-
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
At 24mm f / 1.4 on 35mm FF (15mm, f/0.9 on 1.6x and 12mm, f/0.6 on 4/3)? That's unexpected. : )
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
bokeh wide angles ?
i think sometimes people get a little carried away with DoF based equivalence
at some point in FL wides in FF arnt ideal for and there widest apertures are less usable than 4/3rds natural inclination to WA photography
no 4/3rds doesnt have fast wides, but they are usable wide open
and wide open on the same aperture, ie 'the same exposure' the DoF is deeper
and no way do any 4/3rds lenses, kit lenses included suffer the maladies of may FF lenses which only get on song beyond F8, stopping down cures their ills
cite 14/2.8 L, its wider apertures are useless if you are looking for quality
14 L II appears to be no better. Having those wide apertures doesnt make FF have more range, be more usable or better which equivalence theory suggests. From a practical standpoint FF is defeatable, and having someone like me, or even you suggest that the corners are soft and/or the edges suck isnt trashing FF, its a statement of fact.
--
Riley
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Calico Cat
Senior Member
We hate people who come on dpreview and say "FF pwns, APS-C sukz, 4/3 lololol"
I don't know what that means.
It's the only way to comapre that makes sense if we're comparing images from different systems for sharpness and vignetting.
Again, I have no idea what you just wrote.
The concept of exposure and its relevence is used incorrectly. This will clear that up:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#exposure
You say that 4/3 doesn't have fast wides but they are usable wide open. I've used fast wides on 35mm FF and they are not only "usable" wide open, the whole purpose most of the time for me was to use them wide open:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=22428283
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26773972
But when I felt the need to stop down for more DOF and/or sharp corners, it was never an issue for me, and no one has been able to show me a counterexample.
What "ills" are you talking about? Vignetting and soft corners? Sure, that's what you get with a more shallow DOF. But at the same DOF, those issues vanish. Are you saying that because 4/3 gets the same DOF at f/2.8 as 35mm FF at f/5.6 that it's somehow superior? That makes no sense at all.
Why do you define "usability" as "corner performance"? Anyway, post your examples. I want to see them. You say, and I quote, "the edges suck isnt trashing FF, its a statement of fact." Prove it. Here's the image you have to beat:
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f / 8, 1/320, ISO 100 (fullsize unedited)
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/92806994/original
Or are you saying that's a lucky shot and only attainable on the 24 / 1.4L? That the 17-40 / 4L (the premiere Canon 35mm FF landscape lens -- $650) could not match it?
In any case, enough words. I want you to produce an image of a scene that I could not have done with 35mm FF with at least the same IQ.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
benvision
Forum Enthusiast
...damn it to hell!
oh wait! i added vignetting to this image cuz it was a 1.6 crop camera... oh no!
--
My fashion and editorial images can be seen at http://www.sabawa.com and http://www.myspace.com/sabawa
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
it means shallow DoF WA
not really, its one way, and its valid
but its also possible to compare wide open performance
never is a BIG word
corner crops zone C
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html
16-36 @17mm F2.8
16-35 @17mm F5
this is Nikons 14-24 F8
so if i said these wides lenses wide open were defeatable would i be believed
what about these
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html
zone C corner crops
14L II @2.8
14L II @ F5
14L II @F8
14L II @F13
how far do you figure you need to stop down to lose that CA Joe,
Ive run out of 14L II samples
right, what about F13 v/s F4
and Im not saying superior, what i am saying is 4/3rds not inferior
and what else im saying is, the faster aperture on FF wides seem uselessly flawed
that seems to me to be a big piece of corner to be concerned about
350 x 450 seems quite large to me
you are saying you feel differently about that or what ?
joe, im not making this stuff up, these crops look terrible in anyones language
maybe even yours
i dont go to the canon dslr forum to spout this stuff
but we seem to get this constantly from 5D owners over at Olympus dSLR
some of those identities appear in the latest 2 threads started by you
canon FF bashing isnt what its about for me and for others
its purely become a defence mechanism against the threads begun by people like you.
you are the giver of your own fate
--
Riley
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
...I can even stay on topic.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#IQ
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=22428283
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26773972
In particular, you failed to tell me what was wrong with the corners of this pic I linked in my previous post:
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f / 8, 1/320, ISO 100 (fullsize unedited)
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/92806994/original
Again, be specific. If you argue that I had to stop down to f/8 to get the corners that sharp, then tell me under what circumstances I coudln't stop down to f/8, and show me an example with 4/3 to demonstrate how 4/3 did the job better that 35mm FF could.
Again, quoting you, "the edges suck isnt trashing FF, its a statement of fact." Since the corners are worse at lower f-ratios, please, post an image demonstrating why I would need to shoot a pic where corners matter at a different DOF.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Explain this to me, in detail. Explain exactly why we need to compare the edges of two systems at the same f-ratio instead of the same DOF. Tell me exactly what the purpose is in comparing the corners of two images at different DOFs is. I really want to know.
Which of any of the images that you posted are from a sensor smaller than 35mm FF? Where is the communication failure that I cannot seem to impress upon you that I am not comparing Nikon's new UWA (which is awesome) to Canon's UWAs? What can I say to you to keep you on subject? That subject is: 35mm FF UWA vs smaller sensor systems UWA. Show me evidence that, and, once again and I quote you, "the edges suck isnt trashing FF, its a statement of fact."
What's "F13 v/s F4" all about?
When have I ever said 4/3 is inferior?! Now, I have said that in most circumstances, the overall IQ of 35mm FF is superior. And before you argue that point, please, please, please read my definition of "IQ" and note all the qualifiers I put on it:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#IQ
Be specific, and tell me what about these images is "uselessly" flawed:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=22428283
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26773972
In particular, you failed to tell me what was wrong with the corners of this pic I linked in my previous post:
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f / 8, 1/320, ISO 100 (fullsize unedited)
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/92806994/original
Again, be specific. If you argue that I had to stop down to f/8 to get the corners that sharp, then tell me under what circumstances I coudln't stop down to f/8, and show me an example with 4/3 to demonstrate how 4/3 did the job better that 35mm FF could.
Again, quoting you, "the edges suck isnt trashing FF, its a statement of fact." Since the corners are worse at lower f-ratios, please, post an image demonstrating why I would need to shoot a pic where corners matter at a different DOF.
For sure those Canon crops at wide apertures are horrid compared to the 14-24 / 2.8. But all those pics are from 35mm FF, so you're just comparing Nikon's UWA to Canon's UWA. Until you can post images from different formats that favor the smaller format at the same DOF, or give me a good reason not to compare corners at the same DOF, then you're statement, "the edges suck isnt trashing FF, its a statement of fact" is, in fact, utter drivel.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
it was you that said
you like to quote wide apertures on L lenses and shove equivalence down peoples throats, Im telling you and showing you that often those fast apertures are useless, you might just as well have a 14/13L II, because its rubbish at anything faster (aperture)
fine Joe, so you are saying this is ok right ?
and that somehow me saying "the edges suck" is unwarranted and infactual
aperture efficiency for IQ, if your FF is more than 2 stops from 4/3rds it lost
what somehow you dont see the corners i posted?
why quote "At 24mm f / 1.4 on 35mm FF (15mm, f/0.9 on 1.6x and 12mm, f/0.6 on 4/3)" if those apertures on FF are hopelessly soft, lack contrast, are filled with CA
i cant see how you wouldnt know this, i dont have to play your game, the corner crops i posted speak for themselves
utter drivel you say ?
I gave you 2 L lenses that dont cut it, you quote another zoom
i think in balance looking at those corners, i made a fair and factual assessment
then i get this
thats it im outta here
--
Riley
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Eclipse Optics
Senior Member
You will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER win an argument with this guy. He will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER let you. Just recognize that this is someone who thinks that communication is a contest that must be win, and move on.
You didn't answer the above. But, don't worry, I'm not waiting for an answer.
Yeah? Why didn't you answer these questions from my post immediately above:
Answer my question. Quoting you from just above: "Im telling you and showing you that often those fast apertures are useless." Well, tell me! There are the pics at the fast apertures. Tell me why they're useless.
What don't you get?! All those pics are from 35mm FF at DOFs that 4/3 cannot do!!! What part of "show me a pic from 4/3 at the same DOF where it's better than 35mm FF" do you not understand?!
For corner performance in UWA, true. So what? You have to stop down two stops for the same DOF, and the noise two stops down is the same anyway, even if you need to up the ISO accordingly to maintain the same shutter speed. Again, what's your point?
And, once again, tell me what's wrong with these wide open pics:
How many times do I have to ask you to get an answer?!
What a joke. You post corner crops from 35mm FF from DOFs that 4/3 cannot even attain, and conclude 35mm FF UWA sucks. Unbelievable. I mean, truly unbelievable.
Yes, "utter drivel" I say.
You did no such thing. How many times do I have to say it? What is the purpose in presenting corner crops from 35mm FF for DOFs 4/3 cannot even get? Answer me.
Oh you did, eh? Without posting one single image from 4/3 at the same DOF as 35mm FF, you made a "fair and accurate assessment" that the corners of 35mm FF suck. Huh. How about that!
Bonus. You don't answer any of my questions, and you don't post a single comparative image from 35mm FF and 4/3 at the same DOF, and say that 35mm FF sucks at UWA 'cause the edges from all Canon's UWAs at DOFs 4/3 can't even do are soft.
But you had time to post this pic in an unrelated thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26799384
I'm game, if you're not "outta here", that is. Your pic was at 11mm, f/4, 1/60, ISO 800 (22mm, f/8, 1/60, ISO 3200 on 35mm FF). Currently, I have no lens wider than 24mm. Here's your opportunity to show off your superior 4/3. I can post a similar pic at 24mm, f/8, 1/60, ISO 3200 and we can compare the corners. Link your fullsize shot, and I'll post a similar one. Fact is, in the very extreme corners, I even expect your pic should be sharper just like this test:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=25380951&changemode=1
C'mon! What do you have to lose? I mean, is there a reason you can post a pic in that thread, and not post it in this one?
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Not unless he posts a pic from 35mm FF and 4/3 with the same AOV and DOF that shows 4/3 to be better than 35mm FF.
It's not up to me whether he "wins" or doesn't. It's up to him posting a pic that demonstrates his point. Posting corner crops from 35mm FF at DOFs that 4/3 cannot even attain is ridiculous.
You mean "Just recognize that this is someone who's never going to believe that the corners of 35mm FF suck until you post a pic from 4/3 at the same DOF that is a lot better."
You know, I have seen such comparisons. For example:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=25380951&changemode=1
And if that's the type of evidence that people use to slam 35mm FF, well, then, it's no surprise to me that those people don't have galleries linked in their profile.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
spt_gb
Senior Member
Rriley wrote:
...
...
...
Demonstrating a wide angle, narrow DoF shot he got a comment about vignetting. Vignetting at f1.4 is unexpected? Can you show a similar shot (same DoF, same angle of view) with a small sensor camera without vignetting? (or at all even)
...
Where's the small sensor vs large sensor comparison there? Talking about a lens at 16mm and f2.8 when there is no equivalent 16mm f2.8 crop lens is rather pointless. How good is the FF lens when shot at settings equivalent to a crop lens? In what conditions would you have to use f2.8 and still need corner sharpness? In those conditions could crop do any better?
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Hi,
Noticed that for some time about AP. They did a review of some software a while ago and it lost out for not being like PhotoShop and being (gasp) different.
These days I only buy it now and again when I want something repaired and need to see th current small ads.
Regards, David
Noticed that for some time about AP. They did a review of some software a while ago and it lost out for not being like PhotoShop and being (gasp) different.
These days I only buy it now and again when I want something repaired and need to see th current small ads.
Regards, David
FF lenses "suck" at settings that can't be matched on smaller systems...if all you are looking at is corner sharpness.
FF lenses don't "suck" at equivalent DoF settings....
Edge sharpness is OFTEN not important when shooting "wide open"
Buy a tripod so you can stop down and stay at a lower ISO setting.
Have a wonderful day.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
FF lenses don't "suck" at equivalent DoF settings....
Edge sharpness is OFTEN not important when shooting "wide open"
Buy a tripod so you can stop down and stay at a lower ISO setting.
Have a wonderful day.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
MusicDoctorDJ
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,400
- Reaction score
- 11
How can anyone say that corner sharpness is not important when everyone around here claims that total image quality is the most important element of photography?
Especially when many claim that is the very reason they bought an FF DSLR . . . image quality!
Just a thought to ponder . . .
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado
Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!
Especially when many claim that is the very reason they bought an FF DSLR . . . image quality!
Just a thought to ponder . . .
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado
Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!
TrapperJohn
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 16,488
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
For years, I lugged a Nikon F3 setup over miles of forests and mountains on camping and rock climbing expediitions. Produced stunning photos, rock solid reliability, excellent Nikkor glass, but the equipment was very heavy. As I recall, my camera bag weighed about forty pounds. I've used a 1DsII for a weekend. Superb camera, really didn't have any bad technical aspects, but, my god, it was like putting a cinderblock up to your face.
My current Olympus setup gives me better UWA than most 24x36 cameras courtesy of the excellent 7-14, and twice the telephoto reach. The glass is very consisitent - no soft edges, no bad focal lengths, no real penalty for shooting wide open. And the end package is substantially lighter than a 24x36 setup. My current camera bag with two bodies and fast lenses that range from 35mm equiv 14mm to 400mm, weighs in at sixteen pounds. Add another seven pounds if I bring my old Nikkor 400 3.5, which gives me 800mm f5.6 FOV on 4/3. Jealous of FF? Hardly - been there, done that.
My needs aren't everyone's, but this insistence that FF is God just isn't accurate. It's better in some circumstances, with a penalty in others. I don't hate FF, I just think it's been way overhyped.
My current Olympus setup gives me better UWA than most 24x36 cameras courtesy of the excellent 7-14, and twice the telephoto reach. The glass is very consisitent - no soft edges, no bad focal lengths, no real penalty for shooting wide open. And the end package is substantially lighter than a 24x36 setup. My current camera bag with two bodies and fast lenses that range from 35mm equiv 14mm to 400mm, weighs in at sixteen pounds. Add another seven pounds if I bring my old Nikkor 400 3.5, which gives me 800mm f5.6 FOV on 4/3. Jealous of FF? Hardly - been there, done that.
My needs aren't everyone's, but this insistence that FF is God just isn't accurate. It's better in some circumstances, with a penalty in others. I don't hate FF, I just think it's been way overhyped.
spt_gb
Senior Member
He said that corner sharpness IS OFTEN not important WHEN SHOOTING WIDE OPEN. Not that it is not important in any circumstance.
Describe to me a circumstance in which corner sharpness is important on a wide open ultra-wide angle lens on FF. Now tell me how an equivalent cropped sensor ultra wide angle lens can do a better job in the same circumstances. Are there any f2.8 ultra-wides for crop?
Describe to me a circumstance in which corner sharpness is important on a wide open ultra-wide angle lens on FF. Now tell me how an equivalent cropped sensor ultra wide angle lens can do a better job in the same circumstances. Are there any f2.8 ultra-wides for crop?
How can anyone say that corner sharpness is not important when
everyone around here claims that total image quality is the most
important element of photography?
Especially when many claim that is the very reason they bought an FF
DSLR . . . image quality!
Just a thought to ponder . . .
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado
Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that
came in it!
TrapperJohn
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 16,488
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
Much of this seems to center around shallow DOF on UWA. Now, personally, I don't like that. To me, UWA pulls in a wide field of view, but emphasizes the primary subject with angles and perspective, not shallow DOF.
Sort of an anti-portrait.
So the edges are critical to getting that wide open feeling that makes UWA shots so fascinating. Joe's shot of the hydrant is a good example - to me, it would have looked far better if the background had been in focus. The primary subject would still stand out, but you wouldn't get that foggy, claustrophobic look. Probably would have killed the vignetting as well, which really degrades the overall photo.
So we come to the fact that 24x36 can do shallow DOF on UWA. But, why would you want it? It's sort of like asking why a dog licks it's extremities... because it can. Doesn't mean that it's a desirable activity.
I fully recognize that this is a highly subjective point of view. Others may actually like shallow DOF on UWA. But, the more I work with my newly acquired 7-14, the more I find that I have absolutely no desire to limit DOF. It's truly an amazing piece of glass, razor sharp and CA free. Expensive, but worth the price.
Wait a minute, I hear them cry - isn't that what the 24x36 crowd is saying? We're expensive, but worth it? Quite true, but that's just one lens. When I'm done with it, I take it off, and it's back to sharp, light and vice free light long telephotos.
Sort of an anti-portrait.
So the edges are critical to getting that wide open feeling that makes UWA shots so fascinating. Joe's shot of the hydrant is a good example - to me, it would have looked far better if the background had been in focus. The primary subject would still stand out, but you wouldn't get that foggy, claustrophobic look. Probably would have killed the vignetting as well, which really degrades the overall photo.
So we come to the fact that 24x36 can do shallow DOF on UWA. But, why would you want it? It's sort of like asking why a dog licks it's extremities... because it can. Doesn't mean that it's a desirable activity.
I fully recognize that this is a highly subjective point of view. Others may actually like shallow DOF on UWA. But, the more I work with my newly acquired 7-14, the more I find that I have absolutely no desire to limit DOF. It's truly an amazing piece of glass, razor sharp and CA free. Expensive, but worth the price.
Wait a minute, I hear them cry - isn't that what the 24x36 crowd is saying? We're expensive, but worth it? Quite true, but that's just one lens. When I'm done with it, I take it off, and it's back to sharp, light and vice free light long telephotos.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum