-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full Frame Hysteria - a Reality Check (be happy with m43 - I am)
- Thread starter caver3d
- Start date
Moti
Veteran Member
I specialise in stage and concert photography, which naturally involves low light situation. So here are the problems. I need a minimum shutter speed of 1/100 to avoid motion blur, mainly of the players hands. I don't like to shoot over iso1600 even with my FF so I need to work with a fast lens wide open to get my speed. Thiscaddscanother problem. I also need deep DOF, because when I shoot an orchestra, I want everybody in focus. Add to it the fact that I like to shoot from a balcony at tha Bach, so my preferred focal length is 200-400mm most of the time and it is not easy to find a fast 400mm without paying a fortune.
Switching from FF to MFT solved my problem in an easy way. The IQ of my EM 5 isenough for me, I have a deeper DOF even with fast lenses, I'm using now a 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 which has no equivalent for mt in the FF world and if that is not fast enough, the 75mm 1.8, and all this without sacrificing the DOF I need.
Cheers,
Moti
Sure you are.
I got it but it does not remove the advantage. Go talk to any pro, anyone with knowledge, they will tell you having a lens that can do f1.2 is always an advantage. Have a camere that because of equivalence cannot come close is a disadvantage.
If you don't know this, you are very ignorant because it is fact.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about, does not make much sense to discuss it with you. I have already been warned in private chat so others already are the judge of you. I don't have to be.
Moti
Veteran Member
There would be no debate when you guys will finally understand that a camera is just a tool to produce photographs, and as such, the only valid argument is weather it meets the personal needs and preferences of the photographer and this cannot be debated.
So for me, most of these debates about the superiority of FF vs MFT or VV, without specifically taking into consideration in what situations these tools will be used, are nothind but useless mental masturbation.
Moti
Moti
Veteran Member
True, but sometimes there is more than one way to get these results, don't you think it is up to the photographer to decide about it?
I know, I'm a genius. Ask my mother.
Although macro is the classical case where you look for deep DOF and you can get some by stopping down to f/11 or more, my situation is completely different. For a big part of my work, I need deep DOF at f/2.8 or even less, which was not so easy to get with FF and as i mentioned, this was one of the reasons among others, to switch to MFT.
And btw, I used to shoot macro a lot in the past and I stopped. I'll probably come back to it one day.
Cheers
Moti
Martin.au
Forum Pro
Anders W
Forum Pro
That's just an assertion, not an argument, and why would anyone care about your opinion?
Using a lens that can do f/1.2 is an advantage only when you want as shallow DoF as such a lens can provide on FF. If you hardly ever want that, as the poster and I, it is a disadvantage, because the lens will be unnecessarily large and heavy.
As everyone can see for themselves, I know perfectly well what I am talking about whereas you don't. Clearly, you don't know how to counter the point I made when it comes to handling DoF in the field or you would have provided substantive arguments instead of insults.
Well, you have already been the judge of me and I am sure others are as well. People who share your predilections are likely to view me just as negatively as you are. I couldn't care less since you are not a person whose respect I value.
NancyP
Veteran Member
on wet plates. You too can have an 11 x 14 camera, details of movements not given, just go over to Ebay. No, I am not selling one. I was contemplating getting a 4" x 5" field view camera someday though. I always wanted to try one, ever since my 35mm film days.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Like I said, I think it would be a great thread to start in the Photographic Science and Technology Forum, and goes along very well with this thread that just filled up and is being continued here.
Anders W
Forum Pro
Seems like the matter is already debated there so there would be little reason to start a new one on the same/similar topic. But I might jump in if I find the time.
In the meantime, do you find any reason to doubt that what I say is true as a statistical generalization (which is all I am aiming for)? We don't have to go into the issue of whether Bob fit his curves right to determine that. The DxO DR curves (along with the figure for max SNR if we have any doubts with regard to QE) tells us everything we need to know, right?
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Interesting. This is the first I've heard of someone shooting concerts at 200mm - 400mm.
There are some FF lenses that are close, however, if 150mm on mFT would do it for you: the 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS (equivalent to a 35-150 / 2-2.8 on mFT) and the 100-300 / 4 (equivalent to a 50-150 / 2 on mFT, but no IS).
FF then offers the 135 / 2L, which is equivalent to a 67.5 / 1 on mFT, but, again, no IS.
None of this is to say, of course, that you "should" be using FF. Just saying that there are options there that cost about the same as the options you're using, even though they are not exactly equivalent.
Still, as I said, I've not heard before of concert photography being done in the 200-400mm range on FF. Interesting.
They are not threatened, because the confuse quantity with quality.
Size with pixel resolution.
The eye of a falcon with the eye of a pig.
Am.
RoelHendrickx
Forum Pro
You could also say that many of these BS threads proliferate because other format users are insecure: they need to talk and talk in order to justify to themselves the money they have spent on large heavy expensive cameras while they see so many nice photos here that are produced with the gear they consider inferior.
Like the guy in the rolls royce who keeps cruising around the parking lot where all those people with nice and nimble, sexy sports cars are having so much fun with their vehicles...
--
Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html
Who started the debate, talking down FF again. It is constant all the time.
How many times has this been gone over. Smaller formats have size and weight and in some cases lens price advantage. FF is superior in everything else.
Unless you need a smaller lighter system, there are no advantages of smaller formats. As far as mirrorless. There are no advantages, except perhaps a small size difference.
I would agree, because they know the quality of Canikon is better. Again they do not have to get into debates about it.
When someone tells me the smaller systems produce better images, is all you have to do is look at pictures of pros who use both systems. Anyone could figure it out, even a falcon or a pig. Canikon produce the best images. If that changes, then the other side will have an argument.
You could say that but it is not true. This thread is the perfect example, the other guys talking down FF yet again and again
I see those other systems, they are expensive and the glass is in many cases almost as expensive to buy, and you are getting less. I personally use APS-C, I don't have to bash FF. I know FF is better and I want to get one once prices come down. But I know my camera in the price range does what I want it to do so I don't spend time starting threads about how inferior FF is.
A FF is more like a larger American car that will smoke all the other smaller brands, it doesn't handle as well in the corners, but the power more than makes up for that deficiency on the track. They generally don't have to go racing the little cars because they know they have the fastest, quickest cars around. They are driven by the pros because that is the level of the car. It is always the little cars revving their engines all the time because they are insecure and feel the need to prove something. Just like this thread, revving the engine and talking down the FF systems.
They would care about it about as much as they care about yours.
The lens is not that heavy, it is relative. The lens is sharper, if you shoot a F1.2 lens and F1.4, it will be much sharper than a lens that starts at f1.4 because for that lens F1.4 is wide open and has the poorest quality, as you stop down, it gets better. So you would buy a F1.2 lens for sharper images.
That is true. Pro's see it, Advanced amateurs see it, everyone sees it except the little guys who feel the need to bash FF because they are insecure because they have a small format.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Again, it depends on the results you're after. However, let's be honest about it -- how many photos taken at f/1.4 would have been "less successful" at f/2.8? How many photos taken at ISO 400 would have been "less successful" at ISO 1600? How many photos taken with 36 MP would be "less successful" if they were captured with 16 MP? I'm not saying that they would look the same, but asking how often the difference would result in the photo becoming "less successful".
I'm sure there are some, though probably more common that a photo taken at ISO 12800 is "less successful" than a photo taken at ISO 3200 than the 400 - 1600 pairing, for example. And, sure, for people that are usually operating at these fringes, it does make a significant difference. But for 99% of the people 99% of the time, does it really?
Of course, as I have said many times before, if such a thing were true, then you could apply it to smaller formats still. For example, how many would not be served just as well, if not better, even, by the RX100 and/or FZ200 than mFT? Hell, I see some people producing better pics with a freakin' phone cam than I do with a FF DSLR and fast primes.
In other words, everything one says about mFT vs FF can also be said about mFT vs 1", and on down the line.
On the other hand, it's not always so simple to instead stand back further with mFT and use 75mm f/1.8 rather than a closer shot at 85mm f/1.8 on FF, and get a pic that is "just as good" or "better".
I confess that it didn't occur to me that people would be shooting concerts at f/2.8 in low light in the 100mm - 200mm range (200mm - 400mm on FF).
You don't "need deep DOF at f/2.8 or even less" -- you need as deep a DOF as you can get within the constraints of motion blur and noise. And while a Canon 6D + 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS comes close to being equivalent to an EM5 + 50-200 / 2.8-3.5, the mFT system is smaller, lighter, and less expensive, so it's the better choice for that particular task. Likewise, an FZ200 might suit some better than an EM5 + 100-300 / 4-5.6 for birding.
Last edited:
Martin.au
Forum Pro
Now remember guys. Richard claims he has no issue with M4/3s and merely responds with his vacuous BS when he sees these threads in the sidebar.
As the above demonstrate, Richard does actually have quite a track record of slagging off things that aren't part of his "in-group".
Don't think for a second that you can change his mind, or reason with him. His arguments are generally not based on any logical chain, or objective comparison, but are filtered through whether you're on his "side" or not. It's unreasoned, dogmatic rubbish.
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
As the above demonstrate, Richard does actually have quite a track record of slagging off things that aren't part of his "in-group".
Don't think for a second that you can change his mind, or reason with him. His arguments are generally not based on any logical chain, or objective comparison, but are filtered through whether you're on his "side" or not. It's unreasoned, dogmatic rubbish.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum