Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,328Gear list
Like?
Re: On DOF
In reply to joejack951, Apr 11, 2013

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote: Now, why do you think an f/1 would be necessary on an APS-C for the same?

It's simple optical math. For the same "view" as my 35mm on a FF camera, you'd need approximately a 24mm lens on APS-C. At f/1.4, the aperture size on my lens is 25mm. So to equal the aperture size and get the same "look" in your image (as well as getting similar noise by allowing you a 1-stop lower ISO), you'd need f/1 (24mm aperture).

The point being, the need is utterly irrelevant. You opted to shoot something wide open disregarding the fact that the DoF is too shallow. Your priority was clearly to over come limited lighting situation rather than go for a full fledged blur that includes parts of your subject (rather than to properly isolate your subject).

It's funny that you are telling me what I wanted in the shot and what is "proper isolation", as if that were a quantifiable thing. I'm perfectly happy with the DOF in the shot. That you have a problem with her hair being out of focus is far from relevant to me. I didn't want to shoot it at f/2 or f/2.8.

I provided you with my opinion on that image. I have been through similar situations but at the same time, I am open to stopping down as necessary (a fact of life, and beauty, of larger sensors).

You gave more than an opinion. You made several statements that implied that I did something wrong in that photo without any mention of it being just an opinion. For example:

"the need is utterly irrelevant", "the DoF is too shallow", "rather than to properly isolate your subject"

If you've only used a NEX, you couldn't possibly have been in a similar situation unless there's a 24mm f/1 lens floating around that I've never seen.

You took it as more than an opinion, and I can see why you would. And trust me, I don't even need an f/1.4 lens. I have greater priorities than chasing a number that has a negligible effect in real world.

I didn't want a 50mm FOV like your shot (which compressed the background far more than mine). I took other shots that night at f/2 (at up to ISO 25600) so, no, my choice of f/1.4 had nothing to do with overcoming limited lighting.

Unlike you, I actually wanted my subject to "stand out" from the background. In fact, I don't like this, taken at the same time and with same combination, as much:

Unlike you, I'm not going to say there's anything right or wrong with your photos. Depending on the scene around the subject, I may have opted for a wider or tighter view and more or less DOF. With a full frame camera, I'd have more options to play with DOF than you would though. That last bit is not just an opinion.

We differ in where we draw the line between extreme shallowness and practical application of it. We've both presented our take on this subject. You seem to like blending your subject, I prefer to isolate them. You need a FF sensor, I do it with APS-C.

Because there is some blending involved. BTW, both images are cropped as I wanted a tighter composition but without eliminating the backdrop.

Here is another example that showcases both, also taken with Sony NEX-3:

The top flower has its top blurred a bit (too shallow DoF at that point) but separates nicely at the bottom to create a pop that I wanted to create.

Great. I'm glad you like the shot and were able to control DOF enough to get the look you wanted. In my posted photo, I was also able to achieve the same thing. The point of this thread is that I could copy your photo right down to the depth of field with readily available lenses. You could not copy mine. Since you clearly have no desire to, great! Why bother with these threads then? Why act like just because you don't want that ability that it's "irrelevant" as you stated above?

Why would I want to copy you?

You are confused. I can take pictures identical (save for being lower MP) images to APS-C cameras with my D3S by using the APS-C crop mode. Shooting with the full sensor, I can have the same subject framing with the same lens but at a closer distance yielding less DOF.

I can't blame you for not being able to keep up with my post, but I've mentioned that a couple of times (crop mode in FF cameras). In fact, it was one of three cases I've presented.

Here's what you presented:

1- Exposing all of an APS-C sensor

2- Exposing part of a full frame sensor (FF in APS-C mode)

3- Digital cropping


Now I'm not totally clear on what you were trying to show as distinctions between these three. As far as the final image is concerned, the only difference between 2 and 3 is that the camera will be metering the full scene versus only the APS-C crop. There is no difference at all (again, save for the number of MP in the final image) between 1 and 2.

It depends on what you value as a "final image". Do you not care about resolution? Do you not care about carrying a lens with longer reach since you can always crop the image anyway? Should pros sitting by the sidelines at an NBA game simply stick with a 50mm or so lens, and simply crop their way to producing the same effect optical reach provides?

I've stated several times that cropping a larger sensor down to the size of a smaller one reduces resolution, but that is the only difference between the two images and that's assuming that the FF camera didn't have such a high MP advantage already that the outputs would drastically different. For example, a D800 in APS-C crop mode still outputs a 15MP file or thereabouts. There are only a few APS-C cameras on the market that can top that resolution by a significant amount (most match or only slightly exceed it). The rest of your point here is arguing about something that I've never suggested.

But I'd asked something: Do you prefer optical reach over cropping? I will give you my answer: if cost were irrelevant, I would NEVER want to crop. What about you?

Depends. Cropping allows for different compositions from the same image and can be a safeguard against accidentally cropping your moving subject. Sometimes, I intentionally shoot in a way that allows me to crop.

So, your take on the subject is that you see no difference between reaching optically versus cropping. Technically renders a bulkier and more expensive 300mm f/2.8 lens useless when you can use 200mm f/2.8. No?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 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