Reading mode: Light Dark

For the equivalency crazed: some porn for you!

Go to last post
Yeah well, I do this crazy thing sometimes...yah know...

I have my FN button usually set for DoF preview. I press it. If I don't like the amount of DoF I'm getting, I like, change the aperture, or

...get this...

for shots like portraits, I...you won't believe this...really, but it's true.

See there's this concept of DoF that it relates to the focal length of the lens relative to the distance to the subject...so like...man this is difficult to admit...

I like, actually walk closer to or farther from the subject... then adjust my lens focal length so that I get the subjext size and DoF I want.

I know...hard to believe...but it really does work.

But then sometimes I also "cheat" by adding softness to layers in PP. LOL
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
 
Gidday Charles
CharlesB58 said:
John King said:
petrbur said:
CharlesB58 said:
It's much the same as gamers arguing about an ATI video card which gives 185fps vs a NVidia card that gives 181FPS on the same settings. The difference is so minute, and so far beyond normal human perception, as to be inconsequential.
Click to expand...
Why do I always recollect " Much Ado About Nothing " when reading about eq....?
Click to expand...
OR " A Midsummer Night's Dream ", perchance?

Even " As you Like It " ...

Or perhaps " Macbeth " or " Hamlet " (bodies everywhere at the end ... ) ... ;).

Good one, mate ... ROTFL ... :D
Click to expand...
Nah..."The Tempest"
Click to expand...
Or a tempest in a teacup, maybe ... :D

Or, if we extend it to GBS, "Man and Superman"; even maybe "the chocolate cream soldier" of "Arms and the Man"; or even just a cream-puff, lol ... ;)

Oh what fun it is to ride in a one-horse open slight - mis-spelling intentional, for the (extremely) literal minded in our midst ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
 
CharlesB58 said:
Yeah well, I do this crazy thing sometimes...yah know...

I have my FN button usually set for DoF preview. I press it. If I don't like the amount of DoF I'm getting, I like, change the aperture, or

...get this...

for shots like portraits, I...you won't believe this...really, but it's true.

See there's this concept of DoF that it relates to the focal length of the lens relative to the distance to the subject...so like...man this is difficult to admit...

I like, actually walk closer to or farther from the subject... then adjust my lens focal length so that I get the subjext size and DoF I want.

I know...hard to believe...but it really does work.
Click to expand...
Can't quite see the connection of your post to the post you replied to. Anyway, for the 1% that click on links:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35175153
CharlesB58 said:
But then sometimes I also "cheat" by adding softness to layers in PP. LOL
Click to expand...
And one more:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=36449166
 
Great Bustard said:
Can't quite see the connection of your post to the post you replied to. Anyway, for the 1% that click on links:
Click to expand...
Just a bit of unfocused facetiousness for those who, as I'm sure you have experienced, don't understand concepts of photography beyond essays and charts and into practical usage and solutions ;-)
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
 
CharlesB58 said:
I like, actually walk closer to or farther from the subject... then adjust my lens focal length so that I get the subjext size and DoF I want.

I know...hard to believe...but it really does work.
Click to expand...
Aagh! That's my secret method for modifying DOF and subjects in frame!

Don't tell anyone else...
 
boggis the cat said:
CharlesB58 said:
I like, actually walk closer to or farther from the subject... then adjust my lens focal length so that I get the subjext size and DoF I want.

I know...hard to believe...but it really does work.
Click to expand...
Aagh! That's my secret method for modifying DOF and subjects in frame!
Click to expand...
Mine too ...

Don't tell anyone else ... ROTFLMHO ... :D

[EDIT]

Sometimes I even change that thingy with the glass in it ...
You know that bit that goes on the front of whatever it's called again ...
;)

[end edit]

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
 
John King said:
Or, if we extend it to GBS, "Man and Superman"; even maybe "the chocolate cream soldier" of "Arms and the Man"; or even just a cream-puff, lol ... ;)
Click to expand...
We'll be cast up on the shoals of Godwin's Law in no time!

:O
 
Gidday Cat
boggis the cat said:
John King said:
Or, if we extend it to GBS, "Man and Superman"; even maybe "the chocolate cream soldier" of "Arms and the Man"; or even just a cream-puff, lol ... ;)
Click to expand...
We'll be cast up on the shoals of Godwin's Law in no time!

:O
Click to expand...
Definitely not Nietzsche; nor that other bloke either. What's his name again ... ? -- short, dark-haired, semitic nose, liked to get around dressed up in black uniforms ... You know, the guy that Godwit (or whatever his name was - some kind of odd bird ... ) was talking about ...
;)

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
 
G'day again Cat
boggis the cat said:
CharlesB58 said:
I like, actually walk closer to or farther from the subject... then adjust my lens focal length so that I get the subjext size and DoF I want.

I know...hard to believe...but it really does work.
Click to expand...
Aagh! That's my secret method for modifying DOF and subjects in frame!

Don't tell anyone else...
Click to expand...
BTW, we all expect a full report comparing earthquakes & IBIS as a method of combating them while taking photos during them ... ;).

Seriously though, how are things down there?

Has Terra Infirma become Terra Firma once again?
How is the clean up going?

After the first day or so, the media here promptly dropped it off the radar.
Typical.

The media all think that we all have the ten second attention span they think we have got; and that we all know they do have ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
 
Chris_in_Osaka said:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/longterm/20100927_396096.html
Click to expand...
They used the same f-stop on both systems. The photos aren't equivalent. But they're still pretty darn similar. As you might expect for a small difference in sensor size and small images.
Chris_in_Osaka said:
I'm sure it won't answer all questions, and it may open up others. As for me, I've learned that the 7D is quite a camera and that a small sensor under certain conditions easily matches a full frame one.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point of equivalency theory--that under many conditions a smaller sensor camera can be set to an exact equivalent of larger sensor camera's settings. Only under conditions where these equivalent settings can't be reached (things like ISO 100, wide-open aperture or no equivalent lens exists) should you be able to see a difference.
Chris_in_Osaka said:
I'm confused though, aren't the 7D pictures all supposed to be a lot different since there is supposedly a lot less light falling on the smaller sensor, as was suggested in a recent thread by someone who did some calculations on a piece of paper or what not?
Click to expand...
No, that's a 180-degree wrong interpretation of equivalence.

Equivalence says that differences in the sort of shot in this comparison are entirely about factors other than sensor size directly. Sure, less light falls on the smaller sensor. But for equivalent DoF the lens on the smaller sensor is opened a stop more, getting you back to roughly equal total light. (Not that that's what happened in this test.)

There are some more subtle things like dynamic range that may vary based on pixel pitch and pixel count, but these are merely design choices influenced by sensor size, not direct effects of sensor size. They're mostly trivial with sensors this similar in size.
 
Every pair is at equal (and high) f-stop, so there is lots of DOF, and DOF differences are hard to see. So the DOF equivalence that so many care about is not much tested.

What would be far more fun is triples with the same FOV, with for example
5DII f/8, D7 f/8, D7 f/5

If equal shutter speed is also desired to equalize composition, ISO adjustments like about
5DII f/8 ISO 800, D7 f/8 ISO 800, D7 f/5 ISO 300
would work.

The first and last images of the triple should be closest as far as blurring due to both OOF effects and subject motion.
 
I agree for comparison different f-stops should be used to equalize DOF.

I have used a 7D and a D700 for sometimeand ran some comparisons.
One thing to keep in mind is the following:

this means that you have to shoot lenses wider open with smaller sensors. Can mean at an f-stop where the lens doesnt show yet best performance.

When I compared 7d to d700 (both with comparable very good lenses) the 7d for example showed much more often CA where the d700 did not.
 
Thomas Streng said:
I agree for comparison different f-stops should be used to equalize DOF. ...
One thing to keep in mind is the following:

this means that you have to shoot lenses wider open with smaller sensors. Can mean at an f-stop where the lens doesnt show yet best performance.
Click to expand...
This can make an IQ difference sometimes, but only when one is striving to get shallow DOF and as little as possible of the image being sharp and so need to use very low f-stops. This shallow DOF (often mis-called "bokeh") seems to be a common forum obsession, but in real photography, stopping down to get enough DOF is far more common, and then the lens performance differences are far less important than the ability to get the same shutter speed at a lower ISO speed with the "less high" f-stop needed with a smaller format.

--
Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach:
you can have any two at one time.
 
Chris_in_Osaka said:
I'm confused though, aren't the 7D pictures all supposed to be a lot different since there is supposedly a lot less light falling on the smaller sensor, as was suggested in a recent thread by someone who did some calculations on a piece of paper or what not?
Click to expand...
look closer Chris, the difference is there. While not the best examples for depth of field and noise given the shots, you can actually quite clearly see better clarity and gradation in the 5D shots.

I didn't spend much time looking, but the first two I compared showed it pretty clearly:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/396/096/html/007.jpg.html
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/396/096/html/008.jpg.html

Look at the top left of the frame as one point, the railing and whatnot is clearly cleaner and more defined on full frame. maybe it's due to the lens... maybe it's due to the bigger photosites not stressing the lens' as much... I didn't look at the Exif, anyone know what the ISO/lens' used on these shots?

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com
 
BJL said:
This can make an IQ difference sometimes, but only when one is striving to get shallow DOF and as little as possible of the image being sharp and so need to use very low f-stops. This shallow DOF (often mis-called "bokeh") seems to be a common forum obsession, but in real photography, stopping down to get enough DOF is far more common, and then the lens performance differences are far less important than the ability to get the same shutter speed at a lower ISO speed with the "less high" f-stop needed with a smaller format.

--
Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach:
you can have any two at one time.
Click to expand...
of course shallow DOF is not good for everything-but often subject isolation is a nice effect. I would expect most people to understand the difference between shallow DOF and the pretty subjective question of good or bad Bokeh.

The question how much DOF you need also depends a lot of how you compose your image, how you place your self and your subjects.

Anyways, I realized that for my style of photography I got much more problems with CA with the 7d than I would get with a D700.
 
Joesiv said:
Chris_in_Osaka said:
I'm confused though, aren't the 7D pictures all supposed to be a lot different since there is supposedly a lot less light falling on the smaller sensor, as was suggested in a recent thread by someone who did some calculations on a piece of paper or what not?
Click to expand...
look closer Chris, the difference is there. While not the best examples for depth of field and noise given the shots, you can actually quite clearly see better clarity and gradation in the 5D shots.

I didn't spend much time looking, but the first two I compared showed it pretty clearly:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/396/096/html/007.jpg.html
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/396/096/html/008.jpg.html

Look at the top left of the frame as one point, the railing and whatnot is clearly cleaner and more defined on full frame. maybe it's due to the lens... maybe it's due to the bigger photosites not stressing the lens' as much... I didn't look at the Exif, anyone know what the ISO/lens' used on these shots?

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com
Click to expand...
If you have to hunt that hard to find the 'differences' then they are rather minor, and you really don't know what they're down to, camera, lens, processing, display resampling or a combination of all. These images, as has been pointed out, are not equivalent. Had they been, then the only difference would have been down to sensor resolution, efficiency and noise, AA filter, lens performance, processing and display resampling. None would have been due to sensor size, simply because you would have been looking at images comprising exactly the same number of photons.
--
Bob
 
bobn2 said:
Joesiv said:
Chris_in_Osaka said:
I'm confused though, aren't the 7D pictures all supposed to be a lot different since there is supposedly a lot less light falling on the smaller sensor, as was suggested in a recent thread by someone who did some calculations on a piece of paper or what not?
Click to expand...
look closer Chris, the difference is there. While not the best examples for depth of field and noise given the shots, you can actually quite clearly see better clarity and gradation in the 5D shots.

I didn't spend much time looking, but the first two I compared showed it pretty clearly:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/396/096/html/007.jpg.html
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/396/096/html/008.jpg.html

Look at the top left of the frame as one point, the railing and whatnot is clearly cleaner and more defined on full frame. maybe it's due to the lens... maybe it's due to the bigger photosites not stressing the lens' as much... I didn't look at the Exif, anyone know what the ISO/lens' used on these shots?

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com
Click to expand...
If you have to hunt that hard to find the 'differences' then they are rather minor, and you really don't know what they're down to, camera, lens, processing, display resampling or a combination of all. These images, as has been pointed out, are not equivalent. Had they been, then the only difference would have been down to sensor resolution, efficiency and noise, AA filter, lens performance, processing and display resampling. None would have been due to sensor size, simply because you would have been looking at images comprising exactly the same number of photons.
Click to expand...
I just don't understand the meaning of the thread though...
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com
 
Joesiv said:
bobn2 said:
Joesiv said:
Chris_in_Osaka said:
I'm confused though, aren't the 7D pictures all supposed to be a lot different since there is supposedly a lot less light falling on the smaller sensor, as was suggested in a recent thread by someone who did some calculations on a piece of paper or what not?
Click to expand...
look closer Chris, the difference is there. While not the best examples for depth of field and noise given the shots, you can actually quite clearly see better clarity and gradation in the 5D shots.

I didn't spend much time looking, but the first two I compared showed it pretty clearly:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/396/096/html/007.jpg.html
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/396/096/html/008.jpg.html

Look at the top left of the frame as one point, the railing and whatnot is clearly cleaner and more defined on full frame. maybe it's due to the lens... maybe it's due to the bigger photosites not stressing the lens' as much... I didn't look at the Exif, anyone know what the ISO/lens' used on these shots?

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com
Click to expand...
If you have to hunt that hard to find the 'differences' then they are rather minor, and you really don't know what they're down to, camera, lens, processing, display resampling or a combination of all. These images, as has been pointed out, are not equivalent. Had they been, then the only difference would have been down to sensor resolution, efficiency and noise, AA filter, lens performance, processing and display resampling. None would have been due to sensor size, simply because you would have been looking at images comprising exactly the same number of photons.
Click to expand...
I just don't understand the meaning of the thread though...
Click to expand...
That's OK, the OP didn't know the meaning of equivalence.
--
Bob
 
Hi,

There are very good reasons to purchase the L's

first. the L's are as sealed as Canon lenses get (they still require a filter to get cust and moisture protection. Neither the 10-22 nor the 15-85 have anyt weather protection. (having had 2 Canon cameras killed by weather - a 5d and 20D - this would be important to me.

second, both the 10-22 and 15-85 are 5.6 at the long end. For myself (and many) this produces an image in the smaller viewfinder (of cropped cameras) which is quite dark for use.

In fact it is this very absence of quality, sealed lenses most noticeable in the WA zoom or midrange which is for me the major limiting factor in the Canon reduced frame system and one of the main reasons I use an E1/E3 with HG or SHG lenses. The closest comparable combo to the E3 +12-60 2,8-3.5 + 50-200 2.8-3.5 is a 5Dii / 1DSIII +24-105 4 + 100-400 4.5-5.6. Neither of these lenses performs as well on FF and only the 1DS2 is sealed )nopt to mention weight or cost and lens speed)

Ed

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top