Full Frame Pentax!!!!!!!

To be honest Gary, DoF, FoV and focal length are a nightmare to discuss now we have so many different formats in common use. I make mistakes as much as the next person, because it's a tricky thing to get your head around.

Not sure your suggestion of a pint would necessarily help.

Dan

Dan,

I used to use the same argument. However, the argument for the DOF changing is that the end product is a, say, 10 x 15 print. And to end up at that the APS-C image has to be enlarged more and therefore the circle of confusion, that originally has the same size on the sensor, is bigger for that enlargement.
The DOF-calculators take that into their formulae. That's why the DOF is different with the same lens on FF and APS-C (or smaller).

I'm happy enough with APS-C and don't long for FF. The resolution of the K20 is all I need, if anything I would like to see lower noise at the same pixel count and same chip size.

Prieni

But if you're cropping the FF sensor's image down to APS size, then the enlargement to a 10x15 print is exactly the same. Therefore the DoF is the same. If you move forward, and to get the subject the 'same size' on the FF sensor, then it will require less enlargement at the printing stage, and will have less DoF.

Dan

Yes, when you take the image with the FF sensor in the way that you have the desired end result on the central part of your FF sensor that has the APS-C size you are right. But this is saying that with the FF sensor you take the image that you want plus some bits around that you later crop away again. That's not what's happening in real life, is it?

I usually try to frame a shot so that minimal cropping is necessary (unless of course I see a nicer crop later on at home at my computer screen) and I assume that that is the normal modus operandi.

If you fill either the FF or the APS-C sized sensor with 'useful' image then the enlargement will have to be greater for the APS-C shot to end up the same size.

Prieni

Yes Prieni we should also take into account the CoC if we want to do it correctly.

Going a bit further I know what the others are talking about with FoV but FoV is not the term to use in photogrphy.
It would be true with all other subjects but FoV as a different meaning in photography, the term to use is AoV (angle of view).

With AoV, it's about the angle that the camera capture so the sensor size and focal length are important there, so what basicly the same as the field of view for birds as an example.

FoV in photography is about what you see depending on your orientation and position, so there is a lot more around it.
So you can get "roughly" the same FoV with a 100mm on an APS-C sensor or on a MF (medium format).

I hope I'm not confusing anyone here



Now something else.
Isn't an APS-C better for low light then a 35mm sensor because it has a broader DOF?
For example indoor if you want to shoot an portrait and f/2.8 is perfect on APS-C sensor the means you need have... f/3.5 or f/4 with an 35mm sensor so that means you need to use an higher ISO right, of course a 35mm has less noise about a stop so all in all they preform equally as good right in some/most situations?

K10D, I don't know what APS-C mode on the D700 does because I don't do Nikon. Please instead let's get straight to the point:

Do you agree or disagree that, compared to what you would use on APS-C for the same images, longer lenses are needed on FF to have the full advantage of FF?

APS C on a D700 captures the same image size as my K10 or istD or K7.

I gree that longer glass is needed on FF for the same FOV for the same shot (camera / subject distance). So having put a longer lens on to match the FOV, how do I sort out the larger subject size as I now need to reduce it to match the smaller APS C subjest size (not image size or FOV)

As for full advantage? Well my 14-24 lens on FF is effectively distortion free without bending verticals, what lens do you use to give you those qualities? It should be around a 9.3mm for the 14mm end. Now my 10-17mm will not do that.

Why are other manufacturers selling lots of FF if there is no advantage, indeed why even make them?

Did you use 35mm film at all? Why would Pentax bother with FF (35mm) when the 110 format was much better (according to your point of view).

Hang on, the Olympus system must be better than our APS C, its smaller sensor needs even shorter glass for the same FOV.

and it continues...

Regards

I believe 35mm is a different market then APS-C, why else would Canon bring out the D7?

Also if sensor size is so important then the 645D will blow al those 35mm cameras away

But like said, you buy a camera for a specific purpose, the APS-C is for most now the best compromise.

For myself I find the aps-c perfect,it's small and the lenses are lighter and smaller as well and it does what I want... why would I need a 35mm???
Although I do fancy a MF though, just for the nature of those camera's.

There is no better or worse I think, they are all different compromises.

As with many of these debates it really is courses for horses. What we use depends on a whole series of logical and illogical choices. Why, when digital cameras are so much more convenient and provide higher quality images, do I wander about carrying a 40 year old camera with a manual lens loaded with BW film? Because I, personally, find it enjoyable. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't have any axe to grind over film v. digital, manual focus v. autofocus, or APS-C v. FF. The kit I have (a) does the job I want it to (b) I can afford it just about and (c) I get pleasure from using it. If I won the pools tomorrow I'd go and buy a DA* 300, some Ltds and a Canon with the 18mm tilt-shift lens. As I wont win the pools tomorrow (I don't do them) I'll keep trawling ebay and car boot sales for interesting bargain glass.

K.

I am not saying there is no advantage to FF, only that you need longer lenses to take full advantage of it.

You don't need to reduce it.

Take a shot on APS-C with a 300mm lens. Then take a shot of the same scene on FF with a 450mm lens. The images will be the same, except the FF one will have higher resolution and better image quality when all else is equal.

The confusion between the different focal lengths and sensor size is not that complicated really.

Take a postcard. Imagine that is a photograph taken full frame. Take a scalpel and cut out the middle 2/3rds. That is your APS-C image. Job done.

K.

That's not my point of view at all. 35mm film is better, but only when you use all of the frame (or most of it) instead of taking only the middle portion.

You need a longer focal length than you would use with 110 to fill the 35mm frame with your subject. If you don't do this, then you're not taking full advantage of the 35mm film. Do you not agree with this?

That's what K10D has said he does on occasion, as when he's at a golf tournament he's limited to where he can take photos from. He therefore might have a 300mm on his D700 and crop down if necessary. If he were to crop it to the same image size as from his K10D, there would be no difference in DoF, FoV, perspective etc than if he'd taken it on the K10D.

Iceblinker is saying that to take full advantage of the FF sensor, you wouldn't want to do that all the time, so to get larger subject size on the sensor, you would need longer lenses now and again. So if you frequently found yourself using a 300mm lens on an APS camera, you'd want a 450mm lens to use on FF, otherwise you'd need to be cropping all the time and the advantage of the FF sensor would be lost.

Essentially that's what these past 4 pages has been about as far as I can see, and I'm starting to regret joining in.

No one is saying FF is better or worse than APS, 4/3s or 110, they're just all different. APS allows shorter focal lengths for a given subject size on a print than FF, therefore giving us an advantage in size and weight of our equipment. FF has advantages over APS as far as noise and DoF control is concerned. Each system has its benefits.

K10D, please just agree with Iceblinker that if you want to fill the frame with a subject from a given distance, you need a longer focal length with FF than you would with APS. That's all he wants you to say, and it's correct, so please do it.

Iceblinker, please just state that APS is not better than FF, and vice versa, it's just different. With advantages outlined above.

I'm not doing this as a moderator, I just can't quite believe this has been going round in circles for so long!

What was the original question again?

Dan

Note to self: Never, ever, join in with a thread that mentions FF again, just shut your eyes and pretend it's not there.

Your joining-in is appreciated, Dan

APS-C is not better than FF, and vice versa, it's just different.

Personally, I like APS-C at the momement because it's compact and not tooo expensive. But I would love FF or even MF if my life was a bit different.

Not by me! I'm supposed to be sorting out photos for a talk on Thursday, and I keep getting caught up on here instead!

Dan