Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-27-2015, 07:25 AM   #301
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,855
I think I'll just post this from now on. I'm tired of trying to explain it.



The rest of it as far as I can tell, is just figments of people's imaginations. No one has ever presented one shred of evidence to support the rest of the hogwash. They smile and say "trust me." like used car salesmen.

or
"This is what I see and if you don't see what I see, it's just because you aren't as smart as me." Never trust anyone who makes extraordinary claims and can't back them up with anything.

Honest to pete guys, if you want to show us something, show us something, but quit just making this stuff up.

We aren't a buch of gushy teenagers looking to be a part of the next fad.

But I'll tell you 100% for certain, some of the FF proponents on here are.

Act like you know that on a 8x10 film camera using a 150mm lens you can shoot at ƒ64 without a serious diffraction issue, and that on both APS_c and FF the diffraction limit is somewhere between ƒ5.6 and ƒ8... in Dynamic range a K-5 is well ahead of most of the FFs out there and roughly equal to anything modern, in many ways there just isn't that much difference.

See the big picture, and don't launch into these silly "oh (gush gush) FF even reduced to web size , is just so much better, I can see the difference every time (gush gush)" unless you have something to show us. We'd be fools to just take your word for it.


Last edited by normhead; 02-27-2015 at 08:05 AM.
02-27-2015, 07:46 AM   #302
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I still will advise most folks to start with APS-C. The money is less and the important thing when you are starting off is that you learn the basic principles of photography -- composition, seeing light, getting exposure right. Currently you can get a K50 with a kit lens for 450 dollars. Add a DA 50 f1.8 and DA 35 f2.4 (or a couple of used ebay primes) and you are cooking for 700-ish dollars with a setup that is really capable. And if you need to upgrade down the road -- better primes, full frame or even medium format, then that's fine. You'll have learned a lot and developed some skills without wasting a bunch of money. But that's just my two cents...

Thanks. I'm looking forward to Pentax's full frame option for those reasons and just because I have always wanted to try full frame digital.
I would also add to those excellent reasons the size factor. With cameras in phones becoming the standard, schlepping a DSLR takes some getting used to for many. You also get more bang for the pound as well as the buck.

I am also looking forward to the Pentax FF. In fact, I was about to try FF by picking up a Sony FE mount body when the Pentax was announced. I may do so still, depending upon whether the Pentax is high res, high ISO or middle of the road.

---------- Post added 02-27-15 at 07:54 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
And, just to complicate things, there may be usage scenarios where both could work alongside each other in a shooter's typical day. Or, at times, just a point-and-shoot might do. Or a mobile. Maybe a video or film camera too.

Either/or discussions about photography gear (crop vs FF, film vs digital) generate a lot of heat, but don't always fit the real world.
That side by side phenomenon has been my experience shooting side by side with Canikon owners. I see both formats along for the ride.
02-27-2015, 08:06 AM   #303
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,855
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
Right away one of the first things I noticed with FF often times one can switch from a prime to a zoom lens while retaining the crispness that one would expect from a prime on aspc

When using a tc I see less image quality loss for the times I need the extra little reach.

And less sharpening is need in post to achieve the look I desire
SO, when are you going to show us these interesting results?
I mean personally I get nice crisp results from my zooms, so I can't in any way relate to this. Look on the testing sites, you'll be surprised at how well many DA* zooms stack up with primes... or are you saying you just buy cheap zooms?

The only site I've seen actually do a test like this was a guy comparing a now 7 year old 12 MP FF to a 6Mp APs-c...yet I've seen a whole generation of DSLR shooters repeat it verbatim without any other supporting evidence.

I am really not clear on why so many people, to justify their use of FF make up imaginary faults with APS-c. Look at the test results D610 to K-3 on Imaging Resources, there is hardly any difference in the real world. But huge difference in people's minds.

Last edited by normhead; 02-27-2015 at 08:23 AM.
02-27-2015, 08:15 AM - 1 Like   #304
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The way, I personally experience it, is the following:
  1. Someone says they are excited to get an FF camera.
  2. An APS-C proponent insinuates that said person just needs bigger gear for their ego, or similar, arguing that APS-C is all that anyone ever needs, or that the difference is not photographically relevant.
  3. Someone with an understanding of physics/optics points out that there are actual advantages to bigger formats.
  4. The APS-C proponent replies that "good pictures" aren't about the gear, that the person isn't a photographer if they still want an FF camera. These comments also typically come with the recommendation to "go out and shoot more".
In other words, and in my experience, it isn't the FF proponents trying to convince APS-C shooters, causing long debates. In my experience, it typically starts with an APS-C proponent making comments such as "FF equipment is heavier, more expensive, ..., not necessary given modern ISO sensitivities", etc.

Yes. I've posted a similar summary account of the way it usually goes down. Someone who understands equivalence commits the mortal sin of responding to someone who doesn't, in a open discussion forum - often in the 'FF' section of that forum.

Heres another way these things get launched:

Joe: Hey, look at my 35-100 f/2.8 on m43! It's basically a 70-200 2.8 on FF, but much smaller!

Jack: Well, if you're going to compare it to FF it would really be a 70-200 f/5.6.

Bubba: Oh boy, here come the Equivalentists! All that matters to them is DOF!

Jack: Joe is the one who made the equivalence comparison, I was just pointing out how it was only a half-conversion. And by the way it's about total light, not just DOF.

Bubba: In my day no-one ever talked about "total light". You got framing, exposure. That's it. And no-one ever talked about 'Equivalence'.

Jack: Photographers understood 'total light', though, through it's practical application: larger formats tended to get better results for them as long as they had lenses that were not very slow - at the same exposures as the smaller formats, even! And they didn't really share lenses between formats, or have quick-iterative feedback for images, so their understanding of 'equivalence' usually didn't go beyond FOV equivalence. But they certainly realized larger formats gave them better stuff, if they were paying attention.

Bubba: And they were just fine with FOV equivalence only! So we should be too! Get out of here with your equivalence crap!

Jack: isn't this an open forum where such things are discussed? And who started the discussion?

Bubba: $%@#!*&% (paraphrased)


.


Last edited by jsherman999; 02-27-2015 at 08:44 AM.
02-27-2015, 08:24 AM   #305
Veteran Member
RuiC's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lisboa - The Grocery
Posts: 616
QuoteOriginally posted by DavidSKAF3 Quote
So, in a nutshell, or in as an exact manner as possible, what are the true pros (and cons?) of using a DSLR with a Full Frame sensor?

And, can too many pixels be packed even into a Full Frame sensor, marring its performance?

Thanks.
Putting it in simple words I can add:

PROS - I want one;
CONS - WAF is negative.
02-27-2015, 08:41 AM   #306
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Yes. I've posted a similar summary account of the way it usually goes down. Someone who understands equivalence commits the mortal sin of responding to someone who doesn't, in a open discussion forum - often in the 'FF' section of that forum.

Heres another way these things get launched:

Joe: Hey, look at my 35-100 f/2.8 on m43! It's basically a 70-200 2.8 on FF, but much smaller!

Jack: Well, if you're going to compare it to FF it would really be a 70-200 f/5.6.

Bubba: Oh boy, here come the Equivalentists! All that matters to them is DOF!

Jack: Joe is the one who made the equivalence comparison, I was just pointing out how it was only a half-conversion. And by the way it's about total light, not just DOF.

Bubba: In my day no-one ever talked about "total light". You got framing, exposure. That's it. And no-one ever talked about 'Equivalence'.

Jack: Photographers understood 'total light', though, through it's practical application: larger formats tended to get better results for them as long as they had lenses that were not very slow. And they didn't really share lenses between formats, or have quick-iterative feedback for images, so their understanding of 'equivalence' usually didn't go beyond FOV equivalence.

Bubba: And they were just fine with that! So we should be too! Get out of here with your equivalence crap!

Jack: isn't this an open forum where such things are discussed? And who started the discussion?

Bubba: $%@#!*&% (paraphrased)


.
I haven't really seen that interchange, but I'll take it for granted that it happened.

My point is usually that there aren't high quality full frame lenses that are equivalent to the lenses I'm talking about. So, where is the 20mm f5.6 lens that is the same size as the DA 15 and has the same flare resistance, or the 60mm f4 lens that is tiny and also quite flare resistant? There just aren't equivalent lenses and that's what I would want.

I like Pentax, not because they make fast lenses, but because they make slow, high quality lenses with nice builds. That's what I hope I get with the full frame camera, although I'm not positive I will. The 70-200 f2.8 they've so far released looks like a monster.
02-27-2015, 08:46 AM   #307
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,855
have a real world understanding of it, you see the results through the lens every time you take a picture. It becomes ingrained in your mind. everyone understands it, but some people dwell on the school book type theory of equivalence, which is totally unnecessary in the real world. If I see one more friggin hot shot who thinks he's god's gift to man because he's spent hours with an equivalence table working out equivalence, I'll probably puke. You do this not to further photography but to make yourselves sound like some kind of experts.

You are not an expert on anything because you dwell on equivalence,.
You are not a good photographer because you know what an equivalence spread sheet looks like.
There is nothing in equivalence that can't be learned getting to know your cameras.
It's not equivalence that is complicated, it's the overly complicated, half wrong, argumentative explanations from people who act like know it alls, who couldn't give a logical explanation of how to cut a hole in a brown paper bag.

t's just amazing how the explanation of equivalence on this site have been so bad, that people can't understand them and argue with them, just because they don't understand the explanation. And then, the guy who messed up the explanations so badly they cause total confusion, come on here and act all high and mighty. Just a hint, you explain something really simple, and people always argue with your explanation... maybe it's the explanation that's at fault.

A bad teacher always blames the student.
Understanding equivalence has no merit to a person who is only shooting one format.
Understanding equivalence is so basic, that it's wasn't even taught when I was in school. It was one of those things you were expected to absorb, because it's so freakin simple.
Dwelling on equivalence means you're stuck at the lowest level of understanding photographic concepts.. still in the realm of theoretical constructs, not in the realm of practice and refinement.

Please, stop thinking you are some kinds of gurus because you think you understand a really , really basic concept.

Honestly, it's worth considering for 15 minutes, saying "oh that's cool" and moving on. It's not really deep enough to be a life long vocation.
Althjough I swear some of you dudes are sitting on mountain tops meditating on it's meaning when you make these pronouncements about it.

Everyone else learns equivalence looking through a camera lens... what is wrong with you guys that you have to get all caught up in a book theory?

It's way past time for you one trick pony's to find another town where people will be impressed by your song and dance, for ten minutes or so.

If In my classroom I caused half the disagreement you guys have by misrepresenting this concept.. I would have spent the whole semester arguing about equivalence... for what? That's not effective teaching dudes.

Last edited by normhead; 02-27-2015 at 09:21 AM.
02-27-2015, 08:52 AM   #308
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
a back in the day trip

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I think I'll just post this from now on. I'm tired of trying to explain it.

(backslide into aggressive denial, snipped)
Norm, back in the day, why did film shooters often prefer larger formats?

And if they shot at the same exposure on any of those formats, did larger really give better (in any way) results?



---------- Post added 02-27-15 at 10:05 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
My point is usually that there aren't high quality full frame lenses that are equivalent to the lenses I'm talking about. So, where is the 20mm f5.6 lens that is the same size as the DA 15 and has the same flare resistance, or the 60mm f4 lens that is tiny and also quite flare resistant? There just aren't equivalent lenses and that's what I would want.
That's an excellent point that I've run up against too. It's very lens-specific, though, in that the DA 15ltd has some unique qualities no-one has tried to answer yet. I don't think it would be hard to do so, no one has just bothered yet. For example my M 20 f/4 (FF) wasn't any larger than my DA 15ltd, was just as sharp (I tested both side-side) and had great, great contrast - but didn't have the same near-perfect flare control. I think a small, updated FA 20 f/4 with the DA 15ltds flare control would be one of the first lenses I'd get on FF, if Pentax chose to make one. I don't think they'd bother with a 20mm f/5.6 prime.

Also, my Nikon 20 f/2.8D on FF isn't really very big, only slightly larger than the 15 f4. I think Pentax could make a pretty small FA 20 f/2.8 if they wanted to as well.

But if you don't see a lens for FF that gives you something you already have in aps-c, that's an important consideration... and it's usually easier to discover that stuff by applying a little bit of... Equivalence, maybe?


Last edited by jsherman999; 02-27-2015 at 09:35 AM.
02-27-2015, 09:18 AM   #309
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Norm, back in the day, why did film shooters often prefer larger formats?

And if they shot at the same exposure on any of those formats, did larger really give better (in any way) results?

.
It is all about magnification necessary to produce a print, isn't it? The thing is that there is a big difference (particularly in past years) between the size you can print an image at with large format versus medium format versus 35mm film.

The question I have posed in this question is how big I have to print, assuming a photo shot at iso 100 and f8 on a K3, before I see a difference versus a print made from a D800 with iso 100 and f11? Because I shoot those settings a lot. And I have been told in this thread that even in at web sizes, I could see the difference, because of the better tonality and dynamic range of full frame. Maybe that's true, I just have a hard time believing it.
02-27-2015, 09:20 AM - 2 Likes   #310
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteQuote:
Understanding equivalence is so basic, that it's wasn't even taught when I was in school. It was one of those things you were expected to absorb, because it's so freakin simple.
Really? Then why didn't you absorb it?

I feel as though you're now acting a bit like you knew about 'equivalence' (the whole thing, not just FOV) all along. A perusal of your posts shows this isn't the case. If I wanted to go back a bit I could find where you stated it was outright false. (don't dare me, it won't end well. )

Last edited by jsherman999; 02-27-2015 at 09:36 AM.
02-27-2015, 09:28 AM   #311
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,855
QuoteQuote:
Norm, back in the day, why did film shooters often prefer larger formats?
Back in the day Jay.. we preferred 8x10 and 4x5, 645 was considered tiny, 35mm was for convenience. Back in the day, 35mm, half frame, even minox were all in the subset of too small to be taken seriously by technical photographers. So back in the day... as today, 35mm or half frame, didn't really matter that much. They were about the same then and now. 35mm enthusiasts comparing themselves to 4x5 or 8x10 shooters "back in the day" has to be one of the worst jokes ever.

Or as I have said to you over and over and over, (still waiting for it to sink in) there isn't enough difference between 4/3, APS-c and FF to write home about. It was true then, it's true now.
02-27-2015, 09:39 AM - 2 Likes   #312
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Back in the day Jay.. we preferred 8x10 and 4x5, 645 was considered tiny, 35mm was for convenience. Back in the day, 35mm, half frame, even minox were all in the subset of too small to be taken seriously by technical photographers. So back in the day... as today, 35mm or half frame, didn't really matter that much. They were about the same then and now. 35mm enthusiasts comparing themselves to 4x5 or 8x10 shooters "back in the day" has to be one of the worst jokes ever.
The question was: Why did you prefer larger formats? And did larger formats really give better results (in any way) at the same exposures as the smaller formats?

QuoteQuote:
Or as I have said to you over and over and over, (still waiting for it to sink in) there isn't enough difference between 4/3, APS-c and FF to write home about. It was true then, it's true now.
If that's true, then why are you here to argue endlessly about the difference?

.
02-27-2015, 09:40 AM - 1 Like   #313
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,618
Here are the real pros and cons:


Pro: Although the significance and degree cannot be quantified, FF is, in some ways, and for some situations, a better choice than smaller formats.

Con: Discussing the subject turns intelligent, normally rational people into crazed fanatics determined to make every other crazed fanatic see their point of view. I've been guilty of it myself.

The heat to light ratio in this thread has become way too far out of balance to continue.
closed

Last edited by Parallax; 02-27-2015 at 09:56 AM.
Closed Thread

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, 35mm, 50mm, advantage, angle, aps-c, camera, crop, d800, dof, f/2.8, f4, ff, frame, full-frame, image, mode, pentax, people, pixel, pixels, pros, resolution, sensor, size, telephoto, view finder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pros and cons of EVF and OVF Ash Photographic Industry and Professionals 187 01-24-2013 06:21 PM
K-5 IIs -- The Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-Filter Class A Pentax DSLR Discussion 114 12-18-2012 10:22 PM
From K20D to 645D, Pros and Cons. Reportage Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 11-10-2010 03:13 PM
Limited edition prints - pros and cons? Wombat Photographic Industry and Professionals 5 07-30-2009 04:09 PM
Pros and cons of the Pentax KM/2000 lesmore49 Pentax DSLR Discussion 109 05-01-2009 11:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:58 AM. | 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