[osv]

Which 15mm has an equivalent lens design to an 85mm and we will compare.

is that supposed to represent some sort of crop vs. ff comparison?

because i must have missed the part where there are real-world lens/sensor sizes that make such disparate focal lengths an equivalence-based comparison.

[philbaum]

Exactly.... as soon as you have to match depth of field, the performance advantage disappears. So a shooter who does a lot of shooting with wide DOF images will probably be happier on APS-c, smaller , lighter, those tiny LTD lenses and equivalent IQ, unless you want the extra MP.... then you just have to live with FF.

It's funny the difference of opinion, those of us brought up on large format cameras were always struggling to getting enough DoF. I guess with the smaller formats, getting shallow DoF is an issue, for those who want that.

That is funny. I think the main emphasis of photography may have shifted over the decades as well. Seems like more working professionals are in the portrait, wedding, event mode and fewer professionals are into landscapes. Landscapes being the area, i think, where more DOF would be in demand. Landscapes are being shot a lot, its just that i'm thinking fewer professionals are being employed in that field.

I do believe that FF has the edge in AF and resolution. Spreading the image over a larger sensor area can't help but improve the ability of the camera to autofocus that image and provide more resolution. However, there are several smaller cameras, APS and smaller, that are reported to be focusing and tracking monsters, i.e. Sony's A6000, Nikon's 1 series, etc. Another one of these layered questions that i don't fully understand

There were several comments above or in some other thread about the trend towards smaller imaging devices. Smart phones are symbolic of that. Please note that i'm not saying that there is only one answer. Its pros and cons and a lot of diverse customers with different needs and wants. For me personally, I can't wrap my mind around the idea of carrying around heavy camera combos/lens bags, etc. Especially not when there is so much competition and options from a variety of companies that are "good enough". The K3/K5 are amazing cameras, for example. Pentax doesn't produce a lot of cameras, but when they do, they frequently hit the mark squarely. It will be fun to see what Pentax came up with for FF.

[Rondec]

Which 15mm has an equivalent lens design to an 85mm and we will compare.

What are you comparing, a Q to an 8 by 10 view camera? Honestly, I don't see many full frame shooters doing portrait sessions with a 20mm lens, even if somehow sticking it on a full frame camera makes it awesome without distortion. It just isn't flattering to most folks features. Whole body shots, maybe, but certainly not the sort of shots you would normally do with an 85mm lens.

Maybe you are just choosing some sort of extreme example to prove a point, but I guess I must have missed the point somewhere in the example.

[ElJamoquio]

Crickets.

Actually he'll probably give a long-telephoto example and then declare it against the rules to simply choose a telephoto 1.5 longer on FF.

Or crop, like it's somehow difficult to crop a 36MP sensor down to the exact same 16MP sensor.

---------- Post added 04-04-15 at 12:52 PM ----------

Which 15mm has an equivalent lens design to an 85mm and we will compare.

One with a crop factor of ~5.7. So, say, a 15mm prime on a Q.

[normhead]

Or crop, like it's somehow difficult to crop a 36MP sensor down to the exact same 16MP sensor.[COLOR="Silver"]

.

Well actually he'd say, it's impossible to crop a 16 MP crop mode of an FF sensor down to the exact same 24 MP image taken with a 24 MP APS-c. You guys seem to not understand, some of us actually figured it out and bought K-3s just for this reason. I guess some day you guys will figure it out too, maybe someday.

Actually he'll probably give a long-telephoto example and then declare it against the rules to simply choose a telephoto 1.5 longer on FF.

No he'll just point out that if you put the same telephoto on your K-3 it still gives you more resolution on your subject, if you are cropping.

It's amazing how after all these years and all these discussions, you guys still think I'm thinking something stupid, when your grasp of simple math fails you. It's like the stupider you are, the stupider you think I am.... too funny.

Here, let me make it really simple... size of D810 in crop mode.... 15 MP
Size of K-3 24 MP.

Difference 9 MP.

Capiche?

[osv]

Well actually he'd say, it's impossible to crop a 16 MP crop mode of an FF sensor down to the exact same 24 MP image taken with a 24 MP APS-c.

what will your excuse be when 50mp ff cameras hit the market later this year?

It's amazing how after all these years and all these discussions, you guys still think I'm thinking something stupid

exactly.

[jsherman999]

It's amazing how after all these years and all these discussions, you guys still think I'm thinking something stupid

It is amazing, isn't it?

[ElJamoquio]

Well actually he'd say, it's impossible to crop a 16 MP crop mode of an FF sensor down to the exact same 24 MP image taken with a 24 MP APS-c. You guys seem to not understand, some of us actually figured it out and bought K-3s just for this reason. I guess some day you guys will figure it out too, maybe someday.

Nope. The closest I'll get is a 50-odd megapixel FF.

No he'll just point out that if you put the same telephoto on your K-3 it still gives you more resolution on your subject, if you are cropping.

It's amazing how after all these years and all these discussions, you guys still think I'm thinking something stupid, when your grasp of simple math fails you. It's like the stupider you are, the stupider you think I am.... too funny.

Here, let me make it really simple... size of D810 in crop mode.... 15 MP
Size of K-3 24 MP.

Difference 9 MP.

Capiche?

I was talking about the K-5, not the K-3. Heck with FF so cheap I don't think I'll ever purchase another APS-C. With all the lens savings, I can afford a teleconverter, and with all the inherent IQ of the FF, I'll still come out ahead.

[normhead]

Nope. The closest I'll get is a 50-odd megapixel FF.

I was talking about the K-5, not the K-3. Heck with FF so cheap I don't think I'll ever purchase another APS-C. With all the lens savings, I can afford a teleconverter, and with all the inherent IQ of the FF, I'll still come out ahead.

Keep telling yourself that..... so you talk about FFs that aren't out yet but for APS-c you talk about 4 year old product... you're such a peach..

But then, you don't do what I do, so you don't know what I know. Simple as that . always has been....

[ElJamoquio]

Yes but you don't shoot telephoto...

Que??

---------- Post added 04-04-15 at 07:26 PM ----------

Keep telling yourself that..... so you talk about FFs that aren't out yet but for APS-c you talk about 4 year old product... you're such a peach..

But then, you don't do what I do, so you don't know what I know. Simple as that . always has been....

Here's the thing, Norm. The FF was so much more versatile that I really don't see a need for a K-3. I've had a FF camera for a couple years since I spoke to Jim Malcolm about how he needed a FF. I buy cameras about every other year or so, and I'm on my second FF.

I'd prefer to purchase Pentax but it's been 10 years now since FF has been in the 'consumer' market. Heck I think my K200D might've come out around the same time as the 5D. Heck maybe the 5D was around earlier.

[normhead]

I've always understood you were an FF guy ElJay, I think it's good for you.... I just don't understand why you can't see why my K-3 is good for me. It's sad Pentax let you and so many others down. And I know a year ago I was with you hanging in for an FF. However for me, I'm not giving up what and APS-c does for me. And the K-3 has made it hard from to accept anything but a 50 MP FF. You're looking at this bird at least 5 times life size... I like that,

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

what will your excuse be when 50mp ff cameras hit the market later this year?




exactly.

The way I see it the additional cropping that one could get with the K3 over a FF 36mp camera for wildlife photography is very meniscal but the trade off when going FF for wildlife photography out weights that loss
Most of the individuals I shoot with in the past had shot with cropped sensor for wildlife but after 2012 I was the last to move over to FF in the group.

[Hattifnatt]

So... reading between the lines here I guess I would not benefit so much from a FF if I mostly shoot landscapes with my K5IIs? I don't print.

I was a little bit late with this one, should have done it before the FF announcement:

[normhead]

The way I see it the additional cropping that one could get with the K3 over a FF 36mp camera for wildlife photography is very meniscal but the trade off when going FF for wildlife photography out weights that loss
Most of the individuals I shoot with in the past had shot with cropped sensor for wildlife but after 2012 I was the last to move over to FF in the group.

In 2012 the best cropped APS-c was 16 MP, and the crop area of a D800 equalled it. SO it made sense. It doesn't make sense right now.

I see it the additional cropping that one could get with the K3 over a FF 36mp camera for wildlife photography is very meniscal

Two things about that....
One calling some advantage one camera has over another minimal, is a value judgement. Applicable only to you. Others may have different values, so it may or may not be relevant to others.

Where I shoot, I see about half and half, and I meet a lot of wildlife shooters up here in the park. So sample size? I'm basing my numbers on approximately 40 photographers. I'm talking about guys using multi-lens systems with long lenses.

Theres approx. about a 20% resolution increase in the crop area APS-c over 36 MP FF. More than double if you're talking the crop area 24 MP FF. SO say on average a 33% increase, just to pick a number.

The increase in resolution for landscape for 36 MP FF over 24 MP APS-c is roughly 30-33%. We've already established that if you shoot for the same DoF, noise low light performance are pretty much identical.

Why is the 23% increase for one "minimal" and the 33% better for the other "important". You're really splitting hairs on this judgement.

I hope you're starting to get a handle on how seriously ridiculous it is to make value judgements based on those kinds of numbers. IN photography we typically go in stops...double or half. Neither of those numbers even approaches that kind of threshold.

If one system costs a lot more than the other and the one that gives you the advantage in the area you shoot is the cheapest... why would you go with the more expensive version. Some people would because they want to impress those people who are impressed by expensive things. Some people get sold a bill of good by salesmen or on-line BS. The only place where the numbers approach the "Double/half" threshold, is 24 MP APS-c being double the resolution of 24 MP FF in crop mode. So unless, you're wildlife shooting buddies are shooting 36 MP D810s, they been sold a bill of goods in terms of resolution, and they've given up frame rate to get it, compared to a K-3.

But, pictures are more than resolution. I find it easier to just look at the FF guys, and assume they have their reasons for liking what they like, and they seem to assume I have my reasons for like what I like. And I look at folks like you going on and on about their Full Frames as sort of living in an alternate universe. After all, cameras are not just resolution... a person can find all kinds of features on a camera that may have them using it. You maybe need to learn to live and let live here. Most of the time people are not talking FF ro APS-c technically. There was a lot more than that that went into their decision. So I'm not even sure what your shooting buddy's choices mean, if you go with the crowd, you live and die with the crowd. Crowds don't always make the best decisions.

I'm always happy when someone finds a camera that make's them happy, no matter what it is. It has to be FF ro APS-c or whatever? Please, spare me. The BS I've heard made up about why FF is better is just beyond belief. Stick to the facts. And not facts like "all my friends shoot FF." We aren teenage girls here, or are we?

What I see when I read these guys going on and on about FF as if it's the be all and end all, are little kids in short pants telling you all about their new toys, or the toy they are hoping they get for Christmas. Only now they're grown up, and still reciting the fantasies that go with their new toys. APS_c micro 4/3. FF or MF, EVF OVF... its a camera folks. It doesn't affect 99% of your life. It's no big deal.

[philbaum]

Its really time for an END to this bickering over FF versus APS. I don't see bickering like that in the gallery i work for, i don't see it in the theater i work for nor do i see it in the photography club i attend. The bickering is just ugly and personal and its time for it to end. My hope is that the moderators will just close down all threads with this petty bickering in it. Its just petty BS. Do you really think that is all photography has to offer- bickering and trading sarcasm over who has the best equipment Thats the sole takeway for young people to emulate?