[jsherman999]

Thanks jsherman, a noticeable difference, which I expected, better DoF on the APS-C which I expected, In this case, I actually like the APS-C better, although there could also instances where I'd like the FF better as well.

With the 50 + FF, you have the option there of stopping down to match the aps-c DOF if you prefer it more. You don't always have the option to do the reverse, with aps-c - for example, that 35mm was the DA 35ltd, which doesn't open up any more than f/2.8

This is why it's more accurate to talk about 'more DOF control' at the equiv FOV vs. simply 'less DOF' with an FF shot.

You can stop down FF to match aps-c, you can't always open aps-c up any wider to match FF.

.

On another note..
How come you didn't get the kid to look at the camera in both pictures.. just kidding. .

I was using all my influence there simply to get him to finish lunch. He saw his brother go outside and threw a fit and refused to eat more. Moving the high chair out to the deck was a compromise that worked well.


.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 05-15-2011 at 11:29 AM.

[dgaies]

With the 50 + FF, you have the option there of stopping down to match the aps-c DOF if you prefer it more. You don't always have the option to do the reverse, with aps-c - for example, that 35mm was the DA 35ltd, which doesn't open up any more than f/2.8

Which is why I feel it is completely fair to say that DOF control is an advantage of a larger sensor (in this case "FF" vs "APS-c").

[DAZ]

At one extreme end you could say that the 135 format has an advantage for narrower DOF at wide focal lengths (if you make the determination that a narrower DOF is an advantage) and you can make the argument that at long focal lengths APS-C has an advantage. Over most of the overlap they are close to each other. This doesn’t inherently give 135 more control over DOF. In fact you can’t say that one format always takes better photos that the other as sometimes what is an advantage for one photo can be a disadvantage in another. Over most of the range of the commonly used formats from an adjacent format (4/3 to APS-C to 135 to MF) there is more overlap then differences. When you move 2 or more format apart then the differences become much more relevant. If you define your requirements narrow enough you can have any format you want. It is all in how you make your definitions. If you start with the format you will end with the requirements and if you start with the requirements you will end with the format. As cost and size are usually the long pole they have more to do with what format is used then say DOF for example as at the good enough point they tend to win out.

DAZ

[Wheatfield]

Sorry

1.3 stops more DOF control at equivalent FOV and aperture, and still .7 to 1.5 stops better ISO performance, depending on who's measuring. (Then there's body performance, but that's not sensor-format specific and out of scope.)



.

Don't be sorry, we are just going to have to agree to disagree about the level of significance.
Some people trot it out like as if it's the biggest deal since the discovery of light sensitive salts.
In real life, the very slightly smaller DOF of 135 format when used at portrait distance becomes a nearly two stop liability when shooting macro.
With the K5, I'm pretty much at the point where I don't know how much less noise is really needed. I expect over the next couple of generations we'll see clean images at 128,000 ISO, and it will make people ecstatic, but at some point, it just won't make that big a deal anymore.

[rhodopsin]

Bigger sensor can use smaller aperture (larger f/#) before diffraction effects begin...

[Marc Sabatella]

Compensating for better DoF on an APS-C so that it doesn't have better DoF

Since when does "less ability to get shallow DOF" equate to "better"? FF can always get the deeper DOF of APS-C just by stopping down, but the reverse is not true. So FF has "better" DOF.

What would be the point in changing the DoF so they were the same if the difference in aperture meant there would be shots you could take with the APS-C that you couldn't even take with the FF because of low light?

Again, you have it backwards. There are no shots you can take with APS-C that you can't with FF (assuming you have the equivalent focal length lenses). But there are shots you can take on FF that you cannot take on APS-C unless you're lens is a full stop faster.

How significant this is, is another matter. If you shoot a lot of wide and normal shots, it's a pretty big deal. If you shoot more telephoto, the lenses required to see an advantage with FF get pretty big and expensive.

[normhead]

Larger sensor is capable of smaller DOF than smaller sensor, given identical framing

That's only an advantage if you actually want smaller DoF, if you want more, it's a disadvantage.

[DAZ]

Bigger sensor can use smaller aperture (larger f/#) before diffraction effects begin...

It is not the sensor size but the size of the pixels that determine diffraction limit. Yes you can put more pixels the same size on a bigger sensor but it is still the size of the pixel not the sensor. As the present pixels size on the latest sensors (135 or ACP-C) are already running into the diffraction limit.

DAZ

[rhodopsin]

Reference pdf: Depth of Field and Bokeh by Zeiss scientist Dr. H. H. Nasse, wherein is discussed the sensor size issues and relationships.

[twitch]

The first thought that entered my mind reading the title of this thread was "who are these people, do they even exist?". I doubt it, honestly it reads like a troll post. Of couse FF has an IQ advantage, the question is whether it is enough to matter for any individual given the weight/size penalty. For me, I'm happy shooting APS-C & limited primes. If Pentax came out with a FF body I'd probably buy it, but it wouldn't be at the expense of owning a APS-C body, I'd be hanging on to the k-5 or whatever the crop is at the time.

[Wheatfield]

Bigger sensor can use smaller aperture (larger f/#) before diffraction effects begin...

And 135 format will need every advantage it can get, and will still lose in this instance. If the challenge is to maximize depth of field, then one will use as small an aperture as is required and tolerate the very slight loss of sharpness from diffraction.. APS-C has about a 2 stop advantage over 135 in this respect.

[Raffwal]

It's irrelevant that the FF market is already led by the C&Ns around now, and Sony and Olympus have 'beaten' Pentax to it.

Olympus???

[Ash]

Oops. No, Olympus aren't in the game for FF. Except maybe here: New Full-Frame Olympus E-3Ti - Zone-10 - Beyond the Light

I should have said Kodak: Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (but I suppose they're out of the game too, like Contax).

Perhaps this article might give more reasons why FF is advantageous: The Full-Frame Advantage

[jsherman999]

I agree totally regarding the ultimate squeeze-out of the current FF digital by cameras such as the 645d and the Leica S. Unless FF digital bodies can be made in a more compact form to match the optics they support, they are pretty much doomed.

Steve I think the problem with that is that the market for bodies that start at $10K USD is always going to be extremely small, so it's hard to see any market expansion from the tier above squeezing the FF market.

I think what's more likely to happen is that the aps-c DSLR tier will be squeezed from below by increasing-quality small-sensor cameras, and then the aps-c tier will slowly morph into aps-c mirrorless. Folks who want the best optical VFs, who need the best performance (or think they do,) and prefer the mirror bodies will remain in the FF (or MF) market, and the camera companies (at least the big two) will be glad to serve them for a while.

I also think that there will be smallish, semi-economical FF bodies that will capture the attention of a lot of current aps-c DSLR shooters, who will choose to go that route vs. giving in to the dreaded EVF. This will probably actually expand the FF market a bit, much like the 645D has expanded the MF market slightly.

But it's hard to see more than 5-6 years out right now, things have the capability of changing so drastically very quickly.


.

[Ash]

I also think that there will be smallish FF bodies that will capture the attention of a lot of current aps-c DSLR shooters, who will choose to go that route

That's where I think Pentax can really step up the game in FF cameras. No doubt, size and weight will be the focus of their FF development, and thus make it appealing to more than just pros.