[dtmateojr]

I don't have a photo that perfectly describes what I'm talking about, as I don't shoot wide open all that often (as you've said, though, the practice is heavily used and abused)... but here's an example:

I'm in a function room with other family members and I have my 50mm f/1.8 on my APS-C camera. There is very limited room between my subject and the far wall with all it's visually disturbing elements. I want to blur that as much as possible. I can't move back much further than I have already, because we're in the confines of a room. So I decide to shoot wide open, focusing on the eyes, with the understanding that I'm going to have shallow DoF - which may not be ideal for my subject - but is best for my background, and I can make it work for the subject. Also, f/1.8 works well for my lighting situation.

Given all of that...

Since I can't move back any further, or get my subject to move further away from the back wall (because it's not a prepared shoot - I'm taking photos as I go), how else can I achieve broadly equivalent blur - whilst maintaining the same perspective distortion - other than going for a wider lens and wider aperture?

Why do you need to have exactly the same blur and perspective and distortion? If you moved an inch with your APS-C 50/1.8 all those aspects would have changed without even changing your equipment. What I'm saying is that your equipment is not always the factor that makes the shot. It's where you aim it.

I'm not trying to get into an argument, my friend... I *agree* with you that in many, many situations, shallow DoF isn't necessary or is poorly utilised - but the desire remains by *many* photographers to be able to achieve it nonetheless.

True. The question remains: why would you need a m43 to behave like a FF? The same argument can be made that if shallow DoF is desired then FF is the wrong format. Use medium or large format film instead.

And if we circle back round to what I was initially talking about, in my view the difference between m43 and FF in being able to create shallow DoF is pretty large, given the same subject and circumstances (unless you have a much faster lens on the m43 camera). Hence, APS-C fills a middle ground between the two.

---------- Post added 03-16-2016 at 09:54 PM ----------



At what subject distance, though? Is it, for instance, as paper-thin as a 55mm f/1.4, lens at f/1.8, on APS-C, or a 90mm f/1.8 on FF, at the same distance?

Why would it matter? Why would you want to get exactly the same image? If you turned around three times in the same spot and took another shot I'm sure you will get an entirely different photo.

EDIT: Again, I'm not saying these are always practical concerns. I'm not even saying they are *regularly* practical concerns. What I'm saying is, many people want shallow DoF capability. The difference between m43 and FF in this respect is quite big, but less so between APS-C and FF. That's all I'm saying.

It is big if you have impose totally unrealistic requirements such as making sure that the EXACT photo is reproduced by different formats. I can assure you that two shots from the same equipment will never be the same if taken a few seconds from each other. Photography is not about reproducing a shot. It's about making something different every time.

EDIT: The Olympus 45mm f/.1.8 you mention looks like incredibly good value, and appears to perform awfully well from the reviews!

It is and you should test it. Bring your SD card is store take some shots and see for yourself in the convenience of your own computer.

[Jonathan Mac]

FF will become more popular but will always be limited by size, weight and cost, even in mirrorless models.

APS-C is the ideal compromise between cost and size and will continue to flourish but more so in mirrorless systems rather than in DSLRs as the years go by.

Micro 4/3 and the Nikon "1" system will continue to flounder as more people ask why the cameras (and lenses) cost more but offer poorer IQ than APS-C models of virtually identical size.

[noelpolar]

I feel that a lot of us are overlooking how optimal APSC is from a quality of shot and equpment size/weight perspective (DSLR world), something that is just normal to us now, and we are looking for something else for a change (K1).

Possibly the size and cost of this emerging Pentax K1 format will hit home for some, but then you've already taken the leap.....the leap of regret?..... just another one in a life full of them......for some.

[Steve.Ledger]

EDIT: The Olympus 45mm f/.1.8 you mention looks like incredibly good value, and appears to perform awfully well from the reviews!

I can also confirm this. I recently went MFT (Olympus OMD) and the 45mm F1.8mm lens came as one of the triple lens kit. It's incredible good in build quality and image quality which is outstanding the bokeh is buttery smooth. But it's equally as good for street photography and landscapes.


► https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=olympus%20m.zuiko%2045mm%20f1.8

The other 2 kit lenses (14-42mm and 40-150mm) are also extremely good, sharp and lovely colours.
I added a Sigma 19mm f2.8 ART lens for AUD$166 which is also outstanding value for the price.
As much as I loved my Pentax gear, I'm loving the MFT system more right now.

---

Last edited by Steve.Ledger; 03-16-2016 at 04:05 PM.

[BigMackCam]

Why do you need to have exactly the same blur and perspective and distortion? If you moved an inch with your APS-C 50/1.8 all those aspects would have changed without even changing your equipment. What I'm saying is that your equipment is not always the factor that makes the shot. It's where you aim it.

Yes, agreed. But what I'm saying is, sometimes moving yourself or the subject isn't possible, or will lead to different results. No better, of course - just different. Same as the FF vs APS-C arguments in the same respect.

The question remains: why would you need a m43 to behave like a FF? The same argument can be made that if shallow DoF is desired then FF is the wrong format. Use medium or large format film instead.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. And we could say, if depth of field (as well as image quality from a larger sensor, let's be frank) didn't matter, why aren't we all shooting with more compact 1" sensor cameras? The fact of the matter is control of DoF, and as a result, blur, does matter creatively. Just as, for example, the ability to get greater depth of field at wider apertures is a clear advantage for m43 over APS-C, FF and medium format.

Why would it matter? Why would you want to get exactly the same image? If you turned around three times in the same spot and took another shot I'm sure you will get an entirely different photo.

My same argument applies, then. Why would any of us go for larger than m43? IQ at higher ISO only?? I think not.

It is big if you have impose totally unrealistic requirements such as making sure that the EXACT photo is reproduced by different formats. I can assure you that two shots from the same equipment will never be the same if taken a few seconds from each other. Photography is not about reproducing a shot. It's about making something different every time.

All bets are off then, regardless of sensor format...

I don't think you and I are ever going to agree on this in totality, and that's fine. We both know what we both know, and we're both clearly very confident about it Thanks for your feedback

---------- Post added 03-16-2016 at 10:44 PM ----------

I can also confirm this. I recently went MFT (Olympus OMD) and the 45mm F1.8mm lens came as one of the triple lens kit. It's incredible good in build quality and image quality which is outstanding the bokeh is buttery smooth. But it's equally as good for street photography and landscapes.


► https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=olympus%20m.zuiko%2045mm%20f1.8

The other 2 kit lenses (14-42mm and 40-150mm) are also extremely good, sharp and lovely colours.
I added a Sigma 30mm f2.8 ART lens for AUD$166 which is also outstanding value for the price.
As much as I loved my Pentax gear, I'm loving the MFT system more right now.

Hey Steve That's great to hear. I've no doubt that combo is capable of great results, as your photo confirms.

[monochrome]

One thing I'm learning after buying 70 lenses is - they don't matter. K-3, K-01, LX, MZ-S - doesn't matter.

After a certain point nothing is any better than anything else - it's just what I want and what I'm willing to do to get the shot. M43, APS, FF, Crop MF, 100Mp FF-MF (well, the last one matters) - a good photographer can make any image happen with good, available equipment in any format. I've seen amazing Q images.

Doesn't matter.

[dtmateojr]

Yes, agreed. But what I'm saying is, sometimes moving yourself or the subject isn't possible, or will lead to different results. No better, of course - just different. Same as the FF vs APS-C arguments in the same respect.



Exactly. I couldn't agree more. And we could say, if depth of field (as well as image quality from a larger sensor, let's be frank) didn't matter, why aren't we all shooting with more compact 1" sensor cameras? The fact of the matter is control of DoF, and as a result, blur, does matter creatively. Just as, for example, the ability to get greater depth of field at wider apertures is a clear advantage for m43 over APS-C, FF and medium format.



My same argument applies, then. Why would any of us go for larger than m43? IQ at higher ISO only?? I think not.



All bets are off then, regardless of sensor format...

I don't think you and I are ever going to agree on this in totality, and that's fine. We both know what we both know, and we're both clearly very confident about it Thanks for your feedback

---------- Post added 03-16-2016 at 10:44 PM ----------



Hey Steve That's great to hear. I've no doubt that combo is capable of great results, as your photo confirms.

It's all a matter of preference. If your aim is to compare equipment then you will notice differences between formats. But that is not photography. In the real world of photography your restrictions do not make any sense. Have a look at pulitzers or any award winning photos and you will notice that none of your requirements ever materialised. The old greats even said "f/8 and be there", because what matters is making the shot.

m43 can do anything FF can do if you remain realistic with your expectations. The reasons for having different formats are many but as long as they are centered on what matters, then size is irrelevant. I own P&S, m43, aps-c, ff and medium format cameras and most of the time they never mattered at all. I still make the same crappy shots.

[BigMackCam]

One thing I'm learning after buying 70 lenses is - they don't matter. K-3, K-01, LX, MZ-S - doesn't matter.

After a certain point nothing is any better than anything else - it's just what I want and what I'm willing to do to get the shot. M43, APS, FF, Crop MF, 100Mp FF-MF (well, the last one matters) - a good photographer can make any image happen with good, available equipment in any format. I've seen amazing Q images.

Doesn't matter.

You're right, and I agree to a large extent - but what I'd also say is that, in certain situations, certain formats and lenses can produce things that other formats and lenses can't. There are things that a good FF camera and fast lens can produce that an m43 camera simply can't - *in those specific circumstances* - and... very importantly... vice versa. It's not that one format is "better" than another, it's that they are different. Hence my confusion as to why APS-C would die out and be replaced by m43, per the very friendly exchange I had with the afore-mentioned forum member. They are different - not mutually exclusive

Out of interest, what do *you* think will happen to APS-C vs FF and m43 going forward? You and I have had several friendly interactions on the forum, and I would hope you know I'm not biased one way or another (per my original post) - I'm just interested

---------- Post added 03-16-2016 at 11:12 PM ----------

m43 can do anything FF can do if you remain realistic with your expectations. The reasons for having different formats are many but as long as they are centered on what matters, then size is irrelevant. I own P&S, m43, aps-c, ff and medium format cameras and most of the time they never mattered at all. I still make the same crappy shots.

And this is where we differ. I would say "m43 can do anything you *need* it to though you may not be able to get from it quite what you can with a different format sensor (whether smaller or larger)..." - and I'm right with you on the crappy shots thing - me too But, based on my original post, I stated reasons as to why I thought FF, APS-C and m43 would *all* continue. Let me turn that around to you and say, given what you've suggested, what's the point of APS-C and FF cameras? Should we all just be shooting m43, because we can do everything we need to with that format? If your answer is yes to that last one, we *definitely* aren't on the same page!!

[dtmateojr]

You're right, and I agree to a large extent - but what I'd also say is that, in certain situations, certain formats and lenses can produce things that other formats and lenses can't. There are things that a good FF camera and fast lens can produce that an m43 camera simply can't - *in those specific circumstances* - and... very importantly... vice versa. It's not that one format is "better" than another, it's that they are different. Hence my confusion as to why APS-C would die out and be replaced by m43, per the very friendly exchange I had with the afore-mentioned forum member. They are different - not mutually exclusive

Out of interest, what do *you* think will happen to APS-C vs FF and m43 going forward? You and I have had several friendly interactions on the forum, and I would hope you know I'm not biased one way or another (per my original post) - I'm just interested

---------- Post added 03-16-2016 at 11:12 PM ----------



And this is where we differ. I would say "m43 can do anything you *need* it to though you may not be able to get from it quite what you can with a different format sensor (whether smaller or larger)..." - and I'm right with you on the crappy shots thing - me too But, based on my original post, I stated reasons as to why I thought FF, APS-C and m43 would *all* continue. Let me turn that around to you and say, given what you've suggested, what's the point of APS-C and FF cameras? Should we all just be shooting m43, because we can do everything we need to with that format? If your answer is yes to that last one, we *definitely* aren't on the same page!!

Yes, m43 can do anything you want but that is another unrealistic requirement. Even FF fan boys of Canon and Nikon even argue which brand is better. But yes, we could all just buy Canon and forget other brands and we will continue making fantastic and crappy photos.

[Ikarus]

At what subject distance, though? Is it, for instance, as paper-thin as a 55mm f/1.4, lens at f/1.8, on APS-C, or a 90mm f/1.8 on FF, at the same distance?

I assume this is a rhetorical question, but just in case it wasn't, the answer is no. :-)

IMHO, the one thing the smaller sensor formats have going for them is system compactness in the tele range, and that's nothing to sneeze on when you see the size of the rig that FF bird shooters need to lug around in order to get close enough to their subjects.

[BigMackCam]

Yes, m43 can do anything you want but that is another unrealistic requirement. Even FF fan boys of Canon and Nikon even argue which brand is better. But yes, we could all just buy Canon and forget other brands and we will continue making fantastic and crappy photos.

I'm not talking about brands, just formats. To be really clear and specific, can I ask - do you see any advantage (other than IQ at higher ISO as a result of sensor size) of APS-C or FF over m43? Nothing more, nothing less - just that? Again, I'm not trying to argue with you - this is actually really useful in understanding why formats might survive or disappear. Regardless of whether you or I agree or disagree, we're both the buying public

[dtmateojr]

Well, the only realistic question is: is it capable of making fantastic photos worthy of a spot in the the Smithsonian collection or perhaps a pulitzer or even a page in NatGeo magazine? m43 can do all that but once you impose certain restrictions no camera will ever be good enough. Not even a measly FF.

---------- Post added 03-17-16 at 09:34 ----------

I'm not talking about brands, just formats. To be really clear and specific, can I ask - do you see any advantage (other than IQ at higher ISO as a result of sensor size) of APS-C or FF over m43? Nothing more, nothing less - just that? Again, I'm not trying to argue with you - this is actually really useful in understanding why formats might survive or disappear. Regardless of whether you or I agree or disagree, we're both the buying public

Here's the noise performance of an ancient m43 compared to Canon's latest and greatest FF:



So, is m43 good enough for high ISO? I betcha!

[BigMackCam]

I assume this is a rhetorical question, but just in case it wasn't, the answer is no. :-)

IMHO, the one thing the smaller sensor formats have going for them is system compactness in the tele range, and that's nothing to sneeze on when you see the size of the rig that FF bird shooters need to lug around in order to get close enough to their subjects.

Absolutely, that's a very definite advantage! And with larger sensor formats, being able to get significant blur behind, say someone at a coffee table in the street with other people behind them, is also an advantage... right? It depends on what you want to photograph and, hence, one format is only better than another based on the circumstances and subject...

---------- Post added 03-16-2016 at 11:38 PM ----------

So, is m43 good enough for high ISO? I betcha!

Agreed.

But back to my question. And I'll take the ISO bit out. To be really clear and specific, can I ask - do you see any advantage of APS-C or FF over m43? Nothing more, nothing less - just that?

Whether it's "yes" or "no" doesn't bother me - honestly!!! I'd just be interested to know which it is!!

[dtmateojr]

Absolutely, that's a very definite advantage! And with larger sensor formats, being able to get significant blur behind, say someone at a coffee table in the street with other people behind them, is also an advantage... right? It depends on what you want to photograph and, hence, one format is only better than another based on the circumstances and subject...

---------- Post added 03-16-2016 at 11:38 PM ----------



Agreed.

But back to my question. And I'll take the ISO bit out. To be really clear and specific, can I ask - do you see any advantage of APS-C or FF over m43? Nothing more, nothing less - just that?

Whether it's "yes" or "no" doesn't bother me - honestly!!! I'd just be interested to know which it is!!

If the FF maintained sane pixel densities then FF will have an advantage over aps-c and m43. For example if FF, aps-c and m43 all had 16Mp then the larger sensor will have an advantage in noise performance. But that is not happening anymore. FF sensors are really just aps-c but bigger. The K5 is the same sensor as the D800 and possibly the K1. The sweet spot for FF seems to be 16Mp to have any real advantage over smaller formats. 24Mp is ok, 36Mp is pushing it and beyond that is stupid (see 5DS vs E-M5 graph).

[BigMackCam]

If the FF maintained sane pixel densities then FF will have an advantage over aps-c and m43. For example if FF, aps-c and m43 all had 16Mp then the larger sensor will have an advantage in noise performance. But that is not happening anymore. FF sensors are really just aps-c but bigger. The K5 is the same sensor as the D800 and possibly the K1. The sweet spot for FF seems to be 16Mp to have any real advantage over smaller formats. 24Mp is ok, 36Mp is pushing it and beyond that is stupid (see 5DS vs E-M5 graph).

OK, this is great. So, in your view, sensor performance is the only potential advantage between the formats? That's cool. I disagree, but it's fine that we disagree, and I respect your opinion

---------- Post added 03-16-2016 at 11:53 PM ----------

Assuming no disruptive technology, I do not see all that much of a change over the next few years. FF will have 10-15% of the market share, perhaps with the most gain in mirrorless. APS-C will continue to have the majority of DSLR marketshare. m4/3 I'm not so sure this might actually decline. I suspect the larger gain might actually be in 1" sensor cameras. Quality is quite good and the sensor size allows very compact bodies.

In short, I do not see APS-C going away or even declining all that much. FF is great for those that want it but size, weight and cost will always be higher than APS-C.

Sorry for the late reply Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at too... I don't know enough about m43 to comment knowledgeably...

EDIT: And, repeating what I've said several times elsewhere on the forum (so apologies if I'm getting on anyone's wick with it!), I have a non-Pentax FF camera with 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, and I absolutely *love* that kit... but for me personally I would not choose them over my Pentax APS-C bodies and lenses for a day's shooting unless (a) I needed what they can achieve, or (b) I just wanted to use them (which is quite frequently!! ). None of which is to detract from the awesome setup that the K-1 + fast lenses will offer.

EDIT #2: I'm off to The Photography Show in Birmingham this weekend, and will be taking my Fujifilm XF-1 with its 2/3" sensor. It will give me much better flexibility than my DSLRs, excellent image quality for what I intend to photograph, and will fit in my pocket. I couldn't get that from a FF, APS-C or m43 camera...I guess there *is* more to sensor size than just IQ?!