[Class A]

Today I've been reading "The English Universities Press: Photography" by Stanley W Bowler, published in 1940. It's full of all kinds of fascinating information about extinction meters and developing in pyrogallic acid, and some very helpful tips about glass plates vs sheet film. But strangely there's nothing about equivalence.

I believe this is due to the fact that back then there were no "crop films" like you have "crop sensors" today.

In other words, each format had their lenses and there was typically (with the exception of tilt-shift applications, perhaps) no reason or opportunity to use the same lens on different formats.

The need to understand the difference between two formats (sensor sizes) became acute when crop (APS-C) sensors were used in lieu of sensors that captured everything the respective film would have captured.

If Mr. Bowler had been faced with the situation that he'd been forced to only load APS-C rolls into his 35mm camera, I guess he would have asked questions like

• Do I need to get new lenses, or can I just shoot as before?
• I know how to adapt to the change in angle of view, but I'm not sure whether I should keep using my tried and tested f-ratio and shutter speed settings for standard situations.
• Should I be getting APS-C rolls with the same ISO rating as the 35mm film I've been using, or do I need a different rating, and if so, which rating should it be?
• etc.

Of course Mr. Bowler could have started from a clean slate and just use his 35mm camera with APS-C film and see what he gets. But I'm sure in those days more so than today, photographers had their favourite settings to use for standard shooting situations, building on experience with different attempts to get the DOF, noise, etc. right. I'm sure the lack of immediate feedback made people rely more on what worked for them in the past, so I'm sure Mr. Bowler would have appreciated a "conversion manual" to be able to hit the road running with his new (<sarcasm> but for all intents and purposes as least at good, if not better </sarcasm>) 35mm film camera that uses the same big mount and same big lenses, however, just captures an APS-C sized portion.

[Class A]

I feel like equivalence proponents have a tendency to break out equivalence as a sledge hammer to break all other formats than full frame to bits.

I can't speak to the equivalence proponents you are referring to, but I can certainly say that I have no such intentions and I'm rather sure that jsherman999 does not have them either.

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.

If I could only shoot the K-5 II from now on, I'd still be a very happy person. I would have been a very happy person with "just" my Sigma 28/1.8 (which is a truly fine lens). But I'm a happier person with the FA 31/1.8 added. And I'll be an even happier person with an FF camera added to my equipment.

I'm a less happier person when someone argues that I didn't need the FA 31/1.8 or that I don't need the FF camera and that there is no way to justify these further expenses based on arguments that pertain to photography. I'm less happy, because that someone is clearly wrong. There are differences that matter to not only gear heads but to photographers and that's why I'm trying to explain what those relevant differences are.

Equivalence is just a tool to make those arguments. If someone wants to carry their experience with focal lengths and settings over from APS-C, they can also use equivalence as a conversion tool. But that's it. Jsherman999 and I are just photographers like anyone else. We don't obsess over gear more than others, we don't compute our images mathematically, we don't try to take "equivalent" images. We just appreciate the technological step that FF provides, just like many appreciate the step that some lenses provide over others.

[Rondec]

I can't speak to the equivalence proponents you are referring to, but I can certainly say that I have no such intentions and I'm rather sure that jsherman999 does not have them either.

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 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".

If I could only shoot the K-5 II from now on, I'd still be a very happy person. I would have been a very happy person with "just" my Sigma 28/1.8 (which is a truly fine lens). But I'm a happier person with the FA 31/1.8 added. And I'll be an even happier person with an FF camera added to my equipment.

I'm a less happier person when someone argues that I didn't need the FA 31/1.8 or that I don't need the FF camera and that there is no way to justify these further expenses based on arguments that pertain to photography. I'm less happy, because that someone is clearly wrong. There are differences that matter to not only gear heads but to photographers and that's why I'm trying to explain what those relevant differences are.

Equivalence is just a tool to make those arguments. If someone wants to carry their experience with focal lengths and settings over from APS-C, they can also use equivalence as a conversion tool. But that's it. Jsherman999 and I are just photographers like anyone else. We don't obsess over gear more than others, we don't compute our images mathematically, we don't try to take "equivalent" images. We just appreciate the technological step that FF provides, just like many appreciate the step that some lenses provide over others.

I haven't seen this interchange much, although Norm does have a tendency to be pretty pro-APS-C. I have said already that I plan to get a full frame camera when it comes out. This puts me firmly in the pro-full frame camp. The problem I have with equivalency is that it basically says "faster is better." Now, if folks really believe that, then they should buy Nikon and Canon full frames, because traditionally, Pentax hasn't had the speediest of lenses, feeling that having a little smaller maximum aperture with a lens that is sharp wide open is better, if it means the lens ends up being smaller. So, you won't find Pentax making a 200mm f2 lens any time soon, or a new 50mm f1.2.

The interchanges I see are when someone shows up with their new micro four thirds camera and their 35-100mm f2.8 lens, or talk about their 50-135 f2.8 on a K3 at which point the equivalent folks come out of the wood work and tell them that their lens is slower than full frame equivalents, etc. And yes, every time I have had someone talk equivalency to me, it is to explain to me why my APS-C gear isn't great and how my images would be sharper and have more dynamic range if I shot full frame. It just gets a little old from my perspective. There is little enough appreciation of photography on this site to have every one bashing gear -- the K-01 is junk, the K-S1 is a lousy camera that shouldn't have been made, etc -- and yet these boxes still can turn out good photos.

I haven't bought a new lens in two years. I haven't bought a new flash for the last couple of years. My last camera purchased was the K3 about a year and half ago. I just don't get a rush out of getting new gear, but I still enjoy photography. If that makes any sense.

[GeneV]

I believe this is due to the fact that back then there were no "crop films" like you have "crop sensors" today. .

Actually, in the film era when I was learning photography, there was a "crop" format. It was called 35mm. It was"small format" and it was going to be even further cropped from 24x36 to 24x30 for printing.

Real pros who cared about quality shot at least 6 x 6. When I was growing up, even amateurs like my mom shot medium format.

So, when I hear 135 treated as the gold standard, I have to chuckle a bit. The standard changes with technology.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 02-26-2015 at 06:31 PM.

[Parallax]

Actually, in the film era when I was learning photography, there was a "crop" format. It was called 35mm. Real pros who cared about quality shot at least 6 x 6. When I was growing up, even amateurs like my mom shot medium format.

So, when I hear 135 treated as the gold standard, I have to chuckle a bit. The standard changes with technology.

Gene, that's pure gold!
When I learned photography, perhaps a little before you (but I suspect not by much), I dealt with 3 formats. 35mm was, by a fair margin, the smallest of the 3. (8x10, 4x5, and 35mm).
Most of the young whippersnapper "FF" proponents here dont actually know what full frame is.

[Class A]

Actually, in the film era when I was learning photography, there was a "crop" format.

I'd be surprised if anyone called it a "crop" format back then.
Do you have evidence for that?

It certainly was a small format and one that attracted quite a bit of ridicule because of its unprofessional small size, but it certainly was uphill for this particular format with its portable equipment from there.

N.B., "full frame" does not imply any notion of an "upmost size" or anything like it. It just means that the imaging device is not smaller than the respective film format would have been.

So, when I hear 135 treated as the gold standard, I have to chuckle a bit.

I don't understand people that treat 135 as a "gold standard" amongst all formats either.

However, clearly, if you are going to use a camera with a K-mount that is designed for an FF image circle and are perhaps even using FF-capable lenses, it just makes sense to finally step up from the cost-saving intermediate step that APS-C sensors behind FF-mounts always represented.

[GeneV]

Gene, that's pure gold!
When I learned photography, perhaps a little before you (but I suspect not by much), I dealt with 3 formats. 35mm was, by a fair margin, the smallest of the 3. (8x10, 4x5, and 35mm).
Most of the young whippersnapper "FF" proponents here dont actually know what full frame is.

Jim, from my recollection I don't think there are too many years between us. All my baby pictures are in 620, and my first camera was a vintage 120 Kodak folding camera which belonged to my grandmother. That is full frame.

---------- Post added 02-26-15 at 07:03 PM ----------

I'd be surprised if anyone called it a "crop" format back then.
Do you have evidence for that?

It certainly was a small format and one that attracted quite a bit of ridicule because of its unprofessional small size, but it certainly was uphill for this particular format with its portable equipment from there.

N.B., "full frame" does not imply any notion of an "upmost size" or anything like it. It just means that the imaging device is not smaller than the respective film format would have been.


I don't understand people that treat 135 as a "gold standard" amongst all formats either.

However, clearly, if you are going to use a camera with a K-mount that is designed for an FF image circle and are perhaps even using FF-capable lenses, it just makes sense to finally step up from the cost-saving intermediate step that APS-C sensors behind FF-mounts always represented.

My evidence is that I lived at that time. 135 had the same place that APS-C has now, maybe it was even a bit more like micro 4/3, whether you use the term "crop" or not. Oh, we also did not use the term "sensor." However 135 was definitely a "crop" format in the sense you are using that word in that you could seldom use the full film format for the most popular way of representing your result--a paper print. A4x5, 6x7 or 4.5x6 were not considered "crop" formats. The term we used for these uncropped formats was not "full" but "ideal.".

---

Last edited by GeneV; 02-26-2015 at 07:17 PM.

[normhead]

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".

Maybe you'd like to post a sequence where this actually happened someplace beside your own imagination?

I have to ask, in your little imagined scenario.. does anyone ever point out the advantages of APS-c or do they just claim FF is all you're need?
In your scenerio, does anyone actually point out the disadvantages of full frame like addition size weight and cost an less magnification?
Does anyone with an understanding of physics and optics ever point out there are advantages to smaller formats?
Does an FF proponent in your scenario mistakenly say he has to have an FF camera for a reason that is incorrect?

It's interesting how in your 4 point dissertation, the APS-c guy is always the idiot, the FF proponent is always the smart guy, the APS_c guy never knows what he's talking about. The FF guys always know what they are talking about. The APs-c guys are always wrong...

Have you ever paid attention to what goes on on the forum, or do you just live in these scenarios that you imagine?

I can quite honestly say, I've never seen someone come on and say they are quite happy with their FF and get put down for that. Now we have had folks come on and say they were happy with their FF and then proceed to post all kinds of ignorant information about the lack of functionality of APS-c and Pentax cameras, and for some reason, they seem to think that having just bought an FF camera they now have the right to do that. I have seen a lot of people like yourself who seem quite antagonistic towards APS-c shooters, and make all kinds of ridiculous claims for FF that exist only in theoretical universes.

I'm not hard on FF shooters. I quite like some of them. I hang out with them when they are around, and we talk and insult each other and do the guy thing... but, sometimes my APS-c equipment is more appropriate, and sometimes their FF equipment is more appropriate, but all in all it comes out pretty even and most of the time we get similar results. The real world trumps all this theoretical non-sense, and long story short, we don't care who shoots what. It's only on the chest pounding Pentax forum anyone gives it 5 minutes of thought.

Or as I've said lot's of times. There are reasons why APS-c is better for me. For other people, there are reasons why FF is better for them. If you only know the second half of that equation, your working with half a deck.

[rawr]

There are reasons why APS-c is better for me. For other people, there are reasons why FF is better for them.

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.

[osv]

Of course there are differences. The biggest difference tends to be with regard to printing size.

one of the bigger differences for me is the picture quality improvements that come with downrezzing 36mp... whether you print or post to screen, it improves every single aspect of pq... whether you need that or not is academic.

there is also the improved cropability factor that comes with more megapixels.

btw, i thought that those pics of your kids were great

[Class A]

My evidence is that I lived at that time. 135 had the same place that APS-C has now, maybe it was even a bit more like micro 4/3, whether you use the term "crop" or not.

Whether the term "crop" was used was the point of my question.

It baffles me how people are putting words into the mouths of others. Although I have already explained that "full-frame" only means "not using an imager that is smaller than it could be", there are still attempts to construe that it means "big" or "professional" or whatever.

Current MF DSLRs are crop cameras as well because their sensors do not have the original film dimensions but are considerably smaller. In other words, they are not "full-frame" either, because they don't use the full frame. However, them being "crop" cameras does not reflect on their absolute quality.

"Full" is a relative concept and it therefore does not make sense to construe that people think that the 135 format is somehow the king of all formats.

Now, "FF" is often not used in a relative way but to refer to the 135 format specifically. That still does not imply that people using the tern somehow don't know what a "real" format looks like.

Anyhow, time to spend less time on this thread.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Not true.

There is always a difference -- even when the same DOF is used -- due to the different enlargement factors of the two formats. This difference impacts on AF accuracy, lens faults, and acuity.

If you look at the subset of FF advantages I originally posted again, you'll see that they include quite a bit more than just "one stop when you are shooting wide open".

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

[Dartmoor Dave]

Actually, in the film era when I was learning photography, there was a "crop" format. It was called 35mm. It was"small format" and it was going to be even further cropped from 24x36 to 24x30 for printing. Real pros who cared about quality shot at least 6 x 6. When I was growing up, even amateurs like my mom shot medium format. So, when I hear 135 treated as the gold standard, I have to chuckle a bit. The standard changes with technology.

And there was the most definitely "crop format" of 35mm half-frame, like the Olympus PEN that my father used for family snaps back in the sixties and seventies. Like you say: 35mm was just one of many formats, and far from the best, and the idea that we should have thought of all the other formats in terms of their relationship to 35mm would have seemed absurd back then.

(Looking back now at 8x10 prints from that era, I find it impossible to tell at a glance which ones were 35mm full frame and which were shot half-frame with the PEN.)

[Rondec]

Maybe you'd like to post a sequence where this actually happened someplace beside your own imagination?

I have to ask, in your little imagined scenario.. does anyone ever point out the advantages of APS-c or do they just claim FF is all you're need?
In your scenerio, does anyone actually point out the disadvantages of full frame like addition size weight and cost an less magnification?
Does anyone with an understanding of physics and optics ever point out there are advantages to smaller formats?
Does an FF proponent in your scenario mistakenly say he has to have an FF camera for a reason that is incorrect?

It's interesting how in your 4 point dissertation, the APS-c guy is always the idiot, the FF proponent is always the smart guy, the APS_c guy never knows what he's talking about. The FF guys always know what they are talking about. The APs-c guys are always wrong...

Have you ever paid attention to what goes on on the forum, or do you just live in these scenarios that you imagine?

I can quite honestly say, I've never seen someone come on and say they are quite happy with their FF and get put down for that. Now we have had folks come on and say they were happy with their FF and then proceed to post all kinds of ignorant information about the lack of functionality of APS-c and Pentax cameras, and for some reason, they seem to think that having just bought an FF camera they now have the right to do that. I have seen a lot of people like yourself who seem quite antagonistic towards APS-c shooters, and make all kinds of ridiculous claims for FF that exist only in theoretical universes.

I'm not hard on FF shooters. I quite like some of them. I hang out with them when they are around, and we talk and insult each other and do the guy thing... but, sometimes my APS-c equipment is more appropriate, and sometimes their FF equipment is more appropriate, but all in all it comes out pretty even and most of the time we get similar results. The real world trumps all this theoretical non-sense, and long story short, we don't care who shoots what. It's only on the chest pounding Pentax forum anyone gives it 5 minutes of thought.

Or as I've said lot's of times. There are reasons why APS-c is better for me. For other people, there are reasons why FF is better for them. If you only know the second half of that equation, your working with half a deck.

I really haven't seen folks attacked when they go full frame. There have been a couple of people who change brands/gear pretty regularly for reasons that I am not clear. I usually try to figure out what is frustrating them with their current gear, before giving advice to switch brands/sensor sizes. If someone needs a tilt shift lens, or a super telephoto f2.8 zoom, they need to go with a different brand from Pentax. But I'm pretty quick to tell people that if they think they need 'x' gear or, 'y' camera body and they have the money, they should go ahead and try it. Life is too short to sit around stewing about these sorts of things.

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...

one of the bigger differences for me is the picture quality improvements that come with downrezzing 36mp... whether you print or post to screen, it improves every single aspect of pq... whether you need that or not is academic.

there is also the improved cropability factor that comes with more megapixels.

btw, i thought that those pics of your kids were great

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.

[GeneV]

Whether the term "crop" was used was the point of my question.

It baffles me how people are putting words into the mouths of others. Although I have already explained that "full-frame" only means "not using an imager that is smaller than it could be", there are still attempts to construe that it means "big" or "professional" or whatever.

I guess I am a little baffled at the offense taken by the attempts to relate those semantics to the points we were discussing. I agree with much of what you say, but please grant this old-timer a little leeway to observe that the discussion of formats being cropped, equivalences, better ISO vs. DOF, etc. seem a lot like discussions we had decades ago. In fact, I think before my time Ansel Adams was even asked a few questions along this line because he often used what was considered a "cropped" format in his day which some claimed wasted some of the resolution of his lens.