[Pål Jensen]

You need to shoot at one stop slower shutter speed for the same DOF at the same ISO on FF vs APS. Thats really everything in a nutshell. The rest follows from the law of reciprocity. Insisting on same output, or any principle or formula apart from reciprocity, is meaningless as what the photographer wants to achieve is totally subjective.

[normhead]

The problems come when people say equivalence says that a give format is good or bad.

Years ago at the height of the FF nonsense, many sites and posters pointed out, equivalence does not say one format is better than another. Simple fact, FF is just another format. It may be better for you, it may not be. That depends on you.

It is just disappointing to have people continue to say it does.

The simple fact is, for a landscape shooter working at 100 ISO, 24 MP FF is the same as 24 MP APS_c. Less than 5% difference in terms of resolution. In the age of wildly varying MP counts format has less effect on IQ than ever before. I have many times pointed out that a 24 MP K-3 produced higher resolution images than a Canon 6D.

There are people for whom the ramifications of that info, just never sunk in.

[amoringello]

You need to shoot at one stop slower shutter speed for the same DOF at the same ISO on FF vs APS. Thats really everything in a nutshell. The rest follows from the law of reciprocity. Insisting on same output, or any principle or formula apart from reciprocity, is meaningless as what the photographer wants to achieve is totally subjective.

It is completely inaccurate that FF vs APS has different DOF!
Sensor/file size has no effect on DOF.

[monochrome]

Unless I really don’t understand (and often I really don’t understand) in order to make an accurate comparison of resolution between APSc and FF, which then forms the basis for the whole equivalence discussion, shouldn’t the size and density of the photosites be identical? Wouldn't it be accurate to state that if the sensors in the K-3 and K-1 had identically-sized and spaced photosites then the only real distinction between them should be the Field of View? Then the discussions would be limited to the exposure math of stops (Av and SV, @ an ISO) and DoF (lens FL and distance), right?

---

Last edited by monochrome; 04-01-2018 at 07:51 AM.

[awscreo]

Well this thread derailed quickly

To me its more important that I get much cleaner files with larger dynamic range than marginally sharer images out of camera with my previous mft setup (I've switched to k-1 after being a mft shooter for few years). I can always sharpen images, but having cleaner files at lowest iso setting as well as more shadow/highlight control makes it easier and more enjoyable to work with files after the shoot.

---------- Post added 04-01-18 at 08:38 AM ----------

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[Rondec]

Unless I really don’t understand (and often I really don’t understand) in order to make an accurate comparison of resolution between APSc and FF, which then forms the basis for the whole equivalence discussion, shouldn’t the size and density of the photosites be identical? Wouldn't it be accurate to state that if the sensors in the K-3 and K-1 had identically-sized and spaced photosites then the only real distinction between them should be the Field of View? Then the discussions would be limited to the exposure math of stops (Av and SV, @ an ISO) and DoF (lens FL and distance), right?

I think the whole point of these discussions is that it requires image size to be specified. If you are resizing an APS-C and full frame image to make, say, an 8 megapixel image, then photosite size is relatively less important. Generally speaking, in such a situation, all of the full frame images will have a stop better iso performance and somewhat better dynamic range. If, you are intent on recreating an image then you have to adjust both the focal length and the aperture and thusly, either the shutter speed or the iso. So, 15mm/f8/iso 100/1/100 second on APS-C will turn into 22.5mm/f11/iso 200/1/100 second on full frame. Of course, in this situation, most photographers would actually not adjust their iso, but rather change to 1/50 second and maintain iso 100 on their full frame camera.

---------- Post added 04-01-18 at 02:17 PM ----------

Years ago at the height of the FF nonsense, many sites and posters pointed out, equivalence does not say one format is better than another. Simple fact, FF is just another format. It may be better for you, it may not be. That depends on you.

It is just disappointing to have people continue to say it does.

The simple fact is, for a landscape shooter working at 100 ISO, 24 MP FF is the same as 24 MP APS_c. Less than 5% difference in terms of resolution. In the age of wildly varying MP counts format has less effect on IQ than ever before. I have many times pointed out that a 24 MP K-3 produced higher resolution images than a Canon 6D.

There are people for whom the ramifications of that info, just never sunk in.

The difference in resolution is not very important to me. The difference in dynamic range can be pretty big (and is the reason that I use pixel shift whenever I can). APS-C images, particularly those shot above base iso, get a "pushed" look a lot faster than full frame images.

[normhead]

Wouldn't it be accurate to state that if the sensors in the K-3 and K-1 had identically-sized and spaced photosites then the only real distinction between them should be the Field of View? Then the discussions would be limited to the exposure math of stops (Av and SV, @ an ISO) and DoF (lens FL and distance), right?

An oversimplification. The pixel density's aren't the same so no conclusion can be drawn. Different sensors have different ISO and DR capabilities. And ISO only really starts making a difference after 400 ISO. That by the way is the most ignored fact in these discussions. People say the ISO is a stop better on FF ignoring that this only matters beyond 400 ISO. Most of your daylight shooting, it will not matter. As well, that only matters at the widest aperture, because you have to stop the FF camera down stop to maintain DoF so technically, even the stop better ISO is bogus, except when shooting your lens wide open) Up until 400 ISO then they are both acceptable. And since a huge number of images are taken between 100 and 400 ISO, there is no FF advantage for those images.

Clearly it makes no difference for 4x6 images, so when do the difference start? No one seems to know. Well as long as no one knows, it's still possible that it never makes a difference. That from a normal viewing distance, the difference will aways be beyond the limits of human perception.

With all the variables this whole discussion is pretty much nonsense. You really have to compare camera to camera. The one time we did compared a K-5 image against K-1 image, same lens ( DFA 28-105)(different focal length to produce the same FoV) the images were identical on a 4k monitor.

All this nonsense would stop if people had to run comparison tests until they came up with a definitive set of images that showed the FF advantage, then you'd know when it matters. So far, I haven't been able t run a test set of real world images, that show it matters, at all. These blanket statements are spouted as if they apply in every circumstance and in 90% of the average person's shooting, they don't. People buy full frame cameras to cut into that last 10%, and 5% of that improbably beyond any camera.

Knowing that at some point higher resolution image might make a difference is not actionable intelligence, unless you know where that point is. It's much easier to see if you shoot high DR images like sunsets and sunrises where the differences can be seen and measured.

Im not talking pixel peeping. Pixel peeping is largely imaginary scenarios. In my 10 years on the forum, I've seen one set of images that showed why FF, and many where that last stop of narrow DoF help create an effect. An effect I usually don't like, but, I digress. A 50mm image on FF can be different than a 35mm image on APS_c.

Apart from that no proof exists. The advantages to FF, are one stop narrower DoF when shooting wide open,, wider dynamic range, a huge cropping advantage, a 50% crop on FF still gives me 18 MP. The advantages to APS-c is more reach for wildlife, and more subject resolution inside the crop area if you are using your longest lens, which birders frequently do, and larger macro subjects, using the same lens.

You don't get everything in one camera. Both formats have their advantages. What's great about APS-c and FF is you can use many of the same lenses on both, fully functional and with AF. But you still have to pick and choose depending on circumstances.

Different formats can produce different results, and people should be aware of that. But it makes a difference usually less than 5% of the time for shooters like myself. The majority of the time, APS_C or FF makes no difference. That's what is so frustrating about these types of discussion. 90% of the time FF and APS_c are pretty much the same. We are discussing differences in the last 10%.

If people aren't mentioning that in their posts, they have no business even discussing equivalence. It's essential to note how rarely these things make a difference. The biggest part of any knowledge is "when does this apply." Many, many posters generalize as is FF is better than APS_c for every shot. Even with dynamic rage, many of my images don't stretch the limits of APS-c so forget about needing FF. People talk about images that stretch the limits as if they are an every day, every shot thing. That's ridiculous. Most images don't need 14 EV, many don't even need 12. That's one of the reasons Canon is still successful. Wide DR shooters are the minority. And for a huge percentage of canon shooters, it's not a consideration, or they wouldn't be shooting Canon.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-01-2018 at 01:38 PM.

[monochrome]

@normhead NOT TL;DR but Too Long Too Quote

I’m back to my standard argument that, as a modern culture, we suffer from what I call the ‘Consumer Reports Effect’. We want to Test, Rank and Sort everything and proclaim a Best*, which then everyone should acquire (this drives to the argument against Pentax BTW), but there doesn’t seem to be a way to declare a scientific hypothesis for this argument, conduct an experiment with proper controls and arrive at a scientific conclusion. Everything is conjecture, and subjective preference.

I don’t really care. I have a digital camera with an APSc sensor and Accelerator Unit, and a camera with a FF sensor. Rather than upgrading the K-1 (change of plans) I’m saving my money for a gimbal head and better legs. I’ll use the KP for wildlife and the K-1 for landscapes and manual lenses and let others debate what my eyes can see for themselves.

That’s a roundabout way to agree with you.

* To have a Best, given the progression from Standard to Comparative to Superlative (Good, Better, Best) we first must all agree on the characteristics of Good; we don’t, so we will continue to bicker and call each other names and fly over each others’ parts of our countries, and argue about equivalence.

[normhead]

@normhead NOT TL;DR but Too Long Too Quote

I’m back to my standard argument that, as a modern culture, we suffer from what I call the ‘Consumer Reports Effect’. We want to Test, Rank and Sort everything and proclaim a Best*, which then everyone should acquire (this drives to the argument against Pentax BTW), but there doesn’t seem to be a way to declare a scientific hypothesis for this argument, conduct an experiment with proper controls and arrive at a scientific conclusion. Everything is conjecture, and subjective preference.

I don’t really care. I have a digital camera with an APSc sensor and Accelerator Unit, and a camera with a FF sensor. Rather than upgrading the K-1 (change of plans) I’m saving my money for a gimbal head and better legs. I’ll use the KP for wildlife and the K-1 for landscapes and manual lenses and let others debate what my eyes can see for themselves.

That’s a roundabout way to agree with you.

* To have a Best, given the progression from Standard to Comparative to Superlative (Good, Better, Best) we first must all agree on the characteristics of Good; we don’t, so we will continue to bicker and call each other names and fly over each others’ parts of our countries, and argue about equivalence.

I used to get the "you don't own an FF, you don't know what you're talking about." There are previous members who used to irritate me immensely, that have disappeared since I got a K-1 and that line became un-useable. The place is more peaceful because of it. Turns out, I didn't own an FF but i did know what I was talking about and can now take the images I need to demonstrate.

[Rondec]

@normhead NOT TL;DR but Too Long Too Quote

I’m back to my standard argument that, as a modern culture, we suffer from what I call the ‘Consumer Reports Effect’. We want to Test, Rank and Sort everything and proclaim a Best*, which then everyone should acquire (this drives to the argument against Pentax BTW), but there doesn’t seem to be a way to declare a scientific hypothesis for this argument, conduct an experiment with proper controls and arrive at a scientific conclusion. Everything is conjecture, and subjective preference.

I don’t really care. I have a digital camera with an APSc sensor and Accelerator Unit, and a camera with a FF sensor. Rather than upgrading the K-1 (change of plans) I’m saving my money for a gimbal head and better legs. I’ll use the KP for wildlife and the K-1 for landscapes and manual lenses and let others debate what my eyes can see for themselves.

That’s a roundabout way to agree with you.

* To have a Best, given the progression from Standard to Comparative to Superlative (Good, Better, Best) we first must all agree on the characteristics of Good; we don’t, so we will continue to bicker and call each other names and fly over each others’ parts of our countries, and argue about equivalence.

Most of these discussions come down to us putting our own assumptions and wants on to other people.

From my own standpoint, I shoot a lot of landscapes. I do this from a tripod and so it doesn't really matter my shutter speed, but when it comes to post processing those, I do find that I can bump shadows up a lot more with my K-1 versus the K3. I'm usually stopped down for those, so sharpness isn't an issue with any of the lenses I use.

Most of the rest of my photos are just snaps of my kids. Nothing amazing and certainly I don't generally need a bunch of dynamic range for those, although it is handy to be able to shoot iso 6400 at times without the noise really bothering the image.

In the end, people tend to get the gear they want (if they can afford it) and come up with reasons why they "need" it. Maybe that is rationalization for themselves or maybe for their spouse, but if you enjoy photography then it really isn't a problem to budget a little each year to try new lenses or cameras.

Back to the OP's question, this is the DFA 70-200 at f2.8.



It is sharp enough for me, although my daughter wasn't particularly into the whole picture taking thing at the moment. The DFA 70-200 is a nice lens, but a little on the big side for a walk around lens. If my wife didn't shoot weddings in dark venues and want the faster auto focus capability of the DFA, we would probably have stuck with the DA *200.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

The difference in resolution is not very important to me. The difference in dynamic range can be pretty big (and is the reason that I use pixel shift whenever I can). APS-C images, particularly those shot above base iso, get a "pushed" look a lot faster than full frame images.

One doesn't need to push a image that needs 8, 10, or 12 stops of DR to see an improvement in noise, what is nice with FF over cropped is that any shadow lifting you will always see a 1 stop improvement. This is even true for 1 to 2 stops worth of pushing which can happen regularly in landscape images, if we are only lifting the shadows by 3 stops how the noise would appear in a FF image would look something like as if it was taken at iso 800. Now if we apply the same level of shadow lifting for a cropped sensor then that noise would have the appearance of iso 800 on that cropped sensor or to that FF user it would look as if taken at iso 1600. Depending on the user they may find that appearance of that iso1600 noise as not acceptable.

How much you can push your image based on what you have determined as an acceptable level of noise in the shadows you will find that FF will give you an additional 1 stop of shadow lifting before you have to decide on other means of capturing that scene.

[repaap]

Most of these discussions come down to us putting our own assumptions and wants on to other people.

From my own standpoint, I shoot a lot of landscapes. I do this from a tripod and so it doesn't really matter my shutter speed, but when it comes to post processing those, I do find that I can bump shadows up a lot more with my K-1 versus the K3. I'm usually stopped down for those, so sharpness isn't an issue with any of the lenses I use.

Most of the rest of my photos are just snaps of my kids. Nothing amazing and certainly I don't generally need a bunch of dynamic range for those, although it is handy to be able to shoot iso 6400 at times without the noise really bothering the image.

In the end, people tend to get the gear they want (if they can afford it) and come up with reasons why they "need" it. Maybe that is rationalization for themselves or maybe for their spouse, but if you enjoy photography then it really isn't a problem to budget a little each year to try new lenses or cameras.

Back to the OP's question, this is the DFA 70-200 at f2.8.



It is sharp enough for me, although my daughter wasn't particularly into the whole picture taking thing at the moment. The DFA 70-200 is a nice lens, but a little on the big side for a walk around lens. If my wife didn't shoot weddings in dark venues and want the faster auto focus capability of the DFA, we would probably have stuck with the DA *200.

great shot! I do like that it is not too sharp. I suppose that it was taken W/O and close 200 mm? that bokeh is marvelous and it has really natural feel in it too.

[normhead]

One doesn't need to push a image that needs 8, 10, or 12 stops of DR to see an improvement in noise, what is nice with FF over cropped is that any shadow lifting you will always see a 1 stop improvement. This is even true for 1 to 2 stops worth of pushing which can happen regularly in landscape images, if we are only lifting the shadows by 3 stops how the noise would appear in a FF image would look something like as if it was taken at iso 800. Now if we apply the same level of shadow lifting for a cropped sensor then that noise would have the appearance of iso 800 on that cropped sensor or to that FF user it would look as if taken at iso 1600. Depending on the user they may find that appearance of that iso1600 noise as not acceptable.

How much you can push your image based on what you have determined as an acceptable level of noise in the shadows you will find that FF will give you an additional 1 stop of shadow lifting before you have to decide on other means of capturing that scene.

Just a few comments. The Dynamic range is often only applicable to sunsets sunrise or extremely high contrast situations. Many ordinary day to day shooting situations you rarely exceed the DR of even a K-3. The least capable for DR of Pentax's current available options. If you're shooting portraiture, fill lighting is wonderful thing, and still preferable to utilizing the DR of the camera and lifting the shadows. This is how Canon has managed to stay on top, despite not as good DR and low light capability. There are actually very few non-sunset images that make use of it.

And the best images will always be at the lowest ISO. WhIle 1600 FF may be comparable to 800 APS-c, neither is particularly desirable compared to 100 ISO. So, you're talking about compromises, not "best the sensor can produce" images. In those situations you have to be careful about too much nit picking. You may be discussing theoretical differences that are not really relevant to your shooting.

As I pointed out in another thread, I often can't tell the difference in a folder where my K-1 and K-3 have been used which camera I shot with on a given image, without looking at the exif. The difference is really only noticeable in sunset sunrise, or extremely high contrast situations.

[Eyewanders]

As I pointed out in another thread, I often can't tell the difference in a folder where my K-1 and K-3 have been used which camera I shot with on a given image, without looking at the exif. The difference is really only noticeable in sunset sunrise, or extremely high contrast situations.

You pointed that out in this thread.

...

Moral of the story here: the Pentax 70-200/2.8 is plenty sharp enough on the K-1.
As is, IMO, every modern lens that is a lick above "bargain" or "entry level".
There is a clinical sharpness fetish that has really taken over these days. IMO there isn't enough discernible difference between any "good" modern piece of glass or modern sensor to warrant a discussion this long. But, it's interesting nonetheless so it gets talked about ad nauseum anyhow.

[normhead]

You pointed that out in this thread.

...

Moral of the story here: the Pentax 70-200/2.8 is plenty sharp enough on the K-1.
As is, IMO, every modern lens that is a lick above "bargain" or "entry level".
There is a clinical sharpness fetish that has really taken over these days. IMO there isn't enough discernible difference between any "good" modern piece of glass or modern sensor to warrant a discussion this long. But, it's interesting nonetheless so it gets talked about ad nauseum anyhow.

Interesting indeed. I guess no one has noticed, you can pretty much judge the quality by the price. As far as I know, there are no expensive lemons out there.

The whole thing about better materials, more elements, more R&D costs contributing to better lenses better casings and more durable components costing money is the basis of most of these discussions.

The simple basis for this type of discussion should be predicated on a simple logic. Buy the most expensive lens you can afford that meets the criteria you define.

People should concentrate more on "what can I afford for this purpose and what is it worth to me?" I suspect all this other discussion is just waltzing around the core of the matter trying to see it from every angle. In the end, does anyone really believe the DFA 70-200 is too soft on the edges?

It's more likely that the OP will decide that for him personally, he doesn't need to spend that kind of money for that particular lens than it is he'll decide it's too soft on the edges.

With the early de-centering of my Tamron 17-50 , I saved $700 over the cost of a DA*16-50, but 5 years later, I don't have a lens. Did I really save any money?