Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-10-2016, 11:39 PM   #121
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,281
QuoteOriginally posted by One3rdEV Quote
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).
You would be correct. In many ways the format drives the vision.


Steve

03-11-2016, 04:38 AM   #122
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,017
Depth of field is a double edged sword. Yes, you can stop down with full frame to "match" your APS-C depth of field, but the whole point of it is not to match, but to better it. If all you do is shoot the same photos on full frame that you did on your crop camera, then what is the point?

Jay Sherman shoots mainly narrow depth of field photos of his kids. APS-C didn't allow for shallow enough depth of field and so he got a D800. I do shoot somewhat narrow depth of field photos, but I guess I don't push the envelope in that respect and I am sure I'll end up stopping down quite a bit with a K-1. Which is fine.

There have been a thousand of these discussions over the years and it seems the biggest factor for some people wanting a full frame camera is to have the ability to shoot more shallow depth of field. And that's OK, it just isn't that important to me. I've said before, I shoot mostly stopped down on my crop camera and when I shoot film, I stop down even more, because shooting wider apertures than f4 has a tendency to have too little in focus.

(I would just mention that I am always bothered by the ignoring of the elephant in the room when it comes to equivalence. At least fifty percent of the full frame cameras out there don't fit the theory because they happen to have Canon sensors. When the theory only works for current generation Sony sensors, it is more than a little problematic in my opinion).
03-11-2016, 07:00 AM   #123
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote

Have you pre-ordered your K-1
pre-order is for saps who like to loan manufacturers or vendors money interest-free.

I buy after reviews, and after others have taken the early-adopter brunt of the cost curve. (That is, as long as I can hold myself back to do something so rational as that!)

QuoteQuote:


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.
With a larger sensor, if you're shutter-speed-constrained and yet at the same time you absolutely need the smaller-sensor's DOF, you have the option of stopping down and increasing ISO to match the DOF and shutter speed - and noise and DR. With a smaller sensor, you don't have the option of going the opposite way a lot of the time. Simple as that.

You have more control over your parameters and more control over IQ as your sensor size increases, lenses allowing. That's true between your phone and your aps-c DSLR, and it's true between aps-c and FF. It's hard to see how anyone rational can argue with that.. yet arguments persist

"Smaller sensors have DOF advantages too" depends on false, tortured half-logic. Smaller sensored bodies can have great advantages, (cost, size, sometimes new tech, 'more than good enough' IQ, always in my pocket, etc) but 'more DOF' is not one of them.

.

---------- Post added 03-11-16 at 08:19 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote

Jay Sherman shoots mainly narrow depth of field photos of his kids. APS-C didn't allow for shallow enough depth of field and so he got a D800. .
A quibble - I didn't buy into FF for 'shallow DOF', I bought into it because I wanted to have less noise and better DR as I moved up the ISO curve. (and for better AF and bigger VF, but that's another story.)

"Less DOF" is something I get that comes with that ^. I'd say that for me 70% of the time it makes the image more appealing, 20% of the time it doesn't make a difference, and 10% of the time (maybe) it's a disadvantage - so, for that 10% of the time, I have the option of stopping down to match, say, a K5's FOV/DOF/noise.

If I were just shooting with say a K5, with available lenses I wouldn't have the option of doing the opposite - opening up more to get better noise and DR - for the other 90% of the time.

Last edited by jsherman999; 03-11-2016 at 07:23 AM.
03-11-2016, 08:31 AM   #124
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,259
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
pre-order is for saps who like to loan manufacturers or vendors money interest-free.

I buy after reviews, and after others have taken the early-adopter brunt of the cost curve. (That is, as long as I can hold myself back to do something so rational as that!)



With a larger sensor, if you're shutter-speed-constrained and yet at the same time you absolutely need the smaller-sensor's DOF, you have the option of stopping down and increasing ISO to match the DOF and shutter speed - and noise and DR. With a smaller sensor, you don't have the option of going the opposite way a lot of the time. Simple as that.

You have more control over your parameters and more control over IQ as your sensor size increases, lenses allowing. That's true between your phone and your aps-c DSLR, and it's true between aps-c and FF. It's hard to see how anyone rational can argue with that.. yet arguments persist

"Smaller sensors have DOF advantages too" depends on false, tortured half-logic. Smaller sensored bodies can have great advantages, (cost, size, sometimes new tech, 'more than good enough' IQ, always in my pocket, etc) but 'more DOF' is not one of them.

.

---------- Post added 03-11-16 at 08:19 AM ----------



A quibble - I didn't buy into FF for 'shallow DOF', I bought into it because I wanted to have less noise and better DR as I moved up the ISO curve. (and for better AF and bigger VF, but that's another story.)

"Less DOF" is something I get that comes with that ^. I'd say that for me 70% of the time it makes the image more appealing, 20% of the time it doesn't make a difference, and 10% of the time (maybe) it's a disadvantage - so, for that 10% of the time, I have the option of stopping down to match, say, a K5's FOV/DOF/noise.

If I were just shooting with say a K5, with available lenses I wouldn't have the option of doing the opposite - opening up more to get better noise and DR - for the other 90% of the time.
I have 3/4 decided, some apsc features are very useful; resolution, the k3 frame rate. What I have to decide is whether the better IQ would widen the available window of acceptable IQ. On a bright sunny day I get very nice result; it is the early morning watching a family of bears and finding the moment where the shots were decent; 15 minutes would have got me a very nice shot.

Depth of field and equivalence don't seem to match my experience; the aperture, iso, shutter speed vs quality are not straight lines. I doubt that there exists equivalence at all. To get the same shot with an apsc and ff requires different lens focal length, different settings. The noise curves, the sensor time to photon curves, lens diffraction curves, etc. all will have an effect, amplified if the scene is demanding. I suspect any given scene may have a different exposure sweet spot. Apsc sensors are different, and then we throw in a thick layer of other changes.

Equivalency is a starting point, no more.

03-11-2016, 09:48 AM   #125
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote

Equivalency is a starting point, no more.
Yet so many bypass that starting point altogether, or deny that it applies in any practical way (it does), and some even deny that it exists in the first place.

I'm not sure how anyone can be comfortable with a $1000 - $7000 FF kit purchase without knowing how to use basic equivalence to see if they really want or need or could benefit from the purchase in the first place.

Understanding equivalence can, at the very least, help you manage expectations - at best it can save you half the cost of a new car (if medium format is on your radar and you're 'not sure' what it really brings
03-11-2016, 10:14 AM - 1 Like   #126
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
I have 3/4 decided, some apsc features are very useful; resolution, the k3 frame rate. What I have to decide is whether the better IQ would widen the available window of acceptable IQ. On a bright sunny day I get very nice result; it is the early morning watching a family of bears and finding the moment where the shots were decent; 15 minutes would have got me a very nice shot.

Depth of field and equivalence don't seem to match my experience; the aperture, iso, shutter speed vs quality are not straight lines. I doubt that there exists equivalence at all. To get the same shot with an apsc and ff requires different lens focal length, different settings. The noise curves, the sensor time to photon curves, lens diffraction curves, etc. all will have an effect, amplified if the scene is demanding. I suspect any given scene may have a different exposure sweet spot. Apsc sensors are different, and then we throw in a thick layer of other changes.

Equivalency is a starting point, no more.
The most important thing is "what lens do i like best for this sensor size" and I'm not really sure equivalence has anything to say about that. Does the fact that you like your 40XS on APs-c, mean you're going to find a 60 on FF that you like? There's a lot more than that that goes into lens selection than picking a focal length. If you like the lens, you'll find a way to use the focal length.

For most of us, we might go looking for a 50, and end up with a 40 or a 70. FL is usually not terribly exact, or critical. Your knowledge of equivalence doesn't need to be anything more than, "I'm going to need slightly longer, but not double."
03-11-2016, 05:30 PM   #127
npc
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
No... not at all.

"1. One stop narrower DoF at the same f-stop". Refers for the most part to shooting at the sharpest part of the lens,which is ƒ5.6 on many lenses for both APS-c and FF. So, if you're aiming to shoot with the shapers f-stop, APS-c gives you more DoF at that stop. Th FF will be diffraction limited at ƒ8. That would be the theory. Practically, the FF will have slightly more resolution to start with so will likely have a bit more resolution even after crossing the diffraction divide than the APS-c given the same MP. SO, ya, it's pretty much a moot point.

"4. Bigger more expensive lenses to do the same thing. (relevant in every image.)"

This one, I have been beside all kinds of Nikon Canon guys shooting 600mm with my A-400. I can't emphasize enough, this is major if you're using long glass. IN fact for a lot of images these guys are using a 500mm lens for, I'm using the 1.4 TC on my 60-250. The difference in size is pretty dramatic.
This might be true in theory but in practice it is not. Why? Since there are not that many of the existing lenses that are really only covering the APS-C circle, but most of them are much closer to FF coverage - especially the longer ones ( including all current primes 35mm or longer). DA 200, DA 300, 60-250, etc pretty much all of them except the DA 50-135 which is APS-C lens. So in regards to DoF and diffraction limits they behave like FF lenses no matter if the sensor is cropped or not. Of course on a sensor with smaller pixels you'll notice the diffraciton effects earlier, but on K-5 and K-1 it will be practically the same (meaing shooting the same lens like DA 300 at the same f-stop on both). Same is with DoF - DA 300 gives you exactly the same DoF at the same f-stop no matter if it is mounted on K-3 or on K-1, or if you flip the APS-C crop function of K-1 on and off ....
03-11-2016, 05:41 PM   #128
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
npc, I shoot a K-3, so your whole paragraph is moot.

03-11-2016, 05:56 PM   #129
npc
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
npc, I shoot a K-3, so your whole paragraph is moot.
My point is these things (DoF, etc) are defined by the optical design of the lens you use, not the particular camera you attach them to. But feel free to believe what you like.
03-11-2016, 06:46 PM   #130
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
You use a shorter lens for the same FoV, the shorter lens has the more DoF.
03-11-2016, 11:50 PM   #131
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,891
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
With a larger sensor, if you're shutter-speed-constrained and yet at the same time you absolutely need the smaller-sensor's DOF, you have the option of stopping down and increasing ISO to match the DOF and shutter speed - and noise and DR .
You'll have to forgive me for my levity before, Jay.

Your dignified response warrants being serious for a bit.

The noise and DR aren't 'matched'. The FF RAW image deteriorates with respect to the APS-C image.

You can head to:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Nikon-D800___830_792
Click on 'Measurements'

Click on 'SNR 18%'

Click on 'Screen'

Repeat for 'Dynamic Range', 'Tonal Range', 'Color Sensitivity'

For fun, click on 'ISO Sensitivity' and see the ISO 50 is a sham on the Nikon.
It's pixel pitch and technology, not sensor size, that's responsible for the APS-C and FF lines being virtually identical.

Last edited by clackers; 03-12-2016 at 12:44 AM.
03-12-2016, 12:22 AM - 1 Like   #132
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,800
QuoteOriginally posted by npc Quote
My point is these things (DoF, etc) are defined by the optical design of the lens you use, not the particular camera you attach them to. But feel free to believe what you like.
Tell that to Ricoh.

QuoteQuote:
"A shallow depth of field creates a true-to-life sense of depth.

When taking a picture using cameras set at the same angle of view and f-stop, but equipped with image sensors of different sizes, the larger image sensor will narrow down the depth of field. The difference between an APS-C-size sensor and a 35mm full-frame sensor is evident at a glance, as the full-frame sensor makes the subject stand out with a more natural transition of the bokeh (defocus) effect, which is created in the foreground and background of the in-focus subject. As the result, it expresses the sense of depth more accurately and clearly in the captured image. "


Expression / PENTAX K-1 Special site | RICOH IMAGING
03-12-2016, 04:16 AM   #133
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,017
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
I must say that I'm not a big fan of shallow depth of field when it comes to landscapes. I'm sure there are some photos where it works, but it doesn't really in this case.

---------- Post added 03-12-16 at 06:19 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
pre-order is for saps who like to loan manufacturers or vendors money interest-free.

I buy after reviews, and after others have taken the early-adopter brunt of the cost curve. (That is, as long as I can hold myself back to do something so rational as that!)



With a larger sensor, if you're shutter-speed-constrained and yet at the same time you absolutely need the smaller-sensor's DOF, you have the option of stopping down and increasing ISO to match the DOF and shutter speed - and noise and DR. With a smaller sensor, you don't have the option of going the opposite way a lot of the time. Simple as that.

You have more control over your parameters and more control over IQ as your sensor size increases, lenses allowing. That's true between your phone and your aps-c DSLR, and it's true between aps-c and FF. It's hard to see how anyone rational can argue with that.. yet arguments persist

"Smaller sensors have DOF advantages too" depends on false, tortured half-logic. Smaller sensored bodies can have great advantages, (cost, size, sometimes new tech, 'more than good enough' IQ, always in my pocket, etc) but 'more DOF' is not one of them.

.

---------- Post added 03-11-16 at 08:19 AM ----------



A quibble - I didn't buy into FF for 'shallow DOF', I bought into it because I wanted to have less noise and better DR as I moved up the ISO curve. (and for better AF and bigger VF, but that's another story.)

"Less DOF" is something I get that comes with that ^. I'd say that for me 70% of the time it makes the image more appealing, 20% of the time it doesn't make a difference, and 10% of the time (maybe) it's a disadvantage - so, for that 10% of the time, I have the option of stopping down to match, say, a K5's FOV/DOF/noise.

If I were just shooting with say a K5, with available lenses I wouldn't have the option of doing the opposite - opening up more to get better noise and DR - for the other 90% of the time.
Well, you have brought up depth of field in these discussions enough for me to know that whether or not you chose to buy a D800 for that reason, you probably couldn't live with APS-C depth of field now.

By the way, when you pre-order a camera, you don't get charged till the camera is shipped. So no loaning money going on (my wife pre-ordered a K-1 from B and H).
03-12-2016, 06:41 AM   #134
Veteran Member
Tan68's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 396
You recommend comparing both a K5 and D800 at 100% ?

That seems a bit like buying the K1 and only ever using it in crop mode as this is the only way to take a 100% pixel peep evaluation and convert both to same sized viewing output (say whatever print you prefer or for viewing on TV) [+ with same amount of downsizing applied to both...].

I imagine I will sometimes take advantage of the additional sensor area surrounding the central APS-sized portion. Or, in other words, I will resize the full output from both K5 and D800 to whatever I typically view.. and then compare.

As far as the 100% evaluation on DX0, I am pleased to see the K5 and D800 are about the same.
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
...The noise and DR aren't 'matched'. The FF RAW image deteriorates with respect to the APS-C image.

You can head to:

Pentax K-5 IIs vs Nikon D800
<blockquote>Click on 'Measurements'

Click on 'SNR 18%'

Click on 'Screen'
....

Last edited by Tan68; 03-12-2016 at 06:46 AM.
03-12-2016, 07:02 AM   #135
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
I find nothing at all natural about shallow depth of field/ I think it's manipulative... the photographer decides what you can look at, and blurs everything he thinks is un-important. (<cough> power trip <cough>). What if I want to examine something just to the right of what the photographer considers to be important. I can't because he said I couldn't. Narrow DoF is necessary because of the technical limitations of cameras, but as per usual, after a bit, effects cause by limitation get turned round and become the goal. My ideal portrayal of a scene would be a holographic image that people could walk around and view from any angle. Ultimate depth of field, not narrow DoF.

Much of the time, I use narrow DoF because I have to, not because I want to. And if you have to do it, you may as well make a decent job of it.

In my mind narrow DoF is a technical limitation, that some have turned into an art form. The human eye is so quick, and the brain so good at stitching, it's just not the way we see. It has nothing to do with natural vision. 5 minutes studying the science of perception and they wouldn't have said that.

On another note, isn't it ironic, that many of the same folks who champion high resolution, also champion narrow DoF? They get the high resolution camera, then they waste most of it's resolving power on many of their images. Just one of life's little paradoxes.

I guess if you're going to reduce the amount of an image you have in focus intentionally, the stuff you do get in focus better be darn good.

These days, you can do the effect of narrow DoF, by shooting a perfect OOF background and just photoshopping your subject into the scene. You don't even need a fast lens for narrow DoF anymore.

Just like backdrops in a photography portrait studio.

Make a catalogue of great backgrounds and just paste the people in.

But now that Ricoh have an FF camera, they have to spout the same BS as everyone else.

And here I thought they were just my kind of people.

They just want my money, just like Canon and Nikon and Sony and all the rest... I am sooooo shocked.

Last edited by normhead; 03-12-2016 at 07:22 AM.
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 09:39 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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