Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-06-2014, 03:44 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by waterfall Quote
Dr. camera,

Please define your terms and tell me How You Know, I.e. data is useful. Has your analysis been Peer reviewed? If so, who are the Peers? This entire article appears to be junk science intended as a marketing tool.
Doesn't seem like a marketing genius to me... heck there aren't even ads on that site or links to b+h or amazon...

04-06-2014, 04:37 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,852
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
the best practical APS-C system has 12% worse resolution than full-frame with a $120 lens.
He could also use a $50 Pentax M 50 f1.7 to beat the $120 FF lens. So what is his point?
Inane sensor format fanboyism at it's worst.

Why not look into Micro-4/3 or medium format too for resolution? But that gets too complicated, and doesn't serve his mission.
04-06-2014, 04:38 PM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,720
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Doesn't seem like a marketing genius to me... heck there aren't even ads on that site or links to b+h or amazon...
Seems like someone trying to justify how much money they spent.
04-06-2014, 06:19 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
I respect that FF sensors might have an advantage in some situations (like the D4, with 16MP FF, which guarantees great noise performance), but this kind of "analysis" is skewed.
  1. FF sensors do not have a noise advantage per se. There are FF lenses which are faster than any APS-C lens available so switching to an FF system can increase noise performance, but the crucial bit is the lens availability, not the sensor size.
  2. I haven't checked his numbers, but the principles he applied (using equivalent f-stops and normalised resolution) do not lead to a skewed analysis. The fact that FF yields better IQ for less money -- once you cross a certain IQ threshold -- is old news. Falconey has covered this a long time ago in his "The true reasons for a full frame camera" article.


04-06-2014, 06:55 PM - 2 Likes   #20
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,420
QuoteOriginally posted by elliott Quote
Must be true, he has a PhD.
Piled Higher and Deeper...
04-06-2014, 08:26 PM   #21
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
  1. FF sensors do not have a noise advantage per se. There are FF lenses which are faster than any APS-C lens available so switching to an FF system can increase noise performance, but the crucial bit is the lens availability, not the sensor size.
  2. I haven't checked his numbers, but the principles he applied (using equivalent f-stops and normalised resolution) do not lead to a skewed analysis. The fact that FF yields better IQ for less money -- once you cross a certain IQ threshold -- is old news. Falconey has covered this a long time ago in his "The true reasons for a full frame camera" article.
Pentax doesn't make a FF camera, they make APS-C cameras. Therefore any data that shows FF may be a better solution is immediately dismissed, even if they do not understand the analysis or conclusions.
04-06-2014, 08:54 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,852
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
do not understand the analysis or conclusions.
But we do understand. This guy's work is not new to anyone here.
04-06-2014, 09:02 PM   #23
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
But we do understand. This guy's work is not new to anyone here.
You may, it's obvious others don't.
Falk pretty much said the same thing as this guy.

04-07-2014, 03:26 AM - 1 Like   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,258
This is not necessarily shocking news. The surprising thing is how little difference can be truly seen in "real life" shooting between the D610 and K3. This "10 to 30 percent improvement" you get with a 24 megapixel sensor full frame camera is just not visible in most real world conditions. The other thing is that the new Sigma 35 f1.4 was left off his list, which is better than the Nikon 35mm f1.4 and currently runs 900 dollars.

I do hope Pentax releases a full frame camera some day, but honestly, the "10 percent benefit in resolution" is not the reason. I seldom use the resolution that I get right now with a K3.
04-07-2014, 04:45 AM   #25
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by elliott Quote
Must be true, he has a PhD.
PhD= piled higher and deeper
PhD = plumbing! heating & drains
04-07-2014, 04:51 AM - 1 Like   #26
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,875
Ugh, when you compare different formats using "equivalent DoF" as the constant/base, then you are not dealing with anything "practical" but with theoretical things (a theoretical camera, theoretical resolution,...) that do not exist.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
FF sensors do not have a noise advantage per se. There are FF lenses which are faster than any APS-C lens available so switching to an FF system can increase noise performance, but the crucial bit is the lens availability, not the sensor size.
See, this to me is skewed. Any FF lens can also be mounted on an APSC sensor and f1.2 brightness is f1.2 (when ISO and shutter are the same). But you are looking at this through the DoF prism (clownmirror?), where suddenly f1.2 on one format is completely different than f1.2 on the other format. Suddenly EV, shutter speed blur, ISO/noise are no longer important features of the photo, only DoF is. Even though in practical photography DoF is usually lower on the list (ignoring the DoF/bokeh fetishism).
But I will stop posting now, before this gets out of hand..

Last edited by Na Horuk; 04-07-2014 at 06:55 AM.
04-07-2014, 06:15 AM   #27
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
PhD= piled higher and deeper
PhD = plumbing! heating & drains
Thats right...we dont need no fancy book learnin!
Anything wurth learnin was learnt before we was 12!
04-07-2014, 07:04 AM   #28
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,258
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Ugh, when you compare different formats using "equivalent DoF" as the constant/base, then you are not dealing with anything "practical" but with theoretical things (a theoretical camera, theoretical resolution,...) that do not exist.


See, this to me is skewed. Any FF lens can also be mounted on an APSC sensor and f1.2 brightness is f1.2 (when ISO and shutter are the same). But you are looking at this through the DoF prism (clownmirror?), where suddenly f1.2 on one format is completely different than f1.2 on the other format. Suddenly EV, shutter speed blur, ISO/noise are no longer important features of the photo, only DoF is. Even though in practical photography DoF is usually lower on the list (ignoring the DoF/bokeh fetishists).
But I will stop posting now, before this gets out of hand..
The assumption is that you are using one format to recreate the shots you take on another format. This isn't actually totally untrue. If I would get full frame, I would probably want a 20-ish mm prime and I guess I would shoot at f11, since I use a DA 15 limited at f8 on APS-C and I am shooting for "everything in focus."

Many people treat narrow depth of field as the goal of photography, but I do struggle to get adequate depth of field at times (and would probably struggle more with a full frame camera. I am much more likely to delete a photo because my depth of field was too narrow than because there too much depth of field. If, I am shooting my DA *55 at f2.8 (in general), then I would likely shoot an 85mm on full frame at f4 -- in which case, I have burned up the extra dynamic range and high iso ability offered by full frame.

On the wide end, there are just a lot more options with full frame. There isn't anything like a full frame 30mm f1.8 or f1.4 on APS-C.
04-07-2014, 07:11 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,455
This is all so very, very simple. No one needs to prove anything. No one thing is 'The Best' for everything. There is no meritocratic winner.

If you really, really think you need a FF system, or you really, really think you want a FF system, there are at least two complete FF systems you can buy today. There's nothing wrong with buying one (or even both) of them.

If you don't think you need or want a FF system there are dozens of other systems in several formats that should suffice for your needs. There's nothing wrong with buying one (or even several) of them.

There's a small, nasty part of me, deep down inside that hopes Pentax releases a FF system just to read how prople react to it.

Last edited by monochrome; 04-07-2014 at 07:29 AM.
04-07-2014, 07:33 AM - 1 Like   #30
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,875
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The assumption is that you are using one format to recreate the shots you take on another format.
Yep, and I don't agree with this assumption. I think it is wrong of a photographer to say "I want to recreate the DoF I would get with a different format!" ignoring composition, exposure, motion blur, etc. This is why I don't agree with the DoF equivalence being the base for comparisons. Why base your photography on the wish that you want to make photos that look as if they were taken with another camera? This can only lead to unhappiness
And as you said, the other thing is that usually photographers need a thick DoF. Very rarely is a photograph bad because the DoF is "too big", but often a photograph gets ruined because the DoF is too shallow. Only times you need a shallow DoF is for one type of subject isolation, but even this is limited. A 50mm or 85mm f1.4 lens on APSC is more than shallow enough. But for most other genres (macro, sports, landscape, still life, wildlife) you want a wider DoF.

Regarding some of the earlier comments, I agree that FF has its uses, especially when it comes to improved noise performance (due to larger possible photosites) and wider possible angles (this advantage is shrinking, though). But I see DoF as fairly low on that list.
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 10:10 PM. | 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