Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-08-2012, 01:17 AM   #46

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,843
There seems to be a lack of precision in the OP's terms. Talking about 'the FF look' is at best dreamy impressionism. No one will ever share the same concept of what it means.

The material below may be useful for the OP (I think) in order to articulate better what some of the technical aspects of 'the look' may include:

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography
Understanding Digital Camera Sensors
Understanding Camera Lenses

and generally:
Digital Photography Tutorials

And anyway, aside from 'the look', this whole gear discussion misses other valuable elements of desirable images, including stuff like 'the subject', 'the unique moment', etc. All of which may never be gear related.

01-08-2012, 01:44 AM - 1 Like   #47
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
...Another thread about people debating their personal tastes...
01-08-2012, 03:34 AM   #48
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
...Another thread about people debating their personal tastes...
Not only that, but the bizilionth one covering the exact same stale, worn out and beaten to death topic.

01-08-2012, 04:01 AM - 1 Like   #49
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
Well after reading all that, I might go bang my head against the wall for the next hour...:ugh:

01-08-2012, 06:02 AM   #50
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
Different formats do not imply different looks as long as the change in AOV (cropping reduces AOV) and sharpness/DOF (smaller formats need more enlargement to achieve the same output size) are compensated by using equivalent lenses and equivalent camera settings.

I recommend the "Eqiuvalence" essay by Joseph James for the theory.

In practice, some crop format lenses do not exist so some FF images cannot be reproduced on APS-C. The smaller format is also more demanding on lens sharpness and AF accuracy (because of the higher enlargement factor). On FF, one typically sees more lens vignetting. Various implementation details (e.g., micro lenses) may further contribute to a different FF look.

So in theory crop formats are not disadvantaged per se, but in practice some differences do exist. I agree that bigger formats have their appeal but it certainly is no B&W situation as in "cheap snapshot" vs "pleasing photograph".
01-08-2012, 06:45 AM   #51
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 1,736
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
...Another thread about people debating their personal tastes...
I agree with you 100%.
01-08-2012, 07:33 AM   #52
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 128
QuoteOriginally posted by mika. Quote
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.
My original analogies were correct. It seems that manufacturing is just one more thing you don't understand.

Since you seem to claim to understand cooking, here is one involving cooking:

It's like making a 20 gram chocolate bar, versus a 40 gram chocolate bar, with the exact same recipe. You use less of everything for the 20 gram version, and so it costs less. With silicon, APS-C sensors don't use a different process (recipe), they just use a smaller die (mould.) Using less material makes it cost less.

If you still think you're right, then please take some EE courses, so as to avoid embarrassing yourself further.
01-08-2012, 08:21 AM   #53
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,619
Comments and/or questions directed at mika will not get a response. He will no longer be participating in this particular thread so in fairness let's continue the conversation without addressing him specifically.

01-08-2012, 09:11 AM   #54
Veteran Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by mika. Quote
I don't buy that marketing propaganda. The cost to produce the bigger sensor should actually be lower than the cost to produce the smaller sensor. The smaller sensor has greater miniaturization than the larger sensor.
Are you serious?

Do you have a clue as to how sensors are made?

Just a couple of points that you would be well served to investigate before you make an even bigger fool of yourself:

Sensors are made on wafers of a fixed size/area. This means that you get many times more APS sensors out of a wafer than FF.

It is not a given that miniaturization is greater on the smaller sensor. In many cases it is very similar, and can be the same, but that is not important either way as no matter how much you shrink the features, the area of each sensor size is fixed. So, while you might have more pixel density, you still get EXACTLY as many sensors out of one wafer, which means you get no cost advantage.

Defects are a function of the wafer area, and the same exact yield of defects per area of wafer will result in far fewer FF sensors than APS.


NOTE: Sorry I missed the "Mika is gone from this thread" post before I posted.

Last edited by Ray Pulley; 01-08-2012 at 09:17 AM.
01-08-2012, 09:32 AM   #55
Senior Member
drugal's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Detroit suburbs
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 257
My personal take on this discussion mirrors what a lot of the other posters have been saying in this thread and the last one.

I see the FF vs APS-C thing as just a trade off. For me the trade off is generally cheaper/smaller bodies for APS-C vs generally cheaper/better lenses for FF for equivalent AOV/DOF. This is probably because I don't really shoot telephoto or macro (<- yet!) and keep thinking that the over 1 stop difference in DOF could be useful.

My understanding of FF was that it became (the most?) popular size in the film days because it was a good compromise between negative size and camera portability. It seems that APS-C may be good compromise in the digital era because you can still get reasonably small dof if that's what you need, but you get it in a reasonably small package with good image quality.

My DA 21/40 makes a pretty small package compared to say an FA 31/FA 50 in weight (~1/2 lb vs ~1 lb) and I assume size.
Looking at Nikon cameras, for example, the D7000 is 1.5 lb and the D700 is 2.2 lb. So for a ballpark figure I'd say a Pentax FF would be 1.5x the weight of a K-5.

I also agree with the other posters who have in essence said that aps-c/ff cameras are just tools, what really matters is what the person behind the viewfinder does with it. For now, I think the price/performance of my current APS-C setup is perfect for me, but it is fun to lust after a FF that I probably would never buy. After reading all of the posts in the two threads, I can totally see why FF would be a better choice for people in a different situation.
01-08-2012, 09:32 AM   #56
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by mika. Quote
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?
Just forget about the 1.5x decompression since that isn't true when it comes to the DOF because you're forgetting the COC (circle of confusion) which is smaller for APS-C.
Also like said you're using different focal lengths for different situations because the sensor is smaller so it's going nowhere this thread...
01-08-2012, 09:37 AM   #57
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 172
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
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?
I think he was saying that the parts of the image cropped out, would likely have elements of the scene that were at different distances from the lens. These would be more or less out of focus and blurred, and so would contribute to a more three-dimensional look. Without those parts of the scene, the range of distances included in the image is less, and that's part of what he means by "compressed".

If you counter that by using a wider angle, or backing off, then other factors kick in. The upshot is that FF gives a unique look.

If I've understood what he's saying correctly, then I think he's right up to the point where he seems to feel that the FF look is the only valid look in photography. That would be a personal value judgement.
01-08-2012, 10:58 AM   #58
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
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.

Good call, thanks for catching that.
01-08-2012, 04:29 PM   #59
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 183
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
This must be the weirdest thread that I have read in a long time. I am not really sure why mika is so upset about.
Half the thread is frustration about full frame cost. But it's covered better in this thread:
01-08-2012, 05:56 PM   #60
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
Finally, a Canadian who is more arrogant and obdurate than I am. I didn't think it possible.
I wonder how he'd react to P&PR.

  • 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!
aps-c, aps-c vs ff, camera, cameras, crop, dslr, examples, factor, ff, film, images, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How about APS-H ? Livanz Pentax DSLR Discussion 62 09-29-2014 12:54 AM
best 50mm for K-x aps-c boosted03gti Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 12-06-2010 10:54 PM
35mm / APS-C - sophotec Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 20 05-23-2010 01:07 PM
Rebuilding the 35 MM Format FA* line to the DA* APS-C Format Adrian Owerko Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 01-20-2010 11:04 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 AM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]