Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-10-2016, 03:40 PM - 1 Like   #106
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,227
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
In my opinion, if you say things like "APS has more depth of field control than FF" then maybe you should look into some of the technicalities before shelling out thousands of dollars on a camera.
Or simply shoot with what is available at modest expense. Ten minutes with a medium format or large format film camera is usually all it takes to realize that format size has implications.


Steve

03-10-2016, 03:41 PM   #107
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,227
QuoteOriginally posted by ffking Quote
Didn't they lead their promotional campaign on that one ? ;D
No ducks are too fast...snails...more pixels per snail...


Steve
03-10-2016, 03:55 PM - 1 Like   #108
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
Control meaning you can (almost) always stop down to get more DOF...You cannot always open up to get less DOF.
Macro is interesting with smaller sensors. But still you run into diffraction sooner.
exactly... you can match any usable aps-c dof with ff dof, crop sensors do not have any dof advantages at all.

with ff you have more usable aperture stops on a lens, it's not just the wide open end that has an advantage.

if you want to limit your shot to the point of visible diffraction, it's about ~f/8 on crop and ~f/11 on ff, so you wouldn't be able to use f/11 on crop.

ff clearly has more control over dof than aps-c does.

i don't know why basic photography has to be so difficult for some people to understand
03-10-2016, 04:02 PM - 1 Like   #109
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
Err.. don't these two contradict each other? If you have one stop narrower DoF for the same f-stop, you could just get a lens that's a stop slower for your fullframe. The size and weight differences there are marginal. The prices probably wouldn't be too far apart either.

Of course, for the same exposure, you'd have to raise your ISO 1 stop (assuming the same shutter speed), which could lead to more noise. But then the fullframe sensor has less noise at the same ISO to start with.

But I'll stop here and not mention the E-word.
Yes. Norm's been contradicting himself for years, though, why should he stop now?

03-10-2016, 04:04 PM   #110
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Yes. Norm's been contradicting himself for years, though, why should he stop now?
03-10-2016, 04:12 PM - 1 Like   #111
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Osv's usual rubbish.
On the contrary, he was quite correct.

QuoteQuote:
Smaller sensors have greater control at *extending* DoF.

Larger sensors have greater control at *narrowing* DoF.
So to extend this ^ tortured logic, your phone has just as much "DOF control" as your aps-c DSLR. Because you can get a huge DOF with your phone you just can't possibly ever get with your aps-c DSLR! Stopping down is never possible with larger sensors, and nothing ever hits hyperfocal!!! It's just all an impossible-to-control blur with those big sensors!


QuoteQuote:
That's why it's so much harder for a FF photigrapher to take a group photo at f2.8 and get everyone in focus than somebody with a P&S like a Sony RX100.
I guess FF photographers will just have to force themselves to learn about stopping down for all those "I need tiny-sensor-level DOF!!" moments that are always happening... in your mind.

You can always stop down with FF to match aps-c - if you wish to, which is far from a given - but you can't always open up the aps-c lens any more to match FF. This is why Sigma is bending over backwards to deliver good f/1.8 zooms (and succeeding) - to try to match FF output, at least over some of the typical zoom range.


.
03-10-2016, 04:26 PM   #112
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 5,560
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Or simply shoot with what is available at modest expense. Ten minutes with a medium format or large format film camera is usually all it takes to realize that format size has implications.
Absolutely. In fact, the title of the thread is only part of the story. We might better ask "For whom is 35mm / FF a better choice than phone / compact / micro 4/3 / APS-C / medium formats?"
03-10-2016, 05:13 PM   #113
Veteran Member
Tan68's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 396
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
On the contrary, he was quite correct.



So to extend this ^ tortured logic, your phone has just as much "DOF control" as your aps-c DSLR. ... .
You forgot about phone apps.
The E-word bows to the A-word.

03-10-2016, 06:00 PM   #114
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 585
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Ricoh must have been reading this thread:

Expression / PENTAX K-1 Special site | RICOH IMAGING

Even when photographing the same subject, the resulting image may seem completely different if the size of the image sensor changes.

As the page illustrates, K-1 FF is about:

- depth of field;
- resolving power;
- high-sensitivity and low noise;
- rich gradation / dynamic range.
Ricoh must be wrong, since I was so clearly told on this very thread that the above was all 'bull' and different sensor size using different focal length lens on the same field of view makes no difference.

When the size of the image sensor changes, so too does the lens if you wish to gain the same field of view. Ricoh are correct.
03-10-2016, 07:09 PM   #115
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
On the contrary, he was quite correct.

So to extend this ^ tortured logic, your phone has just as much "DOF control" as your aps-c DSLR. Because you can get a huge DOF with your phone you just can't possibly ever get with your aps-c DSLR! Stopping down is never possible with larger sensors, and nothing ever hits hyperfocal!!! It's just all an impossible-to-control blur with those big sensors!

I guess FF photographers will just have to force themselves to learn about stopping down for all those "I need tiny-sensor-level DOF!!" moments that are always happening... in your mind.

You can always stop down with FF to match aps-c - if you wish to, which is far from a given - but you can't always open up the aps-c lens any more to match FF. This is why Sigma is bending over backwards to deliver good f/1.8 zooms (and succeeding) - to try to match FF output, at least over some of the typical zoom range.
I guess it entirely depends on your style and your subject matter. I like working with a fatter DoF, so even with my K-30 I find myself around f/5.6 or f/8 most of the time.
03-10-2016, 09:42 PM - 1 Like   #116
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,203
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I guess it entirely depends on your style and your subject matter. I like working with a fatter DoF, so even with my K-30 I find myself around f/5.6 or f/8 most of the time.
You can stop down to f11 on a full frame camera lens as well.
03-10-2016, 09:48 PM   #117
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 923
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Ten minutes with a medium format or large format film camera is usually all it takes to realize that format size has implications.


Steve


I shot medium format (Hasselblad & Bronica) film for over 2 decades. The large prints I now make from my K3ii images are better then any similar sized prints I've made from any medium format film camera!

The K1 will almost certainly widen the gap between digital and film even further. For the life of me, I certainly can not understand why anyone would want to shoot film anymore.

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 03-10-2016 at 10:18 PM.
03-10-2016, 10:25 PM   #118
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,715
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
On the contrary, he was quite correct
Well, lookee, it's Jay, Osv's hero ... you've dropped in from Nikon Land ... hope they patted you down at the arrival gates!

Have you pre-ordered your K-1 and are back to actually contribute, or just trolling as usual?

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I guess FF photographers will just have to force themselves to learn about stopping down
Oh, I am one of them, Jay, so I know that's at a cost, and so do you.

Will it be shutter speed to suffer more motion blur/camera shake or ISO to cop more noise and lose dynamic range? Bit of both, perhaps.

Last edited by clackers; 03-10-2016 at 10:34 PM.
03-10-2016, 10:30 PM   #119
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: So-central, MI / Central, IN
Posts: 172
I could be wrong but I don't believe Steve's comment about medium and large format was directed at resolving power- but rather about the trends associated with increasing format size and its implications that go along with increasing focal length (for equivalent field of view) and increasing aperture value (e.g. with respect to depth of field).

Although it is very nice to hear that you think so highly of your K3-II results for larger size printing in comparison with your 645 experiences. Since joining the Pentax family with in 2012 with my K-5 I haven't done any large printing. But I know I used to love the 645 film era during the 1980's & 90's and the results one could get with high caliber film was pretty stunning (at least far as transparencies and a high powered loupe goes). Although printing media has always been a much more limiting factor.
03-10-2016, 11:30 PM   #120
Site Supporter
shiner's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N GA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,325
Maybe FF will be superior for my occasional astro photos, but I don't expect a dramatic improvement in IQ or anything else, really. Yet, I just HAVE to have a K-1. Must. Haaave... It's inevitable. Probably need therapy.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, 300mm, advantages, app, aps-c, body, camera, cost, crop, dslr, f/2.8, ff, field, focus, frame, full-frame, k-1, k-3, k3, lens, ovf, pentax, pentax k-3, quality, sensor, sigma, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crop Sensors vs Full Frame :: Crop Or Crap? i83N Photographic Industry and Professionals 44 07-30-2014 06:00 AM
No Pentax Full Frame DSLR, What to Do Now Then? RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 95 07-19-2014 10:57 AM
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing? LFLee Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 11-02-2012 12:55 PM
So It's True....a Full-Frame 'Professional' Samsung Dslr Coming !!!! Confused Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 05-02-2008 04:12 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:33 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top