[Ratmagiclady]

But that would wipe out the main reason I'd consider a FF - the viewfinder! (spent some time this weekend looking through the old T90. sigh)

Wheatfield said it on the first page, and you've said it again: The. Finder.

Apart from that, APS-C's just another format. The gross characteristics of it, (framing, lenses-by-size-speed, and availability,) DOF-for-distance-and FOV.... happen to agree with me, especially in Pentax where there's all these off-standard Limited primes to be had as well as the usual.

Yeah, there's some things FF would be nice for, (or just do some optical trick and make the finder cover, who cares how physically big it is) but it's not a race. This is about *my* photos. Canon wants to sell me a full-frame, make it in FD mount.

Always ended up cropping my shots with a fast-fifty anyway.

I mean, if I *was* with Canon or Nikon, I probably *would* be crying out for full-frame, don't get me wrong, and it's not to say Pentax wouldn't be well-served to make some other things for a lot of people, but most of us who are here are here for good reasons and just want the Limiteds or whatever. (And a precision focusing screen for fast lenses, Pentax. Not like anyone else does it.) It's pretty painless to be APS-C here, and that's a *good* thing, OP. For the most part, it's just another format. Has its strengths and things and I get along *fine* there. DOF as thin as a matchhead impresses, but where I shoot, it's more a liability than occasion to show off.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-16-2011 at 06:54 PM.

[jstevewhite]

Wheatfield said it on the first page, and you've said it again: The. Finder.

Apart from that, APS-C's just another format. The gross characteristics of it, (framing, lenses-by-size-speed, and availability,) DOF-for-distance-and FOV.... happen to agree with me, especially in Pentax where there's all these off-standard Limited primes to be had as well as the usual.

Yeah, there's some things FF would be nice for, (or just do some optical trick and make the finder cover, who cares how physically big it is) but it's not a race. This is about *my* photos. Canon wants to sell me a full-frame, make it in FD mount.

Always ended up cropping my shots with a fast-fifty anyway.

LOL. I'm right there with you. Hell, I crop shots from my K-5 frequently.

I think that if they could move the screen closer to the eye and use a higher diopter, it would "look" bigger. That's speaking from my experience using loupes; increase magnification, things look bigger. If we had interchangeable prisms, we could go with a stovepipe view and they'd look like HDTVs

[Ratmagiclady]

LOL. I'm right there with you. Hell, I crop shots from my K-5 frequently.

I think that if they could move the screen closer to the eye and use a higher diopter, it would "look" bigger. That's speaking from my experience using loupes; increase magnification, things look bigger. If we had interchangeable prisms, we could go with a stovepipe view and they'd look like HDTVs

I think part of it is that there's only so much light to spread around, and people fear big. Especially if it's big chunks of optical glass, which aren't as cheap as 'features' and marketing. Or at least have to be real.

Some dismiss 'crop factor' but it really does affect things if you work in from framing and perspective, as in *where you're standing* Photography's a moving art to me: ranges and circles of confusion aren't in a camera or on a lab bench, they're *out there* where you move, and more importantly, your subjects do.

Formats, qua se, aren't 'superior' or 'inferior' in that way, they just have qualities, and as long as the tech is there to back em up, it's not a contest, it's a *format.*

[jstevewhite]

I think part of it is that there's only so much light to spread around, and people fear big. Especially if it's big chunks of optical glass, which aren't as cheap as 'features' and marketing. Or at least have to be real.

'Cept photographers. We LOVE a big chunk of optical glass - the bigger the better. Who hasn't drooled over a 180 f2 or 50 f1.0?

Some dismiss 'crop factor' but it really does affect things if you work in from framing and perspective, as in *where you're standing* Photography's a moving art to me: ranges and circles of confusion aren't in a camera or on a lab bench, they're *out there* where you move, and more importantly, your subjects do.

Formats, qua se, aren't 'superior' or 'inferior' in that way, they just have qualities, and as long as the tech is there to back em up, it's not a contest, it's a *format.*

You make the case eloquently. Perhaps the answer is "Do you believe that photography is about numbers or images?"

[jsherman999]

Perhaps the answer is "Do you believe that photography is about numbers or images?"

It's all about the images. That's why I shoot both formats.

.

[jsherman999]

...
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 would almost go as far as to say that it is OBJECTIVELY better to have more DOF control at equivalent FOVs, which is what we're really talking about. How much better is open to debate, because it's a completely personal measure, based on what you usually shoot.

If the lenses support it, and in the wide-to-normal range they do, you have DOF options you simply don't have with aps-c, plain and simple. And when you want to match the aps-c DOF - stop down, which also brings the added benefit of a probable sharper plane of focus and better contrast for the same DOF. (assuming you're not matching a Zeiss on aps-c against a JC Penny on FF.)

You can and should come up with scenarios where each format has a strength or weakness, which is what you and wheatfield were trying to do with the extremely small aperture examples, but every photographer considering either format should consider the strengths a particular format brings to the shooting scenarios they are most likely to find themselves in. Don't plan for the exceptions, plan for the day to day. Then decide if those advantages are worth the cost to you if what you find calls for a format switch or supplement. It's really a simple concept, it's surprising in bears so much disagreement.

I do miss the viewfinder, though.

Manual focus is another nicety that VF brings.


.

[stevebrot]

It's all about the images. That's why I shoot both formats.

.

Only two Jay? I shoot at least six! And I can honestly say that I did not fully understand the rules of perspective, FOV, and DOF until I started shooting 4x5 large format. That is sort of weird to say since I could definitely give the lecture and talk the talk, but it truly took working with a much larger image to understand the rules and how they impact our creative choices.

Edit: Inflammatory sentence removed...!


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 05-16-2011 at 10:26 PM.

[jsherman999]

Only two Jay?

Steve

Both formats being debated here (again.)

There is no debate about the larger-than-FF formats; they rock. And there is also no debate about the smaller-than-m4/3 formats: they suck.

The three in the middle seem to get people cranked.


.

[jstevewhite]

I would almost go as far as to say that it is OBJECTIVELY better to have more DOF control at equivalent FOVs, which is what we're really talking about. How much better is open to debate, because it's a completely personal measure, based on what you usually shoot.

Almost but not quite? But it's "objectively better to have less DOF"? What if I don't *want* less DOF? Like I said before, all things being equal, I'll give you signal to noise ratio (if your FF has greater sensor area), but, like all things, there are trade offs. If you have larger sensors, then the APS-c gets greater detail with the same lens (think macro and long telephoto).

I will steadfastly oppose the idea that an aesthetic choice as marginal as 12" of DOF instead of 18" of DOF is "objectively better".

If the lenses support it, and in the wide-to-normal range they do, you have DOF options you simply don't have with aps-c, plain and simple. And when you want to match the aps-c DOF - stop down, which also brings the added benefit of a probable sharper plane of focus and better contrast for the same DOF. (assuming you're not matching a Zeiss on aps-c against a JC Penny on FF.)

Again, stopping down doesn't give you the same DOF. Hyperfocal on the shorter lens at FOV is much greater (and begins much closer!) than hyperfocal on the longer lens. If you want the same FOV and DOF, you have to switch to the shorter lens and crop.

You can and should come up with scenarios where each format has a strength or weakness, which is what you and wheatfield were trying to do with the extremely small aperture examples, but every photographer considering either format should consider the strengths a particular format brings to the shooting scenarios they are most likely to find themselves in. Don't plan for the exceptions, plan for the day to day. Then decide if those advantages are worth the cost to you if what you find calls for a format switch or supplement. It's really a simple concept, it's surprising in bears so much disagreement.

Wheatfield and I offered actual small aperture examples. The resolution of, say, the FA 100mm f2.8 is better at f22 than the 50 f1.4 is at f1.4, and probably f2. As good as the 55-300 at 300. Lenses that have been used to make excellent images. Furthermore, you can't simply stop down a longer lens and get the same DOF as a shorter lens; the hyperfocal lengths are different, period.

Photographers should choose their format to be appropriate for their purpose. Absolutely.

I take on this particular argument not because I think APS-c and FF are identical. I take it on because of the misplaced reverence afforded FF. Consider the title of this thread. It's exactly what I'm talking about. The difference between FF and APS-c is so inconsequential that the vast percentage of the images produced by them are indistinguishable. I've said repeatedly I have no issue with someone saying "I like shooting with FF better because I really dig low DOF shots" or (before the K-5, and still if you're buying a D3s) "I like FF because of the high iso or dynamic range performance". But to say "FF is objectively better" - in an field of ARTISTIC endeavor - is absurd on the face of it. That's like saying "Pan-X is objectively better than Tri-X."

[Marc Sabatella]

You can't stop down the longer lens to achieve the same hyperfocal distance of the shorter lens.

Interesting; had not heard this before. On the other hand, hyperfocal distance is kind of a film-ism, anyhow - doesn't really stand up to people looking at 100% crops.

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.

Are there that many lenses that are limited to f/16? You're of course right that I was exaggerating a bit to make a point, but still, the point is valid: the number of cases where one is concerned about how far one can possibly stop is completely dwarfed by the number of cases where one is concerned about how far one can possibly open up.

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.

Yes, of course, assuming the lenses involved are up to it. I can't imagine any possible way in which this could be seen as refuting anything I've written, though.

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.

Yes, but some generalities can still be made.

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".

No one would ever claim very low DOF is categorically better. Having the *option* of creating it *when one wants* is categorically better.

I *have* argued with the assertion that the differences in DOF@FOV create some pixie-dust advantage for FF

I definitely agree with this. I'm just responding to some of confusion regarding what the differences actually are. The differences aren't important me at all; I have very interest in the extra DOF control and would never wish to purchase that slight (to me) advantage with a larger/heavier/more expensive camera. That doesn't mean I can't recognize the nature of that difference.

Come up with a way to make to viewfinder as large on APS-C as on FF and I'd be ecstatic.

[jstevewhite]

Interesting; had not heard this before. On the other hand, hyperfocal distance is kind of a film-ism, anyhow - doesn't really stand up to people looking at 100% crops.

Hyperfocal distance calculations use exactly the same math that produces DOF calculations, so saying it's a "film-ism" means that DOF is a film-ism. The same measures of "acceptable sharpness" are applied in calculating hyperfocal DOF as calculating other DOF.

Are there that many lenses that are limited to f/16? You're of course right that I was exaggerating a bit to make a point, but still, the point is valid: the number of cases where one is concerned about how far one can possibly stop is completely dwarfed by the number of cases where one is concerned about how far one can possibly open up.

Limited to f/16? not sure what you mean. The point was the minimum aperture is the minimum aperture.

Yes, of course, assuming the lenses involved are up to it. I can't imagine any possible way in which this could be seen as refuting anything I've written, though.

I was merely addressing your assertion of the mythical nature of the MP=IQ, which was a claim I didn't make. I was clarifying that with sufficient light, for macro and long telephoto work, pixel density==win (image quality, if you count detail as important).

No one would ever claim very low DOF is categorically better. Having the *option* of creating it *when one wants* is categorically better.

Then 11x14 inch is the best?

The reason this argument rages on is because you can strap the same lenses on both formats, I think.

I definitely agree with this. I'm just responding to some of confusion regarding what the differences actually are. The differences aren't important me at all; I have very interest in the extra DOF control and would never wish to purchase that slight (to me) advantage with a larger/heavier/more expensive camera. That doesn't mean I can't recognize the nature of that difference.

*Less DOF. Not "more DOF control", because stopping down another stop and a third is not the same thing as using a shorter lens.

Come up with a way to make to viewfinder as large on APS-C as on FF and I'd be ecstatic.

I already gave you the win, fair and square, on viewfinders

[jsherman999]

Almost but not quite?

My bad - no qualifier - it's absolutely better to have more DOF control at equivalent FOV.

But it's "objectively better to have less DOF"?

No, but it's objectively better to have more control of DOF. How is less control in any way, ever better here?

What if I don't *want* less DOF?

Haven't we been through this?

I will steadfastly oppose the idea that an aesthetic choice as marginal as 12" of DOF instead of 18" of DOF is "objectively better".

So, if a wizard appeared and touched all your lenses with a magic wand that changed their optical properties such that the light transmition stayed the same with regards to it's effect on shutter speed, but reduced their DOF control capability by 1.3 stops - you wouldn't care? Your 77mm f/1.8 Limited is now a 77mm f/2.8 in DOF capability. No biggie?

There are more than a few folks who were pretty angry that Pentax made the DA 35 f/2.4 instead of an f/2, because of that half-stop in DOF capability. With FF vs aps-c, we're talking 1.3 stops. Some people might really hate that wizard.

Furthermore, you can't simply stop down a longer lens and get the same DOF as a shorter lens; the hyperfocal lengths are different, period.

Atkins laid that out - his bullet points took into account what happens when you get at the smaller apertures and neared hyperfocal distances. If your shooting scenerios are matching that, you have a point. I haven't run into it much.

I take on this particular argument not because I think APS-c and FF are identical. I take it on because of the misplaced reverence afforded FF.

Kinda subjective take, there, no? I feel no reverence really - the numbers are the numbers, and I've given practical shooting examples (and images) that illustrate what they can mean to folks.

Consider the title of this thread. It's exactly what I'm talking about. The difference between FF and APS-c is so inconsequential that the vast percentage of the images produced by them are indistinguishable.

Not when lined up against each other, equivalent FOV + equivalent aperture. See my example.

Almost any images taken out of context can be indistinguishable, especially because you don't know what it took to get that image. See my DA 35 f/2.4 vs FA 31ltd blind-test analogy.

But to say "FF is objectively better" - in an field of ARTISTIC endeavor - is absurd on the face of it.

More control over DOF is objectively better, especially when artistic/aesthetic sensibilities are paramount. Doesn't make the whole format better for everything, though. If someone said that, it wasn't me.


.

[jstevewhite]

So, if a wizard appeared and touched all your lenses with a magic wand that changed their optical properties such that the light transmition stayed the same with regards to it's effect on shutter speed, but reduced their DOF control capability by 1.3 stops - you wouldn't care? Your 77mm f/1.8 Limited is now a 77mm f/2.8 in DOF capability. No biggie?

Does he *tell* me that he made the change? Frankly, I doubt I'd notice for some time. Subject separation is as much about distance between the subject and the background as it is the DOF.

There are more than a few folks who were pretty angry that Pentax made the DA 35 f/2.4 instead of an f/2, because of that half-stop in DOF capability. With FF vs aps-c, we're talking 1.3 stops. Some people might really hate that wizard.

I bet most of them wouldn't notice, either. See, there's this thing about the way the human mind works. We're really good at discrimination, but really bad at identification. When you put two things side by side, we're really good at picking out tiny differences. But when you show 'em to us one at a time, we're not so good at identifying them. People are *always* convinced that they are far more discriminating than they really are.

Also, we like things that cost more better than things that cost the less. Particularly when *we* pay for 'em.

Take 24 images shot by excellent photographers, 12 APS-c, 12 FF. Shuffle 'em together, split 'em randomly into two piles, tell people that one is FF and the other is APS-c, and people will start telling you how they can tell which is which - *convinced* that they can.

Atkins laid that out - his bullet points took into account what happens when you get at the smaller apertures and neared hyperfocal distances. If your shooting scenerios are matching that, you have a point. I haven't run into it much.

Indeed he did. It means you cannot achieve the same DOF simply by stopping down. Like I said, you gotta get a shorter lens and crop for the same FOV.

Your answer sounds the same as the one I've been offering, essentially. "If your shooting scenarios are matching needing that 12 inch DOF instead of 18 inch DOF, you have a point."

Not when lined up against each other, equivalent FOV + equivalent aperture. See my example.

Not when you pick a specific scenario designed to maximize the difference and place specific restraints on the usage. You have to change lenses and/or change positions to get a similar shot.

Almost any images taken out of context can be indistinguishable, especially because you don't know what it took to get that image. See my DA 35 f/2.4 vs FA 31ltd blind-test analogy.

Some things are visible... contact prints have a 'look' that little else can match. Polaroids are easily identifiable. Some films are easily identifiable. I demonstrated to a skeptical client that I could tell the difference between Kodachrome and Ektachrome from his vacation photos once. Some lenses. Catadioptric lenses, for instance. It's usually easy to distinguish quality lenses from crap lenses, but not always so easy to identify the lens - check out the "guess the lens" thread; there's as much forensic analysis (which lenses are in his sig?) as there is identification - and the percentage isn't high.

FF and APS-c don't fall into the category of 'easily identifiable'. You've got to CREATE visible difference, on purpose.

More control over DOF is objectively better, especially when artistic/aesthetic sensibilities are paramount. Doesn't make the whole format better for everything, though. If someone said that, it wasn't me.
.

But what does "objectively better" mean, if it doesn't mean "for everything"? That's been my beef, all along. You can't say (rationally) that a format is "objectively better" without answering the question "at what?"

[TOUGEFC]

jstevewhite, in your stitching method, how is your workflow? Would it be-

Shoot RAW> Process each image (using same settings) in photoshop>export them as JPEGS> then stitch them all with the stitching program ?

Or do you stitch them first then edit the complete image in photoshop as a whole?

Just curious

[Emacs]

So, the claim I've described before was raised again: guys, the FF is not only about DOF control and VF, it's also about better image quality overall. Check the facts:
is there any Distagon 21 crop analogue? 31Ltd? Do you really think any 50 can achieve 77Ltd details?
Larger sensor means better quality.
Just check the Medium format subforums, check the photos taken with 67 and 645 cameras, especially 67: the things are really poping out the pictures. 645D photos can be sharper (although 67 ones are sharp enough IMO), but the 3D effect isn't near as noticeable. It's happening because of the greater magnification optics for the same purpose with larger sensor.

I didn't state you can't get amazing photos with APS-C (which doesn't imply IQ) but I said you can easily get better IQ shots with larger sensor. That's it.

Larger sensor ⇒ better IQ.

BTW stitching is just a method of emulating larger sensor.