Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-24-2016, 11:13 PM   #226
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,621
But this is really valid only if you use a different lens with the idea that the framing and shooting distance is frozen. If you keep the same lens on both camera and you change your subject distance to keep the same framing, APSC and FF are very similar... f/1.4 on APSC is near f/1.6 on FF and similar to f/1.4 on FF. Basically you can achieve very similar subject isolation with FF and APSC if you simply have the same lens and you can shoot further away. You'll also get more perspective compression.

To me that why we don't see much difference in practice, nothing forbid to use the same 85mm f/1.4 on APSC and FF and both APSC and FF, the photographer will concentrate on a nice framing. If the framing the same the result will be the same.

There no reason why the APSC user would be forbidden from using a 85mm f/1.4 !

Where this can be a limitation of course is if you can't have the distance to your subject you need. On FF you often find yourself too near to your subject (birding, wildlife) and on APSC you can find yourself too far away (say a portrait shoot indoor).

For a candid shoot in a small room indoor, FF will have more blur because the APSC user will have to use a shorter focal length...


Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.
08-25-2016, 05:08 PM   #227
Veteran Member
Tan68's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 396
I have difficulty reconciling the arguments between u4/3 to APS-C with the arguments between APS-C to FF. I think many members here would argue there are benefits to APS-C versus u4/3 If those benefits are accepted, how can there be arguments there are little to no benefits to FF v. APS-C?
08-25-2016, 11:19 PM   #228
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,621
QuoteOriginally posted by Tan68 Quote
I have difficulty reconciling the arguments between u4/3 to APS-C with the arguments between APS-C to FF. I think many members here would argue there are benefits to APS-C versus u4/3 If those benefits are accepted, how can there be arguments there are little to no benefits to FF v. APS-C?
The argument are the same and actuall there less theoretical difference between m4/3 and APSC than FF and APSC in term of crop ratio. But while there reason to not buy FF because of price, this doesn't apply to m4/3 that have similar priced bodies as APSC and lack of high performance cheap lenses (cheap tamron/sigma f/2.8 zoom as an example).

If we compare the max you can get for your money, you can buy a K50 + tamron 17-50 for 700€, getting a basic m4/3 + f/2.8 zoom will be more at least 1100-1200€ and that still will perform noticably worse despite being more than 50% more expensive. A D610 + 28-75 from tamron would be 1400-1500€ and that would be the best performing by far. While it is twice the price of APSC and that look like a big difference, it is almost the same price as m4/3 while being much much better because the difference between the 2 system cumulate as 2EV.

If we go further, we can see the best FF bodies for dynamic range get 14.8EV... And the best APSC body get 14.4EV... While the best m4/3 get 12.8EV. For some reason the m4/3 sensor does not manage the same as the other 2 in dynamic range and that show on occasions for landscapes or others critical scenes....

To me you buy APSC because it is cheap and a good price compromize. You buy m4/3 for size/weight and pay high money for it when you go outside of the kit lenses. And you buy FF for performance.

A non trivial difference is also the sensor ratio. Everybody may have different preference but overall counting most screens are now quite wide, m4/3 is not the best choice for full screen display...

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-25-2016 at 11:31 PM.
08-26-2016, 02:59 AM   #229
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,509
QuoteOriginally posted by Tan68 Quote
I have difficulty reconciling the arguments between u4/3 to APS-C with the arguments between APS-C to FF. I think many members here would argue there are benefits to APS-C versus u4/3 If those benefits are accepted, how can there be arguments there are little to no benefits to FF v. APS-C?
I think most people believe there are benefits to full frame over APS-C, they just argue about where the benefits come from. There are those who claim that the benefit comes from having more pixels and there are those who claim that they come from "total light." But both groups do believe that you would end up with better results, in some situations with a K-1 versus a K3.

There is another theme that is brought out as well, which is the question of what is good enough for an individual photographer. Most photographers don't "need" more than four thirds or APS-C -- many could probably get along just fine with a bridge camera. But that sort of argument is a dead end, for it is very photographer specific. If someone is satisfied with their K5 or K3, then there is no point in upgrading to a K-1. On the other hand, if someone wants a K-1 and has the money for it, then there is no particular reason not to get one and they have no need to explain to me or anyone else (except maybe their spouse) why they decided to purchase a full frame camera versus another APS-C one.

08-30-2016, 12:35 AM   #230
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 42
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think most people believe there are benefits to full frame over APS-C, they just argue about where the benefits come from. There are those who claim that the benefit comes from having more pixels and there are those who claim that they come from "total light." But both groups do believe that you would end up with better results, in some situations with a K-1 versus a K3.

There is another theme that is brought out as well, which is the question of what is good enough for an individual photographer. Most photographers don't "need" more than four thirds or APS-C -- many could probably get along just fine with a bridge camera. But that sort of argument is a dead end, for it is very photographer specific. If someone is satisfied with their K5 or K3, then there is no point in upgrading to a K-1. On the other hand, if someone wants a K-1 and has the money for it, then there is no particular reason not to get one and they have no need to explain to me or anyone else (except maybe their spouse) why they decided to purchase a full frame camera versus another APS-C one.
This may be to do with motion picture cameras but all the same laws apply and it quite nicely illustrates all the considerations of crop and full frame

Understanding Sensor Crop Factors

i think i mentioned this before but all film makers quest for S35 or even FF to shoot in (FF is basically vista vision so something like North by North west was shot in FF)

and if you look at the reaction to the new Canon 5d mkvi ( which is not good it has 1.74 crop on the video all the canon video users have gone in to meltdown)

the main reason the 5d became so popular was for video you got the full frame look in HD video....not so much its stills capabilities

with the release of the MKVI the video instrest in this camera will fall away due to the massive crop and ....you will be seeing SONY pick up the slack in the Full Frame video market

so you can argue over the technicalities of FF v APS-C all day long but i think its more a Look than a definable technical aspect of either format

as a filmmakers we want S35 and FF and not crops its that simple ...and that is why FF sensor will be coming more and more to market
08-30-2016, 12:01 PM   #231
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,621
QuoteOriginally posted by gnugent Quote
as a filmmakers we want S35 and FF and not crops its that simple ...and that is why FF sensor will be coming more and more to market
Canon sell very nice video camera, much better than 5DmarkIV, and that even more expensive, so that's fine by them.

5Fmark IV is a still camera first. it provide many nice feature for that usage and also very nice video too. But like almost all still camera it can't do full sensor read of the full frame, whatever the mode. That's just how it is. Maybe for $6000 they could have managed to have 4K full sensor read, but this isn't really the priority. Video on still camera is still an option, not the #1 feature.

It will sell like hotcake whatever the Pentax users or videographers think of it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, aps-c, background, blur, camera, dof, dslr, feet, ff, ff over aps-c, field, focus, frame, full frame, full-frame, k-1, k1, lens, paper, pentax k-1, people, picture, posters, stitching
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FF vs APS-C Field of View revisited Ole Pentax K-1 2 05-07-2016 02:13 PM
Confused about Angle of View of Lenses on FF vs APS-C? Kath Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-01-2015 09:55 AM
Does FF vs APS-C affect amount of light? windhorse General Photography 46 03-02-2015 07:07 PM
Quick question regarding field of view - FF vs APS-C glass? Julie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-23-2012 05:33 PM
APS-C does not increase focal length over FF, it decreases field of view. TomTextura Photographic Technique 135 06-09-2012 04:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:36 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top