[kenafein]

I just tested my friend's new 5d II and I am a FF convert. I've played with his Zeiss Planar-Makro 50/2 on FF and APS-c. Portraits look way better in full frame. The image quality might be identical, but I am much closer to the subject and I get a clearer and more detailed image. Perhaps the answer is to compare the image to a 28mm lens of similar quality using an apsc camera. The viewfinder is incredible though. Only focus peaking comes close to matching the viewfinder advantage.

[Edvinas]

I just tested my friend's new 5d II and I am a FF convert. I've played with his Zeiss Planar-Makro 50/2 on FF and APS-c. Portraits look way better in full frame. The image quality might be identical, but I am much closer to the subject and I get a clearer and more detailed image. Perhaps the answer is to compare the image to a 28mm lens of similar quality using an apsc camera. The viewfinder is incredible though. Only focus peaking comes close to matching the viewfinder advantage.

Well, I can say a couple of words about 50mm on FF and 31mm on APS-C. We (me and especially my wife) never got along with 31mm on APS-C. 50mm on FF quickly became our favourite lens on FF. Pictures are really different.

[normhead]

You do realize that a 50mm lens is traditionally too short for a portrait lens on an FF camera ( 77 to 85 would be more common) , and if you wished to do a true comparison you'd have to use 35 mm on the APS-c so you were using the same distance from the subject. However, 50 mm should be a good portrait lens on APS-c so I'm surprised you liked the FF better. IN any case, shooting from different distances creates different perspectives... obviously this one , for you at least favoured the FF camera. Lets not be reading too much into this though. It doesn't matter what system you use, you still have to know what lens to use for a specific job... obviously in this case.. APS-c wasn't the right combination with a 50mm lens. There's a 50% chance of that happening if the two systems are different but roughly equivalent.

Well, I can say a couple of words about 50mm on FF and 31mm on APS-C. We (me and especially my wife) never got along with 31mm on APS-C. 50mm on FF quickly became our favourite lens on FF. Pictures are really different.

You should have tried the 35 2.4, it's become our prime walk around lens. We still like 50 mm as a short telephoto on APS-c. I guess those little numbers as you get to the bottom end of the scale start meaning a lot more. Funny how shooting styles play out though... the 31 is one of the reasons we hope Pentax brings out an FF. It would be one of the few lenses we'd use with it. IF 43 mm represents the way an eye naturally sees, then 35 and 50 are both 7 mm difference making the ideal standard lenses for the respective formats. 31... is getting to be a bit of a reach. 11mm off the standard. It doesn't seem like it should be that much, but if what you say is true then obviously that last 4 mm means a lot. Any chance you could try 35 mm on APS-c and 50 mm on full frame?... just kidding.

[kenafein]

You do realize that a 50mm lens is traditionally too short for a portrait lens on an FF camera ( 77 to 85 would be more common) , and if you wished to do a true comparison you'd have to use 35 mm on the APS-c so you were using the same distance from the subject. However, 50 mm should be a good portrait lens on APS-c so I'm surprised you liked the FF better. IN any case, shooting from different distances creates different perspectives... obviously this one , for you at least favoured the FF camera. Lets not be reading too much into this though. It doesn't matter what system you use, you still have to know what lens to use for a specific job... obviously in this case.. APS-c wasn't the right combination with a 50mm lens. There's a 50% chance of that happening if the two systems are different but roughly equivalent.



You should have tried the 35 2.4, it's become our prime walk around lens. We still like 50 mm as a short telephoto on APS-c. I guess those little numbers as you get to the bottom end of the scale start meaning a lot more. Funny how shooting styles play out though... the 31 is one of the reasons we hope Pentax brings out an FF. It would be one of the few lenses we'd use with it. IF 43 mm represents the way an eye naturally sees, then 35 and 50 are both 7 mm difference making the ideal standard lenses for the respective formats. 31... is getting to be a bit of a reach. 11mm off the standard. It doesn't seem like it should be that much, but if what you say is true then obviously that last 4 mm means a lot. Any chance you could try 35 mm on APS-c and 50 mm on full frame?... just kidding.

.

Maybe a 31, but Zeiss makes a 28. The crop factor of Canon is 1.6.

[Kerrowdown]

I'm amazed to see this thread still going, I first contributed to it on the 19th April, which was the day it started.

BTW, I'll still have a couple if they ever release something, for me it will just save running hopefully multiple systems for different requirements.

[Blue]

You have reasons to be baffled. The math is really very simple; the bigger sensor the bigger lenses and bigger cost all things equal. This is the rule of thumb. There are always exceptions; eg you could argue that MF lenses are smaller and cheaper than K-mount lenses from the FA645 75/2.8.
If you do anything to make a small and larger format appear equal, in spite of the fact that they aren't and people buy them because they aren't, the larger format will win. This may be a funny game intelectually but it doesn't tell anything but the obvious. It may be true that FF is the most cost effective way to maximise image quality but most peoples choice is about meeting their needs, preferences and their budget.

I have shown you the numbers on the sizes of the DA* 200/2.8 and 300/4 compared to the FA* 200/2.8 and FA* 300/4.5. You also ignore the size of the DA* 55/1.4 relative to the FA 50/1.4. Yet you persist with the nonsense. There are exceptions to this can argue it both ways. The DA* 60-250/4 wouldn't have to be any bigger than it currently is for a ff body. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that Nikon uses a crop system on the D700 that allows the use of DX lenses on there full frame bodies so that people that have some nice aps-c glass and aps-c body can still use the lenses.

I find this one of the weakest arguments against full frame. Money is always a limiting factor for some people. That is why I don't have 645D system or Leica M9. However, money is also a limiting factor why some people don't have a Pentax K-5, Nikon D700, or Canon 60D much less a D700 or 5d MK II.

Edit: I have no doubt that my K28/2, A 50/1.2 and Tamron SP 180/2.5 will work nicely on a Pentax ff if they ever release one.

[northcoastgreg]

There really is no disadvantage with FF except the ones I've listed above. If you think there's an advantage to APS-C other than the ones I listed, let me know, and I will give you my assessment, it's possible I haven't considered absolutely everything.

APS-C may not have a cost advantage if you think primarily terms of narrow DOF equivalency, particularly at normal and wide FOVs. But if your primary concern is corner to corner sharpness and you have no interest in narrow DOF, then the cost advantage of APS-C can become quite dramatic. In terms of DOF equivalency, there are no FF equivalents to the DA 10-17/3.5-4.5, the DA 15/4, or the DA 16-45/4 (or any slow glass, APS-C or otherwise). Nor would any company make equivalents for these lenses. Neither Canon nor Nikon even make a 24-70/4 optimized for landscape use. If you want the best glass in that range, you have to buy the f2.8 versions, even if you don't need the f2.8.

There's another advantage to APS-C that is ignored by the narrow DOF-philes. While some are eager to shoot their FF glass on an FF camera, I prefer shooting FF glass on APS-C, precisely because the FF lenses perform better (in terms of corner to corner resolution) on APS-C cameras (as a result of cropping away the problematic edges). Two of my favorite lenses are the M 20/4 and the FA 24-90. Even when stopped down, these lenses have corner to corner issues on FF; yet they perform splendidly as landscape lenses on APS-C.

Now of course I could merely crop images from an FF to match what I get with APS-C, but then what would be the point? FF is only compelling if it provides significantly better images; and if you're cropping most of your images, this significant advantage evaporates.

For landscape work, the advantage of FF really comes down to greater resolution. But the greater resolution is really only significant at large print sizes (which I don't often make). Moreover, through stitching techniques, you can match and even exceed FF resolution with any APS-C camera; so in the end, the advantage of FF is reduced to those handful of circumstances wherein stitching is impractical.

Incidentally, you can quite inexpensively achieve the equivalent of an FF DOF with any APS-C lens simply by adding blur selectively in post. It's a technique my sister uses, and she makes a pretty good supplemental income from her photography. So it is debateable whether there is any cost advantage to FF, even if narrow DOF is your chief concern.

[eddie1960]

DA 10-17 3.5-4.5 is what 15-25??, there is the Sigma 12-24 which is FF and an excellent if somewhat large lens.
As for the advantage being easily overcome in stitching for landscapes that is true, but what about everything other than landscapes? Stitching is a limited application solution
and you could also stitch Ff to equal the best in MF cameras, or better.
For me the ability to go out with a good fast 28 or 35 on FF and shoot action / street/ reportorage style has a huge advantage in FF. I just can't get the same effect with apsc (though I can do well.
In any case whether or not there is an advantage or not is moot. the marketplace thinks there is so it's ignore the market at your peril or respond to it from ricohs perspective.
we aren't privy to their thinking or any market data they have, nor info on costing.

[Blue]

DA 10-17 3.5-4.5 is what 15-25??, there is the Sigma 12-24 which is FF and an excellent if somewhat large lens.
As for the advantage being easily overcome in stitching for landscapes that is true, but what about everything other than landscapes? Stitching is a limited application solution
and you could also stitch Ff to equal the best in MF cameras, or better.
For me the ability to go out with a good fast 28 or 35 on FF and shoot action / street/ reportorage style has a huge advantage in FF. I just can't get the same effect with apsc (though I can do well.
In any case whether or not there is an advantage or not is moot. the marketplace thinks there is so it's ignore the market at your peril or respond to it from ricohs perspective.
we aren't privy to their thinking or any market data they have, nor info on costing.

There is also a Sigma 15-30mm EX full frame lens that is good as is its 20-40mm/2.8 Sibling

[TomTextura]

Now of course I could merely crop images from an FF to match what I get with APS-C, but then what would be the point? FF is only compelling if it provides significantly better images; and if you're cropping most of your images, this significant advantage evaporates.

The advantage is that you get to work within a more forgiving frame that allows for greater cropping while maintaining high resolution. I, for one, can't always get the framing exactly the way I want it in-camera. I tend to mostly shoot people that are moving so, slow and careful framing isn't generally an option for me.

Incidentally, you can quite inexpensively achieve the equivalent of an FF DOF with any APS-C lens simply by adding blur selectively in post.

Blur can be done well for certain things. I've used it to disguise and soften edges that I didn't want to be sharp and rigid. But blur doesn't come anywhere close to mimicking bokeh! There's no algorithm, at least to date, for FA31 OOF rendering. I imagine that someday there will be a better effect available in PP to emulate bokeh but it's not here yet and I'm sure it'll never truly match the real thing.

As far as getting the ability to have narrower depth of field with FF, it is less specifically about that for me than it is about getting the DOF I already get with APS-C but from a further working distance. This is possible on FF thanks to the longer focal length that can be used while still giving the same angle of view. I have to get pretty close with the FA31 to frame a head and shoulders portrait while still having the entire face in focus and getting a buttery background. I don't mind so much because the results from FA31 are spectacular but sometimes I would like to be able to use a ~50mm so that I can back off further away to make the people I'm shooting more comfortable. With a ~50mm lens on FF I could still get the framing and DOF I want without having to be so close to the person. If I'm indoors or have some other space restriction, like I'd have to step off the sidewalk and into the street, the FA77 often gives me a tighter framing than I'd like. Mentioning this stuff is kind of fussy on my part because there are workarounds and it doesn't always affect me but what I'm basically driving at is that I would very much value getting to use the FA Limiteds along with other FF glass at its original AOV. It would make it easier to get the results I'm after sometimes.

Please don't take my post as an effort to say that your points aren't valid. Your points are valid but mostly just for your style of shooting, that style being landscape from what I gather. I rarely do landscapes so have different thinking about what makes for an advantage and what doesn't. The three things that probably won't ever be a disadvantage to APS-C when compared to FF are size, weight, and price. Let's hope though that those three typical disadvantages of FF can at least be minimized by Pentax when they do finally bring a FF camera to market.

[TomTextura]

As for the advantage being easily overcome in stitching for landscapes that is true, but what about everything other than landscapes? Stitching is a limited application solution and you could also stitch Ff to equal the best in MF cameras, or better. For me the ability to go out with a good fast 28 or 35 on FF and shoot action / street/ reportorage style has a huge advantage in FF. I just can't get the same effect with apsc (though I can do well. In any case whether or not there is an advantage or not is moot. the marketplace thinks there is so it's ignore the market at your peril or respond to it from ricohs perspective. we aren't privy to their thinking or any market data they have, nor info on costing.

Excellent points! I fully agree. I haven't tried stitching once. I'd like to and have a mind to for a couple of scenes that would need it. I think stitching can be a clever option—I've seen some great examples of it being done well on the forum—but it certainly is not a practical, or even feasable, solution in a great deal of situations.

[ElJamoquio]

APS-C may not have a cost advantage if you think primarily terms of narrow DOF equivalency, particularly at normal and wide FOVs. But if your primary concern is corner to corner sharpness and you have no interest in narrow DOF, then the cost advantage of APS-C can become quite dramatic.

I am unaware of any lens where the equivalent DOF/shutterspeed has worse corner sharpness in FF than APS-C. I don't want to say it's true in 100% of comparisons, but I guess I'd say it's true in 90+%. Could you find me an example of a lens that has worse corner sharpness in FF with equivalent angle/DOF/shutterspeed?

In terms of DOF equivalency, there are no FF equivalents to the DA 10-17/3.5-4.5, the DA 15/4, or the DA 16-45/4 (or any slow glass, APS-C or otherwise). Nor would any company make equivalents for these lenses. Neither Canon nor Nikon even make a 24-70/4 optimized for landscape use. If you want the best glass in that range, you have to buy the f2.8 versions, even if you don't need the f2.8.

General rule of thumb, in terms of IQ:

1) Best/Most Expensive: Pro lens with FF camera
2) Second Best/Third Most Expensive (depends on assumptions of course): Consumer Lens with FF Camera
3) Third Best/Second Most Expensive: Pro Lens with APS-C camera
4) Fourth Best/Cheapest: Consumer Lens with APS-C Camera

If we're just talking resolution, and talking generically, 2) is 50% better than 3). 1) is 10-20% better than 2).

While some are eager to shoot their FF glass on an FF camera, I prefer shooting FF glass on APS-C, precisely because the FF lenses perform better (in terms of corner to corner resolution) on APS-C cameras (as a result of cropping away the problematic edges).

If you have a requirement for minimum resolution required at the corner (resolved lines/picture height), FF will do better than APS-C. If you have a requirement that everything in the middle of the picture has to be equally soft as the corner resolution, you should purchase an APS-C camera as it will be easier to compose your pictures and cheaper.

I think that requirement isn't very common, and you can work around it those minimal chances you encounter it. You can either crop or selectively soften the center of your FF image.

For landscape work, the advantage of FF really comes down to greater resolution. But the greater resolution is really only significant at large print sizes (which I don't often make). Moreover, through stitching techniques, you can match and even exceed FF resolution with any APS-C camera; so in the end, the advantage of FF is reduced to those handful of circumstances wherein stitching is impractical.

Quite correct, except for the 'handful of circumstances'. Stiching is an involved process, doesn't work very well for a bunch of images, and is also fairly tedious. If I had to do it for every image I took I'd have to quit my day job. It's not very appropriate for wildlife, sports, and portrait photography, and isn't very much fun (my opinion of course) for landscape photography.

[falconeye]

But if your primary concern is corner to corner sharpness and you have no interest in narrow DOF, then the cost advantage of APS-C can become quite dramatic. In terms of DOF equivalency, there are no FF equivalents to the DA 10-17/3.5-4.5, the DA 15/4, or the DA 16-45/4 (or any slow glass, APS-C or otherwise). Nor would any company make equivalents for these lenses. Neither Canon nor Nikon even make a 24-70/4 optimized for landscape use. If you want the best glass in that range, you have to buy the f2.8 versions, even if you don't need the f2.8.

There is some truth in your argument, but IMHO you carry it too far. Some issues I see:

1. Lack of slow FF glass (or APS-C style FF glass, as I call it):

Generally true, but not to the extent you assume and the new trend for Canikon seems to release APS-C style FF glass. Nikon is preparing for the 24-70mm f/3.5-4.5 which, I'm sure, will blow any APS-C 16-50/2.8 out of the water - at a lower price. And Canon makes an excellent 70-200/4L at a low price. Tokina is preparing the same for Nikon now. There is no 21/5.6, I agree. OTOH, the 15/4 has problems in the corner and full frame 21mm (e.g., the Zeiss) clearly beats it. Moreover, you could pair the DA15 with an 1.4x TC if you don't want to crop.

2. Corner to corner sharpness (or "APSC crops a lens' sweet spot" as many say):

I looked into it (in my equivalency white paper) and it is a myth, an urban legend among photographers. The opposite is true. If you compare, e.g., the APS-C corners of an 31mm or 35mm at f/2.8 and the full frame corners of a 50mm at f/4, the latter wins by a significant margin (in absolute LW/PH resolution, not fall off from the center, to be clear here). Or any other equivalent combination.

Overall, I see a cost-advantage on the optical side for full frame because you don't need the most expensive glass to outperform APS-C. The only exception is consumer-grade zooms on APS-C which gives APS-C a cost advantage below $1000. But who cares in a full frame discussion?

[northcoastgreg]

Could you find me an example of a lens that has worse corner sharpness in FF with equivalent angle/DOF/shutterspeed?

It's quite common for lenses to suffer reduced resolution as one traverses toward the corners. This is particularly problem older FF zoom glass. "Equivalency" arguments are not relevant here. The question is whether a given FF lens has sufficient resolution in toward the edges so as not to draw attention to itself at screen resolution or in medium to large prints. Many of the old FA standard zooms suffer from noticeable border sharpness issues at the wide end of the lens. Take, as one example, the FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5. It is quite soft toward the edges at the wide end of the lens. The softness is progressive, increasing as you move away from the center of the image. Increasing megapixels does not improve the issue. It looks soft on my 6 MP *istDL, on my 10 MP K200D, and on my 16 MP K-5. Undoubtedly, it would produce higher resolution scores on the K-5. But that's irrelevant. Soft is soft, regardless of MP. Nor would a large MP FF camera improve matters. On the contrary, it would simply produce images that had a larger proportion of softness.

General rule of thumb, in terms of IQ:

1) Best/Most Expensive: Pro lens with FF camera
2) Second Best/Third Most Expensive (depends on assumptions of course): Consumer Lens with FF Camera
3) Third Best/Second Most Expensive: Pro Lens with APS-C camera
4) Fourth Best/Cheapest: Consumer Lens with APS-C Camera

If we're just talking resolution, and talking generically, 2) is 50% better than 3). 1) is 10-20% better than 2).

This entirely misses the point. It's not an issue merely of measured resolution, but how the image looks to the eye. A lens with noticeably soft edges looks soft regardless of how many megapixels you throw at it. And many consumer grade lenses are noticeably soft at the wide end, even on APS-C.

And although I mentioned only the issue of corner to corner sharpness in my previous comment, that doesn't mean that there aren't other issues that are just as important to my style of photography. I merely desire a sufficient level of resolution in an image; I don't demand that everything be ultra-sharp. On the contrary, I just don't want images to look soft, in the corners or anywhere else. The DA 10-17 is not a super sharp lens; but it has sufficient resolution. Once a lens has sufficient resolution, other factors come into play, such as color rendition, microcontrast, and the overall quality of the rendering. The DA 10-17 has superb color rendition and microcontrast and produces images that look better than many lenses with superior resolution. I've sold more images from the DA 10-17 than all my other glass combined (and my other glass is sharper).

Consumer lenses generally don't have as good IQ as more expensive glass, irrespective of resolution differences. I have absolutely zero interest in using consumer grade glass on FF. I used consumer grade glass on FF (i.e., 35mm film) and I don't want to go back to that. (And none of my slow glass are really consumer grade. They in any case don't perform like consumer grade glass. One of the advantages of Pentax over other brands is that Pentax has made some wonderful slow glass over the years.)

Your points are valid but mostly just for your style of shooting, that style being landscape from what I gather.

Precisely! And I'm not challenging the idea that FF might make sense for other styles of shooting; only that it doesn't, from a cost/benefit standpoint, for my style of shooting. The added resolution I would get from FF just isn't worth the extra cost.

But blur doesn't come anywhere close to mimicking bokeh!

That's exactly what I tell my sister, but she's unmoved by such arguments, which she regards as mere manifestations of an obsession with gear. Being able to add blur precisely where she wants it is important for her style of photography. And, to be entirely fair about, her images, including the added blur, are stunning.

DA 10-17 3.5-4.5 is what 15-25??, there is the Sigma 12-24 which is FF and an excellent if somewhat large lens.

These are not really equivalent lenses. The Sigma 12-24 has about a 120º FOV at the wide end; the DA 10-17 is close to 180º.

[ElJamoquio]

If you wanted to improve your IQ for less money but maintain equivalent-resolution-everywhere, perhaps you could use posprocessing to selectively soften the center of FF.


By 'consumer grade' I'm not talking about kit zooms, I'm more talking something like the canon 70-200 f/4 rather than the f/2.8, etc. These are not bad lenses and do not produce bad results.

Or if you desire the convenience of APS-C but still want IQ you could (already have?) pay the cost/weight penalty of the best lenses req'd for APS-C.