[bertwert]

Those are some great images @Heie !

[Qwntm]

As far as bokeh is concerned a FF is superior. With aps-c you have to use subject to background distance and subject to foreground distance to your advantage. There is a reason the DA* 50-135 is one of the most popular portrait lenses on the forum. The rendering from it's lens compression can be just as pleasing to the eye as FF bokeh. Jpeg straight out of my K-50.

FF is superior to APS-c regarding Bokeh. This is true. HOW SUPERIOR is the real question.


A 35mm 1.4 lens on an APS-c gives you about 1 inch DOF at 1 foot and f1.4. A 50mm 1.4 lens on a FF gives you about a 1/2 inch DOF at 1 foot at 1.4. This is superior no doubt about it.




You would have a hard time even showing examples of this superiority.


Or to put it another way, I think Heie's post kinda shows that APs-c for all intents and purposes is equally as capable in practical terms. And that the skill of the photographer is the deciding factor not the very theoretical advantage of a FF sensor over an Aps-c sensor for this kind of work.

---------- Post added 06-21-16 at 02:29 PM ----------

And another thing:


Heie, please stop posting your photos taken with the 55mm DA*


I can't afford it and I don't want a divorce!!! Thanks


Those are just too good! You really showcase that lens well.

[jake14mw]

I would love for Pentax to develop a lens with one purpose, to support the ability to create incredibly sharp portraits with razor thin DOF and incredible bokeh, something similar to the Canon EF 200mm f/2L. I'm thinking something similar to the to the FA85 1.4, but even better! The roadmap lists a large aperture medium telephoto. How about a 135 f 1.8? Could Pentax get demand for a $2000 135 f1.8 that was sharp at 1.8?

Whatever that large aperture medium telephoto winds up being, I hope it's IQ bests the FA85 1.4.

[monochrome]

If a particular 36x24 shot can be (nearly) replicated with a crop camera, what difference does it make whether one chooses a K-1 and the appropriate lens or a K-3 and a x * (0.65mm) lens to make the image ?

This pointless argument is quite simply snobbery and reverse snobbery.

[biz-engineer]

Who said anything about stitching? Honestly I am not sure what you are saying.

Tennis ball is way smaller than a full size human being. If you looked at the link I posted, there are not photographs of tennis balls. Of course, if the subject is very small, it is very very easy to blurr the background thanks to very close subject, for instance that becomes a major problem for macro that leads to focus stacking.

K-3, DA* 55 and 3 shots at F1.8 (haven't calculated the resulting equivalent FoV/aperture)

Yes, in all of your shots, you produce a blurred background but no perspective, due to narrower field of view of apsc you can't achieve both blurred background, subject compression and wide field of view at the same time. With aspc, when you want to create more blurr, you get closer to your subject and by doing so, you remove the out of frame scene. If you want to include mode of the scene, the background blurr diminishes. Only your second shot shows some perspective, but no progressive blurr for guiding of the eye onto the subject. Take the time to look again at the combined effect of perspective and progressive background blur. The difference is not huge, but you need to take the time to observe , and a small difference is what separate the good photograph from the extraordinary photograph.

Bokeh is not a "sensor-size thing." It's a "lens thing"...

Of course I know this. I also know that 200mm f2 produces a blurred background regardless the format, but on full frame, the field of view is larger so you can get closer to the subject with cropping the face of your subject. At the same distance same lens on apsc camera, your subject does not fit in the frame.

---------- Post added 21-06-16 at 22:56 ----------

If a particular 36x24 shot can be (nearly) replicated with a crop camera, what difference does it make whether one chooses a K-1 and the appropriate lens or a K-3 and a x * (0.65mm) lens to make the image ? This pointless argument is quite simply snobbery and reverse snobbery.

No sure if I understand the wording here. Technically, I'm talking about the effect where the difference in sharpness between the subject, the subject position in the frame and simultaneous progressive blur drives the eye to the subject around which everything seems to rotate. It a special effect that is rather hard to achieve with apsc, doable with full frame without too much effort, and relatively easy to achieve with medium format.

Here, the replies are interesting. Looks like everyone see images in a different way.

---------- Post added 21-06-16 at 23:09 ----------

[Qwntm]

Tennis ball is way smaller than a full size human being. If you looked at the link I posted, there are not photographs of tennis balls. Of course, if the subject is very small, it is very very easy to blurr the background thanks to very close subject, for instance that becomes a major problem for macro that leads to focus stacking.


Yes, in all of your shots, you produce a blurred background but no perspective, due to narrower field of view of apsc you can't achieve both blurred background, subject compression and wide field of view at the same time. With aspc, when you want to create more blurr, you get closer to your subject and by doing so, you remove the out of frame scene. If you want to include mode of the scene, the background blurr diminishes. Only your second shot shows some perspective, but no progressive blurr for guiding of the eye onto the subject. Take the time to look again at the combined effect of perspective and progressive background blur. The difference is not huge, but you need to take the time to observe , and a small difference is what separate the good photograph from the extraordinary photograph.


Of course I know this. I also know that 200mm f2 produces a blurred background regardless the format, but on full frame, the field of view is larger so you can get closer to the subject with cropping the face of your subject. At the same distance same lens on apsc camera, your subject does not fit in the frame.

---------- Post added 21-06-16 at 22:56 ----------



No sure if I understand the wording here. Technically, I'm talking about the effect where the difference in sharpness between the subject, the subject position in the frame and simultaneous progressive blur drives the eye to the subject around which everything seems to rotate. It a special effect that is rather hard to achieve with apsc, doable with full frame without too much effort, and relatively easy to achieve with medium format.

Here, the replies are interesting. Looks like everyone see images in a different way.

---------- Post added 21-06-16 at 23:09 ----------

I started another thread on this because I think it's important, but I can use the same data here. I think the math actually kind of proves otherwise to your suppositions: Why would a nominal 3 inches of depth of field in the 200mm/300mm comparison make something easy to do with FF and hard to do with APS-c? You would have a very hard time taking two photographs showing anyone that 3 inches of difference, if that was what you were tasked to demonstrate.


A 35mm lens on an APS-c camera with a 1.5 crop factor at f1.4 and focused at 2 feet gets you from 1.97ft to 2.03ft in focus. That's 0.06 feet.


Focused at 10 feet you get from 9.32ft to 10.78ft in focus. That's 1.46 ft.



A 50mm lens on a FF camera at f1.4 focused at 2 feet gets you 1.98ft - 2.02ft in focus. That's 0.04ft.


Focused at 10 feet you get 9.49ft - 10.57ft. That's 1.08 feet.




So how about 200mm/300mm fashion depth of field, right?


200mm lens at 2.8 focused at 10 feet gives you 9.96-10.04 feet in focus which is 0.09 feet on an APS-c 1.5x crop.


300mm lens at 2.8 focused at 10 feet gives you 9.97-10.03 feet in focus which is 0.06 feet on a FF sensor.

[biz-engineer]

Why would a nominal 3 inches of depth of field in the 200mm/300mm comparison make something easy to do with FF and hard to do with APS-c?

The amount of blur is different from the depth of field. The blur depends on diameter of the entrance pupils, placement of subject relative to hyper-focal distance. Depth of field can be the same regardless of the diameter of the entrance pupil. Most people confuse both. If I use a 200mm f2 wide open, there is no way you can achieve the same background blur with a 50mm lens because you would need a 50mm f0.25 lens which does not exist. And if you use a 500mm f4, there is no way you can achieve the same completely smooth background with a 85 f1.4 lens. Therefore there is a gap between formats that can only be close via stitching, and when stitching can't be done, it is wrong to say that two different format can produce the same result. That's physically not possible. Interesting to see people defying the laws of physics for emotional reasons.

[normhead]

Found this photographer's site Las Vegas Family Photographer | LJHolloway Photography.

Pretty amazing. Could be done with a Pentax K1 and fast tele lens, in suitable lighting, choice of background and colors.

Could also be done with a K-3.

This morning's K-3 shots




I do this stuff all the time without blinking. Your mistake is in thinking these photographers just walked into these images without planning or setting up the scene because of the camera they shoot with. You have to set it up a little differently with APS_c but the over all process and result is exactly the same. We did have one guy set up a shot in which he claimed there was a wall behind him and he couldn't get the same image with APS-c, but, you can fudge an impossible situation to prove any point. That doesn't make it applicable to most real world situation?

I have to ask, how would the above photos be better with an FF? I have a glance between DoF and background blur. Narrow the DoF and I probably don't get as much subject as I want in focus. And it certainly isn't going to affect the back ground out of focus areas.

I'm not searching my image database for examples here . I just shot these and 7 other keepers this morning. This is commonplace stuff. Run of the mill APS-c as far as I'm concerned.

[biz-engineer]

Could also be done with a K-3.

Yes norm, you are perfectly right. You achieve very nice bokeh with a long lens and framing a bird. But can you frame a person with the same lens and have the same smooth background?

[ChristianRock]

The site linked in the original post shows pictures that have had a lot of PP done to them. Including some PP to blur the background beyond what was blurred through the lens. It's not uncommon practice for professional photogs to do that.

[normhead]

You have to set it up a little differently with APS_c but the over all process and result is exactly the same.

Much as I hate to quote myself.

You have to set up for your FF image,
You have to set up for your APS-c image.
You have to set up a little differently.
But the total effort is the same.

My students used to have to set up images like that with people and a point and shoot. They did it correctly or they failed. It took a lot of space, but they got it done.

You only make this kind of mistake, if you don't try a couple of example images yourself.

5 minutes work... surely this kind of thing is not unknown to you?
Original Picture DA* 200 @ ƒ.5.6, I didn't even use ƒ2.8 to maximize blur.


A little skin smoothing and blur


Do you really think I'd need a full frame to produce those images? I wouldn't call myself a photographer if i did.

[biz-engineer]

Your mistake is in thinking these photographers just walked into these images without planning or setting up the scene because of the camera they shoot with. You have to set it up a little differently with APS_c but the over all process and result is exactly the same.

Heck no ; it's like chicken and eggs. Lets say you take a K3, and I take a K1. So I take a shot. Then you want to achieve the same blur with the K3 so you get closer to the subject. But the thing is, I can also get closer like you ... so in the end, apsc can't catch up, never, not possible.

With this discussion; everyone saying that he can do the same with apsc is fooling himself , because it is by the law of physics impossible to match two systems geometrically different. The only work around that can match results of the two formats is to stitch multiple photograhs. The same is true for noise and resolution.

[monochrome]

^^ @biz-engineer Just a rant about the general argument whether a K-1 is 'worth it' . . .

It is worth it to me, but the competitive equivalence arguments, now reduced to a very specific, limits-pushing use case, the arguments just aren't worth it.

I think we shouldn't keeep trying to justify our decisions if there's no end-of-day lever any more.

[richmondthefish]

Found this photographer's site Las Vegas Family Photographer | LJHolloway Photography.

Pretty amazing. Could be done with a Pentax K1 and fast tele lens, in suitable lighting, choice of background and colors.

The second I opened that page I thought Canon + 85mm 1.2. I then browsed to her gear and confirm thats one of her most widely used lens. This is just like Olson's work who has the same basic setup. Jake Olson Studios

[alamo5000]

Heck no ; it's like chicken and eggs. Lets say you take a K3, and I take a K1. So I take a shot. Then you want to achieve the same blur with the K3 so you get closer to the subject. But the thing is, I can also get closer like you ... so in the end, apsc can't catch up, never, not possible.

At some point this stuff just gets pointless and old. After a certain point lenses won't focus anymore. Also after a certain point lenses will have such a shallow DOF that the person's nose might be the only thing in focus.

There is so much more involved in it than that and then on top of that this is a completely fruitless and pointless conversation to even waste time on. It won't help one person become a better photographer.

There will be minor differences between FF and crop but I say it's more important to worry more about the content of the pictures more than anything else.