Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

[EinsteinsGhost]

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Which can be controlled even more with a larger sensor.

Of course, and the advantage is negligible. Hence my reasoning against the commonly held idea of "NEEDING" something like f/1.2.

Whether it's negligible depends on who you ask. However, as for 'needing' something, NO ONE 'needs' photographs. No one 'needs' this format or that one. Instead, they 'want' it. They want this look or that look, this angle or that angle.

I'm asking you. Illustrate your needs for me please.

My needs are simple: I need to be able to create beautiful images of my clients that also serve the purpose of differentiating me from my competition and those who would seek to be my competition but are not (soccer moms). I do that by employing a variety of photographic techniques including advanced OCF, great exposure, and a wide range of photographic choices including everything from extremely shallow to extremely wide DoF. As such, I need the tool(s) most capable of allowing me to do those things.

I ask for illustrations because talk is cheap.

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

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.

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

Not an apples to apples comparison and you know it.

Simply stating a fact. Do you disagree with it? If so, I would LOVE to hear more on it, rather than thinking apples and oranges and going bananas with them for irrelevant arguments.

You're stating something alright, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'simple' or a 'fact'. Are you aware of how DoF actually occurs?

Stick with the argument made, when responding to one.

I did.

You think that you did.

Use DOFMaster or iDOF Calc and get back to me regarding DOF achieved from a 135mm f/2.8 lens used on APS-C and then on FF body, from minimum focusing distance (assume 1m).

Which would lead you to my response (highlight just below), a point you two are arguing against.

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

Except you're ignoring the fact that when you standardize FoV you get more DoF with smaller sensors, not more. I know it's convenient to your argument to ignore that reality, but that doesn't make it forgivable.

I was very specific with my question. Please try again. You will not be responded you if you try another go at a run around on this.

True, macro photography is the one area where smaller sensors have at least some advantage.

Not necessarily, actually. But that is besides the point. Even for portraits, and landscapes, you will choose to not shoot wide open for similar reasons.

Necessarily, actually. For portraits, landscapes, or whatever you very well may choose to shoot closed down a bit but you can always do that on FF, too.

That is my point. I'm trying to investigate this fascination with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, however, much less at ultra-wide and wide angle FLs.

Why exactly would you need 50mm f/1.4 on FF?

If you wanted that focal length and aperture? That's a very confusing question, perhaps you meant it to be rhetorical?

Perhaps the most convincing argument you may have made. Its all about "want"?

As covered above, ALL photography is about 'want' over 'need'.

Not to me. There is a rational side that must be weighed in as well and especially when we're discussing such things as sensor size, apertures, focal lengths and expecting observable results out of it.

Really? You NEED photography? You'll die without it?

Would you die if you didn't want photography? Excuse me for asking for logical responses.

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

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

You're asking him to provide a photograph but if he did so, then what? What would it prove? Besides, even if he did you'd probably ignore it entirely as you did to the 'proof' photograph that I provided in previous thread a week or two ago. The only reason you ask for a photo is so that if he doesn't provide it you can say 'well, it must not really matter because you haven't done that', even if the concept itself is 100% valid.

It would prove several things. For example, you wanted me to provide measurements of a system. Was it to prove something? I'm simply curious to see the point of super fast wide/ultra wide lenses especially when a person is relying on it to make a point. Its not a stretch to expect people backing up their points with photographs in a photography forum, is it?

No, it was because I genuinely didn't know how big it was. As for backing something up I see no need for the poster to provide one of HIS photographs to back up a point. As long as SOMEONE'S photographs exist to prove the point, and they do, there's no need to be poster specific, just as I posted proof in the form of someone else's video in a previous thread.

And I didn't mind providing the information you asked for even though. But with my questions, you show up with an attitude demanding "what do you want to prove"?

Is it a stretch for you to demonstrate why you make a point that you do?

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.

Give me an example.

Same story as above.

Avoidance.

You are indeed avoiding the point.

I'm asking for something. That isn't avoiding in my world.

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?

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

Right, which we've done at length. MILC and similar have a size, weight, and some macro advantages. FF has all the rest. Should we just leave it at that?

You can choose to. Or, you can choose to discuss.

I have been, and the more discussion occurs the more it becomes apparent that the above statement is true.

Parroting something isn't a substitute for discussion.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

olliess wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

olliess wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

[...]

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

What's the difference between a) only collecting the light that falls on middle of the frame ("optical" crop produced by APS-C sensor) and b) collecting the light from the entire frame and using the pixels that are in the middle of the frame ("digital" crop of the FF sensor)? Except that in the second case you have the choice to use the extra image area if you desire.

You could throw a third instance to it (#2 below):

1- Exposing all of an APS-C sensor

2- Exposing part of a full frame sensor (FF in APS-C mode)

Unless there's a special shutter or a black mask for DX crop mode, I'm guessing you "expose" the whole sensor regardless. You just don't record all the data from the FF sensor.

You have only the image circle projected through the lens in DX crop mode.

3- Digital cropping

In #1 and #2, you compose accordingly, and likely expose for the composition. And #3 can be done to either, or to any sensor size. The question is, why would you prefer #3 over #1 or #2?

That's like asking, "Why crop at all?" The answer is that you like the picture better after trimming away off some of it.

No, that is asking: Why would you prefer #3 over using a longer FL lens?

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

olliess wrote:

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?

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

B) To keep the same subject isolation while decreasing subject-background distance

C) To increase the exposure to reduce noise

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

Do we need to continue?

You didn't use an objective analysis, but went with a theoretical one. Have you never encountered a situation where your DoF is too shallow for good isolation? With my APS-C bodies, I see that often and feel the need to stop down to have sufficient DoF. After all, I wouldn't want portraits with eyes in sharp focus but blurred out nose.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Mike CH wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

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

 

[Mike CH]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I was very specific with my question. Please try again. You will not be responded you if you try another go at a run around on this.

I have a suggestion for you (not that will follow it, but still, I have tried).

Take a deep breath, remove your hands from the key board.

Then make your way to your fridge, get a beverage of your choice, nice cold beer perhaps?

Drink that, and relax until the red fog disappears from your vision.

Meditate a bit on the fact that you don't need to be in control of every discussion.

Then pick up your camera and go out and take some pictures.

Regards, Mike

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Which can be controlled even more with a larger sensor.

Of course, and the advantage is negligible. Hence my reasoning against the commonly held idea of "NEEDING" something like f/1.2.

Whether it's negligible depends on who you ask. However, as for 'needing' something, NO ONE 'needs' photographs. No one 'needs' this format or that one. Instead, they 'want' it. They want this look or that look, this angle or that angle.

I'm asking you. Illustrate your needs for me please.

My needs are simple: I need to be able to create beautiful images of my clients that also serve the purpose of differentiating me from my competition and those who would seek to be my competition but are not (soccer moms). I do that by employing a variety of photographic techniques including advanced OCF, great exposure, and a wide range of photographic choices including everything from extremely shallow to extremely wide DoF. As such, I need the tool(s) most capable of allowing me to do those things.

I ask for illustrations because talk is cheap.

So wait, now you're asking for examples of my work?

Use DOFMaster or iDOF Calc and get back to me regarding DOF achieved from a 135mm f/2.8 lens used on APS-C and then on FF body, from minimum focusing distance (assume 1m).

Which would lead you to my response (highlight just below), a point you two are arguing against.

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

Except you're ignoring the fact that when you standardize FoV you get more DoF with smaller sensors, not more. I know it's convenient to your argument to ignore that reality, but that doesn't make it forgivable.

I was very specific with my question. Please try again. You will not be responded you if you try another go at a run around on this.

I was very specific with my response. Please try again. You will be responded to every time I feel the need.

Necessarily, actually. For portraits, landscapes, or whatever you very well may choose to shoot closed down a bit but you can always do that on FF, too.

That is my point. I'm trying to investigate this fascination with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, however, much less at ultra-wide and wide angle FLs.

What needs investigation? Many people like the look of shallow DoF, which is easier to accomplish on bodies with larger sensors. Pretty simple really.

Why exactly would you need 50mm f/1.4 on FF?

If you wanted that focal length and aperture? That's a very confusing question, perhaps you meant it to be rhetorical?

Perhaps the most convincing argument you may have made. Its all about "want"?

As covered above, ALL photography is about 'want' over 'need'.

Not to me. There is a rational side that must be weighed in as well and especially when we're discussing such things as sensor size, apertures, focal lengths and expecting observable results out of it.

Really? You NEED photography? You'll die without it?

Would you die if you didn't want photography?

So, in response to my question I'm assuming the answer is that you wouldn't die without photography, thus proving my point that it's a want versus a need.

Excuse me for asking for logical responses.

No need to excuse you, I've been happy to provide them for you in the last several threads!

No, it was because I genuinely didn't know how big it was. As for backing something up I see no need for the poster to provide one of HIS photographs to back up a point. As long as SOMEONE'S photographs exist to prove the point, and they do, there's no need to be poster specific, just as I posted proof in the form of someone else's video in a previous thread.

And I didn't mind providing the information you asked for even though. But with my questions, you show up with an attitude demanding "what do you want to prove"?

I did? Could you quote the post where that occurred?

Is it a stretch for you to demonstrate why you make a point that you do?

What?

You are indeed avoiding the point.

I'm asking for something. That isn't avoiding in my world.

You're asking for something that you don't need or even want. It's a strange form of a straw man argument.

You can choose to. Or, you can choose to discuss.

I have been, and the more discussion occurs the more it becomes apparent that the above statement is true.

Parroting something isn't a substitute for discussion.

Agreed, which is why I'm continually confused as to why you'd call what you're doing 'discussing'.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

In #1 and #2, you compose accordingly, and likely expose for the composition. And #3 can be done to either, or to any sensor size. The question is, why would you prefer #3 over #1 or #2?

That's like asking, "Why crop at all?" The answer is that you like the picture better after trimming away off some of it.

No, that is asking: Why would you prefer #3 over using a longer FL lens?

There are many possible answers, the most simple of which being: it's easier.

 

[olliess]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

olliess wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

2- Exposing part of a full frame sensor (FF in APS-C mode)

Unless there's a special shutter or a black mask for DX crop mode, I'm guessing you "expose" the whole sensor regardless. You just don't record all the data from the FF sensor.

You have only the image circle projected through the lens in DX crop mode.

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?

3- Digital cropping

In #1 and #2, you compose accordingly, and likely expose for the composition. And #3 can be done to either, or to any sensor size. The question is, why would you prefer #3 over #1 or #2?

That's like asking, "Why crop at all?" The answer is that you like the picture better after trimming away off some of it.

No, that is asking: Why would you prefer #3 over using a longer FL lens?

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.

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

olliess wrote:

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?

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

B) To keep the same subject isolation while decreasing subject-background distance

C) To increase the exposure to reduce noise

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

Do we need to continue?

You didn't use an objective analysis, but went with a theoretical one.

What kind of "objective" analysis is possible? I gave you a list of possible objectives one could accomplish with a wider aperture. The same would apply to a 35 mm f/1.2 on the APS-C sensor.

Have you never encountered a situation where your DoF is too shallow for good isolation? With my APS-C bodies, I see that often and feel the need to stop down to have sufficient DoF. After all, I wouldn't want portraits with eyes in sharp focus but blurred out nose.

When I need more DOF, I can always stop down a fast lens. I can't open up that 35/1.8 wider than f/1.8. The same reasoning applies to all fast lenses, even though you don't always (maybe even rarely) shoot wide open.

But you knew this, and it's been repeated in thread after thread after thread.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Which can be controlled even more with a larger sensor.

Of course, and the advantage is negligible. Hence my reasoning against the commonly held idea of "NEEDING" something like f/1.2.

Whether it's negligible depends on who you ask. However, as for 'needing' something, NO ONE 'needs' photographs. No one 'needs' this format or that one. Instead, they 'want' it. They want this look or that look, this angle or that angle.

I'm asking you. Illustrate your needs for me please.

My needs are simple: I need to be able to create beautiful images of my clients that also serve the purpose of differentiating me from my competition and those who would seek to be my competition but are not (soccer moms). I do that by employing a variety of photographic techniques including advanced OCF, great exposure, and a wide range of photographic choices including everything from extremely shallow to extremely wide DoF. As such, I need the tool(s) most capable of allowing me to do those things.

I ask for illustrations because talk is cheap.

So wait, now you're asking for examples of my work?

It wasn't you who I'd asked for it. You simply jumped into that conversation, so you might as well.

Use DOFMaster or iDOF Calc and get back to me regarding DOF achieved from a 135mm f/2.8 lens used on APS-C and then on FF body, from minimum focusing distance (assume 1m).

Which would lead you to my response (highlight just below), a point you two are arguing against.

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

Except you're ignoring the fact that when you standardize FoV you get more DoF with smaller sensors, not more. I know it's convenient to your argument to ignore that reality, but that doesn't make it forgivable.

I was very specific with my question. Please try again. You will not be responded you if you try another go at a run around on this.

I was very specific with my response. Please try again. You will be responded to every time I feel the need.

This was the point: Use DOFMaster or iDOF Calc and get back to me regarding DOF achieved from a 135mm f/2.8 lens used on APS-C and then on FF body, from minimum focusing distance (assume 1m).

What do you find?

Necessarily, actually. For portraits, landscapes, or whatever you very well may choose to shoot closed down a bit but you can always do that on FF, too.

That is my point. I'm trying to investigate this fascination with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, however, much less at ultra-wide and wide angle FLs.

What needs investigation? Many people like the look of shallow DoF, which is easier to accomplish on bodies with larger sensors. Pretty simple really.

Why exactly would you need 50mm f/1.4 on FF?

If you wanted that focal length and aperture? That's a very confusing question, perhaps you meant it to be rhetorical?

Perhaps the most convincing argument you may have made. Its all about "want"?

As covered above, ALL photography is about 'want' over 'need'.

Not to me. There is a rational side that must be weighed in as well and especially when we're discussing such things as sensor size, apertures, focal lengths and expecting observable results out of it.

Really? You NEED photography? You'll die without it?

Would you die if you didn't want photography?

So, in response to my question I'm assuming the answer is that you wouldn't die without photography, thus proving my point that it's a want versus a need.

Do you happen to not understand or value "need"? Not every need or want is about life versus death.

Excuse me for asking for logical responses.

No need to excuse you, I've been happy to provide them for you in the last several threads!

No, it was because I genuinely didn't know how big it was. As for backing something up I see no need for the poster to provide one of HIS photographs to back up a point. As long as SOMEONE'S photographs exist to prove the point, and they do, there's no need to be poster specific, just as I posted proof in the form of someone else's video in a previous thread.

And I didn't mind providing the information you asked for even though. But with my questions, you show up with an attitude demanding "what do you want to prove"?

I did? Could you quote the post where that occurred?

Is it a stretch for you to demonstrate why you make a point that you do?

What?

Is it a stretch for you to back up your words with your work?

You are indeed avoiding the point.

I'm asking for something. That isn't avoiding in my world.

You're asking for something that you don't need or even want. It's a strange form of a straw man argument.

You don't decide what I need or want. I asked you to provide something. It is up to you to accept the challenge, or run away from it. You've chosen the latter.

You can choose to. Or, you can choose to discuss.

I have been, and the more discussion occurs the more it becomes apparent that the above statement is true.

Parroting something isn't a substitute for discussion.

Agreed, which is why I'm continually confused as to why you'd call what you're doing 'discussing'.

I am not surprised.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

olliess wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

olliess wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

2- Exposing part of a full frame sensor (FF in APS-C mode)

Unless there's a special shutter or a black mask for DX crop mode, I'm guessing you "expose" the whole sensor regardless. You just don't record all the data from the FF sensor.

You have only the image circle projected through the lens in DX crop mode.

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?

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?

3- Digital cropping

In #1 and #2, you compose accordingly, and likely expose for the composition. And #3 can be done to either, or to any sensor size. The question is, why would you prefer #3 over #1 or #2?

That's like asking, "Why crop at all?" The answer is that you like the picture better after trimming away off some of it.

No, that is asking: Why would you prefer #3 over using a longer FL lens?

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.

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

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

olliess wrote:

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?

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

B) To keep the same subject isolation while decreasing subject-background distance

C) To increase the exposure to reduce noise

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

Do we need to continue?

You didn't use an objective analysis, but went with a theoretical one.

What kind of "objective" analysis is possible? I gave you a list of possible objectives one could accomplish with a wider aperture. The same would apply to a 35 mm f/1.2 on the APS-C sensor.

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?"

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.

Have you never encountered a situation where your DoF is too shallow for good isolation? With my APS-C bodies, I see that often and feel the need to stop down to have sufficient DoF. After all, I wouldn't want portraits with eyes in sharp focus but blurred out nose.

When I need more DOF, I can always stop down a fast lens. I can't open up that 35/1.8 wider than f/1.8. The same reasoning applies to all fast lenses, even though you don't always (maybe even rarely) shoot wide open.

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. 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.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

So wait, now you're asking for examples of my work?

It wasn't you who I'd asked for it. You simply jumped into that conversation, so you might as well.

Again, you're avoiding the point.

I was very specific with my response. Please try again. You will be responded to every time I feel the need.

This was the point: Use DOFMaster or iDOF Calc and get back to me regarding DOF achieved from a 135mm f/2.8 lens used on APS-C and then on FF body, from minimum focusing distance (assume 1m).

What do you find?

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

So, in response to my question I'm assuming the answer is that you wouldn't die without photography, thus proving my point that it's a want versus a need.

Do you happen to not understand or value "need"? Not every need or want is about life versus death.

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

Is it a stretch for you to back up your words with your work?

Nope, it's not.

You're asking for something that you don't need or even want. It's a strange form of a straw man argument.

You don't decide what I need or want. I asked you to provide something. It is up to you to accept the challenge, or run away from it. You've chosen the latter.

You've asked me (him?) to provide something but you wouldn't accept it even if it were provided. Remember, we've done this twice? First I provided a photo which you ignored and then I provided a video which you rejected.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

So wait, now you're asking for examples of my work?

It wasn't you who I'd asked for it. You simply jumped into that conversation, so you might as well.

Again, you're avoiding the point.

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).

I was very specific with my response. Please try again. You will be responded to every time I feel the need.

This was the point: Use DOFMaster or iDOF Calc and get back to me regarding DOF achieved from a 135mm f/2.8 lens used on APS-C and then on FF body, from minimum focusing distance (assume 1m).

What do you find?

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

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

So, in response to my question I'm assuming the answer is that you wouldn't die without photography, thus proving my point that it's a want versus a need.

Do you happen to not understand or value "need"? Not every need or want is about life versus death.

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

Weird idea.

Is it a stretch for you to back up your words with your work?

Nope, it's not.

Then, go for it so you don't have to come back and tell me that it is I who is "avoiding".

You're asking for something that you don't need or even want. It's a strange form of a straw man argument.

You don't decide what I need or want. I asked you to provide something. It is up to you to accept the challenge, or run away from it. You've chosen the latter.

You've asked me (him?) to provide something but you wouldn't accept it even if it were provided. Remember, we've done this twice? First I provided a photo which you ignored and then I provided a video which you rejected.

Accept what? I'm ask for something specific to engage in a discussion, so we can see what the person is (otherwise simply) babbling about.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Again, you're avoiding the point.

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).

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

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

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

Not quite. Try again.

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

Weird idea.

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

Is it a stretch for you to back up your words with your work?

Nope, it's not.

Then, go for it so you don't have to come back and tell me that it is I who is "avoiding".

Again, why would I do so just to have you either ignore it or reject it?

You're asking for something that you don't need or even want. It's a strange form of a straw man argument.

You don't decide what I need or want. I asked you to provide something. It is up to you to accept the challenge, or run away from it. You've chosen the latter.

You've asked me (him?) to provide something but you wouldn't accept it even if it were provided. Remember, we've done this twice? First I provided a photo which you ignored and then I provided a video which you rejected.

Accept what? I'm ask for something specific to engage in a discussion, so we can see what the person is (otherwise simply) babbling about.

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.

 

[olliess]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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?

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?

So why are you arguing about this?

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.

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

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?

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?"

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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).

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Again, you're avoiding the point.

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).

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

Explain.

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

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

Not quite. Try again.

Explain.

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

Weird idea.

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

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

Is it a stretch for you to back up your words with your work?

Nope, it's not.

Then, go for it so you don't have to come back and tell me that it is I who is "avoiding".

Again, why would I do so just to have you either ignore it or reject it?

It might be better if you avoid it.

You're asking for something that you don't need or even want. It's a strange form of a straw man argument.

You don't decide what I need or want. I asked you to provide something. It is up to you to accept the challenge, or run away from it. You've chosen the latter.

You've asked me (him?) to provide something but you wouldn't accept it even if it were provided. Remember, we've done this twice? First I provided a photo which you ignored and then I provided a video which you rejected.

Accept what? I'm ask for something specific to engage in a discussion, so we can see what the person is (otherwise simply) babbling about.

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.

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.

 

[Mike CH]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

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

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Again, you're avoiding the point.

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).

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

Explain.

I have, several times.

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

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

Not quite. Try again.

Explain.

I have, several times.

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

Weird idea.

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

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

Now isn't that the truth!

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.

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.

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.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I ask for illustrations because talk is cheap.

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

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. In turn I will then post an image that no current MILC could take. Afterwards we can see if those claims are false (meaning the other camera could have taken them) or true (in which case we have a topic of discussion).

Deal?

Details: It must be an image that the poster has created, not someone else's work. In addition, the claim must be that the other type of camera couldn't have taken it (or something better) rather than the other photographer couldn't have taken it. In other words, we're looking for camera limitations, not photographer/personal limitations.

--

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

 

[joejack951]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Is this a serious question?

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?

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.

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.

Give me an example.

I like the DOF in the image posted above.

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?

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

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.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

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?

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:

• Does the camera provide viewfinder information that indicates the actual recorded image area?
• Can the camera operate faster by only reading out the active subset of the pixels?
• Does the camera meter using this area (change the center weighting or only use that part of the matrix?)
• Does the camera display only the selected area for review?

For all of these, it's quite unimportant if the masking is physical or electronic.

--
Erik