[soccerjoe5]

Taken from The Online Photographer

A very good read in my very honest opinion, not because I use Pentax. Thank goodness for people like him.

---------------

Is FF for you?

In comparing shots made with APS-C cameras and FF cameras, whether you're going to see any difference will depend on a lot of things. Are you making prints or are you pixel-peeping? (And if you're pixel-peeping, why?) And which parameter of performance are you pushing? And are you pushing it because you need to, for the sake of the picture, or are you inventing difficulties for yourself just to show off what the camera can do? ( I remember a scene, long ago, from a college classroom, waiting for a lecture to start: two photo buffs had their nice SLRs with them, and both had recently bought motor drives, which at that time (early '80s) were still fairly exotic, used mainly by pros. They got into a discussion about whose was faster, and both guys energetically took out their drives and attached them to their cameras. One said, "Ready? Set, go!" and they both began firing off "dry shots" to see whose drive was faster. After a few rounds of this, one guy had "won" and the other guy had been shamed. I silently wondered whether either of them actually ever encountered situations where they really needed a motor drive to get a shot. Maybe.)

Full-frame isn't a magic bullet. The pictures aren't so much better that people are going to look at your pictures and go, "Wow! That looks so good it must have been shot with a full-frame camera!" No. I don't imagine that happening. Gentle daylight scenes with lots of light, with the lenses at optimum aperture, I doubt anybody would see any difference. In most cases.

At the risk of repeating myself, here's a shot with the K20D I've posted before, along with a detail. I believe I first posted this after I read a forumer somewhere opining that the Pentax 35 DA Macro lens "couldn't be used" for landscapes because it "isn't corrected for infinity," or sentiments to that effect. I know the therapy that guy needs: he needs to stop thinking so much and go shoot some pictures! (As do I, most of the time, but that's neither here nor there.)



Here's a little detail from the shot, with foliage looking like something Fragonard might paint. I'd put the little red square on the big picture, but you can do the Where's Waldo thing yourself.



When is enough detail enough? I'd say that's enough. As you can see, it's quite a nice sensor, despite not being full-frame. And pretty good for a lens that's no good at far focusing distances. (And please, please, Forumers From Other Places, be sensible: the only reason I've posted an example from the K20D is that it's the current APS-C sensor camera I happen to have been shooting with, on extended loan from Pentax. I could just as easily have used an example from the 50D or D90 or whatever your favorite happens to be, but I don't have those cameras. I also wanted to post this picture again because right now I'm pining for June weather.) I grant you that I've had a little trouble opening up those shadows on the left, having set the exposure "to the right" of the brilliant clouds. So does that mean I "need" an FX Nikon or the Sony A900, to give me a little more DR?

And that brings me to what full-frame cameras are all about: they push various performance edges here and there.

In general the full-frame cameras aren't different in kind than the smaller-sensor cameras when it comes to results. It's just that you can push them a little harder in certain parameters. The 5D Mark II and the FX Nikons have one to two stops more high-ISO capability; bravo, but then lots of people don't really need high ISO capability, especially given how good most DSLRs already are. (Pictures taken in good light are usually better than pictures taken in bad light.) The Nikons and the Sony A900 can recover a stop or two more dynamic range in the crucial highlights, depending on the image. And the 5D Mark II and the Sony can print bigger.* Which is great if you print big. If you don't print big, not necessary.

The biggest difference I notice with the full-frame cameras is not the results they yield but the cameras themselves! The viewfinders are really nice compared to APS-C and 4/3 cameras—especially the Sony's. (The Sony is the first digital camera I've used or seen that has a good dose of the "fine object" quality of premium cameras of days gone by.) And it's nice to "come home" to my favorite lens again. There are some real advantages to the APS-C and 4/3 sensor size, and I think I'd like the smaller size better if the cameras were just as good and I could get the lenses I want. They're not, quite. And I can't. The camera manufacturers have let us down a bit with the design and execution of the reduced-sensor-size cameras. I think their hands were tied in certain ways, especially with legacy flange distances. As a result, the smaller format DSLRs have never really been anything but hybrids. Nobody ever really made a good viewfinder for any of them. (I use something called the "Pentax Magnifying Eyepiece" on the K20D (they now appear to be calling it the "Viewfinder Loupe"), and I recommend it. It magnifies and improves the view in the viewfinder, to almost-as-good-as FF levels. Emphasis on "almost.")

I liked all three full-frame cameras I tried, but it's not like somebody's going to look at your print and go, "Ooh, you must have shot that with a full-frame DSLR!" It's not that obvious, I'm afraid. It's really just a matter of degree.

And the cure
What's the cure for camera agony of any sort? Just work. Shoot. Get interested in something. Take stock of what equipment you already have, and figure out what it can be used for. Go shoot. Get involved in the pictures. If your camera isn't the last word in high ISOs, then find a little more light and shoot at lower ISOs. You'll live. If your camera doesn't have the best dynamic range, then avoid high-contrast scenes (there are scenes the A900 won't handle, either). If your camera won't print really, really big, then make your prints a little smaller. It won't kill you, I promise. It ain't the camera.

The more that people get interested in the pictures they're making, the less they obsess about equipment. Try it. It's really true—it really works.

-----------------------

[netuser]

Excelent article Diego.

Thanks for sharing

[djayvo]

Agree !00%

Thanks, from a new DSLR user.

[Ratmagiclady]

Nice article. For me, the only really 'pressing' appeals to full-frame would be that you get a bigger finder and that they can better share lenses with film. (The latter of which, I have to deal with some hassle regarding, *anyway* since I use old Canon for that, mostly: I've joked that if Canon would just put out the old 5d with an FD mount, I'd be happy a while.) But now that I'm here, I see no particular rush, personally, till companies start figuring out the practical limits to one format or the other.

If I were a big wide-angle fan, I might feel differently, though, of course: as it is, I could probably keep a pretty credible case of LBA going just between 43 and 60mm lengths. Gives me candy-store feelings.

[dugrant153]

The more that people get interested in the pictures they're making, the less they obsess about equipment. Try it. It's really true—it really works.

Wow... thanks for that reminder. It's easy to get so caught up in LBA and the like that we forget to just 'use' the camera and take pictures, instead of debating whether F1.7 is better than F1.8 and by how many pixels...

I need to get out there and take better pictures!!

[kibipod]

Okay, so this is my honest opinion

I shoot landscapes for pleasure. I like the stretched perspective of an object in the foreground. I want to use my wide lens to its full potential. This is the only reason I want a FF DSLR.

I do not care about more pixels, higher ISO or other advantages a FF camera offers.

However, I am happy with what I have. I am not bothered that Pentax does not have one while the big two have more than one models. Even if Pentax releases a FF in 2009, I will till the price becomes affordable to me (~$1000 ish) or I will buy a used one.

Happy holidays to everyone

[Ratmagiclady]

Wow... thanks for that reminder. It's easy to get so caught up in LBA and the like that we forget to just 'use' the camera and take pictures, instead of debating whether F1.7 is better than F1.8 and by how many pixels...

I need to get out there and take better pictures!!

Eh, I think the LBA and pixel-peeping gets blown out of proportion by the fact that's more-suited to the 'all-talk' factor on the *Internet.*


What I think I see too much of is really people getting 'degrees in photography' ...then turning up taking a certain amount of digital automation for granted, and having *no clue* what goes on in a camera, or even really displaying any notion they know one end of their tools from another.


All while maybe snobbishly thinking the mere technicaliities and camera handling are 'beneath them,' (while asking how to load their film camera)


The snobbishness goes both ways. The way I see it is, no good carpenter would grouse too much about the lack of a good chisel, but also certainly not claim a two-dollar piece from Ace Hardware was in blanket terms just as good.


And neither extreme means much if you don't get the tools dirty.

[thePiRaTE!!]

#1 Reason not mentioned - Depth of Field.

I have an 85/1.4 I'd like to use more indoors with family and friends. Working distance is a bit long, so I back off to frame in and lose oof rendering because I've moved closer to infinity.

If the sensor was able to capture the light the lens is channeling, I could move closer to my subject and get all of what I paid for with a fast short tele.

Using a 58 (APS-C FIELD of view equiv.) doesn't solve this, I would just be able to stand closer and get the same watered down oof area.

One more thing.

A nice 'problem' with some older lenses (that I have) is swirly bokeh. The closer the bokeh highlights are to the edge of the lens, the more intensely 'cat's eyed' they become. In the end, the most intensely interesting elements of these lens rendering is ignored by the sensor.

I'm not a tech nut. I just went 5 years between computers, but I am an avid voice for large sensors. Having the choice to match a sensor to my many lenses would be a VERY good thing. Nobody makes manual APS-C lenses.

The logic of just getting out there though is sound - I still shoot often and enjoy it well. The K20 is a very good platform in many respects.

K.

[stevebrot]

...Nobody makes manual APS-C lenses...

That is a very interesting point...one worth considering at a number of levels.

Steve

[nostatic]

Every time I get all lathered about ditching Pentax and APS for FF, I look at prints I've made coming out of my old DLux3 (small sensor). I'm working on getting a solo show booked and have some 24x36 prints hanging on the wall to sort out the collection. Probably the "best" photo I have is from a small sensor camera. Printed that large.

Part of that is that small sensors have a certain "look" and for certain shots it crushes APS, FF, whatever (at least to my eye). The right tool for the right job. I understand why some guys need FF (product shots, trying to shoot/document in ridiculously low light, etc) and why others want FF (newer/bigger/better). The DOF issue is real, and if you need to shoot wide in the dark, FF will win. But likely for many that will not be the main need.

[palindrom]

--- Complaints about a lack of FF dSLR from Pentax:
- I'm used to different DOF and boke. 58/2 prime at full aperture is my favorite (cat and flower in my gallery)
- FA★ 28-70/2.8 is a bit too long and I don't want to change that lens, it's way too good.
- I like night shots (a lot of them with Zenit and Praktica with ISO 400/800 film), but I can't really go to higher ISO on my K20D - noise would be smaller with larger pixels / lower pixel density.
--- Pros of APS-C
- You can have smaller and lighter lenses (but you won't use it on LX, ME, MX...)
- Shake reduction could be a problem with FF
- Better reach of telephotos - again lighter, smaller and cheaper lenses.
---
OK, I'm not saying that APS-C is bad - it isn't. If it were, I wouldn't buy K20D.
All I want to say is "Pentax, give me a choice!". If I want FF dSLR to use it together with LX for instance, use the same lenses, just change a body - I should be given such a possibility. Especially with Pentax policy of backward compatibility.

And yes, Diego,
most amateurs/enthusiasts really need to take better pictures and FF won't help them. I've spotted such a quote: "Some people would take much better pictures, if they have left their caps on"
But again - company with tradition like Pentax should give a full choice to customers, which often are serious photographers holding to K system for years.

And yes,
I'm very sorry for my english.

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, with me, if there's a question of getting picky about DOF and 'bokeh,' there's a ready answer:


Film.


Digital's fun, useful, and in this day and age 'necessaryi,' but honestly, for me, mostly t's just cause people can't wait.

Someone wants to hassle me about 'bokeh,' they can wait for me to do it properly and they can have it when the prints get a chance to dry.

[soccerjoe5]

I'm happy that you guys have read the post.

I want to make clear though that I'm posting this not to say "You don't need FF", it's just I want everyone to sincerely and honestly ask themselves the question "Is FF for me?" If you honestly think that FF is good for your photography, then I have zero qualms about it and I think nobody should either. It's YOUR photography, so do what you believe will help you take awesome-er photos

Merry christmas guys!

[Kerrowdown]

If it's available I would probably go for it (all my lenses are FF manual).

[stewart_photo]

Is FF for you? (By Mike Johnston)

Taken from The Online Photographer

A very good read in my very honest opinion, not because I use Pentax. Thank goodness for people like him. (snip)

To be honest, I never think of sensor size while shooting images. The topic only comes up in discussions like this. Otherwise, I'm concentrating on how and what I'm taking an image of and whether the devices I'm using at the moment to capture that image are doing the job adequately. The Pentax serves well in that regard (that's why I bought it), so there's really no reason for me to think about or lust after something else.

stewart