Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-23-2012, 03:46 PM   #61
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
FF has no tele disadvantage. The tele "reach" is defined by pixel-pitch (the higher, the better), not by sensor size.
Huhhh?? With that weird logic there would be no tele advantage for 35mm vs the 6X7 format...
The "tele advantage" is defined by the format....but formats give different results...no point in "equalizing" them...


Last edited by Pål Jensen; 04-23-2012 at 04:16 PM.
04-23-2012, 03:56 PM   #62
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by liukaitc Quote
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
I was only giving one example.
04-23-2012, 04:05 PM   #63
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
FF glass is only bigger (and potentially more expensive) when it is faster. FF glass that is equivalent to APS-C glass (i.e., 70-200/4 on FF vs 50-135/2.8 on APS-C) is not bigger and typically cheaper.

This is based on the irrelevant for photography "equivalency" myth.

These lenses are not equivalent for the following reasons.

1) Different formats give different DOF at the same magnification, focus distance and numerical aperture. Trying to equalize this is meaningless as you need to take it into consideration in real life photography.
2) The lenses in question have the same minimum aperture giving different DOF on different formats - hence not equal. That is if you buy the argement that they are equivalent in the first place which they aren't.
3) they give different exposure at the same DOF (see point 1) - hence not equal in real photography where such things matters. Eg. shooting wide open in order to stop motion you ned the same max aperture (but 1.5X focal lenght for FF to get the same magnification) to get the same exposure. The differences is what is inherited in the formats which you can't equalize you away from without making the formats equal where the exercise becomes pointless. .
4) They let in different amount of light into the finder (wide open metering) hence the fastest will help in focusing and composing under difficult conditions - hence not equal.
5) "Equal" lense after the Equivalency" formula would typically make different magnification when close focusing - hence not equal in real life photography. An illustrative example is macro lenses FF that goes to 1:1 will give different results dependent on the format; 50% larger than 1:1 on APS even if the aperture and focal lenght are "equalized" to match a longer macro lens.

It is obviously the case that larger format needs larger lenses. If this was not the truth then the lenses for the Pentax Q would have been the same size as the lenses for the Pentax 6X7. This happens in a linear manner depending on format size.

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 04-23-2012 at 04:15 PM.
04-23-2012, 04:09 PM - 1 Like   #64
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
The "tele advantage" is defined by the format....
No, it isn't.

Just crop the larger format to the size of the smaller format. You have now achieved the same "reach" (magnification).

As long as you have the same resolution / mm available in both formats (translates to higher resolution / picture-height for the larger format), you have not lost anything by cropping.

That's what makes 36MP cameras like the D800 attractive. If you crop to APS-C size, you still have a 16MP image, i.e., no loss compared to the K-5.

04-23-2012, 04:09 PM   #65
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Todd Adamson Quote
This is the only reason that really resonates with me. I have a D3 now, and though the K-5 is significantly better with dynamic range and rescuing shadow detail. It's also better noise-wise.
K-5 is better than D3 regarding DR, but not noise...

QuoteQuote:
But if I have the D3 handy, with the lens I want, in reasonable light, I'll always choose it before the K-5 due to general "IQ" considerations. When I'm shooting at ISO1600 and below, and have control of the scene's dynamic range, the D3 delivers better files, which hold up better to my own processing and my lab's RIP software for large prints.

DOF and speed are not concerns for me. I'm very happy with the "slow" FA Limiteds, and I can make the DOF I want by controlling the focal length and subject to camera distance without violating any of my own perspective sensibilities. I can always get the shallow DOF I need with my K-5.

It's Image Quality. The K-5 has incredible IQ, but a FF version, provided they don't go nutty and pack in 36 MP of photosites, will always be better.
If they do go nutty and pack in 36MP, it will be even better! (if it has the QE of the D800's sensor, or shares the same sensor.) 36MP can be overkill, but it won't result in worse IQ.
04-23-2012, 04:12 PM   #66
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
FF has no tele disadvantage. The tele "reach" is defined by pixel-pitch (the higher, the better), not by sensor size.
I know this and should have qualified my comment. Size still matters depending upon the degree of cropping and the output size/medium though.

Last edited by bossa; 04-23-2012 at 04:19 PM.
04-23-2012, 04:13 PM   #67
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
No, it isn't.

Just crop the larger format to the size of the smaller format. You have now achieved the same "reach" (magnification).

As long as you have the same resolution / mm available in both formats (translates to higher resolution / picture-height for the larger format), you have not lost anything by cropping.

That's what makes 36MP cameras like the D800 attractive. If you crop to APS-C size, you still have a 16MP image, i.e., no loss compared to the K-5.
But until the advent of the (relatively) affordable 36MP body, there was a size/cost "reach" advantage to aps-c when you considered the bodies and lenses available. It's correct that there is no technical 'reach' advantage to aps-c, but there was a practical, real-life advantage to it if you wanted to shoot telephoto. (at least there was, before the D800, not so much any more.)

Buying a 24MP D3X at $7500 and cropping it to aps-c put about 10MP in the frame, which was less than the K-5/D7000... Or you could buy a 1.5x longer lens for the D3X, but it would have been a lot larger and more expensive. Aps-c always won the practical argument there.

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-23-2012 at 04:20 PM.
04-23-2012, 04:14 PM   #68
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Because shooting those cameras is laborious, and more expensive the more you shoot. With FF DSLR, you gain a bit more DOF control (and all that other stuff) without sacrificing any of the convenience or quality of Digital. As Mike Johnson pointed out on T.O.P. the other day, advances in photography in the past century have been as much about convenience as they've been about image quality.

I just don't want to be chasing these guys around with an early AF Hasselblad with a 120 film back



Pray tell what 'lousy' 'prosumer' lens was that 1st shot taken with J?

04-23-2012, 04:15 PM   #69
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
This is based on the irrelevant for photography "equivalency" myth.
The idea of "equivalent images" is not a myth.

It allows you to translate one set of shooting parameters to another for another format so that the resulting images are exactly the same.

A format comparison only makes sense when you are talking about equivalent images. Otherwise you are comparing apples with oranges (as you do in your list). Equivalency considerations will show you that there can be images which cannot be created on the other format (due to lens availability and the smaller format is typically much more disadvantaged).

I recommend reading falconeye's article.
04-23-2012, 04:22 PM   #70
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
But until the advent of the (relatively) affordable 36MP body, there was a size/cost "reach" advantage to aps-c when you considered the bodies and lenses available.
True, but the link was only accidental as the true factor was/is pixel-pitch. It just so happened that APS-C sensors had higher pixel-pitch.

To claim (I know you didn't) that APS-C creates a reach advantage is just wrong.

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Aps-c always won the practical argument there.
No, just take my K100D. Any FF camera with more than 13.5MP has a tele reach advantage over this 6MP APS-C model.
04-23-2012, 04:27 PM   #71
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
But until the advent of the (relatively) affordable 36MP body, there was a size/cost "reach" advantage to aps-c when you considered the bodies and lenses available. It's correct that there is no technical 'reach' advantage to aps-c, but there was a practical, real-life advantage to it if you wanted to shot telephoto. (at least there was, before the D800, not so much any more.)

Buying a 24MP D3X at $7500 and cropping it to aps-c put about 10MP in the frame, which was less than the K-5/D7000... Or you could buy a 1.5x longer lens for the D3X, but it would have been a lot larger and more expensive. Aps-c always won the practical argument there.

.
This is ONLY because there's a default 1.5x magnification of the output to standard sizes. I know I don't deliberately set my 30" monitor screen res to 2500/1.5 screen res to compensate for this so the effect is a 'longer reach'. Not that all of us have the same 'standard' screen resolutions or anything.

An OT aside: I would love to know what the screen sizes an res's are for those who claim not to PP. At 2500 x 1600 my monitor is almost @ 50% so it is very hard NOT to PP.
04-23-2012, 04:28 PM   #72
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
True, but the link was only accidental as the true factor was/is pixel-pitch. It just so happened that APS-C sensors had higher pixel-pitch.

To claim (I know you didn't) that APS-C creates a reach advantage is just wrong.


No, just take my K100D. Any FF camera with more than 13.5MP has a tele reach advantage over this 6MP APS-C model.
Good point...
04-23-2012, 04:37 PM   #73
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
True, but the link was only accidental as the true factor was/is pixel-pitch. It just so happened that APS-C sensors had higher pixel-pitch.
I can't quite agree that it was 'accidental'... a FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as the K20D for example would probably have been extremely expensive in 2008. It was a cost and market decision, not an accident.

QuoteQuote:
No, just take my K100D. Any FF camera with more than 13.5MP has a tele reach advantage over this 6MP APS-C model.
But comparing contemporary bodies, like the K-5 vs. D3X, you see this practical advantage in spades.

When the 24MP aps-c DSLRs come out there will be another pixel-pitch advantage window for aps-c with regards to telephoto.

.
04-23-2012, 05:16 PM   #74
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kaunas
Posts: 1,452
QuoteOriginally posted by liukaitc Quote
I could get 16-50 and 50-135 for half the price of canon 24-70 and 70-200 (before pentax increase price)
I have no experience with Canon, however in Nikon's case 24-70mm on FF (D700) simply destroys K-5 + 16-50mm in image quality. I don't know wether it's the lens or the camera, or the combination of both, but K-5 with 16-50mm doesn't come even close to Nikon combo.

Also, you can't really say that 16-50mm f/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent of 24-70mm f/2.8 on FF. I love shallow DOF and for me 16-50mm f/2 would be equivalent.
16-50mm f/2.8 on APS-C gives approximately the same look as as 24-70mm f/4 on FF.
04-23-2012, 05:31 PM   #75
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Pray tell what 'lousy' 'prosumer' lens was that 1st shot taken with J?
First shot was $285 (used) 85 f/1.8D at f/2, second was $110 50 1.8D at f/2.

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-23-2012 at 09:20 PM.
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 06:20 AM. | 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