Why insist on FF format?

Started Sep 22, 2012 | Discussions thread
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,521
Like?
Re: Kind of simple really
In reply to tgutgu, Sep 24, 2012

If you want a deeper DOF you have options with FF: close down the lens and bump up ISO correspondingly, or use a wider lens and crop it to the smaller sensor size. Not surprisingly, you'll get the same image in all respects as from a cropped sensor. But the opposite you can't do, you can't get shallow DOF of the FF sensor from a cropped sensor. The lack of shallow DOF control is why m4/3 pictures have often that P&S look to them.

tgutgu wrote:

SergeyGreen wrote:

kelly15 wrote:

..
But better for what? ..

Everything you can do with compact you can do with FF. Many things you can do with FF you can not possibly touch with compact. That means one is (significantly) better than the other - when and if you need it. Does it answer your question?

Unfortnately that is not true, if you were thinking of DOF. Wether shallow or large DOF is an advantage completely depends on the situation. The smaller the sensor you have greater DOF, which I regard as a huge advantage in most situations. Fast primes often can just get enough DOF, when you need to shoot wide open in low light, like in churches, whereas shooting wide open with FF can be a complete fail because of not enough DOF.

Each sensor format have special characteristics regarding DOF, none of them is per se an advantage or disadvantage. This shallow DOF equivalence debate is mostly hoax.

FF still has an advantage in the cleanness of images. It can achieve extremely shallow DOF at its extremes, while small sensors can achieve large DOF at its extremes.

-- hide signature --

-sergey

-- hide signature --

Thomas

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
DOFNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow