Full Frame advantage real?

[Dan62326]

if you really read a lot of what he has to say, it's largely
useless.

For example?

I find the opposite true. If you know how to use him, he can be a very helpful tool. It's just like talk radio.

 

[Amin Sabet]

So what did you mean when you said that the bokeh was a wash on the 85?

I meant it at that time, but I know think I was wrong about that.

--
http://aminphoto.blogspot.com
http://aminsabet.tumblr.com

 

[Amin Sabet]

Ken has said a lot of silly things, but I don't take those bits too seriously. He does have some interesting findings to share. He also frequently posts very early about gear that has just come out. More "proper" reviews tend to come out later since they take time to prepare.

--
http://aminphoto.blogspot.com
http://aminsabet.tumblr.com

 

[Ominous]

Ken has said a lot of silly things, but I don't take those bits too
seriously. He does have some interesting findings to share. He also
frequently posts very early about gear that has just come out. More
"proper" reviews tend to come out later since they take time to
prepare.

--
http://aminphoto.blogspot.com
http://aminsabet.tumblr.com

If by prepare, you mean actually USE the camera...yes.

Ken has posted "reviews" on cameras he has never touched.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

 

[Amin Sabet]

If by prepare, you mean actually USE the camera...yes.

Ken has posted "reviews" on cameras he has never touched.

I mostly ignore the stuff that doesn't include samples.

--
http://aminphoto.blogspot.com
http://aminsabet.tumblr.com

 

[Dan62326]

Ken has posted "reviews" on cameras he has never touched.

I'm pretty sure he makes it obvious and that we should take it mostly as a joke. Have you read his "about me" page?

But I agree that if you don't do your homework before you use his test results, you may be misinformed or not get the entire picture.

 

[iano]

I was assuming all else to be equal...that is same number of pixels.

Detail captured does not just depend on the number of pixels...but also the quality of each pixel. If you track 'point and shoot' cameras which push the limits on pixels crammed into a given area, then there are plenty of examples of recent higher pixel count cameras with no real resolution improvement on the lower pixel count predecessor.

For the same pixel count a larger sensor means larger pixels and thus as you say dynamic range. This usually also translates to more per pixel detail and thus given the same number of pixels greater overall detail.

Tradeoff is everything is larger and more expensive. The extra budget may buy a higher pixel count or other improvements instead of simply a larger sensor and produce a better result for the same extra $$

a larger sensor has the ability to capture more light

ok

greater detail

no, this would depend on how many pixels the sensor has

resolution

no, again this would depend on how many pixels the sensor has

and dynamic range.

no, only pixel size affects dynamic range and not sensor size

 

[joe mama]

I too went back and had a look at some samples from the 85L on the
30D and 135L on the 5D. In fact, I believe the 85L may render nicer
bokeh when DOF, perspective, and FOV are the same. I put one example
in a blog post today. It's very limited, but you might find it
interesting ->
http://aminphoto.blogspot.com/2007/12/canon-lenses-on-full-frame-vs-crop.html

I found it extemely interesting. Great article!

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[Amin Sabet]

--
http://aminphoto.blogspot.com
http://aminsabet.tumblr.com

 

[joe mama]

I've been on vacation, thus the delay in my response.

Does this mean that the background blur of the image from the crop
sensor will look the same as the background blur from the FF image
(when the image is printed at the same size)?

For the same FOV and DOF, yes.

I realized that you answered that question when you pointed out the
DOF of the D2x vs 5D images. One was shot using an 85mm lens and the
other was with a 50mm. However, the F-ratio's were the same so the 5D
shot had less DOF.

So FF DOES have an out-of-focus blur advantage.

FF has a more shallow DOF for the same f-ratio. Since FF lenses are at least as fast as crop lenses, that means that FF has greater capability for shallow DOF than smaller formats.

It's not enough for me to hear someone just say that FF just looks
better and is more film-like.

In my opinion, "better" and "more film-like" are often at odds with each other.

2) The MTFs of some FF lenses exhibits a sudden drop at the exteme
edges. This means that cropped sensor systems using FF glass will
not experience this sudden drop, as this portion of the image is
cropped out, and the extreme corners (5% of the total image area) may
be sharper, even though the rest of the image will be softer.

softer because of?

If the glass is not sharp enough to resolve the smaller pixels of the smaller sensor, it will be softer.

3) While I know of no example where cropped glass is sharper by a
factor of the crop factor, most cropped glass is sharper than their
FF counterparts. Thus, while FF will still be sharper overall, the
difference is not as exteme as some make it out to be.

And this is because the balls hit the larger squares more easily than
they do the smaller squares (assuming the same number of squares on
both setups)?

Yes.

why else would landscape photographers be using
a tripod and MLU?).

I thought it was macro photographers that used MLU. It seems that the
amount of shake the mirror would induce wouldn't affect a landscape
capture.

Landscapes often have very high detail throuhgout the entire image, thus even a small amount of shake can produce a noticable blur since landscape images are often printed large enough to notice, and also because fine detail is present throughout the entire image.

Finally, there's print size. For an 8x12 print,
300 PPI only requires 8.64 MP. On the other hand, 300 PPI for a
12x18 print requires 19.44 MP. So, how big are you printing? Even
so, just how big of a difference will 200 PPI, or even 150 PPI vs 300
PPI matter to you?

Doesn't more MP's mean finer grained noise that is less noticable?

Absolutely, but it requires a larger print to notice. At 12x18, it most likely is a factor in high ISO images, but at 8x12, it isn't, for the reasons mentioned above.

It's important to understand the advantages/disadvantages of the
equipment. But this can all too easily be taken to an extreme where
it is well past the point of having any meaningful purpose.

I'm pretty sure this is true now, but it makes me wonder when people
say things like, "Guess which camera I'm going to grab when quality
matters?" It's as if they're implying that there is a HUGE difference
in IQ and that it would be silly to use the other cameras.

Exactly. However, people have different "quality thresholds". A huge difference to one person is an insignificant difference to another. This is why I'm always so keen on people presenting images to back up their claims. An opinion out of context is meaningless, and, in photography, the context is the image.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/