Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-18-2014, 02:19 PM   #211
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
It's very difficult to assess emotion in the interwebs. I wasn't angry at all. Maybe it comes out that way but the truth is I'm laughing as I was typing my comments Until now he still can't tell me how he measured noise. I bet he just "normalized" them, i.e. downsampled (cheating)
FYI, your comments here and there both make you seem angry and confrontational. If you go looking for FF people, whether here in the FF section or some Nikon blog on the web, you're going to find people who like FF.

Use what you like. It's a camera, not a pacemaker.

04-18-2014, 02:19 PM   #212
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 588
Seriously though, did my last comment in that blog make sense? If equivalency and noise are remotely interrelated then a full frame is just made up of two "noisy" 4/3rds sensors. If that doesn't make you laugh ...

---------- Post added 04-18-14 at 02:21 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
FYI, your comments here and there both make you seem angry and confrontational. If you go looking for FF people, whether here in the FF section or some Nikon blog on the web, you're going to find people who like FF.

Use what you like. It's a camera, not a pacemaker.

I totally agree with your last statement. And I apologize for coming out rude at you some times.
04-18-2014, 02:30 PM   #213
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
Total light gathered for a given object in the scene, as long as it fits in the frame, is this same no matter how many teleconverters you put on (minus transmission losses). Put a 1.4x converter on, and the object takes up 2 times more area and has 2 times less light per sensor area which is what you use for exposure. Light per object area is the same. If your field of view is the same, but the absolute aperture is greater, then the total light gained per scene increases. This is the fundamental reason of why "larger sensors have better low light performance", something that everyone seems to take for granted, but few understand why.
Well, since the mass market realization of x0,7 converters larger sensors do not have any low light performance advantage any longer you could speak of generally. Any picture you can do with a FF DSLR you can easily do with an APSC MILC with regards to noise and DoF as you can just use the exact same lenses. And since nowadays everybody freely compares MILCs with DSLR in any aspect, there is no value in thinking otherwise.
When simply looking at theory - and equivalency is theory only - there never was low low noise advantage for a larger sensor. That low light noise is 100% dependent on the light gathered by the lens. If you do not "throw this light away" in your construction the sensor size is irrelevant - as equivalency shows clearly.
The downside is limited to DR at base ISO (only there and only when ignoring the 60% Canon majority reality). The upside is the marginally better resolving power of the same lenses on APSC.
To put it more clearly in an example: There is absolutely no picture in the world which you could create on a Canon 6D which you could not create on a APSC MILC. Noise, DoF, DR, resolution, colors, "pop", 3d-effect: all there at least as good - just by virtue of the lens system and it's light gathering.

QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
Teleconverters are only useful when you are limited by the number of pixels (how much you can crop) before you run into diffraction limitations.
Well, in reality (not theory here) there is no alternative to a teleconverter for framing reasons as well. The cropped tiny frame of an already small D800 viewfinder is no match even for entry level APSC DSLRs (the Pentax ones at least).
04-18-2014, 02:32 PM   #214
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 588
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
The blogger contradicted him with actual, accurate information. Bad guy



Above Jr. seems to be accepting that 50mm f/8 FF =~ 35mm f/5.6 aps-c from the same location, because it's the same AOV and scene luminance and linear aperture = 6.25mm, then radically changes the AOV in his next example (100mm vs 35mm!) and wonders why it can't be the same amount of total light projected onto the sensor even though it's the same linear aperture (6.25).

Oh, the troubles, the troubles...

Nope, I'm restating HIS findings because he started backing out. Behind those statements are my own findings that ultimately disproves his. Check his reply because he contradicted his own conclusions LOL!

---------- Post added 04-18-14 at 02:49 PM ----------

My comment in his blog that has been removed:

Supposing you have a full frame sensor and a 50mm lens at f8. Your findings imply that if we cover half of the sensor with an opaque material thus exposing only half of it that it will produce a more noisy image. This is because the "now cropped" sensor is practically shooting at 100mm f16 (i.e. a 4/3rds format). Now if you uncover the first half and cover the other half then it will be the same "more noisy" half. Ergo, your full frame sensor is just made up of two more noisy halves!!!! So if you continue "dividing" your full frame sensor without changing the lens, you will arrive at a single pixel which, according to your equivalency-fu, will be hopelessly noisy. Your full frame is really just a collection of hopelessly noisy pixels with practically no data. That is the ultimate inevitable conclusion if this equivalency is indeed true.

---------- Post added 04-18-14 at 02:53 PM ----------

You can see why I had to restate his findings because he has obviously contradicted #1 where he states that sensor size does not affect noise when IN FACT, this whole equivalency is all about noise profiles of different sensor sizes LOL! This process of "dividing" the sensor into halves is a thought experiment that ultimately debunks equivalency.

04-18-2014, 03:34 PM   #215
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by HavelockV Quote
Well, since the mass market realization of x0,7 converters larger sensors do not have any low light performance advantage any longer you could speak of generally. Any picture you can do with a FF DSLR you can easily do with an APSC MILC with regards to noise and DoF as you can just use the exact same lenses. And since nowadays everybody freely compares MILCs with DSLR in any aspect, there is no value in thinking otherwise.
When simply looking at theory - and equivalency is theory only - there never was low low noise advantage for a larger sensor. That low light noise is 100% dependent on the light gathered by the lens. If you do not "throw this light away" in your construction the sensor size is irrelevant - as equivalency shows clearly.
The downside is limited to DR at base ISO (only there and only when ignoring the 60% Canon majority reality). The upside is the marginally better resolving power of the same lenses on APSC.
To put it more clearly in an example: There is absolutely no picture in the world which you could create on a Canon 6D which you could not create on a APSC MILC. Noise, DoF, DR, resolution, colors, "pop", 3d-effect: all there at least as good - just by virtue of the lens system and it's light gathering.
Did I suggest otherwise? This is exactly why the Metabones Speed Booster (and focal reducers in general) is so exciting for a lot of people, keeping the same absolute aperture (with all the benefits it gives) and the same FOV without having to go to 35mm if you already have a mirrorless APS-C.

Unfortunately, in practical reality, a Speed Booster for K-mount lenses does not exist. There are other imitation products out there, like the Lens Turbo, but they have IQ issues (especially flare), and lack aperture control if your lens doesn't have an aperture ring (DFA 100 Macro WR for instance). And you still end up buying a different camera system if you don't own it already, and usually end up with limitations in electronic control. A native K-mount 35mm camera would be more practical from a handling perspective than buying a Lens Turbo and a Sony or Fuji APS-C mirrorless.

I would definitely love having a focal reducer for K-mount to m4/3 (the mirrorless system I do use). GH4 + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 would be very interesting for video (and have it in K-mount for stills). But K-mount to m4/3 focal reducers do not exist at all sadly.

Last edited by Cannikin; 04-18-2014 at 03:43 PM.
04-18-2014, 04:00 PM   #216
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
[/COLOR]My comment in his blog that has been removed:

Supposing you have a full frame sensor and a 50mm lens at f8. Your findings imply that if we cover half of the sensor with an opaque material thus exposing only half of it that it will produce a more noisy image. This is because the "now cropped" sensor is practically shooting at 100mm f16 (i.e. a 4/3rds format). Now if you uncover the first half and cover the other half then it will be the same "more noisy" half. Ergo, your full frame sensor is just made up of two more noisy halves!!!! So if you continue "dividing" your full frame sensor without changing the lens, you will arrive at a single pixel which, according to your equivalency-fu, will be hopelessly noisy. Your full frame is really just a collection of hopelessly noisy pixels with practically no data. That is the ultimate inevitable conclusion if this equivalency is indeed true.
If you are covering half the sensor, and not reducing half the entrance pupil, you're not changing what is being projected down onto the sensor plane, you're effectively just cropping away half what's projected. Unless I misunderstand what you're trying to describe It's the same as just cropping the original final image in half and then just showing that half-image at 1/2 the display size - just like cutting an 8x10 print down the middle. Nothing really changes in noise, DOF etc there, the image is just cut in half.

If you cut the image in half and then enlarge what's left it so that it 'fits' the original dimensions - aspect ratio change set aside for the time being - the act of enlarging will show more noise in the final image.

I don't think you thought your 'thought experiment' through very far, because I don't see how it pertains to what the author of that blog was saying and I think you confuse covering a sensor plane with reducing the entrance pupil - you seem to be implying they do the same thing to the image, and they don't.

By the way - if you ever really feel that you've 'debunked' equivalence , why not just let Joseph James know? Seriously, re-write your thought experiment a bit and email it to him. He's very erudite, he's a nice guy, and he'll probably help you out.




.

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-18-2014 at 04:07 PM.
04-18-2014, 04:22 PM   #217
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 588
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
If you are covering half the sensor, and not reducing half the entrance pupil, you're not changing what is being projected down onto the sensor plane, you're effectively just cropping away half what's projected. Unless I misunderstand what you're trying to describe It's the same as just cropping the original final image in half and then just showing that half-image at 1/2 the display size - just like cutting an 8x10 print down the middle. Nothing really changes in noise, DOF etc there, the image is just cut in half.



.


EXACTLY! So a K5 and D800 using the same 50mm at f8 will have EXACTLY the same noise profile although the K5 has a smaller image! Good thing you understand that. It follows that 35mm f5.6 on aps-c will have a different noise profile vs 50mm f8 FF! In fact the aps-c in that situation will have a BETTER noise profile by virtue of the one stop increase in aperture!

And that is why equivalency vs noise is WRONG!
04-18-2014, 04:41 PM   #218
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
EXACTLY! So a K5 and D800 using the same 50mm at f8 will have EXACTLY the same noise profile although the K5 has a smaller image! Good thing you understand that. It follows that 35mm f5.6 on aps-c will have a different noise profile vs 50mm f8 FF! In fact the aps-c in that situation will have a BETTER noise profile by virtue of the one stop increase in aperture!

And that is why equivalency vs noise is WRONG!
This is the "100% pixel level" fallacy. Unless I'm mistaken, people view "pictures" not "pixels". If you display APS-C pictures at the same size as you do those from 35mm, the "per pixel noise profile" will be magnified 1.5x on the APS-C and be more noticeable and thus the "per image" noise perception will be greater. Noise becomes much more obvious, because you are magnifying it. This is the same reason why a cell phone shot will look plenty sharp on the phone, but a lot worse if you show the same picture on a TV.

If, for some reason, you want to display all APS-C pictures 1.5x smaller (so there's no magnification difference), then sure, the noise per physical picture area will look the same. But people don't do that.

04-18-2014, 04:52 PM   #219
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteQuote:
It follows that 35mm f5.6 on aps-c will have a different noise profile vs 50mm f8 FF! In fact the aps-c in that situation will have a BETTER noise profile by virtue of the one stop increase in aperture!
No, they will have the same, if taken from the same distance to the light source, because they will have the same AOV and the same entrance pupil/linear aperture.

35mm f/5.6 aps-c == 35 / 5.6 == 6.25 (with same AOV)
50mm f/8 FF == 50 / 8 == 6.25 (with same AOV)

In your example in his blog there, you moved from this ^^ realization to thinking this means that he was saying that (your example) 35mm f/5.6 and 100mm f/16 both on FF will have the same total light projected, because they both have the same size entrance pupil (6.25mm), but they won't, because the reduced AOV of the 100mm shot from the same position brings in much less light. Nothing in his article refutes that or shows he's unaware of that.


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-18-2014 at 04:57 PM.
04-18-2014, 04:52 PM   #220
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 588
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
This is the "100% pixel level" fallacy. Unless I'm mistaken, people view "pictures" not "pixels". If you display APS-C pictures at the same size as you do those from 35mm, the "per pixel noise profile" will be magnified 1.5x on the APS-C and be more noticeable and thus the "per image" noise perception will be greater. Noise becomes much more obvious, because you are magnifying it. This is the same reason why a cell phone shot will look plenty sharp on the phone, but a lot worse if you show the same picture on a TV.

If, for some reason, you want to display all APS-C pictures 1.5x smaller (so there's no magnification difference), then sure, the noise per physical picture area will look the same. But people don't do that.

And you are completely correct! If you notice my first ever response to this thread I said "equivalency does not mean anything in real world photography".

---------- Post added 04-18-14 at 04:53 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Your thought experiment doesn't apply the way you think it does - when you're using the same 50mm on aps-c and FF there, assuming from the same distance, your aps-c combination has 1.5x reduced AOV which reduces the total light captured as well.









No, they will have the same, if taken from the same distance to the light source, because they will have the same AOV and the same entrance pupil/linear aperture.



35mm f/5.6 aps-c == 35 / 5.6 == 6.25 (with same AOV)

50mm f/8 FF == 50 / 8 == 6.25 (with same AOV)



In your example in his blog there, you moved from this ^^ realization to thinking this means that he was saying that (your example) 35mm f/5.6 and 100mm f/16 both on FF will have the same total light projected, because they both have the same size entrance pupil (6.25mm), but they won't, because the reduced AOV of the 100mm shot from the same position brings in much less light. Nothing in his article refutes that or shows he's unaware of that.





.

I won't respond to this because you do not understand my explanation. In just two posts you managed to contradict yourself.
04-18-2014, 05:15 PM   #221
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
And you are completely correct! If you notice my first ever response to this thread I said "equivalency does not mean anything in real world photography".

---------- Post added 04-18-14 at 04:53 PM ----------




I won't respond to this because you do not understand my explanation. In just two posts you managed to contradict yourself.
Well, you quoted me after I inadvertently hit 'save' and before I could flesh out how you were mixing up a few things. Then I saw that Canniken touched on what I was going to say so I left the first part out and didn't bother to re-edit - see what I wrote in the second part, does it make sense? Do you see how reducing the AOV affects the total light projected? I think I tried explaining this before, somewhere, to you...
04-18-2014, 05:20 PM   #222
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 588
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Well, you quoted me after I inadvertently hit 'save' and before I could flesh out how you were mixing up a few things. Then I saw the next guy touched on what I was going to say so I left the first part out and didn't bother to re-edit - see what I wrote in the second part, does it make sense? Do you see how reducing the AOV affects the total light projected? I think I tried explaining this before, somewhere, to you...

For a uniformly lit subject and a constant f-stop and shutter time, AoV will not affect the light hitting the sensor. That's whya f-stop is a f-stop.

And btw, when you are trying to "explain" a concept, parroting another blog post is a waste of time and does not add anything to the discussion. Not only that, it is borderline insulting and annoying because it implies that we do not understand the post. We do understand and that's why we offer counter-examples. Understand why I chose to ignore you in other threads. I responded to you in this thread because you posted something meaningful by way of photos. I will ignore your other blog-parroting "explanations".
04-18-2014, 05:21 PM   #223
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
And you are completely correct! If you notice my first ever response to this thread I said "equivalency does not mean anything in real world photography"..
Not only is this generally wrong for anyone who shoots or wants to shoot more than one format, iphone to medium format, you didn't even understand what Cannikin was trying to say to you. He was showing you how your '50mm on FF and 50mm on aps-c at f/8 noise profile' comment didn't apply, because it doesn't matter if the per-area noise profile was the same because you always enlarge to the same dimensions. If you just keep everything smaller when you shoot with aps-c, then of course it's 'the same'. I don't think anyone is every going to say, "hey, and aps-c camera is just as good with noise as long as you keep your images 1.5x smaller! You usually print 8x10? Just print 5x7 now! Same noise profile as D800!"
04-18-2014, 05:24 PM   #224
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
EXACTLY! So a K5 and D800 using the same 50mm at f8 will have EXACTLY the same noise profile although the K5 has a smaller image! Good thing you understand that. It follows that 35mm f5.6 on aps-c will have a different noise profile vs 50mm f8 FF! In fact the aps-c in that situation will have a BETTER noise profile by virtue of the one stop increase in aperture!

And that is why equivalency vs noise is WRONG!
Current good quality sensors in digital cameras are photon noise limited and that is the best one can do (improving electronics will not improve the noise). This means that the basic performance can be modeled and predicted. The number of photons a digital camera collects in each pixel is directly related to the size (area that converts photons into electrons) of the pixel and the lens feeding light to those pixels. The more photons collected, the better the signal-to-noise ratio in the image, thus the larger pixel sizes using larger lenses do better in this regard.

From:

Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter: Examples: a night scene

Translation: There is photo noise (random light) and electronic noise (random signal). If you make equivalent the signal noise on any sensor, the larger sensor will demonstrate less photon noise. If you read similar articles from the engineering side, you will also realize that larger sensors usually demonstrate less signal noise because they are more efficient. Why? Because they have a larger sample of photons to work with. Why do they have a larger sample? Because they are physically larger, and therefore collect more photons. That is why it is called "sampling".

So a K5 and D800 might have the exact same Sony type sensor of equivalent manufacturing generation and very, very similar signal to noise ratios in their electronic charge. But because the FF sensor gathers more photons, its sample, being larger, has less photon noise.

You don't even have to factor in aperture or anything like that. Just go mirror up and shine a flashlight on a sensor and measure it.

This is settled science. What is not settled is the subjective effect of aperture and DOF on creativity and aesthetics. During the transition from film to digital both the buying public in general and camera manufacturers, largely for economic reasons, no longer saw the need for shallow DOF, neither in the larger sensors nor in optics. So APS-C sensors came to dominate. FF recaptures that original DOF, with a SNR bonus, but at a substantial size/weight/cost premium.

Now there is something of a retro movement back to super-shallow DOF, but hard to do on smaller sensors, and it also incurs a substantial size/weight/cost premium of its own. The real gain [sic] has sen in the phenomenal capacity of Sony in particular to reduce the on-chip SNR allowing for substantially higher ISO capacity than anyone ever dreamed of with film.
04-18-2014, 05:30 PM   #225
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 588
Practical FF resolution is 30-40% better than sans-AA APS-C

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Not only is this generally wrong for anyone who shoots or wants to shoot more than one format, iphone to medium format, you didn't even understand what Cannikin was trying to say to you. He was showing you how your '50mm on FF and 50mm on aps-c at f/8 noise profile' comment didn't apply, because it doesn't matter if the per-area noise profile was the same because you always enlarge to the same dimensions. If you just keep everything smaller when you shoot with aps-c, then of course it's 'the same'. I don't think anyone is every going to say, "hey, and aps-c camera is just as good with noise as long as you keep your images 1.5x smaller! You usually print 8x10? Just print 5x7 now! Same noise profile as D800!"

Well that's why I chose a 12Mp full frame D700 over D800. For most photographers, 12Mp is gigantic! I have printed 1m wide with 12Mp and it looks fantastic. The largest print I've seen for 12Mp is FIVE STOREYS high!!! We chose pixel-level quality over nonsense megapixies. I can bet you that my "inferior" K5 is every bit as good as whatever full frame you have. Nobody here will recognize between your prints and my prints when they are put side by side.

---------- Post added 04-18-14 at 05:33 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Current good quality sensors in digital cameras are photon noise limited and that is the best one can do (improving electronics will not improve the noise). This means that the basic performance can be modeled and predicted. The number of photons a digital camera collects in each pixel is directly related to the size (area that converts photons into electrons) of the pixel and the lens feeding light to those pixels. The more photons collected, the better the signal-to-noise ratio in the image, thus the larger pixel sizes using larger lenses do better in this regard.

From:

Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter: Examples: a night scene

Translation: There is photo noise (random light) and electronic noise (random signal). If you make equivalent the signal noise on any sensor, the larger sensor will demonstrate less photon noise. If you read similar articles from the engineering side, you will also realize that larger sensors usually demonstrate less signal noise because they are more efficient. Why? Because they have a larger sample of photons to work with. Why do they have a larger sample? Because they are physically larger, and therefore collect more photons. That is why it is called "sampling".

So a K5 and D800 might have the exact same Sony type sensor of equivalent manufacturing generation and very, very similar signal to noise ratios in their electronic charge. But because the FF sensor gathers more photons, its sample, being larger, has less photon noise.

You don't even have to factor in aperture or anything like that. Just go mirror up and shine a flashlight on a sensor and measure it.

This is settled science. What is not settled is the subjective effect of aperture and DOF on creativity and aesthetics. During the transition from film to digital both the buying public in general and camera manufacturers, largely for economic reasons, no longer saw the need for shallow DOF, neither in the larger sensors nor in optics. So APS-C sensors came to dominate. FF recaptures that original DOF, with a SNR bonus, but at a substantial size/weight/cost premium.

Now there is something of a retro movement back to super-shallow DOF, but hard to do on smaller sensors, and it also incurs a substantial size/weight/cost premium of its own. The real gain [sic] has sen in the phenomenal capacity of Sony in particular to reduce the on-chip SNR allowing for substantially higher ISO capacity than anyone ever dreamed of with film.

Re-read my post above on "dividing the full frame sensor" and it will tell you why this is fundamentally wrong. Here's my experiment with complete visible results: https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/debunking-the-myth-of-full-frame-superiority/

---------- Post added 04-18-14 at 05:51 PM ----------

I think I know why there is disagreement on the perceived noise between different sensor sizes. My explanations and my experiment deals with noise measured at the sensor (pixel) level while others treat noise at print level. A larger image would have less apparent noise when printed at the same size as a crop sensor. That's pretty basic. However, that does not imply that the cleaner output is due to the larger sensor gathering more light. It doesn't. The only time that would happen is if the larger sensor has larger sensels assuming other factors are held constant (e.g. efficiency, read noise, etc...). A k5 will have the same noise profile as a D800 at the sensor level. A D800 will look cleaner at the same print size. See here: https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/full-frame-is-not-an-option/

Last edited by dtmateojr; 04-18-2014 at 05:54 PM.
Reply

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!
24x36mm, aperture, aps-c, camera, check, da, dof, equivalence, f/8, ff, ff resolution, full-frame, lenses, mf, pentax, photo, photography, post, practice, reasons, resolution, sensor, shot, shutter, theory, time, wrong
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to shoot a wedding with APS-C and FF nick52 Photographic Technique 8 08-05-2013 05:14 PM
K-5IIs reviews at Amazon - Better than FF Canon? Docrwm Pentax K-5 4 02-19-2013 12:12 PM
Quick question regarding field of view - FF vs APS-C glass? Julie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-23-2012 05:33 PM
APS-C does not increase focal length over FF, it decreases field of view. TomTextura Photographic Technique 135 06-09-2012 04:58 PM
What is your best example for FF over APS-C? leeak Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 12-11-2008 12:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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