[monochrome]

Hence the fact that we always preferred the output of Tess' K-5 to my K-3. I felt like i was shooting with half a deck before I got the K-1. And also the reason I'd probably still pick up a 645D at the right price. Although the price I'd be willing to pay is going down faster than what the actual price they are being offered for is. Between the K-5 and K-3 the K-5 is the better low light landscape camera. The K-3 is the better hi-resolution camera action camera.

On a 4k monitor, (approx. 8 MP), we can't tell the difference between a K-5 image and a K-1 image of the same scene. The K-5 already exceeds all but the most demanding circumstances.

I just bought a K5lls because I’ve been reading comments like this for years. ATM I’m learning to use it properly. I’m accustomed to setting up my exposures for K-3 and KP (higher ISO and faster shutter) but since I don’t shoot small birds with long lenses it seems I need to slow down and shoot like it is a K-1. All these years I thought the K-01 (similar sensor / same sensor 12-bit vs. 14-bit RAW) was close enough. Maybe not.

[Rondec]

That's very true on the wide-angle end. It's a bit trickier on the telephoto end because although the APS-C user doesn't need as long as lens as the FF user, they do need a faster lens (e.g., APS-C users need to get a 200 f/2 to replicate a 300 f/2.8 on FF, both of which cost $6,000). Something like the Pentax DFA 150-450 f/4.5-5.6 has no true APS-C equivalent (which would require a 100-300 f/3.2-4) although the Sigma 100-300 f/4 comes close.

One of the other key advantages of any larger format camera is it provides more range for cropping. Any camera can "zoom with the feet" but a larger format camera (having a larger negative or higher megapickles and IQ) gives more flexibility for "zoom with a crop."

If a 4k crop is acceptable, a 50mm lens on a K-1 can take anything from a 50mm to a 105mm shot. The K-3 can use a 35 mm + cropping to get an FF-equivalent of roughly a 53 to 91mm.

That's perhaps true, but the issue is that while I can find a cheap lens that is reasonably sharp for APS-C that is 300mm f5.6, there is no full frame lens (that is cheap) that is 450mm f8. I suppose a 75 to 450 f3.5 to 8 full frame lens wouldn't be too expensive, but they don't seem to be on the market, while the ones that are available are a lot more expensive. I don't shoot telephoto much but when I do I generally use my K3 to do so and just leave the full frames at home.

---------- Post added 06-30-19 at 05:31 AM ----------

And why would you replicate 300 2.8? This is when it gets stupid. F/stop is an exposure value. For exposure you need APS-c 200 2.8 to replicate FF 300 2.8. Did I mention aperture is a value used for exposure?

This is when people start getting stupid with equivalence and why it's a bad idea to discuss it at all.

People start saying stuff like this.

If you use your FF lens at ƒ4 and you want the same DoF on a APS-c use f-2.8.
Similarly with ƒ5.6= ƒ4, for ƒ8,=ƒ5.6, for ƒ11= ƒ8- ƒ16=ƒ11.

There is one case where a 200 mm 2.8 lens is not the equivalent of 300 2.8, and that is when shooting the 300 2.8 wide open for narrow DoF.
When shooting to get a workable exposure in low light they are equivalent at ƒ2.8 except if you desire more DoF, the APS_c will give you more.

The more commonly used settings you can do anything with a 200 2.8 on APS_c you can do with an 300 2.8 on FF. There is one range where you need a 200 ƒ2 lens. So it's pretty much 83% of a lie, with a thin sliver of truth, made even more irrelevant because most of the time shooing wide open, it's done for low light, not narrow DoF, so even of that relevant 17% a good portion is irrelevant. This is the kind of stuff that gives equivalence such a bad name.

OK, now think about the claimed advantage making you use ƒ2 on APS-c. Say, I'm shooting the 200 2.8 APS-c. But I want the same DoF , shutter speed and ISO. For the 300 2.8 I need ƒ4. But now I can't get the right shutter speed or ISO. So it's actually the 300 2.8 on FF that can't match the performance of the 200 2.8 on APS-c. The situation is reversed.

Using a 200 2.8 on APS-c gets you one stop more DoF than using the 300 2.8 on FF

Equivalence does not in anyway imply any advantage of one format over another, there may be differences but not advantages. But for some reason, people try to make it so, by looking at the situations where there may be an advantage to FF, and ignoring the situations where APS_c will have an advantage.Thanks for the example, but please don't do it again. This is so 5 years ago.

You've been watching too many Tony Northrup videos. Honestly, the guy doesn't have a clue.

Did you miss the post where I pointed out he seemed like a nice enough guy but he's not too bright?

The issue is light. I like my K3 fine, but get the iso up to 800 and you would have absolutely no trouble telling that it is a crop camera, particularly when it comes to shooting landscapes. The dynamic range goes down, the image just softens up. The whole point of having faster lenses for APS-C is to have the ability to shoot hand held in low light.

I love my DA 15, but it really needs to be close to f8 to have sharp borders and that means that most of the time I am using a tripod early morning or sunset. It isn't a problem, but it is a reason why people use faster lenses or shoot full frame.

[normhead]

LOL! It's like you are not the normhead who started this post!

Where's the normhead who used equivalence to get the same DoF in both APS-C and FF images by changing the f-stop and then compensated for the changed exposure with a higher ISO setting on the stopped-down FF images? Where's the normhead who showed that most people can't tell FF from APS-C images if the f-stop and ISO is changed according to the equivalence and exposure formulas? (And notice that most people did not spot the higher ISO of the FF images because FF sensors have better high-ISO response.)

You yourself showed that it's highly likely that images taken with an APS-C w/ 200mm lens @ f/2.8 & ISO 100 would look indistinguishable from images taken with an FF w/ 300mm lens @ f/4 & ISO 200. And by extension, images taken in dimmer light with FF w/ 300mm lens @ f/2.8 & ISO 200 would have no equivalent in the APS-C world unless they use a 200mm lens @ f/2 & ISO 100. Also notice that the 200 f/2 and the 300 f/2.8 cost the same because they require the same size front-element to create shallow DoF. So there's no advantage.

We want our friendly, equivalence-loving normhead back!

P.S. I have never watched a Tony Northrup video in my entire life-- I vastly prefer text, formulas, and graphics/images to video.

You yourself showed that it's highly likely that images taken with an APS-C w/ 200mm lens @ f/2.8 & ISO 100 would look indistinguishable from images taken with an FF w/ 300mm lens @ f/4 & ISO 200.

This is what you guys always do. I'm used to it. The fact that you are shooting ƒ4 doesn't matter. Shooting 200 ISO instead of 100 ISO doesn't matter. You choose what matters and what doesn't. That's not science.

Yet that situation can be reversed. I can shoot 100 ISO, ƒ2.8, and have more DoF than an FF shot at 100 ISO and 2.8. Eeverything that goes one way with equivalence also goes the other way.


I can shoot APS-c 200 ISO ƒ2.8 1/100s against 100 ISO , ƒ4 1/25s and have a two stop advantage. Do you want to talk the limitations of equivalence which I just demonstrated, or do you want to sit and make up different scenarios until the cows come home? Once you start making up scenarios we can go on for ever. And never prove anything. Stick to the math.

Equivalence only tells you a 200mm lens on APS_c is equivalent to 300 on FF. It makes no judgements about what you have to buy, what your shooting style is or anything else. And usually the problems is not too narrow DoF, but not enough. You simply cannot make the conclusions that I need 200 ƒ2 lens to match a 300 2.8, because I almost always want max. DoF, and FF is at a distinct disadvantage except for low light shooting. That completely dismisses the practice of all who care about having the widest DoF possible.

My goal is often 100 ISO, ƒ2.8 widest DoF possible. Your definition is useless for my style of shooting. I don't need a 200 ƒ2 lens to take with my K-1 and 300 2.8.
I get really tired of all these people claiming that because they order their life to get extremely narrow DoF images, their obsession should dominate the discussion around everyone's lens selection and use.

The AF system is geared for 2.8, this year 19 of my 1100 keepers this year are taken sub 2.8. I never "have" to buy an ƒ2 lens, for any reason. Saying I do is absolute nonsense. I use 200 2.8 on APS_c and 300 2.8 on FF and the images are indistinguishable. Your assumption is nonsense.

When I buy a lens for 2.8, it's for increasing my shutter speed at base ISO. I know that's really hard for all the narrow DoF freaks to understand, but it's true.

[repaap]

One could easily say that that is over thinking. But you have actually experience, which make it talking from that. For me advantage of bigger format is not necessarily that narrow down and creamy bokeh alone. It is ability to stop down more with out too much of diffraction. And also with bigger sensor you can stop down for better performance and colour and still have similar DoF compared to a smaller format. Down side would be that fast lenses are going to cost, weight ect. More.

It is however important to know what one is getting. Other thing is if one is happy for what one get or being envious of what someone has. As said before a camera is just a camera

[normhead]

One could easily say that that is over thinking. But you have actually experience, which make it talking from that. For me advantage of bigger format is not necessarily that narrow down and creamy bokeh alone. It is ability to stop down more with out too much of diffraction. And also with bigger sensor you can stop down for better performance and colour and still have similar DoF compared to a smaller format. Down side would be that fast lenses are going to cost, weight ect. More.

It is however important to know what one is getting. Other thing is if one is happy for what one get or being envious of what someone has. As said before a camera is just a camera

As I said, there are advantages both ways. But one is definitely not you need a 200 ƒ2 lens on APS-c.

[repaap]

As I said, there are advantages both ways. But one is definitely not you need a 200 ƒ2 lens on APS-c.

Some people would be happy for that(untill they pay for it and then lug it around).

[Rondec]

Let's say clearly that full frame has certain advantages. It is better in high iso situations (not demonstrated here). It is better with regard to dynamic range at a given iso (also not shown here). It typically has faster lenses available for it with regard to max apertures, particularly on the wide angle side of things. It usually has a nicer viewfinder than APS-C cameras. All of this comes together to mean that for situations like astro photography and landscape photography, full frame is going to do a little better (after post processing).

APS-C gives tighter angles of view for the same focal lengths, often has higher pixel density, faster frame rates and typically both the camera bodies and lenses for it are cheaper and little smaller. This means that even though a camera like the D500 is sold for 1500 dollars, it gives 10 fps with a 200 shot RAW buffer, while the D5 offers 12 fps with a 200 shot buffer costs 6500 dollars.

You can shoot images where you can clearly see the difference or you can shoot ones where the formats look exactly the same. The question has more to do with your style of shooting and post processing and honestly, if you are satisfied with a smaller sensor, there is no reason you should covet a larger one. You can do the same things with a KP that you can with a K-1 II. At the same time, if you are running into limitations -- not enough dynamic range, high iso that isn't good enough, not fast enough wide angle lenses, there are reasons to move to a full frame camera.

[normhead]

Some people would be happy for that(untill they pay for it and then lug it around).

DOF is so narrow at 200 2.8, is there really a point? My 300 2.8 is used for low light and distance, small birds bak in the branches. A 200 2.8 would be exactly the same only better depth of field.

I own both a 200 2.8 and a 300 2.8. I've not once selected the 300 2.8 on the K-1 so I could have narrower DoF. I'vemany times selected the 200 APS_c for the extra 3 inches DoF at 20 feet. That extra 3 inches is an advantage, so why would I pay for an ƒ2 lens?

I'm easy though. If someone wants to post some images showing the difference between 200 2.8 APS-c and 300 2.8 FF I'll look. I've had both for over two years nw and I have nothing. But maybe it's a thing for someone else.

After we have clear set of images showing the difference, then we can say maybe whether it's worth $6000 to us. I already know it's not for me. And I'd be happy if equivalence nuts would stop pretending like it is. Long lenses excellent at subject isolation without extreme apertures.

300 ƒ8 on APS_c


Why would I want less DoF?

[swanlefitte]

An interesting side note.
I wonder if someone with 4 cones instead of 3 could distinguish better than the rest of us. I am not even sure rgb or cymk can produce what they see. It doesn't seem to be another primary color.
This Woman Sees 100 Times More Colors Than The Average Person | Popular Science

[repaap]

Norm: Having less dof is ooh and aah thing. Using money for such things like 200/2 is just that. Ofcourse there is someone who really need it. But not all of us

[JensE]

I thought the thread was not about less DoF or more-DoF, but about pictures which will look basically the same on both formats. Wasn't the point that with a 200mm f/2.0 on APS-C, you would approximately have the same same field and depth of view and even about the same level of noise as with a 300mm f/2.8 on 'full format'? This is why such a 200mm beast exists for Fuji-X, whereas for a system with a FF option, the still complex, but apparently less difficult to make 300mm f/2.8 would be the choice, should such a photographic need arise. Nothing different from Norm's poll above, except for the availability in K-Mount.

[repaap]

There is also little cheaper canon 200/2 that exists. Question still is almost the same..

[MarkJerling]

An interesting side note.
I wonder if someone with 4 cones instead of 3 could distinguish better than the rest of us. I am not even sure rgb or cymk can produce what they see. It doesn't seem to be another primary color.
This Woman Sees 100 Times More Colors Than The Average Person | Popular Science

Tetrachromats see a wider variation in colour tones. That article makes it seem as if she sees different colours, which is highly unlikely.

Try this test: Free Online Color Challenge and Hue Test; X-Rite. It won't tell you if you're a tetrachromat (no online test can do that because monitors don't show enough colour variation) but it will give you some idea of the small tonal differences that can be difficult to spot. Women are generally better at this than men.

[ZombieArmy]

Tetrachromats see a wider variation in colour tones. That article makes it seem as if she sees different colours, which is highly unlikely.

Try this test: Free Online Color Challenge and Hue Test; X-Rite. It won't tell you if you're a tetrachromat (no online test can do that because monitors don't show enough colour variation) but it will give you some idea of the small tonal differences that can be difficult to spot. Women are generally better at this than men.

I got a 2, dunno if that's good or bad

[JensE]

Sounds fairly good. I got a 0 - in a fairly dark room and with a good monitor, although a little tired, which was listed as negatively impacting the result. Worst listed for my age group / male was reported to be 106, so the metrics seem to go fairly high.