[panoguy]

Be happy with who you are. Quit proselytizing.

Norm, have you forgotten human nature? Some will never be happy, even after Pentax releases a FF body. As for proselytizing, that's just a western society insecurity thing...

Oh, and to stay on topic, I'd personally love a full-frame digital Pentax. I have a nice full-frame film Pentax, and have used many of the Canikony FF bodies, so I know the personal advantages of the format for me... but I cannot take the existing un-ergonomic behemoths at $3000 as my penance for a bigger viewfinder (I've personally got all the IQ and DOF I need in a K-5!).

---

Last edited by panoguy; 06-29-2012 at 07:26 AM.

[normhead]

Norm, have you forgotten human nature? Some will never be happy, even after Pentax releases a FF body.

I know I won't be. I want a 645... if you're going to buy for biggest and best, you have to go all the way. Not some stop gap 35 mm sensor when you can get 45.

[eddie1960]

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.

.

I've said it before you are right most people don't "need" FF to achieve what they are doing. Want is a whole other issue. the D800 certainly is a FF game changer though. for the moment it wipes out any apsc advantage except size. the pixel density means the reach advantage is gone (except on the Sonys using the 24 mp sensor but there are a range of other issues there not the least of which is it's a Sony)
and you are also right for some people it is well worht the $ for that sensor (Having seen side by side Macro 6 foot prints of the D800 versus the 24mp D3s from my cousin I could spot the D800 without any trouble. Didn't stop any of his work from selling prints from either were stellar, but definitely the D800 showed less noise and printed sharper. that's a pretty extreme example though, I know few people who will ever print at 6 feet, even fewer who will do it regularly and sell them - they cost a grand + to print and mount then add in the 50% of the sale that goes to the gallery and you have to be able to sell your work for $5-6000. My cousin is lucky enough to be able to do that, most of us aren't)
Still I want one after playing with his, but it's so low priority that it won't happen. If OTOH I win the lottery tonight my name will go on the wait list

[normhead]

If OTOH I win the lottery tonight my name will go on the wait list

My thinking exactly... it's all cost benefit, but if you can cover the cost without breaking a sweat, cost benefit is pretty much meaningless. You just buy for the improvement in your pictures, whether it affects 2% or 50% of your images doesn't matter at that point.

[eddie1960]

My thinking exactly... it's all cost benefit, but if you can cover the cost without breaking a sweat, cost benefit is pretty much meaningless. You just buy for the improvement in your pictures, whether it affects 2% or 50% of your images doesn't matter at that point.

yep, it would be the second system, right after i ordered the Leica Monochrome.

[jsherman999]

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.

Well, Norm, I've provided empirical evidence to back up the theory, in this and several other threads, which you view and then subsequently dismiss, usually with some sort of down-home platitude. I see the empirical evidence every day, as does almost anyone else shooting both formats.

More DOF control with available lenses, better, more accurate focus, better noise performance, better VF, etc. You find APS-C (and even m4/3) good enough for your f/8 landscape shooting - you've established that over and over again. I remain hopeful you can someday see beyond that set of blinders to realize that not everyone sticks to the type of shooting you do.

Quit proselytizing.

You really should.

[normhead]

Well, Norm, I've provided empirical evidence to back up the theory, in this and several other threads, which you view and then subsequently dismiss, usually with some sort of down-home platitude. I see the empirical evidence every day, as does almost anyone else shooting both formats.

Ya, I know , you only don't post the comparative images cause you don't have time or don't want to or whatever. But just for the record, so you understand where I'm coming from... you can't do a comparison with one shot.. you need at least two images taken side by side of the same scene of subject, if one camera does something better than another one, and every one knows it, showing that it does that thing better is a waste of time. If you do all these tests that prove FF is better, and I do one test I think is relevant.. and by some mystery, the APS-c image comes out better, when you've never posted even one sequence where the APS-c came out better, I won't trust your credibility. I not only want to be able to see results , I want to be able to verify them. That' just called due diligence. You may call it dismissing... call it whatever you want, I don't care.

Do you even read what I write? This is so typical of you. When I point out the flaws in your methodology and commentary, you throw a tantrum... just like that, instead of any meaningful kind of answer. Hell, I've even conceded you probably need an FF camera... just based on your shooting style and preferences. It's your assumption that everyone else should share your values that I find annoying. Just because it's worth it to you doesn't mean it's worth it to everyone. I can actually concede some people should be shooting full frame. You continue to be a propagandist for one format. But simple fact... most of the advantages you cite for FF are also advantages for 645, yet you continue to act like FF is the be all and end all. I can quote you saying the pixel count in APS-c made them more prone to noise. Now that we have a similar situation with the D800 and the 645 having roughly equivalent MP but a different pixel density, we don't hear you saying the 645 has an advantage. You sent me to sites comparing images, from 5 year old Canon cameras neither of which in any way compares to a K-5, that proved you could use cheaper lenses and get better results with FF. I read it with great interest, and then agreed with the author... it only made a difference APS-c to FF in very rare circumstances. Honestly , when I was done and read what the author said, I thought he agreed with my point more than yours. The article you quoted actually proved my point. IN short, you've wasted an awful lot of my time with pretty much irrelevant data, made even more irrelevant because I've never said FF doesn't have it's niche. You're arguments are all over the map... to the point that often I don't want to respond to them and let them slide... in your book, FF always wins. In mine it's a niche player squeezed between APS-c and MF. Good at some things, not really excelling at anything.

So I have to ask...

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.

How could that have happened? How could an APS-c image be preferable to an FF image? Until you've got that locked down.. your commentary is pretty much useless. You have to acknowledge the strengths of both systems, to do a comparison. For most people added DoF at a wider F-stop in an APS-c system more than makes up for narrower D0F at the bottom end. FF types harp on narrow DoF and dismiss the wider DoF of an equivalent APS-c system. In my shooting narrow DoF is a problem. And if you're shooting a sunset or other low light setting stopping down is a matter of increasing ISO 1.5 stops taking on more noise etc. and is pretty much a lousy solution. As lousy as trying to squeeze extremely narrow DoF out of an APS-c system. It's really not a one way street.

Here let me do the jsherman thing, take a great image that proves what I'm talking about..



If you could check my stats on photo bucket, you'd know that this image was download almost 600,000 times. Not one of them wrote and said " that image would have been better taken in full frame" . You can also appreciate that without an FF image to compare it too, any attempt at comparison is useless. That's why you get dismissed. It's your methodology. I wouldn't be so bold as to suggest this scene couldn't have been rendered better in FF, I don't know. But apparently all kinds of FF shooters know their images are better taken in FF. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

[jsherman999]

Ya, I know , you only don't post the comparative images cause you don't have time or don't want to or whatever.

I have posted comparative images showing the DOF control. What sort of comparative images do you need that can't be satisfied by looking at Imaging resource, DXO, dpreview, or any other place that shows side-side images between cameras? If you can't understand the math, and there's no sin in that, you can always refer to those sites.

You can also use your own aps-c cameras to see what the difference would be, you don't need a FF camera. Take a shot at 50mm f/2.8 and then one at 50mm f/4.5. Now, imagine a shot taken that combines that f/4.5 sharpness on the plane of focus with that f/2.8 DOF, and that would be the FF shot taken at 35mm f/4.5 from the same location. And if you wanted more than that "f/2.8 on aps-c" DOF, you could simply stop down.

Or, take a shot at ISO 1600 in low-light, and then one taken at ISO 3200. On FF, the same ISO 3200 shot would have as much noise as the ISO 1600 shot you just took (or even less noise, if you were considering the D3s/D4.)

Do you even read what I write? This is so typical of you. When I point out the flaws in your methodology and commentary, you throw a tantrum...

In fact you have not pointed out any 'flaws in my methodology', and I'd say your posts on this subject seem to be one long, extended tantrum.

You do realize that in discussing the benefits of FF and expressing a wish that Pentax play in this format, that isn't a value judgement on your choices and abilities, right?

You continue to be a propagandist for one format.

Really?

But simple fact... most of the advantages you cite for FF are also advantages for 645, yet you continue to act like FF is the be all and end all.

No, it's just that the 645D is a very large, slow camera with less DR and worse noise performance than some smaller, less-expensive cameras, and which costs $10,000 for the body alone. The few new lenses available cost $1500 - $5000 each. It just doesn't seem like a viable alternative to FF Digital for general shooting. In a dedicated low-ISO landscape or advertising/studio portrait niche, it's a great choice - if you can swing $15,000 for a basic system.

I can quote you saying the pixel count in APS-c made them more prone to noise.

High pixel density + smaller sensor area (mostly smaller sensor area.)

.. You're arguments are all over the map... to the point that often I don't want to respond to them and let them slide...

My arguments have been consistent and on-target. But I wouldn't mind it at all if you elected to not respond if this is the level of response I could expect.

Here let me do the jsherman thing, take a great image that proves what I'm talking about..

It's an OK image, but I'm confused about what it's supposed to prove. I don't see any real demonstration of DR (a sillhouette is easy,) sharpness, resolution, etc, although some of that may be because its such a small reproduction. Is your point that you don't think you need low/mid-MP FF because you mainly shoot landscapes, and you fel aps-c is good enough for that? Haven't you already mentioned that, and has anyone tried to refute it?

Here, these shots were taken with my iphone - does this then mean that there's no benefit for me, or for "99% of shooters" as you like to say, to any larger format than the iphone? :

[normhead]

I have posted comparative images showing the DOF control.

In all of which narrow DoF was desirable, you didn't post one in which added DoF was desirable, which is probably more than 50% of photography. That's why I say you're a propagandist. You could have just as easily shown images where the added DoF in an APS-c shot made it the better image. Because you don't post images where the added DoF in an APS-c image at the sharpest F-stop makes an APS-c ima. You show extended narrow DoF. Just your terminology is biased. More control of DoF makes it sound like if you have the DoF the way you want it in APS-c you could do better in FF.

As per usual you refuse to even acknowledge my example, where in I preferred the 35 APS-c image to the 50 mm image. And you say I dismiss you. You don't even acknowledge my arguments. Take your blinkers off. What you can't seem to comprehend is that different does not always mean one is better. You and countless other FF shooters on here have constantly overlooked the benefits that may come from APS-c shooting, don't even acknowledge they exist or just talk about the weight and handling. Sometimes, APS-c is just more appropriate to the image you want to take, based on aesthetics and the IQ is just as good, based on equal MP. I've illustrated this in so many different ways, I still can't believe you don't get it.

With a 50 mm lens at F1.8 you have the exact same control of DoF you have on a full frame... the only question is... is the image size of APS-c appropriate. A 50 mm lens is a 50 mm lens. It doesn't change because you put it on different formats. For an image appropriate to APS-c or smaller APS-c is more appropriate than FF. For any image where the image size would be more appropriate captured on an FF sensor up to a 645 an FF is appropriate. It completely depends on whether the image to be captured is appropriate to the lens and sensor size. Until you understand that, you'll continue to be confused.

[jsherman999]

In all of which narrow DoF was desirable, you didn't post one in which added DoF was desirable, which is probably more than 50% of photography. That's why I say you're a propagandist. You could have just as easily shown images where the added DoF in an APS-c shot made it the better image.

Perhaps you missed this post. (and using terms like 'propagandist' isn't helpful to your case in any way.)

I'll paste it below to keep the context here:

Personally, my observation is that for travels and in more unfamiliar places, a photographer tends to want a bit more DOF.
No point spending a chuck of cash to travel to France and take so many shots with so thin a DOF that it could have been one's own backyard.
More personal shots (ie. nearby gardens, family, friends, shots that don't matter than much and can be experimental (eg. streets; still life), less DOF is often chosen for isolation.

You know, that sounds simplistic, but I find it to be true as well in my own personal shooting, which is probably part of the reason I travel with my aps-c kit as much or more than my FF kit. I'm usually not shooting in low-light as much when I travel, size matters a bit more, and I'm not isolating my subjects quite as often.... because I want more 'environment' in the shot when it's a new environment.

For example, these shots were wide-open (35ltd @ f/2.8) because I needed the light, not because I wanted less DOF - in this case, a bit more DOF worked a little better to help define the background maybe a tad more:



In this one, however, I had hoped to retain the cloud structure while making the shoreline down there a bit more dreamy, removed, and the woman more isolated - 35mm @ f/2.8 on aps-c didn't quite get me what I was after, but I still like the flavor of the shot (35mm f/2.8):



On this one, I had been in Tennessee reading Civil War photography books all day and wanted to try some 'Civil war' looks out - or as close as I could get with what I had - and FF gave me a nice subject float here, from that distance and FOV (50mm f/1.8 on FF):



But of course, you can always stop down with FF if you do want to increase DOF (50mm f/8 on FF)

.

[normhead]

Well I'm glad that's all cleared up then..... in the future we won't have to go through this again. We all can stop talking about how FF is better in every circumstance and go back to just enjoying our cameras, without claiming another photographer couldn't have gotten as good shot. By the way, I can acknowledge your reasoning for taking the different shots for different formats... but do I really have to point out, you are talking your preferences and the way you wanted to take the picture. Even when in your mind you need to go FF, that might not be the case for someone else.

But even if I quote you from the post you use to prove your lack of bias..

But of course, you can always stop down with FF if you do want to increase DOF (50mm f/8 on FF)

Sometimes you can sometimes you can't. As usual you pretend you always have the ability to stop down. Sometimes the light prevents that. Especially since once you get over 5.6 on most lenses diffraction kicks in and you start losing resolution. You've conveniently left out a few issues that are going to pop up if you think stopping down is always a solution to the shallower DoF in FF I'm just looking for balance here.

[Pål Jensen]

More DOF control with available lenses, better, more accurate focus, better noise performance, better VF, etc. d.

You get exactly the same control over DOF with APS as with FF. You just got one stop thinner DOF with FF. Control over DOF is not the same as thin DOF. Control over DOF does not mean not getting any. Most images do not display thinner DOF than what is available from APS so that you can argue that APS give you more useful control over DOF.
You get faster AF with APS cause the lens is shorter for the same angle of view giving shorter focus throw and hence less work to find focus. For accuracy, theres no difference. For the same exposure you get more DOF on APS lessening the need for focusing accuracy as it is covered by DOF. The lerger the format the larger the need for focus accuracy.
The better image quality and viefinder are the real benefits of FF...

[TOUGEFC]

This thread has so much wrong and mis-leading information, it sure is going to confuse any new comers who read this.

[normhead]

Here, I'll give you my summary.

Why full frame?
... you want narrower DoF, than you can get wide open on APS-c, in some images depending of FoV, (it's complicated). ( You might want to try some 1.4 lenses on APS-c first though)
You want softer back ground out of focus renditions on your images and you think using the blur tool is cheating.
You want more Mega pixels than you can get in APS-c... get a D800, or at least get yourself on the waiting list...)
You have lots of money. ( A K-5 and a 18-135 kit lens and 35 2.4 prime cost less than the cheapest FF on the market, body only,)
You want to carry more weight (or at least don't mind, even if you don't particularly like it) In general they weigh more although again, a D800 is probably close enough in weight you aren't going to care. If only you could get those pancake lenses.

And the biggest reason...

ta da

wait for it

You can't afford a 645 D....

DId I miss something?

[jsherman999]

You can't afford a 645 D....

DId I miss something?

In all honesty, I personally would rather own a K-5 than a 645D, even if they cost exactly the same. 645D is a great base-ISO landscape/portrait/advertising tool, but its only about the same as the K-5 in noise performance, the same AF, has less DR, has only about 1fps, and is humongous. It's just not (IMO) a great all-purpose photography tool - which is what I want. My opinion might change if I shot one for a week, but even if I could afford a 645D and lenses, it wouldn't be what I spent my money on.

My $15,000 windfall (645D + two lenses) would be spent:

$5000: some more Nikon FF lenses
$5000: some more K-mount FF lenses
$5000: Pentax FF body savings account