Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-07-2008, 03:24 PM   #106
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Venturi Quote
THANK YOU!
I've been trying to wrap my brain around how somehow the DOF could possibly change just by changing the film/sensor size when everything else remained constant - and my ears were about to start bleeding.
I guess I just missed the entire part of the discussion relating to distance to subject changing to get a "carbon copy" image. *phew*
that whole distance to subject and "equal framing" is the root of all the FF vs APS-C problems, people dont get it, and they assume too many things, they confuse magnification with field of view, and they just rely on the marketing of "equivalent to" but never understand what the "to" part relates to!

now that you know, spread the word! maybe one day we'll stop having these threads.

11-07-2008, 04:16 PM   #107
Veteran Member
Venturi's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,639
Interestingly, now that I fully understand it just means that for me full-frame really doesn't give me any benefit over APS-C.

I rarely find myself wishing I could get more into the frame; rather I typically wish I could get closer. So FF really just makes that more difficult.

If I were shooting in a studio the majority of the time or doing landscape work then I can see where full-frame would be of benefit - but I'd probably lean towards medium format then anyway.

Thanks again for helping me clear the fog.
11-08-2008, 06:36 AM   #108
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by melander Quote
Take a look at our teles: We got 300/4 and 200/2,8 (I know there are other teles out there )

With the "crop" factor they will corespond to 450/4 and 300/2,8.
Ignoring most of this thread, this particular statement is very easy to correct and so I jump in to do it:
With the "crop" factor, they will correspond to 450/6 and 300/4.2.
By multiplying focal length AND the f-stop with the crop factor, you keep constant: FoV, Depth of Field (yes!!), noise (yes!!). So, it is the only possible fair comparison one can make.

So, what a smaller sensor basically does to a tele lens is EXACTLY what a teleconverter does thereby loosing options at the wide angle end.
11-08-2008, 08:40 AM   #109
Veteran Member
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,663
The keeping noise constant part is questionable, as that has as much to do with sensor technology as anything else. FoV and DoF are controlled by hard physical laws so those aren't arguable, noise levels are more variable.

11-08-2008, 09:57 AM   #110
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,012
For my 2 cents worth. The biggest advantage or FF cameras is income for the camera makers. They do NOT want to return to the 35mm film days when people bought camera bodies and lenses and kept them for years. They want to keep all of us buying into new systems every few years to keep things rolling. Canon and Nikon in particular have made billions in the last few years as all of us have moved from film to digital. That sales growth is sure slow down at some point. Our current digital cameras have lenses designed for the current smaller sensors. Now the new "better" cameras are back to FF size and the lenses we bought for our current cameras won't work. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! It may backfire in the current economic climate.
11-09-2008, 03:42 AM   #111
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
The keeping noise constant part is questionable, as that has as much to do with sensor technology as anything else. FoV and DoF are controlled by hard physical laws so those aren't arguable, noise levels are more variable.
Replace noise by "total amount of light captured" and all three are controlled by hard physical laws so aren't arguable. Noise is a direct function of "total amount of light captured" for any given sensor technology.
11-09-2008, 08:41 AM   #112
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
For my 2 cents worth. The biggest advantage or FF cameras is income for the camera makers. They do NOT want to return to the 35mm film days when people bought camera bodies and lenses and kept them for years. They want to keep all of us buying into new systems every few years to keep things rolling. Canon and Nikon in particular have made billions in the last few years as all of us have moved from film to digital. That sales growth is sure slow down at some point. Our current digital cameras have lenses designed for the current smaller sensors. Now the new "better" cameras are back to FF size and the lenses we bought for our current cameras won't work. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! It may backfire in the current economic climate.
One might have as easily said that medium format cameras were about money for the camera companies.
There are very real imaging advantages to full frame sensor cameras. If you appreciate these advantages and feel sufficient need to incorporate them into your work, then you will buy one of these cameras.
Apparently enough people feel that way to keep D3 and D700 sales fairly brisk. I expect Nikon and Canon will keep crop sensor cameras in their line-ups to compete against Pentax
11-09-2008, 11:51 AM   #113
Veteran Member
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,663
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Replace noise by "total amount of light captured" and all three are controlled by hard physical laws so aren't arguable. Noise is a direct function of "total amount of light captured" for any given sensor technology.

True, but different sensor technologies may capture that light more or less efficiently than others, resulting in different s/n ratios. So the amount of light captured is indeed a constant, but the resulting noise isn't.

11-09-2008, 01:28 PM   #114
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
True, but different sensor technologies may capture that light more or less efficiently than others, resulting in different s/n ratios. So the amount of light captured is indeed a constant, but the resulting noise isn't.
I've seen a lot of read herrings bandied about in this thread, all of which translate down to we'll set up a straw man, use it to split a hair really fine and call it a great equalizer. It's pretty easy to see the advantage of a full frame sensor. All you need to do is use a D3 at high ISO and look at the files.
11-09-2008, 02:33 PM   #115
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,148
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I've seen a lot of read herrings bandied about in this thread, all of which translate down to we'll set up a straw man, use it to split a hair really fine and call it a great equalizer. It's pretty easy to see the advantage of a full frame sensor. All you need to do is use a D3 at high ISO and look at the files.
Well put.

I use Pentax because I like them and have used them for over 47 years now. It would be quite expensive to switch. However, Pentax is not the be-all and end-all of cameras. If I were in business with my camera, I might or might not use Pentax, depending on what type of Photography Business I were in. High end landscape photography? I would try and mortgage my house to get a Hasselblad. If I need quality, I need quality.
11-09-2008, 03:37 PM   #116
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: France and Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 73
Original Poster
Well, I didn't imagine I would get so many informations on so many different topics from a single question thx everyone BTW for all the input. As far as I can see for now, I have to admit Wheatfield made a perfect point : I had the opportunity to use a Nikon D700 for a short time this weekend. At high ISO FF is really amazing ...... but I think a good MF would make an even bigger impression. But mortgage my house ?? hmmm..... could sell a kidney instead ......
11-09-2008, 08:39 PM   #117
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,148
QuoteOriginally posted by Wulifou Quote
Well, I didn't imagine I would get so many informations on so many different topics from a single question thx everyone BTW for all the input. As far as I can see for now, I have to admit Wheatfield made a perfect point : I had the opportunity to use a Nikon D700 for a short time this weekend. At high ISO FF is really amazing ...... but I think a good MF would make an even bigger impression. But mortgage my house ?? hmmm..... could sell a kidney instead ......
Yeah, the Hassie runs about $1,000 a megapixel. Of course, you still have to buy lenses after that ...
11-09-2008, 09:56 PM   #118
Veteran Member
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,663
Hey, Wheatfield, I totally agree with you on FF having an advantage. I was just splitting hairs, as you said, but in order to make sure we were getting things straight and understanding each other, not to claim that it was some sort of equalizer. The point I was making would go along perfectly with the idea that FF has an advantage, it would simply say that some FF cameras might have better performance than other FF cameras.

Wolifou, I don't know that you'd want to buy a MF camera for high ISO... I'm not sure why, but even with their larger photosites the medium format backs seem to get nasty at medium ISOs, even. It might have to to with a longer signal-processing pipeline or something, but past that I'm not sure why they're not doing even better than FF.
11-10-2008, 09:48 AM   #119
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,012
I'm not denying that FF cameras take great pictures, just that I don't think we , as amatuers and hobbiests need to buy one unless we have the money and choose to. I can understand Canon and Nikon making the FF cameras to compete with the large format (Hassleblad, Mamiya, etc) used by pros but there appears to be a trend starting that may force FF on everybody. Will the camera makers manufacture and inventory 2 lines of lenses? This is a cheap moneymaking way to improve cameras. Why spend R&D money on improving image quality of current size cameras and sensors when you can make FF cameras and sell new lenses too. Not everybody still has their old 35mm lenses. You can count on the fact the old lenses won't work in some way on the newer cameras, like no autofocus or different shake reduction. All of the current DSLR's will take great pictures. The photos I delete are due to my mistakes and not the fault of the camera. Most of the complaints we read in the forum are related to autofocus issues and exposure. A FF sensor camera won't focus any better and exposure is my choice as it has always been. I know the camera manufacturers must to constantly improve their camera bodies and systems but I don't want to HAVE to buy all new lenses. The question has popped up a couple of times already as to whether or not to buy DA lenses if FF cameras are going to take over in a couple of years.
11-10-2008, 11:24 AM   #120
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
I'm not denying that FF cameras take great pictures, just that I don't think we , as amatuers and hobbiests need to buy one unless we have the money and choose to. I can understand Canon and Nikon making the FF cameras to compete with the large format (Hassleblad, Mamiya, etc) used by pros but there appears to be a trend starting that may force FF on everybody. Will the camera makers manufacture and inventory 2 lines of lenses? This is a cheap moneymaking way to improve cameras. Why spend R&D money on improving image quality of current size cameras and sensors when you can make FF cameras and sell new lenses too. Not everybody still has their old 35mm lenses. You can count on the fact the old lenses won't work in some way on the newer cameras, like no autofocus or different shake reduction. All of the current DSLR's will take great pictures. The photos I delete are due to my mistakes and not the fault of the camera. Most of the complaints we read in the forum are related to autofocus issues and exposure. A FF sensor camera won't focus any better and exposure is my choice as it has always been. I know the camera manufacturers must to constantly improve their camera bodies and systems but I don't want to HAVE to buy all new lenses. The question has popped up a couple of times already as to whether or not to buy DA lenses if FF cameras are going to take over in a couple of years.
First, you can be pretty sure that full frame 35mm form factor cameras are being bought by amateurs as well as pro photographers.
Truth be to tell, the pros don't have the money that amateurs have to buy stuff.
At some point, cropped sensor cameras will hit a technological wall. In many respects, the K20 is already at that wall, since sensor resolution is at or higher than lens resolution with the K20 sensor with many lenses, and bigger sensors will tend to have lower noise, given an equal megapixel count.

Most of the complaints that I've read on this forum really just relate to the cameras not having quite high enough performance levels. This is a situation easily resolved, though Pentax does have to do their part.

A full frame camera with better AF will focus better. The same goes for a cropped sensor camera. Pentax AF is just about the least effective on the market at the moment.
I won't speak to auto exposure, since I have learned not to trust it.

I suspect that shortly the market is going to be levered into full frame as being the norm for advanced cameras, with cropped sensor cameras being relegated to the Barbie Cams.
It will be interesting to see which way Pentax decides to go. They will have the choice of staying the course they are on now, watching their market base slowly self eroding, and fewer new users coming on stream, and eventually just ceasing to exist, or to at least attempt to compete in the market that is evolving above beginner cams.
Will they try and possibly fail, or will they not try, and definitely fail?
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!
camera, dslr, ff, iso, lenses, lot, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Buying locally, when you can. The advantage. Ed n Georgia General Talk 2 10-26-2010 07:55 AM
Advantage of mixed system yusuf Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 10-05-2010 07:07 AM
One EVIL/MILC/etc advantage Eruditass Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 21 06-07-2010 05:14 AM
advantage of SDM lenses Wulifou Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 10-20-2008 10:02 AM
advantage of CMOS vanguy Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 01-23-2008 10:27 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:24 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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