[mika.]

Exactly - just like the cost to produce a 747 is less than the cost to produce a Cessna, and why point-and-shoots cost more to produce than DSLRs!

No, the analogy would be that of producing a chocolate bar containing 10g of cocoa and weighing 20g, and producing a chocolate bar containing 10g of cocoa and weighing 30g.

---

Last edited by mika.; 01-07-2012 at 07:49 PM.

[mika.]

So, you get 50% more APS-C chips on a silicon wafer than you get with FF.

Fine. Then charge 50% more for FF, not 5x or 10x more

[jsherman999]

It's actually very simple math. You get fewer chips when the chip size is larger, than when the chip is smaller.

24x36 is larger than 18x24. 1.5 times to be exact. So, you get 50% more APS-C chips on a silicon wafer than you get with FF.

Actually, based on his 'miniaturized' statement, it was clear that he didn't even understand that the sensors were cut out of the same wafers.

.

[vonBaloney]

Exactly. Because it is cropped you don't get the full range of defocus ranges in any given image. With APS-C, because of the 1.5x decompression, you only get a fraction of the defocus ranges that you would normally get with FF. Is that making sense to you?

Sense? No, none whatsoever I'm afraid. Cropped just means cut-out. If I take a print on a piece of paper that was taken with a FF camera and not cropped in the printing, and then I cut-out the middle to what I would have gotten with an APS-C frame (like the blue & red boxes above), then I've got a smaller piece of paper with less of the original image, but what is left of the original image is exactly the same as it was before. What has become compressed or decompressed?

---

Last edited by vonBaloney; 01-07-2012 at 08:19 PM.

[jsherman999]

You know if said something even close to this to someone not on the internet you'd have your head knocked off with a baseball bat.

Anyone ever get growled at by a Chihuahua?




It's hilarious!

.

[Parallax]

JinDesu, jsherman999, RioRico, I'd like you to refrain from participating in this thread. You obviously don't get it, and your sarcasm is not appreciated. Please go away.

you don't get to decide who participates in what. You were warned about attitude and rudeness in the other thread. YOU are the one that doesn't get it.

[JohnBee]

After using APS-C cameras of various makes and with a huge variety of lenses, I find APS-C cameras and the format itself severely wanting... There's just something missing. The images from the APS-C cameras look more "snapshot" like than "photographs". I think this has to do with the 1.5x crop factor that APS-C cameras suffer from. This 1.5x crop factor seems to destroy the gradual reduction in sharpness (defocus) and light falloff that is very characteristic of good FF photos and what unconsciously gives images from Full Frame 35mm cameras their "look". Forgive me, but this "look" is very hard to articulate, so I've attached some examples. But I think people who remember the old days of 35mm film, will definitely recognize "the look". I know I can very easily recognize it.

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...

JinDesu, jsherman999, RioRico, I'd like you to refrain from participating in this thread. You obviously don't get it, and your sarcasm is not appreciated. Please go away.

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. 28mm

K28mm/2, aperture unknown, possibly with ext. tube

2. 35mm

MIR-24N, aperture unknown(possibly f/2)

3. 35mm

35/2 or 35/1.8, though not(1.4) wide open as I'd recognize the behavior.

4. 40mm (same set)

40mm possibly f/1.8. - DOF comparable with FF with headroom to widen the FOV.

Unfortunately, I didn't keep notes on the lens and aperture values used with most of these images and so I'm going by memory alone. However... I'd mention that it's also possible for all of these to have increased DOF as the 35 and 40mm could have been shot wide open(f/1.4 respectively) along with tighter crops. And so I'd expect a much closer comparison if not indistinguishable with most FF output in most cases.

Having said that, I personally prefer the smoothness of the OOF roll- off with APS-C than some of the initial FF samples provided in this thread. And so I guess all that's left now, is to try and find a subway station and hair salon to recreate the remainder of the examples . Though I think I have some 28/2 and 35/1.4 winter wonderland shots in my archives. I guess I'll look for those tomorrow.

Cheers!

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 01-07-2012 at 11:09 PM.

[DeadJohn]

The first post in this new thread started civilly. Now it's turning into one dude vs. the entire camera industry. Let's try to get this locked without any of us getting banned from the forum

Both images look "wrong" and unappealing, though interestingly enough the one on the right (APS-C) is less "wrong" than the one on the left (FF). Maybe, what we have here is a fundamental divide between photographers who can see and identify "the look" and snapshot takers who for ever will remain blind to the difference.

That statement is incredibly arrogant. You are putting down so many photographers who have created great photos that don't need extremely narrow DOF. You are truly an artiste. I am a mere snapshot taker (the part about me might be true, but it's due to skill not sensor size).

Get a life!

hah. I prefer "your momma wears army boots" when I have a weak argument and can't think of anything intelligent to say.

[JohnBee]

I wanted to add:

When I owned a FF a few years back, I couldn't justify the cost of shooting FF at that time and so I started looking for alternatives. And then came the K-5 with its amazing low light capabilities and compact size and I knew then and there, that I'd be sticking with APS-C. At which point... I started researching glass to help reproduce the DOF and OOF performance that I had with FF. Though I want to mention that I have a thing(fetish) for old MF lenses, and so I'm sure my list won't appeal to everyone. But... here's what I came-up with nonetheless:

1. Zenitar 16mm f/2.8
2. FA 24mm f/2
3. K28mm f/2
4. Samyang 35mm 1.4
5. Voigtlander 40/1.4(PK con)
6. K50 1.2
7. K55 1.8
8. HELIOS 58mm f/2
9. FA 77mm 1.8 (missing )
8. K85 1.8

Of course there are others like the legendary PK 135/1.8 that could easilly make into the list, but I was going for attainable on the short term and so this is what I came-up with.

Hope this helps.

[RioRico]

24x36 is larger than 18x24. 1.5 times to be exact. So, you get 50% more APS-C chips on a silicon wafer than you get with FF.

Actually FF frames are 2x the area of FF frames. (The diagonal is 1.5x.) So APS-C yield is 2x that of FF yield, before throwing out the bad chips, which skews the balance of APS-C to more like 3x.

hah. I prefer "your momma wears army boots" when I have a weak argument and can't think of anything intelligent to say.

That's incomplete. It should be, "Yo momma wears combat boots -- THREE of'em!"
___________________________________________________

At the risk of feeding the troll, I'll say this:

OP;
I can take my Kodak Monitor 6x9 folder with a 105/3.5 lens and make a wide-open exposure. I can then insert a 645 mask and make another exposure. I can replace the mask with a 36x24mm FF mask and shoot again. Replace that with a 24x18 HF (half-frame) mask (close enough to APS-C) and shoot again. Subject doesn't change. Lens doesn't change. Perspective doesn't change. DOF doesn't change. What changes is the AOV, the amount of the projected image that the film captures.

You can see the same thing in-person. Cut a picture from a magazine. Draw a 9x6cm rectangle in it. Inside that, draw a 60x45mm rectangle. Inside that, draw a 36x24mm rectangle. Inside that, draw a 24x18mm rectangle. Picture doesn't change. Perspective doesn't change. DOF doesn't change. What changes is the AOV, the amount of the printed image in the rectangles.

That is exactly what happens when FF and APS-C sensors of the same density see a projected image -- the smaller sensor chops-off the image edges. As-is, most FF sensors are NOT of the same density -- they're lower density. Cut in half an image from an 18mpx FF sensor and the resolution is much lower than an image from a 15mpx APS-C camera. A 30mpx FF cam would be needed to match the resolution of my K20D.

You really do need to gain some education and experience. You're making a fool of yourself.

[JohnBee]

...I've attached some examples. But I think people who remember the old days of 35mm film, will definitely recognize "the look". I know I can very easily recognize it.

I've taken the liberty of summarizing my take on the potential of reproducing these on APS-C:


Potential 35 or 40/1.4


No problem


No problem


Potential 35/1.8 or better


Any 50/1.7 or better

Aside from that, I think much of the characteristics of "the look" as you call it is attributed to the film characteristics. Which has as much to do with grain quality than the sensor. And we can see this when comparing output between both mediums(FF film and digital). And so I think it's important to set a precedence between those two characteristics from the start.

Having said that, there is some very good film emulation software out there now that I think would make most film enthusiasts look twice before calling it. And so I'm not sure how substantial this becomes when all is said and done. Might be interesting to look into though.

[TaoMaas]

You obviously don't get it...

Sorry, but YOU'RE the one who doesn't get it. Yes, there are differences between FF and APS-C...just as there are differences between FF and medium format...or medium format and large format. There's nothing "golden" about the FF format. It's just a particular look.

[jsherman999]

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)

[vonBaloney]

Having said that, there is some very good film emulation software out there now that I think would make most film enthusiasts look twice before calling it. And so I'm not sure how substantial this becomes when all is said and done. Might be interesting to look into though.

When preparing photos to be sold (as prints), we *always* add grain, even if it seems almost imperceptible it always seems to help. It does make them look more "photographic" somehow. What is nice about fake digital grain is that you can adjust the size of the "granules" for the size of the print you are making.

[JohnBee]

When preparing photos to be sold (as prints), we *always* add grain, even if it seems almost imperceptible it always seems to help. It does make them look more "photographic" somehow. What is nice about fake digital grain is that you can adjust the size of the "granules" for the size of the print you are making.

Too true!
I've really grown to love Alien Skin Exposure myself. Even though I'm a Niksoft Silver Effects user. I always find myself coming back to AS Exposure for the UI simplicity and very good handling on image grain: