Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-21-2016, 08:40 PM - 1 Like   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,217
People seem to be defensive today. The OP's opening sentence, closing sentence, and everything between didn't say FF is wrong. They are just saying that the dof advantage of FF seems too incrementally small to upgrade for only that reason.

The biggest benefits of upgrading to the K-1 is for edge cases. Sure, if you're pushing the limits of dof/bokeh/blur on APS-C, the K-1 is a significant upgrade. Other edge cases where IMO the K-1 is a great upgrade is printing large, ultra wide angle, and low light. The user interface with the extra dials are surely significant for some people.

QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
I keep hearing how superior FF is over APS-c regarding the issue of depth of field ... SNIPPING FOR BREVITY ... There are many reasons to buy a FF camera, depth of field superiority really just isn't one of them in my opinion and I think the math and practical application back me up. If you can't see the difference, who cares?


06-21-2016, 09:22 PM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,062
It's all good. I like the camera more than my K-3, but I'm keeping the K-3 and several DA Ltd's. It will be better for some things and not better for others. Big surprise. I think the sensor is more forgiving with its pixel density than the K-3, which helps me.

I won't actually push either camera for a long time, if ever. I'm not that good.

The thing is - with the lenses I have - I can do things with the K-1 that I can't with the K-3.
06-21-2016, 09:30 PM   #33
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,101
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
I keep hearing how superior FF is over APS-c regarding the issue of depth of field, yet no one has ever really shown me an example of this superiority in a photo... So I ran the numbers through Cambridgeincolour's Depth of field calculator to see exactly what kind of "superiority" we are talking about.


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.




So clearly FF is about 30-40% better at shallow depth of field shots, on paper. I have been a professional photographer for over 30 years, I'd be hard pressed to take 2 photographs that could actually show anyone these differences.


There are many reasons to buy a FF camera, depth of field superiority really just isn't one of them in my opinion and I think the math and practical application back me up. If you can't see the difference, who cares?
Well for me you are right. I didn't buy a K-1 for the DOF. I bought one because I like nice cameras and the K-1 is a nice camera. It's a really, really nice camera.
I'm not justifying beyond that. I wanted one.
Now I own one.
06-21-2016, 09:51 PM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,795
Certainly PF has gone a bit Animal Farm since the release of the K-1.

FF vs APS-C, OVF vs EVF, DSLR vs MILC, "Pixie Dust" vs "Clinical"; there are always players, and sometimes they even switch teams.

06-21-2016, 10:09 PM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 614
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
People seem to be defensive today. The OP's opening sentence, closing sentence, and everything between didn't say FF is wrong. They are just saying that the dof advantage of FF seems too incrementally small to upgrade for only that reason.

The biggest benefits of upgrading to the K-1 is for edge cases. Sure, if you're pushing the limits of dof/bokeh/blur on APS-C, the K-1 is a significant upgrade. Other edge cases where IMO the K-1 is a great upgrade is printing large, ultra wide angle, and low light. The user interface with the extra dials are surely significant for some people.




Thank you. Exactly.


I will even disagree with you politely a little bit. I don't even think it's "edge cases." The one GIGANTIC ADVANTAGE of FF is higher iso noise mitigation. Quite frankly iso 1600 on the K3/II is pushing the limits of acceptability in Jpegs at weddings and there's no way I'm processing 100's to 1000's of Raw files to make that acceptable when I can shoot a Fuji and get better and perfectly acceptable iso 6400 jpegs or probably the same with the K1. (Fuji is APS-c, but it also has the best jpeg engine in the business bar none.)


I personally wouldn't even call the depth of field advantage "significant," though. Printing over 30x40 inches, sure. Ultra wide angle? Not sure about that, the Sigma 8-16 is probably wider on APS-c than anything you can get for the K1 right now. (Yes it's still available, but limited.)


Low light? YES that's the main advantage and a VERY SIGNIFICANT one. I bet the K1 is at least 2 stops better than APS-c.


I don't care who buys what, but I do care when people make claims that are not based in reality and perpetuate misinformation.


General Patton said: "Know what you know and know what you don't." This isn't religion.

---------- Post added 06-21-16 at 11:11 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Certainly PF has gone a bit Animal Farm since the release of the K-1.

FF vs APS-C, OVF vs EVF, DSLR vs MILC, "Pixie Dust" vs "Clinical"; there are always players, and sometimes they even switch teams.


It did used to be less DPreview around here for sure...

---------- Post added 06-21-16 at 11:11 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Well for me you are right. I didn't buy a K-1 for the DOF. I bought one because I like nice cameras and the K-1 is a nice camera. It's a really, really nice camera.
I'm not justifying beyond that. I wanted one.
Now I own one.


And I'm jealous!
06-21-2016, 10:14 PM   #36
Site Supporter
vagrant10's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: portland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,345
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Certainly PF has gone a bit Animal Farm since the release of the K-1.

FF vs APS-C, OVF vs EVF, DSLR vs MILC, "Pixie Dust" vs "Clinical"; there are always players, and sometimes they even switch teams.
I don't get all this tribalism, particularly when I've got my feet in a lot of different formats. Cell phone, Q, 1", apsc and ff. Each has their different characteristics which is interesting to play around with.

I like the K-1 for many reasons and for me it was worth it. The thing that I am enjoying the most is that I feel like I am rediscovering my lenses again which has been motivating me to take a LOT more photos than before I had the K-1. Somehow it's sparked a fire and I'm anxious to create more often. Personally, this is the trait in a camera that is the most important - it makes me WANT to use it. And as long as you want to use the gear you have, everything else is gravy.
06-21-2016, 10:17 PM   #37
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,752
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
People seem to be defensive today. The OP's opening sentence, closing sentence, and everything between didn't say FF is wrong. They are just saying that the dof advantage of FF seems too incrementally small to upgrade for only that reason.

The biggest benefits of upgrading to the K-1 is for edge cases. Sure, if you're pushing the limits of dof/bokeh/blur on APS-C, the K-1 is a significant upgrade. Other edge cases where IMO the K-1 is a great upgrade is printing large, ultra wide angle, and low light. The user interface with the extra dials are surely significant for some people.

As I read the three pages that erupted since dinner time I could not really get the anger. The op said is dof of a FF k-1 a big factor in why someone would purchase it. Then he goes on to show that it seems like the answer is no.

From there people went every which way without really showing any results to sway opinion. Nor any countering math btw.

Here my two cents:
DOF is thinner by a modest amount for similar framing.
Bokeh is a jury is still out item but likely favors full frame.
Photographer behind the camera makes much more contribution than the sensor.
Edge cases may be make or break to some people.


Many small advantages make for a big plus for many of you to buy k-1.

Many new k-1 owners and k-1 non-owners are talking nonsense without adequate experience or data.

Full disclosure. My only FF exposure is shooting film. I did that for about 25 years, the switched to an apsc dslr. I have no plans at the moment to get the k-1 but only because of money and size.
I love my k-3 but also enjoy my gx7 m43 and my lx7 (q7 sized sensor).

I should also point out I had the k-50 and felt it was all the camera I needed. I only upgraded to a k-3 due to my dad wanting it and needing to have the same equipment for remote support reasons. I haven't regretted the k-3 and I'm certain done shots have benefited from the acquisition, but I submit that the k-50 was quite good and likely I wouldn't have missed the k-3 if I had not ever bought it. Now I can't imagine going back. K-1 owners probably feel the same way.

Last edited by UncleVanya; 06-21-2016 at 10:24 PM.
06-22-2016, 02:08 AM - 1 Like   #38
Pentaxian
tromboads's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Melbs
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,147
I'm not even sure what this thread is on about anymore.

Ah if we only we argued so passionately about the Art!

Is there a forum for that yet?

06-22-2016, 02:47 AM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,391
QuoteOriginally posted by tromboads Quote
I'm not even sure what this thread is on about anymore.
It's about different formats producing different results and some posters arguing that 'different = superior'
06-22-2016, 03:02 AM   #40
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 41,847
At the end of the day, the person behind the camera is what's going to decide the superiority of the results. Nevertheless, this thread was a fun read

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-22-2016, 03:02 AM   #41
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,555
This has really been hashed out in multiple threads over time, beginning long before the K-1 was even rumored to be released. To me, there are plenty of reasons that you might want to move to a K-1 over a K3, but depth of field is not a huge reason. That said, if you need really fast lenses on the wide end, they aren't available for APS-C. There isn't a 50mm f1.4, 31mm f1.8, or a 15mm f2.8 equivalent available for APS-C in a k mount, so, if you are interested in astro photography or some other application where you need something wide and fast, you probably should go with full frame. For my type of photography and for many others, the bigger struggle is usually to have adequate depth of field to allow for a sharp image, not figuring out how to decrease the depth of field.

As to reasons for full frame, better high iso, better dynamic range, better viewfinder and better resolution all come to mind. In addition, if you are shooting an 85mm at f2 on full frame, you are certainly going to have better results than shooting a lens like the DA *55 at f1.4 since the 85 will be stopped down a stop while the 55 will be wide open.

All of that said, APS-C is a good compromise sensor size and one that is more than capable of producing stellar results. Very few images are made or broken based on depth of field and those that are broken are done more so based on too little depth of field, rather than the reverse and things like light, subject, and composition will trump narrow depth of field with regard to the end result anway.
06-22-2016, 03:19 AM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,004
I see posts about how people claiming the FF is superior are wrong, but don't remember the heated debates on which such claims were so insistently being made... sure, there's the famous one-eye-in-focus look thought out by some photographers...

By the way, the K-1 will be superior from about every point of view (except price and size/weight) than my K-5IIs. Though I'm willing to say "different" regarding DoF, until I re-accustomize myself with the format and decide if I'm happy with a potentially more shallow DoF or not. And if I'm not... the K-1 still won't be any worse than the K-5IIs.
In any case, for me DoF isn't even worth thinking about at this stage. I'll see how things turns out and I'll adapt accordingly.

The trick here is not to apply some formulas, but to realize that you have to work with available lenses. I won't replace my lenses with "perfect equivalents", and in many cases those aren't even available. 35mm f/2.8? The closest would be the 50mm f/2.8 macro; there's no slower version (but there are up to 2 stops faster ones, if I'd give up close focus capabilities). 21mm f/3.2? The 31mm Limited, FA 35 f/2, Sigma 35 f/1.4 are all faster.

The only thing those formulas can tell you is that, if you want to get similar DoF, you can.
06-22-2016, 03:43 AM - 1 Like   #43
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,526
QuoteOriginally posted by tromboads Quote
I'm not even sure what this thread is on about anymore.

Ah if we only we argued so passionately about the Art!

Is there a forum for that yet?
Ņot sure that Rembrandt vs Vermeer lighting, subject looking at the camera vs away, or abstract vs representational threads will ever match EVF vs OVF, APS-C vs FF, DSLR vs MILC, Tromboads.

Blood and fur everywhere. ☺

Last edited by clackers; 06-22-2016 at 05:19 AM.
06-22-2016, 04:06 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,245
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
The one GIGANTIC ADVANTAGE of FF is higher iso noise mitigation.
Same as DoF, you could always say that FF noise advantage is negligible if you use a faster lens.

All in all, full frame offers more blur and less high iso noise, at a higher price. That's the same everytime you change format. The lower the sales volumes, the higher the price. You seem to have a grip against ful frame, I don't know why, which you don't have with medium format or u4/3. You say that full frame is the worse choice because it is not as small/cheap as apsc and it is not as good a medium format. If you were thinking outside of the box, you could say the same with any format.

You could say: apsc is the worse choice because it is more expensive and larger than u4/3 and only provide marginal improvement at iso100, u4/3 is tiny and cheap and if you don't print 60inches portrait, you don't need apsc.
You could also say: medium format is too costly for the marginal improvement over full frame, because anyway, all printed are 8bits, so why have 16bits and 50Mpixels, nobody need that. Full frame is more cost effectvie then medium format.

Why not start a thread about why no one need a medium format camera? The problem is if you start a thread about why the new medium format is full frame, medium format users won't even reply.
06-22-2016, 04:44 AM - 1 Like   #45
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10
Camera bodies are just tools a photographer uses to get the photograph they want.

From a mechanics point of view sometimes you need a little Shifting spanner, sometimes you need a big Shifting spanner.

If you only ever work on cars then you may only need a little Shifting spanner, if you work on trucks then you will need a big Shifting spanner.

Yes you can use a big Shifting spanner on a little nut. This doesn't mean the big Shifting spanner is 'better', the little Shifting spanner may be easier to use, fit better, is quicker, more compact and still tightens the nut up properly.

The important thing is that both of your Spanners are a quality brand (read Pentax).

Why has it become "My Pentax is Better than your Pentax"?

Shouldn't it be "OUR Pentax's are better than those other things"

As long as the tools in your toolbox are what you need it ONLY matters that they have Pentax on them.

And while we are on tools you also need hammers and screwdrivers so maybe Pentax should get into proper video cameras and mobile phones, the more tools you have the more varying the projects you can do.
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 11:42 AM. | 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