Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-18-2014, 04:31 PM   #46
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,361
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistlefoot Quote
I agree with Adam.

Per these Japan numbers, 8.7% of sales go to full frame.

Of that 8.7% how many inexperienced photogs buy full frame? Probably pretty low.
Now out of the 91.3% of crop body purchasers (and top 74% of sales go to CaNikon) how many of those are high experienced? Simple logic (based upon the desire for full frame on this website) shows that most experienced photogs and pros go for Full Frame or want Full Frame when available, and even when full frame is not available, still strive for better equipment (ie, upgrade from K5 to K3).
...
I don't buy this (or full frame in general)

I have seen a ton of inexperienced photographers getting or wanting full frame because they simply believe getting the best either at any price, or because it makes them instantly better photographers

There is even one recent forum poster who has been shooting for 2 years, has the two lens zoom kit, a Tammy 28-75 and a 100mm macro, claiming he needs full frame because he is shooting pro, With Kit lenses no less

Rally now. A full frame will not give him anything beyond lower resolution with his kit lenses. Who's kidding who here?

08-18-2014, 04:40 PM - 5 Likes   #47
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
If there is a difference, it probably comes down to quality of glass and skill of photographer (both in terms of capturing images and in post processing). I am not a professional, but I don't buy that there is that much difference otherwise. Particularly for landscape photographs shot in the sweet spot of most lenses, where most things are/should be in focus. Unlike Steve, I only have APS-C, but I feel like image quality with APS-C is more than adequate for most landscapes, unless you are printing quite large.







08-18-2014, 04:42 PM - 1 Like   #48
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,634
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Anyway here's an example of a shot where FF gives two (perhaps) small advantages...
Beautiful photos Jay! As you may remember, I am solidly on the side of using a larger format for many subjects. I would love to have a FF digital camera.* I would point out, however, that all of your examples involve ultra-wide-angle lenses. As has been discussed multiple places, the balance shifts somewhat when doing long lens or macro work. The Crocosmia shot I shared above (done with the K-3 and Sigma 17-70/2.8-4) would required a lens change to some sort of macro setup if done with a FF camera rather than my standard walk-around zoom.


Steve

* I seriously considered the Sony A7 before purchasing the K-3, but was put off by the noisy shutter and jello in the viewfinder.

---------- Post added 08-18-14 at 04:47 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
13mm prime on aps-c (none exists, afaik,)
The Samyang 14/2.8 might be close enough, don't you think?


Steve
08-18-2014, 04:52 PM   #49
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,539
QuoteOriginally posted by chaza01 Quote
I'll tell you what, could someone post two photos - with both looking very good from a composition standpoint - 1 from a FF, 1 from an aps-c and I'll see if I can tell u which one is which.

Maybe it is 'confirmation bias' but i assure you I was not aware of what camera was used until I checked it each time - and I decided which images were more pleasing immediately.
I have an D800E and I can use the same camera and zoom lens to take exactly the same image but where one is in APS-C crop mode. I'll try it today and upload a couple of shots for comparison.

08-18-2014, 05:01 PM   #50
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,634
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
...Unlike Steve, I only have APS-C, but I feel like image quality with APS-C is more than adequate for most landscapes...
Beautiful and compelling landscape work. A ton of great APS-C landscape work has been posted on this site and elsewhere on the Web. When I saw yours, I was immediately reminded of Keitha's (Aravis') work. Yours has the same expansive quality.

Where I have been challenged is on the wide end, specifically finding a workhorse wide-angle (28mm f/2.8 equivalent) with excellent build and optics that is also compact and light. The DA 15/4 Limited is a great lens, but it is just a little wider than I would normally like. It also is a little pricey. I fill that slot with the Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye (used in several shots above). It is a little quirky, but you manage with the tools you have. I also am very fond of the 35mm focal length on film. There are not many 22mm -24mm options out there for APS-C.


Steve

---------- Post added 08-18-14 at 05:04 PM ----------

Gosh, I like it when people start showing their photos! There is so much great work out there.


Steve
08-18-2014, 05:08 PM   #51
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: LONDON
Posts: 136
Original Poster
Yes just to be clear (sorry been away from the computer) I took that spot the format test thing and got a pretty abysmal score (53% I think). The differences in the photos I think came down more to glass, also the particular shot required quite a wide lens and hence full frame gave a big advantage because it's easier to get a sharper 28mm than an 18mm for example. Not to mention FF users spend more on lenses - I can't imagine someone investing in L series glass and then mounting it on a 450d...

The purpose of the thread was mainly to see if there was some 'other factor' besides DOF, resolution, high iso performance and dynamic range etc that FF could make a real visible difference to an image- however I expect it was the lens not the sensor behind this difference (well the sensor indirectly as it obviously determines FOV).

Going to hit the hay.
08-18-2014, 05:08 PM   #52
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,092
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
...and I could not have made any of them without a camera.

FWIW, I would like to have the option of a K-mount FF digital camera for the same reason why I sometimes shoot medium or large format film. That being that there are times when it would be the right tool for the job.


Steve
" ...and I could not have made any of them without a camera."
Of course, you realize that this was a funny "pun" just to further quote people saying "What a great photo. You must have a great camera!"

I have no intention of ever buying a FF or medium/large format camera but I do appreciate the difference in all aspects of "rendition" from a FF format vs. APSC for instance).
Again, it has to be in capable hands as well.

But wait now ... I used to own a few FF cams: ME, ME Super, MX, MZ6, K1000 ...

Cheers!

JP
08-18-2014, 05:15 PM   #53
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,634
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
" ...and I could not have made any of them without a camera."
Of course, you realize that this was a funny "pun" just to further quote people saying "What a great photo. You must have a great camera!"

I have no intention of ever buying a FF or medium/large format camera but I do appreciate the difference in all aspects of "rendition" from a FF format vs. APSC for instance).
Again, it has to be in capable hands as well.

But wait now ... I used to own a few FF cams: ME, ME Super, MX, MZ6, K1000 ...

Cheers!

JP
Yes, I got the joke. I should have included a few smilies as well.


Steve

08-18-2014, 05:22 PM   #54
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: LONDON
Posts: 136
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Yes, I got the joke. I should have included a few smilies as well.


Steve
Sorry to change the topic but quick question btw apropos full frame. If you take a photo with a lot of contrast but let's say you do not have the shadow detail you want and chose to bring that out in PP, and let's say the photo was underexposed to begin with anyway, am I right in saying one major advantage of FF is the ability to correct both without increasing noise in the way you would if it had been APS-C? One thing that always strikes me about some of these FF landscapes is just how clean they are corner to corner, especially ones where I'd likely try and bring out more detail in the shadows but risk boosting noise.

Another quick question - is it true slightly underexposing boost colour saturation, and do you deliberately underexpose ever?

Very nicely composed set of photos btw - all extremely sharp too.
08-18-2014, 05:45 PM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,720
QuoteOriginally posted by chaza01 Quote
am I right in saying one major advantage of FF is the ability to correct both without increasing noise in the way you would if it had been APS-C?
No. The ability to push the shadows of an image without having detail destroyed is not an inherent feature of FF. You 'just' need a sensor with decent dynamic range and also one that doesn't suffer from technical flaws that introduce various uglies into your image (ie banding) when you push the shadows. Modern cameras like the K-3 and K-5 have awesome dynamic range and an impressive ability to push the shadows without detail degradation. Not all FF have the same ability, especially those with non-Sony sensors. Pic somewhat related - some K-5 magic:

08-18-2014, 05:56 PM   #56
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,064
The safest place I find to go look at great photos is the various digital medium format threads........ I realised how great glass can make a difference when looking at various posts on this forum a year or so ago...... it cost me $5000........but I notice the difference in my shots for sure....... now I look at posts using equipment I can't afford.........stops me getting tempted!

"better to be spending your time admiring the unobtainable, then be indebted with the average"

Last edited by noelpolar; 08-19-2014 at 01:57 AM.
08-18-2014, 06:11 PM   #57
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by chaza01 Quote
Sorry to change the topic but quick question btw apropos full frame. If you take a photo with a lot of contrast but let's say you do not have the shadow detail you want and chose to bring that out in PP, and let's say the photo was underexposed to begin with anyway, am I right in saying one major advantage of FF is the ability to correct both without increasing noise in the way you would if it had been APS-C? One thing that always strikes me about some of these FF landscapes is just how clean they are corner to corner, especially ones where I'd likely try and bring out more detail in the shadows but risk boosting noise.

Another quick question - is it true slightly underexposing boost colour saturation, and do you deliberately underexpose ever?

Very nicely composed set of photos btw - all extremely sharp too.
It very much depends on the camera and the iso you are shooting at. The K5 at iso 80 has an amazing amount of shadow detail, as exhibited above. The K30/K50/K3 don't have quite as much, but they still have a lot. As you go up in iso, you will find at similar isos that full frame will have more dynamic range than APS-C, giving approximately one stop better performance between the formats. As I said above, at low iso (I would say below 800), you would have to look pretty hard to see differences other than ability to print big, unless you are looking for narrow depth of field.
08-18-2014, 06:32 PM   #58
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,634
QuoteOriginally posted by chaza01 Quote
Sorry to change the topic but quick question btw apropos full frame. If you take a photo with a lot of contrast but let's say you do not have the shadow detail you want and chose to bring that out in PP, and let's say the photo was underexposed to begin with anyway, am I right in saying one major advantage of FF is the ability to correct both without increasing noise in the way you would if it had been APS-C? One thing that always strikes me about some of these FF landscapes is just how clean they are corner to corner, especially ones where I'd likely try and bring out more detail in the shadows but risk boosting noise.

Another quick question - is it true slightly underexposing boost colour saturation, and do you deliberately underexpose ever?

Very nicely composed set of photos btw - all extremely sharp too.
Thanks for the perk! I don't know about FF digital. The shots I posted (about half) were originally shot on film. The remainder with various lenses on APS-C.


Steve
08-18-2014, 06:59 PM   #59
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I don't buy this (or full frame in general)

I have seen a ton of inexperienced photographers getting or wanting full frame because they simply believe getting the best either at any price, or because it makes them instantly better photographers

There is even one recent forum poster who has been shooting for 2 years, has the two lens zoom kit, a Tammy 28-75 and a 100mm macro, claiming he needs full frame because he is shooting pro, With Kit lenses no less

Rally now. A full frame will not give him anything beyond lower resolution with his kit lenses. Who's kidding who here?
1) The tamron 28-75 was never a kit with anything.
2) Ignoring error #1... Just because a lens came in a kit doesn't mean it's bad. The Canon 24-105L was in a 'kit'. The 16-50 F/2.8 was in a kit IIRC.
3) Ignoring error #1 and #2... even with a cheapo lens a FF generally outresolves APS-C. It generally has equial to or superior control over DOF compared to APS-C with an expensive lens.

Rally now, indeed.
08-19-2014, 12:03 AM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,340
I'm pretty sure if I use Rory Mcilroy's golf clubs, I can get my handicap under 30 ....
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, advantage, aps-c, camera, charlie, colour, dslr, experience, ff, ff images, finger, flickr, frame, full-frame, fullframe, gear, image, images, lens, lenses, macro, mirrorless, mp, pentax, people, photography, range, sensors, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How & Why Sensor Size Affects Image Quality (APS-C vs FF vs compact) Adam Photography Articles 28 01-02-2015 09:38 PM
APS-C & FF cameras combination yusuf General Photography 3 06-05-2014 06:05 AM
Practical FF resolution is 30-40% better than sans-AA APS-C ElJamoquio Pentax Full Frame 257 04-26-2014 07:58 AM
Pentax at P&E2013: FF under development, APS-C compact camera and more Mistral75 Pentax News and Rumors 82 04-30-2013 06:30 AM
Tech Question: Why are FF DSLRs so Large? Sailor Photographic Technique 50 07-20-2011 08:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:04 PM. | 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