Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-18-2014, 10:13 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
it does not exist practically because the FF additionally has several intrinsic advantages over cropped.

But your OP only addressed the FOV differences, so the replies you got also addressed those differences. To now claim that we are misunderstanding you is disingenuous on your part.

04-18-2014, 10:16 AM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,145
QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
...
If Pentax/Ricoh became wildly successful selling 35mm film cameras, whats really the reason they dont want to build a 35mm Ff sensor camera?
Perhaps read the more-than-can-be-counted threads on that subject here on PF and not make this thread yet another one of them. The bottom line is if you want a FF DSLR today, go out and get one; otherwise, wait if you absolutely and positively must have one made by Ricoh/Pentax.
04-18-2014, 10:26 AM   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,229
Thanks for the images Cannikon, I have never understood, when comparing two systems, how posting one image from one system is a comparison. People show what you they can do with one system, and assume that it's better, based on theoretical assumptions.

Taken with the Sigma 8-16




You can do really good quality wide with APS-c..

I have a feeling an image like this would come out better shot with a 12 mm FF lens.. because of the distortion...


But before I'd say that as an absolute truth, I'd have 12mm FF image to show along side so you can see what the difference is. I certainly wouldn't be going on about the advantage of one over the other without a few images to show what I'm talking about.

This is an issue that comes up all the time... and sometimes I like 10-17 fisheye images, and sometimes I like heavily corrected Sigma 8-16 images, but, in my experience, you can't assume that because an image has less distortion it will be the most pleasing image. Yet I see thread after thread where that is the assumption, made over and over again, and stated as fact. You need the right lens for what you are looking at, and in my experience, that isn't always the most corrected lens or system.

Well, the fact that you think a fact is fact doesn't make it a fact.

Last edited by normhead; 04-18-2014 at 10:42 AM.
04-18-2014, 10:30 AM   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,684
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I like 35mm on FF as both a general purpose focal length and for candid people pictures.
I have to agree. I used to consider the 35mm focal length to be a sort of clumsy in-between thing until I started using one on my film cameras. The FOV is very close to how my vision works and ultimately my perspective on the world. As for the volumetric distortion issues (not really distortion...just perspective at work), you have to get REAL close before that element dominates the frame.

For the photo of the girl with the cat, it was the right lens for the job and the resultant photo simply works.


Steve

04-18-2014, 10:32 AM   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,431
QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
Basically your replies say I can find lens for my cropped sensor camera giving me an equivalent FOV as 24mm on a FF. I get that.

But do you get it, saying 16mm x 1.5 = 24mm does NOT mean the two are the same. Equivalence is merely convenient maths, it does not exist practically because the FF additionally has several intrinsic advantages over cropped.

If Pentax/Ricoh became wildly successful selling 35mm film cameras, whats really the reason they dont want to build a 35mm Ff sensor camera?
Rumors are that full frame is coming this fall. Seems likely.

You are right that 16mm isn't 24mm, but that said, if you can't afford a full frame camera, it is pretty cheap to buy a 500 dollar K30 and 250 dollar used 16-45. It will be close enough for most situations. Maybe a little more distortion.
04-18-2014, 10:39 AM   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,229
You might want to look at this guys, comparing a Sigma 8-16 to an FF Sigma 12-24, there's not as much difference as you might have been led to believe, depending on how big the difference was supposed to be.

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC (vs Sigma 12-24 su FF) [JuzaPhoto]
04-18-2014, 11:16 AM   #37
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
If Pentax/Ricoh became wildly successful selling 35mm film cameras, whats really the reason they dont want to build a 35mm Ff sensor camera?
1) Because the 35mm 'FF" sensor costs a lot more to produce from the wafer than an aps-c sensor, probably between 5x and 10x more currently, and thus they'd have to charge more, and the market shrinks to some degree when the price goes up. That same dynamic didn't exist with film because there were no sensors in 35mm film cameras.

2) Because they don't really have a full FF lens lineup (no f/2.8 zooms) that they would need to get a quicker ROI. Putting the lenses out is maybe the biggest expenditure

3) Because Pentax-standalone would have had to borrow heavily against company assets to fund a FF initiative, and Pentax-Hoya was just a big prep-for-sale it turns out. Pentax-Ricoh has more than enough cash and credit, but may be holding off to see what happens with mirrorless, which could affect their overall K-mount strategy itself.
04-18-2014, 11:39 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,145
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I have to agree. I used to consider the 35mm focal length to be a sort of clumsy in-between thing until I started using one on my film cameras.
Steve
Right. And how many here grew up shooting FF for 10, 20 and more years and can draw upon that tempered experience to compare a 1.5 crop format? How many adamantly defend 1.5 cop and grew up shooting only 1.5 crop cameras? And finally how may are old enough to have grown up shooting FF for a long time but never did yet also adamantly defend 1.5 crop? I respect the latter two opinions and preferences but surly they should understand the first group's preference for a FF, no?

04-18-2014, 03:01 PM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Thanks for the images Cannikon, I have never understood, when comparing two systems, how posting one image from one system is a comparison. People show what you they can do with one system, and assume that it's better, based on theoretical assumptions.
Indeed a single image, or single other point of information in isolation usually tells you very little. it is always important to do controlled comparisons, and keep your mind open that perhaps the difference you are seeing is not caused by the most obvious difference, but something more subtle (and often a lot simpler).

Case in point, this perspective issue. I assume many people think "When I shoot with a longer focal length on my camera I get a 'compression' effect. Since 35mm cameras use longer focal lengths they must have more 'compression'." Even if you don't have a 35mm camera on hand, there are many ways to test this theory. You could assume that APS-C is "FF" and do a 1.5x crop of that. If you did that, you would see, as my experiment shows, that, no, changing the sensor size does not change the perspective if you stand in the same spot. Keeping the same AOV/FOV, regardless of actual focal length, does not change the "compression" illusion.

It is important to know exactly what a system is capable of, both in theoretical and in practical terms, before you make any assumptions. If you see an image and think "Wow, I don't think my camera will do that" then try it. You might be surprised at what you can do with your camera.There are indeed things that a 35mm system can do that any existing APS-C system cannot do, but these things may not include many of the things you first assume.

I desire 35mm for two reasons: wide angle shallow depth of field, and wide-field astrophotography/night landscapes, both because 35mm has fast wide angles. There are no APS-C or m4/3 lenses in existence that can emulate 24mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4 on 35mm. Indeed, it is impossible to get a conventional lens faster than ~f/1.1 on the K-mount because of the mount dimensions. I know these things for a fact. I have no illusions that any other kind of photography I do would be significantly better than what I can already do on my APS-C and m4/3 setups, which is why if Pentax comes out with a 35mm camera, I would get it, but I would still be using those smaller systems for everyday shooting.

And just a side note: it is an unfortunate coincidence that my username (which I use for a lot of things) is very similar to the portmanteau "Canikon" (for "Canon Nikon"), but my username is actually "Cannikin" which is something completely unrelated.

Last edited by Cannikin; 04-18-2014 at 03:10 PM.
04-18-2014, 03:24 PM   #40
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,192
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
You're right. It makes her look ugly. Perhaps something more cute with a longer focal length?

Ooh, nice showcase, Tuco!

If you were a model for an amateur and saw them with a wide angle lens you'd be concerned it wasn't for a particular exaggerated look.

[Insert own model joke here]
04-18-2014, 04:14 PM   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
wtlwdwgn's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Billings, MT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,335
QuoteOriginally posted by Pewter Quote
I was pretty immune to the Pentax FF disease, being happy enough to explore myself on APS-C. Then after going out with a group recently, noticed my friends FF a) at every focal length had a wider FOV than me. This was true for ALL the cropped sensor cameras that were with us that day -- no matter the brand or model and b) it also had better noise/low light performance.

The explanation for a) is very simple. A 24mm FF lens for example is ultrawide on FF but that same lens on a cropped sensor body is equivalent to 36mm and not ultrawide anymore. That is a phyical limitation to any cropped body and impossible to remedy.

My conclusion is an APS-C camera can be equivalent in many ways but will NEVER 100% match the FF FOV. This is why I want a Pentax FF, and see no reason why the company that used to produce some of the finest film FF in the world, cannot and wont try to do so again in digital format.

Does that make sense to you or does it sound like am smoking weed?
I'm a little slow here but are you asking for a no frills FF digital camera body like the old SV but with a digital sensor? In today's marketplace I don't think that would sell. It's true it might be a lot cheaper but there wouldn't be enough buyers to justify its existence. Of course if it had an AF system that covered the whole viewfinder with enough cross points to catch birds I might be silly enough to buy one.

But if you're just talking about FOV, that's been done to death already. A crop sensor crops the FOV. Gee really? Duh!
04-18-2014, 05:05 PM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,933
No frills FF body?
This is 2014, so lets not have that many 'I want to build a make believe camera! " threads anymore.

Get a used 5D for $400-500. (or a 1Ds)
Get a handful of M42 mount lenses .... done deal...
Else, shave the mirror on the dang thing to use the k-mount lenses.
You could even go Contax or Nikon Ais/non-Ai
Even with a set of cheap f1.8-f2.8 Canon 24mm, 50mm, 85mm primes bought 2nd hand, its a whole system without much money.

As for the wide FOV thing.
Again, its was true only in the beginning of aps-c when there were no wides catered for the format. (now this has passed on into a false truth, spread by lack of understanding and hearsay)
Nowadays, there's 8-16mm, 10-20mm, 14mm, 15mm lenses for the aps-c user.
Yes, there are some characteristic differences in those lenses, but there are for FF ones as well (eg. poorer corners and edges for many; better ones are very large)
The photographer chooses his format/lenses and composes around those (compromises)..... and shoot.

Last edited by pinholecam; 04-18-2014 at 05:15 PM.
04-18-2014, 06:13 PM   #43
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,427
I'd hate to see how much I would have to spend to get the coverage and equivalent FoV on FF to what I currently have, but i bet it wouldn't be cheap if even possible.
04-18-2014, 10:04 PM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Had a chance to handle the Sony A7R. EVF's aren't nearly as bad now as I thought they would be.

Just a thought...
04-19-2014, 12:47 AM   #45
Senior Member
Pewter's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Twin Cities
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 130
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
1) Because the 35mm 'FF" sensor costs a lot more to produce from the wafer than an aps-c sensor, probably between 5x and 10x more currently, and thus they'd have to charge more, and the market shrinks to some degree when the price goes up. That same dynamic didn't exist with film because there were no sensors in 35mm film cameras.

2) Because they don't really have a full FF lens lineup (no f/2.8 zooms) that they would need to get a quicker ROI. Putting the lenses out is maybe the biggest expenditure

3) Because Pentax-standalone would have had to borrow heavily against company assets to fund a FF initiative, and Pentax-Hoya was just a big prep-for-sale it turns out. Pentax-Ricoh has more than enough cash and credit, but may be holding off to see what happens with mirrorless, which could affect their overall K-mount strategy itself.
Think you hit the nail on the head. A reasonable

---------- Post added 2014-04-19 at 16:02 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
No frills FF body?
This is 2014, so lets not have that many 'I want to build a make believe camera! " threads anymore.

Get a used 5D for $400-500. (or a 1Ds)
Get a handful of M42 mount lenses .... done deal...
Else, shave the mirror on the dang thing to use the k-mount lenses.
You could even go Contax or Nikon Ais/non-Ai
Even with a set of cheap f1.8-f2.8 Canon 24mm, 50mm, 85mm primes bought 2nd hand, its a whole system without much money.

As for the wide FOV thing.
Again, its was true only in the beginning of aps-c when there were no wides catered for the format. (now this has passed on into a false truth, spread by lack of understanding and hearsay)
Nowadays, there's 8-16mm, 10-20mm, 14mm, 15mm lenses for the aps-c user.
Yes, there are some characteristic differences in those lenses, but there are for FF ones as well (eg. poorer corners and edges for many; better ones are very large)
The photographer chooses his format/lenses and composes around those (compromises)..... and shoot.
At risk of causing offense, methinks pinholecam would like us to put our wallets where our moths are, buy a FF DSLR (any decent one will do), try it out and that would be a more practical and useful exercise than a theoretical FF debate.

Not everyone would agree but I can, makes sense pinholecam!

---------- Post added 2014-04-19 at 16:03 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
No frills FF body?
This is 2014, so lets not have that many 'I want to build a make believe camera! " threads anymore.

Get a used 5D for $400-500. (or a 1Ds)
Get a handful of M42 mount lenses .... done deal...
Else, shave the mirror on the dang thing to use the k-mount lenses.
You could even go Contax or Nikon Ais/non-Ai
Even with a set of cheap f1.8-f2.8 Canon 24mm, 50mm, 85mm primes bought 2nd hand, its a whole system without much money.

As for the wide FOV thing.
Again, its was true only in the beginning of aps-c when there were no wides catered for the format. (now this has passed on into a false truth, spread by lack of understanding and hearsay)
Nowadays, there's 8-16mm, 10-20mm, 14mm, 15mm lenses for the aps-c user.
Yes, there are some characteristic differences in those lenses, but there are for FF ones as well (eg. poorer corners and edges for many; better ones are very large)
The photographer chooses his format/lenses and composes around those (compromises)..... and shoot.
At risk of causing offense, methinks pinholecam would like us to put our wallets where our moths are, buy a FF DSLR (any decent one will do), try it out and that would be a more practical and useful exercise than a theoretical FF debate.

Not everyone would agree but I can, makes sense pinholecam!
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, 35mm, 50mm, aps-c, body, camera, distance, equivalent, eyes, ff, format, fov, full-frame, lens, lenses, pentax, people, perspective, photography, pictures, pm, sensor, shots, subject, system, ultrawide
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FF or just less of a crop factor? K David Pentax Full Frame 14 11-08-2013 04:28 AM
A Pentax FF idea, a unique take on the FF market... theperception2008 Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 10-03-2012 01:07 PM
Re-cycling another Pentax FF rumour/FF rumor from A German photography magazine rawr Pentax Full Frame 73 09-19-2012 01:12 PM
Just a few hopefully simple ones Seanex Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 17 02-08-2011 04:40 PM
just a simple question LeGoGubbe Photographic Technique 4 08-20-2007 11:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37 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