Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-09-2019, 05:39 AM - 2 Likes   #226
Forum Member
brettday's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Bridge Creek, Oklahoma
Photos: Albums
Posts: 86
The difference is not as pronounced as it used to be. APS-C cameras are incredible machines these days. I am a gear reviewer for a large website and get to play with, and get to review all the latest and greatest, and really it can be hard to tell formats apart unless you really pixel peep now. At the end of the day shoot with what makes you happy. All formats have the pros and cons, and if you are shooting professionally you'll know that your client doesn't care what camera was used. It's only our selves and other photographers who care about that, and even then the difference can be hard to see.

Here are three images. One is APS-C (Fujifilm X-T3), one is Full Frame (Pentax K1 II), and one is Medium Format (Fujifilm GFX 50R) that I have captured. Can you tell the difference without looking at EXIF?

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
X-T3  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-1 Mark II  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
GFX 50R  Photo 
05-09-2019, 06:07 AM - 1 Like   #227
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
I've never seen anything to make me suspect the difference is anything more than confirmation bias. My best landscapes for the last two years have been taken with the K-1 because for the most part, I only shot landscapes with the K-1. My best bird/wildlife images have been taken with the K-3, even though I use both cameras for those images. Higher fps means more keepers, especially with birds.

I enjoy seeing everyone's opinions, but as usual, I don't change my own opinions because of other people's opinions, I care more about why people hold those opinions and FF vs APS-c is fraught with a lot of gushing and not much else.
05-09-2019, 07:17 AM - 1 Like   #228
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Boston,MA
Posts: 258
Why are FF images so much more pleasing than APS-C?
Why are 645 images so much more pleasing than full frame?
Why are 67 images so much more pleasing than 645?
Why are 4x5 images so much more pleasing than 67?
Why are 8x10 images so much more pleasing than 4x5?

I just worry about subject, light and composition, format is not important

Last edited by blan01; 05-09-2019 at 07:23 AM.
05-09-2019, 07:28 AM   #229
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by blan01 Quote
Why are FF images so much more pleasing than APS-C?
Why are 645 images so much more pleasing than full frame?
Why are 67 images so much more pleasing than 645?
Why are 4x5 images so much more pleasing than 67?
Why are 8x10 images so much more pleasing than 4x5?
You could answer that buy noting every time you increase format size, it takes more skill to get the images.

But to start at the top.
Why are APS-c images so much better than FF images?

The portability of the camera and long lens is so much lighter, many FF images that would require setting up tripod can be hand held with APS-c. There is nothing in the larger format that competes with a K-3 with a 55-300 on it. What do you need for good images? "Be there and ƒ8." There are a lot of instances where with a larger format you won't be there. The frame rate on APS-c is so much faster than on 36 MP FF you get more poses, more good images to choose from.

Redpoll


PIne Siskin


How is the FF image better?

I guess I'm somewhat of an anomaly in that I didn't sell my K-3 to get my K-1. I still shoot both. Using the K-1 for what the K-3 does best always leads to disappointment, missed shots because my buffer is full, and impatience because the slow fps is missing poses. And my APS-c images seem to be just as good as my K-1 images. When watching a slideshow on the 4k TV, you'd need program to know which was which.

I'm absolutely certain that way too often soomne gets a great shot with one system and claims the other couldn't have done it, without a comparison shot from the other system to see that's true. I've many times show with both my K-1 and K-3 in a situation and uploaded the files to flickr and had to look at the exif to know which image was shot with which camera. I've many times looked for an image to demonstrate a point, found the image I wanted, only to read the exif and discover it's a K-3 image, not a K-1 image or vice versa. Folks shooting one system, never experience that. I'm odd in that I often had both my K-1 and my K-3 with me, and in some cases if I need wider field of view just change camera bodies instead of changing lenses. So, I've built up lot's of experience when sorting images for various threads like the K-3 thread and the K-1 thread. I've been crossed up way to many time to believe there's much difference.

I wish there was more difference. Way to often I've posted a k-1 image in the K-3 thread or a K-3 image in the K-1 because I honestly believed it was taken with the other camera, then I have to edit the thread.

I'm quite happy to concede you can get a lot more information into a larger format file. But APS-c and FF are too close together to have marked differences. I suspect that's why there are so few images showing K-1 images are better. Even 4/3 images and K-1 images don't show marked differences. My 1:1.23 images show a marked difference compared to both APS-c and FF. But FF and APS_c are almost two peas in a pod.


Last edited by normhead; 05-09-2019 at 07:46 AM.
05-09-2019, 09:03 AM   #230
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by blan01 Quote
Why are FF images so much more pleasing than APS-C?
Why are 645 images so much more pleasing than full frame?
Why are 67 images so much more pleasing than 645?
Why are 4x5 images so much more pleasing than 67?
Why are 8x10 images so much more pleasing than 4x5?

I just worry about subject, light and composition, format is not important
Apparently you haven't shot with larger formats.
Don't use instagram sized images on a small screen as your comparison unless all you are going after is confirmation bias.
05-09-2019, 09:21 AM - 1 Like   #231
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteQuote:
Apparently you haven't shot with larger formats.
Don't use instagram sized images on a small screen as your comparison unless all you are going after is confirmation bias.
I use the largest format I'm likely to use, that would be 3840 x 2160. I fail to see how going to a 72 x48 print would be anything but another type of confirmation bias. No one has ever defined how big you have to print to see a difference. But I have K-3 images printed at 42x30. In my 2 or 3 years with a K-1 I have no images printed at that size to even compare with. If the subject light and composition aren't there, no one cares if you can print wall sized mural with it. And I've seen wall sized murals shot with lower MP smaller format sensors that are impressive. The claims of needing a larger format are tempered by the fact that the larger the format, the more care it takes to produce a presentable image and that only small percentage of the images taken will it matter what format they were taken with. The claims of large format being better are largely predicated on the photographer having the skill to take advantage of that format, and the ability to get to environments where large format will make a difference. It's pretty rare a photographer will meet those criteria. Hence the whole concept of "there's no advantage to large format." For most of us there isn't, and for most of the people who claim they can make use of large format, they're deluding themselves.

Mike Oria (MIkeSF) can. But for most of us, if we read what Mike does we aren't going to do that.
mikeSF_ | Flickr

I can't think of another large format shooter on the forum I'd even recommend as an example.
Large format is for exceptional people who go to through exceptional efforts to get their photographs and want the best possible result. Of the 60,000 or whatever shooters on the forum, I can think of one or two for whom it might be worth it.

For most of us, large format would just be a waste of money. We don't put in the effort to get the images that would make it worth our while, and we don't take the types of images for which large format might be a benefit.

Now if you wanted to say "For maybe .0005% of camera owners, large format cameras are better" I'm with you.

Last edited by normhead; 05-09-2019 at 09:38 AM.
05-09-2019, 10:05 AM   #232
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Boston,MA
Posts: 258
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You could answer that buy noting every time you increase format size, it takes more skill to get the images.

But to start at the top.
Why are APS-c images so much better than FF images?

The portability of the camera and long lens is so much lighter, many FF images that would require setting up tripod can be hand held with APS-c. There is nothing in the larger format that competes with a K-3 with a 55-300 on it. What do you need for good images? "Be there and ƒ8." There are a lot of instances where with a larger format you won't be there. The frame rate on APS-c is so much faster than on 36 MP FF you get more poses, more good images to choose from.

Redpoll


PIne Siskin


How is the FF image better?

I guess I'm somewhat of an anomaly in that I didn't sell my K-3 to get my K-1. I still shoot both. Using the K-1 for what the K-3 does best always leads to disappointment, missed shots because my buffer is full, and impatience because the slow fps is missing poses. And my APS-c images seem to be just as good as my K-1 images. When watching a slideshow on the 4k TV, you'd need program to know which was which.

I'm absolutely certain that way too often soomne gets a great shot with one system and claims the other couldn't have done it, without a comparison shot from the other system to see that's true. I've many times show with both my K-1 and K-3 in a situation and uploaded the files to flickr and had to look at the exif to know which image was shot with which camera. I've many times looked for an image to demonstrate a point, found the image I wanted, only to read the exif and discover it's a K-3 image, not a K-1 image or vice versa. Folks shooting one system, never experience that. I'm odd in that I often had both my K-1 and my K-3 with me, and in some cases if I need wider field of view just change camera bodies instead of changing lenses. So, I've built up lot's of experience when sorting images for various threads like the K-3 thread and the K-1 thread. I've been crossed up way to many time to believe there's much difference.

I wish there was more difference. Way to often I've posted a k-1 image in the K-3 thread or a K-3 image in the K-1 because I honestly believed it was taken with the other camera, then I have to edit the thread.

I'm quite happy to concede you can get a lot more information into a larger format file. But APS-c and FF are too close together to have marked differences. I suspect that's why there are so few images showing K-1 images are better. Even 4/3 images and K-1 images don't show marked differences. My 1:1.23 images show a marked difference compared to both APS-c and FF. But FF and APS_c are almost two peas in a pod.
Agree, and I do believe in "f8 and be there"

05-09-2019, 10:29 AM - 1 Like   #233
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,304
QuoteOriginally posted by brettday Quote
The difference is not as pronounced as it used to be. APS-C cameras are incredible machines these days. I am a gear reviewer for a large website and get to play with, and get to review all the latest and greatest, and really it can be hard to tell formats apart unless you really pixel peep now. At the end of the day shoot with what makes you happy. All formats have the pros and cons, and if you are shooting professionally you'll know that your client doesn't care what camera was used. It's only our selves and other photographers who care about that, and even then the difference can be hard to see.

Here are three images. One is APS-C (Fujifilm X-T3), one is Full Frame (Pentax K1 II), and one is Medium Format (Fujifilm GFX 50R) that I have captured. Can you tell the difference without looking at EXIF?
Wow! I had them in the correct order! I formulated my thinking/observations before checking the exif this was my thinking:
  • I immediately thought the first one was apsc. For me you can usually tell smaller formats by crunched up colours, it's hard to explain but is more obvious when comparing really tiny sensors. Small formats feel less airy.
  • The second two I had to compare. I wasn't very sure but I don't' think I've seen that sort of airy wide framing look so relaxe((iq wise) on FF. Comparing the two I decided the last one was the largest format.

You can ruin a medium format photo in PP so that it looks like a apsc shot. Heavy handed PP will do this and I've seen examples of it. I'm an apsc shooter myself but have been intrigued by larger formats for a while. I usually want deep dof but feel that larger formats have advantages beyond dof control, a relaxed quality.
05-09-2019, 10:40 AM - 4 Likes   #234
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by blan01 Quote
Agree, and I do believe in "f8 and be there"
With really large format that would be "ƒ64 and be there". With APS-c it would be "ƒ5.6 and be there". With my 1.23 sensors that would be "ƒ2.8 and be there." I guess "be there" is the thing common to all of them.

Last edited by normhead; 05-09-2019 at 11:26 AM.
05-09-2019, 11:08 AM   #235
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Boston,MA
Posts: 258
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Apparently you haven't shot with larger formats.
Don't use instagram sized images on a small screen as your comparison unless all you are going after is confirmation bias.
Apparently I have shot half frame,135,6×45,6×6,6×7 and 4×5, but if "larger format" is 8×10, then you got me.
Apparently I don't judge images by Instagram, and I don't know why you assume I do,

My point is that the content on the negative, is way more interesting than the size of that negative.
05-09-2019, 11:53 AM   #236
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by blan01 Quote
Apparently I have shot half frame,135,6×45,6×6,6×7 and 4×5, but if "larger format" is 8×10, then you got me.
Apparently I don't judge images by Instagram, and I don't know why you assume I do,

My point is that the content on the negative, is way more interesting than the size of that negative.
Your point has nothing to do with the topic, which is about the technical advantages of larger formats over smaller ones. By saying you don't see any technical advantage, it was a pretty safe bet that you are a one small format shooter, or that you judged everything by reducing it to the lowest quality possible, instagram being the great equalizer.
Brettday's post above is an example of reducing things to the point that technical advantages are not as pronounced. carried to the logical extreme, we could reduce the size of every image to 1x1 pixel to show that there were no advantages of one format over another.
How you can say you've shot multiple formats and say you can't see any technical advantage of a larger one over a smaller one gives rise to another set of questions, one of which would be is Helen Keller your real name?

I'm not debating with you about content trumping format, that is a given. A garbage image is a garbage image no matter how big the medium, but this thread isn't about that.

Last edited by Wheatfield; 05-09-2019 at 12:01 PM.
05-09-2019, 12:23 PM   #237
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Your point has nothing to do with the topic, which is about the technical advantages of larger formats over smaller ones. By saying you don't see any technical advantage, it was a pretty safe bet that you are a one small format shooter, or that you judged everything by reducing it to the lowest quality possible, instagram being the great equalizer.
Brettday's post above is an example of reducing things to the point that technical advantages are not as pronounced. carried to the logical extreme, we could reduce the size of every image to 1x1 pixel to show that there were no advantages of one format over another.
How you can say you've shot multiple formats and say you can't see any technical advantage of a larger one over a smaller one gives rise to another set of questions, one of which would be is Helen Keller your real name?

I'm not debating with you about content trumping format, that is a given. A garbage image is a garbage image no matter how big the medium, but this thread isn't about that.
At times there are technical advantages to using smaller formats, increased DoF at wider apertures, faster FPS and faster buffer clearing. Whether there are technical advantages to FF depends on which part of the technical spectrum you focus on. The point is, for 99.995% percent of shooters, all images are reduced to the size to where there are no technical advantages of one over the other. How can you claim to have used multiple formats, and not know that every format has it's technical strengths and weaknesses?

Most of the large format advocates have made less than 5 large scale images, many just say they will some day. "I need large format.", is largely a poser opinion. I guess we could say "Wheatfield's post is an example of enlarging technical advantages to the point that no one will ever see them in the real world although they might be visible on prints over 100 inches wide, with "might" being the operative word.

I simply will not even entertain the notion of the technical advantages of larger formats until the image is expanded past 1:1 at 109 DPI, my favourite resolution for post processing. That's 55 inches wide fir a K-3 image. So if you want to say for prints over 55" a K-1 has technical advantages over a K-3, you might have a point. I say "might", because until someone does the work that demonstrates it, it's a claim of dubious merit. I have no idea how a K-3 image expanded with good software would compare to a K-3 image. In my 10 years of digital photography, I've never had cause to do that. Like most people.

My expanded to 16x20 (expanded to 360 DPI) K-3 ice images look pretty much the same as my Expanded to 360 DPI K-1 ice images. The difference n the number of pixels from side to side is about 17%. I can't tell the difference from looking at the printed images, only by looking up the files. That's my experience. If you have different experiences, please share. We wait with baited breath.

I'm waiting to hear at what size the image has to be before the FF advantage is observable in blind testing. I've been waiting since the D800 came out and the FF gushers started making these kinds of claims. All I know is shooting both APS-c and FF, the camera used to take the picture probably doesn't make much difference to how much I like the picture. I keep hoping to find a credible source that can present the information that would make me see it differently. But a 17% difference in the photographic world, where differences are measured in halves and doubles is about 67% short of what it needs to be to make compelling argument theoretically.

We are waiting here, everyone talking about the FF magic. Someone show us something we can see. It's been done for 4/3 and FF, on a cameraville video and they saw almost no difference. And you guys are advocating for FF over APS-c. I find that interesting. But I still haven't seen anything that suggests that's more than confirmation bias. That's what I found examining my own work. Serious confirmation bias with nothing to back it up.

Last edited by normhead; 05-09-2019 at 12:48 PM.
05-09-2019, 02:27 PM   #238
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,304
Norm, I correctly picked the sensor size from low res images in the above blind test. Its just one data point and I won't promise 100% hit rate but there are qualities that sometimes are visible at smaller sizes.
05-09-2019, 02:43 PM - 1 Like   #239
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by house Quote
Norm, I correctly picked the sensor size from low res images in the above blind test. Its just one data point and I won't promise 100% hit rate but there are qualities that sometimes are visible at smaller sizes.
More lack of qualities that are visible at smaller sizes
Seriously, smaller formats have their place, but they usually involve some sort of compromise of quality. M43 is nice because long telephoto lenses are still pretty small, for example. APS-C is a good compromise for extending telephoto lenses while still maintaining pretty good image quality, and is a step above M43. 35mm is a good quality compromise between M43/APS-C and 645, the cameras and lenses are still manageable, and the IQ is definitely several rungs up the ladder, and on and on.
And of course, there is that old money issue.
I would love a 645 and a dozen lenses, but the money part puts it out of my reach.
05-09-2019, 03:16 PM   #240
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
More lack of qualities that are visible at smaller sizes

I would love a 645 and a dozen lenses, but the money part puts it out of my reach.
For me the money, but also the weight.

---------- Post added 05-09-19 at 06:17 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by house Quote
Norm, I correctly picked the sensor size from low res images in the above blind test. Its just one data point and I won't promise 100% hit rate but there are qualities that sometimes are visible at smaller sizes.
I'm not going for that unless I have exact copies of the same scene from the same place and time. We all tend to shoot a scene using the strengths of the camera involved. I would also go for at least 10 images, to reduce the odds of a blind luck. It's also possible that it's the composition that gives away the format, not the actual camera system. You can almost count on smaller sizes for more DoF at the same f-stop, but that's correctable.

Last edited by normhead; 05-09-2019 at 03:21 PM.
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 11:58 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