[rhodopsin]

...there is a good article in a UK magazine this month about the difference between full frame and ASP-C, aimed at landscape use, but covering the whole debate in general.

to sum it up, with respect to DOF and perspective,

Perspective is completely independant of format, and lens, such that for any lens providing the image is enlarged and corpped to the same size, perspective remains unchanged, it is only that to frame one specific subject to the same height, using shorter lenses necessitates moving closer. Perspective is only an issue of the ratio of subject distances to the camera.

For DOF, again, regardless of format, any two subjects taken from the same distance and enlarged to the same size with the same focal length will have the same DOF. again the issue is that to frame a subject on different format requires moving the camera, or changing focal length resulting in the perceived change in DOF with format.

Bolding of text above is mine, for emphasis. Very well stated imho. Practically speaking, two photos of identical framing are more likely to be compared than a photo and an enlargement.

[jsherman999]

• The D3S is a beast! - high ISO and FPS are where this models strengths lie, making it a true sports favorite.
• The D3x on the other hand is a resolution machine. Microcontrast and pixel definition are not an issue which make it perfectly suited for shoots both in and outside the studio.
• The D700 on the other hand is simply to close to justify over a K-5 imo. I've always considered it to be the entry level or entry-point FF option.

If it weren't for the existence of the D700, I wouldn't have bothered with full frame. It just hits a magical sweet spot with a bunch of things that are important to me - AF performance, low light capability, and ability to shoot inexpensive-but-good lenses at mouth-watering FOV/DOF combos. Plus it's much smaller than the D3 series, and $2300 vs $6400 (d3s) and $8000 (d3x).

I'm extremely grateful we have an 'entry level' option this good in this space.

Now if only someone had the guts to design a D3X body with D3S speed at the cost of a D700 we'd be all set!

Actually the main reason I haven't sprung for a K5 is because I want to see what the D800 brings first, and at what price, and I'm still pining for that aps-c option from Pentax that finally gets AF up to 'great' levels.



.

[jsherman999]

BINGO!

I priced a FF kit based off a D700 last year at or around 13K without ever touching 300mm!
And so I settled on a K-5 kit (equivalent) for less than 3K

I remember when you were struggling with this, and I don't recall what you required for your work, but FWIW I paid much, much less than $13K for my D700 kit - and I have a nice set of lenses.

If you allow yourself the used AF prime route, you have a lot of affordable, good, fun options.


.

[JohnBee]

I remember when you were struggling with this, and I don't recall what you required for your work, but FWIW I paid much, much less than $13K for my D700 kit - and I have a nice set of lenses.

If you allow yourself the used AF prime route, you have a lot of affordable, good, fun options..

Yea, there's no doubt much of it was self induced.

What can I say... Pentax has turned me into a true prime whore!
And though Nikkor has some pretty impressive glass(see Nikon holy trinity), sometimes it can only takes one lens to find yourself saying "I just can't live without it..." and feeling like somethings lost. And of course I didn't only have one lens to worry about, but that was pretty much the gist of it in my case.

Truth be told, I was pretty happy with my APS-C kit and my entire delima followed the need for better low light shooting. Particularly natural light shooting following some Leica exposure which left a lasting impression on my shooting portfolio.

And so for me the logical choice was to upgrade my existing working kit. And so you can imagine my relief when I found-out Pentax was releasing a crop body that would rival FF low light performances! - A genuine life saver

In the end, I sold my D700 to a good friend of mine and I was really relieved to drop a second K-5 into our kit. It felt like... I had finally done the right thing and could get back to shooting again.

True story

[Lowell Goudge]

Bolding of text above is mine, for emphasis. Very well stated imho. Practically speaking, two photos of identical framing are more likely to be compared than a photo and an enlargement.

yes, but people often forget that identical framing of the principle subject using different formats requires a change in either focal length or working distance or both, which is where the horrible debate begins about different formats having different depths of field. It is not the formats themselves, but the imposition of other constraints on the shooting conditions that cause the perceived change in DOF as a function of format

[Macario]

The whole argument of APS-C vs FF is stupid in my opinion. In the film days I never heard anybody complain that a 50mm lens on a MF camera had a different FOV. It was just a fact, and everybody accepted it. The same goes now, APS-C has a different FOV compared to a FF sensor, so accept it and go shooting.

Also the talk about using old lenses, I think it is fantastic that you can still use them, and I do use em too. But really, does anybody think Pentax is very happy about that? Ofcourse not, they want to make money, thus not only sell cameras, but also lenses.

APS-C is the digital format, and in my opinion it is better in IQ that 99% of the photograpers will ever need

[jsherman999]

Yea, there's no doubt much of it was self induced.

What can I say... Pentax has turned me into a true prime whore!
And though Nikkor has some pretty impressive glass(see Nikon holy trinity), sometimes it can only takes one lens to find yourself saying "I just can't live without it..." and feeling like somethings lost. And of course I didn't only have one lens to worry about, but that was pretty much the gist of it in my case.

Truth be told, I was pretty happy with my APS-C kit and my entire delima followed the need for better low light shooting. Particularly natural light shooting following some Leica exposure which left a lasting impression on my shooting portfolio.

And so for me the logical choice was to upgrade my existing working kit. And so you can imagine my relief when I found-out Pentax was releasing a crop body that would rival FF low light performances! - A genuine life saver

In the end, I sold my D700 to a good friend of mine and I was really relieved to drop a second K-5 into our kit. It felt like... I had finally done the right thing and could get back to shooting again.

True story

Yes, I remember more about it now. Truth be told if the K5 had been available when I was buying my D700 the decision would have been torturous.

.

[rhodopsin]

yes, but people often forget that identical framing of the principle subject using different formats requires a change in either focal length or working distance or both, which is where the horrible debate begins about different formats having different depths of field. It is not the formats themselves, but the imposition of other constraints on the shooting conditions that cause the perceived change in DOF as a function of format

so true!

I would chose a crop camera, maybe a p&s, for same-framing a moving macro subject in ambient light...why?, the gain in shutter speed.

[Marc Sabatella]

To get more DOF on the FF, you've got to change distance, fl, or aperture, changes which you don't allow the APS-C to make on the other end.

??? I don't understand what you mean. I just mean, given lenses with equivalent FOV, you can stop down the lens on more stop on FF to get the same DOF as the lens on camera APS-C, whereas you can't open the lens up on APS-C any more than wide open, so you'll never be able to match the shallowness of the DOF you could get on FF. this shouldn't be a controversial claim at all; it's pretty self-evident really.

The one counterargument would be if someone were to say, but what if the lens on were already stopped all the way down. Then I'd have to say, OK, you got me, if you are shooting your APS-C lens stopped *all the way down* (presumably, your shot is being lit by a supernova or you have an extremely steady tripod, and you have never heard of diffraction and don't realize this is not something you'd normally ever want to do), then indeed, you couldn't go an extra stop on FF. So you'd have trouble getting a picture quite so badly ruined by diffraction and motion blur just for that extra last bit of DOF. But I pretty guarantee this is not a concern 99.999999999999% of the time, as compared to the inability to get a sufficiently shallow, which does actually come up. Not all that often in my world, but often enough overall to be at least worth a mention, and again, it really shouldn't be the slightest bit controversial.

The second claim, about telephotos, is more complex. If you increase the pixel pitch of the FF to match the APS-c, you lose the large-sensor-site advantage that some FF enjoy

Pixel pitch is not very significant in determining IQ; that's largely a myth. Overall sensor size is the *far* greater determinant.

If you don't, the APS-c will always produce more detail, as you can use the same lens on the APS-c that you can use on the FF.

I don't see how that addresses my observation, although it's true I didn't explain it fully. Let me be more clear: I'm talking about, for example, comparing a 135 on APS-C with a 200 on FF. If your 135 on APS-C has a maximum aperture, then it is equivalent to a 200/4 on FF. A 200/4 is already larger than a 135/2.8, but perhaps not insanely so, and prices might be comparable. However, that's to get an *equivalent* lens - shooting the 200 at f/4 on FF and the 135 at f/2.8 equalizes the two systems both in terms of noise and DOF for a given shutter speed. If you actually want to take advantage of the lower noise possible with FF and/or of the shallow DOF possible, you'd need a 200/2.8, which is *significantly* larger & heavier - as well as more expensive - than the 135/2.8.

So in order to realize the noise and DOF advantages of FF, you need a much bigger and more expensive lens. That's all I was saying. Resolution wasn't really a part of this observation, but it is true that the 135mm lens is "likely" to have better resolution than a 200mm lens, all else equal, in absolute terms. On the other hand, the FF sensor is "likely" to have more pixels than the APS-C sensor, all else equal, and of course, requires less magnification for a given print size. Without knowing the *specific* lenses and *specific* sensors involved, it's going to be tough to predict which combination (FF w/200, APS-C w/135) is actually going to be sharper. I wouldn't presume to make generalizations there.

[Marc Sabatella]

The whole argument of APS-C vs FF is stupid in my opinion. In the film days I never heard anybody complain that a 50mm lens on a MF camera had a different FOV. It was just a fact, and everybody accepted it. The same goes now, APS-C has a different FOV compared to a FF sensor, so accept it and go shooting.

That's not what we're talking about at all. Yes, we all know the FOV is different for a given focal length; we're talking about the extent to which FF has an advantage in terms of the image quality (noise, dynamic range, resolution, etc) as well as in DOF control.

APS-C is the digital format, and in my opinion it is better in IQ that 99% of the photograpers will ever need

I tend to agree. Toss in the higher price and greater size/weight of an FF system, and it's probably safe to say that at msot 1% of the population will be better served by FF than APS-C. But that doesn't mean the advantages of FF aren't very really for that 1%, nor does it make discussion of what those advantages are "stupid".

[Wheatfield]

No, as I already explained, FF gives you the *choice* of more or less DOF - you can get more by stopping down, less by shooting wide open. That is, FF can take every picture that APS-C can, *plus* the shallower DOF pictures that APS-C cannot.

You need to check a DOF calculator sometime.
The same 1.5 or so stops of overall shallower DOF that the 135 people crow about puts them 1.5 or so stops of less DOF when stopping down a lot is what is required.
The DOF available at f/32 on APS-C cannot be matched with 135 format simply because you can't stop down farther than that.

[rhodopsin]

My 400mm and 500mm lenses stop to f/45. Lens caps stop farther than that!

Just think, if there weren't all those pesky early design problems with density, size, and yield, the first digital camera sensors would have been FF, APS-C would not exist.

[Wheatfield]

My 400mm and 500mm lenses stop to f/45. Lens caps stop farther than that!

Yes well, it still gives more DOF to APS-C.
Which was my point, not that there are a few lenses out there that stop down further than f/32.

[jstevewhite]

??? I don't understand what you mean. I just mean, given lenses with equivalent FOV, you can stop down the lens on more stop on FF to get the same DOF as the lens on camera APS-C, whereas you can't open the lens up on APS-C any more than wide open, so you'll never be able to match the shallowness of the DOF you could get on FF. this shouldn't be a controversial claim at all; it's pretty self-evident really.

You can't stop down the longer lens to achieve the same hyperfocal distance of the shorter lens. As Bob Atkins says:

Close to the hyperfocal distance, the APS-C crop sensor camera has a much more than 1.5x the DOF of a 35mm full frame camera. The hyperfocal distance of a APS-C crop sensor camera is 1.5x less than that of a 35mm full frame camera when used with a lens giving the same field of view.

That said, you can always use the shorter lens and crop.

The one counterargument would be if someone were to say, but what if the lens on were already stopped all the way down. Then I'd have to say, OK, you got me, if you are shooting your APS-C lens stopped *all the way down* (presumably, your shot is being lit by a supernova or you have an extremely steady tripod, and you have never heard of diffraction and don't realize this is not something you'd normally ever want to do), then indeed, you couldn't go an extra stop on FF. So you'd have trouble getting a picture quite so badly ruined by diffraction and motion blur just for that extra last bit of DOF. But I pretty guarantee this is not a concern 99.999999999999% of the time, as compared to the inability to get a sufficiently shallow, which does actually come up. Not all that often in my world, but often enough overall to be at least worth a mention, and again, it really shouldn't be the slightest bit controversial.

Think about it. Sunny sixteen = f16 at the reciprocal of the aperture. So ISO 400 @ f22 = 1/200 sec, no supernova or tripod required, just sunshine and the 'ol human tripod. So all of your hyperbole aside... And while diffraction DOES reduce resolution and contrast, I promise you can make a pretty good 8x10 if you start with a reasonably high-contrast lens. Of course, personally, I'd do focus stacking or pano-stitching or both, and exceed the image quality of a MF digital camera OR a FF. But if I were shooting a crowd of folks and absolutely had to have the f22 DOF, I wouldn't hesitate to do it; better the shot you get than the one you miss, eh?

Pixel pitch is not very significant in determining IQ; that's largely a myth. Overall sensor size is the *far* greater determinant.

You're mixing your metaphors. Larger sensor sites mean higher signal-to-noise ratio, it's true. In the GENERAL case, all things being equal, larger sensors == better IQ. In the specific case of macro or long telephoto, as long as I light the pixels enough to beat the noise threshold by a sufficient percentage, then higher pixel density== greater detail captured (provided, of course, that my LENS is capable of resolving the higher detail).

I'm not making the general claim that higher pixel density == better IQ; I'm making the claim that, in lighting conditions that supply sufficient signal-to-noise ratio, more pixels==more detail. So if I'm not shooting high-ISO macro or long telephoto, the higher pixel density DOES translate to higher detail, to the limit of my optics. And if optics are the limitation, the APS-c will resolve the same level detail as the FF.

On the other hand, the FF sensor is "likely" to have more pixels than the APS-C sensor, all else equal, and of course, requires less magnification for a given print size. Without knowing the *specific* lenses and *specific* sensors involved, it's going to be tough to predict which combination (FF w/200, APS-C w/135) is actually going to be sharper. I wouldn't presume to make generalizations there.

I would say that statement should be wrapped up and bronzed. When you talk about FF vs APS-C, you're talking about hypotheticals all the time, and any specific pairing of cameras and lenses might turn up a different result.

The sensor in the K-5/D7000/sony-alpha-something has put APS-c on a fairly similar footing with FF for noise and DR. I am well aware that this will change when the sensor technology in the K-5 migrates to FF cameras; I'm talking right now, with the current cameras. When the D800 hits with ~18 stops of DR and 22 mpixels, I'll cheer it on. I won't switch, because I love Pentax glass, but I'll certainly grant that it's got significantly better IQ.

The remaining "advantage" of FF is *purely aesthetic*. "I like portraits with virtually no DOF" is a great recommendation for a FF camera, but the general statement "Portraits with very low DOF are categorically better than those with greater DOF" is absurd on the face of it, and required to call the lesser DOF of FF (at FOV and distance) "better".

I've never argued that FF doesn't present better IQ, all things being equal (right now, they aren't). I *have* argued with the assertion that the differences in DOF@FOV create some pixie-dust advantage for FF; If you *like* it better, that's all good. Asserting that it's OBJECTIVELY better is just absurd.

I do miss the viewfinder, though.

[jstevewhite]

You need to check a DOF calculator sometime.
The same 1.5 or so stops of overall shallower DOF that the 135 people crow about puts them 1.5 or so stops of less DOF when stopping down a lot is what is required.
The DOF available at f/32 on APS-C cannot be matched with 135 format simply because you can't stop down farther than that.

Also, you can't match the hyperfocal distance of the shorter lens by stopping down the longer lens.