I could not help but feel that if you showed the entire wheel that it would make for a nicer framing with all that said I still like it.ISF
name here: Full frame with the right lenses can be amazing (assuming you care about pixel integrity, micro contrast and all). The combination tends to be very big.
If you want small & are willing to comprise a tiny bit of image quality, there are so many fantastic options out there.
All in all, I fully agree with this article.
What I'd caution against is: FF without the right lenses (slow, subpar etc) is probably no better than APS-C (or even u4/3) with top quality lenses. So, FF is just 1/2 of the equation. Only, coupled with right lenses, FF does make a big difference. Else, again, you're probably better off with a smaller and less expensive system.
@ YuvalmThe same way you cannot use a aspc 200mm lens and crop it to the Fov of aspc 300mm lens and expect it to compete with the resolution of that 300mm lens.
Its nice to see your work agian
This has moved this site in a positive directionThank you
(unknown member): Very basic question:
Can this "equivalence" ever be achieved with film? Consider Kodak Ektar 100 in 35mm and 120 formats. If yes, then how?
If it can't be achieved then either:1. film is exempted from basic photographyor2. equivalence-fu is wrong.
This can be easily proven If I was to use porta 160nc 135mm film and used F2.8 1/100sec for the desired image. I then moved over to 6x6 negative and used porta 400nc and used F4.5 1/100sec they would be taken at almost the same equivalence and thus they should show the same print grain. If we look at the Kodak site you will see that a 4x6 print from a portra 135 160nc has print grain of 30 and a 4x6 print for portra 120/220 400nc has almost the same print grain at 29 who would have ever thought this was possible http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e58/e58.pdf
mostlyboringphotog: F-stop is the equivalent aperture. It allows the convenience of same exposure across the FL and the sensor size (4x5, 120, 135, DX, CX, etc). The young guns want to change "equivalent exposure" to mean "total light" and this old timer is saying "not so fast" and for this I get told pejoratively that I am a "denialist" sometimes with the implication that I'm being so "willfully ignorant". As if I'm the only one that is filling up the 150 posts...
Well, this old timer will happily change my mind and that's more than I can say for the "Equivalence". If I change my sensor size more often than the f-stop, then yea, put the "total light" equivalent f-stop on the lens barrel.
Here you gohttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54096915have fun
@dtmateojrI would like to third GBs request that you start a thread about this in the Photographic Science and Technology forum.I have the next 24hr off and need the entertainment
lumigraphics: Sorry but you guys botched a bunch of this. :sigh:
"Total light" is completely unimportant. Yes, there is less light hitting a smaller sensor, but it doesn't matter because its a smaller total area. Light PER SENSEL is the same.
And lenses don't matter at all. Given a frame-filling grey card (as an example) a 50mm f/4 and 100mm f/4 will give exactly the same 18% grey image on any sensor size. If lenses didn't work that way, you couldn't have external light meters.
Larger digital formats aren't less noisy because they are larger so they collect more light, its because they can have a lower sensel density. In the film days, it was because you didn't have to enlarge so much with a bigger negative.
smdh...and I'm only on page 2.
"Larger digital formats aren't less noisy because they are larger so they collect more light, its because they can have a lower sensel density. In the film days, it was because you didn't have to enlarge so much with a bigger negative."
And same applies to digital as did in film, the more you have to enlarge the negative ( raw file) the more apparent the noise will become maybe you should read it again
and by the way same density of light falling on a larger format collects more light
Thank you barb
Are pano’s allowed that are composed with several photographs, only using PS to stitching them together? something like this http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/292626105/photos/2585727/gbhifsm-x3-2
This was to prove a point that process an image has more to do with the final image than the sensor used. It was shot with a Nikon D800 with custom profiles to mimic the colors of Foveon and final output of a sigma camera
This was to prove a point that process an image has more to do with the final image than the sensor used. It was shot with a pentax k20d sigma 70-200 F2.8 II ex DG with custom profiles to mimic the colors of Foveon and final output of a sigma camera
This was to prove a point that process an image has more to do with the final image than the sensor used. It was shot with a pentax k10d sigma 105 2.8 ex with custom profiles to mimic the colors of Foveon and final output of a sigma camera
Just what I needed a 560 5.6 with no IS and yes I know Pentax has sr but above 300mm its crap and cannot compete with the others in image stabilisation and by the way wasn’t the Titanic white also?
Nice photo congrats on your placing
Poivre: Thank you for these gentle wildlife photos. I like the soft colors and the variety of animals you are able to photograph.
Thank you Poivre I somehow missed you Comment
This was one of my more hardest to capture to date. Used was a sigma 105 marco ,2x conv & extension tubes I tried many different combs most likely was 35mm ext. My biggest obstacle was the dov as you can see its paper thin and any breeze would move the frost. I had also noticed that my body would cause the frost to curl in and out of focus. The photo was manual focused and to fine tune the adjustment I pressed on the base of the tripod leg with my foot and captured the photo with a remote control