Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: APS-C or full format  (Read 8655 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11310
    • Echophoto
APS-C or full format
« on: September 13, 2009, 03:27:52 am »

Hi!

I added some information here: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...or-full-formate

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 03:32:13 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
APS-C or full format
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2009, 11:11:25 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi!

I added some information here: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...or-full-formate

Best regards
Erik
I use APS-C cameras myself, because I can't afford any of the FF cameras. But there are a couple of compelling FF advantages nonetheless. One is depth of field control. Take a look at some of the M9 test images that are circulating right now. I don't think some of that shallow depth of field/smooth bokeh look is achievable on an APS-C camera, at least not mine. Another issue for me has been the use of TS lenses. The viewfinder on an APS-C DSLR is small and dim enough to make that difficult, and the crop factor reduces the usable field of view for the limited number of TS lenses available. [As an aside, I got out my old Olympus OM-1 last night, and one look through that viewfinder had me really missing the large, bright viewfinders of the film days.]

But, your overall point that APS-C cameras can make excellent prints is accurate. I really welcome the Leica S2 because it helps get everyone out of the idea that a 23X46 mm sensor is somehow the ideal size and ratio for all photography. It's ideal for lenses deigned for that sensor size, but that's about it. Whether by habit formed by Hasselblad and Rolleiflex MF cameras, or instinct, I end up cropping a lot of images to a square. I'd love to have a camera with a square sensor format, along with supporting lenses.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11310
    • Echophoto
APS-C or full format
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2009, 01:05:26 pm »

Thanks,

I'll add the things you mention to my write up next time I update it. Thanks for feedback!

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Misirlou
I use APS-C cameras myself, because I can't afford any of the FF cameras. But there are a couple of compelling FF advantages nonetheless. One is depth of field control. Take a look at some of the M9 test images that are circulating right now. I don't think some of that shallow depth of field/smooth bokeh look is achievable on an APS-C camera, at least not mine. Another issue for me has been the use of TS lenses. The viewfinder on an APS-C DSLR is small and dim enough to make that difficult, and the crop factor reduces the usable field of view for the limited number of TS lenses available. [As an aside, I got out my old Olympus OM-1 last night, and one look through that viewfinder had me really missing the large, bright viewfinders of the film days.]

But, your overall point that APS-C cameras can make excellent prints is accurate. I really welcome the Leica S2 because it helps get everyone out of the idea that a 23X46 mm sensor is somehow the ideal size and ratio for all photography. It's ideal for lenses deigned for that sensor size, but that's about it. Whether by habit formed by Hasselblad and Rolleiflex MF cameras, or instinct, I end up cropping a lot of images to a square. I'd love to have a camera with a square sensor format, along with supporting lenses.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1249
APS-C or full format
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2009, 02:24:05 pm »

i agree that A2 is about the limit for APS-C (and don't know if this will be changed by cameras with more than 12mp with present technology) - but in my experience print satisfaction at this size requires good exposures in RAW, good development, allows for little or no cropping, and may not work for all subjects

where possible, the crop frame cameras are just fine for pans as has been discussed at some length on this forum

that said, given the choice (which i have) between crop and ff i much prefer the low light performance of the full frame and extra pixels for cropping
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
APS-C or full format
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2009, 03:25:27 pm »

Quote from: stever
i agree that A2 is about the limit for APS-C (and don't know if this will be changed by cameras with more than 12mp with present technology) - but in my experience print satisfaction at this size requires good exposures in RAW, good development, allows for little or no cropping, and may not work for all subjects

It depends on the subject.  I've seen fine prints from 6mp printed at A2 sizes.

Landscapes, on the other hand ....
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11310
    • Echophoto
APS-C or full format
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2009, 04:20:35 pm »

Hi,

I'm not very happy about my A2s from my 6MP camera but quite satisfied with A2s the 12 MP camera I have. I have been shooting full frame recently and I acknowledge that it has advantages.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: DarkPenguin
It depends on the subject.  I've seen fine prints from 6mp printed at A2 sizes.

Landscapes, on the other hand ....
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

elf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
APS-C or full format
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2009, 05:49:33 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi!

I added some information here: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...or-full-formate

Best regards
Erik

quote http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...or-full-formate
"Canon has for instance the 24-105/4L IS lens. It's a very good lens both on full format and APS-C. On the other hand the focal length range is something like 38-168 mm, which may be less than comfortable. A Canon 17-55/2.8IS lens may be more convenient."

I expect that it's quite hard to change the focal length of a lens by putting it on a different sensor sized camera.  The FOV will change, but not the focal length.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11310
    • Echophoto
APS-C or full format
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2009, 05:56:41 pm »

Yes,

You are correct, it should say equivalent focal length. I'm fully ware of that issue, but I don't want to add another paragraph or two just to explain the effect of the crop factor. I changed to equivalent focal length which is arguably more correct.

Thanks for feedback.
Erik

Quote from: elf
quote http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...or-full-formate
"Canon has for instance the 24-105/4L IS lens. It's a very good lens both on full format and APS-C. On the other hand the focal length range is something like 38-168 mm, which may be less than comfortable. A Canon 17-55/2.8IS lens may be more convenient."

I expect that it's quite hard to change the focal length of a lens by putting it on a different sensor sized camera.  The FOV will change, but not the focal length.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

elf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
APS-C or full format
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2009, 07:15:49 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Yes,

You are correct, it should say equivalent focal length. I'm fully ware of that issue, but I don't want to add another paragraph or two just to explain the effect of the crop factor. I changed to equivalent focal length which is arguably more correct.

Thanks for feedback.
Erik

I'd just link to a couple of thousand DPR threads
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
APS-C or full format
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2009, 02:52:45 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Yes,

You are correct, it should say equivalent focal length. I'm fully ware of that issue, but I don't want to add another paragraph or two just to explain the effect of the crop factor. I changed to equivalent focal length which is arguably more correct.

Thanks for feedback.
Erik

No, it is not "equivalent focal length" either.  It is the "Focal length that provides the same Field-of-view" or "Focal length that will allow the same framing".  

Also, the photoclubalpha article (which I read a long time back) purely looks at the situation from the point of view of getting *more* DOF, where using a shorter FL lens (providing the same FOV as the longer lens on FF) will invariably have a deeper DOF, when the image is framed the same using the FF camera and the smaller-sensored camera.  Obviously none of these will apply, if you shoot both the FF and APS-C cameras, using the SAME lens, shot from the SAME spot, and then the central APS-C portion of the FF image is cropped out to compare with the APS-C image - obviously the images would be identical.  
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 03:00:35 pm by aaykay »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11310
    • Echophoto
APS-C or full format
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2009, 03:16:12 pm »

Hi,

You just used two paragraphs. Could you shorten it down so it can be embedded i a single sentence so it will be readable?. What we need to explain is that a normal zoom intended for FF is not practical for the same role on APS-C. So please, make a reasonable short sentence explaining this in correct English and I will gladly put it into my write up, with due permission. ;-)

The orignal writing is:

"Canon has for instance the 24-105/4L IS lens. It's a very good lens both on full format and APS-C. On the other hand the equivalent focal length range is something like 38-168 mm, which may be less than comfortable. A Canon 17-55/2.8IS lens may be more convenient."

The gauntlet has beed dropped...

Best regards
Erik

 
Quote from: aaykay
No, it is not "equivalent focal length" either.  It is the "Focal length that provides the same Field-of-view" or "Focal length that will allow the same framing".  

Also, the photoclubalpha article (which I read a long time back) purely looks at the situation from the point of view of getting *more* DOF, where using a shorter FL lens (providing the same FOV as the longer lens on FF) will invariably have a deeper DOF, when the image is framed the same using the FF camera and the smaller-sensored camera.  Obviously none of these will apply, if you shoot both the FF and APS-C cameras, using the SAME lens, shot from the SAME spot, and then the central APS-C portion of the FF image is cropped out to compare with the APS-C image - obviously the images would be identical.  
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 03:16:51 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
APS-C or full format
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2009, 04:39:20 pm »

Quote from: aaykay
No, it is not "equivalent focal length" either.  It is the "Focal length that provides the same Field-of-view" or "Focal length that will allow the same framing".  
Hopefully by now almost every photo-forum junky knows that this is the sense in which "equivalent" is being used: context matters.
Though some of us insist on saying that for example that 200mm, f/2.8 used with DX format is equivalent to 300mm, f/4.2 in 35mm format: equivalent not only for FOV but also DOF and roughly equivalent for signal and noise levels if given equal exposure time.

Quote from: aaykay
... using a shorter FL lens (providing the same FOV as the longer lens on FF) will invariably have a deeper DOF, when the image is framed the same using the FF camera and the smaller-sensored camera.
Not "invariably", but only if you also change the aperture size [diameter] in proportion to format size: i.e. use equal aperture ratio with unequal focal length ... a strange assumption if you ask me, since photographers will tend to choose f-stop for the sake of DOF and/or speed requirements, and if so are quite likely not to use the same f-stop when using a different format and different focal length.
Logged

JohnBrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
    • http://www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
APS-C or full format
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2009, 05:07:16 pm »

Quote from: Misirlou
I use APS-C cameras myself, because I can't afford any of the FF cameras. But there are a couple of compelling FF advantages nonetheless. One is depth of field control. Take a look at some of the M9 test images that are circulating right now. I don't think some of that shallow depth of field/smooth bokeh look is achievable on an APS-C camera, at least not mine.


Try a 70-200 f2.8 VR Nikon. Commendable bokeh.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11310
    • Echophoto
APS-C or full format
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2009, 05:23:25 pm »

Hi,

I agree on that. The issue is not really bokeh but short depth of field. For that you need a long lens or a large opening. The advantage of Leica is not necessarily the full format but more that they have extremely well designed lenses that actually work well at large apertures. A 90 mm lens will have the sharpness characteristics whether on a full frame or an APS-C. Normally we use  bit shorter lenses on APS-C because of what used to be called the "crop factor" and that increase percepted depth of field.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: JohnBrew
Try a 70-200 f2.8 VR Nikon. Commendable bokeh.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
APS-C or full format
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2009, 06:51:36 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I agree on that. The issue is not really bokeh but short depth of field. For that you need a long lens or a large opening. The advantage of Leica is not necessarily the full format but more that they have extremely well designed lenses that actually work well at large apertures. A 90 mm lens will have the sharpness characteristics whether on a full frame or an APS-C. Normally we use  bit shorter lenses on APS-C because of what used to be called the "crop factor" and that increase percepted depth of field.

Best regards
Erik

Right. That's what I was trying to get at, but I did a poor job of constructing a decent explanation in a quick post.

It's certainly not theoretically impossible to get good bokeh on an APS-C camera, but I associate the intended look with certain specific lenses that would not have the equivalent field of view on an APS-C camera as they would have on a FF camera. Trying to get that same angle of view, with the same depth of field, at the same shooting distance is not something I know how to achieve with my APS-C gear. I guess I'd need something like a 32mm f/1.8 to get the look of my old 50mm f/2 Summicron.

(My particular 50 Summicron is a bastard lens to begin with. One of the rare-earth elements inside is decomposing, supposedly due to radioactive decay or something, which I'm sure has some unpredicatble effects on imaging performance. And the coatings were ruined when I got it, so I had the front element re-polished and re-coated. I'm sure it doesn't perform like any other lens because of those things. But I like it so much that I'd buy a FF sensor camera just for that one lens, if I could afford one.)
Logged

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
APS-C or full format
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2009, 10:11:31 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

You just used two paragraphs. Could you shorten it down so it can be embedded i a single sentence so it will be readable?. What we need to explain is that a normal zoom intended for FF is not practical for the same role on APS-C. So please, make a reasonable short sentence explaining this in correct English and I will gladly put it into my write up, with due permission. ;-)

The orignal writing is:

"Canon has for instance the 24-105/4L IS lens. It's a very good lens both on full format and APS-C. On the other hand the equivalent focal length range is something like 38-168 mm, which may be less than comfortable. A Canon 17-55/2.8IS lens may be more convenient."

The gauntlet has beed dropped...

Best regards
Erik


"Canon has for instance the 24-105/4L IS lens. It's a very good lens both on full format and APS-C. On the other hand the same field of view on a APS-C camera would be provided by a zoom with a focal length range of 38-168mm equivalent focal length range is something like 38-168 mm, which may be less than comfortable . So for APS-C a Canon 17-55/2.8IS lens may be more convenient."
(delete text in italics)
« Last Edit: September 16, 2009, 10:11:54 am by spidermike »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11310
    • Echophoto
APS-C or full format
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2009, 03:00:06 pm »

Great!

I replaced my text with yours, I hope it's OK?

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: spidermike
"Canon has for instance the 24-105/4L IS lens. It's a very good lens both on full format and APS-C. On the other hand the same field of view on a APS-C camera would be provided by a zoom with a focal length range of 38-168mm equivalent focal length range is something like 38-168 mm, which may be less than comfortable . So for APS-C a Canon 17-55/2.8IS lens may be more convenient."
(delete text in italics)
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
APS-C or full format
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2009, 10:38:07 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Great!

I replaced my text with yours, I hope it's OK?

Best regards
Erik

 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up