Full Frame.

Yes it's no fun at all with those size images. I still remember playing with a RIP for printing so that I could bypass print drivers and do full output size sharpening, an A3 print created something like a 1.2G intermediate file doing my rather humble old PC no good at all.

As sensor resolutions get better and better there seems little doubt that we will be returning to the old scheme of things where lens quality becomes more and more important. As regards full frame my understanding is that many of the old lens designs will struggle as for digital as it is important for lenses to project light more perpendicularly to the sensor plane than was necessary for film and modern designs have been reformulated for this. On APSC's reduced image circle this effect is less of a problem, but as we extend the image size to FF it becomes more critical - and I can already see fringing problems from this on some of my (otherwise good) adaptall lenses, even on APSC.

But we can always crop a FF image if the lens we use isn't up to it

Oh, I see, so what you are saying is we can return the image to APS-C size if the lense quality requires this!

I've now bought a K-5iis and I'm looking forward with some anticipation to getting some great APS-C sized images from it with no need to crop!

Cheers
David

Again, this is a rather 'portrait-centric' view of things - assuming that a great pic will have a particular area as subject and other more exterior or peripheral areas of less importance. For different subject types and for specific output needs consistent sharpness across the frame would be important.

Anyway, I had always thought that the whole reason that Digital has taken off (at the high end anyway) was precisely because it was perceived as offering IQ and resolution superior to 35mm :

This would have people believe that there is no edge softness on APS-C lenses?

Best regards

I would still contend that the sharpness of the edge of the frame isn't going make or break a great pic.


Having scanned a few thousand of my own 35mm negatives from the 1980s ( and still got a few thousands to go ) I've never seen anything from my K-5 that has surpasses some the best examples I've got from film. When using decent film and I've taken the shot well.

LOL --- I Suppose it would tell a lot about someone's approach to photography if the quality of the lens is more important than the composition.

I have lots of FF lenses, so would not always be using APS-C lenses on my K-5iis.

When using APS-C lenses, clearly there will be edge softness if the lenses have this characteristic, but what I was referring to was the comment about having to crop a FF image taken with a FF lens if it is soft at the edges. This comment would apply far less if using a FF lens on an APS-C sensor.

Regards
David

I agree with having to crop less as you say. My approach is to have the correct lens fitted to get the right image size in the first place. This can mean some expense of course when it comes to long glass for FF but that is the nature of the beast.

What is becoming clear is that unless you buy a D800 with long glass, a K5 and the new D7100 with a 500mm or 560mm in the case of Pentax will become very very useful for the nature togs out there.

I personally don't consider edge definition an issue for my style of shooting as it's mostly wide aperture shots with longer focal length lenses to the edges are "lost".

Best regards

Well I admit the comment was deliberately tongue in cheek. When I wrote it I was imagining using some old FF lens from the junk box (or an APSC small image circle lens) on a new shiny FF digital camera then mentally pretending it was APSC and composing for the centre of the frame (although I'm sure there will be some provided framing guidelines or picture mode on the new FF camera to do that automatically for us). Now you have me imagining taking a FF macro shot of a document then removing half the text content as its 'a bit soft'

[quote:3496ace15f="McGregNiAnyway, I had always thought that the whole reason that Digital has taken off (at the high end anyway) was precisely because it was perceived as offering IQ and resolution superior to 35mm :[/quote]Hardly!
The advantages of Digital are, instant feedback, cheaper cost per shot, easier editing, variable ISO, easier storage/transmission...
Even with the very beat digital sensors there is some debate as to if it offers superior IQ or resolution to equivalnet size film. I've seen technical 'proof' of both sides of the argument some claiming digital had supassed film 5-10 years ago, and others that it's still got a long way to go.

OK, so 'there is some debate'. The problem with 35mm, either a slide or neg, is you can't do much with it, and all that resolution, as it is - you have to produce an output of some type, and this surely is where things break down. If you're scanning then you need a lot of elements in the process to come together optimally - equipment, age and condition of the original, good techniques and knowledge and skill, as well as software at the scan point to optimise the result.

A digital camera with FF can produce all this with just one press of the shutter.

Yes, and that speaks for the convenience of digital. But excellent as digital is right now, even the best does not yet quite match the quality of some film in some hands. Those hands will be greatly more experienced than mine ... but I can judge the results with my eyes readily enough, and digital still has a distance to travel, if indeed it will ever match the tonal qualities of film.

Yup no one is arguing against digital being a huge order of magnitude more convenient.

And regardless of resolution and sharpness being given far too much weight and obsession in the photographic process by far too many IMO, film just has a certain something. In much the same way as Vinyl and Tape have on audio recordings.

About 25 years, by then most if not all film users will be pushing up the buttercups.
cheers
Dave

I'll only be 55 years old!!
My lad (who shoots with a *istDS and on occassion the MZ-7) will only be 33 years old!