Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-29-2009, 01:26 PM   #1
Site Supporter
zplus's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 168
Comparison: 35mm, APS-C (Perspective & FOV)

This post is to merely provide examples of 35mm full frame (FF) versus APS-C.
I used my K1000 loaded with Kodak Gold 200 and my *ist D set to ISO 200.
Every picture I used a tripod with a quick release head so that I could change cameras without moving the legs of the tripod.
I pointed the very certain of the matte focusing screen at the same spot in each correlating example. This nearly eliminates any error in similar composition due to differences in viewfinder coverage, 91% for the K1000 and 95% for the *ist D, if I recall correctly.

On all of the pictures, except the “bokeh” tests, I first used the same lens to show equivalent perspective and then I used my small variety of zooms to show equivalent field of view.

Perspective vs. Field of View
If you use a certain focal length lens and stay the exact same position, it doesn't matter what format you use, the pictures will have the same perspective, but the smaller the format the more cropped the image will be.

To obtain the same field of view, you have to use different focal lengths depending on the format. This is where the 1.5 comes into play with APS-C versus FF.

This is where the give and take comes into play on the whole APS-C vs. FF arguments. Either you use the same focal length lens on the APS-C camera to obtain a cropped version of the FF perspective OR you use an equivalent field of view focal length. The problem with the equivalent field of view focal length is that there will be less “compression” in the image as compared to the FF perspective. With less compression the depth of field changes which may or may not be desirable.

I plan to demonstrate these differences in the pictures I took. I'm not claiming one format is better than the other, each has their strengths and weaknesses. Please don't bash one format or the other or get into a heated/pointless debate. This post is purely for examples of both formats, you make your own conclusions.



First Example
Hanging Plant in the Gazebo


K1000 - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ f5.6 1/250




*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ f5.6 1/250




*ist D - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 34mm/5.6 1/250
34*1.5 = 51, closest I could get to 50mm with my zoom.




Second Example

Fence Post


K1000 - Star D 135/2.8 @ f5.6 1/1000




*ist D - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 90mm/5.6 1/1000
90*1.5 = 135




Third Example
Pool from the Gazebo
For this example, I first took the picture with the K1000 where the edges of the gazebo posts were just on the edges of the frame. I then backed up with my *ist D on the tripod to get similar framing.


K1000 - Pentax-M 50/2 @ 5.6 1/500




*ist D - Pentax-m 50/2 @ 5.6 1/500




Fourth Example
Apple in the Kitchen


K1000 - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60




*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60




*ist D - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 34mm/4 1/10




*ist D - Kiron 28/2 @ f2 1/50




*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60
Backed up about 1.5 feet and raised up about 4 inches.




Fifth Example
Apple on it's Side (Bokeh Comparison)


K1000 - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60




*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/60




Sixth Example
Closest Focusing on Apple
This is the closest my 50/1.4 would focus.


K1000 Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/30




*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ 1.4 1/30





In the following tests, I first took the portrait with my K1000 then used the same focal length on my *ist D and then used an equivalent focal length on my *ist D. I stayed in the same place for each example and for subsequent examples, I tried my best to pick a distance that kept the subject the same size and place in the viewfinder.

Seventh Example
Telephoto Portrait


K1000 - Pentax-FA 80-200 @ 200mm f8 1/60




*ist D - Pentax-FA 80-200 @ 200mm f8 1/60




*ist D - Star D 135/2.8 @ f8 1/60
135*1.5=202.5




Eighth Example
Mid-Telephoto Portrait


K1000 - Star D 135/2.8 @ f8 1/250




*ist D - Star D 135/2.8 @ f8 1/250




*ist D - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 90mm f8 1/250




Ninth Example
Normal Portrait


K1000 - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ f8 1/250




*ist D - Pentax-A 50/1.4 @ f8 1/250




*ist D - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 34mm f8 1/250




Tenth Example
Wide Portrait


K1000 - Pentax-FA 28-90 @ 28mm f8 1/250



I don't have a wide enough focal length to compare on my *ist D.

Edit: Film was developed and scanned at a local Walgreens and Digitals were shot in Pentax RAW and automatically converted to jpeg by Google Picasa 3 when uploaded.


Last edited by zplus; 01-02-2010 at 01:26 PM.
05-29-2009, 01:35 PM   #2
and
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,471
Great comparisons! I must say, regardless of FF or APSC the film shots look great compared to the istD, clearly a win for the film there.

Thanks for all the work in putting this together, good to have picture examples to demonstrate

now be carefull this thread doesnt attract this crowd:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/everything-else/61623-pentax-forum-fight-club.html

which I fear it will...fast...

In the red corner: The FF-For-Pentax-Now Pro Wresteling team
aaaaand in the blue corner: The APSC-For-Life bone breakers

match nr 789 in a series that will continu into eternity.

lets get ready to ruuuumble
05-29-2009, 02:04 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,962
I have a K10D and a KM...both of which have more MP in their sensor and are more advanced technologically than an istD.

I also have 3 Pentax film cameras...an S1a, ES II and K1000.

I'm surprised at the obvious differences in quality between the K1000 and the istD .

Although I think my 3 Pentax film cameras produce great quality pictures..so does my K10D and KM.

I'm surprised at the quality of the pictures taken with your istD digital camera compared to your K1000. Your K1000 takes very good photos what I would expect but the pix from your digital....? But your digital isn't in the same class as your K1000.

I don't know how to explain that.

Both my K10D and KM take great pictures...every bit as good and I think better than my film Pentaxes...even better than my old Leica Rangefinder.

I'm wondering if your istD is working properly ?
05-29-2009, 02:06 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 328
That 7th example really shows the difference of film latitude btw film and digital, at least how the istD is concerned.

05-29-2009, 02:21 PM   #5
Site Supporter
zplus's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 168
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by and Quote
I must say, regardless of FF or APSC the film shots look great compared to the istD, clearly a win for the film there.
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote

I'm wondering if your istD is working properly ?
QuoteOriginally posted by jboyde Quote
That 7th example really shows the difference of film latitude btw film and digital, at least how the istD is concerned.
Indeed to all. Yes, my *ist D sucks, it is very old, which is why I prefer my K1000s to digital right now and also why I cannot wait for my K-7 to arrive!

Thanks for commenting, btw!
05-29-2009, 03:37 PM   #6
mer
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Greece
Posts: 237
film rules, not to burst your bubble but film is still much better than the k7 in my HUMBLE opinion
05-29-2009, 03:48 PM   #7
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 30
Wow the Differences are just remarkable. It really shows Digital Cameras have a long ways to go......the dynamic range...the colors....metering....

Thanks really opened my eyes
05-29-2009, 03:59 PM   #8
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
Zplus,

Thanks for the work you did here.

I am really suprised at the DOF differance at equivilent focal lengths. Especially the fence post shots.

Much apreciated!

05-29-2009, 04:04 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
Now I love film but I think saying that Digital is yet to catch up with film on these kind of shots is kind of unfair. Why? If you compare the lenses he used for the FOV comparisons, the better lenses are on the K1000. For the shots that uses the same lens and still look somewhat worse, I do think all digital images need some postprocessing to capture its real beauty. The op didnt state whether he pp'd the images or not, but I'm assuming that it's not pp'd. Some of the shots are also not corrected on white balance department

Film and digital has it's good points, but I do think that Digital has indeed caught up with film in these kind of "normal" shots.

The DOF difference cannot be contested, though, Film (Full frame) does have way more DOF control...

FOV compression wise I think they're just different, not better. Although to be fair I do enjoy 50mm on film slightly more than 35mm on APS-C, if anything for the DOF control.

Last edited by Andi Lo; 05-29-2009 at 04:11 PM.
05-29-2009, 07:58 PM   #10
Site Supporter
zplus's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 168
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mer Quote
film rules, not to burst your bubble but film is still much better than the k7 in my HUMBLE opinion
And yes, I love film more than digital but a K-7 would definitely be better than my *ist D. My film will never be replaced.

QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
The op didnt state whether he pp'd the images or not, but I'm assuming that it's not pp'd. Some of the shots are also not corrected on white balance department
Thanks for pointing this out.
Film was developed and scanned by a local walgreens.
Digitals were shot in Pentax RAW and converted automatically to jpeg by Google Picasa 3, without my input for PP.
05-29-2009, 11:52 PM   #11
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by zplus Quote
And yes, I love film more than digital but a K-7 would definitely be better than my *ist D. My film will never be replaced.
Thanks for the work zplus!

I do think your *ist D's meter is off by about 1 stop, and the white balance needs to be corrected, but there's no doubt about the difference in tonal gradation and dynamic range.

My own much less formal comparisons tend to support what you've shown, which is one reason I still shoot film as often, if not more than, digital.
05-30-2009, 01:39 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 489
Without 100% crops and knowing the post production, this isn't a FF vs aps-c, but a film vs digi thread. I have to say, the film shots are miles better, the colours and tones are far beyond anything the digi produced.
05-30-2009, 02:30 AM   #13
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Cosmo Quote
Without 100% crops and knowing the post production, this isn't a FF vs aps-c, but a film vs digi thread. I have to say, the film shots are miles better, the colours and tones are far beyond anything the digi produced.
Again in defense of digital, I think digital definitely needs some sort of PP to bring out the magic. This is also what's nice about film IMHO, they cost money but not much time to get good results in terms of DR, contrast, and colors (just drop it at Walgreens), while digital is almost exactly the opposite

Using 50mm as it's intended to be used though... that's priceless

And thanks for the work zplus! I am already feeling the effect of FOV change since using film and trying out 35/2 on digital and this thread shows it really well.
05-30-2009, 05:16 AM   #14
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Looking over these fairly quickly I'd say you likely have a better feel for film. Some of the focus and exposure on the digital images are off. And also I am doubting you use post-processing to its best, something that really must be done for digital to shine. This is not meant so much as a criticism as encouragement to really look closely at what you are doing and how it can be made better. Even with the K-7.

I see no reason digital cannot be as good as 35mm film, though certainly particular looks are easier with film.

shrine



bedside table



Both of those are shot with the K20D but I wouldn't say they scream of "digital".

Last edited by rparmar; 05-30-2009 at 05:27 AM.
05-30-2009, 05:21 AM   #15
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
bookmark

.


Excellent comparison, thanks for taking the time to do this.

This thread should be bookmarked and linked as an example whenever confusion
over perspective vs. FOV with respect to FL arises. Good job.


.
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!
*ist, camera, dslr, f8, field, format, k1000, length, pentax-a, pentax-fa, photography, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
35mm / APS-C - sophotec Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 20 05-23-2010 01:07 PM
Question regarding 35mm vs APS-C boodiespost Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 12-10-2009 11:02 AM
Comparison - APS-C, 35mm, 645MedFmt architorture Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 06-01-2009 04:04 AM
Fun to take pics with a kit lens again (Beware lots of pics) dsport Post Your Photos! 16 11-19-2008 06:56 AM
MF APS = 35mm FF? Nesster Pentax News and Rumors 30 02-15-2008 06:55 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:42 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