Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-11-2014, 02:51 PM   #181
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,830
Very nice.... the hard part for the FF guys, is the part where FF is better in some circumstances... but not all circumstances. If your best image requires shooting in daylight at F5.6, and you don't need infinite depth of field, going to ƒ8.5 on an FF to match the dog moves the lens into an aperture that is diffraction limited. You've given up sharpness to match the DoF. To my knowledge no one has done any kind of study to show how often you get a sharper images with an APS-c camera as compared to an FF. But this is an example where stopping down hurts you IQ. Because you're shooting in daylight and probably at 100 IOS there is no low light penally or noise consideration. One gets really tired of people making up lists of reasons why FF is better... when a lot of times it's not. And then it gets even worse when FF people start saying APS-c people can't do things, many of us easily do.

For example, if you shoot APS-c , you know your lenses, no conversion is necessary if you're used to your lenses on your camera. Conversion is necessary only for those who shoot or have shot mostly on APS-c. APS-c shooters going to FF have to do the opposite conversion. It's amazing how many FF advocates don't even realize what an FF centric world they think in. Their examples are selected for FF coming out on top, in a very biased fashion. Nothing bugs them more than saying I can do what I want to do on APS-c. But that's the way it is. Many can get it done on APS-c, because they simply don't need what FF has to offer.

Brighter viewfinder? Could care less.
1.25 stop wider DoF--- don't care
Bad light exposure - not interested, only interested in best light exposure.

It gets truing seeing these lists trotted out that I could care less about,
My only reason for possibly going FF would be added resolution. The rest, I can fudge. It might be easier with FF, but I'm not paying for easier. And I'm not giving up APS-c to get it.

People make it sound like FF is always an advantage. It's not. Often the advantages of APS_c far outweigh it. For a shooter like me, my guess is an FF camera would be useful for less than 10% of my shooting. The rest of the time APS_c would be as good or better. With a D610, I'd give up more than I'd lose.

But I can see how for wedding photographers etc. it would be the other way around. Some people are married to the narrow DoF genre, to the point that they ruin a lot of images going for it. But, it's genre folks, not all are fans.

Saying FF is the best option in all circumstances is simply a lie. But usually in these discussions it's not an outright lie. It's a lie of omission. trumpeting the FF bandwagon quotes, and leaving the rest unstated. A lie that's so prevalent, that FF users will deny that there are any advantages to APS_c at all.

FF is probably the best overall digital format in terms of complete usability, but that being said, it's till not the best for every occasion. And many of us rarely have occasion to use the things it excels at.


Last edited by normhead; 08-11-2014 at 03:04 PM.
08-11-2014, 02:55 PM   #182
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Very nice.... the hard part for the FF guys, is the part where FF is better in some circumstances... but not all circumstances. If your best image requires shooting in daylight at F5.6, and you don't need infinite depth of field, going to ƒ8.5 on an FF to match the dog moves the lens into an aperture that is diffraction limited. You've given up sharpness to match the DoF.
You're not more diffraction limited if you're shooting at the same equivalent setting. You basically never have a less sharp image on FF than APS-C.

Nothing about you bugs me at all, norm, for what it's worth.
08-11-2014, 03:04 PM   #183
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I can use 100% crops from a FF. In fact I posted one a week or two ago. Yesterday I took one, handheld, with a teleconverter, zoom lens, ISO 1600. Still looks pretty dang good to my eyes.

Better or worse than an APS-C? I say better, but of course we're just arguing on the internet. One thing's for sure, one FF lens seemed to replace, in use at least, a bag of expensive primes for me. I never did find any zooms really 'good enough' for me on APS-C. Haven't tried the recent Sigma's though.
iso 1600 typically look good on APSC in good light... Stat to look bad in dim light. FF should give you one more stop.

As to it render better it depend what. You said shapness. For me my crop is really sharp. Enough to print 30x40. of course a D800E would help but then the prices are different. The sharpness I get, can be got on a 400 D3300. We where speaking of a D600 with low pass filter. What ever superiority one could imagine of the FF is lost in the low pass filter. But this is much more expensive.

I will not deny the shallow deph of field that allow to just get an FF + 2 f/2.8 zoom and have something practical with good shallow deph of field.

Now this is not as practical (but less expensive than good f/2.8 FF zooms) the sigma 18-35 challence the wide to normal focal lenses (I would not like it: too big, too heavy, useless for me for most cases) and provide the same. Range is a little shorter, true. Then on the tele lenses, like 50-135, 50-150, 70-200, they are really good. Past 100mm APSC there is no much need for more than f/2.8 anyway. At worst one add an 50mm f/1.4 in the middle and most of use cases are covered.

This is not like you have to have f/1.4 prime at all focals lens anyway.

Why not do all of that on FF... you might get something more on some shoots, even visible in practice from time to time... Overall this doesn't change the photo. The quality is good enough on both... And the difference is not that great. It is not like you were shooting 8x10...
08-11-2014, 03:24 PM   #184
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Now this is not as practical (but less expensive than good f/2.8 FF zooms) the sigma 18-35 challence the wide to normal focal lenses
There's a lot more latitude with 'good' in terms of larger sensors. Photozone has the $400 or so Tamron 28-75mm, on an old, with low-pass, low MP Canon 5DII showing 2840 to 3189 lp/ph wide open.

On the 50D the 18-35 is showing 2315-2537 lp/ph. Not much difference, right, after you go to 24MP and remove the low pass filter? I agree, except in terms of price and weight, both of which favor the Tamron.


We're on a Pentax forum. I do NOT want to convine other people to buy a Nikon, but it's a convenient example because it was cheaper than my K-5. I'm actually hoping that Pentax creates a FF camera and I'm arguing for that camera, as my experience indicates to me that a FF camera is a better value for Pentaxians. I think that will be without a low pass filter, so really, the benefit of the lack of low pass filter will be gone on either camera.


Improving your sensor used to be more expensive than improving your optics. I don't know if that's still true, but if it is, it won't be true for much longer. Judging from price of optics, it's cheaper/easier to make a good F/4 36x24 lens than an almost-perfect F/2.8 APS-C lens.

08-11-2014, 03:28 PM   #185
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
You're not more diffraction limited if you're shooting at the same equivalent setting. You basically never have a less sharp image on FF than APS-C.

Nothing about you bugs me at all, norm, for what it's worth.
Yeah a FF so much better that with a crapy lens with grease on it, it still manage to look better.

Seriously, agree on the diffraction, and you get some benefit at isos 100, not really for sharpness as we have seen it you don't go 36MP, but maybe color deph or dynamic range. That subtle as the technology isn't really able to get most out of it. But ok, at iso 100, the benefit, is at least theoretical.

But if you shoot stopped down on a FF starting iso 250, there no real gain as you could as well shoot iso 100 on APSC with same deph of field, less stopped down. If that mean the lens is bad quality at that apperture on APSC, the FF could compensate if the apperture for his lens it as its best. If this is the contrary, the FF may is just getting some thing to compensate.

This is in theory. In the previous link you said the prime was not a good prime... A 85mm f/1.8... That could not be sharp at f/4... not f/1.8... f/4... And that is beaten by my zoom wide open (50-135 f/2.8) or my basic FA50 (another innexpensive prime too with a design not even optimized for APSC).

The more we see it, the less this FF advantage is obvious, in all honestly. It is better yes. When everything is going for it: need lot of shallow deph of field, the perfect lens sharp wide open and there is no APSC practical equivalent. Or you shoot iso 100 on a 36MP FF and need the ultimate sharpness.

But this is not the ultimate anything of everything many want us to think.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-11-2014 at 03:37 PM.
08-11-2014, 04:02 PM   #186
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,830
QuoteQuote:
You're not more diffraction limited if you're shooting at the same equivalent setting. You basically never have a less sharp image on FF than APS-C
Why are you talking about the same setting? If you're shooting APS-c at 5.6 and are happy with your DF, you have to shoot 8 on APS-c to get the same depth of field. That is equivalence in action my friend. So, no, it's not the same setting, it's an equivalent setting.


For a canon 6D
Our laboratory resolution chart shows strong detail with distinct line patterns down to about 2,400 lines per picture height horizontally and to about the same resolution vertically from in-camera JPEGs. Extinction of the pattern occurred just past 3,400 lines horizontally and vertically. Adobe Camera Raw converted .

FOr a K-3.

Not only that, the K-3 delivers that resolution in a smaller area. IN the same area on the FF sensor, the resolution will be less than 1600 lw/ph. You can say what you want about their methods, their test charts don't lie.

The implications are that if you have a 70mm lens, and you're cropping the FF image because of close focusing limitations, to APS-c proportions and size, you're losing a mind bending 1100 lw/ph, close to half (11/24) the resolution available to the APS-c sensor.

I'm not sure why you spend so much time in mental gymnastics trying to avoid the obvious. But I know they're about to appear to those who haven't "ignored" you.
08-11-2014, 04:24 PM   #187
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Why are you talking about the same setting?
I'm not. You apparently thought I said the same setting, when I said the 'same equivalent setting'.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you're shooting APS-c at 5.6 and are happy with your DF, you have to shoot ƒ8 on APS-c to get the same depth of field. That is equivalence in action my friend. So, no, it's not the same setting, it's an equivalent setting.
Yes, and at an equivalent setting, you'll have the same fundamental diffraction limitation (edit: for a given megapixel sensor) regardless of sensor size.

Is there anything that equivalence cannot do?

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'm not sure why you spend so much time in mental gymnastics trying to avoid the obvious. But I know they're about to appear to those who haven't "ignored" you.
I'm not sure which part of that is the friendly part. But then again, I thought *you* were ignoring me. ?

As to mental gymnastics, it's obvious that, if two people disagree on a simple thing, then at least one of those two people are wrong.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 08-11-2014 at 05:58 PM.
08-11-2014, 05:27 PM   #188
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote

Is there anything that equivalence cannot do?
I asked it to go out to get the mail today and it completely ignored me.

BTW, folks were talking 85's sharpness:

85 f/1.8D @ wide open, followed by crop: (58 f/1.1 on aps-c)




While that 85 is fully sharp enough for me and renders very nicely, there's something about the 77 I like better - bokeh, OOF transition, '3d', pixie dust, whatever. I really want a Pentax FF to shoot the 77 (& a 43) on.

.

08-11-2014, 05:30 PM   #189
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I asked it to go out to get the mail today and it completely ignored me.

Shut the front door. That lazy ass equivalence.
08-11-2014, 05:33 PM - 1 Like   #190
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If you are in the middle with regard to isos, apertures -- an average shooter -- it is unlikely to give you some kind of dramatic difference.
Five of the six advantages for FF I posted earlier are independent of shooting settings. Four of them always apply, i.e., don't need challenging shooting conditions to apply.

Of course one can argue that differences are not big enough to care about, but one could do the same in favour for a kit lens compared to a number of specialised primes. Surely, you can take award winning images with a kit lens, why bother with more expensive primes? Yet many of us have primes.
08-11-2014, 05:49 PM   #191
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
IN the same area on the FF sensor, the resolution will be less than 1600 lw/ph.
Your calculations are wrong.

When cropping an FF image down to APS-C size, the area is reduced to a bit less than half the original size which means that the linear dimensions (which are relevant for lw/ph resolution figures) are only divided by 1.5 (the crop factor).

So a 6D still retains 2267 lw/ph extinction resolution, even when cropped to APS-C size.

I would by very cautious to compare that to the quoted 3,000 lw/ph of the K-3 because resolution measurements heavily depend on image sharpening and ACR may apply different levels of default sharpening (even when settings are at "0") for the two cameras.

BTW, making resolution measurements based on out-of-camera JPGs is only interesting with respect to how the respective JPG engine performs. It is completely unfit to compare different cameras with each other.
08-11-2014, 05:56 PM - 1 Like   #192
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I would by very cautious to compare that to the quoted 3,000 lw/ph of the K-3 because resolution measurements heavily depend on image sharpening and ACR may apply different levels of default sharpening (even when settings are at "0") for the two cameras.
The largest error (after the lack of understanding of lp/ph) is that Imaging resource eyeballs, quite literally, their numbers. Run their test charts through Imatest - the K-3 is overestimated and the D600, norm's favorite whipping-camera, is underestimated.
08-11-2014, 06:28 PM   #193
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,233
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Five of the six advantages for FF I posted earlier are independent of shooting settings. Four of them always apply, i.e., don't need challenging shooting conditions to apply.

Of course one can argue that differences are not big enough to care about, but one could do the same in favour for a kit lens compared to a number of specialised primes. Surely, you can take award winning images with a kit lens, why bother with more expensive primes? Yet many of us have primes.
Hence my use of the phrase "dramatic difference." Many of the better photographers do use full frame, but I hesitate to equate their better skill and post processing ability with a big difference between the formats.

You can make these arguments between any format size -- four thirds, APS-C, full frame, and medium format (and smaller ones as well). For whatever reason, I seldom see these points being made between four thirds and APS-C or medium format and full frame. Just between APS-C and full frame.

I just don't think the small difference of roughly one stop is going to truly make or break most photos. APS-C currently has better performance/resolution than 35mm film ever had and better even than the early full frame sensors, like in the 5D. As time goes by, I get more irritated by the emphasis of tech/gear over photography. People who shoot great photos with a K5 or K3 don't do in spite of their APS-C camera, they do it with their APS-C camera.
08-11-2014, 06:49 PM   #194
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
You can make these arguments between any format size -- four thirds, APS-C, full frame, and medium format (and smaller ones as well). For whatever reason, I seldom see these points being made between four thirds and APS-C or medium format and full frame. Just between APS-C and full frame.
Maybe because

1) The biggest difference in crop ratio is between APS-C and full frame? M43->APS-C is 1.32, APS-C to FF is 1.52, FF to MF is 1.3. APS-C to FF is almost twice the step of the other two.
2) With commonly available lenses, the most light for a given angle of view is with FF lenses, even in Pentax's own 'aps-c' camera lineup, adn
3) You spend your time in Pentax forums, where there's already class-leading APS-C and MF cameras, so there's nothing to compare to and 'want that'.

08-12-2014, 12:01 AM   #195
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
For whatever reason, I seldom see these points being made between four thirds and APS-C or medium format and full frame. Just between APS-C and full frame.
You'll find this discussion frequently in conjunction with the K-mount, because the K-mount is an FF mount. Even in general, APS-C is typically a "crop format", i.e., the mount is designed with an FF imager, but a smaller sensor is used instead.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not claiming that APS-C is holding me back in dramatic ways. That does not stop me from wanting a sensor that is as big as the mount allows.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
As time goes by, I get more irritated by the emphasis of tech/gear over photography. People who shoot great photos with a K5 or K3 don't do in spite of their APS-C camera, they do it with their APS-C camera.
If I rephrase that as
"As time goes by, I get more irritated by the emphasis of the superiority of speciality lenses over photography. People who shoot great photos with a kit lens don't do in spite of their kit lens, they do it with their kit lens."
do you still agree?

You may, or you may not. I'm fine with either position.

But I respect the opinion of someone who says they want speciality lenses, despite the fact that they may be able to take 90% of their photos with a kit lens.

Likewise, the opinion of someone who wants an FF camera for the indisputable advantages should be respected and not be construed as having ill-conceived ideas about gear vs photography.

Last edited by Class A; 08-12-2014 at 12:13 AM.
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, aps-c, aps-c & ff, camera, cameras, canon, depth of field, ff, full frame, full-frame, gigs, girl, hobby, image quality, image quality comparisons, images, lenses, nikon, pentax, people, photos, post, print, reality, reason, sense, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Magnification with a FF lens on Pentax DSLR Pentax Bob Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 23 11-02-2012 10:42 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
noob with a KX hadi Welcomes and Introductions 3 06-01-2011 11:52 AM
If pentax release a FF, wouldn't they have to release a FF wideangle. pcarfan Photographic Technique 10 12-26-2009 04:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:13 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