An Interesting Article

Started Jan 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
CollBaxter
Forum ProPosts: 12,438Gear list
Like?
Re: I'm surprised you don't get this, Collin.
In reply to Great Bustard, Jan 10, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

CollBaxter wrote:

E-5 Viewfinder

FF Viewfinder.

Remember I want the bird the rest is trash.

Your example presumes the size of the viewfinder is the same. The point Sergey is making is if the FF viewfinder were larger in the same proportion as the format, then the size of the bird would be the same in both, if using the same focal length.

Of course, cropping to the same framing will result in less pixels being on the bird for FF, as FF has a lower pixel density.

That all said, I don't think a person chooses FF to crop to the same framing as a smaller format as rule. That is, if a 4/3 photographer is using 300mm and still cropping, the FF photographer would be using 600mm. Of course, that's a large, heavy, and expensive way about it, thus the appeal of APS-C for many wildlife photographers.

So, indeed, for long shooting, there is a significant size/weight/cost advantage to smaller formats. In fact, the best bang-for-the-buck solution out there is probably the Panasonic FZ200, which sports a 4.5-108 / 2.8 lens (12.5-300 / 8 equivalent on 4/3), which should do wonders for all those "struggling" for deeper DOF, especially with telephoto. Icing on the cake, is that the camera and lens can fit in coat pocket and can be had for $460.

And, in case you think I'm being argumentative, au contraire. Just take a look at these shots taken with Canon S40.

So, to recap -- not all viewfinders are the same size, so you example above fails, photographers generally choose the lens that gives the desired framing as opposed to a shorter lens and cropping, smaller formats have a significant reach advantage over larger formats for a given focal length due to their higher pixel density.

I understand that not all viewfinders are the same size. But the E-53/5 view finder is not one of the smallest out there. I shoot wild life stuff with long lenses and you want to see what you are shooting. One of the problems with animal photography is the 'dead eye" this is a blacked out eye with no eye glint , it looks like a black hole . One often has to wait to see and catch the glint of the eye and take the shoot. You could get a rough framing and spray and pray. I have often had to sit for a minute or 2 for the animal to turn its head to get the shoot. This falls in line with getting in closer with a cropped sensor.

Here is an example.

Yes I could clone in the glint but I know its there, and so  will a lot of wild life shooters. With wild life if you can't see it you cant shoot it. This one is not bad I have thousands that I have discarded due to movement into shadow or loosing the glint. This type of photography is subject specific and the subject  moves.

-- hide signature --

Collin
(Aficionado Olympus DSLR )
http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
New Seventh Wonder of the World.
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter/image/95297052.jpg

 CollBaxter's gear list:CollBaxter's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS Olympus E-500 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-5 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow