Nanospeed1

Nanospeed1

Joined on Jul 8, 2011

Comments

Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12
In reply to:

Nanospeed1: http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).

@JustaPhotographer LOL :-))) Of course :-))

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 09:14 UTC
In reply to:

Nanospeed1: http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).

@Jeremyclarke: Yes, basically I share most of what you have written. That´s why I´m fond of what Fuji is offering on the market. Great fast lenses, lower weight, sweet spot for many, indeed. Still... It is kind of similar to megapixels and dynamic range race: 21mpx/12EV vs. 36mpx/14,8EV.... For me, that is totally negligible difference not worth any extra investment. For my friend shooting landscapes (http://www.horolezec.cz/gallery.htm), it is huge difference worth every dollar. But I agree, this kind of target group may be about that 10% you mentioned.... but when the 10% can see the benefit and value of anything pushing the creative possibilitites even further, the weight, size and price issue are all relative to them.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 08:46 UTC
In reply to:

Nanospeed1: http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).

@JustaPhotographer: Just always amusing when someone is lacking arguments and so turns it to personal side... :-) Thank you for your wish, I wish you the same. Always remember that we are both part of the same "photo guild" so we should keep certan guild' s pride to keep the discussion on the factual level... So take it easy :-). BTW, I have got my own website with many photos and I have regular exhibitions too... But of course I´m not sending links to someone who is so eager to bash just anything from me ;-)))

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 08:15 UTC
In reply to:

Nanospeed1: http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).

@JustaPhotographer:

Fortunately, your style of shooting and your needs are not a meaningful proof of anything. I have sent some links to great photographers who demonstrate the creative aspects of shallow DoF on full frame more than enough. APS-C couldn' t do the job here in the same way. And that is not "1 inch difference" at all... ;-)

When you don't shoot closeups and step back, there is visible difference between say FF+35/1.4 lens and APS-C+23/1.4... Also between 85/1.2+FF and APS-C+56/1.2 etc. But as I wrote, as you get closer, the benefits of shallow DoF given by the FF+fast lens is not that important of course... But this is the basic theory of what DoF is dependent on... you certainly know it well, do you? ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 15:31 UTC
In reply to:

Nanospeed1: http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).

@ AlexRuiz: Just to fill in your comment, I do like Fuji new ecosystem a lot (I mean esp. X-T1 + fast lenses), it is such a great offer in many ways and it eliminates the need of FF for large group of photographers. This group really gets a lot for their money, no doubt about it. I´m just saying still it is not a full substitude for FF benefits... for those you can take a proper advantage of it only, of course.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

Nanospeed1: http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).

@Just a Photographer:

1)You haven't read properly what I wrote and really didn' t get my point. I never said what you are implying and reacting to.

2) I disagree. The shallow DoF is as important as the light and composition. But for certain type of photography only - again, you misunderstood my post. Tell it to Elena Shumilova, Ryan Brenizer etc. that there is something wrong with their skills because they are playing a jedi mind cheap tricks to their audience... ;-)

3) "A FF prime is seldomly fully opened solely for creating DOF" LOL, nonsense.

4) "It all can be done with an APS-C and 4/3 system as well". Nonsense. To some degree yes (longer telephotos or closeups) but in many cases it is impossible (i.e. 1.4-1.2 lenses on FF).

5) "Its the photographer that creates the picture and if he can't make the picture he/she wants its seldomly the gear that was at fault." Very misleading and not thought out. The sensor size and esp.the lenses chosen and are very important.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

Nanospeed1: http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).

Or look at this woman's pictures and imagine they were shot with less shallow DoF (she is using 5D mkII + 135mm/f2.0 + some blurr in post-processing):

https://500px.com/elenashumilova

This is just a random example, I can post more pictures like this to demonstrate the advantages of fullf frame "rendering". I can´t help it, indeed. The creative advanage of FF is indisputable to me. There are some areas where FF equipment doesn' t quite make sense (or doesn't bring real advantage). But in general - almost in every discipline you can find a full frame solution which can do better than aps-c or m4/3 equvalents. It may not be worth the size, weight and investment for sure but it is true (the best (still relatively portable) resolution - full frame, the best low light performance - full frame, the best dynamic range - full frame, the best pro bodies build for durability and speed - full frame, the best lenses - for full frame..)

BTW, I know quite a lot of pros who do shoot wide-open. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

Nanospeed1: http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).

to Whyamihere: Well, I don't mean to "defend" FF as a muslim fundamentalist does with his faith but I have also went through many "thinking eras", once being blowned away by shallow DOF, then leaving it and focusig more on light, perspective and the whole scene but then... then returned back as a shallow DOF advocate.

The thing is it is such a strong creative aspect in many ways that the images of those who master it properly (together with the other important aspects making a greas photos) have simply almost always more impact in every way. Of course I admit 1)It may be subjective perception 2)Shallow DoF "impact" works that way mostly in people's photography with me.

For example, go through www.stevehuffphoto.com pages, there are many great (people's) photos with extremely shallow DoF which always works much better IMHO than when it is missing... But again, I'm certainly not saying the shallow DoF is the key essence for creating a great picture, not at all :-)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 13:58 UTC

http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 11:57 UTC as 36th comment | 27 replies

"Kazuto Yamaki strikes me as new kind of businessman." --- Yes, precisely SigmaChrome. I do salute (..with my money for his lenses, too ;-) this man and this kind of attitude as well !

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 13:35 UTC as 50th comment

4) Keep doing and guarding points 1) and 2) - any quality slump or big sample variations of lenses would do a lot of damage in the internet era (think of Nikon´s D600 dust or D800 left AF point issues).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 12:45 UTC as 53rd comment

Mr. Kazuto Yamaki is no-doubt-about-it leading the Sigma company mostly the right way in the 21st century IMHO:
1) improving the quality control and reducing lens sample variations (an utterly important thing in the era of internet globalization when photographers can share their experience with various lenses immediately)
2) Ivesting in quality, price/performance ratio and adequate innovation (35/1.4, 18-35/1.8) - again, in the era of internet and globalization those things will substitute for the expensive marketing investments (to promote an average and expensive product) I think.... I myslelf bought the 35/1.4 mostly on very positive global on-line feedback BTW.
3) Not sure about this (I don´t have all Mr.Kazuto Yamaki´s data and inputs) but I think the Foveon-based mirorless camera must be coupled with a special, fast lens to make more breakthrough. The full-frame with 35/f2 aka Sony RX1 is the answer IMHO... or APS-C with 23/1.4 at least.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 12:45 UTC as 54th comment
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12