Stop with the FF sensors will be the same price nonsense.

krebsy75 · 01-08-2014, 08:02 AM

My turn to show off...

FA 77 @ f/2 via PZ-1:

FA 77 @ f/2 via K-5IIs:

Clavius · 01-08-2014, 08:14 AM

Normhead, I don't see any pictures in your post at all. So admitted, I'm commenting without having seen them. But it doesn't have to be technical deficiencies of camera systems, or lack of knowledge of the user, it can also just be physics at work. For example take a picture with the DA 15 ltd. Anything in the borders gets stretched out. If you accidentally catch a person walking into your frame in the border, he or she will turn into an extremely obese figure. Now take an equivalent FL like 22mm and shoot the same scene with it on an FF camera. The distortion in the borders will be much less distorted. Not gone of course, but much less obvious and much less disturbing.

normhead · 01-08-2014, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Normhead, I don't see any pictures in your post at all. So admitted, I'm commenting without having seen them. But it doesn't have to be technical deficiencies of camera systems, or lack of knowledge of the user, it can also just be physics at work. For example take a picture with the DA 15 ltd. Anything in the borders gets stretched out. If you accidentally catch a person walking into your frame in the border, he or she will turn into an extremely obese figure. Now take an equivalent FL like 22mm and shoot the same scene with it on an FF camera. The distortion in the borders will be much less distorted. Not gone of course, but much less obvious and much less disturbing.

Yes, but as a photographer you know about that , so you either try the shot with your 10-17 fisheye, or you wait until the the person leaves the frame. I don't see what the value is of imaginigaing situations where one system or the other wouldn't work. In my own work using the 10-17 fisheye and the 8-16 Sigma, sometimes the images looks better with distortion, sometimes they look better without. Distortion isn't always negative in an image.

So this is what I'm saying, if you limit yourself to very narrow parameters in a hypothetical situation, it's easy to get it wrong. Because there will always be variables you din't think of in your scenario, that are quite real and unavoidable in the field. Which is exactly why I think this type of speculation is useless.

normhead · 01-08-2014, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by krebsy75

My turn to show off...

FA 77 @ f/2 via PZ-1:

FA 77 @ f/2 via K-5IIs:

Really nice.... the expression in that second one is priceless. I hope it is blown up to life size and hung on your wall, it's a treasure. I took one of my son on a beach in Spain when he was 3 with a cute little hat on, with a very similar expression, and it hung on my mothers wall for almost 40 years, until she died. Thanks for the memory.

Last edited by normhead; 01-08-2014 at 08:34 AM.

krebsy75 · 01-08-2014, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Really nice....

Thank you.

jogiba · 01-08-2014, 08:31 AM

I see many new APS-C cameras under $500 but very few new full frame cameras under $1,500.

krebsy75 · 01-08-2014, 08:36 AM

I'm nuetral on the FF vs. APS-C issue. I feel it comes down to the application and willingness to lug heavier gear around. And spend more money on glass...

I will say this regarding portrait photography: With APS-C you may be forced to use a lens within an aperture range in which performance isn't ideal. f/1.4 on APS-C is equivelant to f/2.0 on FF. Most f/1.4 glass isn't very sharp at that aperture.

normhead · 01-08-2014, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by krebsy75

I'm nuetral on the FF vs. APS-C issue. I feel it comes down to the application and willingness to lug heavier gear around. And spend more money on glass...

I will say this regarding portrait photography: With APS-C you may be forced to use a lens within an aperture range in which performance isn't ideal. In other words, f/1.4 on APS-C is equivelant to f/2.0 on FF. Most f/1.4 glass isn't very sharp at that aperture.

I agree with you there, but then in my Portarait Studio classes I was trained with an 8x10 tilt shift, so as far as I'm concerned, for portraits, the larger the better. If I had a portrait studio, I'd be shooting MF or 4x5 film. My kids are grown and I do very few portraits these days, usually of the wife, and they often get me in trouble, so I try to avoid them. The one I posted above is my grand-daughter.

ElJamoquio · 01-08-2014, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by normhead

You did say FF cameras a cheaper than APS-c cameras, lets no get all righteous. How does an FF camera get to be cheaper, then except by cutting features?

Wait, so all this - pages of posts, dissertation-length diatribes, you insulting a toddler, was all based on you not understanding someone else's argument??

Clavius · 01-08-2014, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Yes, but as a photographer you know about that , so you either try the shot with your 10-17 fisheye, or you wait until the the person leaves the frame. I don't see what the value is of imaginigaing situations where one system or the other wouldn't work. In my own work using the 10-17 fisheye and the 8-16 Sigma, sometimes the images look better with distortion, sometimes they look better without. Distortion isn't always negative in an image.

But the distortion doesn't restrict itself to human figures. Yes, it's more prominent on persons. But being the nitpicky pixelpeeping photographer that I am, distorted rocks, trees or any other distorted objects jump out just the same. I don't like it. And the solution was FF because its simply better at that. Of course APS-C with WA works, it just looks bad. And no, in my opinion distortion is never good. It's like lens softness, that's never good either. In the rare case that it is desired it could be added in PP. Or in that case a cellphone can be used.

**Rondec** · 01-08-2014, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

But the distortion doesn't restrict itself to human figures. Yes, it's more prominent on persons. But being the nitpicky pixelpeeping photographer that I am, distorted rocks, trees or any other distorted objects jump out just the same. I don't like it. And the solution was FF because its simply better at that. Of course APS-C with WA works, it just looks bad. And no, in my opinion distortion is never good. It's like lens softness, that's never good either. In the rare case that it is desired it could be added in PP. Or in that case a cellphone can be used.

I don't think it is that bad. And once you get really wide, even on full frame you see some distortion (the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is about the best of the lot, but you really pay for that). May actually do better using a longer focal length and stitching...

mrNewt · 01-08-2014, 09:09 AM

You can always apply lens correction in PP to fix your distortions.
Personally I like the longer focal and stitching approach - build your panoramas that way.

LFLee · 01-08-2014, 09:27 AM

To the OP....

I believe many years ago there is someone predict that PC is unlikely to become cheap as well ?

Tech advances, and a spurt in one area may revolutionize another industry.

Consider...
Portable CD player become so good and affordable, then MP3 format change the game...
GPS navigation become so advance and affordable, then smart phone with GPS come along...
PC become so powerful and so affordable, then everyone suddenly caught on with tablets and apps...

I just think it is a good time to live in to observe all these advances.

redrockcoulee · 01-08-2014, 10:50 AM

I would think that if the shallowness of depth of field factors in on sensor production costs then making a 4X5 sensor should be less than that for a point and shoot camera. Why would the lesser noise factor, price of lens or depth of field mean anything in cost of producing sensors unless one became extremely rare and no longer worth the effort to produce. They seem more like arguments for or against a certain sensor sized based SYSTEM than anything to do with the comparitive costs of manufacturing two different sensor sizes.

ElJamoquio · 01-08-2014, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by redrockcoulee

I would think that if the shallowness of depth of field factors in on sensor production costs then making a 4X5 sensor should be less than that for a point and shoot camera. Why would the lesser noise factor, price of lens or depth of field mean anything in cost of producing sensors unless one became extremely rare and no longer worth the effort to produce. They seem more like arguments for or against a certain sensor sized based SYSTEM than anything to do with the comparitive costs of manufacturing two different sensor sizes.

We're yet to see someone who's claimed that FF sensors would be less expensive than APS-C. Who knows, could've been a mis-type by the poster (me?), bad edit by the poster, misunderstanding by the normhead, etc.

Until we do I think it's best not to argue against a strawman.

01-08-2014, 08:27 AM	#93
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by Clavius Normhead, I don't see any pictures in your post at all. So admitted, I'm commenting without having seen them. But it doesn't have to be technical deficiencies of camera systems, or lack of knowledge of the user, it can also just be physics at work. For example take a picture with the DA 15 ltd. Anything in the borders gets stretched out. If you accidentally catch a person walking into your frame in the border, he or she will turn into an extremely obese figure. Now take an equivalent FL like 22mm and shoot the same scene with it on an FF camera. The distortion in the borders will be much less distorted. Not gone of course, but much less obvious and much less disturbing. Yes, but as a photographer you know about that , so you either try the shot with your 10-17 fisheye, or you wait until the the person leaves the frame. I don't see what the value is of imaginigaing situations where one system or the other wouldn't work. In my own work using the 10-17 fisheye and the 8-16 Sigma, sometimes the images looks better with distortion, sometimes they look better without. Distortion isn't always negative in an image. So this is what I'm saying, if you limit yourself to very narrow parameters in a hypothetical situation, it's easy to get it wrong. Because there will always be variables you din't think of in your scenario, that are quite real and unavoidable in the field. Which is exactly why I think this type of speculation is useless. Last edited by normhead; 01-08-2014 at 08:43 AM.

01-08-2014, 08:41 AM	#98
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by krebsy75 I'm nuetral on the FF vs. APS-C issue. I feel it comes down to the application and willingness to lug heavier gear around. And spend more money on glass... I will say this regarding portrait photography: With APS-C you may be forced to use a lens within an aperture range in which performance isn't ideal. In other words, f/1.4 on APS-C is equivelant to f/2.0 on FF. Most f/1.4 glass isn't very sharp at that aperture. I agree with you there, but then in my Portarait Studio classes I was trained with an 8x10 tilt shift, so as far as I'm concerned, for portraits, the larger the better. If I had a portrait studio, I'd be shooting MF or 4x5 film. My kids are grown and I do very few portraits these days, usually of the wife, and they often get me in trouble, so I try to avoid them. The one I posted above is my grand-daughter. Last edited by normhead; 01-08-2014 at 08:49 AM.

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 & K-5 II	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

01-08-2014, 08:02 AM	#91
krebsy75 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chester County, Pa. Posts: 804	My turn to show off... FA 77 @ f/2 via PZ-1: FA 77 @ f/2 via K-5IIs:

01-08-2014, 08:14 AM	#92
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Normhead, I don't see any pictures in your post at all. So admitted, I'm commenting without having seen them. But it doesn't have to be technical deficiencies of camera systems, or lack of knowledge of the user, it can also just be physics at work. For example take a picture with the DA 15 ltd. Anything in the borders gets stretched out. If you accidentally catch a person walking into your frame in the border, he or she will turn into an extremely obese figure. Now take an equivalent FL like 22mm and shoot the same scene with it on an FF camera. The distortion in the borders will be much less distorted. Not gone of course, but much less obvious and much less disturbing.

01-08-2014, 08:28 AM	#94
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by krebsy75 My turn to show off... FA 77 @ f/2 via PZ-1: FA 77 @ f/2 via K-5IIs: Really nice.... the expression in that second one is priceless. I hope it is blown up to life size and hung on your wall, it's a treasure. I took one of my son on a beach in Spain when he was 3 with a cute little hat on, with a very similar expression, and it hung on my mothers wall for almost 40 years, until she died. Thanks for the memory. Last edited by normhead; 01-08-2014 at 08:34 AM.

01-08-2014, 08:29 AM	#95
krebsy75 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chester County, Pa. Posts: 804	Originally posted by normhead Really nice.... Thank you.

01-08-2014, 08:31 AM	#96
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	I see many new APS-C cameras under $500 but very few new full frame cameras under $1,500.

01-08-2014, 08:36 AM	#97
krebsy75 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chester County, Pa. Posts: 804	I'm nuetral on the FF vs. APS-C issue. I feel it comes down to the application and willingness to lug heavier gear around. And spend more money on glass... I will say this regarding portrait photography: With APS-C you may be forced to use a lens within an aperture range in which performance isn't ideal. f/1.4 on APS-C is equivelant to f/2.0 on FF. Most f/1.4 glass isn't very sharp at that aperture.

01-08-2014, 08:50 AM	#99
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by normhead You did say FF cameras a cheaper than APS-c cameras, lets no get all righteous. How does an FF camera get to be cheaper, then except by cutting features? Wait, so all this - pages of posts, dissertation-length diatribes, you insulting a toddler, was all based on you not understanding someone else's argument??

01-08-2014, 08:52 AM	#100
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by normhead Yes, but as a photographer you know about that , so you either try the shot with your 10-17 fisheye, or you wait until the the person leaves the frame. I don't see what the value is of imaginigaing situations where one system or the other wouldn't work. In my own work using the 10-17 fisheye and the 8-16 Sigma, sometimes the images look better with distortion, sometimes they look better without. Distortion isn't always negative in an image. But the distortion doesn't restrict itself to human figures. Yes, it's more prominent on persons. But being the nitpicky pixelpeeping photographer that I am, distorted rocks, trees or any other distorted objects jump out just the same. I don't like it. And the solution was FF because its simply better at that. Of course APS-C with WA works, it just looks bad. And no, in my opinion distortion is never good. It's like lens softness, that's never good either. In the rare case that it is desired it could be added in PP. Or in that case a cellphone can be used.

01-08-2014, 09:02 AM	#101
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by Clavius But the distortion doesn't restrict itself to human figures. Yes, it's more prominent on persons. But being the nitpicky pixelpeeping photographer that I am, distorted rocks, trees or any other distorted objects jump out just the same. I don't like it. And the solution was FF because its simply better at that. Of course APS-C with WA works, it just looks bad. And no, in my opinion distortion is never good. It's like lens softness, that's never good either. In the rare case that it is desired it could be added in PP. Or in that case a cellphone can be used. I don't think it is that bad. And once you get really wide, even on full frame you see some distortion (the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is about the best of the lot, but you really pay for that). May actually do better using a longer focal length and stitching...

01-08-2014, 09:09 AM	#102
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	You can always apply lens correction in PP to fix your distortions. Personally I like the longer focal and stitching approach - build your panoramas that way.

01-08-2014, 09:27 AM	#103
LFLee Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,292	To the OP.... I believe many years ago there is someone predict that PC is unlikely to become cheap as well ? Tech advances, and a spurt in one area may revolutionize another industry. Consider... Portable CD player become so good and affordable, then MP3 format change the game... GPS navigation become so advance and affordable, then smart phone with GPS come along... PC become so powerful and so affordable, then everyone suddenly caught on with tablets and apps... I just think it is a good time to live in to observe all these advances.

01-08-2014, 10:50 AM	#104
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	I would think that if the shallowness of depth of field factors in on sensor production costs then making a 4X5 sensor should be less than that for a point and shoot camera. Why would the lesser noise factor, price of lens or depth of field mean anything in cost of producing sensors unless one became extremely rare and no longer worth the effort to produce. They seem more like arguments for or against a certain sensor sized based SYSTEM than anything to do with the comparitive costs of manufacturing two different sensor sizes.

01-08-2014, 10:57 AM	#105
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by redrockcoulee I would think that if the shallowness of depth of field factors in on sensor production costs then making a 4X5 sensor should be less than that for a point and shoot camera. Why would the lesser noise factor, price of lens or depth of field mean anything in cost of producing sensors unless one became extremely rare and no longer worth the effort to produce. They seem more like arguments for or against a certain sensor sized based SYSTEM than anything to do with the comparitive costs of manufacturing two different sensor sizes. We're yet to see someone who's claimed that FF sensors would be less expensive than APS-C. Who knows, could've been a mis-type by the poster (me?), bad edit by the poster, misunderstanding by the normhead, etc. Until we do I think it's best not to argue against a strawman.