Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-10-2009, 11:21 AM   #16
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by schmik Quote
Damn physics and reallity.... can't we have it all?
I smell "misconception" here

Yes, you can have it all, physics isn't in the way (this time).

Point is that to have a nice 100% 0.92x viewfinder like in the 35mm film era, you need a 100% 1.4x viewfinder for APS-C. Not a problem.

You need an eyepiece with large exit pupil to support a full scale vision onto the VF image and a prism with large enough image circle. Both not being a problem. Eyepieces with large exit pupils tend to be expensive, though.

As for a dimmer VF image: Just use faster glass. An FF camera's VF isn't brighter because it has a bigger sensor, it is brighter because the lens has a larger diameter (in mm).


An APS-C camera with fast glass and an 1.4x eyepiece with large exit pupil would have a VF indistinguishable from a FF camera.


But then my theory is that an FF camera's sensor is more expensive by only 100$, maybe. So, I'm not sure that building an FF camera isn't cheaper than building an FF VF for APS-C

08-10-2009, 03:15 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,939
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
... do you get a larger one than necessary to also cover the uncropped sensor (at a smaller FOV), or do you invest in a lens can only be used in cropped mode. Still not quite "having it all".
How's having the choice not "having it all"? Cost aside, FF is a superset of APS-C, no compromises required.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Point is that to have a nice 100% 0.92x viewfinder like in the 35mm film era, you need a 100% 1.4x viewfinder for APS-C. Not a problem.
Interesting to know. We were wondering about this in another thread.

It seems that the reason for the lack of an APS-C camera with such a VF is that
  1. there are quite a number of "dark" consumer zooms out there which would make the VF difficult to use (at the long end)
  2. you have to scale up from an APS-C image circle rather than from a FF image circle
  3. it is probably not economical to offer such a large VF

I agree with respect to FF costs. While the production of FF sensors currently requires special processes, I don't think the cost differences can be justified by this and in the long run I reckon FF sensors will become a very affordable mass market product.
08-10-2009, 03:59 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
How's having the choice not "having it all"?
In a nutshell, a choice is having a lens with trait A or B, take your pick. Having it all is having traits A *and* B in the same lens.

I agree that Falconeye's comment about the possibility of larger viewfinders with APS-C is quite interesting!
08-10-2009, 04:21 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,939
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Having it all is having traits A *and* B in the same lens.
Sure. But you cannot have a lens that is, e.g., a super tele and a flawless super wide angle at the same time on any system.

My argument was, in a nutshell, that APS-C does not give you any choices/advantages you don't get on an equivalent FF system.

08-10-2009, 05:09 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I smell "misconception" here

Yes, you can have it all, physics isn't in the way (this time).

Point is that to have a nice 100% 0.92x viewfinder like in the 35mm film era, you need a 100% 1.4x viewfinder for APS-C. Not a problem.

You need an eyepiece with large exit pupil to support a full scale vision onto the VF image and a prism with large enough image circle. Both not being a problem. Eyepieces with large exit pupils tend to be expensive, though.

As for a dimmer VF image: Just use faster glass. An FF camera's VF isn't brighter because it has a bigger sensor, it is brighter because the lens has a larger diameter (in mm).


An APS-C camera with fast glass and an 1.4x eyepiece with large exit pupil would have a VF indistinguishable from a FF camera.


But then my theory is that an FF camera's sensor is more expensive by only 100$, maybe. So, I'm not sure that building an FF camera isn't cheaper than building an FF VF for APS-C
Thanks for the (as usual) splendid explanation of the technical aspects. Sounds, however, like the cost differential of producing a decent APS-C viewfinder means making a FF dSLR would make more sense.

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
In a nutshell, a choice is having a lens with trait A or B, take your pick. Having it all is having traits A *and* B in the same lens.

I agree that Falconeye's comment about the possibility of larger viewfinders with APS-C is quite interesting!
Aside from pixel pitch differences, a FF dSLR DOES allow you to have traits "A and B" together, as APS-C dSLRs are nothing more than a crop of FF, and FF can always be cropped to the size of APS-C. The reverse, of course, is not true, as APS-C can never "recover" the cropped out portion of your angle of view at any focal length.

The size and weight arguments have been well discussed above, and I would just add that it is ironically APS-C cameras that are bigger and heavier than they need to be, since they are (and always have been) a "compromise" format built around a FF lens mount and register distance, and any difference between APS-C and FF cameras of similar construction and content will always be negligible. Further, for all the size/weight clamoring as an "issue," even Four Thirds cameras aren't much smaller and lighter than other dSLRs, with a sensor 1/4 the size of FF and a clean sheet lens mount and register distance design, so it's not as if smaller format sizes are delivering any significant corresponding reduction in size/weight without significant related compromises.
08-10-2009, 05:16 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Sure. But you cannot have a lens that is, e.g., a super tele and a flawless super wide angle at the same time on any system.
That wasn't the choice I was discussing, though. It was between a lens that provides a given FOV at a small size versus one that provides that same FOV while actually taking advantage of the larger sensor.

QuoteQuote:
My argument was, in a nutshell, that APS-C does not give you any choices/advantages you don't get on an equivalent FF system.
Except size and price. But I will grant that *if* you (temporarily) give up the primary advantage of FF - namely, the larger sensor size - you can indeed claim there is no (permanent) telephoto disadvantage.
08-10-2009, 05:24 PM   #22
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
Aside from pixel pitch differences, a FF dSLR DOES allow you to have traits "A and B" together, as APS-C dSLRs are nothing more than a crop of FF, and FF can always be cropped to the size of APS-C.
Yes, so if you buy both a small lens capable of providing a given FOV in crop format as well as a larger one capable of giving the same FOV in FF, you can indeed "have it all" - except you need two lenses to do it. If you take them both with you, you've given up most of the size advantage of having a smaller one. If you don't have them both with you, then you don't get to have it all, at least not with you.

QuoteQuote:
any difference between APS-C and FF cameras of similar construction and content will always be negligible.
Until there is an existence proof of this claim, I'm going to file it along with claims of the feasibility of cheap cold fusion.

Let me put it this way: to me, "having it all" would mean a camera that someone with no interest in FF (eg, me) would see as not being a step backwards in any way whatsoever, while also giving him all the advantages of FF. It doens't mean creating a camera that suits *your* needs while not addressing those of the rest of us.

Of course, none of this is to say that an FF camera has to provide it "all" in order to make sense. Thst's not true at all; I don't begrudge anyone a camera that happens to not be right for me. But I do take exception to the claim that such a camera is "having it all". It isn't; it is simply a larger and more expensive camera that gives you a choice between having what *you* want and having what I want in respects *other* than size and cost, while not giving me what I want in the latter respects.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 08-10-2009 at 05:32 PM.
08-10-2009, 07:19 PM   #23
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
That wouldn't be having it all - we'd be giving up the smaller size of APS-C cameras, giving up the advantage in telephoto shooting, and paying quite a large premium for it. But of course, for those for whom those things aren't important, it is true that FF does at least give you the larger viewfinder, plus advantages in noise and in wide angle shooting.
What telephoto advantage? The image at any given focal length is identical size whether FF or cropped. Want the same shot? Enlarge the FF more and crop it. With the smaller sensor you lose the wide angle advantage though.

I think I am a little surprised you made this remark Marc.

08-10-2009, 07:47 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,939
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Let me put it this way: to me, "having it all" would mean a camera that someone with no interest in FF (eg, me) would see as not being a step backwards in any way whatsoever, while also giving him all the advantages of FF.
That camera is not utopia. It is an FF camera which you leave in APS-C crop mode (no step backwards in any way) and others may use in FF mode as well. Even you could sometimes use it in FF mode.

I don't think FF cameras have to be larger/heavier than APS-C cameras and in time I think they will become as affordable. So, no disadvantages. You can have it all.
08-10-2009, 08:26 PM   #25
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
What telephoto advantage? The image at any given focal length is identical size whether FF or cropped. Want the same shot? Enlarge the FF more and crop it. With the smaller sensor you lose the wide angle advantage though.

I think I am a little surprised you made this remark Marc.
Read my followup posts. Obviously, I understand one can crop, but it's not as good from my perspective if I use a larger lens to cover FF, nor is there any advantage to me from FF if I *don't* use such a lens - I'm paying for a more expensive camera than I need, carrying around a larger/heavier body than I want, and not getting anything in return. As I've said half a dozen times now, that's not "having it all".

Clearly, the folks who want FF cannot understand the perspective of someone who doesn't. All I can say is that until you *prove* to me there can be an FF camera that is as small and as inexpensive as an otherwise identical APS-C camera, FF will *not* give me everything I can get from APS-C. I don't doubt that it might be possible *in theory* to build such a camera, but without an actual existence proof of this theory, I'll consider it alongside the *theory* that Bigfoot might be real.

I don't suppose there is anything else I can say on the matter. You may be get everything *you* want from an FF camera, and that's fine. But until someone *proves* to me that I can get everything *I* want from one - and right now the actual *evidence* suggests otherwise - I simply cannot accept the claim that with an FF camera I can "have it all".
08-11-2009, 12:16 AM   #26
Veteran Member
schmik's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney Aus
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 527
Original Poster
Hmmmm... i'm still dreaming of that ME sized DSLR WITH the ME viewfinder.

Maybe with FF you could stick on your 40LTD and have a 40mm or a 60mm (40 being cropped). As long as you could flick a switch to swap between 40 and 60 in the viewfinder. And it is ME size.... just kidding, k7 size will do.

As for Falconeyes comment: is it possible to make this more expensive VF the same size as a k7 VF. I assume yes but cost is restrictive. I would have paid a $100 extra for a VF THAT large.

mike
08-11-2009, 01:05 AM   #27
Forum Member
UltraWide's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 59
QuoteOriginally posted by schmik Quote
Hmmmm... i'm still dreaming of that ME sized DSLR WITH the ME viewfinder.

Maybe with FF you could stick on your 40LTD and have a 40mm or a 60mm (40 being cropped). As long as you could flick a switch to swap between 40 and 60 in the viewfinder. And it is ME size.... just kidding, k7 size will do.

As for Falconeyes comment: is it possible to make this more expensive VF the same size as a k7 VF. I assume yes but cost is restrictive. I would have paid a $100 extra for a VF THAT large.

mike
If you get the opportunity take look through the MX viewfinder
08-11-2009, 09:06 AM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: U.K.
Posts: 685
A Canon 5D FF VF doesn't look much different to my K100D with O-ME53, small beer differences anyway. However, my Pentax KM 35mm film camera's VF is enormous! So was the EVF on my Olympus C750 x10 zoom P&S, absolutely huge (KM class) but horribly pixellated and laggy.
08-11-2009, 10:38 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,484
Just to throw my 2 cents in:

One of the benefits of the switch to aps-c was higher top shutter speeds.
08-11-2009, 01:22 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve Beswick Quote
Just to throw my 2 cents in:

One of the benefits of the switch to aps-c was higher top shutter speeds.
Like what?

My 4 year old FF pro body does 1/8000. The fastest one I know is the 1.3 crop original 1D which did 1/16000. Don't know any APS-C bodies that do 1/16000 and most don't do 1/8000 either.
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!
body, camera, dslr, eye, k7, magnification, photography, vf
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-7 and wireless pTTL restrictions (and praise!) Mister Guy Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 09-17-2009 01:16 PM
Dome shooting / restrictions (St. Loiuis) user440 General Talk 11 04-24-2009 07:22 PM
News Knowledgebase Posting Guidelines and Restrictions Adam Site Suggestions and Help 1 01-30-2009 11:36 PM
K mount lens on K10D, restrictions? rdrum76 Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 10-25-2007 06:26 PM
K mount lens on K10D, restrictions? rdrum76 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 06-23-2007 06:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 AM. | 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