Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-22-2012, 10:19 PM   #91
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,334
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
The same reasoning could be applied directly to lenses. There really is no reason for any Zeiss lens to exist - diminishing returns have made these lenses that cost 2x, 3x or 4x as much as their less-aristocratic Pentax/Nikon/Canon cousins only about 10% better, optically. Yet people are willing to buy them to get that extra 10%... and because they perhaps just want them, because collecting them is part of the hobby they enjoy. (The same argument could even be applied directly to the Limiteds - or aps-c DSLRs vs m4/3. Is the K-5 really twice as good as a G3? Is the FA 43ltd really three times as good as the F 50 1.7?)
Well, yes, on a number of counts there, but if you take that logic to the extreme, there's no reason for any lens to exist when a well-machined pinhole will work for you. I don't think it's a question of "no" reason for more expensive but "better" lenses to exist (if only because reason is a human concept), it's a question of what you want from a device like a camera. Any machine can be made to perform better, but as you say, it's the law of Diminishing Returns that dictates orders of magnitude cost increase for marginal performance increase. I don't think we are at loggerheads with that, but the notion that value can be judged by simple measurement alone is where I think we differ.

A 10% performance improvement can mean the difference between missing by a small margin or winning by a large one in competition, so a simple cost/performance ratio isn't relevant when it comes to competitive sport or indeed to personal judgments on quality, such as the impact of a picture, and that is entirely subjective. This is not to say that a cheap camera or lens can't be made to produce good, acceptable or even amazing pictures, but for a given subject photographed under identical situations, the choice of lens can mean the difference between an everyday or memorable experience for the viewer . The problem is that predicting when that will be is an impossible task, so a photographer chooses his or her gear according to their budget and their taste, and takes the rest on trust.

06-23-2012, 06:08 AM - 1 Like   #92
Veteran Member
Crosshair's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 332
I don't need FF. Hell I even may not need a k-5 and all my lenses, but gear hunger led me here. I may as well have lived with my Nikon D80 and 18-70mm which I bought just over one year ago.

There are two perspectives to this FF thing;

First; you are an enthusiast, or an over-enthusiast, and you always intend to use what you think is best suited to your taste. So the yearn for higher luxury items.
Second; you are a hobbyist, you spend your money to practice your hobby and make the most of it. So you get a life.

It's a problem that we cannot think logically, that is, thinking based on what we actually need; we tend to think what we actually want, disregarding what we can make most out of. The FF camera won't turn a bad light into good. Maybe gives you a little extra headroom in it; but is it so critical for ya?

I intend to move to the second perspective, because sometimes I find myself examining pixel sharpness more than I enjoy the quality of the moment that I captured. I feel hollow doing this.

The DOF issue, yet true, is merely pointless; just because you want more bokeh does not justify the "need" for a FF camera. I think photography is not about bokeh, let alone using an FF for that. Bokeh is a concern for beginners or wannabe photographers IMHO.

And there is the mobility issue. I take my camera nearly everywhere with me, and it is not always possible to go light or comfortable with it in the bag (which it requires) or in the hand. I even sometimes consider to move to a NEX system with pancake things. For a man like me who lives with his gear, mobility is important, and even a smallish camera like the k-5 and with a pancake lens on it can disturb me sometimes. My point here is any Canon or Nikon FF camera is very big. And without any lens attached. This whole mobility issue may not be a problem for everyone, I see that, but even I like the D700 so much I just cannot live with a D700 + 24-70 (even a small 35mm f2 D) pressing down my backpack.

As to the wide issue, I agree with the dude, what do you call a 10-20 mm?

I have enlarged the VF on my k-5 with a small tool which gets in the viewfinder slot of the k-5, instead of the original one, and magnifies the viewfinder about 1.5x. Now I have the FF viewfinder.

I can only see why older men want 35mm sensor; they are coming from 35mm film years. Lenses turning back to original wide FOV. Even that can be overcome.

About cheap lenses performing better on FF; now come on. If Pentax releases an FF, no one will use a $15 50mm f/2 lens on it. People will race to buy super quality FF lenses to put on their FF Pentax. So your argument is invalid. And also if you want FF for more quality, you will attach a more quality lens on it. So your argument is double invalid. Do canonians use crappy m42 50mm's on their 5D Mklls? Or even Canon 50mm 1.8? No, not much of them; as far as I know they use Carl Zeiss and equivalent.

So forgive me for the slightly attacking tone, but I cannot stop but criticize any consumption frenzy, which I am the victim of.
06-23-2012, 07:39 AM   #93
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
Well, yes, on a number of counts there, but if you take that logic to the extreme, there's no reason for any lens to exist when a well-machined pinhole will work for you. I don't think it's a question of "no" reason for more expensive but "better" lenses to exist (if only because reason is a human concept), it's a question of what you want from a device like a camera. Any machine can be made to perform better, but as you say, it's the law of Diminishing Returns that dictates orders of magnitude cost increase for marginal performance increase. I don't think we are at loggerheads with that, but the notion that value can be judged by simple measurement alone is where I think we differ.

A 10% performance improvement can mean the difference between missing by a small margin or winning by a large one in competition, so a simple cost/performance ratio isn't relevant when it comes to competitive sport or indeed to personal judgments on quality, such as the impact of a picture, and that is entirely subjective. This is not to say that a cheap camera or lens can't be made to produce good, acceptable or even amazing pictures, but for a given subject photographed under identical situations, the choice of lens can mean the difference between an everyday or memorable experience for the viewer . The problem is that predicting when that will be is an impossible task, so a photographer chooses his or her gear according to their budget and their taste, and takes the rest on trust.
I wasn't making the case that the 10% doesn't matter, I was making the case that if you apply it to camera bodies (which anti-FF folks do,) then you could apply it to lenses as well (which anti-FF folk usually don't do, especially when talking about the Limiteds.)

In other words, they are willing to recognize diminishing returns in a body they don't want, but not recognize equal or greater rate of diminishing returns in a lens they do want.

(And it's been my experience that diminishing returns actually hit lenses harder, in most cases. I think a FF K-3 is going to be more than 10% better than the K-5 overall, but the $1100 Zeiss $35 f/2 is not more than 10% better optically than say the $500 DA 35 f/2.8 limited, yet it costs 2x as much.)
06-23-2012, 08:22 AM - 1 Like   #94
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Crosshair Quote
I don't need FF.
As I always say, it's only about need if you use photography to put food on the table. And that applies to DSLR purchases in general - if you dont shoot for a living, do you really need a DSLR in the first place? Not fair to say your aps-c want is legit, but someone elses's FF want is not!

QuoteQuote:
... The FF camera won't turn a bad light into good. Maybe gives you a little extra headroom in it; but is it so critical for ya?
Oh, yes.


QuoteQuote:

The DOF issue, yet true, is merely pointless; just because you want more bokeh does not justify the "need" for a FF camera.
No, but then it also would not justify the 'need' for DSLR in the first place. It's about want.

QuoteQuote:
I think photography is not about bokeh, let alone using an FF for that. Bokeh is a concern for beginners or wannabe photographers IMHO.
Well, I enjoy using both bokeh and subject isolation, which are two different things and uses for high-aperture (you only mention bokeh.) I don't use it exclusively, maybe 40-50% of the time when shooting. And while aps-c gives me enough subject isolation 80% of the time.... I still pine for that 'FF look' at my typical shooting distances and FOVs. I don't think that makes me a 'wannabe photographer', but you're entitled to your opinion.

QuoteQuote:
And there is the mobility issue.
Which, IMO, is the biggest argument for aps-c DSLR. Too bad it's also an even bigger argument for aps-c MILC, because that puts a squeeze on aps-c DSLR, and then maybe K-mount if there is no FF Pentax body.


QuoteQuote:
I can only see why older men want 35mm sensor; they are coming from 35mm film years. Lenses turning back to original wide FOV. Even that can be overcome.
I never shot film, I started with the K100DS. Lotsa FF shooters like me.

QuoteQuote:
About cheap lenses performing better on FF; now come on. If Pentax releases an FF, no one will use a $15 50mm f/2 lens on it.
Depends completely on the lens. I would probably shoot my $200 FA 50 1.7 on it constantly. Right now I shoot my $109 50 f/1.8G on my D800 probably more than any other lens, with truly great results.


QuoteQuote:
And also if you want FF for more quality, you will attach a more quality lens on it. So your argument is double invalid. Do canonians use crappy m42 50mm's on their 5D Mklls?
Yes, all the time! I think the buyers of m42 lenses on Ebay are probably 30% Canon shooters. (plus, only the minority of m42 50mm's are "crappy". The Takumar 50's are sublime, beautiful in their rendering.)

QuoteQuote:
Or even Canon 50mm 1.8? No, not much of them; as far as I know they use Carl Zeiss and equivalent.
You would be very surprised. When I was seriously considering a D700 in late 2009, what pushed me over the edge was an encounter with a PJ standing in National Camera Exchange holding a D700 - he told me the lens he used the most was his 50 f/1.8.

QuoteQuote:
So forgive me for the slightly attacking tone, but I cannot stop but criticize any consumption frenzy, which I am the victim of.
You wouldn't be a DSLR shooter in the first place if you have not been bitten by the bug. Give it time. It will either work it's way out of your bloodstream.... or work it's way further in.


Last edited by jsherman999; 06-23-2012 at 08:27 AM.
06-23-2012, 11:34 AM   #95
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by Crosshair Quote
If Pentax releases an FF, no one will use a $15 50mm f/2 lens on it. People will race to buy super quality FF lenses to put on their FF Pentax. So your argument is invalid. And also if you want FF for more quality, you will attach a more quality lens on it. So your argument is double invalid.
I think you're seriously overlooking the fact that there are other existing Pentax (and other K-mount) FF lenses that are both cheap (relatively) and of very good optical (and build) quality.

QuoteOriginally posted by Crosshair Quote
It's a problem that we cannot think logically, that is, thinking based on what we actually need; we tend to think what we actually want, disregarding what we can make most out of. The FF camera won't turn a bad light into good.
Light certainly has nothing to do with the FF advantage. Headroom is one thing, a good viewfinder is another, but the added DoF control with the same lenses - priceless.
06-25-2012, 09:13 AM   #96
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,054
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Headroom is one thing, a good viewfinder is another, but the added DoF control with the same lenses - priceless.
So Ash, are you a beginner or just a wannabe photographer?

The DOF control thing is funny though. I suppose if DOF isn't important to your style of photography, it would be easy to dismiss people who are obsessed with 'less DOF' as not having their priorities straight or falling for the latest fad. To me, it's just a style thing - people have different photographic styles. You can't denigrate them because they happen to like images with a sense of depth and beautiful bokeh, from time to time, and achieved without the need to invest in crazily expensive ultra-fast glass, used at sub-optimal wide apertures (and on a system which magnifies lens defects to boot).

Last edited by ihasa; 06-25-2012 at 09:18 AM.
06-25-2012, 09:28 AM   #97
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,419
Original Poster
I am going to jump back into this topic, and I am going to ask for someoen to explain it in really simple terms that even a beginner can understand. What can a FF do for my pictures that ASP-C can not. What percentage better can my pictures be with FF over what they are with my K5, using a comparison of say, a 24mp sensor. I can see where people are saying DOF, lenses, etc, but what does it boil down to in real world terms, as in could I expect 10% better, 25% better, 50% better pictures? Pictures that are more sharp? What it boils down to is that I want details and sharpness. How much more can I get from a FF, and I am using the 24mp sensor example that I've seen tossed around in threads, than I can get with my K5?
06-25-2012, 09:54 AM   #98
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
I am going to jump back into this topic, and I am going to ask for someoen to explain it in really simple terms that even a beginner can understand. What can a FF do for my pictures that ASP-C can not. What percentage better can my pictures be with FF over what they are with my K5, using a comparison of say, a 24mp sensor. I can see where people are saying DOF, lenses, etc, but what does it boil down to in real world terms, as in could I expect 10% better, 25% better, 50% better pictures? Pictures that are more sharp? What it boils down to is that I want details and sharpness. How much more can I get from a FF, and I am using the 24mp sensor example that I've seen tossed around in threads, than I can get with my K5?
Thing is there is no firm percentage. Reality is it is the photographer that makes the picture, not the camera. Certainly it cannot be broken down to percentages. Sharpness will improve, but that is partially dependent on the lens you use as well, and technique. It will be tough to excee a K5 with say a sharp lens like the DA70 with a 24MP FF. since the sensor isn't actually tested and out though it is difficult to say what benefits it will have. I would expect better DR site the photosites are a little larger (provided he rest of the sensor tech is on par with the K5 sensor) likely better colour depth as well. Iso I would guess a stop better with the same noise level.
DOF is somewhat easier to explain. If you are shooting a 55 1.4 on the APSC and move to a 77 1.8 on the FF, they will be close to the same DOF. Rendering is of course different between the 2 lenses, but in this case wide open DOF is about the same. Where the real difference comes in is shooting stopped down a bit. If you shoot both stopped down to say F4 or 5.6 to get sharper results (moving more into the lenses performance territory) the FF will have less in focus enabling better subject isolation.
If you are using your pictures primarily for smaller prints (ie 8x10) and web display or display on an HDTV reality is you will not benefit as much as the person making larger fine art prints will. at web levels there is little to gain in sharpness.
The K5 really is a stellar performer. and I imagine in some areas many will find a 24 mp apsc has an edge over the same MP in ff (guys that need the reach the crop sensor provides for instance)
For wide angle shooters there is the benefit of smaller faster wide angles potentially. Wides are easier to build for FF (look at the new G series nikons for instance in F1.8 models)
If you don't find yourself hitting a print wall with the K5, and never need even thinner DOF, If DR and iso performance of the K5 meets/Exceeds your needs, and you shoot tele more than wide UWA then in fact FF will have little benefit for you and may even be a detriment.

For many people it would just be the ability to shoot an older lens with the FOV it was designed for (The FA31 for example despite being a fantastic lens on apsc, would really shine on FF. the FA43 which I find less than inspiring on APSC would become an almost perfect walk around for me)

so the short answer Scotty is really you can't define this in percentages. If you have never shot on film IT's hard to convey. I'm not sure what lenses you own with your K5, but an inexpensive way o get a feel for what the results would be would be to grab an inexpensive (like the MZ7) film body and shoot a few rolls of film using the lenses you have that are Full frame. Shoot some of the same scenes on digital at the same time. The film bodies if they are in good shape should be easy to move on if you don't get hooked on them, for pretty much what you paid for them (or more if you bid smart on ebay) If you shoot with older MF lenses a lot already then grab a camera like the MX for the experiment. the excellent OVF on the MX alone will sell many on the advantage of FF

06-26-2012, 04:34 AM   #99
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
I am going to jump back into this topic, and I am going to ask for someoen to explain it in really simple terms that even a beginner can understand. What can a FF do for my pictures that ASP-C can not. What percentage better can my pictures be with FF over what they are with my K5, using a comparison of say, a 24mp sensor. I can see where people are saying DOF, lenses, etc, but what does it boil down to in real world terms, as in could I expect 10% better, 25% better, 50% better pictures? Pictures that are more sharp? What it boils down to is that I want details and sharpness. How much more can I get from a FF, and I am using the 24mp sensor example that I've seen tossed around in threads, than I can get with my K5?
The difference between a K-5 and an FF camera is hardly visible in a large print. You get a small image quality advantage (much more so with a 35mp FF that actually makes sense) and a larger optical viewfinder.
However, you need 50% longer lenses to give the same angle of view with FF. You get one stop shorter shutterspeed with APS for the same DOF compared to FF. If your FF camera do not have built in stabilization you'll get up to 5 stop advantage with APS over FF in hand-holdability - truly a lot! With APS you get closer focusing distances for the same angle of view. Meaning you can get closer to your subject and can enjoy the one stop better DOF with APS for making these far-near photographs. You also get 50% larger 1:1 images in macro than FF.
You can expect to get better images with APS due to its possibilities and versatility.
APS is the sweet spot format wise for DSLR's. Bigger formats give better image quality (though you need more than 24mp in order for it to make significant differences) and bigger and brighter viewfinder but at a cost....
06-29-2012, 01:18 AM   #100
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
The difference between a K-5 and an FF camera is hardly visible in a large print. You get a small image quality advantage (much more so with a 35mp FF that actually makes sense) and a larger optical viewfinder.
However, you need 50% longer lenses to give the same angle of view with FF. You get one stop shorter shutterspeed with APS for the same DOF compared to FF. If your FF camera do not have built in stabilization you'll get up to 5 stop advantage with APS over FF in hand-holdability - truly a lot! With APS you get closer focusing distances for the same angle of view. Meaning you can get closer to your subject and can enjoy the one stop better DOF with APS for making these far-near photographs. You also get 50% larger 1:1 images in macro than FF.
You can expect to get better images with APS due to its possibilities and versatility.
APS is the sweet spot format wise for DSLR's. Bigger formats give better image quality (though you need more than 24mp in order for it to make significant differences) and bigger and brighter viewfinder but at a cost....
Almost every point in this post is wrong, or at least info-starved enough to be misleading.

.
06-29-2012, 02:49 AM   #101
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Crosshair Quote
It's a problem that we cannot think logically, that is, thinking based on what we actually need; we tend to think what we actually want, disregarding what we can make most out of.
So, we want FF. I still don't see anything bad with that. If we are only allowed to go by what we actually NEED, then we wouldn't have cameras at all.

I want Pentax to issue a stellar FF, even though I'm not remotely interested in getting one myself. But it's good for the brand, for K-mount, en thus good for us users.

(I'm not interested in FF because I don't care for paper-thin DOF, photos where the eyes are in focus, but the nose and ears aren't, irritate me. The DOF capabilities of the K5 and any fast lens are more then enough.)


QuoteOriginally posted by Crosshair Quote
About cheap lenses performing better on FF; now come on. If Pentax releases an FF, no one will use a $15 50mm f/2 lens on it.
Following that logic, I wouldn't be interested in using a $10 Tair11A on my K5 either... Or a equally cheap Industar 61 macro... But I so much enjoy using those lenses! Their IQ is great, and (especially the Tair) has a rendering that doesn't show up in modern lenses anymore. And yes, I would just as well mount them on an FF camera, if I were accidentally get a FF anyway.
06-29-2012, 03:22 AM   #102
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,249
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
This is the thing most anti FF people are overlooking. Aside from exposure (where 2.8 is 2,.8) the rest of the equivalence requires looking at aa different f stop as well as the FL. a 300 f4 size wise can be the same weight and size as an apsc only 200 2.8. Of course that isn't the way it works out. the 200 2.8 we have from Pentax is in fact a FF lens not a true apsc lens. the 50-135 is a much better comparison. the 50-135 2.8 and the Canon 70-200 4.0 are pretty much the same size and weight. the loss of one stop of light is made up for by the better light gathering in a Ff sensor of the same grade allowing and extra stop of iso with similar noise. Nikon doesn't currently have this lens option, though Tokina has announced one is coming from them.
The big question is really this: how many people truly buy their lenses solely based on how small depth of field they can get? The more important things are angle of view and what shutter speeds are available with a particular lens and in this respect, the 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C is closer to the 70-200 f2.8s then the 70-200 f4. The 70-200 f4 will require a doubling of iso to get the same photo, which may or may not add additional noise. I just think that getting a particular framing and exposure are the key factors in most photography, with "depth of field control" coming in a distant third.
06-29-2012, 05:25 AM   #103
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The big question is really this: how many people truly buy their lenses solely based on how small depth of field they can get? The more important things are angle of view and what shutter speeds are available with a particular lens and in this respect, the 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C is closer to the 70-200 f2.8s then the 70-200 f4. The 70-200 f4 will require a doubling of iso to get the same photo, which may or may not add additional noise. I just think that getting a particular framing and exposure are the key factors in most photography, with "depth of field control" coming in a distant third.
In general the FF has at least 1 stop better noise so it does become a pretty direct comparison. Personally I am not a zoom shooter so for me it isn't an issue, and in most cases i will be shooting the lens I already am shooting which will alow narrower dof if I choose to use it. For me the bigger OVF alone is almost enough justification to move up. As I age and my eyes deteriorate that would be very nice to have (as long as the continue with the add on diopters anyway - not to mention my optometrist couldn't cut a lens to the size of the apsc diopter, but he could for my 645, and likely could for FF.)
06-29-2012, 05:54 AM   #104
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
big Nikon or Canon will produce marginally better images than our Pentax cameras

It's not just about megapixels it's more about the size of the sensor. to anyone knowing about either aerial or spcae based recon; they also know it's about the size of the sensor. Unfortunately owners of the kodak Disc camera never really caught onto that - that a near microscopic negative could barely make an 8"x10" print that still looked incredibly grainy.

Let's give the Pentax K-5 a mp sensor boost for a moment just to make the numbers a bit rounder and easier to grasp. If the Pentax kept their existing size sensor at 20mp; and then another company had the same exact mp sensor but at full frame... Which one would win nearly every time - except that Pentax has the 1.5x lens magnification factor - quite useful in distance photography, but... Also not of much use in wider angle photography.

That's where the laws of physics come in. A wider angle lens works better optically on a larger sensor.

Given existing full frame focal lengths and also the 1.5x factor then adapted... Yes the wider angle lens for full frame are heavier, longer length, and wider, but also look better optically.


QuoteOriginally posted by Todd Adamson Quote
Well, I should say I don't consult charts and tests. I just look at prints. And I've got a 28" print from the K-5 at ISO 12,500 that my D3 couldn't hope to match

Not sure about comparing the iso, but...

I also own a D3 and also a Sony A900. Sure the Pentax K-5 is the existing Pentax flagship and the results show exactly how great it is. But... sorry, any non full frame can't hold a flag against a full frame. Unless we're talking about a Canon 5, which probably has the most issues of any digital full frame ever made.

I've already compared both studio and field results between most every full frame; and most of the Pentax line. Sure Pentax does in fact have the quality in the non full frame market, but... Again full frame wins nearly every time; although there are in fact a few minor variations to this rule.
06-29-2012, 07:04 AM   #105
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteQuote:
I also own a D3 and also a Sony A900. Sure the Pentax K-5 is the existing Pentax flagship and the results show exactly how great it is. But... sorry, any non full frame can't hold a flag against a full frame. Unless we're talking about a Canon 5, which probably has the most issues of any digital full frame ever made.
I wonder how I mange to ever sell a print, competing at shows against predominantly full frame shooters. You can say that all you want, but I've been to shows where I out sold FF shooters almost 10 to1. At least in some cases, the public doesn't agree with you. I guess the un-washed just don't understand. One of the guys who bought two of our images, one taken with a point and shoot, has my images on his kitchen wall with about 10 FF shots. No one says, well that one is FF and that one is APS-c. They can't tell the difference. But apparently guys like you can.

But I'd be happy to see the difference. With those cameras and opinions, you'd surely have a few images that demonstrate what you're talking about. I have accept that you won't provide any kind of fair comparison, that you'd probably pick an image suited to FF shooting and show how the K-5 couldn't compete, but still, it would be nice to see what you've got.

QuoteQuote:
Almost every point in this post is wrong, or at least info-starved enough to be misleading.
Empirical evidence is very often "misleading" to theoretical thinkers. They just hate it when empirical evidence messes up their theories. It's unfortunate the world can't be completely defined in terms of math and theoretical research. It would make things so much more pleasant for them. Unfortunately, reality just keeps getting in the way.

My own tests on the DoF question, I used a DA 35 2.4 and a 50 1.7 from the same tripod set to try and get a handle on the difference in DoF. (A 50 mm on an FF would be the same as a 35 on an APS-c in FoV. The DoF for the 50 was 6 mm. The 35 was 12. So if you want narrow DoF the FF would give you a narrower image. However in terms of the overall worth of the picture taken ... in this case the 35 mm image was the better image. It just looked better with more DoF. So in this case, the control of DoF available in the FF would have made no difference to the final picture, because I would have stopped down to match the APS-c image. Then you'd have the problem that the 35 mm image was just more aesthetically pleasing because of the different rendering by a different focal length. For that name, the FF just doesn't come out on top, no matter what you do.

It's because of examples like this that I point out that 99.99% of the time the FF DoF argument makes no difference. I'm guessing for 1 or 2 % of APS-c shooters, and some of them post here, they really should be shooting FF for the narrow DoF. Those people for some reason bought a camera system inappropriate tot their needs, and feel the need to try and convince others who are happy with APS-c that FF is in some way better for them.

The only way I'd consider FF at this time would be if it was the only way to increase MP, and I needed that, which currently I don't.

The FF guys will go on and on about the difference between FF and APS-c as if every shot you take is affected by the difference.

Don't listen to them.

FF may get better low light performance. But if you don't often shoot in low light then there is no difference.
FF will get narrower DoF in every shot. But in most shots you can match it in APS-c by opening your lens wider. Only at the extreme wide open end of the aperture does FF have an advantage. If you're one of the many people who rarely shoot wide open. This issue doesn't affect you.
FF cameras have it easier when increasing the number of pixels on a sensor, as they are a bigger surface. However, there's a 40 MP cell phone sensor so those two items are really not linked. A four year old K20D at 14 Mp is more MP than a Nikon D700 FF. Depending on the latest offerings, APS-c can be very close or exceed FF in MP. Improvements in sensor technology usually come to APS-c first as they are smaller. The exception being the D800 which seems to have put more pixels onto an FF sensor than would now be possible on an APS-c sized sensor. But these things ebb and flow. Before the D800 some APS-c sensors had a higher pixel density than all FF sensors. The D800 combines a high pixel density with a large sensor. SO for the time being, APS-c is probably less desirable than it has been for a few years in terms of MP.

FF proponents will tell you all kinds of theoretical stuff about why FF is better, and completely ignore how rarely what they are talking about would actually make a difference to your photography.

Despite what people will tell you... there simply is no advantage to shooting FF for most people 99% of the time. If you don't believe me, just look through the Post Your Photos and see how many shots are taken in low light where FF would have an advantage, or how many images are taken with the lens wide open and narrow depth of field is important.

For the other 1 to 2% of shooters, it;s quite possible that a high percentage of their images would be improved by FF. And if you're one of them, everything I just posted is pretty much meaningless. You need an FF camera so you can minimize your DoF and get the absolute best low noise images at high ISOs. There's nothing wrong with that, except that you are going to pay as much for your D800 body as I paid for my K-5 and DA* 60-250. But if the K-5 won't get it done for you, that's irrelevant.

What's criminal is folks who would be better shooting FF trying to tell people have their photographic needs met by APS-c that an FF camera would provide advantages for them. Not everyone needs FF. Sure, maybe you are one of the 1 or 2% for whom FF would be a benefit. Be happy with who you are. Quit proselytizing.
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 06:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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