Originally posted by JohnBee When I saw this, I was like: Yay... we can continue where the other thread left off and rummage through some APS-C files to compare systems...
Then I saw this, and I was like: Oh crap! this thread is going nowhere fast...
Mika I don't know what the problem is here, but surely you can appreciate when I tell you that this community is made-up of far more than the type of behavior being exhibited here. So why not just just made the best of it?
Anyways... I'm really hoping to make this a profitable experience, and so here are my submissions to help shed some light on the issue:
1. 20mm f/2
K28mm/2, arperture unknown, possibly with etx. tube 2. 35mm f/1.8
MIR-24N, aperture unknown(possibly f2) 3. 35mm f/2
35/1.8 or 35/1.4, aperture unknown though not 1.4 wide open(I know that behavior). 4. 40mm f/1.8 (same set)
40mm f/1.4. - DOF more than enough to compare with FF. Crop tighter than the FF sample, headroom to widen the FOV.
Unfortunately, I don't keep notes on what lens and aperture values I use with most of these images. However... I would mention that it's possible for all of these to increase DOF effect as both 35 and 40mm could have been shot wide open(
f/1.4 respectively) along with tighter cropping. And so I'd expect a much closer comparison if not indistinguishable with FF in most cases.
Having said that, I myself prefer smoothness OOF roll- off on APS-C than FF with these particular examples. I guess all that's left now, is to try and find some subways station and hair salon shots see try and recreate scenes from the other examples. Though I do believe I have some 28/2 and 35/1.4 winter shots laying around in my archives. I'll look for those tomorrow.
Cheers!
John, as you can imagine those are all very close to what FF could bring in the 'normal' range, because you're using some very fast, wide-normal lenses there. The 28mm f/2, 40mm f/1.4, and 35mm f/1.4 are not lenses you see used very often.
Shooting them wide-open on aps-c would be duplicated by (about):
28mm f/2 on aps-c ==> 42mm f/3.2 on FF (now you know why the 43ltd would be the first lens I'd buy for the K-1!)
35mm f/1.4 on aps-c ==> 50mm f/2.3 on FF
40mm f/1.4 on aps-c ==> 60mm f/2.3 on FF
The lenses on the left are probably going to be more exotic & hard to find than the ones on the right, and larger and probably more expensive (if they were AF.) Also, at f/3.5, f/2.3, etc, the lenses used on FF will be stopped down one or two to achieve the same look - and
probably sharper on the plane of focus as a result, showing a bit less CA, etc.
Now, assuming those are FF-capable lenses, think of the fun you would have shooting them on FF!
28mm f/2 on FF ==> 18mm f/1.2 on aps-c
35mm f/1.4 on FF ==> 23mm f/0.95 on aps-c
40mm f/1.4 on FF ==> 27mm f/0.95 on aps-c
(Anyway, congrats on getting and shooting those cool lenses to great effect. Really liked the apple shot especially)