Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 761
Like?
Re: On DOF
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 11, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

No, I specifically asked, would you prefer cropping over optical reach?

Te answer is, "Sometimes." As I said, I might like to make the final decision at a later time, and having some room to crop gives me the choice.

What you're not getting is that by going too shallow, you may actually end up blending the subject more than you manage to isolate it...even on my APS-C, at 50mm, I end up using f/4 simply for the purpose of getting my subject properly in focus.

That's your choice. I sometimes shoot a 180/2.8 wide open and also manage to get my subject in focus.

I gave a list of objective things that could be accomplished using a faster aperture, without any subjective judgment about whether it is "best" or not to use the faster aperture in any given case.

That is irrelevant, as your argument applies to all sensor sizes. This is why I expect a more objective, more specific response than a generic one.

There is no "objective" answer to what works "best" in all situations. There only objective "analysis" is to identify what choices are available.

One more time, do you always shoot with lens wide open? If not, why not?

No, I do not always shoot wide open. Nor would I want to. The wider lens simply gives me a wider range of choices. Why are you so opposed to choice?

I can see an insignificant advantage but larger cost and size of going with larger aperture, but if that is the thread you want to hang your hat on, for FF sensor, well, you have that choice.

But even this is not always the case. The Sony 35mm f/1.8 E-mount lens is about 6mm shorter than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G, but sells for more than twice the price, despite the fact that the Nikkor provides more than 1 stop advantage in light gathering and DOF control.

I have a Sony 35mm f/1.8 purchased for $165. So, you would rather discuss pricing now? Or, should I try to learn from you that pricing of a lens is determined by its length etc?

You are changing the target once again. Your claim was the cost and size penalty for a larger aperture FF lens. My response was that FF lenses are readily available which have similar size and go for half the cost.

If you want to discuss pricing, then we can trade anecdotes on what bargains we found, but would be the relevance?

I don't see a point to it. Or, perhaps you can show me what is it about these yet shallower DoF at wide angles that is dictating the need to spend several times more.

The classic use for fast wide angles is, to my knowledge, to get the low-light advantages. I can't imagine most people choosing a 24/1.4 to get isolation (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

Obviously, using such FL for DoF is rather amusing. But if you're going to talk about low light, why is it that it is people with FF who are complaining about it?

Because many of the people who care the most about low light capability are using FF, and there's never an end to the desire to shoot in ever-lower available light.

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