[peasant]

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.

and.................?

BTW stitching is just a method of emulating larger sensor.

FFer's stitch too,so no one's ever happy.

---

Last edited by peasant; 05-17-2011 at 04:27 AM.

[Emacs]

and.................?

There's people in this forum who seriously claims there's no reason for Hoya to begin FF production (true FF, not Front Focus due to absence of QC) since crappy cameras provides the same IQ.

[Rondec]

There's people in this forum who seriously claims there's no reason for Hoya to begin FF production (true FF, not Front Focus due to absence of QC) since crappy cameras provides the same IQ.

I haven't heard anything of the sort. I think that it is clear that the decision for Hoya on whether or not to make a full frame camera has nothing at all to do with image quality. It has to do with whether or not they can release a camera with high enough specs and low enough price to actually compete in the market and turn a profit.

I think to this point, they have decided that there is more revenue to be made with EVIL and MF cameras and I can understand that calculation, although I do think that eventually they will release a 35mm sensored camera.

[peasant]

There's people in this forum who seriously claims there's no reason for Hoya to begin FF production (true FF, not Front Focus due to absence of QC) since crappy cameras provides the same IQ.
__________________

Yeah well one of the key planks in the armoury of any Pentax shooter is the ability to make do with and defend to the death what we have.

[jstevewhite]

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

The workflow in Photoshop takes too much time; I've started using AutoPano Giga. There's a trial - check it out!

Generally, I import the images in Lightroom. I select the set I want, and export them to 16 bit TIFFs (so as not to lose the RAW dynamic range!), then open the folder in APG; click "detect", and somewhere between a few seconds (~5 images) and a minute (~42 images) a window opens that has them all aligned and masked. You can zoom in, noodle alignment, all kinds of stuff (most of which I don't have to do, and you won't either, if you're careful shooting). Then you click on the gear button and export to 16 bit TIFF.

Then I import THAT image into Photoshop or Lightroom and do post processing.

I did a landscape pano recently as a test with three-shot bracket; I am trying to discover the workflow for HDR->Pano (or Pano->HDR)... Not crazy tone mapping; just to bring out the sky better.

Shooting the stitching set... use manual focus and manual exposure and manual ISO. Make sure there's good overlap. I've ruined whole stitches before by missing a picture in the middle

[jstevewhite]

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?

The Distagon 21 works fine (or would. The ZK 35 worked just fine when I had it ) on my K-5. Besides, you can't seriously be saying that FF is categorically better because of a *lens*? I love the Zeiss as much as the next guy.

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.

Again. I've shot more frames of 6x6 with Zeiss glass than I have 35mm film. There was FAR more difference between the Hassy images and the Canon (FF - as in Film Frame ) images than there is between the APS-c camera and FF camera of the same generation.

Perhaps you're the guy with 20/5 vision that can tell from looking at an 8x10 from 6x6cm negative that's front-focused by .3 cm. If so, then obviously you're going to have higher level requirements. DOF for you will be much narrower than for me (with mere 20/15 vision). Lenses that are exceptional for nearly everyone will be merely adequate for you. And digital isn't going to be much fun, as you'll see the blurriness of digital 300 DPI prints. But you're not going to be happy with FF, either.

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.

I think that if you give a good photographer either system, you will be unable to differentiate between them. I'd be willing to be that you're no different than most other people - that is, completely unable to beat chance at sorting FF and APS-c images. I've said it before, but we - human beings - like to believe we're much more discriminating than we actually are.

Everything else being equal, I agree that FF produces better lab numbers. But, again, everything else *isn't* equal. It never is. I had a Mamiya RB67, once upon a time. 6x7 was IMMMENSE, for roll film, I thought. Well, when a 'friend' loaned me a Hassleblad to shoot side-by-side, I realized *size isn't everything*, because, in REAL life, everything is never equal.

And lab results != better photograph. Better photograph is an aesthetic judgement. Lab information is interesting and useful for some purposes, but does not determine the "quality" of a piece of artwork.

BTW stitching is just a method of emulating larger sensor.

No, stitching is a method of acquiring more information. There are larger sensors with fewer pixels, obviously. The stitched images I produce exceed the information content of MF, and are sharper.

[Marc Sabatella]

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.

OK, in that case I submit your original statement is incorrect. I thought you were suggesting that while DOF might be the same when comparing 135/8 on APS-C versus 200/11 on FF (for example), the hyperfocal distance is somehow different. That would have been new information to me, and I was willing to accept that as an interesting but not all that important fact. But ff you're actually claiming the DOF at 135/8 on is *not* the same (roughly) as at 200/11 on FF, that's just wrong. Any DOF calculator will tell you that.

This is the whole basis of what I'm talking about - a 200/4 on FF really is *equivalent* to a 135/2.8 on APS-C, assuming the 200/4 has that one extra tiny stop at the far end of the scale. Shooting the 200/4 on FF one f-stop down from wherever you shoot the 135/2.8 will produce the same picture in terms of FOV, DOF, and - on avergae, assuming similar sensor technology - same noise for a given shutter speed (because you'll need to shoot the FF camera one stop higher ISO, thus nullifying its inherent advantage there. people continue to not understand this concept and argue against, but these are simple basic physical principles - arguing against this is like arguing against the law of gravity.

Elsewhere it seems you are saying Bob Atkins makes some sort of special case exception for what happens as you approach infinitely small apertures and focus distance near the hyperfocal distance. This is the part I was thinking might indeed be valid new information, but I still haven't seen it explained.

What I meant by 'filmism" was using hyperfocal distance as a way of getting what one believes will be an acceptably sharp print. In the digital age, Few people are satisfied by "sharp enough as defined by DOF formulas". If your standards for sharpness are that low, then really, it probably is true you'd fine with any camera at all.

Limited to f/16? not sure what you mean.

I mean that my little hyperbole was based on the fact that most lenses have a minimum aperture that most people never ever use. If the minimum aperture of your lens is only f/16, then indeed, you'll probably run into this somewhat more often. I was just trying to emphasize how insignificant an issue that would be for most people, by suggesting some of the reasson why most people normally avoid f/32.

BTW, regarding pixel density - I was referring to its effect on *noise*, not resolution, when I said it was largely a myth.

Then 11x14 inch is the best?

Well, in terms of IQ, and assuming lenses could actually stop down far enough to get the same sort of DOF, then yes, certainly, obviously, intheory. But now you're dealing with other issues when it comes down to what can be made *in practice*. FF and APS-C are close enough to the same size that these concerns don't really come that much into play.

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

Of course it isn't. Once again, I can't imagine any possible way in which you statement above could possible be seen as relating to anyone has ever seen. Obviously, stopping down isn't the same as using a shorter lens - no one in their right mind would claim that. But using a 200 at f/11 on FF *is* the same as using a 135 at f/8 on APS-C (well, within a fraction a stop). It's an unarguable physical fact. Either you accept it and then reframe your argument, or you deny it, and then I'll direct you to the readings that prove it.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 05-17-2011 at 11:44 AM.

[Marc Sabatella]

Check the facts:
is there any Distagon 21 crop analogue? 31Ltd? Do you really think any 50 can achieve 77Ltd details?

OK, but now you're just pointing accidents of history. Surely you don't believe there is anything inherent about the 135 format that allows lenses to be made that are better than the lenses for APS-C?

Larger sensor means better quality.

To the extent that is true, I'd say that's why Pentax is skipping the FF game and going for 645. The question is whether there are certain knees in the curve where from a usability, price/performance, and competitive standpoint, one can actually hope to sell cameras. I have yet to see evidence that Pentax would do anything but go bankrupt if they diverted already scant resources to FF, but I remain optimistic that 645 can turn out to be a win for them.

[jstevewhite]

OK, in that case I submit your original statement is incorrect. I thought you were suggesting that while DOF might be the same when comparing 135/8 on APS-C versus 200/11 on FF (for example), the hyperfocal distance is somehow different. That would have been new information to me, and I was willing to accept that as an interesting but not all that important fact. But ff you're actually claiming the DOF at 135/8 on is *not* the same (roughly) as at 200/11 on FF, that's just wrong. Any DOF calculator will tell you that.
{snip}
Of course it isn't. Once again, I can't imagine any possible way in which you statement above could possible be seen as relating to anyone has ever seen. Obviously, stopping down isn't the same as using a shorter lens - no one in their right mind would claim that. But using a 200 at f/11 on FF *is* the same as using a 135 at f/8 on APS-C (well, within a fraction a stop). It's an unarguable physical fact. Either you accept it and then reframe your argument, or you deny it, and then I'll direct you to the readings that prove it.

Hyperfocal distance is independent of format and dependent on focal length and aperture. Thus, the hyperfocal distance for, say, a 30mm lens at f16 is found by:

H is approximately (30)^2/(16)(.03) or 1875mm from the lens.

A 50mm ( to maintain similar FOV ) lens at f16 is:

(50^2)/(16*.03)= 5208mm from the lens.

A 50mm lens at f22 is still 3787 mm from the lens @ hyperfocal, and 2600mm away at f32, a full two stops further down the rabbit hole.

Even if we give back a third of the COC, the 35mm lens retains a hyperfocal distance starting at 2.8 meters to infinity, while the FF 50 is at 3.8 meters to infinity; if your lens goes to f24, then you can get down to 3.6 meters.

I'm certainly willing to read the material you'll provide that demonstrates that math to be inaccurate.

[jsherman999]

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?

Yes, he does.

He's an evil wizard after all, and causing mayhem doesn't do him much good if his victims don't realize the mayhem has been caused. So he tells you, and you reply, "Is that all you got!? I'm a veteran of all the larger formats, and this piddly 1.3 stops doesn't even make my radar screen!"

Disappointed in your reaction, the evil wizard decides to hassle Wheatfield, who tells him to get off his lawn.

Wizard shuffles off, muttering, ".. these Pentaxians, sheesh, tough bunch."

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,

As I've said before, this argument can be made about a lot of things photography-related.

Take 24 images by an excellent photographer, 12 taken with the DA 35 f/2.4 and 12 taken with the FA 31ltd, and ask people to pick which is which. Would the fact that they probably couldn't do it very accurately make the 31ltd equal to the DA 35 2.4? It would make every 31ltd owner a schmuck for preferring it?

Also, this is not the only way to look at it. Let's say I want to make a sandbox for my kids. I could use manual saws and screwdrivers, or I could use power tools. The output from either method would be indistinguishable - so the method used to get there doesn't matter to the carpenter? And what if I need to make 10 sandboxes per day, 5 days per week?

A photographer chooses tools, too, and usually gets to try a couple side-by-side to give himself an idea of which he prefers.

Not when you pick a specific scenario designed to maximize the difference and place specific restraints on the usage.

??? "specific scenario designed to maximize the difference?" That was about as typical as my shooting scenarios get - a shot of one of my kids from a few meters away, in the 35/50 'normal' range, with a moderate aperture meant to isolate the subject slightly.

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?"

A syntactical/language-parsing problem here, maybe. Here's what I meant:

More control over DOF is objectively better than less control over DOF.

We're talking about one attribute of the format, one criteria everyone would need to weight in importance to themselves. That one fact does not make the entire format objectively better, especially for every shooting scenerio.


.

[jstevewhite]

\
Wizard shuffles off, muttering, ".. these Pentaxians, sheesh, tough bunch."

ROFL!

As I've said before, this argument can be made about a lot of things photography-related.

Take 24 images by an excellent photographer, 12 taken with the DA 35 f/2.4 and 12 taken with the FA 31ltd, and ask people to pick which is which. Would the fact that they probably couldn't do it very accurately make the 31ltd equal to the DA 35 2.4? It would make every 31ltd owner a schmuck for preferring it?

I've never once said anyone was a schmuck for preferring *anything*. I've just been challenging the assertion that numbers==better. The association of an artistic judgement with empirical measures. I think it's *very* important to note that many photographic things are "like that". I think the assertion is confusing technique with art.

Also, this is not the only way to look at it. Let's say I want to make a sandbox for my kids. I could use manual saws and screwdrivers, or I could use power tools. The output from either method would be indistinguishable - so the method used to get there doesn't matter to the carpenter? And what if I need to make 10 sandboxes per day, 5 days per week?

A photographer chooses tools, too, and usually gets to try a couple side-by-side to give himself an idea of which he prefers.

Absolutely so. But you're not comparing power tools and hand tools; you're comparing different brands of power tools, because you could certainly produce the same volume of images with APS-c that you can with FF, right? A guy shows up to build your kid a swingset, do you care if he's using a 3/4 horsepower DeWalt or a 5/8 horsepower Makita drill to drill the mounting holes? *HE* may care. He may say that the DeWalt fits his hand better. He may say that the 1/8 horsepower more he gets really makes his life easier. He might say that his Dewalt is BETTER than the Makita. Consumer reports may say that the Makita has 5% fewer failures, so the other guy might claim his Makita is better. In the end, though, it's about the swingset; The workmen care about their tools because they live with them.

Metaphors are fun.

??? "specific scenario designed to maximize the difference?" That was about as typical as my shooting scenarios get - a shot of one of my kids from a few meters away, in the 35/50 'normal' range, with a moderate aperture meant to isolate the subject slightly.

Fair enough. But if isolation is my goal, I can step back and shoot a longer lens. The question of "better" presumes that one would shoot the same image with both cameras. Do you carry 'em both and shoot identical images with both of 'em?

A syntactical/language-parsing problem here, maybe. Here's what I meant:

More control over DOF is objectively better than less control over DOF.

We're talking about one attribute of the format, one criteria everyone would need to weight in importance to themselves. That one fact does not make the entire format objectively better, especially for every shooting scenerio.
.

Well, I know we've "been over this", but when I looked up the math, it came out like i expected in regard to hyperfocal length. So stopping down the longer lens simply does *not* give you the same DOF as APS-c, even with reduced COC. I'd be happy to consider factual rebuttals; I just googled the math and punched in numbers. So according to that math and my current understanding of it, it's not "more control of DOF", it's "less DOF".

Of course, I don't disagree with your final paragraph. It's what I've been saying, all along.

[RyanW]

If one doesn't care about cost, size/weight, or reach, why would you own a crop camera?

You would not own one unless that's all that your brand offers, or there is a particular feature or feature set that a particular crop camera has that is unavailable on a full frame camera.

I think almost any other reason would be related to the ones in my first sentence.

[jstevewhite]

If one doesn't care about cost, size/weight, or reach, why would you own a crop camera?

You would not own one unless that's all that your brand offers, or there is a particular feature or feature set that a particular crop camera has that is unavailable on a full frame camera.

I think almost any other reason would be related to the ones in my first sentence.

If you don't *care* about anything, why would you own a camera?

If you don't care about any of that stuff, why not use a 4x5 scanning back that records 150mpixels at dynamic ranges our sensors only dream of?

The only reason APS-c is called a "crop sensor" is because the same lenses bolt on both bodies.

[RyanW]

If you don't *care* about anything, why would you own a camera?

If you don't care about any of that stuff, why not use a 4x5 scanning back that records 150mpixels at dynamic ranges our sensors only dream of?

The only reason APS-c is called a "crop sensor" is because the same lenses bolt on both bodies.

I meant, cost difference, size difference, reach difference between FF and crop, which is how I think or hope most would read it.

[jstevewhite]

I meant, cost difference, size difference, reach difference between FF and crop, which is how I think or hope most would read it.

I'm not certain how to read what you're asking, though. Those are all important factors in a camera-buying decision; why would we discount them for a hypothetical?