Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-19-2014, 01:58 AM   #61
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: LONDON
Posts: 136
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
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:
Is that related to high iso performance? Is it a bit like pushing up the iso in a single part of the image? Sort if that sounds stupid but that's how I''ve always seen it, it is like increasing exposure for a particular part of the image and hence the degradation is linked to high iso?

Or is that wrong?

Thanks for the pic - that is very impressive

08-19-2014, 07:25 AM   #62
Senior Member
str8talk83's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Naples, FL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 198
My opinion after using both formats is that A FF camera of the same generation as another APS-C camera will have slightly higher IQ and better noise performance. There are many other factors to consider as well (Lens used and PP mainly). That being said, the differences don't really show up unless printing large or "pixel peeping".

There are also ways to make up for the differences as well. A skilled shooter will be able to take nicer photo due to better lighting, composition, etc than someone less skilled. I have also learned that a nicely stitched image can beat a FF one. One of my favorite landscape shooters on fredmiranda forum utilizes m 4/3 and takes stunning images.
08-19-2014, 07:34 AM   #63
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Anyway here's an example of a shot where FF gives two (perhaps) small advantages, neither of which can be seen at small web sizes and without a comparison shot - advantage 1) 20mm prime = 13mm prime on aps-c (none exists, afaik,) and 2) the 'sharp' advantage discussed in point #4 above.
I would have agreed with you without Samgyang. Thoses wide tend to perform better than the best expensive FF lenses. They have also dedicated APSC prime lenses now (12 & 16mm). When I look at the shoot it is just very impressive.

I didn't choose one simply because I want small lenses anyway and I'am going with an DA15.
08-19-2014, 08:04 AM   #64
Pentaxian
hoopsontoast's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
If you are taking shots under certain circumstances, unless you have a side-side comparison (or even then) there would be no way to determine the format based on a single image. Anything with low-aperture (high f-stop,) low-ISO, deep DOF is going to be almost unknowable at web sizes between micro-four thirds, aps-c, FF and even medium format.

If you find this surprising or reason for an 'ah-ha, FF is not worth it!' epiphany, then you haven't been paying attention!

FF generally allows:

1) More noise control, if you are willing to accept less DOF for the same FOV and shutter speed, for example
2) More DOF control, for the same FOV and distance to subject (for typical non-landscape shooting, when a lens that has the same f-stop range.)
3) More DR above base ISO (with the same contingencies seen in #1)
4) Better performance with less-capable lenses when MP is the same or similar (as follows: the smaller the format, the better the lenses needed to get the same results.)

Unfortunately I very rarely bother to take/save direct comparison shots. As much as I talk about this, I probably should.

Anyway here's an example of a shot where FF gives two (perhaps) small advantages, neither of which can be seen at small web sizes and without a comparison shot - advantage 1) 20mm prime = 13mm prime on aps-c (none exists, afaik,) and 2) the 'sharp' advantage discussed in point #4 above.



Now here's an example of one advantage that could be seen even at web sizes if we had a comparison shot - this is 20mm wide-open at ISO 6400 - ISO 6400 on aps-c or m43 here wouldn't be quite as clean, and you'd have to rely on NR to match the perceived noise:



Here's an example of where some pretty extreme DR-shift was used in PP - at ISO 1100, the FF sensor used here had about a stop more leeway than an aps-c shot would have:



20mm ISO 2500 (DR example)


I think everyone has seen the DOF-difference examples many times from different sources, won't bother with them unless someone has questions.

Now the inevitable follow-up here is "well, I could have gotten the same thing with aps-c, look!" and then some other shot is shown. The real answer is no you can't - if you were to take your example shot with two formats, you would see the difference as long as the circumstances challenged the equipment somewhat and not 'easy/indistinguishable' in the ways I laid out in the first paragraph.. You can take very similar shots using anything between m43 --> medium format, but as you move up in sensor size you have more leeway, more options for getting better results.

.
In Bold above, I have exactly this (taken minutes apart)

APS-C - (K-01) DA 14mm f2.8


FF - (MZ-5N + Fuji 100F) FA 20-35mm f4 (@20mm)


Now you cant compare the two exactly, the K-01 Image has been processed from RAW with Lightroom (highlights, shadow recovery), the MZ-5N straight from the Commercial Scan and little added contrast. But the point is there are equivelent, even the FF lens is much lighter but just as sharp, if possibly sharper at the expense of the all metal build.
The main difference in that was the colour from the film was so much more life like, even playing around with the digital file extensively in white balance/settings I could not match it without bumping up saturation.

The main reason I would love a Pentax FF is just that I can carry one set of lenses to use with 135 Film and Digital.
Also the potential for other advantages mentioned before like lower noise, better high ISO performance, the lens being used as designed etc.

08-19-2014, 08:37 AM   #65
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
I would say that you are most likely to see differences in formats if you are someone who shoots at the extremes. If you typically shoot at isos of 6400 and greater, if you are shooting a lot with really narrow depth of field, if you are printing really large -- these are the things that come to mind -- then you will see some benefit shooting with full frame, assuming you get faster lenses to go with it.

Full frame is not a miracle format. If you shoot full frame cameras at iso 6400, they will not have the same performance they do at iso 100, but it will be better than the APS-C performance.

Viewfinders are definitely better with full frame, although I have been told that optical viewfinders are passe and will soon be replaced with EVFs, in which case, I guess they can be as big or small as you want them to be.
08-19-2014, 08:41 AM   #66
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
QuoteOriginally posted by hoopsontoast Quote
IThe main difference in that was the colour from the film was so much more life like
You mean while you where shooting, you eyes didn't seen any color detail on the ground but just something black? as we can see from the scan?

Other than that I'am interrested to see if I can match the sky colors, will have to try if I can do something from your JPEG.
08-19-2014, 08:59 AM   #67
Pentaxian
hoopsontoast's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
You mean while you where shooting, you eyes didn't seen any color detail on the ground but just something black? as we can see from the scan?

Other than that I'am interrested to see if I can match the sky colors, will have to try if I can do something from your JPEG.
The colours in the sky were much more life like/vibrant from the scan, the digital file required much more processing, and as you can see I could not get it close without pushing the saturation right up. The Shadows were boosted quite a lot from the original digital file, of course I could not do this on the film.

But anyway, thats not the topic of discussion, it was more that you can get equivelent wide angle lenses on APS-C, as the DA 14mm is just about equivelent FOV to the FA 20-35mm, of course the FA 20mm f2.8 would be the best comparison but I don't own that lens.
08-19-2014, 09:21 AM   #68
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Thoses wide tend to perform better than the best expensive FF lenses.
They perform well. I had a 14mm and I sent it back, though. It was OKish resolution wise, but not better than Nikon 14-24. Both were sharp but the Nikon is sharper IMO.

The 14mm has ungodly distortion that is difficult to correct though. It might be better/easier if Lightroom recognized the lens, but it didn't for me.

I thought the Nikon had better contrast and flare resistance. I know that people knock the 14-24 for flare resistance, but I attempted to induce flare in a bunch of scenarios and did not induce flare.


A great lens? Yup, the Samyang is good. For a ~$1000 difference, I think most people would be willing to accept the compromises of the Samyang. But it doesn't perform better than the best.

08-19-2014, 09:33 AM   #69
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
They perform well. I had a 14mm and I sent it back, though. It was OKish resolution wise, but not better than Nikon 14-24. Both were sharp but the Nikon is sharper IMO.

The 14mm has ungodly distortion that is difficult to correct though. It might be better/easier if Lightroom recognized the lens, but it didn't for me.

I thought the Nikon had better contrast and flare resistance. I know that people knock the 14-24 for flare resistance, but I attempted to induce flare in a bunch of scenarios and did not induce flare.


A great lens? Yup, the Samyang is good. For a ~$1000 difference, I think most people would be willing to accept the compromises of the Samyang. But it doesn't perform better than the best.
The 14mm may not be the best... I think if I remember right that the 16mm for example work better. There also the 12mm that should be available soom. Thoses 2 are optimized for APSC.
08-19-2014, 09:40 AM   #70
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
Just for clarity - I sent the Samyang back because of mechanical problems, not because of optical problems. The Samyang had an extraordinarily-tight mount, and I never liked the severe effort or grinding sound it created when installed.
08-19-2014, 10:04 AM   #71
Loyal Site Supporter
narual's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana
Posts: 1,935
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Just for clarity - I sent the Samyang back because of mechanical problems, not because of optical problems. The Samyang had an extraordinarily-tight mount, and I never liked the severe effort or grinding sound it created when installed.
OT, but did they replace it? I have a similar problem... have to *fight* to get the lens on and off.
08-19-2014, 10:10 AM   #72
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by narual Quote
OT, but did they replace it? I have a similar problem... have to *fight* to get the lens on and off.
Returned it for a refund within the 30-day return period. Decided not to try it again.
08-19-2014, 10:38 AM   #73
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 494
I think many have posted it here... a LOT of it comes down to the photographer. A good photographer can work within the limitations of many devices to get a great picture.
That being said, having good glass goes a LONG ways to rendering whatever you're taking. You can compose a great picture, but it might be all mush if your lens is cr@p, or filled with CA/PF.
When you go down in sensor size, it gets harder to render images with high contrast (IMHO). I've seen this with my wife's Nikon S5200. What shows up as a decent picture on my K-30 with cheapo Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC, its just a visual mess on the S5200.

All things being equal - on FF vs. APS-C, I prefer the higher dynamic range that is available through FF (and even more so on medium format). This, along with any possible low light benefits of FF, bring out more colours and image 'depth' that aren't always available with smaller sensors.

As it is, I personally don't really have any issues with the dynamic range of the K series APS-C sensors.
08-19-2014, 01:56 PM   #74
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
QuoteOriginally posted by hoopsontoast Quote
In Bold above, I have exactly this (taken minutes apart)

APS-C - (K-01) DA 14mm f2.8


FF - (MZ-5N + Fuji 100F) FA 20-35mm f4 (@20mm)


Now you cant compare the two exactly, the K-01 Image has been processed from RAW with Lightroom (highlights, shadow recovery), the MZ-5N straight from the Commercial Scan and little added contrast. But the point is there are equivelent, even the FF lens is much lighter but just as sharp, if possibly sharper at the expense of the all metal build.
The main difference in that was the colour from the film was so much more life like, even playing around with the digital file extensively in white balance/settings I could not match it without bumping up saturation.

The main reason I would love a Pentax FF is just that I can carry one set of lenses to use with 135 Film and Digital.
Also the potential for other advantages mentioned before like lower noise, better high ISO performance, the lens being used as designed etc.
A try to get a rendering more like your film in DxO:
- Using Color profile Kodak Ektachrome 100 VS Generique
- Tone curve +0.05 on reds.
- exposition +.005
- highlight +10
- shadows -15
- Contrast -49
- Vibrance: -9
- Saturation: +45.

The blues are not really there, but overall it look much more like the film one. Might have been easier to work from raw file.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-01  Photo 
08-19-2014, 02:54 PM   #75
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,828
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
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).
That's consistent with my own experience. Every FF shooter I know personally, and nearly all FF shooters I run across in the wild, are shooting with Canon L glass or high-end Nikon glass. Those lenses are not only sharp, but they're also very contrasty. They produce images with great clarity and snap, with rich, saturated colors. Of course, the photographer has to know how to get the best out of these lenses (correct exposure, shooting in the best quality light, developing in raw etc. etc.). I'm involved in bi-monthly critique sessions with local photographers, and I get to see 18" by 12" and larger prints from both FF and APS-C cameras. If you're comparing merely Canikon FF with Canikon APS-C, you can see a slight difference if you compare the very best from each sensor format. The FF images are tonally a bit more satisfying. They have better microcontrast, more bite, more tonal impact. But that's due to the glass. The FF shooters are using high-end Canon L glass, whereas the APS-C shooters are using (mostly) mid-range APS-C zooms.

Curiously enough, the only APS-C that can hold their own with the FF shooters are myself (shooting Pentax glass) and another photographer (shooting Fuji glass). Again, it's the glass that, once the skill of the photographer is factored in, makes the critical difference. With the DA 15 and the DA* 300, I can produce images that have the same sort of wow factor seen in FF shots with Canon L glass.
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 04:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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