Full Frame Fallacy?

[Ehrik]

I think the mirror can react as quickly as the engineers want to make
it react,

Yes, but you need stronger motors, stronger springs and assembly
and more powerful battery and all those things tend to get bigger
to be stronger. Note how all 5fps+ cameras are quite sizable? And
the 8fps+ ones even more so? For a given camera size, a lighter
mirror can be made to move faster, that was my point.

Once again, I have to disagree. Film SLRs had those high shutter
speeds, too, right? And they were not so large. Or am I mistaken?

Yes, as I wasn't talking about shutter speeds. You can get a high shutter
speed with a slowish shutter by making the running gap narrow.

For a high frame rate and shorter blackout, what my original post talked about,
you need to move the mirror faster (and longer on a big sensor system
than on 4/3rds).

I think it is more a question of Canon hoping that those who buy a
€3,000 camera will buy €3,000 lenses and then a bigger camera will balance
those better.

I would disagree once again. I generally support my camera primarily
by the lens, not by the body. The only reason I need size on the
body is for the viewfinder, LCD, handgrip, and buttons. Of course,
maybe I'm weird in how I hold the camera, but I seem to do all right
with my technique.

Yes, I agree (though you'd easily find people on these forums
snearing at smaller bodies), but I was partly joking.

Shoot, I only
learned about a shutter today (I always thought it was just a
mirror)! : )

Well, the nice thing about these forums is that one learns a lot of
interesting stuff.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

"the 14 bit modes of the Canon 40D and Nikon D300
are pretty well a waste of space" -GordonBGood
"In the present generation of technology,
14-bit capture is a marketing ploy." -ejmartin
"You only need 12-bits for base ISO,
and as little as 10 or 9 bits for the highest ISOs." -John Sheehy

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

yes but the 5d is an amateur camera in that it's not ultra-robust, waterproof etc. The e3 is.

Now compare the 1ds and the e3 and you'll see my point. Or the 5d and the e400, e410 etc.

 

[Rriley]

This is mostly about people with other brands of DSLRs, who feel
buyer's remorse about the superior technology of Olympus (such as
dust reduction, telecentric lenses, etc.), attempting to
psychologically boost up their own cameras by ragging on Olymus

Please tell me how to replace my current 5D kit with an Olympus system:

Olympus body (pic your favorite)
7.5mm, f1.4 fisheye
17.5mm, f0.7
8.5-20/2
12-52.5/2 with optical IS
35-100/1.4 with optical IS
42.5/0.9

im not fond of being fed BS so you can win a point. your kit in profile includes
Equipment:
Canon 5D, 20D
Canon 17-40L,
24-105L IS,
70-200 2.8L IS
Canon 35/1.4L,
85/1.8
Sigma 15mm fisheye
Canon 1.4xTC II, Kenko 1.4x PRO DG
At work:
Rebel XT
Tokina 10-17 fisheye
Canon 17-85IS, Canon 70-300IS, Tamron MC4 1.4x TC

How much does that cost, or how much would it cost if it were available?

alternately
E3 with 5 stops IS ($1,700)
7-14/4 ($1650)
12-60/2.8-3.5 ($1100) ,
50-200/2.8-3.5 ($1200)
24-400mm EFL ($2300)

$6750
thats 14-400mm coverage in premium glassware
worlds fastest AF (that works)
5fps and 5 stops IS.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

as you can see, i did !
--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

 

[Lee Jay]

However, comparing the 5D to my old E1 in terms of build quality,
there's just no comparison. The 5D felt a bit flimsy and plasticky in
comparision, whereas the E1 was as solid as a brick.

You don't like the 5D's construction? Geeze...it's by far the best-built body I've ever laid hand on - including the Canon 1-series, the Nikon D200, D1x and D2x, and all others. It feels solid as can be, it's not too heavy, it's just the right size for my hands, and I can reach and control all the functions without taking my eye out of the viewfinder. I've used it for as long as 11 hours non-stop without hand fatigue.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[marf]

we were talking about low light advantage, not sunny-outdoor-shots. But despide that thats a photo with a good image quality in the sense what common sense would say: good composed, well-balanced flash, sharp enough and a pretty happy bride. all these things have nothing to do with the sensor.
--
regards
Martin

-----------------------------
Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.
I am a part time wedding photographer (50% of my income)

 

[Lee Jay]

ljfinger wrote:
alternately
E3 with 5 stops IS ($1,700)
7-14/4 ($1650)
12-60/2.8-3.5 ($1100) ,
50-200/2.8-3.5 ($1200)
24-400mm EFL ($2300)

You gave me slower everything. That's what 4/3 is good for - cheaper and smaller if you can give up speed. There's nothing wrong with that if your style allows it. But I didn't buy a full-frame camera and an f1.4 lens to replace it with an f2.8-3.5 zoom on a 1/2 frame camera. You cost me more than 4 stops, and that isn't going to come close to cutting it.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

we were talking about low light advantage, not sunny-outdoor-shots.

You were telling me I can get sharp shots without heavy sharpening that increases noise. But, okay, ISO 12,800 test shot on my desk (ISO 1600 pushed 3 stops):



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[marf]

nice, but that

• seems to be not wide open aperture-wise. when lowlight is a challenge and objects are moving then you have to open the aperture
• problematic are the corner areas in fullframe, not the center
• i add: somehow the paper shows sharpening artefacts

--
regards
Martin

 

[Agramer]

However, comparing the 5D to my old E1 in terms of build quality,
there's just no comparison. The 5D felt a bit flimsy and plasticky in
comparision, whereas the E1 was as solid as a brick.

You don't like the 5D's construction? Geeze...it's by far the
best-built body I've ever laid hand on - including the Canon
1-series, the Nikon D200, D1x and D2x, and all others. It feels
solid as can be, it's not too heavy, it's just the right size for my
hands, and I can reach and control all the functions without taking
my eye out of the viewfinder. I've used it for as long as 11 hours
non-stop without hand fatigue.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

I can understand that someone can't understand optic and that someone can look at the tools from his own angle of wiev...but... 5D is build like a toy if you compare it with E1
I tryed 5D and that is good camera but it is not solid like E1.
Cheers

 

[Calico Cat]

I used to run a Photo Lab. APS was actually cheaper to process, less
film area, and automated handling no negatives to sleeve. However
there was a cost to invest in the equipment to process.

Marginal cost of processing APS was less, I'll believe you, but those costs were never passed on to consumers.

Cheap 35mm drugstore processing really sucked, negatives all came back badly scratched. I'm glad for the 4/3 system with it's completely free digital processing.

 

[Agramer]

ljfinger wrote:
alternately
E3 with 5 stops IS ($1,700)
7-14/4 ($1650)
12-60/2.8-3.5 ($1100) ,
50-200/2.8-3.5 ($1200)
24-400mm EFL ($2300)

You gave me slower everything. That's what 4/3 is good for - cheaper
and smaller if you can give up speed. There's nothing wrong with
that if your style allows it. But I didn't buy a full-frame camera
and an f1.4 lens to replace it with an f2.8-3.5 zoom on a 1/2 frame
camera. You cost me more than 4 stops, and that isn't going to come
close to cutting it.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

You compare systems on DOF. That is ok if the DOF is crutial to you, but you can't tell that fast lens is slow lens because sensor will give you DOF like bigger sensor with slower lens. . . Well, you can, you can talk what ever you want and if that makes you happy...
Cheers

 

[Lee Jay]

nice, but that

• seems to be not wide open aperture-wise. when lowlight is a

challenge and objects are moving then you have to open the aperture

That was wide open.

• problematic are the corner areas in fullframe, not the center

And corners are rarely in-focus wide open.

• i add: somehow the paper shows sharpening artefacts

Since it's unsharpened, that's interesting.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

You compare systems on DOF. That is ok if the DOF is crutial to you,
but you can't tell that fast lens is slow lens because sensor will
give you DOF like bigger sensor with slower lens. . .

No, I can say it's slower because smaller sensors have poorer high-ISO performance. That's one reason we all own dSLRs instead of compacts with 1/2.5" sensors, isn't it?

An f4 lens on full-frame will perform about the same as an f2 lens on 4/3 (2x-crop), both in terms of DOF and noise at the same shutter speed.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[marf]

That was wide open.

what lens ?

And corners are rarely in-focus wide open.

• i add: somehow the paper shows sharpening artefacts

Since it's unsharpened, that's interesting.

ok, appeared perhaps during bad resizing

 

[Louis_Dobson]

If the front element is the same size, then yes, light gathereing and DoF are the same (based on counting with my fingers)

But since the f number is a factor of focal length, the front element is NOT the same.

In effect 4/3rds flatters the headline F no by two stops.

Hence Oly's f2 lenses, for a given FoV, are not a stop faster than the f2.8 competition, but a stop slower. And the f2.8(-3.5, but let's not quibble) are actually two stops slower than 35mmFF, in terms of the light actually gathered.

The result is precisely what you can see any time you like - take yer average 35mmFF camera (in my case a D3) and yer average 4/3rds camera (in my case an E3), put lenses with a nominal f2.8 rating and the same FoV on (12-60 @12, 24-70 @24) and the 35mmFF has two stops less DoF and two stops more noise.

I can do that anytime, and it holds perfectly true.

But of course the D3 weights a ton, as do the lenses, and costs a bomb (ditto), and most of the time there is no advantage.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Guy Parsons]

Talk about anti-shake brings up my current testing of a Casio EX-V8 pocket camera that has a 38-266mm equivalent lens with internal zoom etc within the camera body.

Initially I thought the CCD shuffle type anti-shake was moderately ineffective in this particular model, but since here in Sydney it's low light time with rain every day I had a chance to test the anti-shake effectiveness, but so far not the non anti-shake comparison.

Finding the right way to test anti-shake is like trying to get some boiled spaghetti to stand upright. Just what is the proper way to do it?

My conclusion was that only the person who owns/uses the camera can do an effective test, as everyone varies in their abilities and techniques of camera holding. So my conclusions would be different to your conclusions.

This below I thought was a better way to attack the problem, keep taking 5 shots at each shutter speed at maximum tele in this case, and then see at what point the number of shots just rises to 100% keepers.

I quoted/edited my Casio Talk post just to avoid links. The little Casio does have PASM modes but very limited in range available, but I did manage the shutter speeds below without much trouble in the low light of the rainy day.

=============quote==============

I use FastStone Viewer and display all the images full screen on a 12" notebook so that it's easier to judge if the image would make a decent 4"x6" print.

So from each set of 5 shots this shake picture emerges at maximum optical zoom .....

[at 266mm equivalent, target about 10 metres away]

1/8 sec 1 shot out of 5 is acceptable
1/10 sec 1 shot out of 5 is acceptable
1/20 sec 2 shots out of 5 are acceptable
1/25 sec 2 shots out of 5 are acceptable
1/30 sec 3 shots out of 5 are acceptable
1/40 sec 3 shots out of 5 are acceptable
1/50 sec 3 shots out of 5 are acceptable
1/60 sec 4 shots out of 5 are acceptable
1/80 sec 4 shots out of 5 are acceptable (underexpose)
1/100 sec 5 shots out of 5 are acceptable (underexpose)

Remember that this is a dull rainy day and I would normally not be shooting for real outside in this light. If I really needed a shot under these conditions I would use my DSLR.

I need to repeat this sort of set of speed tests on a sunnier day when I can get a range of higher shutter speeds and then use the camera with anti-shake off so as to judge at what point the 5 good out of 5 comes in. That way I can then see how many speed stops advantage the [Casio V8] anti-shake yields.
==========unquote==============

So as you can see I need to wait until the sun shines again so I can complete part2 with a similar spread of shutter speeds with anti-shake turned off and then may have a stab at telling how many stops advantage the Casio pocket camera has at maximum tele.

If I later get an Oly DSLR with anti-shake of course I will use the same method to come to my own conclusions. People who quote marketing stuff about camera features and advantages are not seeing the truth and are missing out on a world of learning about their own cameras.

So I consider the 5 shots method as a valid way to do home testing, and in fact if I am in difficult light shots in real shooting I do take maybe 5 to 15 shots to then be able to pick the best of the bunch.

Regards............. Guy

 

[Lee Jay]

That was wide open.

what lens ?

17-40L

And corners are rarely in-focus wide open.

• i add: somehow the paper shows sharpening artefacts

Since it's unsharpened, that's interesting.

ok, appeared perhaps during bad resizing

Probably. Could be JPEG artifacts too.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Louis_Dobson]

However, your finished picture will have been assembled out of 1/4 the photons.

Since noise is largely the product of random photons, 4 times the quantity causes them to average out, and the random noise to be reduced by two stops.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[marf]

thats wide open, but not very wide.

so in your case your dont have the "sparpening" problem i mentioned, but traded it for the "slow aperture" problem, which also works against your claimed Iso advantage.
--
regards
Martin

 

[Lee Jay]

thats wide open, but not very wide.

Right - equivalent to 8.5mm and f2 on 4/3. I have a 35/1.4L (17.5/0.7 on 4/3) and an 85/1.8 (42.5/0.9 on 4/3) for speed.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)