[ElJamoquio]

News flash: DoF is also affected by focal length. You can get everything in focus if you shoot wide.

---------- Post added 04-15-14 at 06:31 PM ----------




That's not what I have read. The OP was all about the superiority of FF over anything. Why are you backing down now? Coz you can't produce a shot?

The op was about practical sharpness with reasonably priced lenses. I don't post for you because I only take requests from polite internet strangers.

[Rondec]

The op was about practical sharpness with reasonably priced lenses. I don't post for you because I only take requests from polite internet strangers.

Edit: My comment was kind of snarky, so I got rid of it.

I will just say when we are talking about image quality, sharpness and depth of field are usually not the things that make the photo compelling or not. Those things can detract from an otherwise good image, but I have seen very few images where I think "Wow, that would have been a great photo if it was twenty percent sharper!" or, "Wow, that would have been a great photo with a stop less depth of field."

[Na Horuk]

Too bad this thread is reaching new depths of vitriol. I think the opposing sides will not come together, so its best not to use harsh words and to stop the back-and-forth.
I stay with my idea that DoF relative to FoV is not that important and should not be used as the base for equivalence calculations. DoF depends on aperture, focal length, and distance to subject. The sensor only comes to play when one is looking at the DoF relative to FoV based on FF, in which case APSC appears to have a disadvantage. But why not look at something like magnification per FoV, with APSC being the base. Now suddenly the FF needs a more than 1:1 lens with different aperture to get the same DoF per magnification per FoV. My point is merely that doing mathematics to find some kind of theoretical equivalences is not a neutral analysis. We should accept that FF and APSC are different formats. They have pros and cons, and it is up to the photographer to decide, which fits their needs more.

[rawr]

These format debates never change.
Such passion over a few square millimetres of silicon one way or another.

[Nesster]

we're talking about this. And here's a great cut-to-chase that will probably help you yourself the most: myths.


.

These are truly excellent links, thank you for them. If we leave off our ego investments in equipment choices we can see the simple truths.... which are good to know and account for, but most of the time are meaningless... except to someone like me who needs to wrap his head around these things a bit better due to using formats from APS-C to 6x9 120 film. And that's mostly so I can keep the various rules of thumb for each format in mind.

Mostly, this stuff is meaningless as long as one's only looking at one format, whatever that may be. Sort of like who cares about translating English to Urdu and vice versa, who cares if one can have much greater resolution in insulting someone's mother and parentage in Urdu, say, than in English, or that one can't say something in Urdu one can say in English.... if all one does is speak English.

[ElJamoquio]

Nevermind the photo. I know why you are hesitant to post lol! I already saw your photos and I'm in no mood to humiliate you further.

Yay, personal attack time! Why don't you post the ones you hate here and we can have logical fallacy education time.

[Nesster]

I'll play. This shot is with a Nikon D600 full frame and a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D Nikkor. I apologize for the lousy IQ due to shooting in jpeg only and thus losing the magic of proprietary raw...



Now, I would say I could not have made this shot with any other camera, no matter how much anyone argues. Why? Because the Nikon was the only camera I had with me! Oh, I guess I could have made this shot with my iPhone.... but not an APS-C camera, obviously.

This shot, with a K-x and DA 70/2.4 clearly is one that works best with the APS-C format. Why you ask? Because my 105 Nikkor is a manual focus lens and therefore does not use all that matrix doodad / superior autofocus Nikon boasts. Not to mention the DA 70 is so small and cute. Oh, and I only had my K-x and iPhone with me. QED.

So you ask, what if I did have two cameras with me? Often I do, only they tend to be things like the Fuji F10 and a 1922 Pocket Kodak





The problem here is that I can't find the picture of the eagle I took with the Pocket Kodak... and anyway it's lens turns everything into a bull's arse

Oh wait, here it is:


Now I can safely say I can take a similar photograph with a few-generations old digital p&s and a 1922 6x9 folding camera. I encourage everyone to go out and make similar comparisons.

[northcoastgreg]

The fundamental tenet of equivalency is that, with the appropriate optical design, all pictures are possible on all formats.

If that is the fundamental tenet of equivalency (I doubt that it is), it constitutes a false ideal. All pictures may be "possible" on all formats in the same broad philosophical sense that "anything is possible," but in terms of reality, it's just not true; or, in the sense that it might be true, it's just not practical. For most photographers, the most important aspect of equivalency, and often the only sort they ever think about, is FOV equivalency. DOF and light sensitivity equivalency are important only for a handful of specialist photographers, and for gearhounds anxious to rationalize their expenditures. It's of little concern to the majority of advanced amateur and professional photographers.

The problem with over-emphasizing DOF equivalency is that it is only one of many factors that have to be weighed when accessing different formats. No one format is intrinsically and absolutely better in all respects to any other; between formats there are tradeoffs involving many different factors, some of which may be related to equivalency (like DOF control) and some which are not (like price). For people who are not wealthy, price is usually the most important factor when choosing a format. I can't choose a format I can't afford, regardless of whatever I might hope to achieve with the gear purchased.

I shoot APS-C because that's what I can afford. If I could afford FF, I would consider it as an option, but not to attain equivalency with APS-C! From a more expensive format, I would want superiority, not equivalency. If I'm going to pay more, I would want something better. The features I'm primarily concerned about are microcontrast, color rendition, dynamic range (primarily at base ISO), rendering, flare control, attainable FOV, workflow integration, size of gear, quality of tonal gradation, and resolution. Of these features, only the last four are determined, at least in part, by format; the rest are format agnostic and depend more on lenses than anything else.

[ElJamoquio]

If that is the fundamental tenet of equivalency (I doubt that it is),

It's right there in the name!

Equivalent photographic systems take the same pictures.

[jsherman999]

Yay, personal attack time! Why don't you post the ones you hate here and we can have logical fallacy education time.

Don't waste too much time with him. He combines 1) weak/incomplete understanding of the underlying facts, with 2) poor communication skills, with 3) low reading comprehension, with 4) extreme, random rudeness. Perfect storm of negative forum attributes.

---------- Post added 04-16-14 at 12:31 PM ----------

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

I was talking about this post where your sig dissapeared after your edit. Looked like you were trying to appear impartial by (oddly) deleting your sig.

[Parallax]

That's odd, the show signature box was unchecked.

[jsherman999]

If that is the fundamental tenet of equivalency (I doubt that it is), it constitutes a false ideal.

It's not an 'ideal' in any way, shape or form, it's simply a statement of physical fact. "F = m a" is not an enforcement of an 'ideal', it just *is*.

All pictures may be "possible" on all formats in the same broad philosophical sense that "anything is possible," but in terms of reality, it's just not true; or, in the sense that it might be true, it's just not practical.

Of course it isn't always practical, or even in some cases possible when you consider the lenses you can actually buy. Understanding equivalence just helps you determine what is practical economically and even possible based on available options when you move between formats.

For example, if you want to re-create the experience you had with your 50mm prime on FF when you move to ap-sc, you pick a 35mm prime and get about the same FOV. If that's all you care about - if you don't care about DOF or noise - you're done. You just used equivalence to get there, to decide what lens you need. Now, if you do care about DOF for the same FOV you had before, you will need to pick a 35mm lens that has about a stop faster max aperture, or you will lose the DOF control you had wide-open to about 1.3 stops down from wide-open, and you would lose the noise control you had in that range as well. To some people, that matters - to some, not, but to say that if it doesn't matter to you so it shouldn't matter to anyone is silly - that would be like saying "I shoot micro 4/3, and everyone should, because the small difference aps-c brings isn't anything anyone should care about."

You could use equivalence in part to make an economic decision on a telephoto combo - with sensors of equal pixel density, how much would it cost you to replace a 200 f/2.8 you shoot on aps-c (in FOV and DOF) with some combo on FF? If you understand equivalence (and the effects on your image of cropping and enlarging, because that's an option too,) you make the conversion and then go price your options. (hint: that combo slightly favors aps-c - it's possible to do it in FF, but perhaps not practical.)

.

Here's a general question to anybody: How would you feel - answer honestly - if Pentax suddenly said they were abandoning aps-c in favor of micro 4/3? Mount would stay the same, or there would be an AF adapter, so you could use all your same lenses - but the sensor was shrinking. Would it matter to you? Would you prefer they not do that? Why?

.

[Parallax]

Here's a general question to anybody: How would you feel - answer honestly - if Pentax suddenly said they were abandoning aps-c in favor of micro 4/3? Mount would stay the same, or there would be an AF adapter, so you could use all your same lenses - but the sensor was shrinking. Would it matter to you? Would you prefer they not do that? Why?

I wouldn't like it because I would have to buy a few different lenses. Although my current lenses would work, they wouldn't produce the same image on the sensor. I chose the lenses I have to yield the results they do on APS-c. If I had started with micro 4/3 I would have different lenses. Even if all of my lenses were 24x36 compatible, I would fee much the same if they said they were abandoning APS-c for 24x36. Now, if I had one of every lens I wouldn't care so much.

[jsherman999]

I wouldn't like it because I would have to buy a few different lenses. Although my current lenses would work, they wouldn't produce the same image on the sensor. I chose the lenses I have to yield the results they do on APS-c. If I had started with micro 4/3 I would have different lenses. Even if all of my lenses were 24x36 compatible, I would fee much the same if they said they were abandoning APS-c for 24x36. Now, if I had one of every lens I wouldn't care so much.

Great honest answer. Now, when you say 'same image on sensor,' are you most concerned with FOV only, or would your concerns also include noise and DOF to at least some degree?

.

[Parallax]

Concerned primarily with FOV, but to some extent noise. DOF? Meh.