FF or APS-C....Some Thoughts

[jgredline]

<p>Justin, You opened up a bag of worms with this thred and it has been a blast I must admit!</p>

[mc2imaging]

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the 645n manual says to expect to shoot about 130 rolls of 120 on alkalines and 320 rolls on lithiums.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Damn you matt, you are a royal PITA...i was guessing since I knew the AA alkaline was about 120, I didnt' remember if there was a lithium # listed in the book but I figured 2x the capacity was within reason. But energizer does in fact claim 3x capacity vs alkaline so 320 does seem more likely.</p>

<p>I figure the Lithiums will go bad from non use long before most people shoot 320 rolls. That is about 5100 frames!!!!! A lot of shooting on a sub 2fps camera! </p>

<p> </p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Here's another noteable photographer & his four kits. No aps-c & no medium format:</p><p><a href="http://www.moosepeterson.com/gear/">http://www.moosepeterson.com/gear/</a></p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>I guess I'll stack the two noteable photographer links together. Since this thread evolved into medium format film thread, I'll add John Shaw lists no medium format gears either, just 2 full frame dslrs:</p>

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

<p> I'm not buying into the concept of using "Fractional Frame" inleiu of Full Frame. I like full frame, no I have zero regrets adding it to my bag of tools. I suspect if pentax had a full frame upgrade path several people on this forum would have already paid the admission price. </p>

<p>Lindy</p>

[mcmanamey]

<blockquote>

<p>Here's another noteable photographer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is this a poll or a contest? Are there any rules? Are we supposed to be scouring the earth examining every photographer's kit and tax return to evaluate how many 'real pros' are using APS-C and how many are using 36x24? First one to 100 wins? Knock yourself out.<br>

 

 

<br />

<br />

btw, Justin: 645 was sub 2fps at 1.5 fps, but Pentax says the 645n <em>is</em> 2fps... ;-)

 

</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Lindy, I think the issue with Pentax FF is this: Pentaxians are a cheap bunch. Sure, some people would pay the admission price, especially if the FF body fell to $2,000 a few months after introduction, but would it be enough people to cover R&D costs? There were many people who thought $1,300 for the K20D was outrageous and they didn't buy it until it got down to $800 (wasn't that you? ;-) Now, if you compare the K20D to similar Canikon cameras, you'll agree that $800 is also outrageous...ly cheap!</p>

<p>$1,300 actually sounds pretty fair to me for a camera of such calibre, yet we Pentaxians all thought it was too expensive. Just wait for the shit storm when the K-7 comes out at $1,500. My point is this: I'm sure Pentax have done their math and figured out that between the costs of creating a FF camera and the lenses to go with it, not enough people would buy into the system to make it financially worthwhile. Look at Sony; they have a $3,000 FF camera that by all accounts is excellent (as long as you don't shoot in the dark) and some fabulous lenses to go with it (albeit expensive), yet they're going nowhere. Sony can afford to do that, Pentax can't.</p>

<p>This isn't a personal attack on you, Lindy. It's not even an attack. Your post simply prompted me to write this :-)</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Maria, have you missed the title of the thread and Justin's first post? I say, yes, think of a noteable nikon photographer then go to their website and see what gear they list. Correct me if I am wrong but Frans Lanting lists zero pentax gears, zero medium format. Yet Shun's nature forum post about the class he took recently was kinda crossposted here for us to consider Nikon aps-c versus Nikon full frame dslrs. Right?</p>

<p>Actually Mis, the K20D I bought was $789 with a $100 gift card included. Gift card got converted into 100 bucks towards a Photoshop 4 upgrade. So I like to think I paid $689 for K20D as I would have upgraded to PS4 anyways.</p>

<p>I remain curious what the 60-250 SDM will launch for in USA. You know the one already released elsewhere on the planet last week let alone my wondering what the K-7 will issue at. Its 5-01-09, just 20 more days & Terminator, errr, Pentax K-7 will be "officially" announced.</p>

<p>I'll say it again, I like the K20D. Very feature rich for what I paid:</p>

<p>K20D is The Best way I know of to drive K Mount lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[mcmanamey]

<p>

To me, the point of the post was to remind those who say 'Pentax will die if they don't build a camera with a 36x24mm sensor,' that there is considerable value in APS-C size sensor. When it is defended in this forum, we are accused of being 'Pentax Cheerleaders' who put brand loyalty in front of logic. Justin put forth an example of someone who obviously wasn't using a smaller sensor because of blind loyalty, but because he found real value in the smaller sensor.

<br />

Maybe Justin can tell me I'm wrong...

</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>I cannot find a link to Frans Lanting's complete gear list, but here's a handy link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lanting.com/phototips.html">http://www.lanting.com/phototips.html</a></p>

<p>So I cannot say if he does or does not currently use Pentax gear:</p>

<p>Pentax Medium format film or APS-C Pentax.</p>

<p>Shun , who's thread was used at start of this thread, also said he uses aps-c nikon D300 for supertelephoto. BUT, he also said for weddings he's using full frame D700. Cameras are tools, pick the best one to fit your needs. Or pick several if your needs are many.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>Look, all this debate over APS-C vs. 35mm is missing the point. You're not comparing apples to apples. There are numerous factors that play a pivotal role in the resulting image that are not determined by the sensor area itself: Lens MTF, pixel density, lens design, sensor design, shooting environment, the list goes on.</p>

<p>Making blanket statements about which format is inherently superior, in the absence of discussing at least some of the other major parameters determining image quality, only serves to demonstrate one's own ignorance of digital photographic technology.</p>

<p>Regarding lenses, if you've got a really sharp, contrasty prime, then you've largely eliminated the lens as a contributing factor to image degradation on APS-C. But in practice, that's not often the case, and is almost never the case with a complex tele-zoom. You might say, "but the smaller sensor size will give better corner-to-corner sharpness!" Yes, you're right, but that smaller sensor also implies higher pixel density which in turn requires glass with higher MTF that allows the sensor to capture that resolution. That kind of central sharpness is also a function of aperture, focal length, and overall lens design.<br>

Regarding pixel density, there isn't really any argument that a 15 MP APS-C sensor will not beat a 15MP 35mm sensor for light capturing ability. And even compared to a (15-X) MP 35mm sensor (where X is some positive number), you're still capturing the same amount of light (if not a bit more)--it's the same sensor area, but the question is, did the increased signal-to-noise ratio adequately compensate for the loss of X MP sensor resolution in terms of overall perceptual image quality? The answer to that question invariably depends on the value of X. I mean, you can't reasonably state that a hypothetical 1-pixel 35mm sensor is going to capture anything meaningful about the subject compared to a hypothetical 40 MP APS-C sensor that pushes the boundary of what is physically possible in terms of pixel density.</p>

<p>You can also think of it this way: If the smaller format of APS-C is superior for the 1.6x factor, then why not go even smaller, say four-thirds? Or even the dinky 1/2.5" 7MP sensors they put in P&S? Why wouldn't you just put that behind a 300mm f/5.6 prime designed for 35mm and get ridiculous magnification? You have to understand the optical physics of the imaging systems you're comparing before you can even begin to consider how they can be reasonably compared.</p>

 

[michael_kuhne]

<p>It is obvious, there comes a point where packing more pixels into a smaller and smaller area sensor creates a diminished return of tele enhancement, encumbered by too many downsides that reduce overall image quality, field of view range, and control over DOF.</p>

<p>As it is, about 15mp seems to be near the limit for APS size sensor design, without incurring too great of sacrifice in terms of undesirable side effects. But there are potentially new advancements in sensor technology to come, which may greatly reduce these negative aspects.</p>

[mcmanamey]

<p>Justin - </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Damn you matt, you are a royal PITA...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't even have to live w/ the smartass!!! <br>

Can you tell he got his Christmas present early? Dad asked what piece of camera equipment on ebay matt would want most (or something like that), and I *had* to open my mouth and say 645. Then not a week later a fantastic deal on a 645n comes along.......<br>

Sheesh.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Lindy, thanks for trying to put this back on track, but I'm a bit confused by what you are trying to say?</p>

<p>Are you implying that APS-C use is irrelevant because Lanting uses Nikon and not Pentax? You are aware that the K10D had better image quality than the D200 correct?</p>

<p>I'm glad you've become a poster boy for multiple systems and formats, I remember not too long ago you were concerned I was abandoning Pentax when I bought into Nikon. I'm glad you have come to see things my way ;-).</p>

<p>By the way, this is what Lanting has to say on equipment <a href="http://photomediamagazineonline.com/?p=16">(full article here)</a> :</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> “It’s easy to get carried away, especially in this day and age when photography is so technology-driven, with comparing features instead of focusing on what you can actually do with a camera. Look at the great photographers who worked 20 or 30 years ago with equipment that by today’s standards is very, very simple. It’s the power of your vision, not the number of your pixels.”</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But anyway, while the point of the thread either went way off topic, or actually became pertinent to Pentax discussion, the actual point was nailed by Maria. And that is, Pentax doesn't need a FF upgrade path to continue to survive and/or thrive!</p>

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Well recently I took the plunge and got a FF dslr. I still use an APS-C one too so here is my take.</p>

<p>While the pixel density remains higher, APS-C wins out in the situation where you are using the longest lens you have and you still need to crop to get an enlargment. When you don't have to crop, FF wins out for quality, but the difference is not as huge as some make out.</p>

<p>My Canon 5D (4 year old design) is still about two stops better in the noise stakes than my Canon 450D (1 year old design).</p>

<p>The 5D has noticeably more dynamic range and this is perhaps the biggest difference to me for my kind of shooting (as I don't often shoot at high ISOs).</p>

<p>The larger FF viewfinder makes composition much easier.</p>

<p>If you have a lens system built around the FF format it makes sense to get a FF camera. If you have a lens system built around APS-C it makes sense to stick with APS-C unless you value that last little bit of quality and are prepared to pay.</p>

<p>Having two formats in the one brand is actually very helpful - the best of boths worlds. Nikon got this right (maintaining compatibility across its system) Canon got this half right (EF-S mount was a dumb move) and Pentax is not yet at the starting blocks.</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Geoff, what was so bad about EF-S mount other than perhaps lack of support in the earliest small-sensor models like 10D, D30, or D60 (thereby screwing some customers who bought some pretty expensive cameras & couldn't use the new wide angle lenses designed for small sensors)? The E-FS lens models are designed for a smaller image circle anyway so wouldn't be all that well suited for FF models anyway.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Andrew<br>

Its true that APS-C lenses are not well suited for FF models, but with FF models now approaching 20+ megapixels they would now support a 10 megapixel APS-C crop, which is enough resolution to get a high quality 13x19 print. Nikon got this right by maintaining compatibility.</p>

<p>For those of us that use both formats it is just an extra hassle not having comaptibilty. For example I have an EF-S 10-22. To recreate the same field of view having bought a 5D I now need a 17-40L. I can't even use the EF-S 10-22 as an interim stop gap.</p>

<p>Just last weekend was a good example of the nuisance it caused me. I was out walking around with my usual bag of lenses but decided to take the 5D at the last minute instead of the 450D. Thinking I would not need any telephoto capability I didn't bother to swap out my EF-S 55-250 with my EF 70-210.</p>

<p>As it turned out the at the beach I was walking there were some dolphins playing and I would have given anything to have been able to mount the EF-S 55-250 to the 5D to get a shot. Now of course it is my fault for not packing the right lenses and I only have myself to blame, but Canon's EF-S mount didn't exactly help the situation.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>This is where Nikon was smart, and I think most other companies that do go to a larger sensor will follow suit. <br /> <br /> It makes no sense to alienate your base when a fix is so simple. And actually the nikon crop mode is quite popular. It was even popular when it was a 2x (i believe) crop mode on the D2X. Of course the main advantage on the D2X was speed rather than cropping power since it was identical to cropping it out of the camera.</p>

<p>Geoff, do the EF-S lenses not work at all? I'm wondering because you could just mount them and then crop off the edges. Since that is really all a crop mode does vs. using an actual smaller sensor with a higher pixel density.</p>

[mcmanamey]

<p>Posting this for Matt. Yell at him if he's wrong ;-)</p>

<p>

No, the EF-S lenses are specifically designed to prevent mounting on a 36x24 format camera. I understand that the rear lens element is positioned too far back to clear a "Full Size" mirror. This was discussed in this thread ( <a href="http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00SkAf">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00SkAf</a> ) which was started in this forum, then someone decided to move it.

<br />

<strong>Someone can correct my math</strong>, but the way I figure it (by actual recorded pixels) a crop lens on a 5D Mk II only gives you about 8.2 megapixels:

<br />

5D Mk II sensor: 5616x3744 (21 mp)

Cropping the 5D Mk II sensor to APS-C (<em>calculated</em> from Canon's 1.6 factor): 3510x2340 (8.2 mp)<br />

50D sensor: 4752x3168 (15 mp)

<br />

K10D sensor: 3856x2576 (9.9 mp)

K20D sensor: 4672x3104 (14.5 mp)

<br />

If someone can tell me how many <em>actual recorded pixels</em> a 5D Mk II gives you with a crop lens attached, please post it here.

 

 

</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Agreed, Nikon, in taking their time to offer full frame, were able to better Canon aps-c lens concept. Canon designed their aps-c lenses to sit closer to sensor. They altered the mount so mounting them without mods was impossible. Current Canon extention tubes & teleconverters are designed for both crop and full frame dslrs. You cannot mount aps-c canon glass on 1.3x aps-h dslrs either. You cannot mount them on canon 10D either. I assume D30 and D60 they won't mount either. Canon 20D and newer & all those Drebels take aps-c lenses: EF-S</p>

<p>That said I believe one of the best ultra wides is made by canon: 10-22mm EF-S. I considered it and 40D before I added 5D full frame instead. I Don't know how the Nikon 10-22 just announced will compare to Canon. Canon makes Nikon better & then visa versa Nikon makes Canon better. Competetion is good for the consumers.</p>

<p>At somepoint if I wanted to buy into the concept of greater reach telephoto effect via crop format sensors I might add the unannounced but leaked Canon 60D. Especially if they get the viewfinder bigger to compensate for even smaller 1.6x crop and add an articulated viewscreen for 3nd Generation HD Dslr video capture. Well and offer AF function while filming video too. Theres time still so 60D should cover all those bases. Until then I'm letting Pentax serve my 1.5x aps-c needs. If I did this then I could see ditching my old Pentax lens and lens mount system and K20D. I think usable 6400iso or higher offsets shake reduction built into camera body. Well and my 70-200 2.8 and 300 f4 are both IS canon lenses too.</p>

<p>Long story short, you cannot attach an unmodified aps-c canon lens onto full frame dslrs or 1.3x dslrs.</p>

<p>Me, I'll never own a EF-S Canon lens even if I do eventually buy into a future aps-c canon dslr. So no problems I can foresee in grabbing wrong gear within one brand. Pentax K Mount has served me well while Canon full frame got ever more affordable & Nikon came into the market with their own affordable full frame camera too.</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Ooops, Newly announced Nikon aps-c ultrawide lens is 10-24mm not 10-22mm I mentioned above. This one may give canon serious aps-c competetion. You can argue with an exceptional ultrawide inhand full frame isn't as appealing:</p>

<p><a href="http://nikonrumors.com/2009/03/26/the-real-deal-nikon-af-s-nikkor-10-24mm-135-45g-ed-dx.aspx">http://nikonrumors.com/2009/03/26/the-real-deal-nikon-af-s-nikkor-10-24mm-135-45g-ed-dx.aspx</a></p>

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Justin<br>

As mentioned above you can not even mount a Canon EF-S lens to an standard Canon EF mount, although the reverse is possible, ie EF-S mounts can take an EF lens.<br>

Even if I did not want to use an EF-S lens on a Canon EF mount, lack of comaptibility has a further drawback. Sometimes when swapping lenses it is easier just to mount the spare lens on the camera I am not using, rather than using a body cap, to keep the dust out. This can be important during travel if ones camera bags don't have a lot of space for carrying unmounted lenses and camera bodies seperately. The EF-S mount gets in the way of doing this and makes for an extra hassle.<br>

Canon has a history of introducing incompatibilities that orphan their technology. Of course there is the famous FD mount, but also the 420 EX flash.<br>

When APC-S was introduced rather than a firmware fix in the body that told the flash it was an APS-C crop (Canon bodies typically have firmware to control the flash) they instead introduced a new much more expensive flash the 430 EX. As a result 420 EX flashes are left flashing 1.6 times more wide than they need to, significantly reducing their effective range.<br>

I think their EZ flash system has also been orphaned.<br>

...and then there is the EF-S mount, which half orphaned D60s and 10Ds and EF-S lenses for those that upgrade to FF. <br>

Don't get me wrong, I think there is plenty in the Canon system to like, but there is also a sense that either they don't think some things through properly, or that they are too clever by halves forcing an upgrade here and there through such incompatibilities.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Hmm, Canon really screwed the pooch on that one.</p>

<p>So unlike every other brand that can implement a sensor crop mode, Canon left it's users clearly segregated into FF and APS-C crowds. So Canon is really the only company with 2 active mounts for the same style camera system.</p>

<p>What is kinda funny about your flash is the Pentax FGZ-360 not only can sense APS-C and 35mm but be set for 67 and 645 system as well.</p>

<p>Obviously as a system Canon is excellent but it would burn me if I owned a product that I couldn't be sure would still work in a few years. Every system phases out technology but it seems Canon does it intentionally for whatever reason.</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>I've got no clue if Canon does this abandonment intentionally. For years I used Canon FD System. But I bought in after Eos emerged. So you could say I knew what was up. In my Pre Ebay world I did all my shopping at the local used camera stores. </p>

<p>Now with forums & the internets & ebay its rather simple to get a clue where the potholes are. I'm not sympathetic to Geoff grabbing the 10-22mm EF-S lens to use on his newly acquired 5D. I don't see how this is Canon's fault. EF-S was/is an affordable system designed to bring imaging to the masses. When sensors are crazy cheap its pretty obvious to me aps-c canon will get abandoned, just like Canon abandoned FD System. Anyways, there are many techs who can still dial in and fix FD so its still quite usable today. Better yet its very affordable and plentiful. The used FD prices tend to spike in September when the next wave of high school and college film students get their shopping lists. Now I can see where Nikon will continue aps-c since their full frames are compatible with aps-c glass. Well kinda: The D700 is 12mp but in crop mode its JUST 5mp. SO, Is the D700 really The Best solution for using your aps-c nikon glass? I'd say no, get a D300 instead just for your crop glass.</p>

<p>In the past I considered buying a diesel truck but I KNOW at somepoint I'd put unleaded in it or visa versa put diesel in my regular gas car once I'm dealing with two fuels. If I bought the Diesel and then got sidelined due to having the car immediately towed & drained of incorrect fuel who would I blame? The manufacturer? No, it would be my fault, not the manufacturers fault.</p>

<p>Lindy</p>

[jgredline]

<p>One thing that I discovered thta was cool was this. I went over to samys to buy a nice short wide angle lens for my D700. When I got there, they had so many in stock and many different ones to choose from, I could not make up my mind...What was cool, is that I was able to rent a lens to see how I like it before buying one. How cool is that. Rent before you buy. I know this is more of a canikon thing as pentax does not have the resources for it, but still it was cool. I have a few I want to try before I buy. Oh and the money that I put towards the rental will applied to the lens I buy, if I buy it from them.</p>