Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-17-2014, 09:15 AM   #1
Senior Member
Pewter's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Twin Cities
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 130
just a simple FF

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?

04-17-2014, 09:34 AM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,142
Sounds like you need a wider lens. Say a zoom in the 10-16mm range. You shouldn't be compiling about not having a wide enough lens then. A buddy just got the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 for his D7100. It satisfied his UWA needs. It has a good price and a good performing lens from what I've seen. I don't know if it comes in a K-mount though.
04-17-2014, 09:37 AM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,825
Just get a Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24. Problem solved.
04-17-2014, 09:37 AM   #4
Veteran Member
oxidized's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: USA - Delaware
Photos: Albums
Posts: 434
Fov is rarely the main driving point for ff (though there are many other valid ones). There are many options for crop frame which could satisfy your needs. Have you looked at the sigma 10-20? That for instance will be wider than your friend's 24mm on full frame.

04-17-2014, 09:40 AM   #5
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,903
My DA* 16-50 on the wide end will match up with 24mm FF lens for the same FOV.
04-17-2014, 10:01 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
This is kinda silly. What about the other side of the coin? When you need reach, he has to use a 450mm lens to get where you can with a 300. FOV isn't a very compelling reason to want FF. There are lenses out there to make up for just about any conceived "shortfalls."
04-17-2014, 10:11 AM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,404
You just need to buy lenses that fit what you want to shoot. Lenses like the DA 12-24 and DA 15 limited are quite a bit wider even than the 24mm on full frame. Wider yet would be the Sigma 8-16 (if you can find a copy). You can get just as wide (approximately) with APS-C as you can get with full frame -- albeit with more depth of field.
04-17-2014, 10:11 AM   #8
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,525
On the topic...FOV can matched by changing focal lengths between APSC/35mm. What about compression? I haven't tried it...probably should. But a 50mm lens's compression should be the same no matter which format it's mounted too. Therefore.... using a 35mm to simulate a 50mm FOV would actually put the background further back...in theory? Or is this thinking incorrect?

04-17-2014, 10:22 AM   #9
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,427
Snag a Sigma 8-16. It is so wide it's crazy.
04-17-2014, 01:44 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,926
Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 10-24mm
Samyang 10mm, Samyang 14mm.
Fisheyes: Samyang 8mm, Zenitar 16mm

And Pentax makes some pretty wide lenses, too. Pentax DA 14mm, DA 15mm, DA 12-24mm, DA 10-17mm fisheye.

Also, the relationship inverts on the tele end.
04-17-2014, 04:47 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
With the 8-16 there's an equivalent focal-length lens in APS-C for every FF lens.
04-17-2014, 05:26 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
Just get a Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24. Problem solved.
Then the FF guys show with a Nikon 14-24/2.8, and you're hooped again

Your APS size sensor can handle longer zooms more efficiently just like FF can handle wider FOV more efficiently.
04-17-2014, 06:20 PM   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,183
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote

Your APS size sensor can handle longer zooms more efficiently just like FF can handle wider FOV more efficiently.
And APS f2.8 versions of those zooms compare favorably in price and weight to the f4 FF.
04-17-2014, 09:00 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
And APS f2.8 versions of those zooms compare favorably in price and weight to the f4 FF.
Rarely, if ever. Please give an example, I guess, because I haven't seen, e.g., a 16-80 f/2.6 that's lighter and cheaper than a Nikon 24-120 F/4.
04-17-2014, 09:36 PM   #15
Veteran Member
mtux's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,388
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
What about compression? I haven't tried it...probably should. But a 50mm lens's compression should be the same no matter which format it's mounted too. Therefore.... using a 35mm to simulate a 50mm FOV would actually put the background further back...in theory? Or is this thinking incorrect?
Yes, Unfortunately this is true, and you can't expect a 35mm lens to work like a 50mm on FF, not in terms of compression. so, for example portrait shots with 35mm aren't as flattering as 50mm!

With APSC, You are just seeing a smaller part of the whole view!
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 02:49 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