Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-22-2012, 10:23 PM   #31
Pentaxian
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
To replace even the lenses I have now with modern lenses of equivalent quality and speed (plus the few additional A primes I plan to get) would cost so many thousands I don't even want to think about it. Its cheaper for me to buy a FF camera to go with them.

I actually use my K1000 SE more than my K20D lately because the list of shots that I needed a wider angle for be it tightly packed city buildings, interiors or landscapes had reached into the double digits. (managed to get the focusing screen up to par on the K20D with a katzeye at least or id bitch about that too)
I'm too spoiled by a camera designed to be bottom of the barrel cheap over 30 years ago to use my K20D, or even a K5 full time, that's just sad.

To debate with anyone who has just bought into photography and has all DA lenses with a K5 we may as well be speaking ancient Hebrew and are just wasting our time.

04-22-2012, 10:34 PM - 1 Like   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 124
QuoteOriginally posted by liukaitc Quote
I understand all the reason.
but personally I think aps-c is fine for majority of us.
I bet if a person take a picture by using k-5, people would not know if it is from full-frame or aps-c camera.
Whilst this can be true....


QuoteOriginally posted by liukaitc Quote
In my opinion, full frame camera is more like a pursue than necessity. If you have money, then go for it. If not, you are still fine with aps-c.
You forget how little 'necessity' actually comes into it, necessity is irrelevant. For 99% of users who aren't pro, and the absolute majority on these forums who are enthusiasts pursuing this as a hobby, then those little advantages and differences add up. IF FF is what someone needs to be happy with their photography and the style they like, then that's what they need.
04-22-2012, 11:10 PM - 1 Like   #33
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
It's not about shallow DOF so much as getting the DOF you want at more civilized apertures. An 31mm F1.8 lens on APS-C cannot compete with an 50mm F2 lens on FF. I know most (if not all) lenses are certainly sharper when stopped down a little so a cheaper longer lens on FF that might cost as little as $400 that can out-perform a $1500 lens on APS-C is welcome. I paid 1500 for my 31LTD in Australia from a dealer and that was discounted by $200.

An example:
31mm @ F/1.8 on APS-C @ 1 meter DOF = 75.89mm
50mm @ F/3.2 on FF @ 1 meter DOF = 76.91

From that set of numbers it becomes obvious that the 31mm is at it's limits whereas there's still plenty of flexibility left in the '50 on FF.
04-23-2012, 01:02 AM   #34
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
It's not about shallow DOF so much as getting the DOF you want at more civilized apertures. An 31mm F1.8 lens on APS-C cannot compete with an 50mm F2 lens on FF. I know most (if not all) lenses are certainly sharper when stopped down a little so a cheaper longer lens on FF that might cost as little as $400 that can out-perform a $1500 lens on APS-C is welcome...

An example:
31mm @ F/1.8 on APS-C @ 1 meter DOF = 75.89mm
50mm @ F/3.2 on FF @ 1 meter DOF = 76.91
+1 for a point I haven't seen before. If that 50 is an SMC f/1.7 then it's just as sharp as (or sharper than) the 31/1.8 and just as fast, with notably thinner DOF. To match FF 50/1.7 on APS-C would take a 35/1.1, and good luck.

EDIT: I should have added: And yes, for the same DOF, the FF 50 needs only a much slower aperture and will be notably sharper, rendering detail much better. For the same DOF, the fastest APS 35 is at the edge of acceptability, whilst a fast FF 50 is stopped-down to near its sweet spot. So, a cheaper FF lens for better results, or an equal FF lens for MUCH better results -- THAT is the point here.


Last edited by RioRico; 04-23-2012 at 06:10 AM.
04-23-2012, 01:31 AM   #35
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
+1 for a point I haven't seen before. If that 50 is an SMC f/1.7 then it's just as sharp as (or sharper than) the 31/1.8 and just as fast, with notably thinner DOF. To match FF 50/1.7 on APS-C would take a 35/1.1, and good luck.
I just sold an A-50 F1.7 for $85 and I wish I hadn't. I do have a couple of other 50's though so I can live with the loss for awhile.. lol
04-23-2012, 01:50 AM   #36
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
+1 for a point I haven't seen before. If that 50 is an SMC f/1.7 then it's just as sharp as (or sharper than) the 31/1.8 and just as fast, with notably thinner DOF. To match FF 50/1.7 on APS-C would take a 35/1.1, and good luck.
Of course the wider you go on FF the wider (and faster) you need to go on APS-C to try and match it. It is already impossible trying to locate a 30mm F/1.1 lens for APS-C to match an 'ordinary' 50 F/1.7 on FF so just imagine how hard it gets when you need a 20mm F/0.92 lens for APS-C to match the output of a 30mm F/1.4 on FF. It's not so bad of course on the telephoto end and it may even be an advantage for APS-C at those focal lengths, mainly because you get a 1.5x tele by default at a cheaper price.

Last edited by bossa; 04-23-2012 at 06:14 AM.
04-23-2012, 06:08 AM   #37
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Of course the wider you go on FF the wider (and faster) you need to go on APS-C to try and match it. It is already impossible trying to locate a 30mm F/1.1 lens for APS-C to match an 'ordinary' 50 F/1.7 on FF so just imagine how hard it gets when you need you need a 20mm F/0.92 lens for APS-C to match the output of a 30mm F/1.4 on FF. It's not so bad of course on the telephoto end and it may even be an advantage for APS-C at those focal lengths, mainly because you get a 1.5x tele by default at a cheaper price.
Yes, any lens on FF will have a wider AOV, so my Zenitar 16/2.8 and Tokina 21/3.8 and Vivitar 19-35 will be WIDE. And APS doesn't really give a tele advantage, it just crops automatically. But the point is that even a cheap, non-exceptional lens on FF will exceed the ability of the best lens on APS. I added this to my post:

QuoteQuote:
And yes, for the same DOF, the FF 50 needs only a much slower aperture and will be notably sharper, rendering detail much better. For the same DOF, the fastest APS 35 is at the edge of acceptability, whilst a fast FF 50 is stopped-down to near its sweet spot. So, a cheaper FF lens for better results, or an equal FF lens for MUCH better results -- THAT is the point here.
04-23-2012, 06:12 AM   #38
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Yes, any lens on FF will have a wider AOV, so my Zenitar 16/2.8 and Tokina 21/3.8 and Vivitar 19-35 will be WIDE. And APS doesn't really give a tele advantage, it just crops automatically. But the point is that even a cheap, non-exceptional lens on FF will exceed the ability of the best lens on APS. I added this to my post:
Yep I agree 200% with that. So the money you spend on the FF camera is saved on cheaper lenses.. potentially.

04-23-2012, 08:27 AM   #39
Pentaxian
liukaitc's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,005
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Yep I agree 200% with that. So the money you spend on the FF camera is saved on cheaper lenses.. potentially.
I think you are talking about those comsumer kind lens.
but most prosumer lens from FF are far expensive than aps-c lens.
I could get 16-50 and 50-135 for half the price of canon 24-70 and 70-200 (before pentax increase price)
I could get 17-70 for half the price of canon 24-105

Last edited by liukaitc; 04-23-2012 at 08:58 AM.
04-23-2012, 08:36 AM   #40
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by liukaitc Quote
you are talking about those comsumer kind lens.
but most prosumer lens from FF are far expensive than aps-c lens.
I could get 16-50 and 50-135 for half the price of canon 24-70 and 70-200 (before pentax increase price)
I could get 17-70 for half the price of canon 24-105
You mean prosumer lenses like my A 50/1.2 and k 28/2? Or do you mean like my Tamron 180/2.5 SP? Although I guess you could mean prosumer like my FA 50/1.4, FA 77/1.8 LTD, D FA 100 WR or F 28/2.8. I guess it could also include a bunch of junk like the stuff Adam has stashed in a vault.

:sarcasm:
04-23-2012, 09:13 AM   #41
Pentaxian
unixrevolution's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waldorf, MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,846
Or the relentlessly amateur and pedestrian FA* 85mm f/1.4, FA* 24mm F/2, and FA* 600mm f/4.

Honestly, I don't get the big deal about full frame. The only reason it ever mattered to me was so I wouldn't have to do lens juggling when building a kit to go shoot a digital and my LX on the same day.

I mean, hell. A Pentax 645D has a gargantuan sensor compared to a Digital FF SLR. But the FFs have the speed for sports and action, and the 645 pretty much doesn't. It's a landscape and studio camera, not a sports camera. Never mind the fact that it's actually only a little more expensive than a Canon EOS 1D X, and not really any bigger.

Depth of Field control is what a lot of people cite, and I have to wonder. I have medium and large format film cameras for DoF controls and image quality, but I guess I shoot fairly static things and don't have deadlines for having my film processed, scanned and edited. I also understand that in the pro world, you need to have new gear with a warranty and support or you're up the creek in most cases.

Still, I am suprised that the people who bellyache the most about DoF control, and aren't strictly professionals, don't jump into a used Mamiya 645AFD or an early AF Hasselblad with a 120 film back. Or, for that matter, go 6x9 with a Mamiya Universal or Fuji GSW690, or even a Mamiya 7.

After all, Full Frame is just adorably small.
04-23-2012, 10:09 AM   #42
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Some of these arguments, in the Format Wars, have been chewed-over for decades and more. Super-LF toggers with massive view cams sneered at everyone. Toggers with LF press cams sneered at toy formats. MF toggers sneered at miniature-format (135/FF) shooters, who sneered at half-frame shooters, who sneered at 110 shooters. And now we have half-frame-size APS-C, and 110-size m4/3, and 16mm or 8mm cine-size 'compacts' and P&S's, etc.

Each has strengths and weaknesses. Each can do stuff that others can't. Bigger means more control and detail; smaller means more flexibility and spontaneity. Much IQ difference can only be spotted with neurotically close inspection of large displays. As I've mentioned, the mark of a great photo isn't necessarily in its pristine IQ, but with how BADLY it can be displayed and still convey emotional impact. Any photo is only as good as the memory it leaves.

ObTopic: Why FF? Because it's there. Because it has advantages in sharpness and DOF control and wide AOV and resolution (maybe) and bright viewfinder images and more cropping leeway. Why not FF? Because it's big and heavy and expensive and optically demanding and probably a couple other good reasons. Lenses with weak edges on FF are sweet on APS-C. Long teles must be LONG. More computing power and storage are required. Et focking cetera.

If you want ultimate detail, use a view.cam or a hugely expensive DMF system. If you want agile portability, use an m4/3 or Q or a good P&S. Different tools for different tasks. Expect neither DMF nor FF nor APS-C nor m4/3 nor Q to do everything. Just get out there and shoot.
04-23-2012, 11:14 AM   #43
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,145
Original Poster
So far it looks like FF would not really be of any use to someone like me because I don't do studio stuff. I do take pictures of people at anime cons for personal enjoyment, but my big thing I LOVE to do is hiking and taking pictures. I do some wide angle stuff, and some stuff where my 300 mm zoom just about doesn't cut it. Unless it's flowers or somethign DOF really doesn't mean much to me. In fact most of my stuff yesterday was at ISO 80-320, and f/5.6-8.0 while running around with a sweet girl (and freezing since ti was in the mid 50s) along the northern 70 miles or so of the Natchez Trace Parkway in Tennessee, so other than a few shots I wanted as much of the picture as possible to be crisp and sharp. Also on the zoom thing, in some cases 300 mm wasn't enough for me. I need a Bigma...

Those were the reasons I had to ask, why full frame? For me the Kx did most of what I wanted, and the K5 does everything I want, so I wanted to know if I am missing anything. For me it looks like I am not missing much, and what I am missing I can get better glass to make up for it. I guess if I were doing studio stuff, or wedding stuff where I really wanted to isolate the subject it would be a different story based on all of the replies, but I guess different needs require different equipment. That's what I thought coming into this, and it's pretty much been confirmed.

Ohh, speaking of professionals doing a photoshoot with Canon. Yesterday I ran into some panicking due to rain. We talked for a few, with them wondering why I did not seem to care about my camera getting a little damp. I told them all about the K5, specwise, and then told them abotu the weather sealing. I think I saw one of the group almost cry.
04-23-2012, 11:32 AM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
So far it looks like FF would not really be of any use to someone like me because I don't do studio stuff. I do take pictures of people at anime cons for personal enjoyment, but my big thing I LOVE to do is hiking and taking pictures. I do some wide angle stuff, and some stuff where my 300 mm zoom just about doesn't cut it. Unless it's flowers or somethign DOF really doesn't mean much to me. In fact most of my stuff yesterday was at ISO 80-320, and f/5.6-8.0 while running around with a sweet girl (and freezing since ti was in the mid 50s) along the northern 70 miles or so of the Natchez Trace Parkway in Tennessee, so other than a few shots I wanted as much of the picture as possible to be crisp and sharp. Also on the zoom thing, in some cases 300 mm wasn't enough for me. I need a Bigma...

Those were the reasons I had to ask, why full frame? For me the Kx did most of what I wanted, and the K5 does everything I want, so I wanted to know if I am missing anything. For me it looks like I am not missing much, and what I am missing I can get better glass to make up for it. I guess if I were doing studio stuff, or wedding stuff where I really wanted to isolate the subject it would be a different story based on all of the replies, but I guess different needs require different equipment. That's what I thought coming into this, and it's pretty much been confirmed.

Ohh, speaking of professionals doing a photoshoot with Canon. Yesterday I ran into some panicking due to rain. We talked for a few, with them wondering why I did not seem to care about my camera getting a little damp. I told them all about the K5, specwise, and then told them abotu the weather sealing. I think I saw one of the group almost cry.
Yep good glass is a better investment than FF, but once you have good Glass (particularly if it is FF Good Glass) then a Ff is the next logical bout of GAS
04-23-2012, 12:14 PM   #45
Pentaxian
unixrevolution's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waldorf, MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,846
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Some of these arguments, in the Format Wars, have been chewed-over for decades and more. Super-LF toggers with massive view cams sneered at everyone. Toggers with LF press cams sneered at toy formats. MF toggers sneered at miniature-format (135/FF) shooters, who sneered at half-frame shooters, who sneered at 110 shooters. And now we have half-frame-size APS-C, and 110-size m4/3, and 16mm or 8mm cine-size 'compacts' and P&S's, etc.

Each has strengths and weaknesses. Each can do stuff that others can't. Bigger means more control and detail; smaller means more flexibility and spontaneity. Much IQ difference can only be spotted with neurotically close inspection of large displays. As I've mentioned, the mark of a great photo isn't necessarily in its pristine IQ, but with how BADLY it can be displayed and still convey emotional impact. Any photo is only as good as the memory it leaves.

ObTopic: Why FF? Because it's there. Because it has advantages in sharpness and DOF control and wide AOV and resolution (maybe) and bright viewfinder images and more cropping leeway. Why not FF? Because it's big and heavy and expensive and optically demanding and probably a couple other good reasons. Lenses with weak edges on FF are sweet on APS-C. Long teles must be LONG. More computing power and storage are required. Et focking cetera.

If you want ultimate detail, use a view.cam or a hugely expensive DMF system. If you want agile portability, use an m4/3 or Q or a good P&S. Different tools for different tasks. Expect neither DMF nor FF nor APS-C nor m4/3 nor Q to do everything. Just get out there and shoot.
Absolutely right. If I was going out to shoot concerts tonight, I'd probably snub the FF camera in favor of a smaller camera like a 4/3 DSLR, M4/3 mirrorless, or even a Q, so I could use ultra-fast glass and still have a deep enough field to get the whole stage in focus. I don't use a 4x5 for sports, I don't use a 645 for concerts, and I don't use a pocket point and shoot for portraiture (unless it's all I have on me.)
Reply

Bookmarks
  • 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!
camera, dslr, frame, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K5 vs Full Frame KALAIS Pentax K-5 21 09-24-2011 11:25 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, 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?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top