Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
4 Days Ago   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 124
A supposition with a question.

Let me put a concern of mine: if a 36x24 sensor can mimic the results of a 24x16 sensor with more benefits. Suppose I have a 50mm lens on my K5. I want to shoot at f/2.8 and 1/200sec ISO100 for a portrait. I personally do not like on my K5 24x16 sensor too sallow depth of field for portraits. I want both eyes in focus, if the ear and the nose are in focus even better. So I do not go larger than f/1.8 in my 50mm. A f/1.4 50mm lens would be useless to me, I have tried them in other APS-C cameras and found the depth of field annoyingly shallow and the bokeh is just an undistinguishable mesh. So to replicate the before mentioned set with a 36x24 sensor I would need a pricier 75mm lens, probably available will only be a 80mm. Time kept at 1/200sec. If I set aperture at f/2.8 I would not have the depth of field I like, it would be shallower. So I will need to step down lets say one stop. But then I could not keep the ISO at 100 but I would need to step up at ISO200. Then the benefit of the 36x24 sensor having one stop more benefit in sensitivity is evaporated. Dynamic range of ISO200 of the 36x24 sensor may be in comparison with ISO100 of the 24x16 sensor.
Am I wrong? What do you think?

4 Days Ago   #2
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,408
How did you happen upon 200 f/2.8 light? Was that by luck or was it set or found? I mean in your example is there another reason not to go higher than shutter 200?
4 Days Ago   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Madaboutpix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Rhine-Westphalia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 624
Er, why don't you just try medium apertures - in the range between, say, F3.5 to F8 - of your 50-mil lens on your K-5 till you get the desired combination of DOF and bokeh? In that range, a 50-mil standard will also deliver the best overall sharpness it's capable of.
4 Days Ago - 2 Likes   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,456
QuoteOriginally posted by Hidrieus Quote
So to replicate the before mentioned set with a 36x24 sensor I would need a pricier 75mm lens
Nope. just crop the picture.

QuoteOriginally posted by Hidrieus Quote
If I set aperture at f/2.8 I would not have the depth of field I like, it would be shallower.
If you use the same lens 50mm on a FF camera, same distance to subject, and same aperture, and crop the FF image to a aps-c perspective you have the same DOF.

4 Days Ago - 7 Likes   #5
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,083
I'm just filled with happiness to see a thread about portraiture where someone wants more depth of field rather than less.
4 Days Ago   #6
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,408
QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote
Nope. just crop the picture.


.
But that eliminates the benefits.
4 Days Ago - 3 Likes   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,456
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
I'm just filled with happiness to see a thread about portraiture where someone wants more depth of field rather than less.
Agreed...... I rarely use wider than f8 or f11.

But then my portrait subjects do have long noses !!



---------- Post added 10-12-19 at 08:42 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by swanlefitte Quote
But that eliminates the benefits.
In what way ?
4 Days Ago - 3 Likes   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Madaboutpix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Rhine-Westphalia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 624
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
I'm just filled with happiness to see a thread about portraiture where someone wants more depth of field rather than less.

That's indeed a remarkable event. Reminds me of a classic eye-opening article: The Online Photographer: In Defense of Depth

4 Days Ago   #9
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,408
QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote

In what way ?
The extra or bigger pixels are gone.
4 Days Ago - 1 Like   #10
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2018
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 192
I think the OP may have a bad case of Jarhead fever — shooting at f/2.8 being a classic symptom. I suggest lying down in a darkened room for a while and getting a good haircut, lest the 'fro get out of control.
4 Days Ago   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,456
QuoteOriginally posted by swanlefitte Quote
The extra or bigger pixels are gone.
Well then the OP should either buy an 85mm lens or use a 50mm lens and move closer to the subject. Whether he chooses my option or either of the other options, he wont notice the slight bit of difference. Hell I have done a portrait shoot at 800 by mistake instead of 100 on the K1. Did not need to re shoot.
4 Days Ago - 3 Likes   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kiwi_jono's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,592
Exposure is the same between APS-C and FF and, assuming well calibrated sensors, ISO 100 f2.8 1/125 should give same exposure on both.

For the same focal length (same lens), same aperture and same distance from subject, depth of field is the same between APS-C and FF. However the lens will have a wider field of view on FF and therefore to fill the frame with the same subject you will either need get closer to your subject (narrowing depth of field) or use a longer focal length (which will also narrow the depth of field if the same aperture is used).
Consequently when shooting a scene where I want to a deep field of view on my K-1, I have found I typically end up stopping down a bit more than I did my K-5.
4 Days Ago - 3 Likes   #13
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,392
QuoteOriginally posted by Hidrieus Quote
Let me put a concern of mine: if a 36x24 sensor can mimic the results of a 24x16 sensor with more benefits. Suppose I have a 50mm lens on my K5. I want to shoot at f/2.8 and 1/200sec ISO100 for a portrait. I personally do not like on my K5 24x16 sensor too sallow depth of field for portraits. I want both eyes in focus, if the ear and the nose are in focus even better. So I do not go larger than f/1.8 in my 50mm. A f/1.4 50mm lens would be useless to me, I have tried them in other APS-C cameras and found the depth of field annoyingly shallow and the bokeh is just an undistinguishable mesh. So to replicate the before mentioned set with a 36x24 sensor I would need a pricier 75mm lens, probably available will only be a 80mm. Time kept at 1/200sec. If I set aperture at f/2.8 I would not have the depth of field I like, it would be shallower. So I will need to step down lets say one stop. But then I could not keep the ISO at 100 but I would need to step up at ISO200. Then the benefit of the 36x24 sensor having one stop more benefit in sensitivity is evaporated. Dynamic range of ISO200 of the 36x24 sensor may be in comparison with ISO100 of the 24x16 sensor.
Am I wrong? What do you think?
You're thinking too much. Take some pictures at different apertures, select the best. Find out where you like each lens individually. And stop being so critical about what shutter and -stop to use. It looks like me like you've set restrictive parameters that are interfering with your ability to get the image you want. For a portrait, there's no reason to set the aperture at 2.8, there's no reason to set the speed at 1/200. All you're doing here is causing yourself grief.
4 Days Ago - 1 Like   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,456
I generally find that it is best to concentrate on what the camera and lens in my hand can produce in relation to DOF, rather than have a philosophical debate about what other format/lens may or may not equal the same thing.
4 Days Ago - 1 Like   #15
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,408
QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote
. Whether he chooses my option or either of the other options, he wont notice the slight bit of difference.
My understanding is OP is trying to understand why one would benefit from FF if you don't want shallow dof. The scenario illustrated pits the lost ISO vs the benefits of a large sensor.
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!
36x24, 50mm, benefit, body, camera, depth, depth of field, dof, dslr, field, focus, iso, lens, photography, sensor, step
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Camera question/ISO question Photography91 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 01-07-2014 07:56 AM
An Answer to a question and a question. granitic Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 02-23-2007 09:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:17 AM. | 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