-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
FF Haters
- Thread starter nikt
- Start date
LeRentier
Senior Member
you're quite right.
nothing wrong with smaller sizes.
on the other hand, anything smaller than a 6x9 negative is a compromise, isn't it ?
nothing wrong with smaller sizes.
on the other hand, anything smaller than a 6x9 negative is a compromise, isn't it ?
Charles Self
Senior Member
...I'm with you on this one. As much as I love 35mm FF, I certainly don't advocate it for all, or even most. I completely disagree with those people who put down smaller sensor systems and say "FF is the future". In my opinion, smaller sensor systems are the future. But, as always, I maintain 35mm FF has higher IQ.
Lenses for 35mm FF only need to be half as sharp as lenses for 4/3 to resolve the same number of pixels, so sharpness is not an issue on 35mm FF until it starts getting more pixels, such as the 1DsIII. However, even then, 35mm FF has the advantage of the option of a more shallow DOF, if desired.
As for anti-shake, I'm very much with you on this. I'm hoping that Sony's new 35mm FF DSLR changes the attitudes of Canon and Nikon on this issue.
At f/11, they are sharp even in the extreme corners. They are sharp even wide open in the center. Case in point:
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f / 1.4 (12mm, f/0.6 on 4/3), 1/3200, ISO 100 Resized for Web:
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/89316267
100% center crop of above image:
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/89316250
Of course, when shooting at wider apertures, the corners are outside the DOF, so corner sharpness means all of squat.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Robert999
Leading Member
Curious, because I don't see available FF cameras from Pentax nor Sony. (OK, Sony at least has one coming). You would think that there would be equal commotion there too...
Of course, one of the particular issues with Oly users and FF is that some recent magazines have seen fit to compare the E-3 against not the D300, but the D3 in their reviews. Now, owning an E-3 and having spent time with the D300 I can tell you that is a close call (the E-3 fit my hand better, the D300 had more "pro" features like GPS interface, overall picture and build quality of both is excellent, and then you just have to consider what lenses you would rather use with either). Heck, the E-3 and D300 even list for the identical price in many places...so imagine the Oly user community's surprise to find that Amature Photography has evaluated the E-3 against the D3 and the 1D Mk III, which costs thousands more. And imagine this - the E-3 LOST!?!?! Well, what do you expect, it is quite a bit cheaper, and they even used consumer grade lenses as part of their test images, rather than the E-3 "kit" lens (12-60mm Pro zoom). The supposed rational (and one adopted by many trolls coming into the Oly forums!) is that the E-3 is the "top of the range Oly", and should therefore compete with the "top of the range" Canon and Nikon. Bullpucky in my opinion, but certainly anyone that wants to show the E-3 in the worst light can adopt that pose. (If that is the case, then compare the D3 against the "top of the range" Hassy with a 45mpix Leaf back...)
Anyway, I would venture a guess that a whole lot of defensiveness in the Oly community comes from stuff like that being fed down their (our) throats over and over again by recurrent trolls, and fairly biased looking magazine editors. I only care about the pronouncements of people that I trust that actually OWN and USE both systems (FF and 4:3ds), and they mostly say you can take outstanding pictures with both. I'm just gonna concentrate on getting my skills up around that, and leave the whinging about formats to others now...
My only concern is finding the right A3 printer for all my new images, so off to that forum I go! And what do you know, I am strongly considering a Canon...the FF A3 printer, of course {wink}.
--
Robert
Olympus E-3 & E-500, Yashica Lynx-1000
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Surely not: how can you even mention it when nothing smaller than 30" x 40" sheet film is what the pro's use (where I'm think of).Get it right. At least 11" x 14".
Regards, David
I was more refering to the zoom lenses.
Yes, when someone prefers to use prime lenses and uses the feet to zoom, and uses a tripod to stabilise, fullframe has no disadvantages.
But often its not possible to use the feet to zoom ( as in my case ).
cheers
Martin
Yes, when someone prefers to use prime lenses and uses the feet to zoom, and uses a tripod to stabilise, fullframe has no disadvantages.
But often its not possible to use the feet to zoom ( as in my case ).
cheers
Martin
Zooms, primes -- it makes no difference. Take a look here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26764202
We can see that the both the 16-35 / 2.8L ($1000) and Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 ($400) do quite well in the corners by f/11 (f/5.6 on 4/3), and the tokina 20-35 3.5-4.5 II (a total POS lens) did fairly well, too.
In fact, I was quite surprised by the performance of the Tamron, since Amin says that the Tamron is not a strong performer in the corners at 28mm:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=25387839
I do have a test gallery of the lens, but it only goes from f/2.8 to f/5.6 (f/1.4 - f/2.8 on 4/3), if you're interested:
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/tamron_2875__28
Actually, many of the zooms are as good, if not better, than the primes in the corners stopped down.
For sure. However, as I mentioned in the other thread, I don't know what kind of pics people are taking where they expect sharp corners at the more shallow DOFs. A big reason that you need to stop down so far to get sharp corners on 35mm FF is not merely for the improved lens performance, but because the corners are out of the DOF at smaller f-ratios.
Still, I've yet to see a single image where the corners mattered and the person could not have stopped down to have gotten sharp corners. I can imagine such a situation, however: an architectural pic in low light. However, for such an image, you would be using a tripod, anyway, right? So stopping down would be a non-issue.
Anyway, as I say, if you have any examples of pics where the extreme corners actually matter that 35mm FF could not have stopped down to have gotten, I'd really like to see them.
Allow me to link the singular image I have where sharp corners might matter, and I did not stop down enough to get them, as the corners mattered less to me than the noise in the image:
Canon 5D + 16-35mm / 2.8 @ 30mm, f / 5.6, 1/100, ISO 800
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/63290556
For sure that pic would have been better stopped down using an IS lens (and better still with a tripod). But, I don't own the 24-105 / 4L IS, and don't use a tripod, so I was SOL. : )
So, for people for whom shots like that are common, and they do not use a tripod, then I agree that 4/3 may be the better option. But if they used a tripod, then the advantage, as you note, goes right back to 35mm FF (in terms of IQ).
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
However, the thread I linked to in my reply:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26740761
is the perfect place, no?
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 20,877
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
i think you yourself said something about corners, Joe
right, so you are saying it isnt
--
Riley
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
I'm afraid I don't understand the implication. Exactly what did I say about the corners are you referring to, as I've said quite a bit on the subject.
Again, I'm confused. What is "it" that I'm saying "it isn't"? My guess is that you are saying that I'm saying that 4/3 glass is not twice as sharp as 35mm FF glass. If that is the case, then yes and no.
First of all, as long as the glass is sharp enough to resolve the pixels, any additional sharpness is meaningless. Now if we look at the MTFs of 35mm FF glass, we will see that the MTFs take a dive in the corners for WA, and a stronger dive for UWA, whereas they remain pretty sharp in the center.
Thus, as pixel counts continue to rise, the size of the corners that is soft at the pixel level on 35mm FF will continue to grow, but at the same output size, will remain the same, whereas the center will get more and more detailed. Thus my constant insistence for comparing at the same output size, when comparing formats. Why so many insist on per-pixel comparisons at different output sizes is the proper manner to compare images is completely beyond me.
So, I am saying that 4/3 glass is not twice as sharp in the center, but may be (depending on the lens) twice as sharp in the corners. The question is, of course, where the corner begins -- that is, how far from the center of the image does the 4/3 glass have to go to become twice as sharp as the FF glass? This, of course, must be done on a lens by lens basis, and thus my constant requests for images that no one who disparages the corners of 35mm FF provides.
More than that, it is my assertion that the "break-even" point where 4/3 glass is more than twice as sharp as 35mm FF glass is so far towards the edge as to be inconsequential for the image. And, again, I've asked people to post images where the differences in the corners between 35mm FF and 4/3 are so substantial that it does make a difference, but, as always, no takers. You may wish to see my reply to marf on this issue:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26793871
In any case, there is a lot of smack talked about 35mm FF that is just plain untrue. Of course, I am not denying the opposite -- that some 35mm FF users don't belittle smaller sensor systems. I'm all for debate, but that debate needs to resolve around facts, and "facts" in photography are images. But it's a rare day indeed that people provide images, or links to images, to support their claims. I was even derided by one person for my insistance on images for not simply "taking his word" for it!:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26747719
Anyway, my feelings on the subject about the "meaningfullness" on the differences between systems are concisely stated in the introduction of my equivalence essay:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 20,877
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
see the thing is this Joe
you seem to have difficulty in the sweetest of admissions
when it came down to equivalence 4/3rds and FF, and by your essay that would mean within 2 stops
Im pretty sure you've said UWA corners on FF are soft, and that you also said that in your opinion that doesnt matter
so have i got that wrong or what
i would have thought a simple yes or no
--
Riley
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
you seem to have difficulty in the sweetest of admissions
when it came down to equivalence 4/3rds and FF, and by your essay that would mean within 2 stops
Im pretty sure you've said UWA corners on FF are soft, and that you also said that in your opinion that doesnt matter
so have i got that wrong or what
i would have thought a simple yes or no
--
Riley
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 20,877
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
and so Joe, as we were talking about lens MTF
4/3rds lenses needing to be twice the MTF of FF and all
in your opinion, are lenses the earliest limiting factor in resolution, or are sensors?
--
Riley
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
4/3rds lenses needing to be twice the MTF of FF and all
in your opinion, are lenses the earliest limiting factor in resolution, or are sensors?
--
Riley
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Not at all. It's just that the answer isn't as simple as one or two knocks.
For DOF, yes, and for noise with sensors that have the same design and efficiency, yes.
Soft compared to the center, but not soft at the same DOF in the corners as smaller sensor systems, except for, perhaps, the very extreme corners.
4/3 lenses have a fairly flat MTF curve, 35mm FF UWAs do not. Thus the answer is not a simple yes or no.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
The lens determines the size of the pixel it can resolve, the size of the sensor determines how many pixels the sensor can have.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Calico Cat
Senior Member
dude, serious vignetting [nt]
I am a confused old man. What is there to hate about any format. Some are better for some jobs than others. Some are more costly to buy and own. Some samples of various cameras don't perform as well as others. You could hate a camera I suppose but a format? I have used 16mm movie to 20x24 film. I have used digital from Sony T1 to 14mp Kodak DCS. It all works.
I see no reason for this forum. Bigger media area can hold more information whether digital or film. What is there to discuss?
How much detail do you need? I don't care. How much detail do I need - as much as I can get. Does that bother you? If it does ---- I'll stop here.
jack1931
I see no reason for this forum. Bigger media area can hold more information whether digital or film. What is there to discuss?
How much detail do you need? I don't care. How much detail do I need - as much as I can get. Does that bother you? If it does ---- I'll stop here.
jack1931
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum