[stevebrot]

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

[stevebrot]

Didn't they lead their promotional campaign on that one ? ;D

No ducks are too fast...snails...more pixels per snail...


Steve

[osv]

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

[jsherman999]

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?

[osv]

Yes. Norm's been contradicting himself for years, though, why should he stop now?

[jsherman999]

Osv's usual rubbish.

On the contrary, he was quite correct.

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!

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.


.

[BigMackCam]

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?"

[Tan68]

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.

[2351HD]

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.

[reh321]

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.

[cali92rs]

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.

[Fenwoodian]

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.

[clackers]

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?

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.

[One3rdEV]

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.

[shiner]

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.