Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-07-2016, 04:46 PM   #91
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 39
I haven't meticulously read through every comment so I appologize if anyone has already posted this video, but Tony Northrup clearly shows (with photos!) how FF affects the depth of field and bokeh when compared to APSC and M43 sensors.


These demonstrations show how that crop factor affects your images. You are definitely able to match FF with and APSC body by adjusting your settings in many circumstances, but FF does still have an advantage when using the exact same F-Stop / ISO / whatever.

However I often use M43 and when shooting macro I actually enjoy "gaining" the additional depth of field because it allows me to not have to worry about diffraction nearly as much because I can acheive a deeper depth of field (super important when you're 6 inches away) without stopping a lens nearly all the way down. Sensor size does affect your photos, but you can also definitely work around it.

07-07-2016, 06:45 PM   #92
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 645
QuoteOriginally posted by Ginnipe Quote
These demonstrations show how that crop factor affects your images. You are definitely able to match FF with and APSC body by adjusting your settings in many circumstances, but FF does still have an advantage when using the exact same F-Stop / ISO / whatever.
Uhhh. . . I think you may have meant "still have an advantage and/or disadvantage" there, depending on whether you're trying to get more or less depth of field. The whole demonstration is based on the unstated assumption that "background blur" is something we all want more of. That's just the current fashion. It's an effect, not a measurement of image quality. For the majority of photography that has ever been done, I'd suggest, background blur was not sought.
07-07-2016, 08:28 PM   #93
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 39
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
Uhhh. . . I think you may have meant "still have an advantage and/or disadvantage" there, depending on whether you're trying to get more or less depth of field. The whole demonstration is based on the unstated assumption that "background blur" is something we all want more of. That's just the current fashion. It's an effect, not a measurement of image quality. For the majority of photography that has ever been done, I'd suggest, background blur was not sought.
While you are correct in the fact that image blur is not indicative of quality, what I also meant by "advantage" was light gathering advantage. If you set both cameras to f/8, shutter speed of 1/125, and ISO 100 the FF camera would be brighter and have less noise. That's more what I meant by an advantage.

If you read the rest of my post I actually describe an exact situation where I WANT more depth of field and where my Olympus OMD EM5II actually gives me an advantage in that area over my K1.
07-07-2016, 10:56 PM   #94
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by Ginnipe Quote
I haven't meticulously read through every comment so I appologize if anyone has already posted this video, but Tony Northrup clearly shows (with photos!) how FF affects the depth of field and bokeh when compared to APSC and M43 sensors.
He also show how to get exactly the same image with both camera and how 50mm f/2.8 iso 200 on m4/3 is the strict equivalent to 100mm f/5.6 iso 800 on FF. So for subject separation and dof the only limitation is if you actually don't find your picture shallow enough on the crop format or that the lens performance at the wider apperture is not satisfactory and would benefit from being more closed down.

Sure the K1 is better than the 1.22EV difference with the crop APSC sensor would indicate. We can hope this to be fixed with next APSC body. It might be not if Pentax want to keep the gap wider to sell more K1.

But then again outside of temporary technology edge that can play both way (a K5 is better than a 5D for noise and dynamic range) because you'll anyway try large apperture on both APSC and FF to reduce the isos, this is a matter of what is the shallowest acceptable dof for the shoot and if the APSC lens can do it and if the lens can provide enough picture quality at that setting.

If you shoot portraiture on a studio and you control the lighting, I don't see how that shoot with a 85mm f/8 iso 100 on APSC will have big enough issue to justify getting an FF body. Same if you shoot a landscape at 24mm f/8.

But sure, if you do some shooting in ambiant light like a wedding photographer, you can get the same noise with your camera with your f/2.8 zooms than an APSC body at f/1.8 while having overall better image quality because the apperture is easier on the lens.

What more? Because the K1 get more benefit than the theory would sugest at least until we get better APSC bodies, for noise you get same quality with your f/2.8 zoom than you get from using f/1 - f/1.4 on the APSC body... This is likely to be rendered moot in 6 month when the K3-II successor is made available but still.

07-08-2016, 02:55 AM   #95
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,499
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
He also show how to get exactly the same image with both camera and how 50mm f/2.8 iso 200 on m4/3 is the strict equivalent to 100mm f/5.6 iso 800 on FF. So for subject separation and dof the only limitation is if you actually don't find your picture shallow enough on the crop format or that the lens performance at the wider apperture is not satisfactory and would benefit from being more closed down.

Sure the K1 is better than the 1.22EV difference with the crop APSC sensor would indicate. We can hope this to be fixed with next APSC body. It might be not if Pentax want to keep the gap wider to sell more K1.

But then again outside of temporary technology edge that can play both way (a K5 is better than a 5D for noise and dynamic range) because you'll anyway try large apperture on both APSC and FF to reduce the isos, this is a matter of what is the shallowest acceptable dof for the shoot and if the APSC lens can do it and if the lens can provide enough picture quality at that setting.

If you shoot portraiture on a studio and you control the lighting, I don't see how that shoot with a 85mm f/8 iso 100 on APSC will have big enough issue to justify getting an FF body. Same if you shoot a landscape at 24mm f/8.

But sure, if you do some shooting in ambiant light like a wedding photographer, you can get the same noise with your camera with your f/2.8 zooms than an APSC body at f/1.8 while having overall better image quality because the apperture is easier on the lens.

What more? Because the K1 get more benefit than the theory would sugest at least until we get better APSC bodies, for noise you get same quality with your f/2.8 zoom than you get from using f/1 - f/1.4 on the APSC body... This is likely to be rendered moot in 6 month when the K3-II successor is made available but still.
I feel pretty sure that Pentax will use the best sensors that are available that will still fit in the targeted price of a camera. That said, the best APS-C sensor out there right now (probably the one in the D7200) is not that much better than the K3. It does better at dynamic range, but SNR is exactly the same throughout the iso range.
07-08-2016, 06:35 AM   #96
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,496
QuoteOriginally posted by Ginnipe Quote
. If you set both cameras to f/8, shutter speed of 1/125, and ISO 100 the FF camera would be brighter and have less noise.
They have exactly the same brightness, and also may have exactly the same noise.

For heaven's sake don't pay attention to Tony Northrup. 😀
07-08-2016, 10:25 AM   #97
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
They have exactly the same brightness, and also may have exactly the same noise.

For heaven's sake don't pay attention to Tony Northrup. ��
They will not have the same noise. The noise will be significantly lower on the FF because while the light density will be the same, the total amount of light received will be different.

Example:
D810 SNR18% at measured iso 100: 43.6db
K3 SNR18% at measured iso 100: 40db

D810 SNR18% at measured iso 200: 41db
K3 SNR18% at measured iso 200: 37db

The noise levels of D810 are better at measured iso 200 than K3 at measured iso 100 !

It may not matter at iso 100 or even iso 800 because the noise level are low enough on APSC anyway but the difference is there. And if you go to 3200 or 6400 iso, the difference start to be quite noticable.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-08-2016 at 10:38 AM.
07-08-2016, 03:55 PM   #98
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 645
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
They will not have the same noise. The noise will be significantly lower on the FF because while the light density will be the same, the total amount of light received will be different.

Example:
D810 SNR18% at measured iso 100: 43.6db
K3 SNR18% at measured iso 100: 40db

D810 SNR18% at measured iso 200: 41db
K3 SNR18% at measured iso 200: 37db

The noise levels of D810 are better at measured iso 200 than K3 at measured iso 100 !

It may not matter at iso 100 or even iso 800 because the noise level are low enough on APSC anyway but the difference is there. And if you go to 3200 or 6400 iso, the difference start to be quite noticable.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that you aren't talking about sensor size anymore. Now you're talking about sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio. You're talking about using a larger aperture to compensate for a noisier sensor (that, in this case, happens to be smaller) instead of using it to compensate for a smaller sensor.

And yes, sensor size and ISO performance are related. Resolution (dot pitch) and ISO performance are also related. In optics, everything is inter-related. However, the relationship you're looking at is no longer proximate. It's indirect, and there are other factors that come into play. It's not the same thing as field-of-view equivalence, which is always a simple ratio.

07-08-2016, 04:44 PM   #99
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,499
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
The problem with this line of reasoning is that you aren't talking about sensor size anymore. Now you're talking about sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio. You're talking about using a larger aperture to compensate for a noisier sensor (that, in this case, happens to be smaller) instead of using it to compensate for a smaller sensor.

And yes, sensor size and ISO performance are related. Resolution (dot pitch) and ISO performance are also related. In optics, everything is inter-related. However, the relationship you're looking at is no longer proximate. It's indirect, and there are other factors that come into play. It's not the same thing as field-of-view equivalence, which is always a simple ratio.
It really isn't. Full frame sensors of similar vintage will have similar dynamic range and noise at a little better than a stop up from an APS-C sensor. This assumes that your viewing/printing size is the same. At low iso it is unimportant, as both images are going to be relatively noise free, but at higher isos the difference is very clearly different. The noise on a pixel level may be the same between a K-1 and a K5 II, but at a particular printing size, it won't be at all.

There are two ways to look at this. One is to say that there aren't equivalent lenses available for APS-C that are available to full frame. That is to say, that you can have a 35mm f1.4 lens on full frame, but you won't ever find a 20-ish mm f1.0 lens for APS-C and even if you did, odds are it would not be very sharp. The other is to simply say that full frame sensors are a stop better in performance (or a little more) and leave it at that.

I am certainly not a full frame apologist. I still shoot with a K-01 and don't care that the high iso performance isn't quite as good as my K-1, but there is no doubt but that if I print two images shot at iso 1600 with those two cameras, while the exposures will be the same, the noise most definitely will not.
07-08-2016, 07:40 PM   #100
Senior Member
macman24054's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Axton, VA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 229
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
They will not have the same noise. The noise will be significantly lower on the FF because while the light density will be the same, the total amount of light received will be different.

Example:
D810 SNR18% at measured iso 100: 43.6db
K3 SNR18% at measured iso 100: 40db

D810 SNR18% at measured iso 200: 41db
K3 SNR18% at measured iso 200: 37db

The noise levels of D810 are better at measured iso 200 than K3 at measured iso 100 !

It may not matter at iso 100 or even iso 800 because the noise level are low enough on APSC anyway but the difference is there. And if you go to 3200 or 6400 iso, the difference start to be quite noticable.
I have two even more striking numbers K3 body $730 D810 body $2800. That is like expecting the same performance from a Mustang GT as a Bugatti. Just is not gonna happen. Sometimes the items we relate to one another are absurd at best.
07-08-2016, 07:46 PM   #101
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,499
QuoteOriginally posted by macman24054 Quote
I have two more even striking numbers K3 body $730 D810 body $2800. That is like expecting the same performance from a Mustang GT as a Bugatti. Just is not gonna happen. Sometimes the items we relate to one another are absurd at best.
The K-1 which has roughly the same sensor as the D810 is only 1800. That isn't that much more than the release price of the K5 as far as I can remember. I think it was 1500 or 1600.
07-09-2016, 01:48 AM   #102
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The K-1 which has roughly the same sensor as the D810 is only 1800. That isn't that much more than the release price of the K5 as far as I can remember. I think it was 1500 or 1600.
Yep I couldn't compare to K1 as unfortunately DxO hasn't tested the K1 Yet.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I have two even more striking numbers K3 body $730 D810 body $2800. That is like expecting the same performance from a Mustang GT as a Bugatti. Just is not gonna happen. Sometimes the items we relate to one another are absurd at best.
It is really absurd ? They serve the same purpose (taking photo) have similar ergonomics and technology (OVF, digital sensor).
A D810 is a D7200 with a better sensor basically and what the performance difference mostly come from this component that is responsible for maybe 10% of the total price but market segmentation make it you don't pay 1000$ or even 1200$ instead of 800$ but more like 2800$ vs 800$.

Some 1" sensor compact camera cost as much as a K3 while being far, far less capable. The price scheme is not linked to performance but other considerations like size/weight, marketing propaganda and alike. This is market segmentation.

The performance is linked to the actual hardware. I was discussing actual hardware.

Could you make a D810$, sell it for $1000 and make a profit? Sure. But why do it if you can ask $2800 ?

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-09-2016 at 02:01 AM.
07-09-2016, 01:57 AM   #103
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
The problem with this line of reasoning is that you aren't talking about sensor size anymore. Now you're talking about sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio. You're talking about using a larger aperture to compensate for a noisier sensor (that, in this case, happens to be smaller) instead of using it to compensate for a smaller sensor.
There a relation between the sensor size and the signal ratio. If you use the same technology in both sensors, the larger sensor will get less noise because the absolute amoung of light received is greater, that is the signal is greater.

This isn't new. There a reason why hubble sensor array is bigger than your 1" compact camera. It is not for purely random reason that smartphones are worse at high iso than FF. Counting the must greater investment inside smartphones than DSLR, if there was a way to get the performance of an FF sensor inside an 1/2.3" or 1/3" sensor, you'd sure manufacturers would have taken it.
07-09-2016, 03:05 AM   #104
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,386
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
There a relation between the sensor size and the signal ratio. If you use the same technology in both sensors, the larger sensor will get less noise because the absolute amoung of light received is greater, that is the signal is greater.
Surely any one sensel does not know or care how many other sensels there are and the number of photons it will gather depends purely on its exposed area, all other things being equal ? The maximum measurable 'signal' will be whatever count the sensel saturates at, which is nothing to do with how many other sensels there are.
07-09-2016, 03:46 AM   #105
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,840
QuoteOriginally posted by Ginnipe Quote
While you are correct in the fact that image blur is not indicative of quality, what I also meant by "advantage" was light gathering advantage. If you set both cameras to f/8, shutter speed of 1/125, and ISO 100 the FF camera would be brighter and have less noise. That's more what I meant by an advantage.

If you read the rest of my post I actually describe an exact situation where I WANT more depth of field and where my Olympus OMD EM5II actually gives me an advantage in that area over my K1.
That is the classic argument put forward by people who don't understand camera usage.
These comparisons only make sense if you're talking about two camera taking the same picture.
TO take the same picture you need to have the same depth of field.
To have the same Depth of Field you have to stop the FF down one stop to match APS_c.
Stop the FF down, and you have the same total light, the same noise, the same shutter speed, the same DoF, and essentially the same image.

Talking about two images where the DoF is different doesn't make any sense, and his whole discussion clearly shows how little Tony Northrup really understands about photography.
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 07:49 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