Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

neil holmes · Apr 10, 2013

olliess said:
olliess wrote:

olliess said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

A) To increase the subject isolation while keeping the same subject-background distance

Hi

I accept that for some people, the ability to have smaller dof is an advantage.

For me, even on much smaller formats, with fast lenses dof is shallow enough for almost every situation.

olliess said:
B) To keep the same subject isolation while decreasing subject-background distanceSame

Same as above

olliess said:
C) To increase the exposure to reduce noise

And here is actually and ADVANTAGE of smaller sensors in practical use for a lot of people.

Put a good fast lens on a smaller sensor and it remains a good fast lens...especially when a lens that gets the same angle of view is not made as fast for FF (think 85 1.2 ETC). You "lose" the ability to have dof thinner than it otherwise could (but still thin enough???) but you get to use lower isos/higher shutter speeds.

And if you want a bit more dof as well, well you can have that to...with FF you would have to stop down for the dof increase and lose the shutter speed....actually MORE of an advantage in the real world because I believe more photos are taken at fast f stops to get a lower iso/faster shutter speed than to get the super thin dof at FF (vs still thin enough for most dof on crop sensors with fast lenses).

olliess said:
D) To increase the shutter speed in case the subject suddenly jumps at the camera.

Same as above.

olliess said:
Do we need to continue?

As i have said before, I think the dof argument in favour of FF is over rated (and yes, many want it....including me) and for others the dof argument in FAVOUR of crop sensors is a bigger plus (including me).

IF all cameras of the same sensor size had the same pixel count, then these endless arguments might make more sense but since they are not and since technology keeps advancing....well it is just going to be light reading to pass time. People ar e using FF cameras from 6mp to ???, same with apsc and other formats.

To ME, having a variety of sensor sizes is great thing....more choice.

I just got a m4/3 (2 x crop) camera yesterday (cheap and could not resist) to use with particular lenses along with my Pentax Q (5.6 x crop) and when it comes will get a FF mirrorless as well for lenses like 50 1.2 and 85 1.2......and a few others to come.

vzlnc · Apr 10, 2013

AcquiredTaste said:
Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

Biggs23 wrote:

Again, you're avoiding the point.

Click to expand...

One doesn't do that by specifically asking for something on the subject. One does that, by ignoring that request (and worse, pointing the finger the other way).

Click to expand...

Agreed, but you're not asking about something on topic, you're asking for something irrelevant to the topic.

Click to expand...

Explain.

Click to expand...

I have, several times.

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

I find that if I equalize FoV than FF has less DoF.

Click to expand...

So, you agreed with me. You can equalize the FoV by using a 200mm lens on FF to match 135mm lens on APS-C.

Click to expand...

Not quite. Try again.

Click to expand...

Explain.

Click to expand...

I have, several times.

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

Definitionally, without additional context, 'need' actually is about life or death. Try again.

Click to expand...

Weird idea.

Click to expand...

Yeah, pesky reality. It really gets in the way sometimes.

Click to expand...

I didn't say weirdness and reality are mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

Now isn't that the truth!

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

Accept what you're asking for. In a previous thread you asked for an image that couldn't be created with a MILC and I provided one only to have you ignore it. Then you asked for proof that a FF could do something that a MILC couldn't and I provided it in video form, which you rejected only because I didn't actually take the video myself.

Click to expand...

Why exactly do you think that image can't be created with an MILC? Is it presence of a mirror that is doing that?

Ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Negative. It's not about the MILC technology, it's the fact that no MILC currently exists that is capable of creating it. Perhaps some day in the future that will change.

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

On the original topic, regarding FF's demise, I think its not going to happen anytime soon. Definitely not in the near future. Digital led to film's demise (though it exists as a niche) bcoz digital brought a completely new system and workflow to the photography world. The current new technologies in digital are mostly incremental and are not disruptive in the film vs digital scale. So new systems in the digital world are not likely to dethrone FF. Size and weight factors are there, but there are many people who dont mind the extra weight and size. Furthermore, FF is going through advances of its own. Now there are relatively cheap consumer level bodies which are lighter and smaller. Overall, except for the size and weight criteria, there is nothing other systems have which beat the FF.

Secondly, it depends on the market fads which are highly unpredictable. Cell phones went from large to small to large again. It depends on what gets perceived as cool or the in thing. DX foms the mail revenue getter for Canikon, but FF is their flagship, so there will always be a prestige associated with it and the best things will get implemented in FF before it gets trickled down. Nikon and Canon get a brand name from their highend FF bodies and lenses, so they will always maintain that. Consumers too tend to start out with humble cameras and keep on upgrading as their budget permits. When one sees the difference the sensor size makes to the pictures, its tempting to get the biggest one within their budget.

olliess · Apr 10, 2013

Member said:
Erik Magnuson wrote:

So what if light shines on the sensor? If using a lens with a larger image circle, light shines on parts of the mount throat outside of the image area as well. If the sensor only reads out the subset of pixels that form the final output image size, what light falls elsewhere is rather unimportant as long as it's not reflected into the image area.

Some of the practical differences between case #2 and case #3 are:
[...]
For all of these, it's quite unimportant if the masking is physical or electronic.

I think that's what I've been saying all along.

Erik Magnuson · Apr 10, 2013

Member said:
neil holmes wrote:

Member said:

C) To increase the exposure to reduce noise

Click to expand...

And here is actually and ADVANTAGE of smaller sensors in practical use for a lot of people.

Put a good fast lens on a smaller sensor and it remains a good fast lens...especially when a lens that gets the same angle of view is not made as fast for FF (think 85 1.2 ETC). You "lose" the ability to have dof thinner than it otherwise could (but still thin enough???) but you get to use lower isos/higher shutter speeds.

You are not thinking this through - you can get the same DOF/shutter speed/noise by stopping down the fast lens on FF but increasing the ISO.

Member said:
And if you want a bit more dof as well, well you can have that to...with FF you would have to stop down for the dof increase and lose the shutter speed

Simply increase the ISO - FF sensors typically have less noise (for the same brand/generation of camera.)

Member said:
As i have said before, I think the dof argument in favour of FF is over rated (and yes, many want it....including me) and for others the dof argument in FAVOUR of crop sensors is a bigger plus (including me).

Unfortunately, there is no real DOF argument in favor is crop sensors (see above.) There is often a size/weight advantage and the DOF disadvantage may not be something you need often, but otherwise FF offers more versatility - particularly when it comes to lens choices.

--
Erik

joejack951 · Apr 10, 2013

Member said:
Erik Magnuson wrote:

Member said:

And if you want a bit more dof as well, well you can have that to...with FF you would have to stop down for the dof increase and lose the shutter speed

Click to expand...

Simply increase the ISO - FF sensors typically have less noise (for the same brand/generation of camera.)

For similar generation cameras, it's more than a stop difference meaning you can have the same image with (slightly to much) less noise on FF. The D3S is at least two (maybe 3) stops better than the same generation D300S that I also own.

neil holmes · Apr 10, 2013

Member said:
Erik Magnuson wrote:

Member said:

neil holmes wrote:

Member said:

C) To increase the exposure to reduce noise

Click to expand...

And here is actually and ADVANTAGE of smaller sensors in practical use for a lot of people.

Put a good fast lens on a smaller sensor and it remains a good fast lens...especially when a lens that gets the same angle of view is not made as fast for FF (think 85 1.2 ETC). You "lose" the ability to have dof thinner than it otherwise could (but still thin enough???) but you get to use lower isos/higher shutter speeds.

Click to expand...

You are not thinking this through - you can get the same DOF/shutter speed/noise by stopping down the fast lens on FF but increasing the ISO.

Hi

You are right, to a point...depends on the camera...6mp kodak FF? (the other part of my argument that it depends on the camera not sensor size).

Put it this way, on my Q that 85 is gives a 480mm angle of view....with 1.2 shutter speed and while the Q might not be a great camera at iso 6400 it does not have to be. For MORE money, I could buy a lens that would give me aprox 480mm on FF but I would be at 5.6 at best. That DOF would still be shallower than the 85 1.2 on the Q I think but so what, the Q is still shallow enough for subject isolation easily wide open especially (or stopped down a little) Also, it still focuses down to 3 feet and the FF lens would not focus anywhere near as close.....At 5.6 and iso 6400 and 1/50 on the FF, I can be at 1.4, iso 1600 and 1/100.

1/50 at 480mm and you wanna be on a tripod or drugs. The much smaller 85 on the Q can easily be hand held at 1/100 (and is stabilized as well (if I could be bothered yet to get the firmware update).

Of course a FF and 400 2.8/500 f4 or 300mm 2.8 on apsc will be much better IQ but again, at a huge cost and size and in a lot of situation not useable when the Q with 85 can be.

And of course I COULD put that 400 2.8 on the Q....

Member said:
Member said:

And if you want a bit more dof as well, well you can have that to...with FF you would have to stop down for the dof increase and lose the shutter speed

Click to expand...

Simply increase the ISO - FF sensors typically have less noise (for the same brand/generation of camera.)

Yes, but most people do not buy the lastest camera when it comes out....and sensors in smaller cameras are good ENOUGH these days.....even my Q with tiny P&S (but good one) sensor is better to me than film was for shooting concerts.

Member said:
Member said:

As i have said before, I think the dof argument in favour of FF is over rated (and yes, many want it....including me) and for others the dof argument in FAVOUR of crop sensors is a bigger plus (including me).

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there is no real DOF argument in favor is crop sensors (see above.) There is often a size/weight advantage and the DOF disadvantage may not be something you need often, but otherwise FF offers more versatility - particularly when it comes to lens choices.

I disagree, being able to use a faster shutter speed is something that i would rather any day over a slight deepening of Dof.

And the size thing IS A HUGE plus for smaller caameras....i want all though....three cameras (differnt formats), three lenses (to fit all might be what I end up with

Gotta go to work....

Member said:
--
Erik

neil holmes · Apr 10, 2013

Sorry in a hurry,

With FF 480mm 5.6 and 1/50 you would be at iso 12800 not 6400 while I am at iso 1600 1.4 and 1/100 with the Q and 85 1.2 ....plus I still have another half a stop to use.

NJHr · Apr 10, 2013

Funny you mention the Q as many of the earlier posts on the FF is dead side seemed to be coming from m4/3 and APS-c users. I was a fan and user of 4/3 and m4/3 but in all honesty I think the future will split more towards FF and the smaller sensors such as in the Q and the Nikon 1 for many reasons already debated to death. My own camera buying reflects this split, I bought a secondhand Leica M8 and gradually will be buying more Zeiss/CV glass whilst also looking at either the SX50 or the FZ200 for telephoto stuff. When the M9 eventually drops in price like the M8 did I will buy one of those or a Sony Nex 9 or whatever for my compact FF system, the next gen SX50/FZ200 at the other end will likely have DR and high ISO as good as many APS-C and M4/3 cameras. Therefore to my mind this thread and the other one should really have been a APS-c and m4/3 will die debate as logically there are far more reasons to believe those systems have less of a future than FF and the really small sensors.

Erik Magnuson · Apr 10, 2013

Member said:
neil holmes wrote:

Member said:

You are right, to a point...depends on the camera...6mp kodak FF?

Click to expand...

You'd compare that to something like a Canon D30 of similar vintage.

Member said:
Put it this way, on my Q that 85 is gives a 480mm angle of view....with 1.2 shutter speed and while the Q might not be a great camera at iso 6400 it does not have to be. For MORE money, I could buy a lens that would give me aprox 480mm on FF but I would be at 5.6 at best.

Still not thinking it through. You can use the same "factor" for both aperture and shutter speed, so you'd be trying to match a 480mm f/5.6 lens. The Canon 400mm f/5.6 is $1400 while the 85 f/1.2 is $2200.

Member said:
That DOF would still be shallower than the 85 1.2 on the Q I think but so what, the Q is still shallow enough for subject isolation easily wide open especially (or stopped down a little)

They'd be similar.

Member said:
Also, it still focuses down to 3 feet and the FF lens would not focus anywhere near as close

That's what extension tubes are for. Still cheaper.

Member said:
.....At 5.6 and iso 6400 and 1/50 on the FF, I can be at 1.4, iso 1600 and 1/100.

Or you could be at ISO 12800 and 1/100. There is no Pentax Q in the DP comparison tool, but pick the best 1/2.3" sensor and compare the FF ISO 12800 (or 25600) results vs small sensor ISO 1600. No contest even excluding resizing.

Member said:
1/50 at 480mm and you wanna be on a tripod or drugs. The much smaller 85 on the Q can easily be hand held at 1/100

The angle of view is the same for both lenses so handshake is similar. (Actually, I'd bet the FF combo would be more stable as the body to lens size would be a better match.) You also have the option of an OS lens (i.e. a Sigma xx-500mm OS). IS/OS in the lens works a lot better than sensor shake at this magnification.

Member said:
Yes, but most people do not buy the lastest camera when it comes out....

That applies to both the large and small sensor cameras. You can pick any year you like as long as both cameras are new for that year.

Member said:
and sensors in smaller cameras are good ENOUGH these days.

If it's good enough for you, that's great. But it's not good enough for everyone. You can't use the Q to get what I can using FF and a 70-200mm f/2.8 for background isolation:

Model: Ann

Member said:
I disagree, being able to use a faster shutter speed is something that i would rather any day over a slight deepening of Dof.

Alas, it doesn't work that way. Use the DPR tool to compare sensor output and you'll see that FF high ISO will more than match the shutter speed for the same quality.

Member said:
And the size thing IS A HUGE plus for smaller caameras....i want all though....three cameras (differnt formats), three lenses (to fit all might be what I end up with

Sure, different size vs. capability tradeoffs are nice to have. But there are reasons so many choose FF when the output flexibility is most important.

--
Erik

joejack951 · Apr 10, 2013

Member said:
Erik Magnuson wrote:

Member said:

neil holmes wrote:

Click to expand...

Member said:

Put it this way, on my Q that 85 is gives a 480mm angle of view....with 1.2 shutter speed and while the Q might not be a great camera at iso 6400 it does not have to be. For MORE money, I could buy a lens that would give me aprox 480mm on FF but I would be at 5.6 at best.

Click to expand...

Still not thinking it through. You can use the same "factor" for both aperture and shutter speed, so you'd be trying to match a 480mm f/5.6 lens. The Canon 400mm f/5.6 is $1400 while the 85 f/1.2 is $2200.

And the Canon 400mm f/5.6 will AF quite nicely on a Canon FF DSLR (assumption never having used one but I've never read anything to the contrary) unlike a Canon 85mm f/1.2 on a Pentax Q which will be strictly manual focus. Can the Q even adjust the aperture on the Canon lens?

Furthermore, the output from the 400mm f/5.6 is certainly going to look better next to the extreme center crop the Q uses from the 85mm f/1.2 (which as far as I know is not a lens renowned for its sharpness wide open).

Josh152 · Apr 10, 2013

Sorry but I got to say all these threads seem like you have some kind of insecurity regarding how your NEX/APS-C/mirror-less in general compares with a FF DSLR. I can't think of any other reason you would be making thread after pointless thread trying to convince everyone APS-C/mirror-less cameras are as good or even better than full frame DSLRs. Look if your NEX is the perfect camera for you GREAT! Be happy and use it instead of trying to convince everyone on DPR (or maybe you are just trying to convince yourself) that it doesn't have any disadvantages when compared to a Full frame DSLR.

EinsteinsGhost · Apr 10, 2013

joejack951 said:
joejack951 wrote:

joejack951 said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 said:

joejack951 wrote:

Yes it is, and you get even more control with FF. Try matching a 24mm f/1.4 on FF (a combination that even wide open has a good amount of DOF) with a crop camera.

Click to expand...

Provide me with a photograph you've taken with such combination so we have something to work with.

Click to expand...

I don't own a 24/1.4 so can't satisfy you there. But here's a 35/1.4:

Well thank you. Now, why do you think an f/1 would be necessary on an APS-C for the same?

joejack951 said:
joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

Uncropped, yes. Cropped to the same framing, they'd be identical. Moving closer with the FF camera to match the APS-C framing, it would be more shallow.

Click to expand...

So, to match or beat an APS-C DoF achieved optically, you'd have to digitally crop the image out of FF, right?

Click to expand...

You are confused. I can take pictures identical (save for being lower MP) images to APS-C cameras with my D3S by using the APS-C crop mode. Shooting with the full sensor, I can have the same subject framing with the same lens but at a closer distance yielding less DOF.

I can't blame you for not being able to keep up with my post, but I've mentioned that a couple of times (crop mode in FF cameras). In fact, it was one of three cases I've presented.

joejack951 said:
joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

You are confused. Everything held equal, cropping a FF file to an APS-C file's framing yields the same DOF. As soon as you start moving closer with the FF camera (and cropping less up to the point where no crop is needed), the FF shot will have less DOF. Go try for yourself at www.dofmaster.com

Click to expand...

The only confusion there is about you not being able to differentiate between digital cropping (FF file) versus optical results out of APS-C.

Click to expand...

There is no difference other than the MP of the captured image. You are confusing simple cropping with the "digital zoom" feature some cameras have which extrapolates the cropped images back to the original number of MP.

You're confused. The argument is between getting results optically (using a 400mm lens for 400mm FoV) versus cropping a 100mm lens to achieve 400mm FoV in post processing.

joejack951 said:
joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

Is this a serious question?

Click to expand...

Yes. What would you use 50mm f/1.4 on FF for a similar situation? Would it be to lessen the isolation effect, or to improve it? For that matter, do you always shoot wide open?

Click to expand...

This has been answered by others. No, I don't always shoot wide open but I do sometimes shoot wide open, especially with zoom lenses.

At f/1.4? That is where we were at.

joejack951 said:
joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

There are times when wide open at f/1,4 on full frame (or wide open at f/2.8 or f/4 depending on the lens) that I wish I had less DOF, or am happy with the amount I have. Using an APS-C camera would then mean that I'd have more DOF than I desired.

Click to expand...

Give me an example.

Click to expand...

I like the DOF in the image posted above.

It is good, but it could use a slightly deeper DoF for better isolation unless you wanted a part of the subject to blend into the background. Was that the idea?

joejack951 said:
joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

Why is it so hard for you to understand that, as perfectly illustrated above with your pictures and question about necessity of a 50mm f/1.4, just because you are happy with your APS-C results doesn't mean that everyone else has to be?

Click to expand...

This isn't about trying to make you happy, or sad. This is about discussing pros and cons of systems.

Click to expand...

Your continued posts to these threads are all about trying to get others to be happy with what you've settled on, or at least that's the impression I get. You seem to want to ignore any "pro" listed for full frame and deny any of the cons of crop cameras.

Perhaps making some of you very unhappy.

neil holmes · Apr 10, 2013

Member said:
Erik Magnuson wrote:

Member said:

neil holmes wrote:

Member said:

You are right, to a point...depends on the camera...6mp kodak FF?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You'd compare that to something like a Canon D30 of similar vintage.

Member said:

Put it this way, on my Q that 85 is gives a 480mm angle of view....with 1.2 shutter speed and while the Q might not be a great camera at iso 6400 it does not have to be. For MORE money, I could buy a lens that would give me aprox 480mm on FF but I would be at 5.6 at best.

Click to expand...

Still not thinking it through. You can use the same "factor" for both aperture and shutter speed, so you'd be trying to match a 480mm f/5.6 lens. The Canon 400mm f/5.6 is $1400 while the 85 f/1.2 is $2200.

Sorry, the EF 85 1.2L 11 is but MINE that i USE on the Q is a 85 1.2 FD L that cost $800....and your still 80mm short or $600 more.

Member said:
Member said:

That DOF would still be shallower than the 85 1.2 on the Q I think but so what, the Q is still shallow enough for subject isolation easily wide open especially (or stopped down a little)

Click to expand...

They'd be similar.

Exactly.

Member said:
Member said:

Also, it still focuses down to 3 feet and the FF lens would not focus anywhere near as close

Click to expand...

That's what extension tubes are for. Still cheaper.

Not for me.

Member said:
Member said:

.....At 5.6 and iso 6400 and 1/50 on the FF, I can be at 1.4, iso 1600 and 1/100.

Click to expand...

Or you could be at ISO 12800 and 1/100. There is no Pentax Q in the DP comparison tool, but pick the best 1/2.3" sensor and compare the FF ISO 12800 (or 25600) results vs small sensor ISO 1600. No contest even excluding resizing.

I corrected my error, to get 1/100 with that FF in that example you would be at iso 25600 not 12800 and it would still not be hand holdable for many at that shutter speed....now you are at iso 51200 and 1/200....still not safe for a lot. The Q is quite ok at iso 1600 and I would go higher if i needed to. The other part of my argument is that it is a camera by camera case....a lot of FF cameras do well at high iso, some less so.

Member said:
Member said:

1/50 at 480mm and you wanna be on a tripod or drugs. The much smaller 85 on the Q can easily be hand held at 1/100

Click to expand...

The angle of view is the same for both lenses so handshake is similar. (Actually, I'd bet the FF combo would be more stable as the body to lens size would be a better match.) You also have the option of an OS lens (i.e. a Sigma xx-500mm OS). IS/OS in the lens works a lot better than sensor shake at this magnification.

The Canon 85 1.2L on my Q (without stabilzation yet...must get it) is easier to hand hold than my FF 300 2.8 on an apsc camera WITH stabilization...and that is not taking anything away from the 300 2.8.....just a nice short(er) lens....others may well differ.

Member said:
Member said:

Yes, but most people do not buy the lastest camera when it comes out....

Click to expand...

That applies to both the large and small sensor cameras. You can pick any year you like as long as both cameras are new for that year.

Yes, part of my argument why the whole thing is silly....I am not intersted in EXACTLY the same photo from any particular sensor but getting a photo I am happy with.

Member said:
Member said:

and sensors in smaller cameras are good ENOUGH these days.

Click to expand...

If it's good enough for you, that's great. But it's not good enough for everyone. You can't use the Q to get what I can using FF and a 70-200mm f/2.8 for background isolation:

Model: Ann

Very Nice.

Actually the 85 on the Q does isolate quite well....and i want a FF MIRRORLESS to use my 85 1.2 on BUT I also want to use it on the Q as a fast tele lens that still does portraits (with a bit of room to move) AND on the E-pl2 I got yesterday...should be great for that.

Member said:
Member said:

I disagree, being able to use a faster shutter speed is something that i would rather any day over a slight deepening of Dof.

Click to expand...

Alas, it doesn't work that way. Use the DPR tool to compare sensor output and you'll see that FF high ISO will more than match the shutter speed for the same quality.

Not seeing it.....again varies camera to camera.

Member said:
Member said:

And the size thing IS A HUGE plus for smaller caameras....i want all though....three cameras (differnt formats), three lenses (to fit all might be what I end up with

Click to expand...

Sure, different size vs. capability tradeoffs are nice to have. But there are reasons so many choose FF when the output flexibility is most important.

I will choose FF when it suits but I will also choose any other format that suits too....to ME, there are more advantages currently to crop sensors....that does not mean IQ is better (of course its not) and FF is ceratainly far from dead.

Member said:
--
Erik

EinsteinsGhost · Apr 10, 2013

AcquiredTaste said:
Biggs23 wrote:

AcquiredTaste said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I ask for illustrations because talk is cheap.

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

Provide me with a photograph you've taken with such combination so we have something to work with.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Let's make a deal. You're looking for illustrations and examples, so am I. How about you post an image that YOU took that could not have been taken with a current FF camera.

You're an endless supply of weird arguments. But, there are plenty of situations when I would not bother to even carry my camera if I had to deal with the bulk. You see, there is more to making these choices than simply trying to prove something.

AcquiredTaste said:
In turn I will then post an image that no current MILC could take.

That too is funny. But go for it anyway.

EinsteinsGhost · Apr 10, 2013

olliess said:
olliess wrote:

olliess said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

olliess said:

olliess wrote:

Supposing you really want to argue about this, do you think that no light shines on the FF sensor outside of the APS-C frame when DX crop mode is activated? Even allowing for a dedicated DX lens?

Click to expand...

Image circle needs to be larger than the sensor. But that is completely irrelevant to the issue. If you want to consider the entire circle, you could but what do you expect out of it?

Click to expand...

So why are you arguing about this?

I would rather not but you dragged the argument into it.

olliess said:
olliess said:

olliess said:

Two obvious cases come to mind: 1) you don't have a longer lens with you, and 2) you get to make the final decision later.

Click to expand...

You can do this anyway, and as addressing a need. Obviously you realize that it isn't ideal. No?

Click to expand...

You asked why anybody would use "digital" cropping instead of what you call "optical" cropping (either in the lens or at the sensor). I asked what's the difference, and rather than answering, you moved on to the question of why anybody would use digital cropping instead of just using a longer FL lens. I answered that too, and now you're telling me it isn't ideal. Ideal for what?

No, I specifically asked, would you prefer cropping over optical reach?

olliess said:
olliess said:

Objective analysis requires a demonstration of facts. By claiming "you need larger aperture you are able to increase subject isolation" isn't that but simply theoretical (and worse, only a part of it). You can see it for yourself by asking self a very simple question: "Do I get the best isolation at all times by keeping aperture wide open?"

Click to expand...

A fast-aperture lens can allow you to achieve a greater subject-background isolation than a narrower aperture, given a fixed subject-background distance. A fast-aperture lens also allows more light to reach the sensor when shutter speed is held fixed. As a side benefit, the fast aperture lens may give some advantage in low-light focusing. These are pretty well-known basics facts about wider vs. narrower apertures; is a "demonstration" really needed in these forums?

More of the same. Yes, we all know that to apply. What you're not getting is that by going too shallow, you may actually end up blending the subject more than you manage to isolate it. This is why you're very likely to stop down. Heck, even on my APS-C, at 50mm, I end up using f/4 simply for the purpose of getting my subject properly in focus.

olliess said:
olliess said:

You will realize that the answer is not as cut and dry. You may end up making a part of the subject blend with the surroundings (too shallow DoF). Recognizing that aspect is being objective.

Click to expand...

I gave a list of objective things that could be accomplished using a faster aperture, without any subjective judgment about whether it is "best" or not to use the faster aperture in any given case.

That is irrelevant, as your argument applies to all sensor sizes. This is why I expect a more objective, more specific response than a generic one. One more time, do you always shoot with lens wide open? If not, why not?

olliess said:
olliess said:

It is true that you can go one way but not the other. The issue I've pointed at, however, has to do with the practical side of it. I can see an insignificant advantage but larger cost and size of going with larger aperture, but if that is the thread you want to hang your hat on, for FF sensor, well, you have that choice.

Click to expand...

But even this is not always the case. The Sony 35mm f/1.8 E-mount lens is about 6mm shorter than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G, but sells for more than twice the price, despite the fact that the Nikkor provides more than 1 stop advantage in light gathering and DOF control.

I have a Sony 35mm f/1.8 purchased for $165. So, you would rather discuss pricing now? Or, should I try to learn from you that pricing of a lens is determined by its length etc?

olliess said:
olliess said:

I don't see a point to it. Or, perhaps you can show me what is it about these yet shallower DoF at wide angles that is dictating the need to spend several times more.

Click to expand...

The classic use for fast wide angles is, to my knowledge, to get the low-light advantages. I can't imagine most people choosing a 24/1.4 to get isolation (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

Obviously, using such FL for DoF is rather amusing. But if you're going to talk about low light, why is it that it is people with FF who are complaining about it?

EinsteinsGhost · Apr 10, 2013

Josh152 said:
Josh152 wrote:

Sorry but I got to say all these threads seem like you have some kind of insecurity regarding how your NEX/APS-C/mirror-less in general compares with a FF DSLR. I can't think of any other reason you would be making thread after pointless thread trying to convince everyone APS-C/mirror-less cameras are as good or even better than full frame DSLRs. Look if your NEX is the perfect camera for you GREAT! Be happy and use it instead of trying to convince everyone on DPR (or maybe you are just trying to convince yourself) that it doesn't have any disadvantages when compared to a Full frame DSLR.

You've made your point in a "pointless thread" to the best of your capacity. Here's a point in presumably pointless thread... stay out of it if you can't handle it.

EinsteinsGhost · Apr 10, 2013

Mike CH said:
Mike CH wrote:

Mike CH said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Mike CH said:

Mike CH wrote:

Mike CH said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Click to expand...

Mike CH said:

Please do not waste real estate. If you have nothing to discuss, show up only to add "likes". You won't hear from me, unless you make a point that is logical and worthy of discussion.

Click to expand...

YOU start this whole new thread with a reference to a post of mine in the old thread.

When I respond to that, YOU complain about my responding.

And you think I'm illogical? Holy criminy!

Is your attention span always this short?

Regards, Mike

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

olliess · Apr 10, 2013

Member said:
neil holmes wrote:

Member said:

Member said:

.....At 5.6 and iso 6400 and 1/50 on the FF, I can be at 1.4, iso 1600 and 1/100.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:
[...]

Member said:
I corrected my error, to get 1/100 with that FF in that example you would be at iso 25600 not 12800 and it would still not be hand holdable for many at that shutter speed....now you are at iso 51200 and 1/200....still not safe for a lot. The Q is quite ok at iso 1600 and I would go higher if i needed to. The other part of my argument is that it is a camera by camera case....a lot of FF cameras do well at high iso, some less so.

Member said:

Member said:

The much smaller 85 on the Q can easily be hand held at 1/100

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The DxO scores suggest that ISO 1600 is about 3 stops past the expiration date for the Q (ISO 189), a similar situation to the Nikon D4/Canon 5DIII in the ISO 12800-25600 neighborhood, which is to say not very good. The 480 mm equivalent focal length with a relatively short lens and tiny body, no IS, at 1/100s... well you must have very steady hands compared to me.

So, I'm intrigued. If you don't mind, would you post some image samples from the Pentax Q at those settings?

Great Bustard · Apr 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost said:
EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost said:

olliess wrote:

Click to expand...

EinsteinsGhost said:

The classic use for fast wide angles is, to my knowledge, to get the low-light advantages. I can't imagine most people choosing a 24/1.4 to get isolation (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

Click to expand...

Obviously, using such FL for DoF is rather amusing.

Ah, here we go:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38116367

Especially given how many of those photos were not taken in low light, most definitely for "amusement" purposes only, of course. ;-)

EinsteinsGhost · Apr 10, 2013

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard said:

olliess wrote:

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

The classic use for fast wide angles is, to my knowledge, to get the low-light advantages. I can't imagine most people choosing a 24/1.4 to get isolation (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

Click to expand...

Obviously, using such FL for DoF is rather amusing.

Click to expand...

Ah, here we go:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38116367

Especially given how many of those photos were not taken in low light, most definitely for "amusement" purposes only, of course. ;-)

Nice shots, but do you believe the separation can't be achieved with a 24mm f/1.8 or f/2 on APS-C, much less more separation than that?

Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

neil holmes

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Senior Member

neil holmes

Guest

neil holmes

Guest

Well-known member

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Attachments

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

neil holmes

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts