FF or APS-C....Some Thoughts

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>,<br />Most participants used the D700 and D300 or Canon 1D/1Ds Mark III and 40D/50D. Lanting himself was using a D300 although I know he has a D3. Apparently he prefers the crop factor for the longer reach (as some wildlife photographers do).<br />Lanting was also using a 200-400mm/f4 AF-S with a 1.7x TC, stopped down a bit at higher ISO (e.g. 1600) during the day. I asked him about that, and he does not mind using high ISO outdoors. I think he is right that it is more important to get the right shot than worrying about small quality differences. I tried the same thing with a 1.4x on my 200-400 at effective f8 (stopped down 1 stop), 1/500 sec and ISO 800 and got pretty good results at 9 to 10am.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is an excerpt from a post over at Photo.net Nature Forum. I found this interesting for many reasons.</p>

<p>1) Frans Lanting is one of the worlds best landscape and wildlife photogs. His images speak for themselves, so he isn't a lab rat who test cameras rather than creating images with them. If you are not familar with his work go to any bookstore, and the photography section will be filled with his books.</p>

<p>2) The goes against the popular sentiment that using a full frame sensor and cropping down yields the same or better image as a native cropped sensor. Afterall, I am willing to bet Frans Lanting has compared the two options in real world shooting.</p>

<p>3) It verifies the fact that high ISO mainly falters in "bad" light. As I've noted the K10D (as an example) is quite clean if the exposure is spot on, and even cleaner if the lighting is good. Where it breaks down is in the shadows or in marginal lighting where camera movement coupled with noise erode IQ significantly. I found it interesting but not surprising from the text that he was advocating going with a higher ISO rather than pushing the limits of camera shake and mirror vibration with a super tele.</p>

<p>4) Finally, this is like pouring gasoline on a fire as it fuels the debate of whether full frame sensors are infact so superior that camera companies will be doing us an injustice by continuing to produce cropped sensors, all the while keeping us down with inferior hardware. I've noted a few times that APS-C sales have not taken a hit in market share despite there being 4-7 (4 from Canon and Nikon, 1 from sony, 1 in 2 mounts available on the used market from Kodak) full frame cameras available.</p>

<p>My thoughts are if full frame was so vastly superior, no one would use APS-C sensors, and yet we have a clear example of someone who is at the top of his field of photography prefering this size sensor.</p>

<p>Your thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And the reason I feel this is particulary relevant to Pentax is because to date Pentax and Olympus are the only "main stream" companies without the magical 24mmx36mm format, and unfortunately this fact leads to endless speculation about the demise of the Pentax system if such a magical format doesn't appear in a Pentax camera very rapidly.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have no particular interest in the FF debates but will give point #3 a good deal of thought--thanks! </p>

<p>I should add to #3...in my experience high ISO often looks bad in real world shooting because people DON'T go high enough.</p>

<p>An example. If I'm shooting hockey and I know I can get away with 1/400th on many shots, but ideally I need 1/500th and I can get 1/500th at ISO 2500, but I choose to stick with 1600 and 1/400th now I have noise and subject motion degrading the image.</p>

<p>Or I go with 1600 but put the shutter speed at 1/500th with the idea that I will push the image in post processing. Now I've introduced more noise into the image rather than would have occurred if I just shot at 2500 and 1/500th in the first place.</p>

<p>Or finally, I know that with SR I can maybe shoot a 300mm lens at 1/60th of a second. So I decide I will go with the lowest ISO to get 1/60th thinking low ISO and wide open trumps high ISO mide aperture and faster shutter speed. The problem is while a lot of my shots might be sharp at 1/60th, many will be soft from mirror slap, camera shake, and subject movement. Better to raise the ISO, and shoot with a higher shutter speed and more optimal aperture than to force a slow shutter speed and a wide open aperture just to shoot at lower ISO.</p>

<p>I am a bit surprised that what I posted to the Nature Forum earlier today got copied over here in the Pentax Forum, which I typically do not read as I don't use Pentax equipment. In the other thread I was describing my experience at the Lanting workshop last week: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00TCtL">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00TCtL</a></p>

<p>Lanting is certainly one of the very best wildlife photographers in the world, but even he admits that there are better landscape photographers around, and I think that is why he prefers the APS-C sensor D300. I also know Canadian wildlife photographer Wayne Lynch, and he prefers the D300 for the same reason.</p>

<p>The primary reason Lanting uses high ISO to get to 1/500 sec at f8, f11 is to get sufficient depth of field for wildlifes and to maintain a fast enough shutter speed to freeze any wildlife action.</p>

<p>Justin,</p>

<p>I think you are a troll. If you continue to come into this forum and stir pots, I will report you to the moderators... :-)</p>

<p>Shun,<br>

the reason I thought it was relevant was my second post/addendum.</p>

<p>As you may or may not know Pentax doesn't have a FF sensor, nor is one openly in the works, as a matter of fact in interviews the head engineers at Pentax have said they have no plans for one. So on this forum this sort topic is pretty common, as I am sure it was a few years ago on the Nikon forum.</p>

<p>this leads to a sort of "doom and gloom" mentality, and since this was clearly a positive mark for APS-C sensors I thought it bore mentioning over here. in most cases it's the other way around, where people find only the negatives and post them up.</p>

<p>Also thanks for adding another point to #3 which I've gone over with Dave H about shooting sports at f/1.4...too shallow DOF is often as bad as the other examples i listed in losing an image. Instead of motion blur you just have a largely out of focus subject.</p>

<p>I'm still amazed at 400mm + 1.7x + 1.5x...that is a lot of lens. I bet the workshop was great!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Justin, there is absolutely nothing wrong with copying my post over here.</p>

<p>The whole FF vs. APS-C debate is silly, anyway. Even with three FF (FX in Nikon terminology) bodies today, it is estimated that 95% of all Nikon DSLRs sold today is still APS-C (DX). Just walk into Costco and take a look at the pile D60 and D90 kit boxes. While I have a D700 (FF), I still use my D300 (APS-C/DX) on a regular basis for wildlife work, for exactly the same reason Lanting and Lynch prefer the D300.</p>

<p>The main issue with high ISO is under low light, as the shadow areas will tend to get noisy. However, during the day, higher ISO such as 800, 1600 still looks very good with current DSLRs.</p>

<p>Re Dave's comment<br>

Lately most of my wildlife shots were done at iso 800-1600 , 1/2000s or faster and F5.6 or further stepped down to get more dof <<<<<<......The primary reason Lanting uses high ISO to get to 1/500 sec at f8, f11 is to get sufficient depth of field for wildlifes and to maintain a fast enough shutter speed to freeze any wildlife action........>>>>></p>

<p>Who actually believes point #2? 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. When I want to shoot wildlife I use a crop camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>4) Finally, this is like pouring gasoline on a fire as it fuels the debate of whether full frame sensors are infact so superior that camera companies will be doing us an injustice by continuing to produce cropped sensors, all the while keeping us down with inferior hardware. I've noted a few times that APS-C sales have not taken a hit in market share despite there being 4-7 (4 from Canon and Nikon, 1 from sony, 1 in 2 mounts available on the used market from Kodak) full frame cameras available.<br>

My thoughts are if full frame was so vastly superior, no one would use APS-C sensors, and yet we have a clear example of someone who is at the top of his field of photography prefering this size sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are completely ignoring the cost of the camera. The Nikon D300 and D700 are very similar camera bodies but the price difference is $1000-1300. APS-C is cheaper to manufacture. 99% of camera buyers don't even know what "full frame" means so if they buy a DSLR they are going to buy something under $1500 and that means APS-C.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I guess also another addendum to the pro list which I again forgot about till Shun mentioned DOF.</p>

<p>Since the APS-C sensor has about a stop more of DOF. This is another positive in wildlife I'd assume (as well as sports which I do appreciate often).<br />So the APS-C sensor can open up an extra stop to get more light, while still providing the DOF of a FX/FF sensor.</p>

<p>Well I was writing my reply as Walt replied but I actually answered his arguement.<br>

<br />Shallow DOF isn't always wanted, or rather sometimes a little less shallow is needed for the purpose of the image.</p>

<p>DOF goes both ways. Sometimes having an extra stop of DOF is a good thing, sometimes it's not. In most cases it's a good thing, at least for me.</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>Darn that extra .25mm crop equivelent. And the DA* 55mm was <i><b>so</b></i> close, yet <i><b>so</b></i> much more expensive than a body with a 24x36mm sensor ...</p>

<p>Tip of the hat for mining pnet for new perspectives, and voices, Justin!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your thoughts?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm, I guess we can continue the discussion here we where having at PF regarding medium format film as well. I believe it would be relevant to the discussion. First as you know I bought me a FF D700. While I have only had it less than two weeks, this is what I do know. I love the view finder and love the fact that I could shoot when it gets dark. At first I thought it was high ISO performance which is amazing, but in truth I had it mixed up with LOW LIGHT FOCUSING. I don't know if this is a Nikon thing or a ff thing, but it is very cool...Now as I also said, I have NO intentions of selling any of my Pentax gear to supplement my Nikon D700. If anything I appreciate the 1.5 crop factor of the Pentax for a few reasons..More on that Later....</p>

<p>Image quality.As I said before...I do not see any difference in image quality between the two. I find my K20D and D700 to be pretty even...There is a part of me that want's to say that my $2200.00 body and $2000.00 dollar lens makes better pictures than my $1300.00 aps-c and $800.00 lens (what I paid when they first came out) but the truth is, I can't...When I pixel peep, which is something I never do, I can maybe trick myself into thinking I see a better image from the Nikon...At ISO 800 and UP, the Nikon does kick the K10D or K20 in its butt...It is extremely clean. The D700 @ISO 1600 is like the K20D at about 640-800 ISO and we know how clean the Pentax is at that ISO. This has to be the FF sensor....</p>

<p>Now, I am anxious to get my first roll of film developed from my 645N system, because from what I have seen and heard and seen and heard, FF still does not quite match the level of quality of medium format film..Now I don't know and I am sure not going to judge even by my own results, but still, I only know what I see.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now, I am anxious to get my first roll of film developed from my 645N system</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too, and you are not helping my anxiety. I haven't even decided what film I will run through it first, although Portra 160 VC is likely...</p>

<p>Shun, as you have both D700 & D300, when do you prefer to use D700 over D300?</p>

<p>As per the discussion Javier and I have been having on Pentax forums, I'm on shot #2, yeah not even a roll. I do expect to go through a roll this weekend as I need to get a roll processed just to make sure everything is running smoothly, and it should be a little more green. Unfortunately there was really nothing compelling in my journey last weekend. As a matter of fact I only shot about 50 digital frames and mostly for geo reference since there were a few spots I liked in better lighting. As a matter of fact the locations were very nice and I have some seasonal ideas.</p>

<p>As far as DOF. If you want shallow DOF, 645 offers that. I'm amazed at the shallow DOF I see from 45 and 55mm lenses at f/5.6. This is in addition to the fact that the 45mm lens is has approximately the FOV of a 28mm on a full frame camera.</p>

 

<p>Justin, As of today, I am on frame #6 and will ''try'' and get through a roll though I doubt I could do it by the weekend...I am very picky about my film shots because each one cost me money .. I am shooting Tri-x by the way...Yes the FOV is taking some getting use to. <br>

Matt, I hear that Porta 160 is prime stuff. I almost went that way.</p>

<p>Another great lesson! Thanks Justin and everyone else.</p>

<p>Yeah, I'm on the fence between Portra, Plus-X, or maybe an Ilford B&W. When I was still shooting film at weddings, I usually shot with 35mm Portra VC...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, as you have both D700 & D300, when do you prefer to use D700 over D300?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First of all, this is Pentax Forum here. Typically I don't read this forum, but I just happened to come across this thread when I was checking responses in the Unified Forum.</p>

<p>For those Pentax users who are not familiar with Nikon cameras, the D300 and D700 are very similar camera except that the D300 has a DX format sensor (roughly 18x24mm) while the D700 has an FX (35mm film, 24x36mm) sensor.</p>

<p>For any wildlife and outdoor sports stuffs, i.e. something I use a long telephoto, the smaller sensor (D300) wins. I prefer the larger sensor since Nikon has some excellent wide-angles such as the 14-24mm and 17-35mm zooms as well as a 24mm PC-E tilt-shift lens. I use the tilt-shift lens for architecture and landscape work, but on DX, it is simply not wide enough. And of course, under indoor low light such as weddings without using flash, Nikon's 12MP FX bodies such as the D3 and D700 are simply wonderful.</p>

<p>Borrow or rent the gear, and 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. Then the debates no longer matter because you've seen it with your own eyes. Another good thing about this comparison is that it takes into account things like individual technique, processing, and printing. Those things affect the finished photograph, yet are rarely considered in online comparisons. It doesn't matter what works for this guy or that other guy; what matters is what gear and process works best for me, suits my taste, and I enjoy using. </p>

<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>

 

<p>I still have and enjoy Pentax film gear (several LX, 645N), but for wildlife work I jumped ship from Pentax to Nikon a few years ago specifically for the 200-400mm f/4 VR-G. There's never been a lens even remotely equivalent from Pentax. This is a great, great lens for medium to large critters on FF (film, F5) and an even more exquisite lens on a 1.5X crop DX body like the D300 that resolves 90 lp/mm. Only FF sensors with the highest MP counts even come close to this resolution, albeit without the "free" T/C factor; yet another reason why APS-C/DX remains so viable.<br>

The D300 is extremely clean to ISO 1600 though it does lose dynamic range and default noise reduction values can look plastic with smoothing of hair and fur (K20D I'd expect is similar). Remember though that speeds like this, at any usable quality, would have been unthinkable just a few years back. Coming from film even the extremely clean ISO 400 or 640 is very welcome. Remember that most wildlife and much sports photography was done on ISO 64 Kodachrome and Velvia ISO 50/40 until and Provia 100F back in the day. Astia 100F may take a nice push to ISO 200, but that's really reaching.<br>

One reason high ISO is not such the issue in the real world--not the be all and end all many would have us believe-- is that the quality of light often sucks when it is low, having little color but blue. (Perhaps explaining why electronic flash was invented?).<br>

Pentax's problem here is that they can't seem to play to their strengths (which may still be be the embedded base and a used market simply awash in well-regarded wide angle to moderate tele prime and macro glass). They conceded the pro 35mm sports and wildlife market to C&N by the early 90's. Pentax was a professional's best value in MF with the 645 and 67 lines. But because these offered no migration path to digital except via 3rd party adapters (Zork), it's probably too late in the game already. If they don't get to market pronto with SOMETHING 20+ MP and FF, this niche is forever conceded. And it had better jive with the "best value" theme.</p>

<p>The biggest difference between APS-C and FF is the macho factor.</p>

<p>I've always said FF is for wedding and portrait photogs who want high ISO, narrow DOF effects. Lanting and Shun are neither. Some landscape photogs might be attracted to the A900 or D3x for the extra mpix, but they'd end up paying more than they'd want to ;-)<br>

Even if Pentax comes out w/ FF, I'd keep an APS-C cam for the 1.5x crop #2 is only valid if you don't lose pixels when cropping). It's unfortunate Pentax doesn't have fast longer than tele lenses like the mentioned 200-400/4 or the old Nikon 500/4, but most Pentax users are currently too "value oriented" (read "cheap" ;-) to buy into these that Pentax has to concentrate on things that give the most profit...</p>