Joed700: Major differences that really matter when it comes to choosing between APS-C or FF is the DOF. If shallow DOF is a must for you, FF is the only way to go. For example, my Fuji XF 56mm f1.2 can produce shallow DOF that's equivalent to an 85mm F1.8 only. Most people don't realize that 56mm f1.2 (85mm equiv) is somewhat misleading. It should be read as 56mm f1.2 (84mm f1.8 DOF in FF). A typical DX lens with an aperture starting at f3.5 at 16mm can give you max shallow DOF of a 24mm @ f/5 in FF. By the time you get to f5.6 at 55mm, you would have the same DOF as a FF 85mm @ f/9. Camera manufacturers should label their product as such: 16-55mm f/3.5 -5.6 (24-85mm f/5 - f/9 DOF in FF). Anyone who's serious about isolating their subjects will think twice when they see the DOF equivalent--f/5 - f/9....
Forget DOF, even though that is a noticeable difference between crop and FF... but a benefit that is often overlooked is the sheer increase in width that is afforded by shooting film or FF digital. Even a camera like the Pentax 654 is the equiv. of shooting a small sensor medium format body... the larger Phase sensor is noticeably different with respect to how much of a scene you can fit into the frame.
McFern: This same conversation was happening 35 years ago when the upgrade path went from the amateur full frame (35mm) format up through the various medium formats to arrive eventually at the 'truly' professional sheet film formats. In 1985, an RB67 kit would cost you 10 grand or more (in todays dollars) whereas a "pro" 35 kit was less than 1 grand. So here is the point; I have some great shots from 4x5 down to 110 (read smart phone) but what I noticed was it was hard to see a difference between the different formats unless they were enlarged to the same size and then side by side. (Unless you compare 110 to 4x5) Digital between FF and 4/3 is even closer. So it is choice alone. None of these formats will make a bad photo a good one. Galen Rowell took his 35mm into the mountains during the days that 8x10 reigned and took some wonderful photos. If he were alive today he could do the same with point and shoot. A photographer is still the same skill level with a better camera.
Actually the difference between the formats can be as different as night and day in some of the most common situations. Stand 2-4 ft. in front of your bath tub with a model (or client) in the tub.
1. Use a 35mm film camera or FF digital camera and take a shot at waist level in attempt to get the entire tub and model in the frame at 17mm or so.
2. Do the same with a 6x7 medium format film body and wide lens.
3. Do the same with 8x10 film, wide lens.
That pretty much wraps the whole point up right there... and we haven't even talked about the depth of field differences and creative latitude afforded by the larger formats in such a real world scenario. I shoot a lot of clients in bathrooms... having to deal with Nikon's 1.5x sensors back in the D100/D2hs days was a... well, you know ;)
SirSeth: I think the article is well articulated. What I picked up is that many people think that buying FF lenses for a crop sensor will future proof them, but in reality as soon as those lenses are mounted on a FF, you're using "new" lenses that don't behave as they did and may be less useful (or more useful) on the new format. Meaning if you enjoyed the reach, now you need to add reach on the top end...
FF lenses is perfect future proofing. The bottom line is that if you want the best performance and latitude when shooting at-a-distance, then you've no other choice but FF + pricey telephoto lenses, especially when the light gets dim.
You can compromise using 3rd party + teleconverter/extender but that stuff does't compare to a proper fast long telephoto lens. Same goes for landscapes. If you're serious about it, then 35mm format is absolute puny and dreadful for vast landscapes. The the larger formats are FAR better suited compared to 35mm format; likewise, there is no substitute for long proper lenses... if you're that serious about your work.
Many say 500 f4 is too $, yet they'll spend $5k on dx lenses, and $500 teleconverters... senseless.
When working, most professionals will make more use of wide vs really long ends, so FF is usually the advantage opposed to disadvantage. Yes, using a crop Nikon is great with say a 300mm prime but it gets so much better than that.
Darn right no DX lenses! I still think it's foolish for most people who ultimately want to use their photography to make regular income (enough to pay the mortgage + bills) to invest in DX lenses. I STILL maintain that the 14-24 (or 17-35) f2.8; 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200VR or IS f2.8 are the 3 working lenses that will cover nearly every job that a working photographer will be hired for and I would highly recommend budding photographers looking to earn money or a living with their Nikon/Canon to spend money on those lenses first and skip the dx lenses and 3rd party stuff unless it came with your kit.
24mm yields an effective 36mm on a crop sensor? So, step back. The reach the 17-55dx has over the 17-35 is the equiv. of 1 step forward. I chose the 17-35 because it made business sense; it offered max versatility; film and digital bodies (including my Canon w/adapter). Spending near $2k for a dx lens is ludicrous w/few exceptions.
The author is setting people up for failure.
MPA1: I used to have the 300 f2.8 and sold it because I had no real use for it. I doubt I'll buy this version either, although I am sure it is very good.I never really felt that 300 was a useful FL - too short for wildlife and too long for most general uses.
The 300 focal length is popular and great on a FF body for portraiture. It's generally too long for such on a 1.5 crop, however on smaller sensors it truly comes into its own for sports and wildlife without breaking the bank; a TC on the 300 makes it even more useful. Hopefully this lens will be fast focusing and sharp with buttery bokeh... if not, the price will make less sense than it seems to make already.
chj: To Sony (and all camera manufacturers)
Put a damn touchscreen on your cameras. It is by far the best way to choose a focus point. Anyone that says otherwise has simply not used one and is exalting their "skill" in getting around their camera's limitations. Technology trumps skill. You can't get faster, more reliable autofocus than my GM1 (unless you have another Panasonic). Don't tell me about workarounds. The GM1 nails focus more often.
OK, manual focus can get tighter focus on a stationary subject that's willing to wait for you to set up. But with that kind of time, ANY camera can get tight focus.
So stop listening to photo geeks that equate touchscreens with bad phone photos. On a GOOD camera, a touchscreen is an immensely powerful tool that has more impact on photos than pixel peeping details.
Feedback from DPR photo geeks is 0.005% of the market. The other 99.095% are using touchscreen phones. The camera market is shrinking, because you are listening to the wrong market.
Wrong on so many points. Just because your screen is bathed in light making it virtually unreadable does not mean your subject is in the same light. Some photographers don't like taking their faces away from the viewfinder, or don't like using screens/live view for focusing when not on a tripod.
There are times when I really like having my face to the viewfinder when I'm shooting commentary stuff in tense situations, and don't want anyone knowing where I'm looking, or what I'm photographing. Using a WA lens, I can aim the camera in one direction, but can be actually putting the focus point on the actual subject matter that I want to photograph.
Were you err is thinking that just because you happen to fancy something, others will by default. I don't mind touch screen for playback, but when I want to change iso, focus points, etc., I prefer dedicated buttons. Everyone isn't having trouble getting focus on moving targets anyway.
Jogger: I wonder if we will ever see a true 645 medium format sensor. The one in this is not 645.. the sensor in the "MF" Leica S2 is marginally larger than FF.
(NAwlins Contrarian) You're right, the P65 digital back is what, nearly 7 years old now? It's think it's hard to seriously consider the Pentax (thought I think it's a great camera at a very attractive price) once you've shot with larger sensors. The crop is considerable! I couldn't go the Pentax route if I shot landscapes.
What a fantastic camera though! Pentax got it right.
ozturert: I'm impressed with the fact that there still exist people who say "I see no point in spending money on a MF camera which has a smaller sensor than real MFs. Real MFs have ... sensor".Go and buy whatever you like. Why whining here? Trying to prove something? This is the king of price/performance cameras with excellent body, DSLRlike ergonomics, good UI, state-of-the-art AF system and nice lenses (not the best, but still very good). If you like bigger sensors, go and buy a camera with a bigger sensor and use them.
I don't think people are "whining" per se' but rather making it known that there can be a huge difference between MF sensor sizes which many photographers looking into buying a MF system do not know. Many have found out by perusing medium format forums, etc..
So while I'm sure there is some whining, I think most good folks are just passing on information that might inform someone who isn't familiar with MF cameras/backs. The difference between sensor size and sync speeds can be substantial between systems and having the info out there isn't hurting anything and might even benefit someone who's seriously thinking about taking the plunge.
zakaria: It is pentax answer to any one asking for a full frame.
... and when it comes to medium format, this Pentax isn't as "full frame" as it gets either with a lack luster 43.8 x 32.8 mm sensor size; It's like a cropped body medium format camera compared to people using say, a Phase p65 digital back with a 40.4x54.9mm sensor. Comparing those two medium format sensors as it relates to "crop factor" is kinda like comparing a Nikon D7100 and a "full frame" D4s.
So what's the benefit that many people don't think about? You get a benefit of getting more scene into the frame at a given focal length when compared to a 35mm camera when shooting in cramped spaces, or when you want a wide view... you're also able to get closer which in some situations can affect the DOF dramatically.
An awesome camera- keep in mind that in the land of MF, it still gets considerably better with an even wider view with some other sensors and much higher sync speeds with some of the other systems.
Verdict? I think Pentax did one heck of a great job.
jaykumarr: readers who are angry about the pricing should see the pricing of 80-400mm II Nikon AF-S. That is 20% higher. ( As per the feedback from users, that Nikon lens is extremely fast focusing and almost as sharp as prime. So I neither blame that price).
(bananasplit) No, I do not think that everyone thinks as I do (I address that very specifically in another post in this thread)... because if you thought like I did, then you would've have purchased the 7D in the first place and would've got a camera that gave you at *least* 5-8 years worth of easy room-to-grow. Same with lenses- I buy lenses that I know I'll be able to use a decade from now unless there's some huge tech advancement on the order of what digital was to film... and the likelihood of that happening is slim.
I do my research very well before I open my purse and plunk down my money (actually before I click "buy"). I only purchase what makes solid business sense not just for today, but for years to come. I upgrade when I need to, not when I want to. I buy premium lenses that will grow with me and that offer me the most options/latitude while I'm shooting in addition to not having to worry about replacing them for about 10 years. Yes. I know people don't think as I do ;)
mais51: Look - this Canon lens is smaller than the new Nikon 80-400, focus much closer @ ~1m against the Nikon 1.75 m, shorter and cheaper, if I were a Canon shooter it would definitely be on my wish list - let's see how it performs
Yes, that extra 20mm on a telephoto lens makes it a lot more "versatile" for the price that Nikon's asking. Question: How many steps forward would makeup the difference between 80 and 100mm for such versatility? ;)
steelhead3: I wish Canon would return to dirty white, this looks just like a Sony.
In the photograph above the lens looks grey, just like my other Canon lenses. If that colour of the sky was the colour of that lens I would call it grey, because it sure looks "dirtier" than the white background that it's photographed against.
webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.
(webrunner5) I agree! ... mostly. Your mistake is in the thinking that everyone is like you (us). I wouldn't buy this lens because it doesn't make sense for *my* shooting, however I can see where this lens can be VERY useful to others, and I think the lens has relevance to many people.
I also agree with others' sarcasm directed to your comment, about just get closer with your 70-200 lens. The reason I agree with the sarcasm is because a 1.4x on a 70-200 is pretty much worthless to *me* for a scrawny 80mm boost. My old 1.7x (Nikon) gave 140mm on my 70-200.
Today, I don't use a tc/extender unless it's going on a prime 300mm or more, and preferably 500mm or more. But that's with my shooting in mind, using my camera and my lenses... other people use, shoot, and enjoy different things in 100 different ways.
So while I agree with you that (for us) 400mm is "too short", I remain cognizant that this wonderful lens is the bees knees to many photographers amateur and professional alike!
Bananasplit: I have no doubt that the lens is nice, well build and awsome optics. But the price is not worth for me..
I think the strategy of Canon is to earn more monry by making their product as expensive as possible, just a bit above what one would expect to pay. I believe it is a bad marketing strategy.
(Bananasplit) ... you're killing me with this. Canon introduces a new lens that's heads above the current version, better optics, better zoom, etc.. at a price that practically costs the same as the near 20 year-old version.
I'm curious, if you ran a corporation with a huge payroll, and the cost of having a lot of employees, on going research/development, etc... at what price(s) would you sell your lenses/products to remain competitive and to make a nice profit (the reason most are in business to begin with)?
Chronis: exactly what Canon needed at this point... another expensive lens for those already invested in their system...
shows how out of touch they are, building trimmings for bodies that (given the choice) any sensible customer would have at the bottom of his list...
(Chronis) ... I think the truth being is that you are probably "out of touch" with what people actually *buy*, which is what Canon (a company that sells things) is interested in.
Have you given thought to the fact that to many, a $2200 telephoto zoom lens isn't "expensive" and may prove to be a nice quality low-cost option compared to spending nearly $10,000 on a larger prime? Hint: Canon has given it thought ;)
(bananasplit) It's almost proverb that any time someone makes a "mistake" in buying camera equipment, it's because they didn't take time to do the requisite (and all too simple) research. Like Ferrari/Porsche, Nikon/Canon offer premium performance- with some distinct differences between the two brands.
Canon STILL neither has a high resolution studio body (that's 40'ish mp or more in today's speak) nor a fast shooting body that offers at least 24mp (neither does Nikon of course).
Nikon dragged a** on bringing stabilization to its super telephoto line (ages ago) and high resolution camera to market prior to the D800. Today, Nikon still sells the 200-400 f/4 lens, which, Canon (thankfully) surmised was ridiculous when full frame digital cameras became common across the professional demographic, because it's too short and offers too little latitude!
Nikon/Canon? depends on your needs- any "mistake" is simply due to photographers usually having the "equipment'itus" virus. ;)
webrunner5: Just go to U Tube and you can learn all you sort of need to know to start out. Video is like photography, trial and error. Takes years to get good at either, but I like a lot more than one opinion on anything. Video is HARD ASS STUFF to do well. And you had better have deep pockets to make a fairly good output.
But I would suggest anyone young get on the bandwagon because it is the future. Frame gabs will be the thing not just going out and taking 5 pictures all day. The DSLR thingy we know now will be like still shooting with a 8x10 View Camera 5 to 7 years from now.
100% correct. I've been saying it for years. However, I think "Fro" is fun to watch and I remember him from the old days on Youtube. If he can charge $100 and get it, then more power to him, I hope he sells a hundred million. It beats having to bust-you-butt having to physically work for every photo session, which has got to be one of the worse ways to conduct photography business, unless you just enjoy getting out there and shooting. The goal for many (most?) in business is to create something once, and continue to get paid for it. THAT's business, anything else is working your rump roaster off for peanuts. (tongue-in-cheek)
tkpenalty: I see Impossible.
Impossible to afford.
thumbs up :)
Take your palm away from your face. I know it's a cine lens. I am also familiar with Red. My point was that whether or not something is expensive is relative ($5500 isn't viewed as horribly expensive to a professional wildlife or street/documentary photographer as it is to the average person who thinks a $400 point/shoot is "expensive")
While there aren't too many teen agers getting $2.5mil Bugattis for their birthdays or for getting in to Yale; there are *many* teens who have received $300,000 Ferraris for their first car (and $70k earrings for their first real jewelry) and the number of teens receiving $100,000 Porsches , BMWs and Mercedes as "first cars" makes the point. What's suitable is most often decided with money and relativity...
... and yet people somehow can "afford" to pay **cash** for a $2.5 million dollar Bugatti to drive only occasionally, or a $4.5mil home in the Bay Area as their second home.
Whether or not something is reasonable or impossible depends on your purse.