Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons? Locked

Started May 21, 2014 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,819
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Yes, but DOF can be an issue for scenarios like this (200mm f/2.8 on FF):

Depends. In an event such as in graduation ceremony if you only want your kid to be focus while others are outside focus plane, that's not bad but only good

Unless your kid's friends are also in the shot, and you want them all together. Another example is your kid receiving the diploma and you want your kid and the principal both in the DOF.

I did have such sample but not in gallery. But usually kid and principal were pretty close in focus plane at such senario so F2.8 has no problem especially when not shooting from very close distance.

As I said, it depends on the situation. By the way, for a given format, the same framing and f-ratio result in the same DOF.

Sure. All I said I found with my experiences DOF mostly is not an issue with FF camera in low light scenes.

As I said, if it is an issue, just stop down and sacrifice the noise advantage. The problem with FF is if you usually find yourself stopping down for more DOF. In this case, you'll be better served with the smaller format.

[The photo below] appears taken from close distance therefore with shallow DOF. If take from distance with even longer lens such as 300/2.8, then DOF will be deeper.

In the photo below, I wanted the DOF shallow (although, I must say, a deeper DOF would not have hurt, and may have even been better -- still, it's a "throw away" photo). However, if I had wanted it deeper, I'd have been served well with crop.

You don't have to stop to eq DOF aperture but just stop down a little bit very often.

Again, it depends on the situation. If you can get the DOF you need with crop wide open, then you *might* be able to get the DOF with FF wide open. However, if you have to stop crop down, then you definitely have to stop FF down to the same DOF.

As I said FF just has a better DOF control. Most times you don't have to stop down on the main subject and personally I prefer (guess as well as many FF shooters) shallow DOF to make photos look more attractive. The bottom line is that you can stop down if necessary. In other side, with crop you cannot stop up.

Agreed, but not all feel that "shallow DOF makes photos look more attractive" -- at least, not so shallow as wide open with fast lenses on FF.

Many times you don't need to actually stop down to eq DOF aperture but just one stop between FF and APS-C. 6D has 1.5 stops better high ISO than 70D.

And that 1.5 stops (1 1/3 stops, actually) is exactly the difference in DOF, as well. It's called "Equivalence".

The DOF issue would depend, of course, on whether the photographer wanted everyone in focus or not.

The point being that if the subject is a single person or all the subjects can be framed near the focal plane, and the background is irrelevant, then DOF is not an issue between FF and crop.

While some people, like myself, prefer the more shallow DOF and actively seek framing where it works and pass on photos where it does not work, others may have different aesthetics.

The advantage of FF is that you have the option. Shoot wide open when you want the more shallow DOF (or, at least, prefer less noise and a more shallow DOF to more noise and a deeper DOF), and stop down when you need the DOF, giving up the noise advantage of FF, but still retaining the resolution advantage.

Like you I also prefer shallower DOF and really care the main subject get focus. FF does have better DOF control than crop.

Yes, but FF costs more and is larger and heavier if you don't want/need the shallow DOF. The point being that, in low light, the better noise performance of FF *necessarily* comes with a more shallow DOF.

6D doesn't cost and heavier much than 70D.

The operation of the 70D, however is substantially superior to the operation of the 6D. So, the question is if the DOF/IQ advantages of the 6D over the 70D are worth losing the operation advantages of the 70D over the 6D.

That has been discussed separately. 70D is only sightly faster in burst rate. Better AF system but 6D is better in center AF accuracy, consistency and low-light sensitivity.

Others, however:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53723553

I have a 6D. And I would trade that one low-light point for the system of the 70D that may not be able to focus in almost total darkness, but is far better in every way with even half-way decent light.

Or if you really want to small and relative cheap, FF A7 is a good choice that just received $200 permanent price cut.

And then there's the SL1 or mFT, for smaller, lighter, and cheaper still.

They are not FF as I responded to your assertion that FF means expensive, heavy and big, not all necessary. Don't forget A7-series, the only FF ML in the town that smaller/lighter than the smallest DSLR, SL1.

I'm talking about the system, not just the body. And, yes, Peter, I do know that the A7(R) + 35 / 2.8 is nice and small.

By the way:

SL1: 4.6" x 3.6" x 2.7" at 370g

A7: 5.0" x 3.7" x 1.9" at 416g.

Still, why aren't you comparing to mirrorless FF to mirrorless APS-C?

In many if not most scenes with my own experiences, shallower DOF in FF taken at the same aperture/shutter doesn't harm photos but likely photos look more attractive, more layered and make you subjects look more popping up with more 3-D look Otherwise why everyone should not use even deeper DOF camera such as RX10 (with a constant F2.8 zoom) on 1" based sensor?

It's not that people prefer shallow DOF over deeper DOF,

Actually many FF owners prefer shallow DOF including me and yourself (as you said a few times). More importantly they prefer better DOF control with FF. You can shallow and you also can deep.

We're talking about people who shoot crop and are thinking to go FF.  Some may not like the fact that the more shallow DOF is a *requirement* to get less noise in low light.  Indeed, many FF photographers likely feel that way but simply:

but that they prefer lower noise with the more shallow DOF over greater noise with the deeper DOF.

and accept the compromise.

Agreed.

Proof of this statement is easy. Look at what apertures people shoot at base ISO and compare and contrast with the apertures they use at high ISO. You'll see a clear pattern that wide open shooting, as a general rule, occurs much more in low light than in good light for most people.

Really depends on the scenes. But as I said you have better options with FF than crop.

In terms of DOF, yes, and you have to pay for it, in terms of size, weight, and cost.  That said, if you are trying to match the DOF/noise performance of FF with crop, then you're better off, in terms of size, weight, and cost, with just going FF.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow