[ElJamoquio]

Funny how, when you explain something, people accuse you of getting hostile. Is pointing out the error of someone's thinking hostile, or just trying to correct an impression someone makes that amy not be accurate? If you think that's hostile, you're definitely in the wrong place.

I'm not disputing your numbers, I'm telling you, they don't mean what you think they mean.

Oh, and you haven't seen me hostile

are you just another internet expert?

At least you didn't call his toddler fat, I'll grant you've improved.

[normhead]

I could have written that, and explained it to my students many times. You think you're teaching me something? Anyway, you've earned a spot on my ignore list, further posts will not be answered.

[hjoseph7]

I could have written that, and explained it to my students many times. You think you're teaching me something? Anyway, you've earned a spot on my ignore list, further posts will not be answered.

Who said I was writing to you specifically ? If you read my post as well as the one from CNET then there is no denying my post was accurate. Like I said I have been shooting Youth Sports Team Photo's and Individual portraits for years. During one shooting I would average about 350+ Individual portraits.


Back in the days of film we used a Pentax K1000, a 50mm lens and Kodak Gold 100 film. My boss wanted all the pictures to look a certain way, meaning that backgrounds had to look the same (preferably somewhat blurred) across all of the pictures.


In 2005 we switched to Digital starting with a Canon 30D. Since the pictures were all to look the same(cookie-cutter style), my boss would pass out a list to all the photographers that had predetermined camera settings, such as camera to subject distance, aperture, shutter speed etc., etc.. That's when we noticed that the old settings did not produce the backgrounds that we wanted. Indoors we could sort of manage because we could manipulate or move back the fake backgrounds, but outdoors it became problematic, until we switched to faster lenses.


I'm not an expert but I did sleep at the Holiday-Inn last night.

[Robert_1]

You said


Do you have any hard figures to support your claim?

According to Wikipedia:

" It [135 format] quickly grew in popularity, surpassing 120 film by the late 1960s to become the most popular photographic film size."

Now Wikipedia could be wrong about this, but your claims about "unspeakable numbers" have even less weight, AFAIC, unless you corroborate them with some hard numbers / evidence.



The fact is there are no figures available for worldwide sales of rollfilm cameras in these early days and expecting sales figures from over 100 years ago is never going to be realised. You can win any argument by demanding that figures are produced where none exist before you believe whats staring you in the face.


Some things have to be accepted, they are self evident. We can make some assumptions and have a reasonable expectation that we are correct.


For example. The only camera formats available before 1930 were plate cameras, used by professionals. and roll film cameras used by everyone else. I don't need to prove that larger formats were preferred to 35mm before 1930, because 35mm hadn't been invented yet. For 100 years larger format cameras outsold 35mm cameras, that's because 35mm cameras didn't exist, and couldn't be purchased, and it took another 30 years before 35mm cameras took over from roll film.


From 1850 to 1930 the choice was between huge plate cameras or large roll film cameras. All cameras sold worldwide were larger than 35mm. That's a fact.


And between 1930 and 1960 35mm cameras were a niche sales area, desirable yes in the leica offerings, but sales were low. 35mm sales picked up during the Vietnam war when the Nikon F demonstrated its superiority and became the favourite of professionals, photojournalists and amateurs alike.


I know, I lived through it. I started taking photographs on a roll film camera in 1957. 35mm cameras were largely absent from society,, it was rollfilm rollfilm rollfilm.


I didn't see a 35mm camera until 1963, and they only became widely used in the mid to late 1960s Your Wikipedia quote supports entirely what I said earlier, I said 35mm took over from rollfilm after 1965, your quote says 35mm took over from rollfilm by the late 1960s.


I even said it took over earlier than Wikipedia did, so how can you say im wrong or disagreeing with them. And by 2000 35mm was dying, digital ruled, with APSc and 8mm sensor point and shoots


I don't deny that 35mm cameras were the peoples choice for 30 years until digital took over, but that's only 30 years out of 180 years. For the other 150 years larger formats ruled.

I second that. Personally, I never saw a 35mm camera until the mid-sixties.

[Rondec]

It is just as easy to get as much of the subject in focus using a larger format, simply by stopping down one more stop. The larger f-stop on a larger format does not translate into a noisier image because the total amount of light is the same (as you know, if you understand equivalence between formats).

You only get more enlargement of the subject, if your pixel pitch is higher. Nothing to do with format size. You get as much enlargement out of a D800 as you get out of a K-5.

It is true that there is currently no FF camera that gives you as much (digital zoom) enlargement as a 24MP APS-C camera, but it is also true that the APS-C format is rather "resolution hungry" as a smaller part of the image is enlarged to the same size as an FF image, thus establishing higher requirements regarding lens sharpness and AF accuracy.

Once you take the different enlargement factors into account, some IQ concerns are seen in a different light. For instance, the myth that FF corners are weak has been dispelled by falconeye. Since FF requires less enlargement the aberrations in the FF corners are less visible than you probably expect.

BTW, there are further advantages to FF which have been discussed at length elsewhere. It is tiring to see FF proponents being reduced to "shallow DOF" aficionados time and again.


You don't have to give up any extra DOF when switching to FF. Just stop down a stop more.

It is true that you won't get f/32 (the equivalent of f/22 on APS-C) on an FF camera because many lenses do not stop down further than f/22, but they don't for good reason: Already at f/22 you get so much blur through diffraction that IQ suffers badly. Effective resolution drops down to ~2MP. Such high f-stops don't make sense on these format sizes. If you need the DOF, either get a view camera or perform focus stacking. Stopping down to f/32 is not a good solution.

I just don't know that there is much point in going full frame if you plan to shoot it at the equivalent apertures as APS-C. Sure, you can do it, but unless you need your mythical 30mm f1.2 lens on APS-C, then what is the point.

To me, the biggest reason to go with full frame is if you need to print/view larger than you can currently.

[normhead]

Darn ou Rondec, I ignore this guy, and you post his nonsense.

It is just as easy to get as much of the subject in focus using a larger format, simply by stopping down one more stop.

But, since the maximum sharpness for lenses is usually somewhere north of ƒ5.6, aAPS-c and FF, stopping down from ƒ11 ti ƒ 16 is going to cost you resolution. So no, it's not simple, and yes, there is a cost to using FF,

It is true that there is currently no FF camera that gives you as much (digital zoom) enlargement as a 24MP APS-C camera, but it is also true that the APS-C format is rather "resolution hungry" as a smaller part of the image is enlarged to the same size as an FF image, thus establishing higher requirements regarding lens sharpness and AF accuracy.

As has been point ed out by some testers, the resolution of poorer lenses can increase by as much a 60% while better lenses tend to increase by under 20%, when going from a D7000 to a D7100. It would seem that lower resolution lenses receive more of a boost from 24 MP than better ones do. Theoretcial speculation about what should be isn't matched by corresponding field tests as far as I know. But it sounds nice in theory.

Once you take the different enlargement factors into account, some IQ concerns are seen in a different light. For instance, the myth that FF corners are weak has been dispelled by falconeye. Since FF requires less enlargement the aberrations in the FF corners are less visible than you probably expect.

What if I didn't expect anything?

BTW, there are further advantages to FF which have been discussed at length elsewhere. It is tiring to see FF proponents being reduced to "shallow DOF" aficionados time and again.

There are further advantages to APS-c which have been discussed elsewhere. It gets tiring to see FF advocates portraying themselves as the be all and end all of knowledge when addressing APS_c shooters.

You don't have to give up any extra DOF when switching to FF. Just stop down a stop more.

Already addressed. You give up resolution, not DoF.

It is true that you won't get f/32 (the equivalent of f/22 on APS-C) on an FF camera because many lenses do not stop down further than f/22, but they don't for good reason: Already at f/22 you get so much blur through diffraction that IQ suffers badly. Effective resolution drops down to ~2MP. Such high f-stops don't make sense on these format sizes. If you need the DOF, either get a view camera or perform focus stacking. Stopping down to f/32 is not a good solution.

Stopping down to ƒ32 on FF is not a good idea. Stopping down to ƒ22 on APS-c sometimes is. Once again your love and mis-understanding of equivalence trips you up.

Unless Rondec or someone else quotes you I won't see your response, sorry, just couldn't resist. I feel like I'm sniping from a blind.

[Rondec]

There is just an assumption in most of these arguments that most APS-C shooters would like to (and should) open up a stop more, if they just had it available. But there isn't anything wrong with including background in a photo -- even a photo with people in it. In Jay's photo with his son and cannon, there is no problem at all if the cannon is actually in focus. What makes the photo is the composition, lighting, and subject, not necessarily the depth of field or, lack there of.



I have no problem including the background.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 08-10-2014 at 12:58 PM. Reason: fixed spelling

[BrianR]

Unless Rondec or someone else quotes you I won't see your response, sorry, just couldn't resist. I feel like I'm sniping from a blind.

A blind is the classiest place to snipe from. Much classier than doing it out in the open where he has a chance to respond to you.

I just don't know that there is much point in going full frame if you plan to shoot it at the equivalent apertures as APS-C.

Less of a point sure, but I think the idea was you aren't actually losing much on the heavily stopped down end. But, as with everything, it depends on what you're doing.

We all need to choose whatever compromise makes the most sense to our individual wants/needs, and then set out to condemn anyone who chooses a different compromise. Maybe not the second part so much

[Nicolas06]

There is just an assumption in most of these arguments that most APS-C shooters would like to (and should) open up a stop more, if they just had it available. But there isn't anything wrong with including background in a photo -- even a photo with people in it. In Jay's photo with his son and cannon, there is no problem at all if the cannon is actually in focus. What makes the photo is the composition, lighting, and subject, not necessarily the depth of field or, lack there of.

This one is interresting: FA31 f/2.8 on an APSC... the dof do not go up to infinite. The trees are slightly blurred.

Maybe you where thinking APSC had too much deph of field? Honestly I don't get why you didn't use f/8 if you wanted deph of field, or at least f/5.6

[hjoseph7]

The question is if Pentax came out with a FF at a reasonable price would you buy it ?


No sense blurting out sour-grape comments or over reacting and lashing out like someone with an inferiority complex.


These things have been hashed out so many times before it is getting sickening. All you have to do is Google "Crop vs. FF" and you will get thousand of opinions.

Advantages of Full Frame:
a) Better high ISO performance
b) Better control of DOF
c) Usually but not necessarily better image quality
d) no complicated focal length calculations
d) Depending on the brand larger choice of wide angle lenses and older lenses
e) Brighter viewfinder


Disadvantages of FF camera
a) Cost
b) size
c) weight
d) slower frames per second
e) larger files means bigger, faster computers
f) slower down load speeds


Advantages of APS-c cameras
a) Cost
b) size
c) weight
d) Greater reach when it comes to wildlife, sports, birding photography
e) Faster frames per second
f) smaller files mean faster download speeds


Disadvantages of APS-c cameras
a) a 70-200mm lens becomes a 105-300mm which is hard to hand hold
b) complicated focal length calculations when purchasing lenses
c) dimmer view finders
d) difficult to control DOF
e) weaker Bokeh
f) does not perform as well in low-light

[ElJamoquio]

Disadvantages of FF camera
a) Cost
b) size
c) weight
d) slower frames per second
e) larger files means bigger, faster computers
f) slower down load speeds

a) FF was cheaper for me (equivalent photo capability, more or less)
b) a wash for me
c) FF was lighter for me (equivalent photo capability, more or less)
d) Sometimes/usually... but the highest FPS I'm aware for a mirror up/down system is the D4S
e) larger files goes with higher MP. The lowest-end FF and the highest-end APS-C's (where comparison between the two makes the most sense to me) both have 24 MP files
f) same as e)


If you're OK with F/4 or so on APS-C there's really not a lot to gain on FF other than the viewfinder, IMO. I wanted F/2.8 (or faster) on APS-C which drove me to FF.

You also didn't mention that FF is more tolerant of cropping than APS-C. Basically you get a FF and an APS-C lens all in one.

[VoiceOfReason]

Disadvantages of APS-c cameras
a) a 70-200mm lens becomes a 105-300mm which is hard to hand hold
b) complicated focal length calculations when purchasing lenses
c) dimmer view finders
d) difficult to control DOF
e) weaker Bokeh
f) does not perform as well in low-light

I guess since I didn't do shooting other than with a P&S camera back int eh film days is probably the reason I don't get these things being listed as disadvantages.

a) a 70-200mm lens seems like what a 70-200 mm lens should. It is weird on film.
b) see above
c) I will give you that, but it hasn't been a bother to me at all
d) I've not experienced that problem
e) I've not had problems there
f)I started with a Kx and took nice pics in low light. Stuff that film would have never allowed. I use a K5 now, and again I've not had problems in low light.

Of course I learned photography with digital, and by learned (and still learn things) I mean not just turning a camera on and then aiming and shooting with it, but taking time to get a decent shot. This is probably why I don't make the connection with the FF crowd. My uncle has a Canon 5Dmkii and when it comes to final image quality it pisses him off that I get much, much better results with much cheaper equipment. This is also why I don't make the connection with the FF crowd. Sure, I've bumped into limitations with my current equipment, but doesn't everyone when they have it for a while? For someone who does this as a hobby (with a few paid gigs here and there) would the cost of FF even be worth it?

[Class A]

Sure, you can do it, but unless you need your mythical 30mm f1.2 lens on APS-C, then what is the point.

A few, often not considered, FF advantages are:

• better dynamic range
• nicer viewfinder
• more difference between the sharpest and fuzziest areas of an image. We pay a lot of money for this quality in lenses; a format change gives a boost to all our (FF-capable) lenses.
• less hard requirements on AF-accuracy and lens mechanics.
• lenses are cheaper (when comparing equivalent specifications).
• more lens choices (as in "faster lenses available" == "more DOF control").

I recommend to read falconeye's full story.

There is so much more to FF than just more shallow DOF.

P.S.: I'm not advocating to use the same f-stops on FF as you do on APS-C. I was just responding to the argument that APS-C has a "deeper DOF" advantage. It has not. Granted, you typically don't get "f/32" on an FF lens, but it does not make much sense to shoot as such resolution crippling apertures, given that there are better methods (such as focus stacking).

[ElJamoquio]

would the cost of FF even be worth it?

I seem to purchase a new camera every few years. I'd want a new camera anyway, why not FF? The extra money for the base investment, for me, is more than made up for in less expensive and fewer lenses.

[Imageman]

I see the advantages of FF and I see the advantages of APSC, both systems work fine, the differences are there but there isn't a huge difference between them.


I have no difficulty using depth of field to pull the subject from the background with APSC, to me the differences are being blown out of all proportion.


To me there are 2 kinds of photographer. The first is a real photographer, when theres a difficulty he or she finds a way of overcoming it and achieving the shot.


Moving the taking position or moving the subject these are two examples.


The other kind is not a photographer hes a kid. He bleats moans and complains, "this equipment cannot take the photograph I want its worthless" this guy cries with tears streaming down his face. while a real photographer beside him takes the shot.


I have yet to find a subject that cannot be handled capably with APSC so lets stop pretending that only FF takes decent pictures. and FF does of course take decent pictures, and has the advantages already stated.


And if you own an APSC camera and you cant take decent pictures because its not a FF, I would ask why you haven't bought a FF instead and stopped moaning.


Photography is about photographers taking images its not about people moaning their equipment's no good.


Rant over