K-1 or KP for portraiture

**Des** · 04-28-2017, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

buying a KP or K-3II and a top notch lens will result in better performance than buying a K-1 and sticking old APS-C glass on it.

$US1100 for K-P v $1800 for K-1, body only. Could buy an FA 77 with the change.

**jatrax** · 04-28-2017, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Des

$US1100 for K-P v $1800 for K-1, body only. Could buy an FA 77 with the change.

Yep. KP plus FA 77 sounds like a pretty nice portfolio set up.

Saltwater Images · 04-29-2017, 02:36 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Des

$US1100 for K-P v $1800 for K-1, body only. Could buy an FA 77 with the change.

No question the FA 77 is an awesome lens. Don't rule out the HD DA 70 either. You could a KP HD DA 40 AND a HD DA 70 for a little more than the cost of the K-1 body. You could also pick up a K-3II / HD DA 40 / HD DA 70 kit for less than the cost of a K-1 body.

The HD DA 70 delivers pixie dust too...Here's a shot on a cloudy day...HD DA 70 / K-5II, ISO 500, f/2.8, 1/500 (the ISO and shutter speed were high because I was shooting a football game)...

Rmagers · 04-30-2017, 03:00 PM

Thank you all for you input and suggestions. I have decided on the K3-ii and it should be here on Wednesday. Can't wait to take it out. I also go the battery grip and a couple extra batteries.

Winder · 05-01-2017, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Rmagers

I am ready for an upgrade from my K-x. Though it has served me very well and still works great, I am to the point of needing (wanting) more than 12MP. So far I have been mostly shooting landscape with a few portrait sessions under my belt. For my portrait sessions I use speed light, constant light, as well as natural light both indoor and outdoor. My question is should I go with the KP or take the attitude "go big or go home" and get the K-1?

Is full frame that much better? Are their aspects of the K-1 that would make it the clear choice? Any help would greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Richard

If the camera is going to be used mostly under controlled lighting then the KP will be fine. If you are shooting mostly JPEGs then I would go with the KP. The K-1 is an awesome camera that has amazing image quality, but unless you are pushing the limits and work with RAW I'm not sure you will benefit from the K-1. Right now you are going to drop close to $1,000 on a good FF portrait lens for the K-1 or more if you go with the D-FA* 70-200mm (which is great for portraits). You can pick up a DA* 55mm for $500 and that will work great on a KP. The KP looks like a great little camera for the money.

Rmagers · 05-01-2017, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Brooke Meyer

Your K3-II is a very capable camera for portraits, in studio or out.

These was made with the K3-II and the 50-135:
Muse Farewell
Photographs I Love And Haven’t Shown #3

Thanks Brooke. These are very nice. Looking forward to taking some of my own.

**mikesbike** · 05-02-2017, 07:56 PM

For doing tighter portrait shots, on a FF body you'd need a focal length of about 60-120mm to get good perspective. With APS-C, about 40-80mm. A fast aperture is important for controlling degree of background blur. The FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited is a great lens for either FF or for APS-C, for numerous applications, and has unsurpassed bokeh quality- really wonderful. Your 18-50mm will also be usable on APS-C, however I would not put trust in it even at 50mm on a FF body. But it is no FA 77mm Limited! On the less expensive side, the FA 50mm f/1.4 has a very good reputation.

From what I've seen, your Sigma lens does not seem to be an internal focus design, which is good if true. IF lenses tend to be tricky regarding focal length accuracy at closer shooting distances. Where you think you have the rated 50mm, you might actually be down to well under 40mm. Another thing about many zooms is they often have a short focus rotation, making fine manual focus more difficult.

Even so, you might try your Tamron 70-200mm at 80-100mm using APS-C, since I think it is an IF lens, shoot wide open or f/4, and see how that goes.

Last edited by mikesbike; 05-02-2017 at 08:14 PM.

hoopsontoast · 05-03-2017, 06:58 AM - **1 Like**

I have to say, going from a K-3II to a K-1, and doing lots of portraits for work, I found the shallower depth of field when using a wider aperture actually a hindrance, as I was having to stop down to f4 or smaller to get any amount of the face in focus.
This was offset though with the exceptional higher ISO performance of the K-1, and the KP looks to be almost as good now though.

Rico · 05-03-2017, 02:49 PM - **1 Like**

For APS-C I would stick with the DA LTD's for Quick-shift focus. I have the FA 77 but after I bought the DA40 I wish I had the DA70 for Quick-shift.

An interesting thing about the KP is the size and shape is very similar to the Sony A7 and now A9. The Sony A9 will make for a great street camera. Over the years Sony has adopted some Pentax philosophy like the development of their own in camera shake reduction. Sony even adopted the Minolta era 20mm ƒ2.8 and 16mm ƒ2.8 fisheye that competed with the same Pentax focal lengths of the time.

A Full Frame KP would be welcome for the compact size. Maybe they could go with a full electronic shutter, ditch the flash to stay with the OVF.

MadMathMind · 05-18-2017, 05:28 PM

Can you take really nice portraits with a crop camera? Absolutely! Will they look like most of what you see? No, they won't.

As pointed out in the thread, the difference in subject isolation is really different for FF and APS cameras, needing to use dramatically higher f-stops on the latter to achieve the same bokeh levels. Does this matter? Well...that depends on how you shoot. Remember that most portraits you see are shot with FF cameras and if you follow their lead and shoot like that, your photos won't look quite right. They won't have the right isolation and will just look...more normal. That doesn't mean they will be bad but they won't have nearly the impact. Furthermore, a FF camera has a bit darker blacks and brighter whites and can help you create some stunning contrast that really make your images stand out.

I speak from experience on that. I used to use a K-5IIs and while my photos were pretty decent, I think, they didn't get a lot of attention. It's not an accident that the first time I really put my K-1 photos out there, people really noticed my photos a lot more. In part, I used to shoot like I had a FF camera but didn't. I shot with the FA31 lens and while I have some nice photos, they're just...nice. The K-1 has helped me create some stuff I'm really excited to have my name on. Now, I have improved in lighting technique and, more importantly, editing, since the debut of my K-1 shots too and that has helped but the technical edges allowed by a FF camera really help my work stand with others who use the larger sensor as well.

So if you want to make portrait photos like what others post, you really do need an FF camera because the format is pretty important to "the look." But if you want to be a bit more clever and learn how to work with the differences in an APS-C camera, that could be interesting!

Saltwater Images · 05-19-2017, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by MadMathMind

Can you take really nice portraits with a crop camera? Absolutely! Will they look like most of what you see? No, they won't.

As pointed out in the thread, the difference in subject isolation is really different for FF and APS cameras, needing to use dramatically higher f-stops on the latter to achieve the same bokeh levels. Does this matter? Well...that depends on how you shoot. Remember that most portraits you see are shot with FF cameras and if you follow their lead and shoot like that, your photos won't look quite right. They won't have the right isolation and will just look...more normal. That doesn't mean they will be bad but they won't have nearly the impact. Furthermore, a FF camera has a bit darker blacks and brighter whites and can help you create some stunning contrast that really make your images stand out.

I speak from experience on that. I used to use a K-5IIs and while my photos were pretty decent, I think, they didn't get a lot of attention. It's not an accident that the first time I really put my K-1 photos out there, people really noticed my photos a lot more. In part, I used to shoot like I had a FF camera but didn't. I shot with the FA31 lens and while I have some nice photos, they're just...nice. The K-1 has helped me create some stuff I'm really excited to have my name on. Now, I have improved in lighting technique and, more importantly, editing, since the debut of my K-1 shots too and that has helped but the technical edges allowed by a FF camera really help my work stand with others who use the larger sensor as well.

So if you want to make portrait photos like what others post, you really do need an FF camera because the format is pretty important to "the look." But if you want to be a bit more clever and learn how to work with the differences in an APS-C camera, that could be interesting!

Full Frame offers shallower depth of field but shallow depth of field is only one aspect of portrait photography. In a world where there are a plethora of amateurs shooting full frame and all of them are using fast glass how do you make your work stand out? If shallow depth of field is the only thing that counts; move up to the 645Z. It has been referred to as "a wedding and portrait photographers dream".
Review: The Pentax 645Z is a Wedding Photographer's Medium Format Dream

Learning to master lighting, radio triggered multiple strobes, high quality LED, diffusers, reflectors and more - takes portrait photography to another level whether you shoot APS-C, Full Frame or Medium Format. Back before digital - the formats to shoot portrait were either 8x10 (large format) or Medium Format - 35mm was the tiny inferior format yet portrait careers were still built successfully shooting 35mm.

The thought that Full Frame is the "be all end all" for portrait seems presumptuous. There have been photographers who have built entire portrait shooting careers shooting 8x10 film, Medium Format Film, 35mm film - yet digital hasn't been around long enough for anyone to have a lifelong career shooting FF digital.

Na Horuk · 05-19-2017, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by MadMathMind

Can you take really nice portraits with a crop camera? Absolutely! Will they look like most of what you see? No, they won't.

But aren't most portraits these days taken with APSC cameras, simply because so many people have APSC cameras? I've seen plenty of great portraits taken with K-5, K-3 and even older crop cameras.

Originally posted by Saltwater Images

In a world where there are a plethora of amateurs shooting full frame and all of them are using fast glass how do you make your work stand out?

This is a good point. If you buy used, you can get an old low-end FF and a lens faster than f2 easily. But simply selecting Av mode and f1.4 is not enough, and it is not absolutely necessary for good portraits. Lights, composition, makeup, post processing, interesting scene/action, backgrounds...
If you see some portrait photographers they have a whole studio just chock full of all the equipment they need, with multiple assistants (one for handling the fan, one for reflectors, one for makeup and dress....). Really comes down to what you want to accomplish and who you want to compete with. APSC vs. FF is one factor, but it is not the biggest one and it is not a 'deal-breaker'

CarlJF · 05-19-2017, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Saltwater Images

Learning to master lighting, radio triggered multiple strobes, high quality LED, diffusers, reflectors and more - takes portrait photography to another level whether you shoot APS-C, Full Frame or Medium Format. Back before digital the formats to shoot portrait were either 8x10 (large format) or Medium Format - 35mm was the tiny inferior format yet portrait careers were still built successfully shooting 35mm.

The thought that Full Frame is the "be all end all" for portrait seems presumptuous. There have been photographers who have built entire portrait shooting careers shooting 8x10 film, Medium Format Film, 35mm film - yet digital hasn't been around long enough for anyone to have a lifelong career shooting FF digital.

You're 100% right.

Even considering the supposed DOF advantage of FF, it's valid only if you have large aperture glass and use them at their largest aperture. Otherwise, just open the aperture a bit more with APS-C and the results will be pretty close...

Just to give an idea, here's a very good comparison of portraiture done with FF and APS-C. Although a slight difference is visible between the shots, it's certainly not a make or break one, turning a so-so portrait in an oustanding one or the other way around. In fact, we can argue that a difference is visible in these examples only because they're side by side comparisons. On a lone picture, nobody would care or notice if it was shot with APS-C... Not even saying that these portraits were shot at f/2.8 and made to show differences. There was still room to open to 2.0 or more with the APS-C shots (a 50 1.4 was used) and it would have been very hard to notice any differences...

Saltwater Images · 05-19-2017, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by CarlJF

You're 100% right.

Even considering the supposed DOF advantage of FF, it's valid only if you have large aperture glass and use them at their largest aperture. Otherwise, just open the aperture a bit more with APS-C and the results will be pretty close...

Just to give an idea, here's a very good comparison of portraiture done with FF and APS-C. Although a slight difference is visible between the shots, it's certainly not a make or break, turning a so-so portrait in an oustanding one or the other way. In fact, we can argue that a difference is visible in these examples only because they're side by side comparisons. On a lone picture, nobody would care or notice if it was shot with APS-C... Not even saying that these portraits were shot at f/4 and made to show differences. There was still room to open to 2.8 with the APS-C and it would have been very hard to notice any differences...

Great link Carl. Illustrates the point exceptionally well.

Saltwater Images · 05-19-2017, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by gatorguy

Exceptionally nice photo sir.

Thank you. My daughter has a great face - she looks like her mother.

05-19-2017, 03:04 AM	#26
Saltwater Images Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Newfoundland Photos: Gallery Posts: 501	Originally posted by MadMathMind Can you take really nice portraits with a crop camera? Absolutely! Will they look like most of what you see? No, they won't. As pointed out in the thread, the difference in subject isolation is really different for FF and APS cameras, needing to use dramatically higher f-stops on the latter to achieve the same bokeh levels. Does this matter? Well...that depends on how you shoot. Remember that most portraits you see are shot with FF cameras and if you follow their lead and shoot like that, your photos won't look quite right. They won't have the right isolation and will just look...more normal. That doesn't mean they will be bad but they won't have nearly the impact. Furthermore, a FF camera has a bit darker blacks and brighter whites and can help you create some stunning contrast that really make your images stand out. I speak from experience on that. I used to use a K-5IIs and while my photos were pretty decent, I think, they didn't get a lot of attention. It's not an accident that the first time I really put my K-1 photos out there, people really noticed my photos a lot more. In part, I used to shoot like I had a FF camera but didn't. I shot with the FA31 lens and while I have some nice photos, they're just...nice. The K-1 has helped me create some stuff I'm really excited to have my name on. Now, I have improved in lighting technique and, more importantly, editing, since the debut of my K-1 shots too and that has helped but the technical edges allowed by a FF camera really help my work stand with others who use the larger sensor as well. So if you want to make portrait photos like what others post, you really do need an FF camera because the format is pretty important to "the look." But if you want to be a bit more clever and learn how to work with the differences in an APS-C camera, that could be interesting! Full Frame offers shallower depth of field but shallow depth of field is only one aspect of portrait photography. In a world where there are a plethora of amateurs shooting full frame and all of them are using fast glass how do you make your work stand out? If shallow depth of field is the only thing that counts; move up to the 645Z. It has been referred to as "a wedding and portrait photographers dream". Review: The Pentax 645Z is a Wedding Photographer's Medium Format Dream Learning to master lighting, radio triggered multiple strobes, high quality LED, diffusers, reflectors and more - takes portrait photography to another level whether you shoot APS-C, Full Frame or Medium Format. Back before digital - the formats to shoot portrait were either 8x10 (large format) or Medium Format - 35mm was the tiny inferior format yet portrait careers were still built successfully shooting 35mm. The thought that Full Frame is the "be all end all" for portrait seems presumptuous. There have been photographers who have built entire portrait shooting careers shooting 8x10 film, Medium Format Film, 35mm film - yet digital hasn't been around long enough for anyone to have a lifelong career shooting FF digital. Last edited by Saltwater Images; 05-19-2017 at 08:37 AM.

05-19-2017, 08:54 AM	#28
CarlJF Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Quebec City Posts: 1,185	Originally posted by Saltwater Images Learning to master lighting, radio triggered multiple strobes, high quality LED, diffusers, reflectors and more - takes portrait photography to another level whether you shoot APS-C, Full Frame or Medium Format. Back before digital the formats to shoot portrait were either 8x10 (large format) or Medium Format - 35mm was the tiny inferior format yet portrait careers were still built successfully shooting 35mm. The thought that Full Frame is the "be all end all" for portrait seems presumptuous. There have been photographers who have built entire portrait shooting careers shooting 8x10 film, Medium Format Film, 35mm film - yet digital hasn't been around long enough for anyone to have a lifelong career shooting FF digital. You're 100% right. Even considering the supposed DOF advantage of FF, it's valid only if you have large aperture glass and use them at their largest aperture. Otherwise, just open the aperture a bit more with APS-C and the results will be pretty close... Just to give an idea, here's a very good comparison of portraiture done with FF and APS-C. Although a slight difference is visible between the shots, it's certainly not a make or break one, turning a so-so portrait in an oustanding one or the other way around. In fact, we can argue that a difference is visible in these examples only because they're side by side comparisons. On a lone picture, nobody would care or notice if it was shot with APS-C... Not even saying that these portraits were shot at f/2.8 and made to show differences. There was still room to open to 2.0 or more with the APS-C shots (a 50 1.4 was used) and it would have been very hard to notice any differences... Last edited by CarlJF; 05-19-2017 at 11:54 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why Pentax KP? Para que la Pentax KP?	ZeaFoto	Pentax KP	16	06-14-2018 08:53 AM
Simple outdoor portraiture kit (with K-1)?	awscreo	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	03-03-2017 09:06 PM
Newborn Portraiture using K5	lightedlamb	Post Your Photos!	11	01-23-2017 11:42 AM
Portraiture	lauravp77	Photographic Technique	47	01-20-2017 05:30 AM
Portraiture \| Pentax 77 1.8 vs Sigma 85 1.4 \| Experiences with each?	jonnycreative	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	08-15-2016 11:29 PM

04-28-2017, 10:11 PM	#16
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by jatrax buying a KP or K-3II and a top notch lens will result in better performance than buying a K-1 and sticking old APS-C glass on it. $US1100 for K-P v $1800 for K-1, body only. Could buy an FA 77 with the change.

04-28-2017, 10:20 PM	#17
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Des $US1100 for K-P v $1800 for K-1, body only. Could buy an FA 77 with the change. Yep. KP plus FA 77 sounds like a pretty nice portfolio set up.

04-30-2017, 03:00 PM	#19
Rmagers Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery Posts: 46 Original Poster	Thank you all for you input and suggestions. I have decided on the K3-ii and it should be here on Wednesday. Can't wait to take it out. I also go the battery grip and a couple extra batteries.

05-01-2017, 06:15 AM	#20
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Rmagers I am ready for an upgrade from my K-x. Though it has served me very well and still works great, I am to the point of needing (wanting) more than 12MP. So far I have been mostly shooting landscape with a few portrait sessions under my belt. For my portrait sessions I use speed light, constant light, as well as natural light both indoor and outdoor. My question is should I go with the KP or take the attitude "go big or go home" and get the K-1? Is full frame that much better? Are their aspects of the K-1 that would make it the clear choice? Any help would greatly appreciated. Thanks, Richard If the camera is going to be used mostly under controlled lighting then the KP will be fine. If you are shooting mostly JPEGs then I would go with the KP. The K-1 is an awesome camera that has amazing image quality, but unless you are pushing the limits and work with RAW I'm not sure you will benefit from the K-1. Right now you are going to drop close to $1,000 on a good FF portrait lens for the K-1 or more if you go with the D-FA* 70-200mm (which is great for portraits). You can pick up a DA* 55mm for $500 and that will work great on a KP. The KP looks like a great little camera for the money.

05-01-2017, 10:44 AM	#21
Rmagers Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery Posts: 46 Original Poster	Originally posted by Brooke Meyer Your K3-II is a very capable camera for portraits, in studio or out. These was made with the K3-II and the 50-135: Muse Farewell Photographs I Love And Haven’t Shown #3 Thanks Brooke. These are very nice. Looking forward to taking some of my own.

05-02-2017, 07:56 PM	#22
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	For doing tighter portrait shots, on a FF body you'd need a focal length of about 60-120mm to get good perspective. With APS-C, about 40-80mm. A fast aperture is important for controlling degree of background blur. The FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited is a great lens for either FF or for APS-C, for numerous applications, and has unsurpassed bokeh quality- really wonderful. Your 18-50mm will also be usable on APS-C, however I would not put trust in it even at 50mm on a FF body. But it is no FA 77mm Limited! On the less expensive side, the FA 50mm f/1.4 has a very good reputation. From what I've seen, your Sigma lens does not seem to be an internal focus design, which is good if true. IF lenses tend to be tricky regarding focal length accuracy at closer shooting distances. Where you think you have the rated 50mm, you might actually be down to well under 40mm. Another thing about many zooms is they often have a short focus rotation, making fine manual focus more difficult. Even so, you might try your Tamron 70-200mm at 80-100mm using APS-C, since I think it is an IF lens, shoot wide open or f/4, and see how that goes. Last edited by mikesbike; 05-02-2017 at 08:14 PM.

05-03-2017, 06:58 AM - 1 Like	#23
hoopsontoast Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Oxfordshire Posts: 861	I have to say, going from a K-3II to a K-1, and doing lots of portraits for work, I found the shallower depth of field when using a wider aperture actually a hindrance, as I was having to stop down to f4 or smaller to get any amount of the face in focus. This was offset though with the exceptional higher ISO performance of the K-1, and the KP looks to be almost as good now though.

05-03-2017, 02:49 PM - 1 Like	#24
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,204	For APS-C I would stick with the DA LTD's for Quick-shift focus. I have the FA 77 but after I bought the DA40 I wish I had the DA70 for Quick-shift. An interesting thing about the KP is the size and shape is very similar to the Sony A7 and now A9. The Sony A9 will make for a great street camera. Over the years Sony has adopted some Pentax philosophy like the development of their own in camera shake reduction. Sony even adopted the Minolta era 20mm ƒ2.8 and 16mm ƒ2.8 fisheye that competed with the same Pentax focal lengths of the time. A Full Frame KP would be welcome for the compact size. Maybe they could go with a full electronic shutter, ditch the flash to stay with the OVF.

05-18-2017, 05:28 PM	#25
MadMathMind Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,717	Can you take really nice portraits with a crop camera? Absolutely! Will they look like most of what you see? No, they won't. As pointed out in the thread, the difference in subject isolation is really different for FF and APS cameras, needing to use dramatically higher f-stops on the latter to achieve the same bokeh levels. Does this matter? Well...that depends on how you shoot. Remember that most portraits you see are shot with FF cameras and if you follow their lead and shoot like that, your photos won't look quite right. They won't have the right isolation and will just look...more normal. That doesn't mean they will be bad but they won't have nearly the impact. Furthermore, a FF camera has a bit darker blacks and brighter whites and can help you create some stunning contrast that really make your images stand out. I speak from experience on that. I used to use a K-5IIs and while my photos were pretty decent, I think, they didn't get a lot of attention. It's not an accident that the first time I really put my K-1 photos out there, people really noticed my photos a lot more. In part, I used to shoot like I had a FF camera but didn't. I shot with the FA31 lens and while I have some nice photos, they're just...nice. The K-1 has helped me create some stuff I'm really excited to have my name on. Now, I have improved in lighting technique and, more importantly, editing, since the debut of my K-1 shots too and that has helped but the technical edges allowed by a FF camera really help my work stand with others who use the larger sensor as well. So if you want to make portrait photos like what others post, you really do need an FF camera because the format is pretty important to "the look." But if you want to be a bit more clever and learn how to work with the differences in an APS-C camera, that could be interesting!

05-19-2017, 05:46 AM	#27
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by MadMathMind Can you take really nice portraits with a crop camera? Absolutely! Will they look like most of what you see? No, they won't. But aren't most portraits these days taken with APSC cameras, simply because so many people have APSC cameras? I've seen plenty of great portraits taken with K-5, K-3 and even older crop cameras. Originally posted by Saltwater Images In a world where there are a plethora of amateurs shooting full frame and all of them are using fast glass how do you make your work stand out? This is a good point. If you buy used, you can get an old low-end FF and a lens faster than f2 easily. But simply selecting Av mode and f1.4 is not enough, and it is not absolutely necessary for good portraits. Lights, composition, makeup, post processing, interesting scene/action, backgrounds... If you see some portrait photographers they have a whole studio just chock full of all the equipment they need, with multiple assistants (one for handling the fan, one for reflectors, one for makeup and dress....). Really comes down to what you want to accomplish and who you want to compete with. APSC vs. FF is one factor, but it is not the biggest one and it is not a 'deal-breaker'

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2017, 11:11 AM	#29
Saltwater Images Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Newfoundland Photos: Gallery Posts: 501	Originally posted by CarlJF You're 100% right. Even considering the supposed DOF advantage of FF, it's valid only if you have large aperture glass and use them at their largest aperture. Otherwise, just open the aperture a bit more with APS-C and the results will be pretty close... Just to give an idea, here's a very good comparison of portraiture done with FF and APS-C. Although a slight difference is visible between the shots, it's certainly not a make or break, turning a so-so portrait in an oustanding one or the other way. In fact, we can argue that a difference is visible in these examples only because they're side by side comparisons. On a lone picture, nobody would care or notice if it was shot with APS-C... Not even saying that these portraits were shot at f/4 and made to show differences. There was still room to open to 2.8 with the APS-C and it would have been very hard to notice any differences... Great link Carl. Illustrates the point exceptionally well.

05-19-2017, 01:03 PM	#30
Saltwater Images Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Newfoundland Photos: Gallery Posts: 501	Originally posted by gatorguy Exceptionally nice photo sir. Thank you. My daughter has a great face - she looks like her mother.