Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-09-2014, 08:12 PM   #91
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
Many people who move into MF or LF cameras use their dslr for a light meter or use an app for their smart phone.
I'd say only people who grew up with digital only and still need to preview their shots. No way I'd ever haul around a DSLR for a light meter. Totally lame, really.

10-09-2014, 08:41 PM   #92
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Okay, fair enough. Anyone currently shooting APS-c and considering a switch to FF needs to take into account the .66 crop factor when converting the 24x36 to the APS-c equivalent. (90mm on 24x36 x .66 =60mm on APS-c.)
In other words, we should all be obsessing about APS-c equivalent, not "FF" equivalent.
That's perfectly fine!

Equivalence doesn't require or even accept a 'standard reference.' It's just a method to compare between formats - literally any two formats. And you are free to choose which one you personally use for the 'standard', the one your minds-eye is most used to.

In fact what you're suggesting is kinda what I did - I never shot film, I started with aps-c DSLR (well, after a short, horrid experience with P&S) so that was my 'standard' and I really did the conversions the other way in my head. It doesn't change any relationships, but it may give you a more comfortable way of approaching them.

I'm pretty convinced that a third of the people who hate the word 'equivalence' think it means some vague variation of "everything must conform to 35mm standards." That's not what it is.

Another third of the haters hate it because they think it's purpose is to prove "FF is better than anything". It most certainly doesn't do that.

The final third hates it because they simply think it gets in the way of shooting, or is completely unnecessary for whatever reason. I certainly disagree with that, although I don't use it for day-day shooting anymore as much as I use it for assessing potential purchases and my use cases for them. (in this way it's kept me from foolishly spending money, so yay equivalence )

I think Kunzite hates it because it doesn't take into account sensor QE, lens bokeh, pixie dust, and doesn't make him breakfast.

I think Normhead hates it because if he thinks about it too much he might end up spending some money he's saving for medium format.

Pal Jensen really, really, really hates it because I think he's afflicted with all of the above.

.
10-09-2014, 09:03 PM   #93
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Marcus, if you're in a studio, and someone with a light meter yells back at you "5.6!", that's what you set both on your K-r and your m4/3.
Wow, they know that without knowing my shutter speed and ISO setting?
10-09-2014, 09:10 PM   #94
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,712
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Wow, they know that without knowing my shutter speed and ISO setting?
Yeah, EJ, in the controlled environment these are set for maximum advantage e.g. ISO 100 and shutter speed 1/180, and for the rest of the session you're just varying the aperture as you move the strobe, pick up the reflector somebody tripped over, the now exhausted model creeps forward of their original mark, etc.


Last edited by clackers; 10-09-2014 at 09:27 PM.
10-09-2014, 09:12 PM   #95
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Car Talk

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Marcus, if you're in a studio, and someone with a light meter yells back at you "5.6!", that's what you set both on your K-r and your m4/3.

And your D810 if you had one.
And assuming you were shooting from the same position and using a FL that gave you the same FOV, your K-r, m4/3 and D810 would all have different DOF, noise, and DR.

Same exposure, but different total light = different images.

QuoteQuote:
There are legitimate reasons for the excitement of Pentax Full Frame Fetishists, this isn't one of them.
Equivalence describes precisely why we would even want Pentax FF, because it describes precisely why the format is even different in the first place.

Saying you want Pentax FF but don't care about equivalence is like saying you want a faster car but don't care about horsepower, vehicle weight, gearing or transmission. These are the reasons the car is faster in the first place***.

(*** I guess it's fully valid to say, "I just want a faster car, I don't need to know why it's faster and car talk bores me anyway so shut up about it." That's very similar to how these Equivalence discussions go too.)



.

Last edited by jsherman999; 10-09-2014 at 09:19 PM.
10-09-2014, 09:19 PM   #96
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
"I just want a faster car, I don't need to know why it's faster and car talk bores me anyway so please stop talking about it on the car-talk-forum...
Fixed it for you...
10-09-2014, 09:23 PM   #97
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,712
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
And assuming you were shooting from the same position and using a FL that gave you the same FOV, your K-r, m4/3 and D810 would all have different DOF, noise, and DR.
Fascinating, JS, that what we have now is a 2.19pm edited version of your response.

But I have the original from you on my phone, which is very FF-parochial, and reads:

"Of course, you could just shoot with one format, too - the D810 - and just stop down 1.2. and then 2 stops to match the K-r and m43 DOF, and about match the noise and DR."

But, of course, then you would be 1.2 and 2 stops underexposed, we have already established that (with great pain) about equivalence ...

Last edited by clackers; 10-09-2014 at 09:31 PM.
10-10-2014, 12:39 AM   #98
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 1,120
Are we still doing this?

10-10-2014, 01:09 AM   #99
Pentaxian
cxdoo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Limassol, Cyprus
Posts: 1,092
I've read a first couple of posts in this thread and said to myself 'nah, this's been chewed over'. Here we are 100 posts later. Most. Successful. Troll. Ever.
10-10-2014, 01:22 AM   #100
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,712
I didn't think Marcus was trolling, Cxdoo.

I thought he was genuinely led astray by an Internet video.
10-10-2014, 01:31 AM   #101
Veteran Member
rburgoss's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 972
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
And assuming you were shooting from the same position and using a FL that gave you the same FOV, your K-r, m4/3 and D810 would all have different DOF, noise, and DR.

Same exposure, but different total light = different images.

Equivalence describes precisely why we would even want Pentax FF, because it describes precisely why the format is even different in the first place.

.
As I remember, this thread started under the statement that "aps-c costs more than one stop relative to full frame"

So, why now you are supporting this argument based on something totally different. "one stop" refers to EXPOSURE, and based on it, the OP based his arguments on EXPOSURE. Now things have changed. Your answer is: " Same exposure but totally different light = different images"....

C'mon, lets be honest here. The moment you change lenses, or change subject to camera distance, of course we will get a different image, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT CHANGING SENSOR FORMAT (FILM). And even under this horrendous scenario, if the light falling on subject and shutter speed remains the same, we will need THE SAME F***ING F/STOP to achieve THE SAME EXPOSURE, no matter which lens or camera format we choose!

Again, c'mon guys, embrace and accept the new technology on its own turf. Learn the new reference standards and try to keep up with its advances in time. Stop torturing yourselves trying to "translate" the new specs into what they meant with the old stuff, because you"ll find that some terms have no translation.

Photography is like a whole language. You learn the basic words, the sentences. In some time you simply start talking, then writing and reading in this special language. You even learn the slang (tricks of the trade). As any language, it has its variations (film formats).

But one day comes a new language, that tossed a lot of word that we already know an introduces new ones for which we never had a meaning or synonym... We try to learn this new language, but some will succeed and some will fail learning it.

The ones that succeed were the ones that reached the "second nature" state. That is when you simply think, understand and speak the new language without even caring for its meaning or translation to the old one. The ones that failed, were the ones that kept thinking in the old language and struggled to translate every single word to the new language...
10-10-2014, 01:55 AM   #102
Pentaxian
cxdoo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Limassol, Cyprus
Posts: 1,092
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
I didn't think Marcus was trolling, Cxdoo.

I thought he was genuinely led astray by an Internet video.

Now I see what I wrote could be interpreted that way.


I didn't even see who started the thread and had no intention to accuse them of trolling (sorry Marcus). What I wanted to say is that the discussion of FF vs APS-C DOF/equivalence is completely pointless, and yet somehow it gets so many people sucked in. Every. Time.
10-10-2014, 02:51 AM - 1 Like   #103
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,954
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
And assuming you were shooting from the same position and using a FL that gave you the same FOV, your K-r, m4/3 and D810 would all have different DOF, noise, and DR.

Same exposure, but different total light = different images.



Equivalence describes precisely why we would even want Pentax FF, because it describes precisely why the format is even different in the first place.

Saying you want Pentax FF but don't care about equivalence is like saying you want a faster car but don't care about horsepower, vehicle weight, gearing or transmission. These are the reasons the car is faster in the first place***.

(*** I guess it's fully valid to say, "I just want a faster car, I don't need to know why it's faster and car talk bores me anyway so shut up about it." That's very similar to how these Equivalence discussions go too.)



.
Assuming you are shooting at f5.6, iso 100 and 1/180 second with studio lights, do you honestly think, Jay, that you could tell the difference between the formats? I couldn't in that situation, even if technically full frame is still "one stop better," it is pretty meaningless in this situation.

I have said before that the problem that I have with equivalence is that those who use it tend to focus on "the fastest lens I can get on a format for a particular focal length" situation. But not everybody is looking for the fastest lens available. Some don't care if there isn't a 30mm f1.4 equivalent. They plan to shoot stopped down and realize that strangely a smaller, slower lens will be more flare resistant and so a DA 21 limited f3.5 -- even though it is only a 35mm f5.6 equivalent has no true equivalent in current full frame line ups. Wide open aperture may be the most important thing to some photographers, but it isn't (or shouldn't be) for the majority of photographers.
10-10-2014, 03:10 AM   #104
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,424
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I think Kunzite hates it because it doesn't take into account sensor QE, lens bokeh, pixie dust, and doesn't make him breakfast.
What I hate is the rigid, limited thinking it brings. What I hate are the assumptions pushed onto me, regardless of what I need, regardless of what and how I shoot. What I hate is the crazy assumption that rejecting "equivalence" means rejecting knowledge itself. And, of course, the aggressiveness with which it's promoted.
Keep an open mind, there's an entire world outside "equivalence"!

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Equivalence describes precisely why we would even want Pentax FF, because it describes precisely why the format is even different in the first place.
Nice try, but that's wrong. Hints: wide-open DOF might not be a factor, while resolution might be.

QuoteOriginally posted by filoxophy Quote
Are we still doing this?
As long as there's someone wanting to sell us on equivalence, yes.
10-10-2014, 06:15 AM   #105
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,048
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
18-35mm f/1.8 is about the same as 28-55 f/2.8 on FF in all respects.

Not really all that impressive of a lens IMO.
No, because you expose like a 1.8 lens, not like a 2.8 lens.

So, like it was said earlier, equivalence is for DOF and FL, not for exposure.
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, aperture, aps-c, apsc, care, composition, crop, crop factor, dof, f2.8, factor, ff, film, frame, full frame, full-frame, iso, k-mount, lens, lenses, light, moment, pentax, pentax lens, people, photo, post, sensor, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One more time, but in a funny way: Crop Sensors vs Full Frame carlosodze Pentax Full Frame 32 10-16-2014 01:15 PM
No Pentax Full Frame DSLR, What to Do Now Then? RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 95 07-19-2014 10:57 AM
Full Frame Mitakon 50mm f/0.95 lens to be unveiled on April 20. Costs $799! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 17 04-24-2014 05:30 AM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Going from full-frame back to apsc: a short story Mr_Canuck Pentax K-5 49 04-24-2011 06:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:38 AM. | 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