Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
neil holmes
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,736
Like?
Re: On DOF
In reply to Erik Magnuson, Apr 11, 2013

Erik Magnuson wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

And I am speaking from use....the Q and 85 are right here beside me...I can handhold it for most of the trime at 1/60....any 400mm, and I would need faster.

What 400mm f/5.6 have you used  on FF?  But if you want to show us a q+85 @f/1.4 and 1/100 at ISO 1600 handheld shot, please do.  I'll then attempt to recreate it with 5DII+100-400L@f/5.6 1/100 @ ISO 25600.  I have enough pixels to crop a little to get the same FOV so the 400 vs. 480 difference can be handled.

Actually, i can not remember usinga 400mm lens, i have used lots of others, longer and shorter on apsc and 35mm film.

Hand held is not a problem with this combination, at 1/100 it is a non issue in fact....a MUCH bigger issue for me is focusing accurately in that low light (or bright light) without a viewfinder and I have not yet got the firmware download (focus peaking as well as stabilization.

But here you go.....from a walk this morning of a plaque in a garden before dawn.

1/100 iso 1600

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/8640289059/in/photostream

If you want to try something then this one...a rubbish photo but it is iso 6400 1/30 hand held

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/8640193247/in/photostream

Please use your FF camera hand held at f 5.6..    Also, Please try an old unstabilzed lens some would have to use iso 204800 and 1/500, if it is stabilzed then iso 102400 should do at 1/240

Any longer focal length but especially with a physically longer lens, I will not get as slow a shutter speed as a physically shorter lens.

If that were true than 500mm mirror lenses would be much easier to handhold. They aren't.

Actually, I find them a bit easier to hand hold but do not like them much....i destroyed the last one i had.

I do agree with you for the MOST part on this but with such a small (comparatively) lens as the 85 on the Q, it IS much easier for me.

Have you tried a 85mm 1.2 on a Q?

Actually, i thought it would be too far away and impersonal though i like a 300 2.8 for portraits...in practice, for smaller adults and children it will be a useable combination with a little room to move.

It's kinda creepy and stalkerish....

LOL, not at all, I am still in talking range for a tight head and shoulders....and i like 300 2.8 easpecially for kids pics (is quite close range).

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

Doesn't vary that much for contemporary cameras.  Exactly what two cameras (one FF, one 1/2.3") are you looking at where you can't see the difference?

Forget to answer this one?  What camera pair do you think you don't see it?  The DPR tool can be found in every review....

I do not need to, there is quite a difference in currently used cameras of all sensor sizes.

That is also part of why I think comparing is silly....nothing is the same.

IQ on FF is better, of course, and I will USE FF when mirrorless interchangeable is cheap enough.

The latest greatest of course, there are a lot less than the latest greatest in use.....and the Q with a decent lens is not bad at all....good enough for me anyway and my low standards.

Erik

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