[Clavius]

Let me put this in perspective with this - there better be some advantages because I'm tired of seeing all the shiatty pics people are posting here from their K-3/K-5IIS/K-5/K-50/K-30/K-7/K-whatever/Q-whatever. I think you know what I mean. For myself, with my meager skillset I have a very, very long way to go before I even begin to approach the limits of what my equipment will let me do. My sense tells me that whatever advantages FF may have over APS-C may well appeal to those with a specific need that FF may address over a smaller format, not necessarily due to sweeping advantages in general. That said I'm a full fledged capitalist and even if you don't necessarily need one but want one and have the $$$ - go right ahead.

The biggest advantage of FF format would be the extra headroom it gives to bad photographers. A little bit of extra light sensitivity, so the photographer is more flexible with settings. More resolution results in better cropping ability, so bad composition is more easily corrected in post. Less calculation involved with focal lenght and equivalence. So in that perspective I can say that a lot of people do actually really need FF format, including myself.

[jsherman999]

The biggest negative to me, Jay is the increased file size that comes with a bigger sensor with more megapixels (I am assuming now that Pentax is going with a 36 megapixel sensor).

And body cost, and size (a bit.) But there's no IQ, DOF, etc related way a smaller format can get a better shot simply as a result of being smaller and having some advantage due to that, something Norm keeps forgetting.

I know wide angles are supposed to be better with full frame as well, but you can still do landscapes OK with APS-C and frankly resolution isn't the key to having a decent landscape photo.

I mostly agree, but it also depends on your goal for that landscape shot. One of the most impressive landscape prints I've ever personally seen was at an art fair, it was printed at about 3' foot x by 2' or so taken by an Arca Swiss 8x10 large format camera. It was a grove of birch trees in the foreground against the mountains. I could walk right up to it, and standing a few feet away I felt like I could practically see the veins on every leaf, even though the grove was a good 50 yards away from the shooter. It was incredible, priced pretty high and it sold immediately.

.

[mecrox]

The biggest advantage of FF format would be the extra headroom it gives to bad photographers. A little bit of extra light sensitivity, so the photographer is more flexible with settings. More resolution results in better cropping ability, so bad composition is more easily corrected in post. Less calculation involved with focal lenght and equivalence. So in that perspective I can say that a lot of people do actually really need FF format, including myself.

Hmmn, not sure about that. I look at images taken using a 36 pmx Nikon or an MF on sites like Luminous Landscape and elsewhere and I think, well, if I could replicate that with my APS-C camera then it would requite one heck of a lot of PP. Resolution, DR, low noise, roll off and tonal gradation, not to mention the best in lenses edge to edge and in terms of focus transitions - APS-C is at the limits here, I would suggest. I'm happy to stay there for the moment, not least because of the cost of moving up, but I'm not going to fall prey to the idea that a sensor one-half or two-thirds smaller than the top dogs is just as good in all and every situation. It simply isn't. Which doesn't mean it's bad, just not as good. And then there are the lenses ...

[normhead]

Aps-c doesn't give you "the best shot" there, because if it's more DOF you're after, you can simply stop down the FF shot and it gives you the same shot. There's absolutely no DOF-related reason why apsc would give you s better shot there. And shutter speed can be matched at any time by bumping ISO. There's no "shutter speed" advantage in any scenario there. (This is basic stuff?!)

Jay, concentrate on this, this is the whole basis of your misunderstanding, this statement is absolutely false.

And shutter speed can be matched at any time by bumping ISO.

This is what you always say, and you always forget about the effect of what you do. When you have an equation like this, every action has other consequences. If you "just change" the ISO you'll have more noise. There is no free ride, every action has a consequence.

If you match the shutter speed by bumping the ISO, you've lost your noise advantage, so now you have the same DoF, you have the same shutter speed, and with the higher ISO, you have the same noise. There is no advantage to using an FF. You get the same image. If you use 300mm lens instead of the 210mm lens I used. Equivalence, remember? So why would you pay thousands of dollars more for your body? The above image was shot with a $35 F-70-210 and it's an image I can sell. Not only that you're going to need a 300mm lens instead of a 210mm lens. Notice that I don't have to use a more expensive lens as you have often claimed on APS-c. This 30 year old FF lens does just fine. There's no evidence at all that the APS-c sensor out resolves it. All the stuff you constantly preach is just wrong.

---------- Post added 04-03-15 at 11:47 AM ----------

that a sensor one-half or two-thirds smaller than the top dogs is just as good in all and every situation. It simply isn't.

It's not, the only question you need to address is how often are you in those situations where FF has an edge. If you need more resolution for large prints, like over 40 inches by 30 inches, FF and MF are you options.

If you shoot narrow DoF in low light FF is your only option, even MF gets tossed from that one.

But it's not as generic as you make it. It's not like FF can improve every image. There are also many circumstances where APS-c will give you the same image and FF is no advantage at all. And there are many circumstances where given the current MP limitations of FF, APS-c will give you a better image. It's always a trade off. If FF gives you more of what you want, you trade off the advantages APS_c gives you. And you won't care, because it wasn't stuff you used anyway. But the other way around is also true. People seem to think that there is some camera format that is everything the others are, and more. That's just wrong. Every format has it's unique strengths and weaknesses.

If you are a real enthusiast, you should be hiring a porter to pull around a cart with Micro 4/3, APS-c, FF and MF (and maybe a 4x5 scanning back as well) cameras in it, (or maybe have a mule to carry your gear like Ansel Adams).so you can use each to it's strength. Most of us compromise.

I look at images taken using a 36 pmx Nikon or an MF on sites like Luminous Landscape and elsewhere and I think, well, if I could replicate that with my APS-C camera then it would requite one heck of a lot of PP.

So your assumption is that those images didn't have a heck of a lot of PP? I look at the APS-c images on Photo Extract and say the same thing. I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Art Photography | PhotoExtract Photography Magazine

[jsherman999]

Jay, concentrate on this, this is the whole basis of your misunderstanding, this statement is absolutely false. (befuddled confused circular logic and memory lapse-generated rhetoric follows...)

Norm, you made the claim up there that shooting a smaller format would involve less motion blur, somehow gave you a shutter speed advantage. It never, ever does. The best you can hope for is that the smaller format can match the larger format in noise and DR *IF* you absolutely need to maintain the same DOF as the smaller format, for some reason.

If you need to stop down with the larger format to match the smaller format's DOF - something that happens much less in every day shooting than you like to pretend - then you can bump ISO if you need to maintain shutter speed. The noise, DR wold be the same and the shutter speed would be the same - there is no aps-c advantage you can find there in any combination or situation. In fact, there may be an advantage for FF in high-mid apertures in that the lens may show more sharpness/contrast stopped down 1.3 stops. That's the thing you missed that started this whole sub-discussion, by the way, so welcome back to that point.

If you match the shutter speed by bumping the ISO, you've lost your noise advantage, so now you have the same DoF, you have the same shutter speed, and with the higher ISO, you have the same noise. There is no advantage to using an FF.

Go back and read what you read. You said "aps-c gives me the best shot." You claiming otherwise? Maybe you misquoted yourself?

Here, I'll make it easy for you:

... IF you're looking for wide DoF FF is a disadvantage. You have to look at a lower shutter speed and that's more risk of motion blur. In shots like this, with APS_c i am dealing with shutter speed and DoF, in that I'd actually like to increase my DoF even more. APS-c gives me the best shot. You always want to talk about subject isolation, but way more often than subject isolation, I deal with lack of DoF. I'm quite happy with the subject isolation in this image... and if I wasn't, I could blur the image in PP. I can't correct motion blur in PP.

By the way, the weasel shot is good except for the terrible busy/weird bokeh, which kinda ruins it IMO. It would have benefitted from some more optical blur, turn the business into color blend and highlight/isolate the charming subject more. Hm. When does that FF come out?

.

[ElJamoquio]

From what I can discern the advantages of the FF vs. APSC are essentially:

1. Lenses which perform at their "true" focal length.
2. Larger prints at higher resolutions.
3. More dramatic DOF.
4. Having the cachet of a professional.

Am I missing something?

Image quality, lighter lenses, cheaper lenses, more low-light options.

[normhead]

Go back and read what you read. You said "aps-c gives me the best shot." You claiming otherwise? Maybe you misquoted yourself?

It gives me the best shot because in a crop situation, it gives me more subject resolution. I was assuming that you understood that shooting with the same lens you get more magnification of your subject with APS-c. But your evaluation says it all as to why we disagree....

By the way, the weasel shot is good except for the terrible busy/weird bokeh, which kinda ruins it IMO. It would have benefitted from some more optical blur, turn the business into color blend and highlight/isolate the charming subject more. Hm. When does that FF come out?

Which is why we disagree on almost everything. You think the image would have been better with FF and smoother bokeh, I think it would actually be better a bit more DOF and a little more detail in the OOF areas. As long as you continue to worship narrow DoF and really smooth indistinct bokeh as the be all and end all that's going to be true. Having been trained in portrait and product photography my first rule of shooting tends to be, keep your whole subject in focus. That is more important to me than the out of focus areas as long as the OOF areas don't conflict with the subject. There simply is no right answer here. Me (and my customers) prefer one type of image, you prefer something else. I have no problem with you thinking you know what's best for you. I have problem with you thinking what's best for me and everyone else.

And for me more subject resolution on cropped images and equal in every other way is a better image, and higher IQ.

[jsherman999]

...You think the image would have been better with FF and smoother bokeh, I think it would actually be better a bit more DOF and a little more detail in the OOF areas.

Ugh. Even busier, more intrusive background in that shot? Bad call, IMO.

The subject is the star there, and a charming star it is. The background should bring color, seperation, and an idea of environment. It should not intrude, distract, grate on the eyes.

Me (and my customers) prefer one type of image,

The people who like more subject pop and less busy bokeh are not your customers, they're the other guy's customers.

Better images = more customers. More skill = better images, but so (sometimes) does better equipment = better images. You are free to travel your own path, as we all are.

[normhead]

Ugh. Even busier, more intrusive background in tat shot? Bad call, IMO.



The people who like more subject pop and less busy bokeh are not your customers, they're the other guy's customers.

Better images = more customers. More skill = better images, but so (sometimes) does better equipment = better images. You are free to travel your own path, as we all are.

Exactly, I sell to the people who like what I do. The only thing you've got wrong there is you think you get to decide for all of us what "better images" are. You're like the guys in the next booth over at the craft show who's so busy telling me how much better his images are and how much mine would be improved by shooting FF, he doesn't notice I've outsold him by about 10 to1. I like to use the frame to provide context for the image, so the customer sees what I saw. To me the type of image you seem to favour is frankly cheesy and without context. I accidentally get one from time to time but they embarrass me.



I could probably sell images like this, but I don't want people knowing I took it.

[jsherman999]

You're like the guys in the next booth over at the craft show who's so busy telling me how much better his images are and how much mine would be improved by shooting FF, he doesn't notice I've outsold him by about 10 to1.

That ^ little fable reminds me of a wendyb post. Ah, good times, the wendyb days....

(BTW, in that shot intrusive foreground does nothing to enhance, makes it look like something a few frames away from the actual 'keeper'. And I think the bird may be over sharpened. If you shot it jpeg re-think your settings, if raw tone down the sharpening. I've seen the same problem with your landscapes.)

...I could probably sell images like this,

The folks who buy your landscapes might be interested.

but I don't want people knowing I took it.

I can see why. Heck, work on your technique, consider some new lens/body choices, you may be able to expand your sales into other areas besides your bread n' butter.


.

[mecrox]

So your assumption is that those images didn't have a heck of a lot of PP? I look at the APS-c images on Photo Extract and say the same thing. I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Art Photography | PhotoExtract Photography Magazine

No, not my assumption at all. I know that many good FF or MF images have a lot of PP, judging by the work of folks like Alain Briot, Ming Thein and others who've written at length about their methods. But It strikes me as easier if you are starting from a higher base to begin with. I do grow tired of feeling that with APS-C I'm sometimes not, in fact I am working hard to get to a level their files were on to start with. Ther is only so much one can do with 16 mpx in a smaller format and a lens with dodgy corners compared to 36 mpx with a high-end lens on the front. You can do a great deal of course, but it's not parity. And, in any case, I am a little leery of the current craze for extensive PP. It's not hard to notice that a number of photographers depend on promoting the idea of heavy PP for part of their income through books, how-to videos, tips and tricks sites and so on. It's very easy to PP the emotional impact and spontaneity right out of an image.

[clackers]

Ther is only so much one can do with 16 mpx in a smaller format and a lens with dodgy corners compared to 36 mpx with a high-end lens on the front.

Even a Zeiss 25mm has dodgy corners, Mecrox.

APS-C is using the better part of the glass - you're getting the best cut of steak, right? :-D

[philbaum]

Call a rental company and get you a premium lens and any current FF body. DSLR or A7 line. Image quality.... image quality.... Image quality. I own the K-3 and the A7II. Both excellent cameras, and the K-3 is a better camera than the A7II, but the RAW files from the A7II are really great to work with. Love the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm F/1.8.

Don't ask on the internet. Spend a few dollars on a rental and find out for yourself.

Now that is totally believable. Personally, I've reverted to using my K-5 for some landscapes, I just find the K-5 files a bit easier to work with. The K-3 files are definitely not the easiest to work with, even for Pentax cameras. Part of the reason I'm now looking at a Ks-2. Maybe a 20 MB file with a bit more of that K-5 magic is the best APS-c compromise, for anything but wildlife. Unfortunately my wildlife is so much of my focus right now, it's hard to imagine using anything but a K-3.

For Norm - why do you say the K5 files are easier to work with? Not arguing here, just trying to understand. I noticed from the DXO tables that DR range for K3 at 400iso is almost 0.5ev less than a K5 under similar iso. Is that what you mean?

For Winder - basically the same question: why do you say the A7II files are easier to work with? Just been reading the Sony forum comments about the dpreview of A7II. The biggest issue, most contentious perhaps, is the employment of lossy compression of the "14 bit files", which makes them more like 13 bit files. Then in some modes like continuous drive mode, A7II shaves another data bit off and makes them 12 bit files. Some folks say it doesn't matter - other people say it does. One person suggested that the reason Sony did this, besides the speed benefit - is the heat benefit. Cramming a FF sensor into a body small than a K3, and then doing more processing of the larger files, apparently is a recipe for heat transfer problems. I remember that the A7s could not do 4K recording within the body and that was apparently due to heat problems. Heat issues, were not a problem that film camera designers ever had to worry about - arrgh.

But anyway, your suggestion to rent the camera and find out for oneself is a sound one. My Nex6 and 5n all employ 12 bit files in ARW, and i've always preferred Pentax RAWs to work with. 12 bit files are generally fine, but if one is trying to pull more details out of shadows or do abnormal things to pics, then the deeper files make a difference, IMO.

All that glitters is not gold, apprently

[ElJamoquio]

Even a Zeiss 25mm has dodgy corners, Mecrox.

APS-C is using the better part of the glass - you're getting the best cut of steak, right? :-D

I have yet to see a comparison of two lenses, where, at same FOV and DOF, an APS-C corner has better lp/ph than a FF corner. And I've looked quite a bit.

[clackers]

I have yet to see a comparison of two lenses, where, at same FOV and DOF, an APS-C corner has better lp/ph than a FF corner. And I've looked quite a bit.

See the central 50-odd percent of a FF graph - the good bit?

That's what you get, EJ. :-)