[osv]

I'd much rather shoot higher end lenses on APS-C than cheap lenses on FF. Most of the FF images I see are taken with expensive Canon and Nikon pro glass. When I've see an FF image taken with consumer grade zoom glass, I'm not all that impressed.

that's because your crop-sensor world revolves entirely around shooting with zoom lenses; you didn't mention primes in your post, and primes are almost always superior to zooms, at every level of expenditure.

there are xlnt mf legacy zooms, that are dirt cheap and perform well when stopped down a bit... some of the adaptall-2 sp series zooms, for instance, rock on ff, i've posted several pics out here that prove it.

pentax has many good old wide primes, if you are on a budget mf on primes is the way to go for the best pq.

a couple of days ago i shot a dusty old pentax-m 35/2.8 prime on the a7r, at death valley, it was pretty good stopped down, i'll post up a pic later... it's certainly not in the fa35 league, and it didn't pull in nearfield objects in landscape shots like the pentax-m 28/3.5 does, but it has less vignetting than both of the 35/2.8 minolta versions that i have.

[biz-engineer]

Since higher end lenses normally feature better lens contrast than lower end lenses, higher end lenses shot on APS-C should provide better looking images than lower contrast consumer grade lenses shot on FF. This is true even when the consumer grade lenses on FF yield better resolution (due to the larger FF sensor).

Sure, the resulting images are the sum of sensor perf. + lens perf.. A high resolving lens on a 10Mp sensor does not resolve more than 10Mp and a low resolving lens on a 50Mp sensor does not resolve 50Mp. Regarding contrast, the lens makes the difference but lack contrast can be somehow corrected in post, like sharpness, within some limits.

[northcoastgreg]

Regarding contrast, the lens makes the difference but lack contrast can be somehow corrected in post, like sharpness, within some limits.

Yes, but what is often forgotten is that you can add contrast to the image taken with the contrastier lens, so in a sense you're chasing a moving target. Keep in mind, the way PP generally works is that if you add a little contrast, a little saturation, a little sharpening, you can often improve an image. You add a lot of these things, it's usually to the detriment of an image. So if your original raw image contains better contrast and color from the very get-go, if you're starting out with a better collection of raw data, you'll tend to end up with better images, even after PP.

Furthermore, the most important type of contrast is "local contrast," which (following Johnston's definition) is "tonal differentiation within certain specified tonal ranges." Cranking up global contrast tends to hose these fine tonal differentiations (i.e., detail is hosed in highlights, and shadows are completely blackened). There are ways around this (such as the clarity slider or mid-tone contrast), but these are kludges and only work up to a point. Local contrast is in large part determined by how well a lens handles veiling flare. Light inevitably "leaks" as it goes through the lens. The more light that is bouncing around inside the lens, the more veiling flare you will have. Veiling flare acts like a sort of haze. Now if you shoot on a hazy day, you can somewhat fix the resulting images by adding contrast in post. But what looks better? An image shot on hazy day with contrast added, or the shot taken on a clear day? (And remember, you can add contrast to the image taken on the clear day!)

[mee]

One factor to consider is that most people here will be going from APS-C to FF, and probably keeping their APS-C bodies.

So a way to manage the costs of FF may be to divide the shooting work between the two bodies. Use the FF for wides (eg anything below 85mm) and low light, and keep your APS-C body for tele. That way a FF kit could include a nice cheap UWA prime (eg SamYang 14mm f2.8), and a few fast primes (eg a FA 50 f1.4/DA 50 f1.8 and a FA 77 f1.8), and that's it for your FF lens spend. Anything above that use APS-C.

I'm waiting to see how the crop mode on the FF digi body performs. Might be possible to just use it instead of two different bodies with the various lenses (which is my 'plan' should the FF be within my cost and performance ranges).

Otherwise the cost alone throws me out of 'upgrading.'

But two other issues largely forgotten with FF is size and weight. FF lenses are generally 2x to 5x the weight of the APS-C counter parts. Look at the 16-50 f/2.8 vs the 24-70 f/2.8 .. the former weighs around a pound while the latter is closer to 2 pounds! The 150-450 is just under 4.5 pounds!! something like a 55-300mm in APS-C format weighs a bit over 1.5 pounds.

There is a lot of trade off for using that bigger FF sensor.

[rawr]

There is a lot of trade off for using that bigger FF sensor.

There's a lot of trade-offs for using smaller sensors too. And at the other end of the scale, there are trade-offs involved in using even bigger sensors like medium format. Everything is a matter of trade-off's. Size and weight are just one dimension of trade-off.

[normhead]

There's a lot of trade-offs for using smaller sensors too. And at the other end of the scale, there are trade-offs involved in using even bigger sensors like medium format. Everything is a matter of trade-off's. Size and weight are just one dimension of trade-off.

Repeat this over and over until it sinks in.

[jsherman999]

Since we start seeing new DFA lenses I was wondering what would be the minimum FF setup and related budget. I guess a basic setup would cost about $6000 ? How much to money to save ? How do we deal with the APSC to FF upgrade?

6 grand? Define 'setup' first. 'setup' doesn't mean "must have all the OEM f/2.8 zooms at full MSRP." (and as far as the 'upgrade' process goes - auto and configurable-crop in-camera lets you use all your DA/aps-c lenses for as long as you want. I've kept several aps-c lenses and still use them on FF because I like them, even if they drop the FF benefit. It's preferable in most cases to carrying two DSLRs.)

Here's one setup, guessing on body price:

36/42MP Pentax K-FF body: $2500
50mm f/1.8 (used): $150
total=$2650

(One lens? Don't laugh - this ^ kit alone is loads of fun and will make you a better photographer.)

Here's another:

36/42MP K-FF: $2500
Samyang 14mm f/2.8: $400
50 f/1.4 (used): $200
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (used): $250
Tamron 70-200 2.8 (new): $650
total=$4000

(kit #2 would be fantastic and more power/capability/DOF-contrl/resolution than 99.9% of casual photogs would need. *Want* is another issue.

.

---------- Post added 09-29-15 at 10:57 AM ----------

I'd much rather shoot higher end lenses on APS-C than cheap lenses on FF.

I wouldn't. (Caveat: "Cheap" doesn't necessarily mean "bad".)

...when I've see an FF image taken with consumer grade zoom glass, I'm not all that impressed.

If you're looking at a consumer-zoom shot, you might be looking at a lower-resolving or higher-distortion lens that's being shot at an aperture well within the range that aps-c is capable of - because the consumer zooms are variable aperture and don't open up very much, especially at the long end. Think of it this way - consumer zooms *can* (not always) handicap a FF camera in ways that make it no better than an aps-c camera - but you don't have to leap immediately from consumer zooms to $2000 zooms to get the FF benefit.

Lenses like the Tamron f/2.8 zooms (in-spec), most modern, well-coated fast 50s and even some older 50s and 35s and 28s - these are inexpensive lenses that can give you incredible results on FF.

The 'pro glass' zooms are nice to own, but are huge, expensive, and honestly - in my opinion - not necessary. I know Pentax sales dept (and Nikon, Canon etc) want you to feel that they are necessary for FF - but they're not.

.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 09-29-2015 at 10:15 AM.

[Winder]

36/42MP Pentax K-FF body: $2500
50mm f/1.8 (used): $150
total=$2650

(One lens? Don't laugh - this ^ kit alone is loads of fun and will make you a better photographer.

It would be an excellent starter kit. Give me a 35, 50, & 85 and I can make money. I have shot entire events with a 50mm lens.

[normhead]

It would be an excellent starter kit. Give me a 35, 50, & 85 and I can make money. I have shot entire events with a 50mm lens.

Not to mention that anything you need to know about any lens, you can learn on a 50. You can base your whole understanding of lenses on how they differ from 50s. The simple truth is, the move from 35mm film and a 50-55mm sub 2 lens as the first camera and lens combo everyone owns, has caused nothing but a whole pile of confusion.

The biggest problem with promoting zooms, which I do on a regular basis, is, when I learned, I learned on a 55 1.8. I always assume people know what a 50mm sub-ƒ2 lens can do. I know where I can get away with using a zoom. Without that knowledge, you may never know what you're missing.

So, I'm with Jay on this one. When you get your FF, if you're new to the format, a fast 50 has to be one of your first lenses. If you're going to shoot ƒ5.6 in day light, you may as well stay with APS-c.

[TzalamChadash]

I'm waiting to see how the crop mode on the FF digi body performs. Might be possible to just use it instead of two different bodies with the various lenses (which is my 'plan' should the FF be within my cost and performance ranges).

Otherwise the cost alone throws me out of 'upgrading.'

But two other issues largely forgotten with FF is size and weight. FF lenses are generally 2x to 5x the weight of the APS-C counter parts. Look at the 16-50 f/2.8 vs the 24-70 f/2.8 .. the former weighs around a pound while the latter is closer to 2 pounds! The 150-450 is just under 4.5 pounds!! something like a 55-300mm in APS-C format weighs a bit over 1.5 pounds.

There is a lot of trade off for using that bigger FF sensor.

I agree with this. I just booked a professional photographer to photograph our child's bat mitzvah. The photographer we retained is an artistic type who sells prints and such and also does events at a somewhat higher price than standard events photographers. When I asked what equipment is used the answer I received is that all of the old Nikon full frame cameras and pro lenses were sold off and now photographs with micro four thirds - pro zoom lenses and some artistic primes. Two micro four thirds bodies.
This got me thinking - I'm going to stick with APS-C for now and enjoy lighter weight cameras and lenses. If I make any switch it will be down to micro four thirds (but will need to see an optical viewfinder first - in the sunny Middle East I still see the dust proof weather resistance and the optical viewfinder as one of pentaxs biggest advantages.

[pinholecam]

I'm waiting to see how the crop mode on the FF digi body performs. Might be possible to just use it instead of two different bodies with the various lenses (which is my 'plan' should the FF be within my cost and performance ranges).

Otherwise the cost alone throws me out of 'upgrading.'

But two other issues largely forgotten with FF is size and weight. FF lenses are generally 2x to 5x the weight of the APS-C counter parts. Look at the 16-50 f/2.8 vs the 24-70 f/2.8 .. the former weighs around a pound while the latter is closer to 2 pounds! The 150-450 is just under 4.5 pounds!! something like a 55-300mm in APS-C format weighs a bit over 1.5 pounds.

There is a lot of trade off for using that bigger FF sensor.

Not really when it comes to primes.

Samyang 14/2.8 is 14mm FOV, about the size of a Sigma 10-20.
FA35/2 is a 35mm FOV and certainly smaller than a FA*24/2 on apsc.
43ltd on FF vs 31ltd on apsc
etc


At this point, I can't see a con using the FF in crop mode.
Its about 16mp if its a 36mp camera and 18mp if its 42mp.

What I do have some apprehension of is how clunky processing the 42mp file will be.

[stevebrot]

I don't know how to express it, but , if we have to resort to this kind of tradeoff because we have Pentax mount, then it is just sad.

Out of curiosity, what do you anticipate shooting at 15mm on 35mm FF? The 110 degree FOV is pretty extreme for most subjects. I could see it as useful for astrophotography, but probably less so that a fisheye.

SLR lenses at those focal lengths have traditionally been rare and not particularly good with sales volumes that have traditionally been quite low*. I discovered that when I bought my K10D back in 2007 and tried to find a prime, any prime, that had decent quality, approachable price and was roughly equivalent in FOV to 28mm on 35mm film. I just did a quick look and found that the field is not particularly flush for FF SLRs even now, regardless of mount and the price point, with two exception, is somewhere north of about $2000. Those exception are the Samyang 14/2.8 variants (available in K-mount) and the Venus 15/4 (also available in K-mount). To go that route will involve $300-$500 investment and probably some fiddling with the focus calibration and more barrel/complex distortion than with name-brand options from Canon, Nikon, and Zeiss. Sorry, no zooms regardless of mount. (Photozone Samyang 14/2.8 review HERE)

Of course, there is the 14-28/2.8 zoom on the Pentax lens roadmap for 2015 or later. It would be unique in the photography world, but of course it is vaporware at present.



Steve

[stevebrot]

But it does provide an autofocussing

Surely you jest? AF at that degree of magnification is hit or miss at best with the usual behavior being inability to attain focus. The problem is that a particular focus point may span several feet even at moderate distances and even coarse detail across that span may not have adequate contrast for a precise (or accurate) lock. Manual focus is quite difficult too.


Steve

[biz-engineer]

Out of curiosity, what do you anticipate shooting at 15mm on 35mm FF?

I'm interested to use 20mm on FF, because I'm not very satisfied with wide angle on APSC, and I expect FF to deliver better results at 20mm than APSC with 14/15mm lens, especially in the corners. I'm delighted when using the 15 ltd on my K-3, but I'm disappointed by the so called field curvature and quite visible lack of sharpness (some kind of fringing) in the corners and 1/3rd of the outer region of the frame. 14mm FL on FF would be too wide for me (I'm not very skilled for wide angle). I missed myself because I'm used to consider focal lengths with 1.5x crop factor in mind. So, yeah, 20mm is already wide on FF. I've looked a photographs taken with the Tamron 15-30 on FF at 15mm... that's wide , and again I was disappointed at the corners. So I still hope that a 20mm prime of a wide angle zoom used in the middle of its FL range can deliver high image quality on FF.

[osv]

14mm FL on FF would be too wide for me (I'm not very skilled for wide angle). I missed myself because I'm used to consider focal lengths with 1.5x crop factor in mind. So, yeah, 20mm is already wide on FF.

ultra-wide on ff is about the easiest shooting there is, you'll do fine with it.

I've looked a photographs taken with the Tamron 15-30 on FF at 15mm... that's wide , and again I was disappointed at the corners.

that lens rivals the legendary nikon 14-24, and even exceeds it in some respects.

i don't know what you were looking at, but it must have been shot by someone who doesn't know how to use a camera

Prepare to be impressed: Tamron 15-30 F2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24 F2.8: Digital Photography Review