Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,522Gear list
Like?
Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
Apr 10, 2013

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response wall just as I felt the obligation to respond to some interesting views, such as this gem from Mike CH:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Could you do me a favor? Could you measure the length of the body with that lens attached and report back with the total length?

And what exactly do you wish to accomplish with it? Trying to convince me that I could carry the same amount of gear in my sling bag with a FF body and lenses to match?

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. I'm genuinely curious to see how much smaller it is than my setup.

Trying to convince me with the arguments you make will be impossible. So, don't even bring it up. Now, here's to your curiosity:

You did notice, didn't you, that the parties trying to do the convincing here are the small form factor proponents? As in the title of the thread?

Do you act this way because the small-is-beautiful argument isn't winning any points with people who don't like small?

Regards, Mike

Wait and see...

Dear Mike,

Your response is rather amusing for the very fact that it questions my ability to "notice" something when it is you who is taking presented facts (in this case, measurements as I asked by the person responded to) and deflecting from it. There were two facts presented:

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

2-How this combination works well for me, when I can fit two camera bodies with 12mm to 300mm (35mm equivalent) lens gear, and accessories

Presenting these facts isn't "acting". Let us try to keep drama out.

 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
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,349Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

I'll repost part of my response to danijel973 as I'd like to continue this discussion too, particularly in regards to full frame zooms and price/performance of lenses for various formats:

danijel973 wrote:

hesbehindyou wrote:

danijel973 wrote:

hesbehindyou wrote:

35mm ain't all about ultimate pixel-peeping quality.

I bought into full frame to get access to shallow depth of field. Get the same with a smaller sensor and I'll be happy.

It's not about the sensor, it's about the sensor/lens combination.

Aperture has an effect on depth of field? No s*** sherlock.

To match on APS-C what my £80 50 1.8 does with my £350 5D mk I I'd need a £1000 50 f1.2... and that wouldn't quite equal it in getting shallow depth of field. I'd also have to stand further back... sometimes difficult indoors.

That is partially true, but the other side of the coin is that most of the times you actually need deeper field in those situations so it's an advantage for APS.

Even if it is "most of the time" (and that's highly debatable) how is it an advantage to not be able to go more shallow with DOF as you can with full frame? There's nothing stopping you from stopping the lens down on full frame after all to get the same DOF as APS-C.

We keep talking about primes here but when it comes to zooms, that's where full frame really shines IMO. My standard zoom is a 24-120/4 on full frame. Indoors most of the time, I'm shooting wide open as there's plenty of DOF (usually a little more than I want). In order to match that not-so-shallow DOF with an APS-C lens, I'd need a 16-80/2.8. Try finding one of those.

The other important thing to consider is that your 50mm f/1.8 is a huge exception re: price/performance, in that it has an excellent combination of price, sharpness and aperture. Finding such a lens and using it as a yardstick is similar to finding an exceptional lens for another format and beating the hell out of 35mm with it.

Give an example of a true full frame equivalent lens for another format that "beats the hell out of a 35mm lens" based on price and performance. I'll be pleasantly surprised if you can find something as I have looked and cannot find anything.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,522Gear list
Like?
On DOF
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

joejack951

Even if it is "most of the time" (and that's highly debatable) how is it an advantage to not be able to go more shallow with DOF as you can with full frame? There's nothing stopping you from stopping the lens down on full frame after all to get the same DOF as APS-C.

The FF advantage on shallower DOF is primarily at wide angles. The following image has no value but only to demonstrate DOF, which is barely "a fly deep":

Sony NEX-3 w/Sony 135mm f/2.8 STF

And that is APS-C. The same lens on 35mm sensor will actually have a deeper DoF due to a wider FoV.

But yes, there is nothing stopping one down from stopping down. In fact, stopping down is pretty much needed under most circumstances. I almost never shoot with a fast lens wide open but on rare occasions (usually, lighting):

Sony A55 w/Sony 35mm f/1.8 at f/1.8

That is comparable to 50mm f/2.8 on FF. And that takes us to another issue. Stopping down can sometimes necessitate higher ISO which would take away, most if not all, DR and noise advantage of FF.

Personally, I find APS-C as the best compromise between larger and smaller sensors. That is not to say that I don't see a point to FF.

 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
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,583Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

I do appreciate you providing that. So it looks like your combination is just over 3" shorter than a Nikon D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 attached. In terms of carrying something around that's not a lot of space to be saved, although there is a somewhat significant weight difference which may matter to some users. The D800 combination would be heavier, 3" longer, but would be able to provide a range of 70mm to 200mm at f/2.8 instead of just 300mm equivalent. If you count cropping ability, the D800 combination could actually provide 70mm to 450mm at f/2.8 in terms of equivalent length. (36MP cropped to 16MP of the NEX6).

Also, to head off the inevitable, I recognize that you have several other lenses and whatnot. However, if you add in just the 24-70mm f/2.8 to the D800 combo you get 90%+ of the range your bag has and with just a single body and two lenses. Weight/size wise it looks like the 24-70mm would be smaller and lighter than the rest of your bag added together, so a net savings.

So the question becomes, is 3" of length, 1" or 2" of height, and a couple of pounds worth the extra range, extra image quality, extra accessory and other options, and extra ergonomic advantages of the D800?

That's a question only the user/buyer can answer. For me, personally, the answer is absolutely!

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,522Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

I do appreciate you providing that. So it looks like your combination is just over 3" shorter than a Nikon D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 attached. In terms of carrying something around that's not a lot of space to be saved, although there is a somewhat significant weight difference which may matter to some users.

It may not matter to some, it matters a lot to me. Let us look at the two key aspects:

1- Size: That it is a slimmer and shorter combination, providing an optical reach of 300mm equivalence, it fits perfectly in a third of the main compartment in my sling bag, leaving room for another camera body with a lens and couple of additional lenses.

2- Weight: It is at the time of using the camera, and not just walking around with a gear where it matters. To hold 3 lb for couple of hours isn't a burden as 5-6 lb would be, for the same purpose (and I'm assuming avoidance of using a 300mm lens on FF for the FOV because those lenses are considerably heavier, and larger).

So the question becomes, is 3" of length, 1" or 2" of height, and a couple of pounds worth the extra range, extra image quality, extra accessory and other options, and extra ergonomic advantages of the D800?

I wouldn't even try fitting D800 w/70-200 lens attached to it in the same sling bag that I use to carry two APS-C bodies and (at least) four lenses. And you won't be able to meet the range (12mm to 300mm) with that combination to begin with.

Lighter and smaller will find more ways to accompany me than a bulkier system will, and that matters a lot more than negligible difference in IQ. As for ergonomics, nope. You won't find me complaining when I can access virtually every control on an APS-C and almost always without having to take my eyes of the view finder.

 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
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,583Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

To head off the inevitable, I recognize that you have several other lenses and whatnot. However, if you add in just the 24-70mm f/2.8 to the D800 combo you get 90%+ of the range your bag has and with just a single body and two lenses. Weight/size wise it looks like the 24-70mm would be smaller and lighter than the rest of your bag added together, so a net savings.

Alright, so out of curiosity I added the total weight in your bag and compared that with the total weight of a D800 with a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and an 16mm Nikon fisheye f/2.8 which covers every focal length you have.

The totals:

Your bag: 3769g = 8.309lbs

The FF combo: 3754g  = 8.276lbs

Welp, guess the weight argument pretty much just went out the window, huh?

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,583Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

I do appreciate you providing that. So it looks like your combination is just over 3" shorter than a Nikon D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 attached. In terms of carrying something around that's not a lot of space to be saved, although there is a somewhat significant weight difference which may matter to some users.

It may not matter to some, it matters a lot to me. Let us look at the two key aspects:

1- Size: That it is a slimmer and shorter combination, providing an optical reach of 300mm equivalence, it fits perfectly in a third of the main compartment in my sling bag, leaving room for another camera body with a lens and couple of additional lenses.

I acknowledge the slimmer and shorter part, although if you're talking resolution equivalent the D800 combo is actually much longer than 300mm, as I quoted previously. It's more like 450mm @ 16MP.

2- Weight: It is at the time of using the camera, and not just walking around with a gear where it matters. To hold 3 lb for couple of hours isn't a burden as 5-6 lb would be, for the same purpose (and I'm assuming avoidance of using a 300mm lens on FF for the FOV because those lenses are considerably heavier, and larger).

Debunked above. Your combination is actually heavier to cover less range in equivalent terms. (Yours covers 24mm to 75mm, 202.5mm, and 300mm at f/2.8, plus a 12mm fisheye. The D800 combo above covers 24mm to 450mm continuously with the same or more resolution plus a 16mm fisheye. So slight difference between fisheyes but WAY more coverage options with the D800 combo overall.)

So the question becomes, is 3" of length, 1" or 2" of height, and a couple of pounds worth the extra range, extra image quality, extra accessory and other options, and extra ergonomic advantages of the D800?

And you won't be able to meet the range (12mm to 300mm) with that combination to begin with.

Debunked above.

Lighter and smaller will find more ways to accompany me than a bulkier system will, and that matters a lot more than negligible difference in IQ.

That's fine. You're just giving up versatility to have that.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,522Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

To head off the inevitable, I recognize that you have several other lenses and whatnot. However, if you add in just the 24-70mm f/2.8 to the D800 combo you get 90%+ of the range your bag has and with just a single body and two lenses. Weight/size wise it looks like the 24-70mm would be smaller and lighter than the rest of your bag added together, so a net savings.

Alright, so out of curiosity I added the total weight in your bag and compared that with the total weight of a D800 with a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and an 16mm Nikon fisheye f/2.8 which covers every focal length you have.

The totals:

Your bag: 3769g = 8.309lbs

The FF combo: 3754g  = 8.276lbs

Welp, guess the weight argument pretty much just went out the window, huh?

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

The range being, 12mm to 300mm, with TWO camera bodies and never mind that the sole idea of my gear choice has to do with using mostly primes, not just solely covering a range. To simply cover an optical range, I could choose:

16-50mm f/2.8 SSM (575g)

50-150mm f/2.8 HSM (825g)

LA-EA2 (200g)

NEX body (300g)

Total: 1900g (4.2 lb)

Now...

D800-body: 900g

24-70 f/2.8: 900g

70-200 f/2.8: 1475g

Total: 3275g (7.2 lb)

But, more importantly, try fitting that all in a small sling bag.

 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
Edymagno
Senior MemberPosts: 2,856Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

I'm really late to the discussion hence too lazy to go through 150 posts. However, please allow me to share my point of view.

Full Frame digital cameras will hardly die soon if ever. Two main reasons lead me to believe they will be here and reign for too many years to count:

First, the FF sensor digital camera is the only class to challenge the IQ of the next bigger size sensor at a fraction of the cost. No other size can match this prowess.

Second, I believe the 24X36 sensor will remain for decades the indisputable king of hi-iso photography and since low-light photography is the last frontier for photography as we have known it for 187 years, lo-light cameras will always have a special place for the serious photographer.

1827 © N.Niepce. All day long capture under broad daylight.

For me, FF is the holy grail of digital photography.

Eduardo

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,522Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

I do appreciate you providing that. So it looks like your combination is just over 3" shorter than a Nikon D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 attached. In terms of carrying something around that's not a lot of space to be saved, although there is a somewhat significant weight difference which may matter to some users.

It may not matter to some, it matters a lot to me. Let us look at the two key aspects:

1- Size: That it is a slimmer and shorter combination, providing an optical reach of 300mm equivalence, it fits perfectly in a third of the main compartment in my sling bag, leaving room for another camera body with a lens and couple of additional lenses.

I acknowledge the slimmer and shorter part, although if you're talking resolution equivalent the D800 combo is actually much longer than 300mm, as I quoted previously. It's more like 450mm @ 16MP.

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n).

2- Weight: It is at the time of using the camera, and not just walking around with a gear where it matters. To hold 3 lb for couple of hours isn't a burden as 5-6 lb would be, for the same purpose (and I'm assuming avoidance of using a 300mm lens on FF for the FOV because those lenses are considerably heavier, and larger).

Debunked above. Your combination is actually heavier to cover less range in equivalent terms. (Yours covers 24mm to 75mm, 202.5mm, and 300mm at f/2.8, plus a 12mm fisheye. The D800 combo above covers 24mm to 450mm continuously with the same or more resolution plus a 16mm fisheye. So slight difference between fisheyes but WAY more coverage options with the D800 combo overall.)

So the question becomes, is 3" of length, 1" or 2" of height, and a couple of pounds worth the extra range, extra image quality, extra accessory and other options, and extra ergonomic advantages of the D800?

And you won't be able to meet the range (12mm to 300mm) with that combination to begin with.

Debunked above.

Lighter and smaller will find more ways to accompany me than a bulkier system will, and that matters a lot more than negligible difference in IQ.

That's fine. You're just giving up versatility to have that.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

I hate redundancy and as I said in last thread, no need for duplication and creating more responses than necessary especially considering 149-response limit imposed by DPR. Please keep your responses consolidated.

 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
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,583Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Alright, so out of curiosity I added the total weight in your bag and compared that with the total weight of a D800 with a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and an 16mm Nikon fisheye f/2.8 which covers every focal length you have.

The totals:

Your bag: 3769g = 8.309lbs

The FF combo: 3754g  = 8.276lbs

Welp, guess the weight argument pretty much just went out the window, huh?

The range being, 12mm to 300mm, with TWO camera bodies and never mind that the sole idea of my gear choice has to do with using mostly primes, not just solely covering a range. To simply cover an optical range, I could choose:

16-50mm f/2.8 SSM (575g)

50-150mm f/2.8 HSM (825g)

LA-EA2 (200g)

NEX body (300g)

Total: 1900g (4.2 lb)

Now...

D800-body: 900g

24-70 f/2.8: 900g

70-200 f/2.8: 1475g

Total: 3275g (7.2 lb)

But, more importantly, try fitting that all in a small sling bag.

Right, and fair enough. However, that's not what you actually choose. Real world use isn't any lighter at all and covers far less range. Just trying to compare apples to apples in real world use.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,583Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n).

I was just comparing equal resolution of what I thought you used, which was the NEX6. With the NEX3 there's actually even more of a disparity.

I hate redundancy and as I said in last thread, no need for duplication and creating more responses than necessary especially considering 149-response limit imposed by DPR. Please keep your responses consolidated.

I hate redundancy too, but it's not my place to tell others how to post so I'll refrain from telling you to avoid being redundant. I'll respond as I choose, you may do the same.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,349Gear list
Like?
Re: On DOF
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951

Even if it is "most of the time" (and that's highly debatable) how is it an advantage to not be able to go more shallow with DOF as you can with full frame? There's nothing stopping you from stopping the lens down on full frame after all to get the same DOF as APS-C.

The FF advantage on shallower DOF is primarily at wide angles.

No, it exists at all focal lengths. For any given field of view and aperture used, FF has an advantage when trying to minimize DOF. Smaller systems suffer even more at the extremes because there aren't as many high end lens choices there as there are for FF.

The following image has no value but only to demonstrate DOF, which is barely "a fly deep":

You've demonstrated the one place where the add DOF of a smaller format can be an advantage: close up/macro photography. At a larger distance to subject, the more shallow DOF of FF can be very welcome.

And that is APS-C. The same lens on 35mm sensor will actually have a deeper DoF due to a wider FoV.

Only if you didn't move any closer to keep the subject framing the same (in which case, assuming you were not limited by minimum focus distance, you'd have less DOF in the FF shot). If you cropped the FF file to match the APS-C image, you'd have the same DOF.

But yes, there is nothing stopping one down from stopping down. In fact, stopping down is pretty much needed under most circumstances. I almost never shoot with a fast lens wide open but on rare occasions (usually, lighting):

That is comparable to 50mm f/2.8 on FF.

And you'd be out of luck if you wanted the equivalent of a 50mm f/1.4 on full frame.

And that takes us to another issue. Stopping down can sometimes necessitate higher ISO which would take away, most if not all, DR and noise advantage of FF.

Yes, it most certainly does. But as I also pointed out, not all lenses are f/1.X or even close. An f/4 zoom on FF is the equivalent of an f/2.7 zoom on APS-C. If you often shoot that APS-C zoom wide open, you could have much more range (reference typical APS-C f/2.8 zooms that range from 16-50 or similar and FF f/4 zooms that go from 24-120) at the same quality (actually a little better depending on the camera being compared).

Personally, I find APS-C as the best compromise between larger and smaller sensors. That is not to say that I don't see a point to FF.

When you state it that way, there's nothing to argue about

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,522Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Alright, so out of curiosity I added the total weight in your bag and compared that with the total weight of a D800 with a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and an 16mm Nikon fisheye f/2.8 which covers every focal length you have.

The totals:

Your bag: 3769g = 8.309lbs

The FF combo: 3754g  = 8.276lbs

Welp, guess the weight argument pretty much just went out the window, huh?

The range being, 12mm to 300mm, with TWO camera bodies and never mind that the sole idea of my gear choice has to do with using mostly primes, not just solely covering a range. To simply cover an optical range, I could choose:

16-50mm f/2.8 SSM (575g)

50-150mm f/2.8 HSM (825g)

LA-EA2 (200g)

NEX body (300g)

Total: 1900g (4.2 lb)

Now...

D800-body: 900g

24-70 f/2.8: 900g

70-200 f/2.8: 1475g

Total: 3275g (7.2 lb)

But, more importantly, try fitting that all in a small sling bag.

Right, and fair enough. However, that's not what you actually choose. Real world use isn't any lighter at all and covers far less range. Just trying to compare apples to apples in real world use.

I can choose ANY combination for an occasion I want. It could be a 370g combination for a casual walk around (NEX with 20mm f/2.8 pancake). I pick my lens(es) for any occasion based on specific needs rather than simply to cover a range.

From the redundant response:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n).

I was just comparing equal resolution of what I thought you used, which was the NEX6. With the NEX3 there's actually even more of a disparity.

Did you read what I said (now bolded above). At 14-16MP, I think my needs for resolution are easily met. I won't mind more, but I try to be able to appreciate the value of need versus want. After all, Nikon D4 does just fine with "only" 16 MP.

My preference goes to optical reach first.

 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
Mike CH
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,201Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response wall just as I felt the obligation to respond to some interesting views, such as this gem from Mike CH:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Could you do me a favor? Could you measure the length of the body with that lens attached and report back with the total length?

And what exactly do you wish to accomplish with it? Trying to convince me that I could carry the same amount of gear in my sling bag with a FF body and lenses to match?

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. I'm genuinely curious to see how much smaller it is than my setup.

Trying to convince me with the arguments you make will be impossible. So, don't even bring it up. Now, here's to your curiosity:

You did notice, didn't you, that the parties trying to do the convincing here are the small form factor proponents? As in the title of the thread?

Do you act this way because the small-is-beautiful argument isn't winning any points with people who don't like small?

Regards, Mike

Wait and see...

Dear Mike,

Your response is rather amusing for the very fact that it questions my ability to "notice" something when it is you who is taking presented facts (in this case, measurements as I asked by the person responded to) and deflecting from it.

I was, as is absolutely clear from the quote above, solely responding to your twice saying that there is no sense in trying to convince you since there is no argument that can convince you - in response to a query for information!

I was also pointing out, that in regard to convincing - which you went on about twice - the OP actually started this thread in attempt to convince people that the death of FF was imminent.

So if pointing out that a) you didn't quite know what you yourself was writing and b) that you had mistaken who was trying to convince whom is a gem, why then I can only say: thank you very much, glad to be of service!

Oh, and in regard to the size of your equipment: No, I was not trying to divert the discussion. I simply have absolutely NO INTEREST in the size of YOUR equipment. That is the reason why I didn't bother with that part. You are the one obsessing about size.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,583Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Right, and fair enough. However, that's not what you actually choose. Real world use isn't any lighter at all and covers far less range. Just trying to compare apples to apples in real world use.

I can choose ANY combination for an occasion I want. It could be a 370g combination for a casual walk around (NEX with 20mm f/2.8 pancake). I pick my lens(es) for any occasion based on specific needs rather than simply to cover a range.

Which can also be done with FF as well.

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n). Did you read what I said (now bolded above). At 14-16MP, I think my needs for resolution are easily met. I won't mind more, but I try to be able to appreciate the value of need versus want. After all, Nikon D4 does just fine with "only" 16 MP. My preference goes to optical reach first.

I'm not saying they are not, I'm only saying that in terms of equivalent optical reach the combination I suggested is far superior. My preference is to compare apples to apples.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,522Gear list
Like?
Re: On DOF
In reply to joejack951, Apr 10, 2013

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951

Even if it is "most of the time" (and that's highly debatable) how is it an advantage to not be able to go more shallow with DOF as you can with full frame? There's nothing stopping you from stopping the lens down on full frame after all to get the same DOF as APS-C.

The FF advantage on shallower DOF is primarily at wide angles.

No, it exists at all focal lengths. For any given field of view and aperture used, FF has an advantage when trying to minimize DOF. Smaller systems suffer even more at the extremes because there aren't as many high end lens choices there as there are for FF.

With APS-C sensor, and faster lenses, I usually end up ensuring proper DoF while maintaining a good isolation. That is the beauty of being able to control DoF.

The following image has no value but only to demonstrate DOF, which is barely "a fly deep":

You've demonstrated the one place where the add DOF of a smaller format can be an advantage: close up/macro photography. At a larger distance to subject, the more shallow DOF of FF can be very welcome.

You do realize the point I made, that the same lens on FF would have a deeper DoF at the same distance, no?

And that is APS-C. The same lens on 35mm sensor will actually have a deeper DoF due to a wider FoV.

Only if you didn't move any closer to keep the subject framing the same (in which case, assuming you were not limited by minimum focus distance, you'd have less DOF in the FF shot). If you cropped the FF file to match the APS-C image, you'd have the same DOF.

You would have to move closer with FF (if the lens' minimum focusing distance allows) to get the same framing and DoF in that case.

But yes, there is nothing stopping one down from stopping down. In fact, stopping down is pretty much needed under most circumstances. I almost never shoot with a fast lens wide open but on rare occasions (usually, lighting):

That is comparable to 50mm f/2.8 on FF.

And you'd be s*** out of luck if you wanted the equivalent of a 50mm f/1.4 on full frame.

There is no need for that. This was taken with NEX-3 and 35mm f/1.8 lens (wide open):

Why exactly would you need 50mm f/1.4 on FF?

And that takes us to another issue. Stopping down can sometimes necessitate higher ISO which would take away, most if not all, DR and noise advantage of FF.

Yes, it most certainly does. But as I also pointed out, not all lenses are f/1.X or even close. An f/4 zoom on FF is the equivalent of an f/2.7 zoom on APS-C. If you often shoot that APS-C zoom wide open, you could have much more range (reference typical APS-C f/2.8 zooms that range from 16-50 or similar and FF f/4 zooms that go from 24-120) at the same quality (actually a little better depending on the camera being compared).

If you get sufficient DoF at f/1.x, you won't need to stop down. This happens with smaller sensors or shorter focal lengths (as in the illustration above). With APS-C, it is not uncommon for me having to stop down to f/4 or so, to get enough DoF. Do you always have to shoot wide open at f/1.x to get sufficient DoF?

Personally, I find APS-C as the best compromise between larger and smaller sensors. That is not to say that I don't see a point to FF.

When you state it that way, there's nothing to argue about

 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
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,522Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to Mike CH, Apr 10, 2013

Mike CH wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response wall just as I felt the obligation to respond to some interesting views, such as this gem from Mike CH:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Could you do me a favor? Could you measure the length of the body with that lens attached and report back with the total length?

And what exactly do you wish to accomplish with it? Trying to convince me that I could carry the same amount of gear in my sling bag with a FF body and lenses to match?

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. I'm genuinely curious to see how much smaller it is than my setup.

Trying to convince me with the arguments you make will be impossible. So, don't even bring it up. Now, here's to your curiosity:

You did notice, didn't you, that the parties trying to do the convincing here are the small form factor proponents? As in the title of the thread?

Do you act this way because the small-is-beautiful argument isn't winning any points with people who don't like small?

Regards, Mike

Wait and see...

Dear Mike,

Your response is rather amusing for the very fact that it questions my ability to "notice" something when it is you who is taking presented facts (in this case, measurements as I asked by the person responded to) and deflecting from it.

I was, as is absolutely clear from the quote above, solely responding to your twice saying that there is no sense in trying to convince you since there is no argument that can convince you - in response to a query for information!

Obviously, you didn't notice that you were responding to my post with facts (measurements).

I was also pointing out, that in regard to convincing - which you went on about twice - the OP actually started this thread in attempt to convince people that the death of FF was imminent.

I try to make my own points. You should too (and not assume that everybody is either speaking for the OP or against him/her).

So if pointing out that a) you didn't quite know what you yourself was writing and b) that you had mistaken who was trying to convince whom is a gem, why then I can only say: thank you very much, glad to be of service!

Please NEVER volunteer for your services. This is a forum for discussion.

Oh, and in regard to the size of your equipment: No, I was not trying to divert the discussion. I simply have absolutely NO INTEREST in the size of YOUR equipment. That is the reason why I didn't bother with that part. You are the one obsessing about size.

When you have no interest in something, try to stay out of it or deal with the consequences.

 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
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,522Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Right, and fair enough. However, that's not what you actually choose. Real world use isn't any lighter at all and covers far less range. Just trying to compare apples to apples in real world use.

I can choose ANY combination for an occasion I want. It could be a 370g combination for a casual walk around (NEX with 20mm f/2.8 pancake). I pick my lens(es) for any occasion based on specific needs rather than simply to cover a range.

Which can also be done with FF as well.

Nope.

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n). Did you read what I said (now bolded above). At 14-16MP, I think my needs for resolution are easily met. I won't mind more, but I try to be able to appreciate the value of need versus want. After all, Nikon D4 does just fine with "only" 16 MP. My preference goes to optical reach first.

I'm not saying they are not, I'm only saying that in terms of equivalent optical reach the combination I suggested is far superior. My preference is to compare apples to apples.

200mm lens on FF does not have the optical equivalence of 200mm lens on APS-C. For that matter, cropping is not about optical equivalence.

 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
Mike CH
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,201Gear list
Like?
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Lighter and smaller will find more ways to accompany me than a bulkier system will, and that matters a lot more than negligible difference in IQ. As for ergonomics, nope. You won't find me complaining when I can access virtually every control on an APS-C and almost always without having to take my eyes of the view finder.

Key operative word in the above paragraph: 'me'.

I am happy for you. Seriously. You know what you want and like. And you have it. Good!

Now, can you find it in yourself to be happy for people who can say the same, but about a different size packaging?

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads