[Pål Jensen]

I spend a lot of time on FM now (pop over and have a look at their wildlife forum) - not wonderful but superb bird shots, the like of which I haven't seen from any APS-C camera (Pentax, Nikon or Canon) on any other forum and the vast majority from FF cameras and long lenses, they blow me away.
.

You can't tell the difference between an APS (16mp) and an FF image in a final print. You have to pixelpeep the original file.
Go in any fine art gallery and tell which is shot on FF or APS....

[Pål Jensen]

APS-C is also just fine if you are making money for your images. If it's good enough for Benjamin Kanarek, it's damn well good enough for me.

I have friend that have fine art gallery and none of his customers can tell which images is shot on FF or APS. His largest print was 3X2 meter (or something) and sold for $5000. It was shot with a Canon 7D.....

[Pål Jensen]

How much bigger is the canon 70-200 f/4 than the 50-135, though? In my mind it's not much bigger.

On the other hand the chance of Pentax, etc, making a f/4 zoom soon are pretty minimal.

But the Canon is not a F:2.8 lens...
You don't compare lenses between format from DOF wide open no more than you compare lenses within the same format from DOF wide open.

[FrancisK7]

I have friend that have fine art gallery and none of his customers can tell which images is shot on FF or APS. His largest print was 3X2 meter (or something) and sold for $5000. It was shot with a Canon 7D.....

People will pay millions for a white canvas with a red dot on it because the painter is famous.

The price is not a sign of quality.

[Pål Jensen]

Consider: You are shooting birds with the D800 and a 500mm. For those closer shots a flick of the switch gives you FF (with the Sigma 500mm that's ca. 335mm equiv on APS-C), a bird appears in the middle distance and a flick of a switch later and you are at x1.2 crop (24mp and ca. 400m APS-C / 600mm 35mm equiv. ) and then you spot a small bird 40 yds away and another flick the switch and you are now at x1.5 (APS-C) for your 750mm (35mm equiv. ) with the famous latest and greatest version of Nikon's AF (which you seem to have disregarded even though I made it a feature of my previous post). .

You can do exactly the same with an APS camera but with a much smaller and lighter lens...and much cheaper too (thousands of dollars) The FF will have better image quality (thats the reason for buying it) regardless the crop but not by much.
As someone who have shot with FF and a super telephoto for years and can tell you that they are no fun due to their size and weight and the novelty soon wears off. They end up staying at home. Due to their size and weight they can realistically only be used at roadside localities limiting their usefulness.

[Pål Jensen]

People will pay millions for a white canvas with a red dot on it because the painter is famous.

The price is not a sign of quality.

...but the quality is excellent. And it was bought by the Norwegian broadcast system, nor by a collector, for hanging on their office wall. And the photographer isn't famous either....

The point is: how much increase in image quality is there between an 18mp APS sensor and a 23mp FF sensor? Except for extreme high ISO it is best classified as academic....

[joe.penn]

The FF will have better image quality (thats the reason for buying it) regardless the crop but not by much.

Actually, by quite a bit due to the [around about not actual figure] 75% more "TRUE" resolution that is resolved by FF. Also, speed - you would be hard pressed to find a K5 image shot at a miniscle miniscule 1000iso look anywhere near as good as an image shot with a nikon 3dx at 6400iso (in ISO image quality speak) - that is a huge monster difference, really an astronomical difference for a ton of shooters. Yep, keep on shooting and making it hard on yourself with the 50mm 1.4 (or the couple of other fast glass options) at a low lit concert venue while the FF guy besides you shoots with ease using a number of 2.8 lenses (not even wide open but stopped down for better IQ) both long and wide.

APS-C = Good Value, Good Availability
FF = Better Image Quality, Performance

---

Last edited by joe.penn; 08-07-2012 at 12:01 PM.

[mdodrill]

If no ff and I can find the funds, I will buy the k-30; keep my K-r and maybe trade the k-r plus cash for a mirrorless pentax. I really don't see the need for ff for me

[FrancisK7]

...but the quality is excellent. And it was bought by the Norwegian broadcast system, nor by a collector, for hanging on their office wall. And the photographer isn't famous either....

The point is: how much increase in image quality is there between an 18mp APS sensor and a 23mp FF sensor? Except for extreme high ISO it is best classified as academic....

Can we see the shot somewhere? I'd love to see it.

[Frogfish]

You can do exactly the same with an APS camera but with a much smaller and lighter lens...and much cheaper too (thousands of dollars) The FF will have better image quality (thats the reason for buying it) regardless the crop but not by much.
As someone who have shot with FF and a super telephoto for years and can tell you that they are no fun due to their size and weight and the novelty soon wears off. They end up staying at home. Due to their size and weight they can realistically only be used at roadside localities limiting their usefulness.

Sorry Pal but I don't agree with any of that. I am a serious birder and the only one of my friends shooting with an APS-C camera. The other guys I go with blow me away for IQ and low noise (both Canon & Nikons). The ONLY viable option for Pentax APS-C is the Sigma 500/4.5. Superb lens, but even better on the D800. And more than that it's not only hand holdable but also in fact can comfortably be carried and used on a monopod when moving around. And of course it goes without saying that it costs the same on a Pentax as it does on a Canon/Nikon so there is no $ saving either way.

[Frogfish]

You can't tell the difference between an APS (16mp) and an FF image in a final print. You have to pixelpeep the original file.
Go in any fine art gallery and tell which is shot on FF or APS....

Well first off you have to get the shot in the first place

Secondly it depends on how much you need to crop it (and you almost always need to crop when shooting small birds).

Thirdly it depends on what size you are printing at and from how far away you are viewing it. That is a whole new kettle of fish.

[Pål Jensen]

Actually, by quite a bit due to the [around about not actual figure] 75% more "TRUE" resolution that is resolved by FF. Also, speed - you would be hard pressed to find a K5 image shot at a miniscle miniscule 1000iso look anywhere near as good as an image shot with a nikon 3dx at 6400iso (in ISO image quality speak) - that is a huge monster difference, really an astronomical difference for a ton of shooters.

The difference between 16mp APS and a 23mp FF is about 12-15% in resolution. For the same generation of sensors the high ISO difference between APS and FF is about one stop. 1000 ISO is no problem even for outdated APS cameras like the noisy K-7: the image below is shot at 1000 ISO and cropped 50%!. (no noise reduction. No tweaking in photoshop) It looks excellent printed large.


BTW This is an image I wouldn't have gotten if I had an FF camera simply because I wouldn't have a long enough lens with me. This was a chance meeting; I had no intention of shooting wildlife...The built in image stabilization, not available for Nikon/Canon in such a lens, made sure I got the shot. It was shot in almost twilight....
Since there is a five stop advantage over a non-stabilized FF camera at the same DOF I would have to use 32000(!) ISO on an FF camera to get the same image. By all means use FF for wildlife but I have lost too many shots due to cumbersome gear (and the need to use a tripod) and gear that stayed at home to be interested anymore as the quality of APS sensors is way good enough. The next generation will be 24mp with even more cropability. You can carry a 80-300 consumer zoom and get the same reach as multikilo kilobuck equipment for FF giving the same magnification.

[joe.penn]

The difference between 16mp APS and a 23mp FF is about 12-15% in resolution

No it's not, it's not even close - canon FF vs canon crop MFT chart using the same exact lens:

APS-C


FF


APS-C = Approx 2400 @ 5.6
FF = Approx 3600 @ 5.6

Equals = FF resolves 67% Higher

Using that, look up any lens under APS-C and compare to the FF lens test and you will quickly see that it is not even close.

----------------------------

About noise performance, here is a random from flickr @ 12,800 ISO, read the comments and you will see there is no NR or adjustments on this photo:



I think ISO performance is more around a 3 to 4 stop advantage - I don't have hard numbers so not certain on that.

[FrancisK7]

About noise performance, here is a random from flickr @ 12,800 ISO, read the comments and you will see there is no NR or adjustments on this photo:

That is goddamn impressive.

[eddie1960]

As much as i would like to see a FF I can live without it I have alternatives like shooting on a film body, using my Medium format more, shooting my rangefinders..... there are times the digital FF would be very useful but i've worked around it for this long so if it takes till 2014 i'll be disappointed but it won't mean a firesale on everything to move to Nikon (which is where i would go if i couldn't wait)