. The question is (a) how much are you willing to pay for that one stop of difference and (b) do you shoot frequently in situations where you actually notice a difference.

DA *55 at f1.8




DA *50-135 at f2.8







You can argue all you want that I would have seen a significant benefit by shooting with full frame in these shots, but I don't buy it. They are pixel sharp with adequate dynamic range for the situation. And yes, I do shoot my lens in what I consider their sweet spots, but many of them are quite sharp wide open and I don't hesitate to use them there when the situation warrants it.

I will add that if I was shooting with a wide angle lens, like even the FA 31, I would have a lot of trouble "getting subject isolation," but if that is what I want, I don't use those lenses.