[jsherman999]

A normal lens (fl roughly equal to the recording medium's diagonal) is considered "normal" purely by convention plus the fact that more discerning eyes than ours decided a long time ago that an angle of view around 50° damn near approaches what our eyes perceive as a "normal" perspective. There is nothing, however, in the tenets of equivalence to suggest what a normal lens would be.

You're right, there isn't, and what 'normal' really means and it's genesis in photography has been debated lots here and on dpreview. It really doesn't matter with regard to equivalence, but most people tend to gravitate towards 'normal' primes in the 45-60mm range on FF and 28 - 40mm range on aps-c.

I'm one of them, the majority of my shooting happens with my 50mm prime on FF, (and with my incredible 35ltd macro on aps-c.) I just find it so versatile, which is a strange adjective to apply to a prime, but that's how it feels to me. I think I'd like a tiny bit wider on FF actually, which is why the FA 43ltd on a FF Pentax would probably make me very happy (I loved it's sharpness/bokeh on aps-c, didn't like the FOV.)

If a m43 shooter should ever ask me the kinds of questions you raise above I would immediately have recourse to the tenets of equivalence. Of course, no one ever approaches me with those sorts of questions. They only occur on photography forums.

Truth be told I never get questions from m43 shooters either, but I get a lot of questions from friends, family, co-workers etc about why a certain P&S or bridge camera isn't 'as good' as a MILC or DSLR. I touch on equivalence then in a light way.

.

[ElJamoquio]

Only if you sit in your recliner, contemplating pictures you might have taken if only you had...

Don't you get it? Apart from the very narrow confines of equivalency's usefulness (and yes, it may be usefull at times) you are simply a victim of industry's desire to sell you into another format and your own lust for gear.
Cheers

I get it. The money isn't in the camera, the money is in the lenses... especially for Pentax. The APS-C lenses are more expensive.

My FF kit is thousands of dollars less than my APS-C kit was and has more capability. I used equivalence and used the answer correctly.

Plus I have less crap to carry around, another benefit.

[jsherman999]

...(and yes, it may be usefull at times) you are simply a victim of industry's desire to sell you into another format and your own lust for gear.

Kinda like the Olympus Marketing department trying to sell an imaginary 28-300 f/2.8 lens?

And that gear lust... c'mon. Everyone in this thread can cop to it to some degree, It has nothing to do with format. LBA is indiscriminate. And if you really have gear lust and like to get the most from glass, FF can save you money if you're smart about it and not just buying to buy something.

[eyeswideshut]

You're right, there isn't, and what 'normal' really means and it's genesis in photography has been debated lots here and on dpreview. It really doesn't matter with regard to equivalence, but most people tend to gravitate towards 'normal' primes in the 45-60mm range on FF and 28 - 40mm range on aps-c.

I'm one of them, the majority of my shooting happens with my 50mm prime on FF, (and with my incredible 35ltd macro on aps-c.) I just find it so versatile, which is a strange adjective to apply to a prime, but that's how it feels to me. I think I'd like a tiny bit wider on FF actually, which is why the FA 43ltd on a FF Pentax would probably make me very happy (I loved it's sharpness/bokeh on aps-c, didn't like the FOV.)



Truth be told I never get questions from m43 shooters either, but I get a lot of questions from friends, family, co-workers etc about why a certain P&S or bridge camera isn't 'as good' as a MILC or DSLR. I touch on equivalence then in a light way.

.

OK, I sheepishly admit to owning an Olympus om-d em 5. So consider you were asked by a m43 owner.
Yet, should anyone ever ask me directly, going about it lightly seems like the best of all possible routes.

---------- Post added 05-29-14 at 03:08 AM ----------

I get it. The money isn't in the camera, the money is in the lenses... especially for Pentax. The APS-C lenses are more expensive.

My FF kit is thousands of dollars less than my APS-C kit was and has more capability. I used equivalence and used the answer correctly.

Plus I have less crap to carry around, another benefit.

Do you couple ff with takumars?
Which would be cool in my book. I have something against both APS and FF cameras if, and only if, I have to use those dastardly big zoom lenses on them. A digital K1000, however with primes... But that is another topic.

---

Last edited by eyeswideshut; 05-28-2014 at 06:11 PM.

[Rondec]

I get it. The money isn't in the camera, the money is in the lenses... especially for Pentax. The APS-C lenses are more expensive.

My FF kit is thousands of dollars less than my APS-C kit was and has more capability. I used equivalence and used the answer correctly.

Plus I have less crap to carry around, another benefit.

This has nothing to do with equivalence and everything to do with the fact that Pentax is relatively expensive. You are comparing consumer Nikon lenses to Pentax lenses and that is apples and oranges. And, Pentax glass, whether APS-C or full frame has been relatively slow glass.

Beyond which, equivalence tells you nothing about why a lens like the DA 15 limited is so awesome. What equivalence tells you is that the DA 15 is a 22mm f5.6 piece of glass that full frame shooters would sneer at. The FA 77 is way over priced, since its aperture is the same as the Nikon 85mm f1.8 (both are full frame lenses, of course). But the rendering on these lenses can be magical at times and honestly, the reason why I shoot Pentax is for the glass. I would hope, if they do release a full frame camera that would produce a wide angle that was slow enough to have some of the magic of the DA 15, even if it is slow.

Edit: I do also wonder why you don't show some of the full frame shots that your cheap gear got you. I just think that if someone shoots a particular way in one format, they are likely to have similar photos in another format, albeit with less depth of field, I have been told.

[eyeswideshut]

Kinda like the Olympus Marketing department trying to sell an imaginary 28-300 f/2.8 lens?

And that gear lust... c'mon. Everyone in this thread can cop to it to some degree, It has nothing to do with format. LBA is indiscriminate. And if you really have gear lust and like to get the most from glass, FF can save you money if you're smart about it and not just buying to buy something.

Imaginary? No, no, no. That Olympus lens is real! Only in the world of equivalism does it morph into "THE LIE"
But believe me, when I shoot those pictures of black cats in coal mines around midnight - it delivers - and blast the depth of field issue! Who needs depth of field when foreground and background are black. Who needs equivalence then? Oh and did I mention the beautiful black noise produced by the puny sensor on the Q? FF just doesn't cut it quite the same way

[ElJamoquio]

OK, I sheepishly admit to owning an Olympus om-d em 5. So consider you were asked by a m43 owner.
Yet, should anyone ever ask me directly, going about it lightly seems like the best of all possible routes.

---------- Post added 05-29-14 at 03:08 AM ----------


Do you couple ff with takumars?
Which would be cool in my book. I have something against both APS and FF cameras if, and only if, I have to use those dastardly big zoom lenses on them. A digital K1000, however with primes... But that is another topic.

No, but I wasn't happy with the zooms on APS-C/Pentax. I'm more than happy with the zooms on FF/Nikon. You could say that it's because it's a Nikon zoom, but the 24-85 is much cheaper than the 16-50. Anyway, the bulk of the cost savings is that, instead of three lenses, I carry one, or instead of five lenses, I carry two.

---------- Post added 05-28-14 at 07:14 PM ----------

Edit: I do also wonder why you don't show some of the full frame shots that your cheap gear got you. I just think that if someone shoots a particular way in one format, they are likely to have similar photos in another format, albeit with less depth of field, I have been told.

My arguments stand regardless of my personal photography. When people are backed into a corner they usually complain about my photography - the easiest way is to take the picture I uploaded here, taken in side-light with a consumer zoom cropped to 1500mm. It's always fun when it happens.

This is a Pentax-gear forum. I have other places to share photography, and I don't like mixing the two. I prefer honest compliments and honest criticism (usually revolving around my obsession with underexposing images).

I have a list of the stuff I'm selling, FYI. You'll know I've given up on Pentax FF when the 31mm and 77mm hit the auction block. You'll know I've given up on Pentax for good when the 15mm and the 35mm go away (which will likely never happen for sentimental reasons).

I don't see that happening, though. There's enough of a demand for FF, and Ricoh has said they will be a full-line manufacturer.

---

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 05-28-2014 at 07:19 PM.

[eyeswideshut]

No, but I wasn't happy with the zooms on APS-C/Pentax. I'm more than happy with the zooms on FF/Nikon. You could say that it's because it's a Nikon zoom, but the 24-85 is much cheaper than the 16-50. Anyway, the bulk of the cost savings is that, instead of three lenses, I carry one, or instead of five lenses, I carry two.

---------- Post added 05-28-14 at 07:14 PM ----------



My arguments stand regardless of my personal photography. When people are backed into a corner they usually complain about my photography - the easiest way is to take the picture I uploaded here, taken in side-light with a consumer zoom cropped to 1500mm. It's always fun when it happens.

This is a Pentax-gear forum. I have other places to share photography, and I don't like mixing the two. I prefer honest compliments and honest criticism (usually revolving around my obsession with underexposing images).

I have a list of the stuff I'm selling, FYI. You'll know I've given up on Pentax FF when the 31mm and 77mm hit the auction block. You'll know I've given up on Pentax for good when the 15mm and the 35mm go away (which will likely never happen for sentimental reasons).

I don't see that happening, though. There's enough of a demand for FF, and Ricoh has said they will be a full-line manufacturer.

If I understand you correctly you have given up on Pentax completely - except for two lenses which you keep for sentimental reasons? Which you can't mount on a Nikon without doing optical violence to them? Nothing wrong with that, except why are you here? You've already told me in a prior post that you are in the habit of picking fights in the name of ff/equivalist truths for the benefit of 'lurkers' who do not otherwise contribute. Don't you find that a little strange? On a Pentax forum? Where there is no ff camera to be had?

That next point about the nexus between you, your personal photography and the people you back into corners who then somehow crop your pictures with a 1500mm consumer zoom lens which you find somehow funny - completely goes over my head.

[jsherman999]

But believe me, when I shoot those pictures of black cats in coal mines around midnight - it delivers

Al this talk of cats in coal mines - I was literally actually shooting in the bottom of a 120-year old underground mine last Sunday, 2500 feet down. It was an iron ore mine, not a coal mine. At one point the guide turned off all the lights to show everyone what utter darkness was, and then lit a candle on his helmet to show how the excavated vein we were in would have been illuminated in late 1800s. Man, what a hellish, hellish job that would have been.

I managed to snap a few shots one-handed while holding a scared kid, I wish I could have tried some different ISO settings to see how my D800 handled read noise with the ISO dial cranked and how ISO-less it was when really taxed As it was I just got a few ones-handed snaps at ISO 6400. Maybe I should try to PP them and display.

[eyeswideshut]

Al this talk of cats in coal mines - I was literally actually shooting in the bottom of a 120-year old underground mine last Sunday, 2500 feet down. It was an iron ore mine, not a coal mine. At one point the guide turned off all the lights to show everyone what utter darkness was, and then lit a candle on his helmet to show how the excavated vein we were in would have been illuminated in late 1800s. Man, what a hellish, hellish job that would have been.

I managed to snap a few shots one-handed while holding a scared kid, I wish I could have tried some different ISO settings to see how my D800 handled read noise with the ISO dial cranked and how ISO-less it was when really taxed As it was I just got a few ones-handed snaps at ISO 6400. Maybe I should try to PP them and display.

That sounds really exciting. I've been in salt mines and silver mines myself, but even though I was born in a town once full of coal mines, I've never visited one of them. In fact, when the coal mines were still active (and I was young), there was an unwritten law that would prohibit women and children from even entering the mine shaft. Probably a relict from the days when the owners would try to send anyone down there for cheap labor. I do remember though, that the only time I ever saw my dad literally drunk as a skunk was when his best friend, who was an engineer down there, invited him on a tour. Well, getting smashed after the first time down in the pit is apparently another one of those ancient customs peculiar to miners... :-)

BTW, did you find the cat?

[jsherman999]

Beyond which, equivalence tells you nothing about why a lens like the DA 15 limited is so awesome. What equivalence tells you is that the DA 15 is a 22mm f5.6 piece of glass that full frame shooters would sneer at. The FA 77 is way over priced, since its aperture is the same as the Nikon 85mm f1.8 (both are full frame lenses, of course). But the rendering on these lenses can be magical at times and honestly, the reason why I shoot Pentax is for the glass. I would hope, if they do release a full frame camera that would produce a wide angle that was slow enough to have some of the magic of the DA 15, even if it is slow.

All true and I personally agree. Equivalence doesn't describe magic, and preference, or quality of bokeh, it just describes capability and what I call 'power'. But I hear you, that slow 15ltd on aps-c is better than my 'more powerful' 20 f/2.8 on FF in some ways, and the 77ltd is near-perfect on both formats for different reasons.

Edit: I do also wonder why you don't show some of the full frame shots that your cheap gear got you. I just think that if someone shoots a particular way in one format, they are likely to have similar photos in another format, albeit with less depth of field, I have been told.

I know you asked El Ja, but this is the type of shot I used to carry the $900 31ltd on aps-c around for, the type of casual 'normal' FOV shooting from typical distances that would capture everyday moments in a kind of magical, limited-like fast-prime way that I personally like:




It's the $285 Tamron 28-75 at f/2.8 & 44mm, almost exactly what the 31ltd would give me wide-open on aps-c. I never had this capability in a zoom on aps-c, so I always had to rely on a fast prime there. (now the new Sigma 18-35 1.8 gets you there... but with a more limited FL range and not exactly cheap or small.)

Although the DA 15ltd is preferable to me in some, maybe most ways, the 20 f/2.8 AF-D is a very nice, $300 (used) lens on FF that goes wider and brings more of that 'power' in it's extra 2+ stops:



My fave 'portrait' lens (and everything else short telephoto) is the 180 f/2.8, equiv =~ 120mm f/1.8 on aps-c - just lets me float things a bit more while retaining some sharpness a real 120 f/1.8 probably couldn't achieve wide-open, if one existed:



f/2.8 =~ 120m f/1.8


And my 'everything' lens, my 'normal' 50mm that's the ultimate, versatile workhorse, and $110 new.

just a great FOV on FF, sharp


f/1.8 =~ 33mm f/1.2


f/2.2 =~ 33mm f/1.6


f/2.8 =~ 33mm f/1.8


Lots of other examples. I always think about what could be done with the Limiteds on the same sensor, with maybe a couple new LImiteds in the bag like a new 135 f/2.8 or 20mm f/4.

.

[ElJamoquio]

If I understand you correctly

You don't. I'd bet you $1 that every sentence of that post - even the questions - had a wrong statement in it.

[Rondec]

No, but I wasn't happy with the zooms on APS-C/Pentax. I'm more than happy with the zooms on FF/Nikon. You could say that it's because it's a Nikon zoom, but the 24-85 is much cheaper than the 16-50. Anyway, the bulk of the cost savings is that, instead of three lenses, I carry one, or instead of five lenses, I carry two.

---------- Post added 05-28-14 at 07:14 PM ----------



My arguments stand regardless of my personal photography. When people are backed into a corner they usually complain about my photography - the easiest way is to take the picture I uploaded here, taken in side-light with a consumer zoom cropped to 1500mm. It's always fun when it happens.

This is a Pentax-gear forum. I have other places to share photography, and I don't like mixing the two. I prefer honest compliments and honest criticism (usually revolving around my obsession with underexposing images).

I have a list of the stuff I'm selling, FYI. You'll know I've given up on Pentax FF when the 31mm and 77mm hit the auction block. You'll know I've given up on Pentax for good when the 15mm and the 35mm go away (which will likely never happen for sentimental reasons).

I don't see that happening, though. There's enough of a demand for FF, and Ricoh has said they will be a full-line manufacturer.

Sorry. I am not trying to attack your photographic skills. I honestly haven't seen many photos of yours and therefore am not sure if there are particular things you are doing that can't be done with APS-C and if the lenses you are using are really that much better than the Pentax crap I own.

There is just a tendency for people to act like full frame is the antidote for lack of photographic skill. I like the photos that Jay posts, but I personally don't do a whole lot of narrow depth of field photography. I happen to like photos where you can identify the environment and typically shoot between f4 and f5.6 on APS-C. If you are looking for narrow depth of field, you can still get plenty of it on APS-C, although it is tougher with Pentax, as their lenses tend to be slow-ish compared with other brands.

As to cost, Pentax isn't a bargain like it used to be. I bought my DA 16-50 for 600 dollars, my 50-135 for 750 and at that point, the value couldn't be matched. I own a full stable of glass at this point and am not looking to add a bunch of glass. But, there is no way that Pentax full frame will be a "cheap" option -- a la a D600 with a 18-85 variable aperture zoom. It will be a 3500 dollar option -- and at that price the argument becomes a lot tougher compared to even a 2000 dollar K3 DA *16-50 combo.

But, it is awfully easy to cherry pick your comparisons too. Compare the D610 and your variable aperture lens to a K3 and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and you will have a bigger gap in pricing. People tend to argue prices based on whatever point they want to bring out and my experience is that you get what you pay for -- consumer lenses tend to perform like consumer lenses, even if they are 85 to 90 percent of the top end lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

Sorry. I am not trying to attack your photographic skills. I honestly haven't seen many photos of yours and therefore am not sure if there are particular things you are doing that can't be done with APS-C and if the lenses you are using are really that much better than the Pentax crap I own.

Everyone here who is promoting equivalence is saying that APS-C can do everything that any other sensor size can do. The difference is in the amount of optical tricks you have to do to get there.

I happen to like photos where you can identify the environment and typically shoot between f4 and f5.6 on APS-C.

As do I.

As to cost, Pentax isn't a bargain like it used to be... But, there is no way that Pentax full frame will be a "cheap" option -- a la a D600 with a 18-85 variable aperture zoom. It will be a 3500 dollar option -- and at that price the argument becomes a lot tougher compared to even a 2000 dollar K3 DA *16-50 combo.

Agree with everything there (I'm not as sure as you are that it will be $3500, but I agree that price point is the most likely)

But, it is awfully easy to cherry pick your comparisons too. Compare the D610 and your variable aperture lens to a K3 and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and you will have a bigger gap in pricing.

True. And that Tamron is better than the Pentax lens. The D600 + 24/85 is a better combo for me, and it cost ~$1950. 'Cherry picking' also could be used to describe dismissing a F/3.5-F/4.5 lens as a 'variable aperture lens'. Would you be happier if it was a constant F/4.3? That would be as fast as the Tamron.

Or rather - how much should a Pentax 15.5-55 F/2.3-F/3 cost?

[Rondec]

Everyone here who is promoting equivalence is saying that APS-C can do everything that any other sensor size can do. The difference is in the amount of optical tricks you have to do to get there.




As do I.




Agree with everything there (I'm not as sure as you are that it will be $3500, but I agree that price point is the most likely)




True. And that Tamron is better than the Pentax lens. The D600 + 24/85 is a better combo for me, and it cost ~$1950. 'Cherry picking' also could be used to describe dismissing a F/3.5-F/4.5 lens as a 'variable aperture lens'. Would you be happier if it was a constant F/4.3? That would be as fast as the Tamron.

Or rather - how much should a Pentax 15.5-55 F/2.3-F/3 cost?

I have found the quality with a constant f4 aperture is better than variable aperture lenses -- even if they are faster than f4 on the wide end. I would buy the Pentax 17-70 f4 a lot quicker than I would the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 for that reason. But I am not familiar with the Nikon 24-85, so I can't really comment on that lens specifically.

Edit: I did look at Photozone's review of the 24-85 and it looks OK, but certainly not great. Some of the distortion is pretty fierce-some and borders certainly aren't strong unless stopped down quite a bit. Not a 16-50 killer in my book...