[dtmateojr]

Back when there was just film, everyone shot with full frame. Shite is shite regardless of format.

[Nicolas06]

Back when there was just film, everyone shot with full frame. Shite is shite regardless of format.

And there was far more garbage back in time, not in quantity (it was expensive) but in percentage. At some point there was no AF, before no metering neither and before no viewfinder. People kept crap crap photos because they had only a few and it was better than nothing.

Now maybe most photo are uninterresting (as before) but most are also technically correct: the subject is in focus and the exposure is right. The framing may be still wrong but even in that case there more possibilities to correct it.

[Rondec]

The problem is that the focal lengths on APS-C are a smidge too wide, but just a smidge. Around the 85 range is where there is acceptable overlap between the two formats - it's just long enough to be flattering. But the sweet spot of working distance, area of subject in frame, etc is pretty specific.

At the longer end I've shot portraits at 135mm on APS-C, but the angle of view is like looking through a soda straw... I end up standing a mile away and shouting at the subjects to get the framing I want.

I just want the 'missing' area around the APS-C sensor back in the print. Same working distance, same subject.

I think a 55mm works pretty well on APS-C, as does the 77mm for portraits, but there is no doubt that full frame has an advantage when it comes to portraiture and subject isolation. It is not a miraculous thing -- particularly not in the 70 to 200mm range.

But the OP seemed to be talking about landscape photography, where I really don't see much of an advantage for full frame except when it comes to printing large.

[jsherman999]

Not sure I really got it here...

You doesn't seem to say that subject isolation is a problem.

But you explain you want 85-135mm, I suppose as 35mm equivalent. That's 55-90 range. You can easily achieve that with DA50-135,

Not quite so easily. The 50-135 2.8 would be the equivalent of an f/4.5 lens on FF in that (70-200 equiv) range, so the subject isolation 'pop' drains away a bit. The 77 is a good choice for this on aps-c though.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 08-27-2014 at 06:37 AM.

[stevebrot]

Steve. Good job not answering the question.

In reality I agree with you. While the camera or scanner might be able to capture this dynamic range, you can't print it or display it readily

So the question is, how to make use of something that is lost in the display. For me, this is where proper correction etc comes in. Maybe compress the middle and add more DR from the extremes, although this generally makes images look flat (like highlight and shadow detail protection can). It's a good question.

I am good at not answering the question that I am not answering.


Steve

---------- Post added 08-27-14 at 07:36 AM ----------

The evidence does not support the view that FF produces superior images to APS-c images, it supports the view that APS-c users don't know what the hell theyr doing.

ROFL




Steve

---------- Post added 08-27-14 at 07:37 AM ----------

The 50-135 2.8 would be the equivalent of an f/4.5 lens on FF

Dang, I hate this equivalence stuff! It is so counter-intuitive...


Steve

[Rondec]

Not quite so easily. The 50-135 2.8 would be the equivalent of an f/4.5 lens on FF in that (70-200 equiv) range, so the subject isolation 'pop' drains away a bit. The 77 is a good choice for this on aps-c though.

It's roughly one stop different Jay. You really won't notice it much in the 70-200mm (full frame) range. Where you notice it is in the wider angles where there isn't anything close to a 30mm f1.4 in APS-C.

[stevebrot]

It's roughly one stop different Jay.

Yep, my calculation is that the equivalence is closer to f/4 at the long end.

OTOH, why is this a bad thing? At 135mm on APS-C you get:

• 200mm (FF equivalent) FOV!
• f/2.8 aperture for exposure purposes!
• f/4 (FF equivalent) DOF!

It looks like the classic validation of the APS-C advantage with longer focal lengths. The traditional challenge for 35mm film photographers with lenses over 150mm has been adequate DOF (accurate focus is a huge challenge) and low light capabilities. You can have one or the other, but not both.

Is this where the great cry of sensor equivalence is raised?


Steve

(...not much of a long lens shooter, but appreciate the advantage for those that are...)

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 08-27-2014 at 02:26 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

OTOH, why is this a bad thing? At 135mm on APS-C you get:

• 200mm (FF equivalent) FOV!
• f/2.8 aperture for exposure purposes!
• f/4 (FF equivalent) DOF!

You forgot

1) f/4.5 sensor quality (ISO 1000 on APS-C has the same performance as FF with ISO 2200)
2) poorer lens quality (F/2.8 sharpness rather than F/4.5 sharpness).



For a Pentax shooter, I guess if you own a 50-135 maybe you don't want to get a FF.

I don't. My long glass is a 70-200 and the DA*300 so there's no advantage to APS-C over FF for me.

[Rondec]

You forgot

1) f/4.5 sensor quality (ISO 1000 on APS-C has the same performance as FF with ISO 2200)
2) poorer lens quality (F/2.8 sharpness rather than F/4.5 sharpness).



For a Pentax shooter, I guess if you own a 50-135 maybe you don't want to get a FF.

I don't. My long glass is a 70-200 and the DA*300 so there's no advantage to APS-C over FF for me.

Well, I think there is an advantage with your glass. You aren't going to find a 135 to 300mm f4 lens for a full frame camera for 800 dollars, nor a 450 f5.6 for full frame at 1300. It is the wide glass where you just can't match.

[ElJamoquio]

Well, I think there is an advantage with your glass. You aren't going to find a 135 to 300mm f4 lens for a full frame camera for 800 dollars, nor a 450 f5.6 for full frame at 1300. It is the wide glass where you just can't match.

Huh? I can crop my picture if I want.

I could also purchase the Sigma 100-300mm for $650 used on Amazon right now. Or I could purchase a $500 or $600 teleconverter if I require 24 or 36 MP for some strange reason. Or I could do both and get your 450mm F/5.6, and it would still be cheaper than my two lenses right now.

There seems to be a common wisdom around the internetz that APS-C is better for telephoto that hasn't been justified in my experience.

[jsherman999]

Yep, my calculation is that the equivalence is closer to f/4 at the long end.

It works out to be about 1.28 stops difference, so f/4.5 is a good notch on the aperture ring to use as a guide.

OTOH, why is this a bad thing? At 135mm on APS-C you get:

• 200mm (FF equivalent) FOV!
• f/2.8 aperture for exposure purposes!
• f/4 (FF equivalent) DOF!

Nothing wrong with that, it's just not ideal, IMO. It's only f/2.8 for exposure, not Total Light, so your f/2.8 is going to be noisier on aps-c (sensor dependent of course.) There's a lot of shooting where you want every last drop of subject isolation from your f/2.8 constant. - you can use a zoom in situations you may have needed to reach for a prime before.

It looks like the classic validation of the APS-C advantage with longer focal lengths. The traditional challenge for 35mm film photographers with lenses over 150mm has been adequate DOF (accurate focus is a huge challenge) and low light capabilities. You can have one or the other, but not both.

Personally I don't see a 'reach' advantage (pixel-density considered, size/weight/cost, you know the shortcut caveats that = 'reach advantage') to aps-c until you get past 200mm. 50-135 (70-200) is still well within the FF 'advantage' realm, especially when your shooting scenario benefits from a constant-aperture zoom.

That 50-135 would need to be a 50-135 f/1.8 to fully match the FF 70-200 f/2.8.

---------- Post added 08-27-14 at 10:20 AM ----------

Well, I think there is an advantage with your glass. You aren't going to find a 135 to 300mm f4 lens for a full frame camera for 800 dollars, .

You can often find used Sigma 100-300 f4's for about $700 - $900. Fantastic option if that's what you need.

[normhead]

Huh? I can crop my picture if I want.

I could also purchase the Sigma 100-300mm for $650 used on Amazon right now. Or I could purchase a $500 or $600 teleconverter if I require 24 or 36 MP for some strange reason. Or I could do both and get your 450mm F/5.6, and it would still be cheaper than my two lenses right now.

There seems to be a common wisdom around the internetz that APS-C is better for telephoto that hasn't been justified in my experience.

The Sigma 100-300 could be purchased for $650, and use on APS-c as the equivalent to a 150 to 450.
You say better, well better is subjective.
What I say is that 24 Mp APS-c gives you more magnification and greater DoF for less money than an equivalent system on FF.
Not only that the APS_c will give you rester DoF at wider apertures, so you can bump up your shutter speed, shoot at the same F-stop and get more DoF.
I have my A-400 ƒ5.6 which cost me $500, less than the cost of your TC, and gives me more magnification than an FF 600 would give me, and if cropped your D800 would give me 15MP instead of the 24 I get from APS_c.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you think isn't better.

Be nice, you've almost worked your way off my ignore list.

[jsherman999]

Not only that the APS_c will give you rester DoF at wider apertures, so you can bump up your shutter speed, shoot at the same F-stop and get more DoF.

Or simply stop down the FF shot and increase ISO by the equivalent amount to retain brightness (matching noise, shutter speed, image brightness and DOF.)

There is zero advantage in that example for aps-c. aps-c is a sub-set of FF.

[Nicolas06]

Dang, I hate this equivalence stuff! It is so counter-intuitive...Steve

The 50-135 f/2.8 on APSC would be equivalent to an 75-202 f/4.5 in term of deph of field and framing.

As apparently the subject isolation was not said to be a big problem I didn't mention it (using "close" term).

On my side I own this 50-135. Honestly my feeling is the focal lens range is well suited for headshoots and portraiture in general of one person and not especially a full body shoot. Otherwise you need to be too far away. You would prefer a focal lens like 28-35mm on APSC and so 35-50 on FF...

But if you do an headshoot with this 50-135 using f/2.8 you really isolate your subject, in particular as the focal lens grows. It even begin to be a real problem, past 100mm, I'd rather stop down to f/4 or f/5.6 to have all the subject in focus... And still the background will be pleasantly blurred.

Wider apperture than f/2.8 for me are usefull but not that mandatory for long focal lenses, even on APSC. Of course everyone is free to have it's own opinion on this topic.

[Nicolas06]

Personally I don't see a 'reach' advantage (pixel-density considered, size/weight/cost, you know the shortcut caveats that = 'reach advantage') to aps-c until you get past 200mm. 50-135 (70-200) is still well within the FF 'advantage' realm, especially when your shooting scenario benefits from a constant-aperture zoom.

That 50-135 would need to be a 50-135 f/1.8 to fully match the FF 70-200 f/2.8.

What would I ever want that? I mean thoses 70-200 are bulky and heavy. I consider my 50-135 to be already too big and past 100mm the f/2.8 is already anoying, not enough deph of field. I would prefer an 50-135 f/2.8-4 to with only 2/3 of the size and 2/3 of the weight, that would be far better. f/1.8 can be interresting, but not really past 100mm, and it is in no way mandatory.

In the meantime I decided to replace that 50-135 with an FA77... I get the f/1.8, the better rendering, color and all of a prime, and I get a lighter and smaller bag. I don't feel that treatened by my APSC gear.

Where I see more use for shallow deph of field is for an 35mm f/1.4 on FF... There 24mm f/1.4 available on APSC (thanks to samyang not even that expensive) but this is really pushing the limit due to the short focal lens.


An example of the terrible far too huge deph of field of low quality you get out that lens at f/11... yeah you read it right... f/11:


*IMGP8168 by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr

And here f/4:


IMGP2753 by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr

How anyone with any sense of photographic skill would use so stopped down appertures and prey to get an FF ? Arg that mean... I'am doomed, I'am doomed. My photo exibit far toooooooooo much deph of field :'(

For sure, APSC is you don't have at least f/1.8, you are doomed.

And look at that terrible softness at f/2.8... That's barelly usable... I think that what they say on review sites.


IMGP2758 by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr