[BrianR]

For the purposes of the double-blind test that I've got in mind, I'd rather apply an updated version of the classic depth of field standard. The classic definition was that, if a point of light in the real world is reproduced as a point of light in an 8"x10" print, then it's within depth of field..

Only the points on the actual 2-d plane of focus (which is probably curvy) will be reproduced as points. All other point of light in the real world will be reproduced as a disc (more or less) on the print, and this disc gets larger as the point moves away from your plane of focus. It's declared within the DoF if the disc is smaller than whatever tolerance you've set. The tolerance you set corresponds to some real world viewing conditions- a viewer at X feet away, with a certain level of visual acuity, under certain lighting conditions, etc.

edit- worth reading http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html
edit2- if you really want to get gory http://toothwalker.org/optics/dofderivation.html

[Dartmoor Dave]

It's declared within the DoF if the disc is smaller than whatever tolerance you've set. The tolerance you set corresponds to some real world viewing conditions- a viewer at X feet away, with a certain level of visual acuity, under certain lighting conditions, etc.

Exactly, which is why I specified the monitor size and resolution. You're absolutely right that we'd need to specify the viewing distance too.

Again, I'm not denying that there are measurable differences between FF and APS-C. Of course there are. I'm merely asking whether or not those tiny measurable differences fall within the realm of human perception. And whether they have any relevance to. . . you know. . . photography.

[Rondec]

I got a film camera specifically to see my FA limiteds "in all their glory, the way God intended them to be shot." And it was anything but revelatory. They do act differently -- wider, or course -- and need to be stopped down a little bit more to get the same effect. I find the whole film experience frustrating as I don't have an EXIF and don't have instant feedback and all of the little helps I like to have on digital. I had hoped that shooting film would get me excited for a possible release of a full frame digital camera down the road, but honestly it didn't really. It was just different, that's all.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I don't believe a controlled study is necessary. If FF pictures are so universally better than APS-c, they should be distinguishable on an individual basis. If not individually, they certainly should be able to be picked out of a group of randomly slected*, mixed FF and APS-c photos.

My gut feeling is that I prefer the look of full-frame photographs. But the problem is that I always know I'm looking at full-frame. And I'm very aware of the influence of observer bias on sighted testing. So I'd really love to be able to put myself through a proper double-blind test and find out for sure.

That's why I used the hi-fi analogy. I've done several double-blind tests over the years, and I know that I can't really hear the difference between one amplifier and another. But last week my amp died and I had to replace it, and I'm absolutely convinced that the new amp sounds radically different, even though I know it can't. And I think there's something similar to that going on in the FF vs APS-C debate.

[normhead]

My favourite study on this, digression was provided by my father, a Ph.D in Urban Sociology and Psychology... his favourite example was a study done on beer brand loyalty. They interviewed over a thousand people, people with strong beer brand preferences, all of whom would have sworn on a stack of bibles that they chose their brand for the taste. The blind test returned totally random results. Of the five major brands, these loyal beer drinkers,could not by taste distinguish one from the other.

Their whole beer preference thing was a psychological brand loyalty, and had nothing to do with taste. People who think this whole FF thing isn't impart at least a kind of brand loyalty issue, need to step up and prove it.

But guess what? When presented with the results, the test subjects often accused the testers of lying, insisted that the test was to see what their response would be when they were given false information, some became emotional and belligerent. Many refused to acknowledge the results of the test claiming there must have been mistakes made, and claiming the researchers were incompetent.

I'm not going to spoonfeed you the relevance to the FF APS-c discussions....
But I am going to reinforce the above... if you haven't done a double blind test... "you know nothing".
You are no different from all those beer drinkers.
If you are going to claim superiority of one system over another... prove it. For that we would be in your debt. If you're going to tell us what you think... save your time, maybe go drink some of your favourite beer. And yes, 1000 (beer drinkers) people can be wrong. Numbers are no guarantee of a correct interpretation of subjective data.

And some will do or say anything they can think of, to bolster the validity of their loyalty to their brand. At that point, pretty much nothing is beneath them.

The one thing I should have learned from this, that I missed in my youth, would have been the vitriol that will be unleashed on those who come bearing the truth, by those living a lie. When I encountered it in university, I was totally unprepared for the venom.

[Parallax]

My gut feeling is that I prefer the look of full-frame photographs. But the problem is that I always know I'm looking at full-frame. And I'm very aware of the influence of observer bias on sighted testing. So I'd really love to be able to put myself through a proper double-blind test and find out for sure.

That's why I used the hi-fi analogy. I've done several double-blind tests over the years, and I know that I can't really hear the difference between one amplifier and another. But last week my amp died and I had to replace it, and I'm absolutely convinced that the new amp sounds radically different, even though I know it can't. And I think there's something similar to that going on in the FF vs APS-C debate.

I wasn't suggesting that a study wouldn't be a benefit, merely that if FF is the panacea that some people claim, it shouldn't be necessary. I agree that a double blind study would, in theory, be dispositive. As Norm noted above, however, there would still be naysayers if FF didn't come out on top. There will always be a "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" contingent.


("Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up". Yeah, Yeah. I know. Don't say it. )

[GeneV]

I got a film camera specifically to see my FA limiteds "in all their glory, the way God intended them to be shot." And it was anything but revelatory. They do act differently -- wider, or course -- and need to be stopped down a little bit more to get the same effect. I find the whole film experience frustrating as I don't have an EXIF and don't have instant feedback and all of the little helps I like to have on digital. I had hoped that shooting film would get me excited for a possible release of a full frame digital camera down the road, but honestly it didn't really. It was just different, that's all.

I bought my first DSLR in 2007. My first K-mount was 30 years before that and my first screw mount was about 5 years before that. I shot a full frame 135 film for 35 years before my first APS-C camera and had accumulated quite a few lenses. I found the transition from film to crop digital very easy. The difference just isn't that great to me. I kept using film a good deal of until just the last few years, but the film system which still beckons me back is my 645 system. That is a difference in DOF, etc. which is quite significant.

If I can get a bit higher dynamic range and sensitivity in a comparable sized package, I'll be getting the FF body. However, the other creative differences are pretty minor to me.

[Rondec]

I bought my first DSLR in 2007. My first K-mount was 30 years before that and my first screw mount was about 5 years before that. I shot a full frame 135 film for 35 years before my first APS-C camera and had accumulated quite a few lenses. I found the transition from film to crop digital very easy. The difference just isn't that great to me. I kept using film a good deal of until just the last few years, but the film system which still beckons me back is my 645 system. That is a difference in DOF, etc. which is quite significant.

If I can get a bit higher dynamic range and sensitivity in a comparable sized package, I'll be getting the FF body. However, the other creative differences are pretty minor to me.

I agree. Having a nicer viewfinder, having a little more resolution would be handy. Dynamic range is probably the biggest thing and the ability to go higher with regard to iso. All together they make full frame a very real improvement over APS-C.

But APS-C has come a long way over time too.

[GeneV]

But APS-C has come a long way over time too.

That is one of the reasons I don't shoot as much film now. Up until the last generation of Sony sensors, I missed the tonal rendition of film so much that the hassles of processing and scanning were worth it for more subjects. There is still a difference, but it is not nearly what it was, and the high ISO capabilities have overshadowed the tonal quality for what I am willing to carry around. As they say, the best camera you have is the one you have.

[asp1880]

("Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up". Yeah, Yeah. I know. Don't say it. )

I'll keep this sentence in mind for future abuse.



Regards,
--Anders.

[cali92rs]

I often shoot at ISO6400 and sometime 12800 because, surprisingly, there are a lot of venues where flash is not permitted (think weddings, churches, recitals etc), or there is no where to bounce the flash, or I didn't want to give the impression that I am a "pro" etc etc.
In fact, i don't consider myself pushing the envelope at all, you can hit ISO 6400 quite easily @ f2.8 in dim environments (not even very dark).
And IMHO, it is pretty easy to see the noise difference between FF and APS-C at these ISOs at reasonable sizes.

[GeneV]

I often shoot at ISO6400 and sometime 12800 because, surprisingly, there are a lot of venues where flash is not permitted (think weddings, churches, recitals etc), or there is no where to bounce the flash, or I didn't want to give the impression that I am a "pro" etc etc.
In fact, i don't consider myself pushing the envelope at all, you can hit ISO 6400 quite easily @ f2.8 in dim environments (not even very dark).
And IMHO, it is pretty easy to see the noise difference between FF and APS-C at these ISOs at reasonable sizes.

For me, that would depend upon the camera and the post processing.

[normhead]

I often shoot at ISO6400 and sometime 12800 because, surprisingly, there are a lot of venues where flash is not permitted (think weddings, churches, recitals etc), or there is no where to bounce the flash, or I didn't want to give the impression that I am a "pro" etc etc.
In fact, i don't consider myself pushing the envelope at all, you can hit ISO 6400 quite easily @ f2.8 in dim environments (not even very dark).
And IMHO, it is pretty easy to see the noise difference between FF and APS-C at these ISOs at reasonable sizes.

NO one is saying there aren't instances where it's to your advantage to use a Full Frame, and there are definitely instances where it's to your advantage to use an APS-c camera. Providing scenarios where one is better than the other is useful, because someone else might be in the same position as you and benefit from your experience. But, an unknown person just asking APS-c or FF without understanding what they shoot, I would definitely start recommending APS-c and move on to FF if needed, just because despite what folks will try and say, you can get an APS-c starter kit with kit (K-50, K30, KS-1) and 55-200 for half the cost of any FF body. I expect that the guys who will benefit from FF will be the guys who actually know bit about what they need and will understand how to take advantage of it, and they probably won't even be asking for advice. They'll know what they want.

Or as I've always said FF for narrow DOF and low light.
APS-c for magnification and wider Depth of Field.

For 90% of the average guys pictures, it doesn't matter.

I'm not sure how many beginning photographers are going to be shooting in situations that favour an FF format camera. Most of us don't buy a $600 kit and go out and try and shoot weddings.

[Rondec]

I often shoot at ISO6400 and sometime 12800 because, surprisingly, there are a lot of venues where flash is not permitted (think weddings, churches, recitals etc), or there is no where to bounce the flash, or I didn't want to give the impression that I am a "pro" etc etc.
In fact, i don't consider myself pushing the envelope at all, you can hit ISO 6400 quite easily @ f2.8 in dim environments (not even very dark).
And IMHO, it is pretty easy to see the noise difference between FF and APS-C at these ISOs at reasonable sizes.

I think it is clear that there are benefits to shooting full frame. I just think we need to be honest about how significant they are and whether or not the average photographer will take advantage of those. My experience with low light photography is that it isn't great. Sure, you can get a better shot with a full frame camera and if you are a wedding photographer, that may be what you need, but it certainly isn't going to be the photo that the couple frames and prints 20 inches on a side -- unlike the formal shots which will be shot at lower iso with appropriate light.

We are talking about one stop difference, roughly. There may be situations where that's all it takes to turn a so-so photo into a great one, but I don't think it is as often as folks make out.

Not sure why we are arguing about these things. It is good that Pentax is going to release a full frame camera. There are those who have finances and want/need who will get one and there are those who are fine with crop cameras. I just hope I'm not the sort of guy who gets a full frame camera and then looks down on everyone else who still shoots crappy APS-C.

[normhead]

I think it is clear that there are benefits to shooting full frame. I just think we need to be honest about how significant they are and whether or not the average photographer will take advantage of those. My experience with low light photography is that it isn't great. Sure, you can get a better shot with a full frame camera and if you are a wedding photographer, that may be what you need, but it certainly isn't going to be the photo that the couple frames and prints 20 inches on a side -- unlike the formal shots which will be shot at lower iso with appropriate light.

We are talking about one stop difference, roughly. There may be situations where that's all it takes to turn a so-so photo into a great one, but I don't think it is as often as folks make out.

Not sure why we are arguing about these things. It is good that Pentax is going to release a full frame camera. There are those who have finances and want/need who will get one and there are those who are fine with crop cameras. I just hope I'm not the sort of guy who gets a full frame camera and then looks down on everyone else who still shoots crappy APS-C.

Not that we know anyone like that...