"The full frame myth"

Started Dec 19, 2013 | Discussions
drummercam Senior Member • Posts: 1,182
Re: "The full frame myth"

Thanks, I get it now.  I know not to expect any mention of Pentax anyway, of course.

 drummercam's gear list:drummercam's gear list
Leica Q Pentax K-30 Pentax K-01 Pentax K-3 Pentax K-S2 +1 more
moving_comfort
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,242
"The aps-c myth"
4

KL Matt wrote:

"That brings us to APS-C and Micro Four Thirds. APS-C camera users, at least those whose cameras are of DSLR design, don't get much of a break. The cameras aren't that much smaller and lighter than Full Frame, and most people use full frame capable lenses, because to buy APS-C specific lenses locks you out of an eventual full-frame upgrade, and they aren't that much smaller and lighter in any event. Finally, few if any are of Pro grade."

This is what I've been lamenting for years. The K-mount only really makes competitive sense as a full-frame mount. That's true now more than ever.

Ricoh will be forced to make the move to a larger sensor and/or shorter registration distance sooner or later.

.

Agreed.

If you're carrying around an aps-c DSLR with lenses, you're not really seeing much of a size advantage, and if you buy aps-c-only lenses to try to eke out a little bit of a size bonus - you lock yourself out of an upgrade path you might want later. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

aps-c MILC, with the shorter register distance, or m43 MILC? Yes, there's a size advantage worth paying for. Otherwise, if you're shooting DSLR, might as well be shooting FF and get all the advantages.

This article could just as well have been entitled "The aps-c myth."

.

-- hide signature --

Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Nikon D800 Pentax K20D Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +10 more
John_A_G Veteran Member • Posts: 7,816
actually its the "DSLR" myth
2

moving_comfort wrote:

aps-c MILC, with the shorter register distance, or m43 MILC? Yes, there's a size advantage worth paying for. Otherwise, if you're shooting DSLR, might as well be shooting FF and get all the advantages.

This article could just as well have been entitled "The aps-c myth."

.

I actually look at it differently.  The real myth is the "DSLR" myth.  Regardless of the sensor size, for the vast majority of ILCs, mirorrless will be the future.  That is the point I believe the author made.  The benefits of OVF are shrinking.  They'll never disappear completely but close enough for many people.  If you can get all the IQ benefits of full-frame but with smaller equipment, that's win-win.  What is a toss-up is what sensor sizes below full frame are likely to continue in mirrorless.

Gary Martin
Gary Martin Veteran Member • Posts: 4,389
Re: "The full frame myth"
1

Hmm, just seemed to be another mirrorless advocacy article. Interestingly, it closes with this:

"Of course there'll be the argument for the big and bright optical prism / mirror system over the EVF, but that's a story for another day."

Well, that's more than a minor point for some of us, eh? I know that EVFs will get much better, but when I recently used an NEX7 for about 10 minutes, the viewfinder gave me a headache ;P

 Gary Martin's gear list:Gary Martin's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-1 Olympus PEN-F Pentax KP Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +10 more
paulkienitz
paulkienitz Veteran Member • Posts: 5,314
Re: "The aps-c myth"

moving_comfort wrote:

KL Matt wrote:

"That brings us to APS-C and Micro Four Thirds. APS-C camera users, at least those whose cameras are of DSLR design, don't get much of a break. The cameras aren't that much smaller and lighter than Full Frame, and most people use full frame capable lenses, because to buy APS-C specific lenses locks you out of an eventual full-frame upgrade, and they aren't that much smaller and lighter in any event. Finally, few if any are of Pro grade."

This is what I've been lamenting for years. The K-mount only really makes competitive sense as a full-frame mount. That's true now more than ever.

Ricoh will be forced to make the move to a larger sensor and/or shorter registration distance sooner or later.

.

Agreed.

If you're carrying around an aps-c DSLR with lenses, you're not really seeing much of a size advantage, and if you buy aps-c-only lenses to try to eke out a little bit of a size bonus - you lock yourself out of an upgrade path you might want later. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

aps-c MILC, with the shorter register distance, or m43 MILC? Yes, there's a size advantage worth paying for. Otherwise, if you're shooting DSLR, might as well be shooting FF and get all the advantages.

This article could just as well have been entitled "The aps-c myth."

This logic ignores telephotos.  For wide angle lenses, the way to make them smaller is to take advantage of the short flange distance of mirrorless.  But for telephoto, the only thing that matters is the sensor size.

-- hide signature --

"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." -- Ansel

 paulkienitz's gear list:paulkienitz's gear list
Pentax K-3 Pentax Q Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +4 more
david tittermary Contributing Member • Posts: 568
Re: "The aps-c myth"

KL Matt wrote:

"That brings us to APS-C and Micro Four Thirds. APS-C camera users, at least those whose cameras are of DSLR design, don't get much of a break. The cameras aren't that much smaller and lighter than Full Frame, and most people use full frame capable lenses, because to buy APS-C specific lenses locks you out of an eventual full-frame upgrade, and they aren't that much smaller and lighter in any event. Finally, few if any are of Pro grade."

This is what I've been lamenting for years. The K-mount only really makes competitive sense as a full-frame mount. That's true now more than ever.

Ricoh will be forced to make the move to a larger sensor and/or shorter registration distance sooner or later.

.

Agreed.

If you're carrying around an aps-c DSLR with lenses, you're not really seeing much of a size advantage, and if you buy aps-c-only lenses to try to eke out a little bit of a size bonus - you lock yourself out of an upgrade path you might want later. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

aps-c MILC, with the shorter register distance, or m43 MILC? Yes, there's a size advantage worth paying for. Otherwise, if you're shooting DSLR, might as well be shooting FF and get all the advantages.

This article could just as well have been entitled "The aps-c myth."

.

Perhaps but for wildlife shooting I disagree as I have posted before a ff with 500mm lens is going to massive like 15-20lbs massive, just saying
--
david t
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tittermary/

moving_comfort
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,242
Re: "The aps-c myth"

paulkienitz wrote:

moving_comfort wrote:

KL Matt wrote:

"That brings us to APS-C and Micro Four Thirds. APS-C camera users, at least those whose cameras are of DSLR design, don't get much of a break. The cameras aren't that much smaller and lighter than Full Frame, and most people use full frame capable lenses, because to buy APS-C specific lenses locks you out of an eventual full-frame upgrade, and they aren't that much smaller and lighter in any event. Finally, few if any are of Pro grade."

This is what I've been lamenting for years. The K-mount only really makes competitive sense as a full-frame mount. That's true now more than ever.

Ricoh will be forced to make the move to a larger sensor and/or shorter registration distance sooner or later.

.

Agreed.

If you're carrying around an aps-c DSLR with lenses, you're not really seeing much of a size advantage, and if you buy aps-c-only lenses to try to eke out a little bit of a size bonus - you lock yourself out of an upgrade path you might want later. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

aps-c MILC, with the shorter register distance, or m43 MILC? Yes, there's a size advantage worth paying for. Otherwise, if you're shooting DSLR, might as well be shooting FF and get all the advantages.

This article could just as well have been entitled "The aps-c myth."

This logic ignores telephotos. For wide angle lenses, the way to make them smaller is to take advantage of the short flange distance of mirrorless. But for telephoto, the only thing that matters is the sensor size.

True. A very fast-focusing, high-MP aps-c DSLR is as good as anything else for long telephoto work. If that's the sole, dedicated purpose for a kit, you don't gain much by using MILC or even FF (unless you're willing/able to buy really expensive long lenses for FF.)

As soon as you move even a little bit into more general-multi-purpose usage though, you start to see the advantages of both FF and smaller MILC.

The perfect kit, if expensive: FF DSLR + some MILC, maybe m43.

.

-- hide signature --

Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Nikon D800 Pentax K20D Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +10 more
moving_comfort
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,242
That is...

moving_comfort wrote:

The perfect** kit, if expensive: FF DSLR + some MILC, maybe m43.

.

** as long as the FF kit has 36+MP, in which case cropping can exactly replace 16MP aps-c for long telephoto.  -Jay

-- hide signature --

Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Nikon D800 Pentax K20D Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +10 more
Chris Mak Senior Member • Posts: 2,229
Re: "The aps-c myth"

david tittermary wrote:

Perhaps but for wildlife shooting I disagree as I have posted before a ff with 500mm lens is going to massive like 15-20lbs massive, just saying

How is that? Currently thé 500mm lens being used by the Pentax shooters with the k3/5 crop bodies, is the Sigma 500/4.5, a designated Full frame lens. How are things going to change when it is used on a 36mp K3 style FF body with crop mode?

Even the Da300 covers the FF sensor properly.

The only reason why I'm holding off on a Sony A7, is that a Pentax K3 style 36mp FF body would suit áll my needs. It would effectively be the only body I would need to shoot all my lenses in all situations.

The only thing Pentax has to beware of, is not to make the FF Dslr body too large or heavy without any real cause, like the Nikon d800 which really does not have to be that large. If Ricoh/Pentax were to venture into mirror less with a compatible adapter in the end, fine, but it would be the wrong start into FF.

I don't however think the Pentax FF will be built around the Sony 36mp, but around the 24mp. On the one hand I would regret that, because it would still leave the need for Apsc for birding, but on the other hand 24mp FF would be tremendous while still affordable and manageable.

 Chris Mak's gear list:Chris Mak's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Zeiss Loxia 35 Zeiss Loxia 25mm F2.4 Zeiss Loxia 50 +2 more
Pentax_Prime
Pentax_Prime Senior Member • Posts: 2,505
To sum it up ... re: K-mount
1

The author thinks DSLR is dead and we are a short time from amazing OVF quality EV's in even the lowest end mirrorless cameras, therefore sweeping the market and killing the DSLR and large format sensor in one fell swoop.

He seemed to beat around the bush to make a point that there are no longer advantages to large sensors or the DSLR format - but didn't really make much of a convincing argument.  The real argument is this: smaller sensors have caught up with FF in terms of DR and necessary resolution for 'large' prints and heavy cropping.  While those are no longer arguments for FF - the DOF argument is/was and will continue to be the most compelling reason to invest in a 35mm or larger format system.  That being said, a mirrorless K-mount continues to make absolutely no sense given Ricoh's current disinterest in adapting lens designs to compensate for the registration distance or redesigning an obvious product failure in the K-01.  Even if they did both, it's still nothing short of a makeshift fix at extending the life of the K-mount (their investment) - they must either continue to invest in APS-C (doubtful as they appear to have abandoned lens development) or go DSLR FF.  If neither avenue is viable - the K-mount is dying a slow death and Ricoh is wringing out the last profit it can get.

Model Mike wrote:

Great article on Luminous Landscape re full frame v. MFT v. APS-C

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

-- hide signature --

My Pentax Street Gallery - Arranged By Lens Used w/ Pentax-K5, K-7, K20D, & K100D Super
http://photobucket.com/andy_allen

 Pentax_Prime's gear list:Pentax_Prime's gear list
Pentax K-5
david tittermary Contributing Member • Posts: 568
Re: "The aps-c myth"

david tittermary wrote:

Perhaps but for wildlife shooting I disagree as I have posted before a ff with 500mm lens is going to massive like 15-20lbs massive, just saying

How is that? Currently thé 500mm lens being used by the Pentax shooters with the k3/5 crop bodies, is the Sigma 500/4.5, a designated Full frame lens. How are things going to change when it is used on a 36mp K3 style FF body with crop mode?

Even the Da300 covers the FF sensor properly.

The only reason why I'm holding off on a Sony A7, is that a Pentax K3 style 36mp FF body would suit áll my needs. It would effectively be the only body I would need to shoot all my lenses in all situations.

The only thing Pentax has to beware of, is not to make the FF Dslr body too large or heavy without any real cause, like the Nikon d800 which really does not have to be that large. If Ricoh/Pentax were to venture into mirror less with a compatible adapter in the end, fine, but it would be the wrong start into FF.

I don't however think the Pentax FF will be built around the Sony 36mp, but around the 24mp. On the one hand I would regret that, because it would still leave the need for Apsc for birding, but on the other hand 24mp FF would be tremendous while still affordable and manageable.

Because that 500mm becomes 800mm any idea how big a d800 with a 800mm is? I use the 300 which for me is long enough at approximately 500mm on the k3 and I can carry it with one hand.
--
david t
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tittermary/

david tittermary Contributing Member • Posts: 568
Re: "The aps-c myth"

david tittermary wrote:

Perhaps but for wildlife shooting I disagree as I have posted before a ff with 500mm lens is going to massive like 15-20lbs massive, just saying

How is that? Currently thé 500mm lens being used by the Pentax shooters with the k3/5 crop bodies, is the Sigma 500/4.5, a designated Full frame lens. How are things going to change when it is used on a 36mp K3 style FF body with crop mode?

Even the Da300 covers the FF sensor properly.

The only reason why I'm holding off on a Sony A7, is that a Pentax K3 style 36mp FF body would suit áll my needs. It would effectively be the only body I would need to shoot all my lenses in all situations.

The only thing Pentax has to beware of, is not to make the FF Dslr body too large or heavy without any real cause, like the Nikon d800 which really does not have to be that large. If Ricoh/Pentax were to venture into mirror less with a compatible adapter in the end, fine, but it would be the wrong start into FF.

I don't however think the Pentax FF will be built around the Sony 36mp, but around the 24mp. On the one hand I would regret that, because it would still leave the need for Apsc for birding, but on the other hand 24mp FF would be tremendous while still affordable and manageable.

Because that 500mm becomes 800mm any idea how big a d800 with a 800mm is? I use the 300 which for me is long enough at approximately 500mm on the k3 and I can carry it with one hand.
--
david t
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tittermary/

And 36 ff in crop mode is not the same as 36 dx native
--
david t
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tittermary/

Chris Mak Senior Member • Posts: 2,229
Re: "The aps-c myth"

david tittermary wrote:

david tittermary wrote:

Perhaps but for wildlife shooting I disagree as I have posted before a ff with 500mm lens is going to massive like 15-20lbs massive, just saying

How is that? Currently thé 500mm lens being used by the Pentax shooters with the k3/5 crop bodies, is the Sigma 500/4.5, a designated Full frame lens. How are things going to change when it is used on a 36mp K3 style FF body with crop mode?

Even the Da300 covers the FF sensor properly.

The only reason why I'm holding off on a Sony A7, is that a Pentax K3 style 36mp FF body would suit áll my needs. It would effectively be the only body I would need to shoot all my lenses in all situations.

The only thing Pentax has to beware of, is not to make the FF Dslr body too large or heavy without any real cause, like the Nikon d800 which really does not have to be that large. If Ricoh/Pentax were to venture into mirror less with a compatible adapter in the end, fine, but it would be the wrong start into FF.

I don't however think the Pentax FF will be built around the Sony 36mp, but around the 24mp. On the one hand I would regret that, because it would still leave the need for Apsc for birding, but on the other hand 24mp FF would be tremendous while still affordable and manageable.

Because that 500mm becomes 800mm any idea how big a d800 with a 800mm is? I use the 300 which for me is long enough at approximately 500mm on the k3 and I can carry it with one hand.

David, there's the 1.4tc for that purpose and reason. I have the sigma 1.4tc, but don't think it is of the same quality as the 500mm. Surely one of the first items to release when (and if) Ricoh launches FF, is the 1.4tc.

 Chris Mak's gear list:Chris Mak's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Zeiss Loxia 35 Zeiss Loxia 25mm F2.4 Zeiss Loxia 50 +2 more
Chris Mak Senior Member • Posts: 2,229
Re: "The aps-c myth"

david tittermary wrote:

david tittermary wrote:

Perhaps but for wildlife shooting I disagree as I have posted before a ff with 500mm lens is going to massive like 15-20lbs massive, just saying

How is that? Currently thé 500mm lens being used by the Pentax shooters with the k3/5 crop bodies, is the Sigma 500/4.5, a designated Full frame lens. How are things going to change when it is used on a 36mp K3 style FF body with crop mode?

Even the Da300 covers the FF sensor properly.

The only reason why I'm holding off on a Sony A7, is that a Pentax K3 style 36mp FF body would suit áll my needs. It would effectively be the only body I would need to shoot all my lenses in all situations.

The only thing Pentax has to beware of, is not to make the FF Dslr body too large or heavy without any real cause, like the Nikon d800 which really does not have to be that large. If Ricoh/Pentax were to venture into mirror less with a compatible adapter in the end, fine, but it would be the wrong start into FF.

I don't however think the Pentax FF will be built around the Sony 36mp, but around the 24mp. On the one hand I would regret that, because it would still leave the need for Apsc for birding, but on the other hand 24mp FF would be tremendous while still affordable and manageable.

Because that 500mm becomes 800mm any idea how big a d800 with a 800mm is? I use the 300 which for me is long enough at approximately 500mm on the k3 and I can carry it with one hand.
--
david t
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tittermary/

And 36 ff in crop mode is not the same as 36 dx native

Perhaps not, but it ís exactly the same as 16mp apsc, exactly the crop that the Apsc camera body makes (without the option for the full frame though).

 Chris Mak's gear list:Chris Mak's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Zeiss Loxia 35 Zeiss Loxia 25mm F2.4 Zeiss Loxia 50 +2 more
Cane Veteran Member • Posts: 6,900
Re: "The full frame myth"

Why is image sharpness the one and only deciding factor discussed?

Chris Mak Senior Member • Posts: 2,229
Re: "The full frame myth"

Cane wrote:

Why is image sharpness the one and only deciding factor discussed?

Because it's what Apsc and m4/3 are best at. The smaller formats with the design of high quality lenses, excel in sharpness (as well as in compact size of course), so why not strive for what it does best? Speaking for myself: the lack of image sharpness is not that great either. Good lenses solve that issue, and that's a good thing. i don't see how Apsc and m4/3 can avoid image sharpness, it's simply unavoidable due to the projection of the image on a pretty small sensor and enlarging it greatly again when rendering the images, and also due to the lens behavior on a small format; you have to compress the view and with good lenses edges will dominate pretty much resulting in great image sharpness. It's a pro of the format, but with larger formats you have the possibility of higher resolution without the edge sharpness being so obvious. It is the main reason why I have done all my purchases of the last four years with going FF in the back of my mind. But the system was and still is expensive. With the Sony A7(r) that is slowly changing. Good film 35mm cameras cost what? 500,-? When FF 36mp and up becomes more mainstream, we'll probably be talking more about "rendering", "resolution" terms like that...

 Chris Mak's gear list:Chris Mak's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Zeiss Loxia 35 Zeiss Loxia 25mm F2.4 Zeiss Loxia 50 +2 more
James O'Neill Veteran Member • Posts: 4,678
You cannot change the laws of physics...
1

You throw a number of pixels at digitizing an image.

You can't get more detail out in the result than the lens formed in the image you digitize. All throwing more pixels into the equation does is increases the fidelity that image is digitized with.

Now you can throw 40MP at digitizing an tiny image formed by a tiny lens (in the case of the Nokia 1020) or 40MP at digitizing and giant image formed by top end lens (in the case of the Pentax 645D). To listen to Riechmann with his

> Digital cameras with less than 11MP were hard pressed to give us the large prints that we wanted and needed, and for a long time 11MP was the exclusive domain of Full Frame

and

> do we need pixel counts much above 24MP, and therefore a full-frame sensor?

you have to say he thinks cameras with the same numbers of Pixels are equal. The aren't. If Pentax made a 16MP FF camera I'd have bought it.

The mirror box on Pentax, Sony , Nikon and Canon cameras is designed for a 36x24mm film frame a sensor filling the back of that mirror box wouldn't make the camera bigger or heavier (although if you want to go from a 200MM f/2.8 to the equivalent 300 f/2.8, the lens will be bigger).  The bigger sensor *will* cost more.  And the APS-C and smaller sensors can produce very, very good images. The interesting question is where is the sweet spot. The 645D is too big. The sensor in Q is too small. APS-C in film-derived bodies was a quick fix. If APS-C is the sweet spot for sensor size, a smaller body makes sense, if the K3 is the sweet spot for body size an FF sensor makes sense.

 James O'Neill's gear list:James O'Neill's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Pentax smc DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 +2 more
Chris Mak Senior Member • Posts: 2,229
Re: You cannot change the laws of physics...

APS-C in film-derived bodies was a quick fix. If APS-C is the sweet spot for sensor size, a smaller body makes sense, if the K3 is the sweet spot for body size an FF sensor makes sense.

See the Nikon DF...

 Chris Mak's gear list:Chris Mak's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Zeiss Loxia 35 Zeiss Loxia 25mm F2.4 Zeiss Loxia 50 +2 more
325East Regular Member • Posts: 111
Re: "The full frame myth"
9

Last summer I ran a small, unscientific experiment.   I took identical (as possible) photos of a building with three cameras (Sony RX1 ff 24meg, Sony Nex7 APS-c 24meg and Pentax K-30 16meg APS-c) using good lenses.  All three shot in raw, processed in LR to my preferences and printed 13"x19" on good paper.  I put the prints up on a wall and for a month asked photographers and non-photographers alike what they thought of the differences.  Surprisingly most everyone thought they had all been shot with the same camera.  And when I said they'd been shot with three different cameras with very different specs, there was no consensus about which cameras took which picture.  Long time photographers were no more accurate than rank non-photographers in picking out what cameras took what picture.  The results show that at normal size enlargements it is hard for people to tell the difference between the output of these three cameras if you use good glass.

awaldram
awaldram Forum Pro • Posts: 13,260
Re: "The aps-c myth"

Chris Mak wrote:

david tittermary wrote:

And 36 ff in crop mode is not the same as 36 dx native

Perhaps not, but it ís exactly the same as 16mp apsc, exactly the crop that the Apsc camera body makes (without the option for the full frame though).

You've lost me

How is 16Mp (ff crop mode) the same as 24Mp aps-c (K3) .?

Surely you need the non existent 50Mp FF camera ?

 awaldram's gear list:awaldram's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax Q7 Pentax K-x Olympus PEN E-PM2 +17 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads