[clackers]

Complete overkill and a silly choice in plenty of situations, sure, but most certainly not in all.

Agreed. I shoot 1" with a Samsung, APS-C with Pentax, FF with Sony.

But one would do - the APS-C is a great all-rounder.

[jsherman999]

See post 85.

And outdoors, you don't even change lenses, just zoom with your feet ... nothing you don't already do, Mecrox!...

Your argument is forming weird eddies of logic. The edges of a FF lens are not as good as the 'aps-c edges' of the same lens (yay aps-c!), but it's not as wide on aps-c (darn aps-c!), so you zoom out with your feet to get a wider FOV? (yay aps-c!)

Never mind that doing that changes perspective, moves you farther from elements of your subject, and may be impossible if to get the framing you need to 'zoom with your feet' 15 feet up in the air, or under ground, through a wall, or into traffic, or off a cliff.

The contortions one must be willing to go through to shoot aps-c!

(also by this logic no-one in ap-sc ever needs to buy anything wider than the 18-55 kit, they can just zoom out with their feet!)

[mohb]

Your argument is forming weird eddies of logic

What could be weirder than your strange belief that APSC images MUST be taken with the same FOV and DOF as those taken with a 'full frame?

[osv]

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

no, that is not right.

" It's commonly held that using a FF lens on a cropped sensor camera results in sharper corners, but this misunderstanding is largely a result of people comparing corners at the same focal length and f-ratio rather than the same AOV and DOF (see Myth/Misunderstanding #5)."
Equivalence

---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 03:27 PM ----------

What could be weirder than your strange belief that APSC images MUST be taken with the same FOV and DOF as those taken with a 'full frame?

seriously?

it's called "equivalence"...

Equivalence

[Na Horuk]

Man, these equivalists.. always coming up with new convoluted ways of proving how their idea is clearly scientific fact, even when it is absolutely irrelevant to actual photography, even if you have to ignore many other factors. And then they somehow prove that APSC cannot ever produce DoF as shallow as FF - and at the same time, FF somehow allows a wider DoF for landscapes and macro! And even if pixel density is the same, somehow the FF has much higher diffraction limit and better noise control! But mention MF? Oh no, that doesn't make any sense, it is not any better than FF, who cares, just ignore it la la la only focus on DoF in relation to FoV on APSC as it compares once it is normalized against a native FF sensor, thats not convoluted and biased at all

[osv]

FF somehow allows a wider DoF for landscapes and macro!

lol, no.

afaik, ff does not allow for wider dof, and i don't recall seeing anyone on this forum seriously make that claim.

FF has much higher diffraction limit.

i used to think that, in a fuzzy sort of way, but in reality, when the dof is equal, so is the diffraction... no advantage either way.

what ff does do is move the threshold for diffraction further up the aperture scale, so if the lens doesn't clean up on the sides until f/11, you are better off with ff.

but a well-designed aps-c lens, that's fully cleaned up on the sides, as good as it's going to get, by f/8, is right where you want it.

[mohb]

no, that is not right.

" It's commonly held that using a FF lens on a cropped sensor camera results in sharper corners, but this misunderstanding is largely a result of people comparing corners at the same focal length and f-ratio rather than the same AOV and DOF (see Myth/Misunderstanding #5)."
Equivalence

---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 03:27 PM ----------



seriously?

it's called "equivalence"...

Equivalence

That doesn't explain the weird belief that ASP-c images must be composional copies of full frame in order to compare their qualities.

[Rondec]

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 ...

I don't know. I look at a lot of full frame images and wonder why folks would need an ILC at all to take the images. Folks on the full frame image thread here on the forum like Mark Lj and V5 were taking awesome photos with their K5s before they "moved up." I can't honestly look at Mark's photos and tell which were taken with which format at web sizes, although I'm sure printed large enough you can see a difference. But I really think the differences are overblown. Poor photographers continue to be poor photographers, even when they have more "headroom" and great photographers are great whatever format they are using.

I do find it interesting that all of these discussions come back to depth of field. It seems as though folks who are big proponents of full frame really feel strongly that shallow depth of field is the be-all-end-all of photography. I suppose that is because this is the biggest area where it is easy to tell the difference between full frame shots and smaller format shots. But it feels like that is actually a fairly small segment of photography and not terribly important in many settings as a reason to buy a camera. Since the dynamic range and high iso capability are intimately connected with shallow depth of field (the only way to get better dynamic range on a full frame camera is to shoot with shallower depth of field), it follows that the places where you actually see benefit tend to be in things like portraiture. Landscapes may have some improvement, but when you realize that a camera like the K5 has 14.1 stops of dynamic range, while the D800 has 14.5 at base iso, it doesn't follow that you are going to see huge benefits as long as you are using good technique, are stabilized, and shooting at base iso, except with an increase in printing size.

I guess I have been rambling here. I plan to buy a full frame camera. I'm saving for it now. I will just say that I am bothered (a) by full frame advocates who believe that it is better than all other formats, usually because of some weird use of " equivalence theory and (b) by people who can't understand photography that involves stopping down a lens.

[jeff knight]

As an observer (mostly), on this site I must confess I find this a really lively and interesting discussion, but if you are on the fence, please consider buying the new Pentax full frame. Don't let anyone talk you out of it.

I have been selling used Pentax lenses, autofocus and manual, for a long, long time. Never has it been so hard for me to move Pentax lenses, APS-C and FF, in the USA. This is a very bad sign. We should all buy something new from Ricoh-Pentax in the next quarter no matter how much the sacrifice hurts. Let's support the Pentax FF and not devolve into warring APS-C and FF camps. Things are sketchier than you think right now.

[osv]

That doesn't explain the weird belief that ASP-c images must be composional copies of full frame in order to compare their qualities.

it's true for mf as well... there has to be the same aov and dof amongst all three formats, in order to accurately judge the tradeoffs.

otherwise, we end up perpetuating false concepts, like the ff lens on crop sensor claim.

[mohb]

it's true for mf as well... there has to be the same aov and dof amongst all three formats, in order to accurately judge the tradeoffs.

otherwise, we end up perpetuating false concepts, like the ff lens on crop sensor claim.

What happens to the light from the corners of full frame lenses when it gets inside a crop camera? Does it decide to force its way into the corners of the smaller sensor and make them soft or does the sensor decide that the corners should be soft and do some magic on the light?

[osv]

since the picture is cropped, the light would have to be falling outside of the crop sensor.

i think that you can redirect the lost light back towards the center with a speedbooster type of rig, but the cheap ones make the photo look like it was shot through the bottom of a coke bottle.

[Wild Mark]

Oh how this debate confuses me

OK, I am not going to try and enter the debate with knowledge or insight, however, I do have one contribution to make (that might add to the discussion).

Some of my highly regarded FF lenses (e.g. 135mm - F, K, SMC v2) exhibit some serious PFing when used wide open through to f5.6ish. I have read many say that this is because the lenses are not optimised to digital, but I have not entirely bought this argument.

These lenses do not have APO elements. This is probably the main reason for seeing PF in many of the resultant APS-C images. However, I have a sneaky thought that the 'magnification' of the cropped sensor is also a contributing factor. The APS-C camera takes the 'cropped' image then enlarges it by 1.5X to give me an FF equivalent image. In so doing, it enhances the flaws of the FF lens.

If the above logic is true, then a FF sensor should lessen the PF/ aberrations otherwise observed when using legacy FF glass on a APS-C camera. Although, I acknowledge that this rule would only hold true if the FF sensor has the same sensor density as the comparable APS-C sensor (i.e. K-3 = 24MP sensor ...... K?FF = 36MP sensor).

Perhaps this logic also applies to the corner softness debate a well.

Anyway, I am hanging out for FF no doubt. My APS-C cameras will remain in my back too, especially for wildlife shooting and macro.

---------- Post added 04-04-15 at 11:39 AM ----------

since the picture is cropped, the light would have to be falling outside of the crop sensor.

i think that you can redirect the lost light back towards the center with a speedbooster type of rig, but the cheap ones make the photo look like it was shot through the bottom of a coke bottle.

Your comment has made me wonder if the use of FF lenses on APS-C cameras is delivering 'extra' light in close proximity to the sensor thus causing IQ losses .... contrast, dynamic range???

[normhead]

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?

Exactly. When you do a lot of sunsets, DR is important. I usually shoot as low ISO as possible to maintain Dynamic Range. The K-5 seems more forgiving in shadowland.

I

[fuent104]

Since the dynamic range and high iso capability are intimately connected with shallow depth of field (the only way to get better dynamic range on a full frame camera is to shoot with shallower depth of field), it follows that the places where you actually see benefit tend to be in things like portraiture.

Can you explain what you meant by this? I'm curious.