40mm is too long for the crop senser as a " street walker". 35mm 1.4L is big and heavy. You may want to consider a Non-L 28mm or even 24mm. that will give you close to be 45mm or 28mm FF equivalent.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Let us all save our money and buy a MF and shoot landscape at f/2.
I agree with most but not really with this paragraph. Appropriately scaled (same) great quality lenses just do not exist. You cannot scale the index of refraction, and the lens design must be different. For the same DOF, etc., you have rays which need to be focused more than before (for smaller sensors), etc. There is a reason MF is still alive. The FF resolution near, say, f/2 is dramatically better than the crop one at f/1.4. When you stop down, the advantage decreases but it is there, and is real. I never had a landscape with my crop cameras that I could find acceptable, with all kind of lenses, L or not. Now, even the 24-105 is clearly better.
In the film days, you either shot with a SLR, or a p/s. There was no middle ground, with the exception of a few half-frame cameras, which were a lot closer to SLR than P/S. Very few of them were sold.Modified due to Jim O's post:
We can't really compare film formats to digital formats because of the different pixel sizes used in digital. In film, at a particular ISO, for all practical purposes you had one resolution. Bigger sheet of film captures more detail, smaller one captures less. In the digital world, you range from pixel densities of around 20megapixels to around 5 gigapixels for the equivalent area of a FF sensor. In film the limit was how big you could make the camera, in digital it becomes a hard limit where if the pixel were any smaller it would be shorter than the waveform of light and become a mechanical filter.
I am not sure what your point is. Since film of the same ISO was made more or less of the same material, with similar grain structure, this is in a way equivalent to a fixed pixel size. This degrades the resolution of the media proportionally to the crop factor. With digital, pixels can actually be smaller, and this is an advantage. We are still far from wavelength sized pixels, and film has no chance to get anywhere close anyway.
Even if you think of film as some perfect analogous sensor, detail smaller than wavelength does not exist anyway in the projected image, and then there is the photon nature of light, and all that.
Obviously, I did not explain myself well.
Back in the good old days of film, if you wanted an image good enough for an advertising poster, you had to go to medium format or larger to get a negative with enough detail to blow up..... 35 mm just did not cut it, blow it up past 16x20 and the lack of detail showed. This is one of, if not the big one, of the reasons why the advertising world and so many studios went to larger formats.
35MM was great for magazine sized prints, with the smaller format one could get economical lenses at a variety of focal lengths, particularly longer ones. The smaller formats like 110 were great for the instamatics and p/s cameras of the day, same market as APSC is in now....but with the reduced film size came reduced image size to that of 35mm..... blowing up a 110 negative past 8x10 was a bad idea because the detail just was not there.
With film, there was no real option of upping the resolution. If you made the silver halide crystals in the emulsion smaller, you got more detail, but you reduced the ISO. At a particular ISO there was not much difference between brands of film, unless you went B/W.
Digital is very different from film.
If you had a film camera that you could use 35mm (FF) film in or use 110 (APS-C) film in, you could very easily say that the 35MM film has 2 1/2 times the detail of the 110 image. In the digital world, with a great lens, an 18Mpixel FF sensor would have almost the same amount of detail as an APS-C 18Mpixel image with the appropriately scaled great quality lens. <edit: they would be almost the same, the FF would be a bit better than APS-C> In the film world, the quality of each square mm of film would be the same between the two sizes, and in the digital world the quality of the FF pixels would be up totwice as good as the quality of the APS-C pixels (depending on lighting and assuming the same level of technology and processing).
Both digital formats give you an image that you can blow up to 17x11 at 300dpi..... but if you want to go bigger, conventional thinking says go MF and get more pixels, yes, you could wait for FF cameras with more megapixels, but as the numbers climb in FF they will also climb in MF. You could wait for a rumoured 75Mpixel FF camera or plop down your credit card today and order a Hasselblad HD4-200 with 200Mpixels...for sale now! MF will always beat FF for pixels.... and will always blow up larger.
The thing is, digital is not film.... you can take multiple pictures and stitch them together to get those high megapixel images to really blow up.... yes, it is easier to do it in one shot with MF, but the point is that there are now options, where as with film there was not. For example, the shot below is CROPPED down to a 150Mpixel image and was taken with a 60D. I have a couple 2Gpixel images that I have taken. We can do things now with a middle of the road camera that were impossible with a MF or even large format film camera.
The point is, that with digital photography. the answers are not clear. Size of sensor or number of megapixels is just one factor. So much depends on how you do photography and how you process the results that in some cases you can produce superior results with a crop camera than a MF camera, and other times it's the other way around. There is a place for MF, FF, and crop cameras.... it becomes a question of the right tool for the job for the way YOU (not someone else) are going to do the job. There are no easy answers anymore.
I cannot recall that the term FF was used for film format. However, Olympus took half the standard 36mm X24mm as their new format for their Pen series in the 60's and call it half frame. Therefore can we call the 36mm X 24mm as an implied FF???Canon sells more APS-C parts than FF parts. Always has, probably always will.
A good example of the "my memory is universal memory" fallacy.
Canon has existed since 1933. Canon started selling APS-C sensored cameras in 2003. For 70 years, they never sold a single APS-C sensor. All those years they sold cameras equipped for "full frame" 35mm film. As far as I know they never sold film either, so they never sold any image sensors at all for 70 of their 80 years. They would seem to be quite new to this whole arena. Who knows what the future may hold.
I'm hoping maybe they get into the dark chocolate business.
Did anyone ever call 35mm film "full frame" before digital came along (except maybe in the context of those cameras that could shoot 2 or 4 pictures within a single 35mm frame)? I think you might be able to argue that anytime some refers to FF in this context they are talking digital.
I did not say you say the opposite thing. I said you are saying the same thing as Nuero in an opposite way.You are basically saying the same thing as Neuro in a oppsoite way.
No, I am saying the opposite thing. That you may find out that you do not need to stop down, very often at least.
And not everybody is coming from film, many people started with crop cameras. Give some credit to the younger generation.QuoteFor someone comming from film, I am surprised that you call "Exposure Value" as "a vague term you just invented"
I explained that already.
For example, I think most photographers would most likely consider photographing at f/2.8, regardless of sensor size, if they had the option and wanted a thin depth of field. That they would have to photograph at a narrower aperture on a larger sensor in order to produce equivalent results with a smaller sensor is, I think, not generally how most photographers think. Even in the context of evaluating a camera system for purchase.
There is another side to it. Most crop camera photographers would shoot at f/2.8 (with the 17-55, or 70-200, etc.) not because they do not want to go get shallower DOF but because they cannot (say, with those zooms). When they try FF, they may discover that more than often, there is nothing wrong with the f/2.8 DOF on FF, and learn how to shoot and compose even then. This is something difficult to evaluate before you try. I am coming from film, so I did not need much convincing.
+1; Some people travel around the world with Leica M,a 35mm f2.0 and a 90mm f2.0 lens in order to "travel light".But ultimately what I crave, like many people, is a single prime that will cover all-day, all-night, multipurpose shooting. I think most shooters agree that 50mm is just a bit long for that. An approximate 35mm length seems to be the survivalist length of choice. But c'mon, we all know it's just a bit wide for most portraits. Right? ;-)
If you have a fast prime, you can bokeh the crap out of a poor background.
If you have a nice body, you can crop the crap out.
If you have a set of balls you can get closer.
If you have a good eye, you can do environmental portraiture.
This is a message from the 35/85 liberation front.
Leica's first lens was a 50mm, the 135 format and the 50mm "standard", became popular long before slr's. There is zero retrofocus issue with a 50mm multi element lens on an 18mm- 38mm flange distance, common rangefinder interchangeable lens flange distances. Even with slr's requirement for larger flange distances closer to 42mm-48mm there is still no retrofocus issue with multi element 50mm lenses.
For the Canon FL system, their first interchangeable slr system, from 1964-1971 that morphed into the FD system and shared mount and flange distance, they made six 50mm lenses and one 55mm lens and two 58mm lenses, the later three being the more complex f1.2 version of their standard lens.
I love it when people say stuff like "suggest you to look into the history a little bit more" without having the slightest idea of who they are talking to, nor give references for their own education.
As a primer, read this.
Now it is cheap and easy to make 50mm lens for SLR due to the new technology in glass making and grinding process. In the 40's and the 50's it is entirely different story. 55mm was use to avoid retrofocus and keep the price reasonable. I would suggest you to look into the history a little bit more, pay attention to the price of lens and camera in the 40's and 50's also.Due to the mirror, it is hard (expensive) to make a 50mm standard lens. Therefore 55mm became the standrd SLR lens until the 50's or even early 60's.
It is very easy and cheap to make 50mm lenses, even for 135 format reflex cameras, thought 135 format was adopted long before the SLR became a standard and rangefinders are even easier to design lenses for, 50mm lenses have no technical hurdles to overcome, no retrofocus or similar issues. That is why, even today, you can buy new auto focus 50mm lenses for $100!
Canon and Nikon were selling 55mm lenses well into the '70's, often alongside 50mm versions.
You can always select your gear manually on the automatic transmission.
I realize there are car afficionados out there who love their stick shift, but why not take advantage of the dual clutch auto and all the extra speed it gives you .
Oh man..you had the analogy going VERY well, until the end there with the car attempt....<P>
For a sports car, especially a high end sports car, you want a manual transmission...if not for resale value, but for performance.
You're generally gonna get the better times and stats with manual over automatic, if you know how to drive the manual...
I've never owned a car with auto transmission, and only one car have I ever owned had more than 2 seats (that one was an '86 911 Turbo, but those rear seats aren't really useable for anything but 2x bags of groceries).....
LOL...anyway, good thoughts on the camera, but ugh...a sports car with auto transmission? A waste of good steel....
OMGzzzz!!1!!one!1!!!!!! I'd never even drive an automatic! I am British though, and those things are quite rare here. Why would you let the car decide what gear you need to be in?
I'm possibly the only person that will survive when the robots take over, it appears.
Take a look at the Leica M9 system. It is against the 'laws' that you have mentioned.I will stay with full frame.
Is there a law telling mirrorless cannot be full frame?
Sounds also that there's law telling mirrorless must be too small to be convenient with big lenses.
After they change those laws, then mirrorless bodies start (slowly) replacing traditional DSLRs.