[normhead]

There's this weird notion out there that APS-c camera bodies are cheaper than 35mm bodies. You'd have to be crazy to propose that on this forum though, even though APS-c bodies start at about $350 and got to $1100 while 35mm bodies start at $1600 and got to over $7000 dollars. You've been warned.

No but really if you only want to do narrow DoF photography and every image you take is shot at ƒ1.4, because that's you're shooting preference and you shoot everything between 14mm and 75mm, well, you gotta admit, 35mm is a downright bargain compared to APS-c. Doesn't everyone shoot like that? I'll be the first to point out that it is possible to create a reasonable scenario where 35mm is cheaper. Where you might have trouble is convincing me that anyone actually shoots like that, and that any of the rest of us should give a crap about what they shoot.

You can certainly argue that the most expensive APS-c is almost as much as the cheapest 35mm. And if you don't look at features, like MP, frame rate, resolution, magnification etc. you can even convince yourself that the more expensive 35mm body is a better deal. Some will even claim that because there are some things APS-c doesn't do as well, nothing it does better counts for anything. And should you point out that not everyone agrees , they pout and say "well it does for me." and accuse you of only speaking for yourself, and implying that they speak for everyone else.You have to be a special person to do that. Not Short Yellow Bus special perhaps, but certainly special in your photographic perspective.

Can you tell I've heard the song and dance before?

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-23-2014 at 02:56 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

There's this weird notion that people buy cars without engines...

I dunno, I look at systems and ~F/6 (FF) and higher are cheaper on APS-C. I will redundantly re-repeat this again for another one more time - compare the costs and benefits of what you want to do. For me, FF was cheaper. And it wasn't even close.

[Rondec]

There's this weird notion that people buy cars without engines...

I dunno, I look at systems and ~F/6 (FF) and higher are cheaper on APS-C. I will redundantly re-repeat this again for another one more time - compare the costs and benefits of what you want to do. For me, FF was cheaper. And it wasn't even close.

I just have a hard time comparing prices (Pentax APS-C) to Nikon (anything). Nikon makes faster lenses. Their cheaper lenses are cheaper, their more expensive lenses are more expensive, but there just isn't that much overlap in focal length, in aperture and so it is easy to take a bunch of cheap Nikon full frame lenses and compare them to the DA limiteds, which are expensive, and say that clearly APS-C is an expensive proposition. But to me, that is wrong. It would be like looking only at Leica full frame lenses and claiming that full frame is exorbitantly priced. You can make any argument if you make your comparisons only based on maximum aperture, focal length and price.

I would just say that if Nikon chose to stop protecting their full frame cameras, they could easily have a nice group of smaller, high quality relatively cheap APS-C lenses. But that would steal from the D600 and D800, which they have hitched their wagon to, so they can't have that.

[jsherman999]

No but really if you only want to do narrow DoF photography and every image you take is shot at ƒ1.4, because that's you're shooting preference and you shoot everything between 14mm and 75mm,

Actually the typical shooter will see real life advantages to FF anywhere between about 12mm and 200mm (FF equivalent FLs) in noise, or DOF control, or DR up from base, or sharpness for the same DOF/FOV (and get a bigger VF to do it with as a bonus.) Just more options to do what you want with a larger sensor, Norm - it's why you shoot aps-c and not the Nikon 1 or Q!

As ElJamoquio and Falk Lumo point out, you can often do certain things cheaper with FF, too.

You'll see the same advantages past 200mm, too, if you're not concerned with price or size. Some folks aren't concerned with those things... (like 645 shooters for example!)

Can you tell I've heard the song and dance before?

It's OK, the amount of time you spend in this sub-forum tells us what you really want.

.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-23-2014 at 05:44 PM.

[ChristianRock]

Did you even try what I said? Did you even look at the photos I pointed you to? It would take less than 30 seconds to look at them, a lot less than it took you to post this. Here, since you can't be bothered to click on a link, I will post them again for you:

70mm:


70mm cropped:


130mm:


I didn't move the camera between shots. Tell me, what has changed about the perspective even after I almost doubled the focal length (ignore the slight exposure difference)?

EDIT: See two posts down for an even more extreme 10mm vs 50mm example.

Would you also "trust your eyes" which tell you the Earth is flat, or that the Sun moves around the Earth? Because they sure seem like it at first glance. Yet these are illusions that are false, just like "focal length changes perspective" is an illusion that is false. The geometry of perspective has been well established for thousands of years since Euclid. So-called "perspective distortion" seems unnatural because human eyes/brains, with their fixed AOV, are not used to viewing things like that. If you want more reading material, you can start by reading the third paragraph in the introduction section of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29

Ok, since my comment was never deleted from the response as I requested, and the rough language stayed, I guess I'll just throw a question out there...

Your test basically proves that if you crop down a FF image to APS-C size, you get the exact same image you'd get from an APS-C camera. That however, is not the real world scenario I was referring to. And I don't think I'm a good communicator, so hopefully I'll be able to express what I'm trying to say with a real world, practical example.

Let's say I'm in my back porch and I want to take a picture of my wife including the background behind the porch - there's a downhill, lot os trees in the distance, etc. Let's say I have two cameras - one APS-C and one FF. I pick up the APS-C and to be able to put my wife and the background both in the picture, the longest lens I can use is my 35mm lens (and this could happen in a variety of other situations where I can't back off with the APS-C camera and take the shot from further back). So I take the shot, and I see that the background is compressed.

Then I pick up my FF camera and put a 55mm lens on to get the exact same composition standing on the exact same spot (my K20D's crop factor is about 1.53 so the equivalent for 35mm is 53.55mm - 55mm is the closest).

Will the background in both pictures look the same, or will it look different? I think it will look different. When I look in the viewfinder it's different and that's what I had been referring to. I will try to get this test done with my K20D and my film Pentax - but since neither camera has 100% viewer coverage and the lenses aren't exact equivalence, it won't be a scientific test by any means. But this is the real world scenario - to try to get the same composition from the two cameras, standing exactly on the same spot. That is what I had been trying to say all along. I think it's a far more practical example than taking a FF shot and trying to crop it down.

[jsherman999]

Ok, since my comment was never deleted from the response as I requested, and the rough language stayed, I guess I'll just throw a question out there...

Your test basically proves that if you crop down a FF image to APS-C size, you get the exact same image you'd get from an APS-C camera. That however, is not the real world scenario I was referring to. And I don't think I'm a good communicator, so hopefully I'll be able to express what I'm trying to say with a real world, practical example.

Let's say I'm in my back porch and I want to take a picture of my wife including the background behind the porch - there's a downhill, lot os trees in the distance, etc. Let's say I have two cameras - one APS-C and one FF. I pick up the APS-C and to be able to put my wife and the background both in the picture, the longest lens I can use is my 35mm lens (and this could happen in a variety of other situations where I can't back off with the APS-C camera and take the shot from further back). So I take the shot, and I see that the background is compressed.

Then I pick up my FF camera and put a 55mm lens on to get the exact same composition standing on the exact same spot (my K20D's crop factor is about 1.53 so the equivalent for 35mm is 53.55mm - 55mm is the closest).

Will the background in both pictures look the same, or will it look different? I think it will look different.

It will have the same amount of 'compression', but the background will look slightly more diffused/blurry on the FF shot if you used the same F-stop - because the 55mm shot will have about 1.3 stops less DOF if you used the same F-stop on both shots. (Also, the bokeh is undoubtedly going to be different between lenses, keep that in mind.)

But as far as 'compression', it will be the same. It would actually be the same with any focal length you used if you shot from the same position, because it's really fully dependent on distance to subject - it's just that the tighter (or looser) framing will either highlight it more or make it less obvious. This is why people use telephoto for 'compression', it forces them to 1) move to a position a bit farther away, enhancing the effect and 2) frames the subject how they want, further enhancing the effect around/behind the subject.** They magically get that 'compression' effect. It's an illusion - but the magicians use illusions to their advantage, why can't photographers

** (cropping a shorter FL from farther away would have the exact same effect, but give you less pixels on the subject.)

Here's the classic example (luminous landscape link) everyone should bookmark.

Personally I like to use compression + bokeh a lot:

Bring the woods in, but diffuse








.

[ChristianRock]

But as far as 'compression', it will be the same..

I think it will only if you crop the FF shot to APS-C. But the area that lost when cropping (which will be almost 60% of the actual FF picture*) makes the FF picture, uncropped, look very different from the APS-C picture. At least that's what I see on my viewfinder (95% coverage on K20D, 92% coverage on ZX-M but still - you can see a change in 35mm vs 55mm lens). Also - let's ignore the bokeh just for this discussion. I could have said a 18mm APS-C shot vs a 28mm FF shot on hyperfocal at f/11 or so, to get all the background in the picture in focus.

And remember - there's no cropping in my example. I don't want to crop down FF to APS-C. That is not the intent of having a FF camera.

[ElJamoquio]

It will be the same. The only difference you'll see is in DOF, and that's only if you're using different aperture diameters.

[jsherman999]

I think it will only if you crop the FF shot to APS-C.

No, it will be the same 'compression' uncropped (which you don't need to do in your example anyway since you're using 55mm on FF and 35mm on aps-c - no need to crop to get the same FOV.)

Look at the Luminous Landscape link I provided in my response above.

The 'compression' is the result of perspective effects, which is only affected by distance to subject. Especially if you use different FLs on FF and aps-c to give you the same framing, there won't be any different 'compression' to see. You will see more or less diffused background and different bokeh, but the spacial relationships between objects behind the subject will be the same, 55mm FF vs. 35mm aps-c from same shooting position.

Now, if you used the same FL on both formats, and then moved one combo to get the same framing as the other, you would see compression change.


.

---------- Post added 04-25-14 at 01:01 PM ----------

It will be the same. The only difference you'll see is in DOF, and that's only if you're using different aperture diameters.

Should point out: 'Different aperture diameters' can mean/allow same F-stop for same FOV, on both formats. We've seen this bring pages of confusion in other threads

55mm f/2.8 FF = 55 / 2.8 = 19.6mm
35mm f/2.8 aps-c = 35 / 2.8 = 12.5mm

.

[Eyewanders]

As I understand it, from what I've read on the forums here, the biggest reason people want a 24x36mm sensor is the shallower DOF it provides so they can take portraits with only the nose, or only one eye in focus.

What would that look like??


In answer to the OP... I've already got a FF, or actually a couple of 'em. One is an MX, the other a K1000.

[ChristianRock]

Joe, I did look at the link you posted, but it's essentially the same example that Cannikin had already provided, involving cropping, and it involved the same sensor size for the tele and wide shot.
I think the case I'm looking at is different and that's what's throwing off, but the more I think about it, the more I think that you guys are right and I'm probably just splitting hairs.

In answer to the OP... I've already got a FF, or actually a couple of 'em. One is an MX, the other a K1000.

This!!

Me too, 2 FFs also, one Pentax, one Minolta

[Parallax]

What would that look like??

That's it! See? You can't do that on APS-c.

(Yes, I looked at the flickr page, but I've somehow misplaced my sarcasm smiley. )

[ElJamoquio]

Should point out: 'Different aperture diameters' can mean/allow same F-stop for same FOV, on both formats. We've seen this bring pages of confusion in other threads

55mm f/2.8 FF = 55 / 2.8 = 19.6mm
35mm f/2.8 aps-c = 35 / 2.8 = 12.5mm

.

Those diameters are very clearly different, and will produce very different DOF at the same FOV.

---------- Post added 04-25-14 at 12:44 PM ----------

That's it! See? You can't do that on APS-c.

(Yes, I looked at the flickr page, but I've somehow misplaced my sarcasm smiley. )

The people I've seen claim that one camera can't do something another can is the APS-Centric people, saying that they can get more DOF on APS-C.

For what it's worth.

The people on this forum who want a FF seem to know that the limitations with APS-C aren't sensor-inherent, rather, the limitation is in commercially available optics.

I'm not sure why you want to mock the proponents of APS-C. We're trying to educate them.

[Parallax]

I'm not sure why you want to mock the proponents of APS-C. We're trying to educate them.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
I assure you that the proponents of APS-c are NOT the ones I'm mocking.

[ElJamoquio]

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
I assure you that the proponents of APS-c are NOT the ones I'm mocking.

I know exactly what you're up to - don't you know what I'm up to? Mocking the people who like to mock straw-men?