[BrianR]

Need FF? Nope.

Want FF? Sure. My most used lenses happen to be FF, so I'm sending light into the dark void. I shed a tear for these lost photons each time I click the shutter. Plus I'm tired of the APS-C forcing me to have both eyes in focus.

Need a new computer to be able to process FF images? If it's 36mp or more, probably. That, or I take to chugging down even more coffee while I wait for things to happen.

Afford FF? Not so much, especially if the computer then requires upgrading.

I don't know, but just like car, if you can have Ferrari, why would you settle for Chevy? Ferrari will be useful to have in certain situations, as they also called 'chick magnet'...

I heard that a FF camera will attract 1.5 times as many chicks as an aps-c camera. That's what I've heard. So, hmm, what's 1.5 times zero?

[Imageman]

What planet are some of you guys on


A MF sensor is much larger than FF is it?


The MF sensor size you quote is just 1.68 times the FF sensor size, that's almost the same size. Surely your having a laugh.


Medium format was 60mm x 60mm compared to 35mm FF which was 36mm x 24mm, thats not 1.68 times bigger its 4 times bigger.


Your MF sensor is ridiculously tiny and not much bigger than 35mm FF.


The largest MF film negative, and these were in common use, was 90mm x 60mm that's a whopping 6.25 times larger than FF.


When they start shipping sensors that are 60m x 60mm then ill accept the name Medium Format, just like I refused to claim an APS-C sensor is a 35mm senor it just isn't. Until then theyr just piffling little pipsqueak sensors in a medium format body..


The only relationship they have with medium Format is the body and lenses they inhabit.


I can mount an APS-C camera on my 5x4 field camera, can I now call this APS-C sensor a Large Format sensor even though it is a whopping 43 times smaller than a 5 x 4 inch large format frame, simply because its attached to a Large Format camera.


I know medium format sensors produce superior results, but lets get some perspective here.

[Rondec]

What planet are some of you guys on


A MF sensor is much larger than FF is it?


The MF sensor size you quote is just 1.68 times the FF sensor size, that's almost the same size. Surely your having a laugh.


Medium format was 60mm x 60mm compared to 35mm FF which was 36mm x 24mm, thats not 1.68 times bigger its 4 times bigger.


Your MF sensor is ridiculously tiny and not much bigger than 35mm FF.


The largest MF film negative, and these were in common use, was 90mm x 60mm that's a whopping 6.25 times larger than FF.


When they start shipping sensors that are 60m x 60mm then ill accept the name Medium Format, just like I refused to claim an APS-C sensor is a 35mm senor it just isn't. Until then theyr just piffling little pipsqueak sensors in a medium format body..


The only relationship they have with medium Format is the body and lenses they inhabit.


I can mount an APS-C camera on my 5x4 field camera, can I now call this APS-C sensor a Large Format sensor even though it is a whopping 43 times smaller than a 5 x 4 inch large format frame, simply because its attached to a Large Format camera.


I know medium format sensors produce superior results, but lets get some perspective here.

Medium format just means bigger than 35mm and smaller than large format. That's all. Negative sizes differ.

The big thing to me about medium format is that quality of the lenses, which tend to be a significant step above that which available for most 35mm cameras (Leica may be the exception). If I ever get a 645z or comparable camera, it will be to get access to those lenses.

[CuriousEye]

The only thing I miss on my K-5II is larger viewfinder which can’t be bright and big enough in my opinion. Nothing else.

Greetings, Sascha

[cxdoo]

The only thing I miss on my K-5II is larger viewfinder which can’t be bright and big enough in my opinion. Nothing else.

Greetings, Sascha

Heh, coming to K-5II from K100DS the viewfinder is huuuge. Guess I'll get spoiled too

[Winder]

I've always found APS-C to be a compromise. I shot with the Olympus E-3 and a Canon 5D for a couple of years and they complemented each other perfectly. I often wonder how many people on this board have actually shot a few thousand frames of digital 36x24mm?

There is a reason so many professionals spend thousands more for FF or MF camera systems. It's not just marketing.

[normhead]

I've always found APS-C to be a compromise. I shot with the Olympus E-3 and a Canon 5D for a couple of years and they complemented each other perfectly. I often wonder how many people on this board have actually shot a few thousand frames of digital 36x24mm?

There is a reason so many professionals spend thousands more for FF or MF camera systems. It's not just marketing.

Every system is a compromise..... see my signature, and an awful lot of us shot film, so yes thousands of FF images... and also thousands of MF images for myself and hundreds of large format images. One's preference in thinking APS-c is the best compromise for one's self is not dependent on lack of experience on other systems, it's dependant on APS-c being the best technical solution for what you do.

I don't know why this comes up all the time... but there seems to be a train of thought where "preferring APS-c is ignorance, you just don't know any better" type posts. Well a couple words for y'all, you're wrong, you're ego-centric, in that you assume a person couldn't know what you know and make a different choice. There is also a reason so many professionals save their money and shoot APS-c. There's also a good reason so many professionals keep a point and shoot in their glove box. There are so many reasons professionals do all kinds of things most photographers don't do it's irrelevant to bring it up as an issue.

Man that was irritating. I hope I never see another one of those.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-22-2014 at 06:54 AM.

[ElJamoquio]

I've always found APS-C to be a compromise. I shot with the Olympus E-3 and a Canon 5D for a couple of years and they complemented each other perfectly. I often wonder how many people on this board have actually shot a few thousand frames of digital 36x24mm?

There is a reason so many professionals spend thousands more for FF or MF camera systems. It's not just marketing.

APS-C is MORE expensive IME. it really depends on how much iq and dof control you want.

[Parallax]

I've always found APS-C to be a compromise. I shot with the Olympus E-3 and a Canon 5D for a couple of years and they complemented each other perfectly. ...................

By this logic, there are only two types of vehicles that are of any use. A 1 ton, dually, 4 door, long bed pickup will carry more passengers and cargo, and tow a heavier load than any SUV, crossover, passenger car or sports car; and a Honda Metropolitan scooter will get better mileage, park more easily, and pollute less than just about anything else. Everything else is a compromise.
By this logic, a person should have only one (or both) of 2 hammers. An eight pound sledge hammer, and/or an upholsterer's tack hammer. A 21 ounce framing hammer is a compromise.
Come to think of it though, the cost of a 24x36 body would be offset by the fact that only 2 lenses are needed; a 24mm and a 600mm. everything else is a compromise.
Maybe 24x36 is a compromise between MF and APS-c?

Of course, there is another concept that may deserve a bit of consideration. "The right tool for the job."

[Kunzite]

It's funny how 4/3 - born from the desire to have a slightly cheaper sensor and compensate through aggressive marketing, a format that failed to live up its hype - is not a compromise, but complements 135 nicely.

APS-C is MORE expensive IME. it really depends on how much iq and dof control you want.

And IME, APS-C is significantly less expensive than the 135.
I will go 135 when Pentax will have one (unless I'll get rich and afford to spend the money on a 645x + lenses ), but I'm not making any illusions of thinking it would be cheap.

[ElJamoquio]

I will go 135 when Pentax will have one (unless I'll get rich and afford to spend the money on a 645x + lenses ), but I'm not making any illusions of thinking it would be cheap.

Last time I checked the K-3+16-50 was more expensive than the D600+24-85.

It depends on the lenses you want. Certainly a K-500+18-55 is cheaper than any FF.

[Kunzite]

Carefully selecting camera+lens combinations, I see? If it only works this way, and only in specific markets... (check with idealo.de, just for fun)

But I don't care about selections made to "prove" a point; for me - and I don't own a 16-50, nor an 18-55 - there's no way going 135 won't be expensive. Even so, I'm willing to do it; gradually, piece by piece, replacing my DA Limiteds with 135 equivalents (which hopefully will become available). I will have to feel the full impact on my bank account; words on forums can't beat that.

[ElJamoquio]

Carefully selecting camera+lens combinations, I see? If it only works this way, and only in specific markets... (check with idealo.de, just for fun)

Not in the least. I think a mid-price normal zoom is the perfect comparator, I think it's the most common lens, outside of APS-C kits, out there.

You could compare the 50-135 to the canon 70-200 F/4. I'd guess the Canon would come out ahead but I haven't done the math. I don't think Nikon has a cheap zoom. You could compare the Sigma/Tamron F/2.8 zoom if you'd like.

For some people FF will be more expensive. For others it will be cheaper.... but there's a myth out there that FF is inherently more expensive, and clearly for some population that isn't true.

[Newsimage]

The appeal of FF is that you get more real estate on the chip. And yes lenses go back to the good old days for field of view and depth of field. Problem is we have reached a point of diminishing returns as far as quality gains. I was partnered with Kodak when the DCS series cameras came out. At that point you could already see that we were approaching "useful" resolution limits. Not saying great quality but more than good enough for the modern world. It does not matter if you resolve and record a matrix of a thousand lines per inch if you are only outputting 200 or so.

The other post'ers were right, less noise is a benefit. But software and a revised algorithm smashing the RAW data appears to be doing nicely to address that in the APS-C formats. Problem with all of that is that most of the "quality" gained will be impossible to see on a monitor, print out or realistically use. So other than being able to use my old Sigma 8mm circular fisheye again there is not much I am looking forward to in Pentax releasing a FF.....next year, right?

[lesmore49]

I don't find an ASP-C DSLR to be a compromise.

Like many others I started my photo enthusiasm with 35 mm film...full frame.....as some say.

I've used and have medium format film, rangefinder 35mm film. Even point and shoot, 35 mm film....which I guess meets the def'n. of full frame.

Hard to think of my little Olympus Clamshell 35 mm as a full frame format though.

I've got tons of camera equipment...dating back to the late '60's when I first got into all this photography stuff.

But when I reflect back on my long association with photography.....I would have to say that the format I enjoy most, am very happy with...think can it get any better than this....is ASP-C format.

Currently I have 3 ASP-C DSLR bodies (all Pentax)...and about 12 lenses (11 Pentax, 1 Sigma)...which are mostly designed for ASP-C. The breakdown goes something like this...50 F 1.4 normal, 50 F 2.8 Macro, 150-500 (Sigma)...can be used on full format and ASP-C.

My 21, 40, 70 Limiteds...then my 12-24, 16-45, 18-55, 10-17, 18-135, 55-300 all are ASP-C format design. I know Falconeye has that excellent thread about which lenses can be used without issue on a full frame camera. I have reviewed it and it's informative.

But..... I really hope Ricoh keeps on making K-3 level ASP-C DSLR's with the Pentax brand.

I like ASP-C. I blow up to 8 X 10, 11 X 14 and even when I do the requisite pixel peeping....if the lighting and the photography things I was responsible for and were done well...then the end product the photograph is more than fine.

Also at 8 X 10 and 11 X 14...my ASP-C seems to be comparable to a full frame. Maybe, probably...a 5D2, 5D3 or a D 610 will have it all over my ASP-C stuff at poster size. But I dunno for sure. I've seen some of those poster sized photos from a full frame and let me tell you...I was not impressed.

Also my 300 lens is the 35 equivalent of 420 mm and my Bigma at 500mm is the 35 mm equivalent of 775mm or something.

My 12-24 at 12mm...maybe the 35mm equivalent of 18....but that's not far off the Canon L 17-40 mm on a 5D2. What is it...a silly mm as they used to say in those old cigarette adverts.

I like what Pentax has done with ASP-C. I like the lenses....especially those Limited Primes. I get great bokeh....a creamy like effect.

So not much to choose from in the old pluses and minus assessment between full frame and ASP-C.

Which reminds me...when is Ricoh going to let consumers know how good their gem of a product...the Pentax ASP-C DSLR system is....it's the best kept secret in cameradom.

But I digress.