You are right that with Super High Grade lenses attached, there is no cost or weight advantage. However, with the High Grade lenses (e.g., the 12-60 and the 50-200) on the E-3, I believe that FT still maintains its cost and weight advantage over FF. And that kit is not entry level.
Well I should of made the caveat 'perceived real life'
I mean that optical image-capture systems have numerous limitations. There are images no lens can capture. Have you ever seen a photograph in isometric projection (where objects don't grow smaller with distance)?
In which case, shallow DOF becomes a (necessary) evil. Or, when I'm taking a head-shot of my six-month-old son, I have to either stop down to 4.5, shoot from dead-on-frontal direction, or try and use shadows to hide the fact that one of his eyes is out-of-focus. One more choice is to shoot from further away and then crop, sacrificing resolution. And that's with a 4/3 camera, using a 50mm lens!
Make it "some people", and we'll agree. There are other options: Add more light, change position, use flash, use NR, use tripod (or IS), or convert to B&W.
You do realize that that lens will have to be two stops down from a 4/3 lens, right? To match the DOF of a 50mm f:22 ISO 400 on 4/3, you'd have to be at 100mm f:45 ISO 1600. Unless it's a D3, the noise will be worse than on 4/3...
Obviously.
No it won't. Plus, when you get all the way to diffraction-limited, you could just use 50mm and f22 on the FF camera and crop. The loss of pixels isn't particularly relevant since the limit is diffraction, not pixel count.
Yes, the noise will be worse. As you're two stops below, both sensors get the same total number of photons. Whichever sensor splits them into the smaller number of pixels, will have less noise. D3 is the only camera that has similar pixel count to current 4/3 offerings.
An interesting idea. It would probably make sense to capture smaller files at higher f-numbers. I'd be interested to know how f-number affects resolution. Have you tried looking it up? I just did, and found this calculator:
I'd say the poster that bashes 35mm full frame more than anyone else is Razor503.
k. I'm not going to try to arbitrate between two people I like. That's hard enough in person, and near impossible online.
The way black and white photographers have been doing for 150 years. Choose the right filter to emphasize or deemphazise things.
Or even your "cup" of tea.
Exactly. One does whatever is appropriate for a particular shot.
Then try the thing with the pair of 50mm f1.4 lenses....
I love environmental portraiture, and environmental figure work. That demands sharp deep DOF.
I'd still disagree. But isn't your example WA?
I'd have echoed them in mor positive, or at least neutral, language.
Gotcha.
In fact I haven't! Got a link? I'd love to see that!
Yep. But most of the time, it's not a "necessary" evil -- it's a bad choice.
Yep -- that's exactly it! In fact, for such pics, I think compacts are usually the best tool.
Aargh! I should have phrased it that way from the start! My bad! : )
You got it, sir!
Per-pixel. Not less noise in the overall image. Signal-to-noise ratio is what counts, detail is signal and noise is noise. Fewer pixels means less signal and less noise. More pixels means more of each. We can use software to trade more detail and more noise for less detail and less noise if we want.
12.1MP versus 12.7MP on the 5D? Not much difference.
Right.
Absolutely.
Well, as you say above, that's taken care of with ISO.
Excellent! We're in agreement on everything so far! : )
Thanks for understanding my postition!
On formats, Jessical Alba and Jennifer Lopex, or both? : )
Here's how I see it: since the 4/3 sensor has half the dimensions of a FF sensor (more or less), the glass needs to be twice as sharp as FF glass to resolve the same number of pixels. In all the examples I've seen, the reality is that 4/3 glass does ever so slightly in the exteme corners, but worse in the center, than FF glass.
A great deal, to be sure. But, to be fair, at the same apertures, I honestly don't know how well the 28-90 on FF would pan out, and it costs the same amount.
You mean "...at the same f-ratio " -- at the same aperture, the holes are, by definition, the same. : )
You as well! I enjoyed the discussion!
The threads themselves were balanced, but the viewpoints I quoted come up quite often. I wanted to get a broader base of viewpoints from other systems.
And I wish my system had in-camera IS, so we're even. : )
For sure, for sure. But, I have a huge number of clients, and they all love the pics I have in my office:I think the discussion was more around possibly the differences
between what non-photogs and photogs look for in an image, and
whether the latter are perhaps too hung up on what is just one style
of many (naturally not implying that you are
DOF is one way to achieve an overal artistic goal, but there are
other ways, e.g. selection of background and lighting are perhaps
more powerful and flexible, maybe not so cliched.
For sure, the subject is key. But the rendering of the subject is also key, just not as key.
I would present Ansel Adams photos as counterexample. It was every bit how much he rendered the subject, as it was the subject itself, that gave the photos the impact they have.
Sorry if I ever even implied the contrary! I'm just saying that shallow DOF is but a tool at one's disposal, and don't understand all the attacks it has taken.
Yes.
Not always for the same DOF/light gathering ability. Often, the FF kit is lighter and less expensive under those conditions. But, if reach is the only consideration, then yes.
Yes.
Absolutely. Please take a read:
I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I give an example with crop in the Q&A section here:
Again, I'm not seeing it. As shutter speed is a fundamental in the definition of equivalence:
Spec out an E3 + 35-100 in size and weight.. and you will see there
5D costs $2500, E3 $1800: favor: E3
To a pro, the price of the 35-100 is insignificant in that we pros are and do depreciate (amortize) our pro purchases. At the end of amortization, my 35-100 will end up costing me Zip-zilch-nada.
The Olympus 14-35 (28-70 EFL) f/2 is one stop faster than the "normal" 28-70 f/2.8 "pro" lens, the one stop accounting for some of the difference, its weathersealing another.
?
? ?? You keep making such transparent invidious comparisons but to what end?
E3= Full blown, fully weathersealed body for one; certainly that makes "sense"?
"ppl" like yourself?
You know that you are in trouble when you find yourself pixel peeping the real world
The Diffraction is limited theoretical at F8. Just to quote Wrotniak here.
The point is that you are using ISO 200. This makes the whole thing looks simple and gives an easy homerun. Do the the same thing with IS0800/ISO 1600 and lets say F5 for the Crop side. The whole point will change.
Exactly, but Shutter speed can be a or the main selling point like DOF. So it has to be counted in the same way as DOF and not less.
I'm not saying your are ignoring the fact. You are just keeping the bad side for 35mmFF and the good side of Crop regarding shutterspeed and DOF as a minor
Huh? According to every word that spilleth out of the mouths of other DSLR owners, the 4/3rds sensor, because of its size, most definitely has an advantage vis-à-vis DOF. You cannot have it both ways.
Which belies your earlier protestation that 4/3rds does not have an advantage.
Yah, you are.
? ?? So are you saying, empirically, that 4/3rds actually does have some advantages?
FYI: The mirror ball image was shot with my DMC-FZ20 "superzoom" and it's tiny-tiny sensor.
