The paragraph above and the sentence below it actually constitute an excellent joke. You did make my day. Thanks.

Check the actual resolution lw/ph
Graphs shows the resolution of FF is much higher in the center of FF frame, and the resolution on edges and very edges at least isn't worse at FF (and it's much better with decent G lens — in fact it's better at very edges than the center of APS-C in any aperture).

So, I repeat, the edges problem of FF shots is forced one and there's no regression compared to APS-C at least. It's just a psychological problem when they see how sharp is the center and border looks significantly worse when shooting brick walls. In real world photography you won't strike this problem frequently cause you do something wrong if you need across the frame focus

Another forced problem is "FA Ltds won't work well on digital". It's a BS and they work on digital much better than on APS-C. This was confirmed many times by canon FF users

Graphs are all fun but the higher resolution just doesn't seem visible to the naked eye: Proof are the low res pics posten by Emac, some posts earlier.

I'm beginning to doubt the reality and the objectivity of the graphs.

Do you mean that one: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/20110506_IMGP3127.jpg ?
It is K-5, not FF. I posted it to show how bad the 50 f1.2 wide open on APS-C is after someone mentioned he didn't see enough sharpness for this lens on FF.

Nope, I meant the thread with the Sony FF pictures that you posted. They're really bad.

Please show us pictures* from which we can see the better IQ.

Such a thing is easy to do, when comparing a tiny APS sensor to the HUGE medium-format. But it's pretty hard when comparing the tiny APS sensor to the just-a-little-bit larger FF sensors.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a neysayer. I'm just trying to understand what the FF-fuss is all about. I just don't understand the added value. And that could be me. I don't understand the added value of lots of things: liveview, I-pad's, the Euro, etc...




*: Please no graphs, our camera's do not produce graphs, and we don't hang graphs on the walls of our homes. And graphs can lie. Pictures hardly can.

Yes, and I clearly see the difference between FF and APS-C.
Graphs only explain what's the reason of better FF look.

I'm afraid the only thing I can do is to demonstrate even worse IQ with APS-C

I don't understand you, aps-c fanboys
The whole point of bigger sensor is decreasing lens specification to achieve certain characteristics (at the cost of thiner DOF). So, if lens designer put some efforts in a lens its edges shouldn't be that bad as on Nikkor 50 f1.8D (which is still better than it's APS-C counterpart, since the 35 f1.8 @ 1.8 provides similar to 50 @ 2.8 image, but the 50 f1.8 @ 2.8 is much better ).

Ok, so here you admit that there are pictures that show the FF's superior image quality over APS-C........ So why won't you show us those pictures then?

I think people overrate the resolution-thing. I even know people who think that a cellphone with 12 MP, automatically always takes better IQ pictures then a 6 MP DSLR with nice glass.

Isn't this "larger sensor=better"-thinking just an extension of that kind of the "more MP=better"-thinking? It's both about resolution.

Actually you do not really care about rsolution DOF etc. If you did you would go for a MF camera. You just want FF so you can use your LTD lenses "as they were designed to be".
And no you cannot see the difference in pictures when looked at it normally on a screen on mounted on a wall. As a lot of the end picture will be determined what is done to it in PP.

And you say if engeneres will put some effort then the borders shouldn't be as bad as with the Nikon. So what you are saying is, that the ltd lenses (FF) you have now, could also be bad at the borders.

It's about it. I found these focal lengths (31, 43 and 77) are about perfect to my style of shooting. Need to add 21mm lens though. I hope pentax will produce something lighter than this HUGE distagon I have
I don't have their APS-C replacements because I already have those Ltds and they will perform better on FF than any replacement on APS-C.
I have no doubt the FF will be available in about a year. Because the lack of FF would mean the death of K-mount. I doubt Ricoh bought Pentax in order to kill it
I easily can see it when using wide open. I can see it at wide angle shots, quite predictably. Especially with lenses like Distagon 21, Zuiko 21, Nikkor 14-24, etc.
I don't insist I can say the certain shot was taken on APS-C, and another one on FF, but usually FF shots have a look that is hard to reproduce with APS-C. Take a look at shot:

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5409/17898081.9c/0_6d364_a3d32f29_orig.jpg — original
I doubt I could reproduce this shot on APS-C. It's both sharp and doesn't look overprocessed. Shots taken with APS-C usually looks overprocessed when trying to so be as sharp.
BTW, it was Nikon D700 and 80-400 zoom which only got 2 stars at the photozone
They are good at borders, it was tested many times

5d+fa31le(added some photo) - ¸Õ¾÷¸ÕÃè°Ï - DCHome.net ¼Æ½X¤Ñ¦a½×¾Â *»´ä²Ä¤@*ӼƽX¬Û¾÷ºô¯¸ - Powered by Discuz!

Some shots of 31Ltd on Canon 5D nearly wide open (f2.0 actually).
Take a look at border sharpness.

We can't tell anything about the border sharpness of those pictures, because the borders are out of focus. They belong to the bokeh.

Anyways, the depth of field used in those pics is way to thin.

Huh?







I'm agree. But you can stop down a bit (with higher ISO in low light situation). I doubt the detail loss due to higher sensitivity will affect details more than a crop factor

It sounds like you're new to the concept and just need some basic questions answered about the difference between the two formats - nothing wrong with that.

Here is a link to a pretty simple overview of some of the differences you'd see from shooter's perspective. It's written in layman's language by a guy who (I think) pretends to be a little dumber than he actually is as part of his schtick, but it contains some good nuggets of information that might be useful to you, and includes some image rollovers, etc --> the full frame advantage


This seems like it should be true, that pictures can't lie.... but they can. The main problem is when pictures are shown out of context. Showing a FF shot without it's equivalent aps-c shot may make people look at the FF shot and say 'so what'? My aps-c camera can do that!", when in fact in some cases that aps-c camera can't quite do that, because for example there's no lens available for aps-c that will give you the same FOV and DOF combo, or if it could give you the same FOV/DOF, that lens would have to be very expensive and large on aps-c to do so.

Here's a quick example of that - the following shot was taken as I was just standing over my little guy, at 35mm, f/1.8 on FF. Now, this looks just like a typical shallow-DOF shot, but in fact to get that exact shot on aps-c you'd need to be shooting a 23mm f/1.2 lens wide-open - and they don't make one of those. Because this shot is shown out of context, it doesn't seem like it's any different from a typical aps-c shot - but it is, a bit.






It also seems like it should be easy to ask for 'equivalent' shots from aps-c and FF, but I've owned both formats for over a year and a half now, and aside from some saltshaker test shots, I've maybe only taken one or two shots with the two formats side by side while maintaining equivalent aperture and FOV. So it's hard to show you in one image comparison - it tends to be something you 'see' and start to enjoy with iterations. Anyway, here's one comparison I have saved:

Left: DA35mm @ f2.8, right: Nikon 50 1.8D @ f/2.8, same distance to subject:


You should be able to see the 1.3 stops difference in DOF for the same FOV there, even though they were shot at the same aperture. If I wanted to stop down the FF shot to about f/4.5, it would give about the same DOF, gaining additional sharpness and contrast on the subject also that comes from f/4.5.

Where is this useful? Anyplace you want just a bit more subject isolation at equivalent FOVs, or want a tad more 'depth' on medium telephoto shots for the same FOV.









The other advantages to FF are, in a nutshell: at least a stop better high-ISO performance (ISO 6400 on FF looks like ISO 3200 on K-5 and about ISO 1400 on K-7,) sensor is more forgiving for AF and focus errors in general, faster-AF lock (usually comes with the bodies, not format-specific,) and larger viewfinder - easier for composition and manual focus. (Using the affordable D700 as the FF baseline - ISO performance and AF lock are going to vary from body to body of course.)



.