Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
neil holmes
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,618Gear list
Like?
Re: On DOF
In reply to Erik Magnuson, Apr 11, 2013

Erik Magnuson wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

You are right, to a point...depends on the camera...6mp kodak FF?

You'd compare that to something like a Canon D30 of similar vintage.

Put it this way, on my Q that 85 is gives a 480mm angle of view....with 1.2 shutter speed and while the Q might not be a great camera at iso 6400 it does not have to be.   For MORE money, I could buy a lens that would give me aprox 480mm on FF but I would be at 5.6 at best.

Still not thinking it through.   You can use the same "factor" for both aperture and shutter speed, so you'd be trying to match a 480mm f/5.6 lens.  The Canon 400mm f/5.6 is $1400 while the 85 f/1.2 is $2200.

Sorry, the EF 85 1.2L 11 is but MINE that i USE on the Q is a 85 1.2 FD L that cost $800....and your still 80mm short or $600 more.

That DOF would still be shallower than the 85 1.2 on the Q I think but so what, the Q is still  shallow enough for subject isolation easily  wide open especially (or stopped down a little)

They'd be similar.

Exactly.

Also, it still focuses down to 3 feet and the FF lens would not focus anywhere near as close

That's what extension tubes are for.  Still cheaper.

Not for me.

.....At 5.6 and iso 6400 and 1/50 on the FF, I can be at 1.4, iso 1600 and 1/100.

Or you could be at ISO 12800 and 1/100.  There is no Pentax Q in the DP comparison tool, but pick the best 1/2.3" sensor and compare the FF ISO 12800 (or 25600) results vs small sensor ISO 1600.  No contest even excluding resizing.

I corrected my error, to get 1/100 with that FF in that example you would be at iso 25600 not 12800 and it would still not be hand holdable for many at that shutter speed....now you are at iso 51200 and 1/200....still not safe for a lot.    The Q is quite ok at iso 1600 and I would go higher if i needed to.   The other part of my argument is that it is a camera by camera case....a lot of FF cameras do well at high iso, some less so.

1/50 at 480mm and you wanna be on a tripod or drugs.   The much smaller 85 on the Q can easily be hand held at 1/100

The angle of view is the same for both lenses so handshake is similar. (Actually, I'd bet the FF combo would be more stable as the body to lens size would be a better match.)  You also have the option of an OS lens (i.e. a Sigma xx-500mm OS).  IS/OS in the lens works a lot better than sensor shake at this magnification.

The Canon 85 1.2L on my Q (without stabilzation yet...must get it) is  easier to hand hold than my FF 300 2.8 on an apsc camera WITH stabilization...and that is not taking anything away from the 300 2.8.....just a nice short(er) lens....others may well differ.

Yes, but most people do not buy the lastest camera when it comes out....

That applies to both the large and small sensor cameras.  You can pick any year you like as long as both cameras are new for that year.

Yes, part of my argument why the whole thing is silly....I am not intersted in EXACTLY the same photo from any particular sensor but getting a photo I am happy with.

and sensors in smaller cameras are good ENOUGH these days.

If it's good enough for you, that's great.  But it's not good enough for everyone.  You can't use the Q to get what I can using FF and a 70-200mm f/2.8 for background isolation:

Model: Ann

Very Nice.

Actually the 85 on the Q does isolate quite well....and i want a FF MIRRORLESS to use my 85 1.2 on BUT I also want to use it on the Q as a fast tele lens that still does portraits (with a bit of room to move) AND on the E-pl2 I got yesterday...should be great for that.

I disagree, being able to use a faster shutter speed is something that i would rather any day over a slight deepening of Dof.

Alas, it doesn't work that way.  Use the DPR tool to compare sensor output and you'll see that FF high ISO will more than match the shutter speed for the same quality.

Not seeing it.....again varies camera to camera.

And the size thing IS A HUGE plus for smaller caameras....i want all though....three cameras (differnt formats), three lenses (to fit all might be what I end up with

Sure, different size vs. capability tradeoffs are nice to have.  But there are reasons so many choose FF when the output flexibility is most important.

I will choose FF when it suits but I will also choose any other format that suits too....to ME, there are more advantages currently to crop sensors....that does not mean IQ is better (of course its not) and FF is ceratainly far from dead.

-- hide signature --

Erik

 neil holmes's gear list:neil holmes's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Sony Alpha 7 Sony Alpha 7S Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II +18 more
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