Merits of APS sensor

2 (practicalities) the aspects of a situation that involve the actual doing or experience of something rather than theories or ideas:

Dictionaries are like chocolate boxes - you can almost always find at least one selection you like.

We digress but both explanations dismiss theories and ideas.

Facts will remain facts.

Best regards

There is an advantage if you want DoF at a small aperture in low light, which can't be replicated on a larger sensor (without a long shutter speed and tripod).

D700+50mm lens @ f/11 subject distance 10M
Near limit 4.25M Far limit infinity

K5+50mm lens @ f/11 subject distance 10M
Near limit 5.6m Far limit 100.6M

link

Now thats odd.

Best regards

Finally someone who understands what I'm getting at, why do some people always want to argue on this forum ??

I was just trying to say that for me the smaller sensor and greater DOF from the Q is a handy feature, out walking the dog Q in pocket no tripod I can take a landscape shot at F2.8 I wouldn't be able to do this with my K5.

A nice thought, but today's facts may be untrue tomorrow. History tells us this.

I can't say I've had problems with the DoF on the crop sensor, I just stick a longer lens on and move further back, ALL formats will have both pros and cons, at the end of the day you work with what you have or what suits your style, so do we really need to continually argue about F/F v APSC.

Sorry, I meant large not small aperture. I'd have thought that was obvious to anyone who didn't have an axe to grind.

According to your linked page the Q with an equivalent focal length lens of 43mm focused at 10m has everything between 4.2m and infinity in focus at f2. Try replicating that with a D700.

Not need as such, no, but some seem to enjoy this sort of debate.

Anyone who wants a FF sensor can actually go out and buy one today if they wish. I won't be doing so, not because Pentax don't offer a product, but because I don't want a bulkier product that would have minimal benefit to me.

If Pentax ever produce one that is the right product then I'll want it, but at the moment I'm thinking more about the MX-1 and perhaps a WG-3, both of which could be useful.

I don't think anyone is really arguing. It is more like a discussion.
After all this is what forums are about.
On can learn a lot by reading the comments of other participants.

Also each topic is separate. therefore when participating in one specific topic, it shows people are interested in it, either to
ask a question , give an opinion or share ones knowledge or learn from others.

Regards, Horst

No axes to grind Mhuni, so I'm unsure what you refer to.

You say but you meant? Now you are talking equivalent focal lengths? So due to a cropped sensor you have to reduce focal length to regain similar angle of view. So comparing two different focal length lenses for DOF is a non event. Apples and pears.

However, since you can get a 15-45mm lens for the Q lets fit the 14-24mm on the D700 and set 15mm.

The Q gets 8.4 ft to 12.4ft focused for 10ft

the D700 gets 4.6ft to infinity and a bit more FOV to boot.

This is not a FF against APS-C or Q issue rather than see the forest past the trees.

Best regards

K10D, why are you comparing both lenses set to 15mm?

The Q at 15mm is a 35mm-equiv field of view of an 82.5mm lens.

APS-C set at 15mm is equiv to 22.5mm

Full frame is a very wide 15mm

You are comparing the DOF of a short telephoto lens to that of an ultra-wide angle lens. Unsurprisingly, the wide angle shows more DOF.

Exactly !!

I thought I was comparing two identical focal length lenses to show how actual DOF changes by having a different sensor behind them.

Best regards

It just confuses things, because the DOF of a 15mm lens, for example, will not change because you put something else behind it.

What does change is the the focal length required to give any particular field of view. Because we have changed lenses in the real world formats requiring shorter lenses will have more DOF. So smaller formats = more DOF.

Now purists will know that even that isn't strictly 100% true, but in practice it is what we generally observe.