Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-10-2011, 07:46 AM   #256
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
I could be wrong, but isn't the ability to get very shallow depth of field one of the big arguments for FF? If a film lens gives good center performance on an APS-C camera, it ought to work equally well on FF. If a person is really worried about the edge sharpness of their lenses (which would assume that they are going for max depth of field), wouldn't they be better off with an APS-C system which excels at depth of field? I was at an opening of an exhibit by one of the better photographers in our state. I had been talking to this photographer about his recent switch to a FF Canon. (He used to be a die-hard Pentax 6X7 guy in the film days.) A guy from my camera club came up and started quizzing this photographer about edge sharpness on FF and whether he'd found certain lenses to have fall-off when used with FF. The photographer listened politely for a while, then said, "I couldn't care less about that (expletive deleted)! More than likely, I'm going to crop that off anyway."
Well, no; a high percentage of interesting photos have off-center subjects. I frequently shoot images with the sharp focus extending near the edge of the frame @ f1.4.

I'm not certain at all why one would move to a FF camera so you could crop back to APS-c. That's a big waste of pixels, real estate, and money. Although he might have meant he's cropping the 2:3 format of 135 to the 4:5 format of standard prints, which does slice off quite a bit of the extreme edges.

Which makes me wonder why nobody makes a 24mm X 30mm (4:5) sensor...

EDIT: Just because 2:3 isn't really good for much. We shoot video at 16:9, and crop our images (for print) to 4:5 (usually); why stick with 2:3? Seems a "full frame" 4:3 sensor would be less expensive, and produce identical IQ to a full frame sensor on a 4:5 crop at any size.


Last edited by jstevewhite; 07-10-2011 at 07:50 AM. Reason: clarity
07-10-2011, 08:16 AM   #257
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,146
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
Well, no; a high percentage of interesting photos have off-center subjects.
Actually, most photos do, but an extremely small percentage have their subjects on the very edge of the frame.




QuoteQuote:
I frequently shoot images with the sharp focus extending near the edge of the frame @ f1.4.
Yes, but the argument against being able to use film lenses on a FF digital camera is that those lenses lack the inability to place a very narrow strip of sharp focus on the edge of the frame. Got anything like that? Or are you talking about shots where the majority of the frame is in focus and that in-focus range extends to the edge of the frame?


QuoteQuote:
I'm not certain at all why one would move to a FF camera so you could crop back to APS-c.
That's not what he said. He said he wasn't worried about the extreme edges because he was most likely going to crop the image down somewhat. Don't we all do this, regardless of what format we're shooting?
07-10-2011, 08:29 AM   #258
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,762
One would not necessarily buy a 24x36 camera with the intention of cropping most of your photos to 16x24, but if the lenses all fit, and you have them, it means that any DOF advantage you find on APS-C could be achieved by shooting with these lenses and cropping. You can always crop to a smaller size, but not so easily expand.
07-10-2011, 08:37 AM   #259
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,415
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
Sorry, but I think you're seeing what you want to see. I don't think an 8X10 is large enough to really see a difference except maybe in the dynamic range of the cameras.
You can think what ever you want. I didn't "want" to see soft images. The 135L was the only lens that I owned at that time that really stood out. The performance of the rest was not what I consider very good. My first few outings with my 5D (my first digital) were pretty frustrating. Film is much more forgiving in several ways. I talked to several guys who had made the switch to FF Canon from film and started swapping out my lenses. Almost every lens in the Canon or Nikon line up has been updated since digital has become the dominate system. Even por-grade glass like the 70-200L (original) struggles with IQ on digital, and nobody complained about it with film. Everyone will have their own idea about what is acceptable and what is not.


Last edited by Winder; 07-10-2011 at 08:55 AM.
07-10-2011, 08:54 AM   #260
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
When I went from film to a Canon 5D I found a good number of my film lenses really failed to provide the IQ I was looking for. I currently only own my 135L from that group of lenses. I have sold or gave away all of the film era EOS lenses. Even an small 8x10 print taken with some of those was unacceptable.

I know Pentax users think their Limited lenses have the magic pixie dust and are not subject the the same optical limitation of other brands.

If Pentax thought they could make money with a FF body......... They would have done it. If Pentax has plans of producing a FF body they never would have stopped production on their FF glass.
They haven't stopped production on their full frame glass completely. They have actually stopped production on more aps-c glass the past 3 years than full frame. Plus, the Canon argument doesn't completely hold. They had a lot of full frame dog lenses. You didn't mention if it was L glass or not.
07-10-2011, 08:58 AM   #261
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Maybe not on FF digital, but it certainly has a quality on 35mm:

000014 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I will concur that digital FF is far less forgiving than film of any type. I suspect that light falloff on the FA Limiteds will be more noticeable to pixel peepers and that the FA Limiteds would need new coatings. That said, images from the FA Ltd's on film look pretty awesome. Vignetting? Get a loupe and get back to me. I doubt many of the scans are seriously corrected.

I cannot fathom why someone thinks 43mm is not a good FL. 42-45mm is closer to the normal eye view than the arbitrary accident of the 50mm "normal". That's why so many street RF's form the 1960's and 70's were made in a 45mm or near format. I own 2 myself.

Someone in Moscow needs a heating pad wrapped around their head.

I think a lot of wishful legacy glass owners, especially those with the K,M, and A series collections would be disappointed with lens performance on FF digital. Paying $3,500 for a body to put an A50/1.7 on it only to have the performance be sub-par is really not in Pentax's best interest. Those lenses were made for film. They translate OK to digital, for the saving grace of APS-C being a sweet spot size for a 135 lens system. I could see Pentax writing software for each lens and keeping a database of Pentax brand in the camera to compensate for known flaws, but that is a lot of effort.
I am not sure what newer coatings Pentax currently has other the Aero Bright and that may produce interesting results but I suspect it would give the FA Limiteds a different personality. All FA and DA LTD lenses get Ghostless Coating on the rear elements and DA also gets SP on the front and of course the stapple SMC.

If Ricoh and Pentax decide to go with a format larger than aps-c, there is no absolute it would be 24x36 either, but would be logical given Sony, Nikon and Canon have a ~ 24x36.
07-10-2011, 09:35 AM   #262
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,146
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
The 135L was the only lens that I owned at that time that really stood out. The performance of the rest was not what I consider very good.
I accept that what you say may be true. But could we have some comparison pics just to prove it?
07-10-2011, 09:41 AM   #263
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
Actually, most photos do, but an extremely small percentage have their subjects on the very edge of the frame.

Yes, but the argument against being able to use film lenses on a FF digital camera is that those lenses lack the inability to place a very narrow strip of sharp focus on the edge of the frame. Got anything like that? Or are you talking about shots where the majority of the frame is in focus and that in-focus range extends to the edge of the frame?
No, I'm talking about a narrow-DOF image, such that the subject extends from an off-center point to the edge of the frame. I've done it (and seen it) with flowers, faces, animals, etc. It's not particularly unusual.

I don't think the argument is, at all, that the lenses lack the ability to place a 'very narrow strip of sharp focus on the edge of the frame'; the situation is that many lenses - nearly all lenses - resolve less detail as you stray further from the axial region. Some lenses more so than others. It's not "It's perfect resolution until you get to within three mm of the edge"; rather it's "The resolution gradually reduces to value X at the edge".

QuoteQuote:
That's not what he said. He said he wasn't worried about the extreme edges because he was most likely going to crop the image down somewhat. Don't we all do this, regardless of what format we're shooting?
No, I don't think we all do this, at all. I crop most of the images I print, it's true, because I generally print 8x10s; but 4x6's are uncropped, and 5x7s nearly so. For web presentation I often do no cropping whatsoever, and I would certainly wager many members of this forum do not crop much of the time.

But as I said, if he was a pro that shoots portraits or weddings, it's much more likely he was referring to the aspect-ratio crop. If he's cropping 'just because', I'd say he should just use APS-c and frame his shots more carefully.

07-10-2011, 09:54 AM   #264
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,146
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
...if he was a pro that shoots portraits or weddings, it's much more likely he was referring to the aspect-ratio crop.
He was shooting for book and magazine publication. He knows that his images will be cropped to fit the needs of the magazine when they place text around it. He wasn't shooting for traditional aspect ratios.
07-10-2011, 09:56 AM   #265
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,146
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
No, I'm talking about a narrow-DOF image, such that the subject extends from an off-center point to the edge of the frame. I've done it (and seen it) with flowers, faces, animals, etc. It's not particularly unusual.
You said this...and I quote: "I frequently shoot images with the sharp focus extending near the edge of the frame @ f1.4."

This discussion was about film lenses being suitable for use on FF digital. Were you using a digital lens or a film lens for these images where you achieved "sharp focus extending near the edge of the frame @ f1.4"?
07-10-2011, 10:30 AM   #266
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
Exactly.
I miss the 31Ltd equivalent the most, since it's my favourite focal length.
Although Distagon 21 is wonderful replacement IQ wise and I love it, but it is too huge.
I would love to have K-mount FF in order to utilize all these wonderful FA Ltds, the Distagon and magnificent 50 f1.2

This has nothing to do with the optics and ability of the lens. It has to do with FOV preference. To say the FA 77 ltd has no usefulness on aps-c is silly. It would be like saying that 135mm lenses had no usefulness on 135 film systems. There was a reason that interchangeable lens systems became so widely used, so people could pick the focal lengths that suited their needs and use them when they needed them.
07-10-2011, 10:52 AM   #267
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
He was shooting for book and magazine publication. He knows that his images will be cropped to fit the needs of the magazine when they place text around it. He wasn't shooting for traditional aspect ratios.
Ah, fair enough. I'm intimately familiar with bleed and copy crops. But that's far from a standard use case; commercial and print photographers represent a tiny fraction of working pros, and an even tinier fraction of DSLR users, so it's not like it'a a good argument for the general case you've presented.
07-10-2011, 11:06 AM   #268
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
You said this...and I quote: "I frequently shoot images with the sharp focus extending near the edge of the frame @ f1.4."

This discussion was about film lenses being suitable for use on FF digital. Were you using a digital lens or a film lens for these images where you achieved "sharp focus extending near the edge of the frame @ f1.4"?
I've been photographing things regularly since ~1975 or so, so the answer would be "Yes."

I should have said "I frequently shoot images with the area of sharpest focus extending near the edge of the frame @ f1.4." It's not uncommon to be able to see that the edge is not as sharp as the center, particularly at f1.4. My only point was that edge sharpness is not trivial, even if you're not shooting for "maximum DOF".

Your argument was that edge sharpness isn't relevant because nobody shoots there unless they're shooting for max DOF (in which case they should, you said, use APS-C to get greater DOF; of course, they could just go to a wider lens and crop to APS-C FOV rather than using an APS-C camera); but this is not the case, clearly.

Then you added that edge sharpness isn't relevant because your friend who is a commercial/publication photographer doesn't care about it, and insinuated that, therefore, *no one* cares about it... I quote: "He said he wasn't worried about the extreme edges because he was most likely going to crop the image down somewhat. Don't we all do this, regardless of what format we're shooting?" - and my response is, "No, not at all." Your friend is an atypical use case.

All of this leads me to believe that you think the problem is a narrow strip of pixels at the extreme edge, but this simply isn't the case. The resolution drops (more or less) steadily from the axis to the edge. The worse it is at the edge, the worse it is halfway between the edge and the center. It's not linear, but it does scale proportionately.
07-10-2011, 11:17 AM   #269
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
Why are you are all so worry about full frame edge sharpness? It's just about as unsharp as edges on APS-C are. The only difference the center on FF is much sharper )))

I know many supposes Ken Rockwell is a clown, but just see at images.
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

Last edited by Emacs; 07-10-2011 at 11:22 AM.
07-10-2011, 11:59 AM   #270
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
Why are you are all so worry about full frame edge sharpness? It's just about as unsharp as edges on APS-C are. The only difference the center on FF is much sharper )))

I know many supposes Ken Rockwell is a clown, but just see at images.
The Full-Frame Advantage
See, I would agree with you if you said "can be sharper" - because it's not always, period. It's like your meter is stuck permanently on "hyperbole".

And Ken is a clown. Entertaining, talented, and intelligent, but, like you, stuck on "hyperbole" all the time. He can't say anything without an exclamation point somewhere close.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, films, image, lenses, passion, pentax, photography, production, slr, switch
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do the K5 photos compare to Full Frame camera photos as far as the "look" goes? crossover37 Pentax K-5 166 05-16-2011 07:24 PM
Full frame or improved AF. What do you want in the "K-8"? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 73 06-04-2010 11:35 AM
Nikon's 1998 vintage "full frame" DSLR pingflood General Talk 5 07-25-2009 05:44 PM
How does the camera "know" where the first frame starts? pbo Pentax Medium Format 9 07-08-2009 08:23 AM
German c't calls K-7 "full frame" falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 3 05-24-2009 11:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:36 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top