OK ALL YOU full frame camera fanatics

Started Nov 14, 2012 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 40,846
Re: Um, Charles?

mcabato wrote:

Great Bustard wrote: I would be pleased to be mistaken on that point, however.

presently I do not have any complains, therefore there is no reason for me to quarel with you.

I'm pleased to hear it!  However, I'm thinking you would if I, personally, never had an interest in a smaller format.  My personal interest in a smaller format for my photography has no bearing on the technical points I make.  For example, I have no interest in large format photography -- does that mean I feel it's "less than" FF?

but for absolution of sins I need to read you still some weeks more

I suppose that depends entirely upon who you feel is doing the sinning.  I mean, if you feel that comments like:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50168124

Apologies for any misinterpretation on my part. Obviously, the are any number of conditions where we can say make the claim that no other system could have done better. Indeed, there are situations where a FF kit would not have performed any better than a cell phone. In fact, there are situations where a cell phone would outperform a FF kit.

are "sins":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50168923

quod erat demonstrandum.

it also can be said, that finally, great bustard always is negatively.

Then time is not going to help.



p.s.: since I am not jesus, I am not free of sins and at all I am somehow prestressed.

None of us are without sin, of course -- I have made tons of mistakes in the past.  For example, long ago, I has assumed that all sensors were basically equally efficient.  But I now know, of course, that this assumption was in error.

If I read that a 5.6/200-500mm FF lens is compared to my 2.8/90-250 - which is not so wrong in a battlefree environment, here I am thinking in this connex of a 5.6/18-55mm L and get problems in my stomache

I'm afraid I don't understand.

today I shot with E-M5 and 2.8/90-250 & ec-14 at 350mm f/4 an owl from 3 m distance. and, my bloody tiny sensor toy cam with this inherit huge disadvantage in DOF not being shallow as FF, made a pic, where all fine micro hairs of a feather could be seen in 400% magnification. but this feather was the only thing to be sharp. everything else was out of the 2 mm DOF ...

As I've said many, many, many times in the past, all systems can produce photos with shallow DOF.  It's simply that larger sensor systems, as a general rule (but not in every instance), have more DOF options than smaller sensor systems.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
tko
tko
GBC
GBC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow