Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response wall just as I felt the obligation to respond to some interesting views, such as this gem from Mike CH:

Member said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Member said:

Biggs23 wrote:

Member said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Member said:

Could you do me a favor? Could you measure the length of the body with that lens attached and report back with the total length?

Click to expand...

And what exactly do you wish to accomplish with it? Trying to convince me that I could carry the same amount of gear in my sling bag with a FF body and lenses to match?

Click to expand...

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. I'm genuinely curious to see how much smaller it is than my setup.

Click to expand...

Trying to convince me with the arguments you make will be impossible. So, don't even bring it up. Now, here's to your curiosity:

Click to expand...

You did notice, didn't you, that the parties trying to do the convincing here are the small form factor proponents? As in the title of the thread?

Do you act this way because the small-is-beautiful argument isn't winning any points with people who don't like small?

Regards, Mike

Wait and see...

Dear Mike,

Your response is rather amusing for the very fact that it questions my ability to "notice" something when it is you who is taking presented facts (in this case, measurements as I asked by the person responded to) and deflecting from it. There were two facts presented:

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).


2-How this combination works well for me, when I can fit two camera bodies with 12mm to 300mm (35mm equivalent) lens gear, and accessories

Presenting these facts isn't "acting". Let us try to keep drama out.

I'll repost part of my response to danijel973 as I'd like to continue this discussion too, particularly in regards to full frame zooms and price/performance of lenses for various formats:

EinsteinsGhost said:

danijel973 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

hesbehindyou wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

danijel973 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

hesbehindyou wrote:

35mm ain't all about ultimate pixel-peeping quality.

I bought into full frame to get access to shallow depth of field. Get the same with a smaller sensor and I'll be happy.

Click to expand...

It's not about the sensor, it's about the sensor/lens combination.

Click to expand...

Aperture has an effect on depth of field? No s*** sherlock.

To match on APS-C what my £80 50 1.8 does with my £350 5D mk I I'd need a £1000 50 f1.2... and that wouldn't quite equal it in getting shallow depth of field. I'd also have to stand further back... sometimes difficult indoors.

Click to expand...

That is partially true, but the other side of the coin is that most of the times you actually need deeper field in those situations so it's an advantage for APS.

Click to expand...

Even if it is "most of the time" (and that's highly debatable) how is it an advantage to not be able to go more shallow with DOF as you can with full frame? There's nothing stopping you from stopping the lens down on full frame after all to get the same DOF as APS-C.

We keep talking about primes here but when it comes to zooms, that's where full frame really shines IMO. My standard zoom is a 24-120/4 on full frame. Indoors most of the time, I'm shooting wide open as there's plenty of DOF (usually a little more than I want). In order to match that not-so-shallow DOF with an APS-C lens, I'd need a 16-80/2.8. Try finding one of those.

EinsteinsGhost said:

The other important thing to consider is that your 50mm f/1.8 is a huge exception re: price/performance, in that it has an excellent combination of price, sharpness and aperture. Finding such a lens and using it as a yardstick is similar to finding an exceptional lens for another format and beating the hell out of 35mm with it.

Click to expand...

Give an example of a true full frame equivalent lens for another format that "beats the hell out of a 35mm lens" based on price and performance. I'll be pleasantly surprised if you can find something as I have looked and cannot find anything.

joejack951

Even if it is "most of the time" (and that's highly debatable) how is it an advantage to not be able to go more shallow with DOF as you can with full frame? There's nothing stopping you from stopping the lens down on full frame after all to get the same DOF as APS-C.

The FF advantage on shallower DOF is primarily at wide angles. The following image has no value but only to demonstrate DOF, which is barely "a fly deep":


Sony NEX-3 w/Sony 135mm f/2.8 STF

And that is APS-C. The same lens on 35mm sensor will actually have a deeper DoF due to a wider FoV.



But yes, there is nothing stopping one down from stopping down. In fact, stopping down is pretty much needed under most circumstances. I almost never shoot with a fast lens wide open but on rare occasions (usually, lighting):


Sony A55 w/Sony 35mm f/1.8 at f/1.8

That is comparable to 50mm f/2.8 on FF. And that takes us to another issue. Stopping down can sometimes necessitate higher ISO which would take away, most if not all, DR and noise advantage of FF.

Personally, I find APS-C as the best compromise between larger and smaller sensors. That is not to say that I don't see a point to FF.

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

Click to expand...

I do appreciate you providing that. So it looks like your combination is just over 3" shorter than a Nikon D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 attached. In terms of carrying something around that's not a lot of space to be saved, although there is a somewhat significant weight difference which may matter to some users. The D800 combination would be heavier, 3" longer, but would be able to provide a range of 70mm to 200mm at f/2.8 instead of just 300mm equivalent. If you count cropping ability, the D800 combination could actually provide 70mm to 450mm at f/2.8 in terms of equivalent length. (36MP cropped to 16MP of the NEX6).

Also, to head off the inevitable, I recognize that you have several other lenses and whatnot. However, if you add in just the 24-70mm f/2.8 to the D800 combo you get 90%+ of the range your bag has and with just a single body and two lenses. Weight/size wise it looks like the 24-70mm would be smaller and lighter than the rest of your bag added together, so a net savings.

So the question becomes, is 3" of length, 1" or 2" of height, and a couple of pounds worth the extra range, extra image quality, extra accessory and other options, and extra ergonomic advantages of the D800?

That's a question only the user/buyer can answer. For me, personally, the answer is absolutely!

--

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

Click to expand...

I do appreciate you providing that. So it looks like your combination is just over 3" shorter than a Nikon D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 attached. In terms of carrying something around that's not a lot of space to be saved, although there is a somewhat significant weight difference which may matter to some users.

Click to expand...

It may not matter to some, it matters a lot to me. Let us look at the two key aspects:

1- Size: That it is a slimmer and shorter combination, providing an optical reach of 300mm equivalence, it fits perfectly in a third of the main compartment in my sling bag, leaving room for another camera body with a lens and couple of additional lenses.

2- Weight: It is at the time of using the camera, and not just walking around with a gear where it matters. To hold 3 lb for couple of hours isn't a burden as 5-6 lb would be, for the same purpose (and I'm assuming avoidance of using a 300mm lens on FF for the FOV because those lenses are considerably heavier, and larger).

AcquiredTaste said:

So the question becomes, is 3" of length, 1" or 2" of height, and a couple of pounds worth the extra range, extra image quality, extra accessory and other options, and extra ergonomic advantages of the D800?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't even try fitting D800 w/70-200 lens attached to it in the same sling bag that I use to carry two APS-C bodies and (at least) four lenses. And you won't be able to meet the range (12mm to 300mm) with that combination to begin with.

Lighter and smaller will find more ways to accompany me than a bulkier system will, and that matters a lot more than negligible difference in IQ. As for ergonomics, nope. You won't find me complaining when I can access virtually every control on an APS-C and almost always without having to take my eyes of the view finder.

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

Click to expand...

To head off the inevitable, I recognize that you have several other lenses and whatnot. However, if you add in just the 24-70mm f/2.8 to the D800 combo you get 90%+ of the range your bag has and with just a single body and two lenses. Weight/size wise it looks like the 24-70mm would be smaller and lighter than the rest of your bag added together, so a net savings.

Click to expand...

Alright, so out of curiosity I added the total weight in your bag and compared that with the total weight of a D800 with a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and an 16mm Nikon fisheye f/2.8 which covers every focal length you have.

The totals:

Your bag: 3769g = 8.309lbs

The FF combo: 3754g = 8.276lbs

Welp, guess the weight argument pretty much just went out the window, huh?

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

Click to expand...

I do appreciate you providing that. So it looks like your combination is just over 3" shorter than a Nikon D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 attached. In terms of carrying something around that's not a lot of space to be saved, although there is a somewhat significant weight difference which may matter to some users.

Click to expand...

It may not matter to some, it matters a lot to me. Let us look at the two key aspects:

1- Size: That it is a slimmer and shorter combination, providing an optical reach of 300mm equivalence, it fits perfectly in a third of the main compartment in my sling bag, leaving room for another camera body with a lens and couple of additional lenses.

Click to expand...

I acknowledge the slimmer and shorter part, although if you're talking resolution equivalent the D800 combo is actually much longer than 300mm, as I quoted previously. It's more like 450mm @ 16MP.

EinsteinsGhost said:

2- Weight: It is at the time of using the camera, and not just walking around with a gear where it matters. To hold 3 lb for couple of hours isn't a burden as 5-6 lb would be, for the same purpose (and I'm assuming avoidance of using a 300mm lens on FF for the FOV because those lenses are considerably heavier, and larger).

Click to expand...

Debunked above. Your combination is actually heavier to cover less range in equivalent terms. (Yours covers 24mm to 75mm, 202.5mm, and 300mm at f/2.8, plus a 12mm fisheye. The D800 combo above covers 24mm to 450mm continuously with the same or more resolution plus a 16mm fisheye. So slight difference between fisheyes but WAY more coverage options with the D800 combo overall.)

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost said:

So the question becomes, is 3" of length, 1" or 2" of height, and a couple of pounds worth the extra range, extra image quality, extra accessory and other options, and extra ergonomic advantages of the D800?

Click to expand...

And you won't be able to meet the range (12mm to 300mm) with that combination to begin with.

Click to expand...

Debunked above.

EinsteinsGhost said:

Lighter and smaller will find more ways to accompany me than a bulkier system will, and that matters a lot more than negligible difference in IQ.

Click to expand...

That's fine. You're just giving up versatility to have that.

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

Click to expand...

To head off the inevitable, I recognize that you have several other lenses and whatnot. However, if you add in just the 24-70mm f/2.8 to the D800 combo you get 90%+ of the range your bag has and with just a single body and two lenses. Weight/size wise it looks like the 24-70mm would be smaller and lighter than the rest of your bag added together, so a net savings.

Click to expand...

Alright, so out of curiosity I added the total weight in your bag and compared that with the total weight of a D800 with a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and an 16mm Nikon fisheye f/2.8 which covers every focal length you have.

The totals:

Your bag: 3769g = 8.309lbs

The FF combo: 3754g = 8.276lbs

Welp, guess the weight argument pretty much just went out the window, huh?

--
Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

Click to expand...

The range being, 12mm to 300mm, with TWO camera bodies and never mind that the sole idea of my gear choice has to do with using mostly primes, not just solely covering a range. To simply cover an optical range, I could choose:

16-50mm f/2.8 SSM (575g)

50-150mm f/2.8 HSM (825g)

LA-EA2 (200g)

NEX body (300g)

Total: 1900g (4.2 lb)

Now...

D800-body: 900g

24-70 f/2.8: 900g

70-200 f/2.8: 1475g

Total: 3275g (7.2 lb)

But, more importantly, try fitting that all in a small sling bag.

I'm really late to the discussion hence too lazy to go through 150 posts. However, please allow me to share my point of view.

Full Frame digital cameras will hardly die soon if ever. Two main reasons lead me to believe they will be here and reign for too many years to count:

First, the FF sensor digital camera is the only class to challenge the IQ of the next bigger size sensor at a fraction of the cost. No other size can match this prowess.

Second, I believe the 24X36 sensor will remain for decades the indisputable king of hi-iso photography and since low-light photography is the last frontier for photography as we have known it for 187 years, lo-light cameras will always have a special place for the serious photographer.


1827 © N.Niepce. All day long capture under broad daylight.



For me, FF is the holy grail of digital photography.

Eduardo

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

Click to expand...

I do appreciate you providing that. So it looks like your combination is just over 3" shorter than a Nikon D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 attached. In terms of carrying something around that's not a lot of space to be saved, although there is a somewhat significant weight difference which may matter to some users.

Click to expand...

It may not matter to some, it matters a lot to me. Let us look at the two key aspects:

1- Size: That it is a slimmer and shorter combination, providing an optical reach of 300mm equivalence, it fits perfectly in a third of the main compartment in my sling bag, leaving room for another camera body with a lens and couple of additional lenses.

Click to expand...

I acknowledge the slimmer and shorter part, although if you're talking resolution equivalent the D800 combo is actually much longer than 300mm, as I quoted previously. It's more like 450mm @ 16MP.

Click to expand...

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n).

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

2- Weight: It is at the time of using the camera, and not just walking around with a gear where it matters. To hold 3 lb for couple of hours isn't a burden as 5-6 lb would be, for the same purpose (and I'm assuming avoidance of using a 300mm lens on FF for the FOV because those lenses are considerably heavier, and larger).

Click to expand...

Debunked above. Your combination is actually heavier to cover less range in equivalent terms. (Yours covers 24mm to 75mm, 202.5mm, and 300mm at f/2.8, plus a 12mm fisheye. The D800 combo above covers 24mm to 450mm continuously with the same or more resolution plus a 16mm fisheye. So slight difference between fisheyes but WAY more coverage options with the D800 combo overall.)

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

So the question becomes, is 3" of length, 1" or 2" of height, and a couple of pounds worth the extra range, extra image quality, extra accessory and other options, and extra ergonomic advantages of the D800?

Click to expand...

And you won't be able to meet the range (12mm to 300mm) with that combination to begin with.

Click to expand...

Debunked above.

AcquiredTaste said:

Lighter and smaller will find more ways to accompany me than a bulkier system will, and that matters a lot more than negligible difference in IQ.

Click to expand...

That's fine. You're just giving up versatility to have that.

--
Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

Click to expand...

I hate redundancy and as I said in last thread, no need for duplication and creating more responses than necessary especially considering 149-response limit imposed by DPR. Please keep your responses consolidated.

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

Biggs23 wrote:

Alright, so out of curiosity I added the total weight in your bag and compared that with the total weight of a D800 with a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and an 16mm Nikon fisheye f/2.8 which covers every focal length you have.

The totals:

Your bag: 3769g = 8.309lbs

The FF combo: 3754g = 8.276lbs

Welp, guess the weight argument pretty much just went out the window, huh?

Click to expand...

The range being, 12mm to 300mm, with TWO camera bodies and never mind that the sole idea of my gear choice has to do with using mostly primes, not just solely covering a range. To simply cover an optical range, I could choose:

16-50mm f/2.8 SSM (575g)

50-150mm f/2.8 HSM (825g)

LA-EA2 (200g)

NEX body (300g)

Total: 1900g (4.2 lb)

Now...

D800-body: 900g

24-70 f/2.8: 900g

70-200 f/2.8: 1475g

Total: 3275g (7.2 lb)

But, more importantly, try fitting that all in a small sling bag.

Click to expand...

Right, and fair enough. However, that's not what you actually choose. Real world use isn't any lighter at all and covers far less range. Just trying to compare apples to apples in real world use.

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n).

Click to expand...

I was just comparing equal resolution of what I thought you used, which was the NEX6. With the NEX3 there's actually even more of a disparity.

EinsteinsGhost said:

I hate redundancy and as I said in last thread, no need for duplication and creating more responses than necessary especially considering 149-response limit imposed by DPR. Please keep your responses consolidated.

Click to expand...

I hate redundancy too, but it's not my place to tell others how to post so I'll refrain from telling you to avoid being redundant. I'll respond as I choose, you may do the same.

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951

Even if it is "most of the time" (and that's highly debatable) how is it an advantage to not be able to go more shallow with DOF as you can with full frame? There's nothing stopping you from stopping the lens down on full frame after all to get the same DOF as APS-C.

The FF advantage on shallower DOF is primarily at wide angles.

Click to expand...

No, it exists at all focal lengths. For any given field of view and aperture used, FF has an advantage when trying to minimize DOF. Smaller systems suffer even more at the extremes because there aren't as many high end lens choices there as there are for FF.

EinsteinsGhost said:

The following image has no value but only to demonstrate DOF, which is barely "a fly deep":

Click to expand...

You've demonstrated the one place where the add DOF of a smaller format can be an advantage: close up/macro photography. At a larger distance to subject, the more shallow DOF of FF can be very welcome.

EinsteinsGhost said:

And that is APS-C. The same lens on 35mm sensor will actually have a deeper DoF due to a wider FoV.

Click to expand...

Only if you didn't move any closer to keep the subject framing the same (in which case, assuming you were not limited by minimum focus distance, you'd have less DOF in the FF shot). If you cropped the FF file to match the APS-C image, you'd have the same DOF.

EinsteinsGhost said:

But yes, there is nothing stopping one down from stopping down. In fact, stopping down is pretty much needed under most circumstances. I almost never shoot with a fast lens wide open but on rare occasions (usually, lighting):

That is comparable to 50mm f/2.8 on FF.

Click to expand...

And you'd be out of luck if you wanted the equivalent of a 50mm f/1.4 on full frame.

EinsteinsGhost said:

And that takes us to another issue. Stopping down can sometimes necessitate higher ISO which would take away, most if not all, DR and noise advantage of FF.

Click to expand...

Yes, it most certainly does. But as I also pointed out, not all lenses are f/1.X or even close. An f/4 zoom on FF is the equivalent of an f/2.7 zoom on APS-C. If you often shoot that APS-C zoom wide open, you could have much more range (reference typical APS-C f/2.8 zooms that range from 16-50 or similar and FF f/4 zooms that go from 24-120) at the same quality (actually a little better depending on the camera being compared).

EinsteinsGhost said:

Personally, I find APS-C as the best compromise between larger and smaller sensors. That is not to say that I don't see a point to FF.

Click to expand...

When you state it that way, there's nothing to argue about

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

Alright, so out of curiosity I added the total weight in your bag and compared that with the total weight of a D800 with a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and an 16mm Nikon fisheye f/2.8 which covers every focal length you have.

The totals:

Your bag: 3769g = 8.309lbs

The FF combo: 3754g = 8.276lbs

Welp, guess the weight argument pretty much just went out the window, huh?

Click to expand...

The range being, 12mm to 300mm, with TWO camera bodies and never mind that the sole idea of my gear choice has to do with using mostly primes, not just solely covering a range. To simply cover an optical range, I could choose:

16-50mm f/2.8 SSM (575g)

50-150mm f/2.8 HSM (825g)

LA-EA2 (200g)

NEX body (300g)

Total: 1900g (4.2 lb)

Now...

D800-body: 900g

24-70 f/2.8: 900g

70-200 f/2.8: 1475g

Total: 3275g (7.2 lb)

But, more importantly, try fitting that all in a small sling bag.

Click to expand...

Right, and fair enough. However, that's not what you actually choose. Real world use isn't any lighter at all and covers far less range. Just trying to compare apples to apples in real world use.

Click to expand...

I can choose ANY combination for an occasion I want. It could be a 370g combination for a casual walk around (NEX with 20mm f/2.8 pancake). I pick my lens(es) for any occasion based on specific needs rather than simply to cover a range.

From the redundant response:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n).

Click to expand...

I was just comparing equal resolution of what I thought you used, which was the NEX6. With the NEX3 there's actually even more of a disparity.

Did you read what I said (now bolded above). At 14-16MP, I think my needs for resolution are easily met. I won't mind more, but I try to be able to appreciate the value of need versus want. After all, Nikon D4 does just fine with "only" 16 MP.

My preference goes to optical reach first.

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response wall just as I felt the obligation to respond to some interesting views, such as this gem from Mike CH:

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

Could you do me a favor? Could you measure the length of the body with that lens attached and report back with the total length?

Click to expand...

And what exactly do you wish to accomplish with it? Trying to convince me that I could carry the same amount of gear in my sling bag with a FF body and lenses to match?

Click to expand...

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. I'm genuinely curious to see how much smaller it is than my setup.

Click to expand...

Trying to convince me with the arguments you make will be impossible. So, don't even bring it up. Now, here's to your curiosity:

Click to expand...

You did notice, didn't you, that the parties trying to do the convincing here are the small form factor proponents? As in the title of the thread?

Do you act this way because the small-is-beautiful argument isn't winning any points with people who don't like small?

Regards, Mike

Wait and see...

Dear Mike,

Your response is rather amusing for the very fact that it questions my ability to "notice" something when it is you who is taking presented facts (in this case, measurements as I asked by the person responded to) and deflecting from it.

Click to expand...

I was, as is absolutely clear from the quote above, solely responding to your twice saying that there is no sense in trying to convince you since there is no argument that can convince you - in response to a query for information!

I was also pointing out, that in regard to convincing - which you went on about twice - the OP actually started this thread in attempt to convince people that the death of FF was imminent.

So if pointing out that a) you didn't quite know what you yourself was writing and b) that you had mistaken who was trying to convince whom is a gem, why then I can only say: thank you very much, glad to be of service!

Oh, and in regard to the size of your equipment: No, I was not trying to divert the discussion. I simply have absolutely NO INTEREST in the size of YOUR equipment. That is the reason why I didn't bother with that part. You are the one obsessing about size.

Regards, Mike

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

Biggs23 wrote:

Right, and fair enough. However, that's not what you actually choose. Real world use isn't any lighter at all and covers far less range. Just trying to compare apples to apples in real world use.

Click to expand...

I can choose ANY combination for an occasion I want. It could be a 370g combination for a casual walk around (NEX with 20mm f/2.8 pancake). I pick my lens(es) for any occasion based on specific needs rather than simply to cover a range.

Click to expand...

Which can also be done with FF as well.

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n). Did you read what I said (now bolded above). At 14-16MP, I think my needs for resolution are easily met. I won't mind more, but I try to be able to appreciate the value of need versus want. After all, Nikon D4 does just fine with "only" 16 MP. My preference goes to optical reach first.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not saying they are not, I'm only saying that in terms of equivalent optical reach the combination I suggested is far superior. My preference is to compare apples to apples.

joejack951 said:

joejack951 wrote:

joejack951 said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951

Even if it is "most of the time" (and that's highly debatable) how is it an advantage to not be able to go more shallow with DOF as you can with full frame? There's nothing stopping you from stopping the lens down on full frame after all to get the same DOF as APS-C.

The FF advantage on shallower DOF is primarily at wide angles.

Click to expand...

No, it exists at all focal lengths. For any given field of view and aperture used, FF has an advantage when trying to minimize DOF. Smaller systems suffer even more at the extremes because there aren't as many high end lens choices there as there are for FF.

Click to expand...

With APS-C sensor, and faster lenses, I usually end up ensuring proper DoF while maintaining a good isolation. That is the beauty of being able to control DoF.

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

The following image has no value but only to demonstrate DOF, which is barely "a fly deep":

Click to expand...

You've demonstrated the one place where the add DOF of a smaller format can be an advantage: close up/macro photography. At a larger distance to subject, the more shallow DOF of FF can be very welcome.

Click to expand...

You do realize the point I made, that the same lens on FF would have a deeper DoF at the same distance, no?

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

And that is APS-C. The same lens on 35mm sensor will actually have a deeper DoF due to a wider FoV.

Click to expand...

Only if you didn't move any closer to keep the subject framing the same (in which case, assuming you were not limited by minimum focus distance, you'd have less DOF in the FF shot). If you cropped the FF file to match the APS-C image, you'd have the same DOF.

Click to expand...

You would have to move closer with FF (if the lens' minimum focusing distance allows) to get the same framing and DoF in that case.

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

But yes, there is nothing stopping one down from stopping down. In fact, stopping down is pretty much needed under most circumstances. I almost never shoot with a fast lens wide open but on rare occasions (usually, lighting):

That is comparable to 50mm f/2.8 on FF.

Click to expand...

And you'd be s*** out of luck if you wanted the equivalent of a 50mm f/1.4 on full frame.

Click to expand...

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?

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

And that takes us to another issue. Stopping down can sometimes necessitate higher ISO which would take away, most if not all, DR and noise advantage of FF.

Click to expand...

Yes, it most certainly does. But as I also pointed out, not all lenses are f/1.X or even close. An f/4 zoom on FF is the equivalent of an f/2.7 zoom on APS-C. If you often shoot that APS-C zoom wide open, you could have much more range (reference typical APS-C f/2.8 zooms that range from 16-50 or similar and FF f/4 zooms that go from 24-120) at the same quality (actually a little better depending on the camera being compared).

Click to expand...

If you get sufficient DoF at f/1.x, you won't need to stop down. This happens with smaller sensors or shorter focal lengths (as in the illustration above). With APS-C, it is not uncommon for me having to stop down to f/4 or so, to get enough DoF. Do you always have to shoot wide open at f/1.x to get sufficient DoF?

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

Personally, I find APS-C as the best compromise between larger and smaller sensors. That is not to say that I don't see a point to FF.

Click to expand...

When you state it that way, there's nothing to argue about

Click to expand...

Mike CH said:

Mike CH wrote:

Mike CH said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response wall just as I felt the obligation to respond to some interesting views, such as this gem from Mike CH:

Mike CH said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Mike CH said:

Biggs23 wrote:

Mike CH said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Mike CH said:

Could you do me a favor? Could you measure the length of the body with that lens attached and report back with the total length?

Click to expand...

And what exactly do you wish to accomplish with it? Trying to convince me that I could carry the same amount of gear in my sling bag with a FF body and lenses to match?

Click to expand...

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. I'm genuinely curious to see how much smaller it is than my setup.

Click to expand...

Trying to convince me with the arguments you make will be impossible. So, don't even bring it up. Now, here's to your curiosity:

Click to expand...

You did notice, didn't you, that the parties trying to do the convincing here are the small form factor proponents? As in the title of the thread?

Do you act this way because the small-is-beautiful argument isn't winning any points with people who don't like small?

Regards, Mike

Wait and see...

Dear Mike,

Your response is rather amusing for the very fact that it questions my ability to "notice" something when it is you who is taking presented facts (in this case, measurements as I asked by the person responded to) and deflecting from it.

Click to expand...

I was, as is absolutely clear from the quote above, solely responding to your twice saying that there is no sense in trying to convince you since there is no argument that can convince you - in response to a query for information!

Click to expand...

Obviously, you didn't notice that you were responding to my post with facts (measurements).

Mike CH said:

I was also pointing out, that in regard to convincing - which you went on about twice - the OP actually started this thread in attempt to convince people that the death of FF was imminent.

Click to expand...

I try to make my own points. You should too (and not assume that everybody is either speaking for the OP or against him/her).

Mike CH said:

So if pointing out that a) you didn't quite know what you yourself was writing and b) that you had mistaken who was trying to convince whom is a gem, why then I can only say: thank you very much, glad to be of service!

Click to expand...

Please NEVER volunteer for your services. This is a forum for discussion.

Mike CH said:

Oh, and in regard to the size of your equipment: No, I was not trying to divert the discussion. I simply have absolutely NO INTEREST in the size of YOUR equipment. That is the reason why I didn't bother with that part. You are the one obsessing about size.

Click to expand...

When you have no interest in something, try to stay out of it or deal with the consequences.

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

Right, and fair enough. However, that's not what you actually choose. Real world use isn't any lighter at all and covers far less range. Just trying to compare apples to apples in real world use.

Click to expand...

I can choose ANY combination for an occasion I want. It could be a 370g combination for a casual walk around (NEX with 20mm f/2.8 pancake). I pick my lens(es) for any occasion based on specific needs rather than simply to cover a range.

Click to expand...

Which can also be done with FF as well.

Click to expand...

Nope.

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n). Did you read what I said (now bolded above). At 14-16MP, I think my needs for resolution are easily met. I won't mind more, but I try to be able to appreciate the value of need versus want. After all, Nikon D4 does just fine with "only" 16 MP. My preference goes to optical reach first.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not saying they are not, I'm only saying that in terms of equivalent optical reach the combination I suggested is far superior. My preference is to compare apples to apples.

Click to expand...

200mm lens on FF does not have the optical equivalence of 200mm lens on APS-C. For that matter, cropping is not about optical equivalence.

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Lighter and smaller will find more ways to accompany me than a bulkier system will, and that matters a lot more than negligible difference in IQ. As for ergonomics, nope. You won't find me complaining when I can access virtually every control on an APS-C and almost always without having to take my eyes of the view finder.

Click to expand...

Key operative word in the above paragraph: 'me'.

I am happy for you. Seriously. You know what you want and like. And you have it. Good!

Now, can you find it in yourself to be happy for people who can say the same, but about a different size packaging?

Regards, Mike