Which can be controlled even more with a larger sensor.
Not an apples to apples comparison and you know it.
Exactly, which would result in narrower DoF on the FF, not more.
If you wanted that focal length and aperture? That's a very confusing question, perhaps you meant it to be rhetorical?
As I had told you earlier, I prefer to speak for self over everybody else but me (although, I tend to end up in arguments with those who do the opposite).
And then there is discussing a subject. If you prefer not to have it, then you can stay out of it.
I did. As I said, it doesn't interest me. As explained below.
I do. And you didn't like it. So now what?
Yes. And YOU are NOT in control of what is being discussed. This is the second or third time this has been pointed out to you in the last hour or so. This should tell you something.
So unless one agrees with you, one should stay out of the discussion?
Yep. There you go being redundant!
I said equivalent optical reach, not optical equivalence. Very different meaning, so please don't misquote me. A 200mm lens on a 36MP camera will produce an image equal in resolution to a 12MP APS-C camera with a 400mm lens.
Yes it is, and you get even more control with FF. Try matching a 24mm f/1.4 on FF (a combination that even wide open has a good amount of DOF) with a crop camera.
Uncropped, yes. Cropped to the same framing, they'd be identical. Moving closer with the FF camera to match the APS-C framing, it would be more shallow.
You are confused. Everything held equal, cropping a FF file to an APS-C file's framing yields the same DOF. As soon as you start moving closer with the FF camera (and cropping less up to the point where no crop is needed), the FF shot will have less DOF. Go try for yourself at www.dofmaster.com
Is this a serious question?
There are times when wide open at f/1,4 on full frame (or wide open at f/2.8 or f/4 depending on the lens) that I wish I had less DOF, or am happy with the amount I have. Using an APS-C camera would then mean that I'd have more DOF than I desired.
Of course, and the advantage is negligible. Hence my reasoning against the commonly held idea of "NEEDING" something like f/1.2.
Simply stating a fact. Do you disagree with it? If so, I would LOVE to hear more on it, rather than thinking apples and oranges and going bananas with them for irrelevant arguments.
Which may not be a good thing (a reason you don't see macro photography at wide open apertures... the idea is not to have the thinnest possible DoF). That, of course assumes you can override Physics and overcome the lens' minimum focusing distance. You could, use a longer focal length lens though (in this case, 200mm). And you will need the lens to be faster than f/4 (or you will simply match 135mm f/2.8 on APS-C).
Perhaps the most convincing argument you may have made. Its all about "want"?
Says the guy who barged in sideways into a running discussion, then yelling about nobody being able to convince him in response to a query for information.
Provide me with a photograph you've taken with such combination so we have something to work with.
So, to match or beat an APS-C DoF achieved optically, you'd have to digitally crop the image out of FF, right?
The only confusion there is about you not being able to differentiate between digital cropping (FF file) versus optical results out of APS-C.
Yes. What would you use 50mm f/1.4 on FF for a similar situation? Would it be to lessen the isolation effect, or to improve it? For that matter, do you always shoot wide open?
Give me an example.
This isn't about trying to make you happy, or sad. This is about discussing pros and cons of systems.
Its not optical anymore when you crop your JPEG or RAW files, something one can do regardless of sensor size.
Please do not waste real estate. If you have nothing to discuss, show up only to add "likes". You won't hear from me, unless you make a point that is logical and worthy of discussion.
Whether it's negligible depends on who you ask. However, as for 'needing' something, NO ONE 'needs' photographs. No one 'needs' this format or that one. Instead, they 'want' it. They want this look or that look, this angle or that angle.
You're stating something alright, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'simple' or a 'fact'. Are you aware of how DoF actually occurs?
True, macro photography is the one area where smaller sensors have at least some advantage.
As covered above, ALL photography is about 'want' over 'need'.
You're asking him to provide a photograph but if he did so, then what? What would it prove? Besides, even if he did you'd probably ignore it entirely as you did to the 'proof' photograph that I provided in previous thread a week or two ago. The only reason you ask for a photo is so that if he doesn't provide it you can say 'well, it must not really matter because you haven't done that', even if the concept itself is 100% valid.
Same story as above.
Right, which we've done at length. MILC and similar have a size, weight, and some macro advantages. FF has all the rest. Should we just leave it at that?
I'm asking you. Illustrate your needs for me please.
Stick with the argument made, when responding to one. Use DOFMaster or iDOF Calc and get back to me regarding DOF achieved from a 135mm f/2.8 lens used on APS-C and then on FF body, from minimum focusing distance (assume 1m).
Not necessarily, actually.
But that is besides the point. Even for portraits, and landscapes, you will choose to not shoot wide open for similar reasons.Not to me. There is a rational side that must be weighed in as well and especially when we're discussing such things as sensor size, apertures, focal lengths and expecting observable results out of it.
It would prove several things. For example, you wanted me to provide measurements of a system. Was it to prove something? I'm simply curious to see the point of super fast wide/ultra wide lenses especially when a person is relying on it to make a point. Its not a stretch to expect people backing up their points with photographs in a photography forum, is it?
Avoidance.
You can choose to. Or, you can choose to discuss.
My needs are simple: I need to be able to create beautiful images of my clients that also serve the purpose of differentiating me from my competition and those who would seek to be my competition but are not (soccer moms). I do that by employing a variety of photographic techniques including advanced OCF, great exposure, and a wide range of photographic choices including everything from extremely shallow to extremely wide DoF. As such, I need the tool(s) most capable of allowing me to do those things.
I did.
Except you're ignoring the fact that when you standardize FoV you get more DoF with smaller sensors, not more. I know it's convenient to your argument to ignore that reality, but that doesn't make it forgivable.
Necessarily, actually. For portraits, landscapes, or whatever you very well may choose to shoot closed down a bit but you can always do that on FF, too.Not necessarily, actually.
Really? You NEED photography? You'll die without it?
No, it was because I genuinely didn't know how big it was. As for backing something up I see no need for the poster to provide one of HIS photographs to back up a point. As long as SOMEONE'S photographs exist to prove the point, and they do, there's no need to be poster specific, just as I posted proof in the form of someone else's video in a previous thread.
You are indeed avoiding the point.
I have been, and the more discussion occurs the more it becomes apparent that the above statement is true.
What's the difference between a) only collecting the light that falls on middle of the frame ("optical" crop produced by APS-C sensor) and b) collecting the light from the entire frame and using the pixels that are in the middle of the frame ("digital" crop of the FF sensor)? Except that in the second case you have the choice to use the extra image area if you desire.
You could throw a third instance to it (#2 below):
YOU start this whole new thread with a reference to a post of mine in the old thread.
A) To increase the subject isolation while keeping the same subject-background distanceEinsteinsGhost wrote:
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?
Unless there's a special shutter or a black mask for DX crop mode, I'm guessing you "expose" the whole sensor regardless. You just don't record all the data from the FF sensor.
That's like asking, "Why crop at all?" The answer is that you like the picture better after trimming away off some of it.
