[normhead]

These threads will go away when people stop preaching the superiority of one format over another. The Nikon and Canon users will stop posting here... they seem to think because they have full frames they are some kind of gift to photography.. and we'll have lots of Pentax FF shooters, who will actually talk about Pentax full frames, not endless threads about other manufacturers gear.

The only things worth knowing APS-c to FF is when you're better off using an FF and when you're better off using APS-c. Some dude who says FF is always better than APS-c is pretty much useless for that. Not that we know anyone like that.

[Paul MaudDib]

A. Portability of bodies and lenses. A camera that needs a car for transport is of less use for extensive walking shoots, such as street shooters, hikers, airport travelers, etc.

There's no practical difference in weight between APS-C and FF, given equivalent lenses (quality, speed, field of view). As an example consider the APS-C Nikkor 35/1.8 (197g) vs the FF 50/1.8 (157g) - the full frame lens is actually lighter by a fair margin. It's pretty much down to the optical design and build quality of the individual lens.

Same thing in bodies - the design features matter way more than the sensor size. With no lenses mounted, an APS-C MILC (NEX-5N) is 287g, a FF MILC (Sony A7) is 474g, and an APS-C DSLR (Pentax K-3) is 800g - meaning the APS-C DSLR is almost double the weight of "a full frame camera". Don't even bother looking at the dimensions, you know how that's gonna play out.

A small difference in image diagonal is totally overwhelmed by the other design choices here. Lenses that try to be fast AND sharp, or fast superzooms, etc are simply going to be big and heavy no matter the format (see: APS-C Sigma 18-35 f/1.8). And if you want to design tiny pancake lenses that's possible too, regardless of format, it just needs to be a design goal (see: the FF Pentax Ltd lenses). Similarly it's possible to make a light, compact MILC body regardless of sensor size, or to make a huge DSLR with a smaller sensor - they just have different design goals.

[normhead]

There's no practical difference in weight between APS-C and FF, given equivalent lenses (quality, speed, field of view). As an example consider the APS-C Nikkor 35/1.8 (197g) vs the FF 50/1.8 (157g) - the full frame lens is actually lighter by a fair margin. A 20% difference in image diagonal doesn't make a measurable difference in anything, it's more or less down to the individual lens design and build quality.

Dude, with all due respect you're delusional. 40 grams is not " a fair margin" in anybody's book, except ridiculous FF apologists trying to make a point. Over the years we've become accustomed to the Full Frame propaganda. OK, I'll give you another chance which is lighter, a DA*300 ƒ4 or a purchased a Nikon 400mm f/5.6 ED-IF AIS

I purchased a Nikon 400mm f/5.6 ED-IF AIS lens last month. I could have purchased an 80-400 f/5.6 AF lens, but it was too heavy for my needs. The 400mm just barely got under the wire in terms of weight (I was mounting it on a unit that can only accept 4.7 pounds max. including camera). Anyway, as a test I took a hand held picture just to see what the resolution was like with the D700.

Nikon 400mm f/5.6 ED-IF AIS lens: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Pentax DA*300 ƒ4... 2.3 pounds. If 40 grams is "a fair margin" 2 pounds is astronomical, mind boggling, out of this world crazy, stupendous, incomprehensible,

Come on now, prove you're not a troll, and own up to the fact that for many shooters APS_c is a huge advantage, and for some shooters, APS-c might be a minor disadvantage, in terms of weight. Or stick to your guns and look like a troll. Your choice

[Paul MaudDib]

Dude, with all due respect you're delusional. 40 grams is not " a fair margin" in anybody's book, except ridiculous FF apologists trying to make a point.

The FF equivalent is 25% lighter than the APS-C lens if you want to look at it in relative terms. I agree that it's not a big difference in absolute weight, but it does show that FF isn't necessarily heavier. It's more the design features that determine weight. For another example - Sigma 18-35 is 805g, Sigma 24-70 weight: 790g. Again, the FF lens is lighter, despite a longer zoom range.

I think it's important to be precise about what exactly you mean by "lighter" when you say that - as well as consistent. Is saving 500g (70% weight reduction) by switching from a K-3 to a MILC-type APS-C body "significant"? Is that a thing you'd advocate?

Over the years we've become accustomed to the Full Frame propaganda. OK, I'll give you another chance which is lighter, a DA*300 ƒ4 or a purchased a Nikon 400mm f/5.6 ED-IF AIS

Ok, let's talk long lenses. No mixing systems, there's too much difference in build quality and stuff.

A Pentax-DA 300/4 is 1070g. A Pentax-FA 400/5.6 is 1140g. Total difference: 70g. A 6% weight savings.

---

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 09-23-2014 at 03:25 PM.

[normhead]

Hey I gave you a chance....and you compare a modern AF internal focus lens with 30 year old A lens. Have you no shame?

Hey, how about... DA*300 ƒ4 1000 kgs and a Nikon 400 2.8... 3800 grams...

Almost 3 KGs more, that's 6 freakin pounds... , 300% more weight, if you have to do percentage..
Now that's a difference. Oh yea and over $13,000 more with tax.

But lets keep it all with Pentax... 21 ltd... 134 grams...
Pentax 31 ltd... 346 grams...

One again close to 300% more weight, and you were talking about 6% more weight, what were you thinking?

See the thing is, despite your nonsense, APS-c shooters, shooting Pentax, can avoid weight by shooting APS-c because of their excellent line up of APS-c glass. Can you twist the numbers by picking specific lenses that support your argument? Of course you can, as a teacher, I can devise a test that will fail every student, but what will that prove? Exactly what your cherry picked examples prove. Do they reflect anyone's actual shooting experience? Probably not.

I know.. it's tough being a propagandist, you can end up looking like such a fool.

[Paul MaudDib]

Hey I gave you a chance....and you compare a modern AF internal focus lens with 30 year old A lens. Have you no shame?

No, I compared a modern AF internal focus lens against a modern AF internal focus lens. The Pentax-FA 400/5.6 ED IF lens there slugger - release date 1997. 70 grams (6%) savings moving to the 300mm APS-C equivalent of that lens. Meanwhile the lens you chose to compare against? Literally a 30 year old manual focus Nikon lens.

What's really shameless here is you - you don't know the first thing about the lenses you're talking about (lol), you don't even know your own camera system's lineup (seriously lol), and yet you keep trying to lay out sick ice burns accusing me of making the mistakes you're making in literally the same post.

Take a chill pill, Phil. Why are you so convinced that APS-C is the One True Format? A bit emotionally invested maybe?

---------- Post added 09-23-2014 at 05:54 PM ----------

Hey I gave you a chance....and you compare a modern AF internal focus lens with 30 year old A lens. Have you no shame?

Hey, how about... DA*300 ƒ4 1000 kgs and a Nikon 400 2.8... 3800 grams...

Oh, cool, you edited your post. So now the Nikon lens needs to be full format AND a full stop faster, because reasons. Totally intellectually honest reasons.

The FF lens can actually be 1 stop slower and have equivalent depth of field, and can bump the ISO by 1 stop (with equivalent quality) to make up the shutter speed difference. In the (reasonably fair) comparison you originally made - the Nikkor 400/5.6 - we're talking a grand total difference of 130g. That's your "APS-C advantage" right there - 1/3 of a can of soda. Or less, if you shoot the Pentax FA* version instead of a heavy old Nikkor.

That's your comparison there, by the way. It's a reasonably fair one, but 70g isn't much of a difference - as you yourself just noted. Doesn't really support your argument.

See the thing is, despite your nonsense, APS-c shooters, shooting Pentax, can avoid weight by shooting APS-c because of their excellent line up of APS-c glass. Can you twist the numbers by picking specific lenses that support your argument? Of course you can, as a teacher, I can devise a test that will fail every student, but what will that prove? Exactly what your cherry picked examples prove. Do they reflect anyone's actual shooting experience? Probably not.

I know.. it's tough being a propagandist, you can end up looking like such a fool.

It's really funny that you are slinging around words like "nonsense" when you accidentally realize that your argument didn't work and you need to compare a slow APS-C lens against a faster FF lens in order to make it work. Who's the fool here?

I can clearly tell you have some experience at cherry picking from your revised argument, no need to convince me. Just let me know when you settle on your final argument so I can address it once instead of perpetually moving the goalposts.

[ElJamoquio]

These threads will go away when people stop preaching the superiority of one format over another. The Nikon and Canon users will stop posting here... they seem to think because they have full frames they are some kind of gift to photography.. and we'll have lots of Pentax FF shooters, who will actually talk about Pentax full frames, not endless threads about other manufacturers gear.

The only things worth knowing APS-c to FF is when you're better off using an FF and when you're better off using APS-c. Some dude who says FF is always better than APS-c is pretty much useless for that. Not that we know anyone like that.

OMG, some people use more than one brand of camera.

---------- Post added 09-23-14 at 03:42 PM ----------

Dude, with all due respect you're delusional. 40 grams is not " a fair margin" in anybody's book, except ridiculous FF apologists trying to make a point. Over the years we've become accustomed to the Full Frame propaganda. OK, I'll give you another chance which is lighter, a DA*300 ƒ4 or a purchased a Nikon 400mm f/5.6 ED-IF AIS



Pentax DA*300 ƒ4... 2.3 pounds. If 40 grams is "a fair margin" 2 pounds is astronomical, mind boggling, out of this world crazy, stupendous, incomprehensible,

Come on now, prove you're not a troll, and own up to the fact that for many shooters APS_c is a huge advantage, and for some shooters, APS-c might be a minor disadvantage, in terms of weight. Or stick to your guns and look like a troll. Your choice

40 grams lighter, cheaper, and over a stop faster in equivalent terms. You're right, that's way more than a fair margin.

Some people get banned for calling other people trolls, norm. Just a little FYI.

[normhead]

My apologies, I thought you said a A-400, but the FA* is not a modern lens, not as corrected as any moderne lens, has only 9 elements, has terrible CA and is only sharp stopped down, and not available, it's also pre-digital. (But you know everything about Pentax glass, so you knew that.) I was trying to keep the argument to lenses that are currently available. , so ya, you're still wrong.

It's really funny that you are slinging around words like "nonsense" when you accidentally realize that your argument didn't work and you need to compare a slow APS-C lens against a faster FF lens in order to make it work. Who's the fool here?

Actually I'm still quite impressed with my argument... funny how you can't snow a guy who understands what he's talking about. Talking about Cherry picking, where did you have to go to find the weight of an FA* 400 5.6, too funny. There's a lens that should be in every conversation.

The FF lens can actually be 1 stop slower and have equivalent depth of field. In the (reasonably fair) comparison you originally made - the Nikkor 400/5.6 - we're talking a grand total difference of 130g. That's your "APS-C advantage" right there - 1/3 of a can of soda. Or less, if you shoot the Pentax FA* version instead of a heavy old Nikkor.

Really, 40 grams when it's in favour of FF is a "fair margin " but 130 grams is "1/3 rd of a can of soda". Do you even read through your own posts to see how biased you are?

Even when you cherry pick the examples, you still don't prove FF is lighter.

Ok do us all a favour... you provide the examples. Find a typical set of lenses that a Pentax shooter would use.

Say for me, APS-c 21 ƒ3.2 ltd (140 gm), 35mm 2.4 ( 124g) 40 Xs ƒ2.8 (52 gm) , FA 50 ƒ1.8 (170 gm) , FDA*100 ƒ2.8 (340 grams) DA* 60-250 ƒ4 (1120 grams)...

Total weight 1946 grams. Total with camera 2746 grams (with battery in camera).

OK, come up with 6 equivalent Full frame lenses.. and camera , covering 30mm to 400mm, one with macro, that weighs less. Apparently it's easy.

The FF equivalent is 25% lighter than the APS-C lens if you want to look at it in relative terms. I agree that it's not a big difference in absolute weight, but it does show that FF isn't necessarily heavier. It's more the design features that determine weight. For another example - Sigma 18-35 is 805g, Sigma 24-70 weight: 790g. Again, the FF lens is lighter.

Quit your cherry picking, come up with a 6 lens system in the appropriate range that weighs less. I don't buy the narrow DoF thing, so same Aperture would be nice. The system for the widest DoF has the advantage for my works. Light for AF is more important than DoF for my work. All lenses currently available, make me a lighter FF system.

Consider it a challenge...

And please, stop making me laugh.

[jsherman999]

Hey, how about... DA*300 ƒ4 1000 kgs and a Nikon 400 2.8... 3800 grams...

Why are you comparing to a lens that's both longer and a full stop faster now?

But lets keep it all with Pentax... 21 ltd... 134 grams...
Pentax 31 ltd... 346 grams...

... and quite a bit faster, both in f-stop and especially in equivalent terms. But you're being consistent in your error!

See the thing is, despite your nonsense, APS-c shooters, shooting Pentax, can avoid weight by shooting APS-c because of their excellent line up of APS-c glass.

The sad thing is that a lot of long-time Pentax shooters who are really interested in saving size-weight are getting that fix with a new Fuji/Samsung/Oly/Panasonic/Sony MILC kit. That's really the way to save weight... if that's what you're after. DSLR kits, aps-c or FF, are all 'big' compared to that.

If Ricoh fully understands & admits this *and* is still interested in selling K-mount - and it sounds like maybe, finally, they are on both counts - we'll see an FF option from them.

From a shooter's perspective (That's you!) you'll finally have the option of seeing/using first hand what you're so shrilly, angrily opposed to. Relax, Norm, equivalence has been waiting for you this whole time, ready to welcome you into its warm embrace...

.

[normhead]

I'm with you there Jay, I'm interested in the coming Pentax FF, but what would fit in my bag would be a Sony A7r. As for shooting FF, I probably shot 15,000 FF frames in film, some of my favourite images were shot in FF, and I've also shot MF and large format. I don't know why you think you know something I don't. The difference between me and you is, I know how to get what i need done in APS-c, apparently you still don't think it's possible.

But, I'm not convinced the added resolution (36 M) adds any value to my images, a 645z kicks any Full Frames butt.. so a Full Frame is actually at a disadvantage for big res and low light photographers..

So it looks like even if I get an FF it might be a Sony. It's really the only thing I believe I'd actually carry. For me, portability beats everything else, and you can't beat APS-c for sellable quality and portability.

Which gets us back too, anyone want to build me an FF system that's lighter than my APS-c system? I'm still waiting.

[jsherman999]

As for shooting FF, I probably shot 15,000 FF frames in film,

I'm at around 90,000 frames with aps-c and around 60,000 frames with FF.

The difference between me and you is, I know how to get what i need done in APS-c, apparently you still don't think it's possible.

Oh, I think I can claim to know what's possible.

And it's almost never about making an impossible shot... it's usually about getting the typical shots easier/better.

[normhead]

And that depends how you define easier and better. As pointed out many times, if I shot what you like to shoot and you shot what I like to shoot, we'd probably switch sides of the fence. At least that's the way I see it. I just don't get much opportunity to shoot much narrow DoF, and just don't prefer that style. Richard Avedon's "everything in focus in perfect light" on a white background is more my portrait ideal. To me APS-c is perfect, and makes what I do easier. I see absolutely no evidence you get typical shots easier. I raise the camera I focus, i shoot. What could be easier? 90% of the time, that's all I do.

Now where is that dude who's telling me how to make a lighter than APS-c weight FF system for my landscape/wildlife business?

[Rondec]

It is really tough to compare Pentax lenses to other brand's full frame lenses because there aren't "equivalent options" except with really long lenses. Nikon doesn't make a 22mm f6 or, a 33mm f5.6. If they did, I would expect them to be an equivalent size. The smallest lens you will get in a k mount is a 40mm lens, due to the registration distance. The DA 40 is awfully small and probably somewhat full frame compatible, albeit with poor corner performance. Pentax has light, small lenses because their lenses are slow. I'm OK with that, but obviously some people aren't.

In the end, assuming the same mount, equivalent full frame lenses should have equivalent size (with regard to front element) to APS-C lenses, but should be a longer. Depending on lens design, some may weigh more or less. The limiteds have metal construction which will make them weigh more than some of the full frame plastic fantastics out there. Having an APS-C specific mount might save some weight -- the k mount is a full frame mount, whether or not you mount a full frame compatible lens on it.

All this is assuming you need equivalent lenses. If you are OK with a 15mm f4 lens, then maybe you don't need a 20mm f2.8 lens for full frame. But these are choices that we each make.

[normhead]

Ya, I just want useful kit.... and I'm a landscape guy, I only use 2.8 for macro. I'm arguing that Pentax builds their lenses with a purpose, and that purpose is guys like me. I know they can't match everything, just propose an alternative system with the same Apertures settings. I don't care about equivalence.

[osv]

Ya, I just want useful kit.... and I'm a landscape guy, I only use 2.8 for macro. I'm arguing that Pentax builds their lenses with a purpose, and that purpose is guys like me. I know they can't match everything, just propose an alternative system with the same Apertures settings. I don't care about equivalence.

and you also don't care about resolution, d.r., latitude, color depth, and all the other ways that full frame 36mp blows away your crippled crop sensor pentax.

you claim that you want a light rig, but you'd rather lug that heavy pig of dslr around, instead of mounting pentax glass on an a7r.

it's comical!!

---------- Post added 09-23-2014 at 07:47 PM ----------

Pentax has light, small lenses because their lenses are slow.

that's the same approach that sony was taking for the fe mount primes, and they have taken a lot of heat for it.

the fe 35/2.8 weighs 120g.
the fe 55/1.8 weighs 281g.

Smc PENTAX DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited weighs 215g.
Smc PENTAX DA Star 55mm F1.4 SDM weighs 375g.

so pentax is quite a bit heavier than full frame sony... but don't tell poor normhead, it'll just get him confused