[Emacs]

LOL, rpamar
Read this: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/119875-pentax-...ull-frame.html

[Clavius]

LOL, rpamar
Read this: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/119875-pentax-...ull-frame.html

The pictures in your link... They don't look very sharp. Not even the in-focus parts. Is it because of the lens? The camerabody?

[Emacs]

The pictures in your link... They don't look very sharp. Not even the in-focus parts. Is it because of the lens? The camerabody?

Believe me, they are sharper than on APS-C

[Macario]

any evidence?

[Emacs]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/20110506_IMGP3127.jpg

[Clavius]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/20110506_IMGP3127.jpg

Dude that's even worse... Is there anything in focus?

[Emacs]

Dude that's even worse... Is there anything in focus?

Infinity

[Kunzite]

If that's the FF's superior look, thanks but no, thanks - I'll stay with APS-C

[Macario]

a little evidence would be a picture of same subject with APS-C and FF with same lens

[Clavius]

But seriously, FF should be better, but it just isn't noticeable for the naked eye. I've never been able to spot any IQ difference between APS and FF. Not like the enormous IQ difference between APS and medium format, for example.

[Emacs]

a little evidence would be a picture of same subject with APS-C and FF with same lens

LOL guys.
Once in 1910 or 1911, russian naval architect and mathematician, academic Alexey Krylov with a group of our engineers visited the dock with the Titanic being under construction. English engineers shew the ship and the first question of visitors was if builders really didn't afraid about safety because they noticed some obvious weaknesses. English replied something like «you russians used to trust your computations but we did our expirience».

Back to the topic: the simplest computations and measurements shows absolute superiority of full frame.

Nikon D7000 and Nikkor 35 f1.8G


Nikon D3x and Nikkor 50 f1.8D


Nikon D3x and Nikkor 50 f1.8G


So you see, even weak Nikkor 50 f1.8D shows better details than D7000 with 35 f1.8G at every settings.

[Rondec]

LOL guys.
Once in 1910 or 1911, russian naval architect and mathematician, academic Alexey Krylov with a group of our engineers visited the dock with the Titanic being under construction. English engineers shew the ship and the first question of visitors was if builders really didn't afraid about safety because they noticed some obvious weaknesses. English replied something like «you russians used to trust your computations but we did our expirience».

Back to the topic: the simplest computations and measurements shows absolute superiority of full frame.

Nikon D7000 and Nikkor 35 f1.8G


Nikon D3x and Nikkor 50 f1.8D


Nikon D3x and Nikkor 50 f1.8G


So you see, even weak Nikkor 50 f1.8D shows better details than D7000 with 35 f1.8G at every settings.

What do these graphs mean? I thought you couldn't compare lenses on different sensors. Anyway, looks to me like the 50mm f1.8 is weak on the edges up till f8 on full frame. Not sure how you could read those graphs any differently.

[Macario]

What do these graphs mean? I thought you couldn't compare lenses on different sensors. Anyway, looks to me like the 50mm f1.8 is weak on the edges up till f8 on full frame. Not sure how you could read those graphs any differently.

I agree, the graph shows that the FF sensor is slightly better in the center, and the the APS-C sensor is MUCH better at the borders. Especialy wide open. Oh isn't that what they want to sue on FF, the fast lenses wide open? There goes your image quality down the drain

[jsherman999]

Originally posted by jsherman999
price out what it would take to get near those FOV/DOF combos with aps-c, and FF starts to look cheap.

True, but the comparison is false because no pro actually needs apertures that fast. Lenses at f/0.95 and f/1.2 inevitably produce significantly poor images.

That list was illustrating what the equivalent DOF would be if the FOV was maintained on aps-c - the lenses themselves are still f/2.8 and f/2 lenses, not some optically-compromised f/.95 lens. You can shoot an f/2.8 lens on FF and it has the FOV 1.5 times 'wider' with about 1.3 stops less DOF at the same aperture. Thus, a 50mm f/1.4 lens on aps-c gives you the same FOV/DOF a 35mm f/.95 lens would have on that same aps-c camera.

As I wrote in another post in this thread, you don't have to shoot wide open to get a benefit from that, the effects are seen down the aperture range. For example I like the subject isolation my f/2.8 lenses give me wide-open on aps-c, but I like the sharpness/contrast at f/4, so I'm torn. On FF, f/4 would give you about f/2.5 subject isolation while maintaining the f/4 sharpness and contrast.

It's only amateurs obsessed with bokeh as subject matter that want them. Pros are quite happy with f/2.8 on 35mm. And so am I.

I'm not sure how this moved to a 'what pros want' comparison , but it's interesting to note that most 'pros' shoot FF cameras at least part of the time - must be something they like there.

Which is why you will see, over my thousands of posts, I never call for a new APS-C lens faster than f/2. Because I do not expect anything else to have more than the tiniest niche market.

I find that odd, I'm often scrounging for every bit of light I can get in a lot of indoor situations. f/1.8, 1.7, 1.4 and even 1.2 are welcome to me, with regards to both shutter speed and subject isolation.

I've got two f/1.2 lenses and I cannot image needing even narrower DOF than what is already provided by these on APS-C. Care to give me a use case that requires something faster?

What's the focal length, 50 or 55mm? Would you like something wider occasionally ? A regular 50mm f/1.4 on FF shot at f/1.8 would be about a 35mm f/1.2 lens. A 35mm f/2 shot wide-open on FF would be about a 23mm f/1.3 on aps-c. You're a creative shooter, Robin, I'm sure you'd find some use for those looks.

Why do you need the extra resolution and faster shot-to-shot performance? So you can print sports shots a bit larger?

I don't 'need' any more resolution than what 12mp on FF brings me, for what I do. The 645D would be resolution-overkill for me, as I said, and it's FPS and AF-lock are woefully behind the D700 for example. What I really want is very fast AF lock, very good ISO performance, followed by good DR and more DOF control. A larger $10,000 camera + large $2500 lenses that perform worse in most of those areas than a smaller $2300 camera + $100, $300, $500 lenses would be a silly choice for me.

... I am completely happy saying that they have bought the wrong system and should rectify this as soon as possible to make their job easier and more fun.

See, that's the problem. A lot of them are doing that, when they'd be happier spending their money on a FF Pentax system.


.

[Rondec]

...I'm not sure how this moved to a 'what pros want' comparison , but it's interesting to note that most 'pros' shoot FF cameras at least part of the time - must be something they like there.






.

I don't believe this. Most professionals shoot APS-C. Many upper end professionals may shoot full frame, but most of the pros in my area (and many other areas) shoot APS-C. They do a lot of studio work, where full frame is meaningless and when they shoot weddings, they do a lot with flashes. They certainly aren't going out and dropping a couple of grand on a full frame camera -- rather they shoot with 40Ds, or equivalent cameras -- often several years old, milking them for what they are worth.