Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-15-2014, 10:55 AM   #106
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,020
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Yes, you can make the case that the FL-standard reviewers, etc use should move to aps-c, and then everything be stated in equivalent FL in terms of aps-c instead of 35mm. Folks have been saying that for years, as did I when I shot only aps-c.

We would then just say for example "your 50mm 1.8 lens on FF is a 33mm f/1.2 equivalent" instead of "your 50mm f/1.8 lens on aps-c is a 75mm f/2.8 equivalent." We could also move the time standard to Bankok, which is more near the center of most human population, if the churn would be worth it.

Personally I don't see much point in changing, but it doesn't really matter much as long as something that doesn't move again can be used for comparison. One problem is that we may see greater adoption of FF going forward, and everyone may be shooting either even smaller highly-efficient formats and/or FF in 10, 15 years, and adopting aps-c as a standard might look silly then.

What may really make sense? iphone as the FL 'standard'.
I think the iphone as a standard doesn't make sense merely because it is a fixed focal length camera. Your standard should be something that has interchangeable lenses.

Obviously the reason for full frame being the "standard" has to do with film days, when its place was as dominant as APS-C is for digital now (as compared to larger or smaller formats).

04-15-2014, 01:55 PM   #107
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Yes, but at this point, the majority of digital users have used only APS-C or smaller formats and for them the 35mm "equivalency" is meaningless. I know it is for me. I shot film for awhile, but I didn't own a bunch of lenses -- just a 28 to 80 and a 50mm f1.4. When I think of lens length versus field of view, APS-C is what I think of. And a lot of photographers are like me.
Nothing wrong with that.

In fact the equivalency thing has bit me when shooting with the 645 - I'd get too narrow a DOF using the 75/2.8 (I don't know nor care to compute the APS-C or 35mm equivalency... save it would be a fast normal) close up. 2.8 would be progressively more forgiving (for the same subject size) in 35mm and APS-C. Clearly there are many areas where a smaller size frame have advantages and larger size ones have disadvantages. Apart from this negative to DOF, I've mentioned portability, affordability, and speed of operation as some other variables, as are viewfinder size, availability of legacy lenses, or any special need lens one may covet.

Now, my mind doesn't work the way it used to, so I'm at a loss why the OP article claims the resolution/equipment whoring advantage it seems to? Does it really prove that under sane and equivalent conditions there's something better about FF?
04-15-2014, 02:01 PM   #108
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
I think the driving force behind standardizing should be a labor or cost savings. Don't see any of that in standardizing crop factors.

I'd rather the photographic industry be forced to standardize on image formats, e.g. DNG RAW. Right now it appears that camera image standards are all over the map and forces thousands of owners to buy new software just so their camera images will be recognized - year after year. Thankfully, we have one voltage standard throughout the US. Thankfully, the USB connector is being standardized for electronic devices around the world instead of each manufacturer selling their own patented devices. Apparently the USB connector was developed by an Intel engineer who was tired of need to have so many different cable connectors around.

Nothing personal, but if you want to standardize something, pick something that will help mankind and our efficiency
04-15-2014, 02:54 PM - 1 Like   #109
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 587
I have no issues with equivalency as long as it's still photography. What really annoys me is that some people push some other agenda to the point where they claim that others "probably do not own a full frame" or "you probably do not print big" or that "good photographers" care about minute differences in DoF...and yet they can't even produce a shot to proove their point.

When you shoot, you react to what you see in the viewfinder and the output. You act according to what equipment you have in hand. I don't try to copy what I do with my full frame with my point-and-shoot. Fact is, I have sold way more photos with a point-and-shoot than any of my bulky DSLRs combined. For most people, the difference between a point-and-shoot and a full frame is that one makes bigger, sharper photos that suck.

Bottomline is, you shoot with what you have. You make photos with what's in your hand. Equivalency is just an exercise in frustration that does nothing to your photography and benefits only the camera manufacturers.

04-15-2014, 03:05 PM   #110
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
I have no issues with equivalency as long as it's still photography. What really annoys me is that some people push some other agenda to the point where they claim that others "probably do not own a full frame" or "you probably do not print big" or that "good photographers" care about minute differences in DoF...and yet they can't even produce a shot to proove their point.
I take requests from polite strangers on the internet.

QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
Bottomline is, you shoot with what you have. You make photos with what's in your hand. Equivalency is just an exercise in frustration that does nothing to your photography and benefits only the camera manufacturers.
Ignoring equivalency puts more money in camera manufacturer's pockets, both with 'too much camera' and 'too much lens'.
04-15-2014, 04:25 PM   #111
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 587
ROFL! Equivalency is what makes people want the biggest in everything because anything smaller is not good enough.

Show us your shot that would have been impossible if it wasn't for your holy full frame. Bwahaha!
04-15-2014, 05:07 PM   #112
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,139
It is DOF wide open only equivalency at the expense of everything else. This has zero relevance for 99,99% of all photography. This can easily be proved by the photos people are actually taking....

The lenses claimed to be equavalent aren't really either: they don't display the same maximum magnification, the same close focusing distance, the same maximum DOF or the same DOF range. But for some reasons this doesn't matter cause it doesn't fit the argument....
04-15-2014, 05:14 PM   #113
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,598
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
ROFL! Equivalency is what makes people want the biggest in everything because anything smaller is not good enough.

Show us your shot that would have been impossible if it wasn't for your holy full frame. Bwahaha!
No, no, you don't get it! Shallow DOF is ALL that matters. If you can't take a picture of a freckle and have the skin behind it out of focus, your DOF is not shallow enough and the photo is useless. There has never been a photo worth looking at taken on APS-c. DOF is just too deep to be useful.


Last edited by Parallax; 04-16-2014 at 11:51 AM.
04-15-2014, 05:23 PM   #114
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
It's bad and a waste of time... except when it's not!

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Ignoring equivalency puts more money in camera manufacturer's pockets, both with 'too much camera' and 'too much lens'.
Nicely put.

By the way, here's a recurring theme: Equivalence is bad and a waste of time when it shows an advantage for a FF combo, but good and just common sense when it shows an advantage for an aps-c combo.

(We must be posting in an aps-c-centric forum, or something)

---------- Post added 04-15-14 at 06:24 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
No, no, you don't get it! Shallow DOF is ALL that matters. If you can't take a picture of a freckle and have the skin behind it out of focus, your DOF is not shallow enough and the photo is useless. There has never been a photo worth looking at taken on APS-c. DOF is just too deep to be useful.
Welcome Jim. Why did you hurriedly change your sig?

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-15-2014 at 05:31 PM.
04-15-2014, 05:26 PM   #115
Pentaxian
carrrlangas's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cottbus (Berlin)
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,738
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
I have no issues with equivalency as long as it's still photography. What really annoys me is that some people push some other agenda to the point where they claim that others "probably do not own a full frame" or "you probably do not print big" or that "good photographers" care about minute differences in DoF...and yet they can't even produce a shot to proove their point.
The comment in bold was mine. Sorry if it was off limits. But your point about f/8 is enough to achieve necessary DoF for any format is still wrong and I don´t want that to confuse others.
04-15-2014, 05:29 PM - 2 Likes   #116
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
translation: equivalence makes me so angry!!

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
The lenses claimed to be equavalent aren't really either: they don't display the same maximum magnification, the same close focusing distance, the same maximum DOF or the same DOF range. But for some reasons this doesn't matter cause it doesn't fit the argument....
You coming up with your own definition again Pål? Here, let me help you: we're talking about this. And here's a great cut-to-chase that will probably help you yourself the most: myths.


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-15-2014 at 05:40 PM.
04-15-2014, 06:01 PM   #117
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
ROFL! Equivalency is what makes people want the biggest in everything because anything smaller is not good enough.

Show us your shot that would have been impossible if it wasn't for your holy full frame. Bwahaha!
The fundamental tenet of equivalency is that, with the appropriate optical design, all pictures are possible on all formats.
04-15-2014, 06:07 PM   #118
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,598
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote

Welcome Jim. Why did you hurriedly change your sig?
That has been my sig for several weeks. It had nothing to do with this thread.
This thread was started on 4/6. See my post from 4/3 for context: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/131-visitors-center/256472-old-bayonet-mo...ml#post2774849

Last edited by Parallax; 04-15-2014 at 06:15 PM.
04-15-2014, 06:31 PM   #119
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,385
QuoteOriginally posted by waterfall Quote
he colorful bar graph is as useful as CNN's analysis of Malaysia 370.
BAM! That's very funny! Also totally apt.
04-15-2014, 07:20 PM   #120
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,336
We only think about equivalence because our starting point is lenses. Especially Pentax shooters are lens-centric because of K-mount backward compatibility. You get 12" DoF at 10' and f/5.6 with a 70 on APSc or a 105 on FF.

To make an equivalent FF image with any lens on APSc you can just move back and reposition the subject distance from the background - which is of course almost never possible. But there are so many choices and they are so cheap that almost any serious photographer can have two formats, and carry the best format for purpose or even carry both for opportunistic use.

Of course that would be heavy and large, so m4:3 people will step in here.
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 04:05 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