Have you found out that you absolutely need full frame - hobby / amateur photog

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
jf_tea Senior Member • Posts: 1,457
Re: No

jrtrent wrote:

jf_tea wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jf_tea wrote:

APS-C is already more than enough for me. APS-C has more DR, but, less DoF than M4/3.

I will not get a 40mpx FF and then find out that I need to carry a 2000$ tripod to get sharp pictures. I'm not the tripod-user type.

How are we defining sharp? You don't have to view photos at 100% (or get a 40+ MP FF body)

Or get a FF and have to close-down to at least F/5.6 to get enough DoF for 99% of my uses.

What's wrong with F/5.6? I'd rather stop down to F/5.6 than F/2.8. Most lenses are much sharper stopped down.

There is nothing "wrong" per se with F/5.6 or F/8.

Many lenses are optimally sharp at about F/5.6.

The problem is that with FF (compared to APS-C or M4/3), to get enough DoF you have to close down to F/5.6 ... then you need to increase exposure time or ISO, to get proper exposure. If you keep the exposure time short enough (ex. for people movement), then you raise the ISO. ... and you get fewer photons per photosite, thereby negating the advantage of a larger sensor (in that specific case: low light and deep enough DoF and short enough exposure time... Example: street shooting under lamp light or dusk).

I haven't done any street shooting, let alone street shooting under lamp light, but I've experienced a similar thing just with typical scenic vacation snapshots taken with a normal focal length lens where something of interest was in the near foreground. With 2 1/4 square film format, I nearly always used f/16 (and often a tripod) to get the depth of field I wanted with ISO 100 slide film. With 35mm, f/11 or even f/9.5 was usually enough, so I didn't need the tripod as often. With a four thirds DSLR, I could get by with f/5.6, plus its sensor could make good pictures at ISO settings 2 or 3 stops faster than my slide film (I never bothered with a tripod with my four thirds cameras). With my 1/2.3" sensor bridge camera, there's plenty of depth of field even wide open at f/2.8, and it has image stabilization, which none of my DSLR's ever had.

I've had similar experience.

My film experience is unimportant compared to yours. I was using an automatic 135 film from 1994 to 2000. Then in 2000 and after I had several compact cameras. I got better ones in 2009: ZS3, FZ28 and LX3. Depth of field became very obvious to me when I was doing telephoto or macro/close-up shots. Then I got an APSC DSLR in 2010. Initially, I had a lot of fun with "bokeh" with a F/1.9 lens (Pentax FA 43mm). My initial enthusiasm about bokeh faded and I wanted to get pictures enough DoF, a bit similarly to those taken with my compact sensor cameras. This was not easy. Especially in low light conditions.

For low-light, I found that it was a lot easier to get a satisfying mix of in-focus and not too noisy pictures with a E-M5 with a 45/1.8 lens rather than with a 70/2.4 on a APS-C sensor (Pentax K5 or K5IIs). Why ?  Because I could use the 45/1.8 fully open, but, I had to use the 70/2.4 at F/4 or F/5.6.  Still I have thousands of technically good low light pictures with the K5IIs, but, I worked harder to get them, with a lower keeper rate.

I do have a FZ200 since 2012, it is F/2.8 at all focal lengths, but, for low light I find the images much noisier than those of M4/3 cameras. In good enough light, the FZ200 is very convenient -- I did not keep any long tele lens for APS-C or M4/3.

Maybe I should get a modern compact camera. The newer ones must have the latest Sony sensors (as in the smartphones).

-- hide signature --


 jf_tea's gear list:jf_tea's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Pentax K-01 Pentax K-5 IIs Olympus E-M1 +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Smaug01
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow