Is Full frame still the most versatile?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 3,005
Like?
Re: Is Full frame still the most versatile?
In reply to Martin.au, Apr 1, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

The depth of field argument is a bit over rated to me...dof is still  shallow enough for me with fast lenses even on the little Q.  On FF in many cases it is too shallow wide open.

Again I can understand someone not being interesting in shallow DOF themselves but it seems a bit dishoniest to claim that nobody needs it.

Reads to me like he qualified his opinion appropriately. I think you might be reading a bit too much into that post.

He was responding to a more generalised question though, not "do you need what FF offers", claiming that something is "over rated" does seem to go beyond personal needs aswell.

"The depth of field argument is a bit over rated

>>>to me<<<

...dof is still  shallow enough

>>>for me<<<

with fast lenses even on the little Q.  On FF in

>>>many<<<

cases it is too shallow wide open." - Neil Holmes.

In that context "to me" is qualifying the statement as his opinion not just as for his own use.

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