FF or APS-C....Some Thoughts

<p>Really, Justin. I mean, really...</p>

<p>Another notable landscape & critter shooter & he's not listing any aps-c, just full frame:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.johnshawphoto.com/equipment.html">http://www.johnshawphoto.com/equipment.html</a></p>

<p>& his main link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.johnshawphoto.com/">http://www.johnshawphoto.com/</a></p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2204294">Walt Flanagan</a> wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I want to shoot my 85mm @f1.4 I pick up my FF D3 because on APS-C cameras I have to back up too far and there is no good APS-C/DX equivalent lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you haven't used the DA*55/1.4? Or the K/A 50/1.2? There is no faulting these lenses and they work just fine for portraits.</p>

<p>As to the whole FF thing: back in the day professionals used medium format of one type or another for landscapes or high end portraiture, fashion, etc. So why is the 35mm format now considered such a mark of professionalism?</p>

<p>If I needed better quality for my work I'd buy a Hasselblad today. By that I mean that anyone that really needs to shoot with a larger frame is already doing so. But APS-C suits most of the people most of the time (me included). All these debates seem quite petty, and largely occur between people who would never use FF or MF anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Long before digital the thinking inside the box was that bigger is better. <em>"Serious landscape photography was not done with small format film!"</em> Except that some of the most exciting landscape photography was (Galen Rowell, Dean Brown) and is being done with small format, because you can only haul all that large format gear so far. The best way to champion Pentax and small format is to make good photographs using it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>My philosophy exactly. My goal is to shoot places that others don't tote cameras and even more rarely bother with large format. Basically what I am saying is regardless of the format you shoot, provided it can achieve some reasonable size print, it is better to use whatever gets you the more unique photograph than to shoot the same images people have been shooting decades.</p>

<p>Rowells work was unique because he was going places with a camera that others weren't. Not to mention he was just a damn good photographer. But what seperated him, at least to me, was that his images weren't cliche!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So where does medium format fit into?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and largely occur between people who would never use FF or MF anyway.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually I disagree, on this forum it's between people that generally desire to use FF over APS-C. And those who generally fear monger that if a company doesn't do this or that, it my go out of business in a period of time.</p>

<p>On other forums you might be correct though.</p>

<p>My point of the post was to sort of quell this panicked feeling that if you don't have a FF upgrade path you are dead in the water, and should be switching systems.</p>

<p>I could care less about the format, only that it works for my needs and allows me to print at a reasonable size, and is portable enough for me to get to the locations I want to get to with minimum difficulty.</p>

<p>I think between 1.5X and medium format film I'm pretty well set to print at whatever size I want. Keeping in mind with Chromira prints, you need as little as 100 ppi from a modern DSLR, that is a pretty big print from a K10/20D, and then keeping in mind you need as little as 200ppi for the same print from a 645N negative, that is again a very big print if you use a high quality scan. So in terms of output, both systems work very well for my needs.</p>

<p>False dilemma.</p>

<p>I'm don't shoot wildlife -- like most people --and I've never actually been in a situation where I wished the lens I had with me was longer, whereas if wishes were fishes I'd be an aquarium for all the times I wish it went wider. Frankly my favorite Pentax lenses are the "wrong" focal length on APS-C; if Pentax made a FF camera then I'd buy one in a heartbeat. I'd keep my APS-C camera -- and perhaps eventually upgrade it -- 'cuz cameras are cheap compared to systems -- and have the best of both worlds, length and width, from the lenses that I already own. I realize Pentax has its business reasons to abandon FF, but what do I care for them? I'm not a shareholder.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Leo, do you ever need to go wider than 12mm? The DA 12-24mm f/4 is Pentax's widest lens; I'm just curious to know when and how often you need to go wider than 12mm?</p>

<p>Javier, put you 645 next to you K20D, it's not really that much bigger.</p>

<p>My 200mm f/4 is actually smaller than my 70-300 sigma or my 50-135 2.8 DA, it's also about the same size as my old Kiron 80-200 macro that I don't use much, but it weighs less.</p>

<p>The 645N with the 55mm fits into the same slot in my camera bag that the K10/20D fits into. It's actually narrower than the K20D and suprisingly easier to get out of that slot. I haven't compared the weight, but it's a bit heavier without the grip, but I bet if you use the grip it's about the same weight.</p>

<p>It's definitely bulkier than I would take on backpacking trips, on climbing trips, or anything where mobility was key, but for day hiking I put the 645N into my Primus AW backpack, and the k10d into my LowePro 65AW. Lenses for both kits fit into the primus, and actually once I get an adapter I will be able to use the 200mm f/4 as a lens for the K20D as well. Thus, I can leave the DA/35mm tele at home. So for day hikes the system weights just a little more than toting say 2 digital SLRs (2 K20Ds). For longer backcountry trips, I'd probably opt to carry a digital compact like a G10 as a backup, or take a program plus and a few rolls of Provia which would double as a camera for shooting star trails and night exposures.</p>

<p>On the flip side, the while I liked the even bigger negative of the 67 system, there were a few issues. 1) there seems to be a 645 digital insert floating around China and the 645Nii was supposedly upgraded to accept such an insert even though Pentax never released one (i have a 645N but if I got my hands on an insert, I'd just buy an Nii) 2) 67 camera is huge, heavy, and takes a long time to reload compared to 645 3) lenses are bulkier and slower</p>

<p>Mis, favorite lenses, not favorite focal lengths. I don't have the 12-24, so it's never the lens I have with me; ergo, I never wish it went wider. But, for one example, I do have the 31, and I'd rather use the 31 at 31 than the 12-24 at 20, or the DA 21. In fact I would never have bought the DA 21, which is just good, if Pentax had a FF DSLR. If Pentax had a FF DSLR then I'd probably own just one DA lens -- the 16-45.</p>

<p>I would ask this: how is it that we got 35mm in the first place?</p>

<p>I submit that it was probably the result of a convenient way of manufacturing film from bulk materials. Somewhere in that process, there was probably something that came in a certain size; that may have affected the engineering of cameras; perhaps it so happened that this was a good fit for companies to use in terms of image quality for the user and overhead for the supplying manufacturers. I would be willing to bet that many of the more successful formats; 120mm, 35mm, 16mm cine (110), and 8mm cine; all of them may have had a good success to waste ratio, all around. Otherwise, there's no reason why film couldn't have been made in whatever shape.</p>

<p>Early Eastman Kodak cameras made circular images. What's wrong with that? Anyone have a deep seated need to refuse to accept an image that's bounded by a circle?</p>

<p>Are we rectangle fanatics? Anyone have a 90 degree corner fetish? Just Say No to the wrong polygon!</p>

<p>So, I ask you, if you were building a camera, would it be a good idea to make critical structural changes in the design of available materials just to get your new machine to look like an old instrument?</p>

<p>There are probably many such compromises in building cameras; but, I think we've seen that hit its limits a few times; the Leica M8 springs to mind; I am convinced that camera manufacturers have probably made things unnecessarily harder on themselves by trying to get their new equipment to fit into the same case as the old equipment. Some user considerations are due there, but there is probably a point where making things look the same gets invasive; I think that M8 failed because they were probably trying to shoehorn new technologies into a box that looked like the chassis for the old technology. The old technology probably had its shape based on its requirements; form followed function.</p>

<p>Maybe when camera companies are trying for a "full frame" sensor, they are trying to get their new technology's form to follow an old technology's form, which had been previously made into that shape by its function.</p>

<p>If there's a digital insert for the 645s, they ought to just release it already. That's probably the correct answer anyway. In that instance, only a small portion of the shape would be needed to adapt it to the older technology; and, they could probably build the whole thing to fit into that package. Heck, I'd accept a 6MP Optio-style, smaller sensor insert for my 645 just out of convenience, if one was available.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm just curious to know when and how often you need to go wider than 12mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When i use my Sigma 10-20 @ 10mm ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Good post John!..<br>

Justin, the 645 is quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the K20D with the grip. It is also a bit awkward, but in truth, I can hand hold it no problem. Still, I prefer a tripod with it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Javier, put you 645 next to you K20D, it's not really that much bigger.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Pentax 645NII with the FA645 33-55 lens is the same size and weight as the Pentax K10D+battery grip and the DA* 16-50 (the K10D is taller; the 645 deeper).<br />The Pentax K-7 will be an interesting addition to the Pentax DSLR line-up. A super telephoto and a matching 1.4X converter is in the works. The 645 Digital is for release next year and targeted at a price below $10.000. It has twice as large sensor as FF. Something for the landscape shooter....</p>

<p>Pal, I had heard that the 1.4x tc was dropped. Have you any idea on what the super tele might be?</p>

<p>When I get home, I will have to compare the sizes next to each other and see. Maybe it is perception.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As to the whole FF thing: back in the day professionals used medium format of one type or another for landscapes or high end portraiture, fashion, etc. So why is the 35mm format now considered such a mark of professionalism?<br>

If I needed better quality for my work I'd buy a Hasselblad today. By that I mean that anyone that really needs to shoot with a larger frame is already doing so. But APS-C suits most of the people most of the time (me included). All these debates seem quite petty, and largely occur between people who would never use FF or MF anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never said 35mm was the mark of professionalism. You can use whatever format and whatever camera you want. I promise that it doesn't bother me. Personally I have Nikon DSLRs, not Pentax but the original post is from the Nikon forum. Sometimes I grab my DX/APS-C DSLR. Sometimes I grab the digital or film FF/35mm one. Or the Hasselblad, or Leica / Voightlander rangefinders, or my Canon or Panasonic P&S, or my Yashica TLR, or even my camera phone. I find all of these useful and fun in different situations. If you have no use for a digital 35mm/FF DSLR that's just fine with me.</p>

<p>I submit that the very use of the words "Full Frame" is buying into a marketing ploy that carefully selects diction, the words used in a sentence; and, that the intent of this is to manipulate us into concluding that the company that uses the words "Full Frame" in their advertising must be right. </p>

<p>We know this sort of thing happens all the time. Take politicians of all one party using the same "talking points" to discuss an issue, for example. Or, shamelessly made-up words used to impersonate technical jargon in marketing or selling anything. </p>

<p>I'd suggest that 4X5 studio cameras are probably closer to the professional standard for publication than anything else. I've seen several magazine layouts that were based on 4X5 transparencies. They looked fantastic. </p>

<p>I challenge you to substitute the words "Fractional Frame" any time you see the words "Full Frame" used in a discussion. Would you still feel as enthusiastic about the product if they admitted it was a "Fractional Frame" sensor? </p>

<p>Well, it is. Canon and Nikon make "Fractional Frame" sensors. I know this because my standard for "Full" is my Pentax 645. It probably should be a 4X5 view camera, but I don't have one of those. Why should I put a salesman in charge of my language choice when I evaluate a sensor? </p>

<p><b>Fractional Frame</b> cameras. Now on sale. APS-C; "Almost Pentax Sized - Computer." Who's in charge here? The guy making the images; or the guy selling us the equipment to make the images? If it's the guy selling, I need him to come down over here for free and take up some slack on this project; after all, he's in charge, right?</p>

<p><b>Fractional Frame.</b></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pål Jensen wrote: The 645 Digital is for release next year and targeted at a price below $10.000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now where did you hear that, Pål??? It will be a miracle if Pentax even releases it <em>at</em> $10k.</p>

<p>I also think the small percentage of FF use is largely due to cost. But that cost has fallen dramatically in the last couple of years, and may soon become a hard to resist addition to a lineup. Justin says the MF cameras are not much larger, in his opinion, than carrying a FF body. But now, there are very good FF models about the <em>same size</em> as a D300!! </p>

<p>MF is not only expensive, but it serves a narrower niche of use. One is not likely to shoot birdies, other wildlife, boat races, sports, or the kid's birthday party. You won't be putting a compact lens on it to shove into a hip pack or large jacket pocket, as I can with my FF compact film bodies. But the niche of use it does address, it does so extremely well. </p>

<p>Every lineup needs at least 3 categories- entry level, mid-level, and advanced level. So far, Pentax' K series entry level has been good enough to merge it with the mid-level, requiring just two models. But now I wonder if the KM/2000 will be "it" other than the top model. That entry level model is not up to the features of the K100/K200 series. In additon to simplicity for the casual user, the mid-level requires features that satisfy demanding advanced use, as a compact alternate or backup for the advanced photographer. The K100D & K200D are well suited, but the KM does not quite cut it. </p>

<p>I agree that the APS format certainly does offer advantages for tele use. In fact, it may well provide the greatest resolution, and ease of handling for this use over any other format. And this has great potential for many applications, including sports, wildlife, and even tele landscape. The smaller size also lends itself well to street scenes and candids. But I think saying FF is virtually worthless can be viewed as a rationalization when it is not being offered. There are certain applications APS does not handle well, or handle at all. There are obstacles in the area of wide angle. It is silly to vaunt the advantages of MF over FF because it is a larger format, then turn around and vaunt the advantages of APS, while saying FF has NO meaningful advantages over APS, even though it is a larger format. Two recent threads regarding *wide angle lens* questions serve to demonstrate in part, the comparatively reduced offerings of APS in this area. For APS, you CANNOT get a fast wide-angle prime lens. f/2.8 in a prime lens is not fast. You cannot even find the equivelent to a nice, compact, inexpensive 28mm f/2.8!! There is NO equivelent to the Pentax 31mm f/1.8 Limited on FF, in <em>a compact</em> lens of this type, and NO equivelent to the Pentax FA* 24mm f/2 or the fine, reasonably-priced Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG. On FF, such a lens is very wide angle, and low distortion, with very fast aperture. If that is your interest, you'll not meet that need with APS.</p>

<p>Therefore, FF is no doubt the most versatile of the formats. Not as advantageous as APS for tele, but it can still do that quite well, while offering the above advantages for wide angle. Useful for a very wide range of applications, with no real downside. It does not suffer the greater disadvantages in the tele realm of MF, nor the restrictions of flash sync. And its lenses are generally usable for APS bodies without a hitch. APS, FF, and MF all have areas where they function particularly well. But with MF and APS there are areas of application in which there are functional shortcomings, compared with FF.</p>

<p> <em> </em></p>

<p><em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>and largely occur between people who would never use FF or MF anyway</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gee, Justin, Javi, and I all have APS-C, 24x36, and 645 equipment (although I have to keep my 24x36 sensors in lightproof cans...)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>but for wildlife work I jumped ship from Pentax to Nikon a few years ago specifically for the 200-400mm f/4 VR-G.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If that's what you need, then that's what you need. I'm not going to fault anyone for buying what they need, I just can't stand people telling me that I need digital 24x36, I don't. Additionally, that kind of glass isn't what the average consumer is interested in dropping their money on, and right now Pentax needs to focus on building back its customer base, and that means products for the masses - and we all know that FF is not for the masses at this point in time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>make and hang 8 20"x prints next to each other: 35mm film, medium format film, APS digital, and 35mm digital, one set of ISO 100 and one set of ISO 1600</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every time this comes up, I invite anyone to come to Wichita to see 20"x30" prints from my K10D and DA* glass...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Justin, the 645 is quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the K20D with the grip. It is also a bit awkward, but in truth, I can hand hold it no problem</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My 645n is not as comfortable to hold as my PZ-10 or K10D's (with or without grips), but it still isn't bad...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm just curious to know when and how often you need to go wider than 12mm?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, 10mm is a favorite focal length of mine, too...<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone have a deep seated need to refuse to accept an image that's bounded by a circle?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, round frames are more expensive - and circle mat cutters are too...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There are probably many such compromises in building cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's how we got the APS size in the first place. Kodak's research showed that people wanted a film can no bigger than a 135 cartridge (that's the standard 35mm film format to you young pups), but to put the functionality the customers wanted into the APS cassette, they had to make the film smaller. Of course, some griped about the size, but Kodak's recent (at that time) advances in emulsion technology made the quality difference negligible. Kodak also played up the DoF and 1 stop faster advantages as well...</p>

<p>Javier,</p>

<p>I'm going to weigh both, and do a surface area too. I bet you it's not nearly as different as you think. I'm basing this on the fact it fits into the same slot as the K10D without the grip, but actually fits better. I'm guessing surface area is quite similar between the two, but the shape is obviously quite different. What is funny is people with 5Ds talk about about the Primus being a tight squeeze and yet the 645 goes in no problem!<br>

<br /> <br /> Also, are you using 4 akalines or lithiums? I doubt lithium provides any advantage in longevity but it will make the camera much lighter.</p>

<p>The 645n takes 6 AA's. I'd bet that's why the grip isn't as comfortable....</p>

<blockquote>Justin, the 645 is quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the K20D with the grip. It is also a bit awkward, but in truth, I can hand hold it no problem. Still, I prefer a tripod with it.</blockquote>

<p>You might want to check my #s and actually the surface area of the 645 is probably a little high since it has cutouts and is asymetrical so if anything it takes up less area actual area.</p>

<p>Here are my #s. I always admit any math by me is subject to errors, and should be double checked. Unlike my writing where I am just lazy and careless, my math is about as good as you see.</p>

<p>So here are the #s.</p>

<p>K20D + Grip + 2 batts= 40oz, 158sq in</p>

<p>645N + 6 AA Lithium batteries = 48.2oz, 147sq in</p>

<p>The 645N is in fact heavier, but I conceded that from the start. Although it's only 20% heavier with AA lithiums. Then again, you don't need to carry extra batteries since you'll probably get over 200 rolls with lithiums.</p>

<p>On the flip side, the 645N is actually smaller in surface area by 11 sq in. I think the "bulk" factor is more a perception since it is more square shaped.</p>

<p>To simplify your math, put both cameras in individual ziploc bags and suck all of the air out. Dunk them one at a time in a bucket of water and note the displacement for each... It's just simple subtraction that way!</p>

<p>Personally I think that having the equivelent of a 1020mm lens is just too much.</p>

<p>Its a silly discussion, use what gets the job doe best for you.</p>