September 23, 2014, 12:41:58 PM

Show Posts

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.

Messages - Sella174

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« on: Today at 09:45:12 AM »
it really should have been a EF-22/2.0 STM pancake. Not EF-S. Not 24mm. Not f/2.8.

I agree with your point of view and I would even go further.
It would have been nice for low light purpose (use in a church for example) to have EF 20mm f/1.8 STM. It would be interesting for both APS-C and FF

A large aperture ("f-stop") is no longer a requirement for low-light photography, in the same way that it was back in the days of film or sub-ISO800 sensors. Plus, if you want shallow DoF, then a 24mm lens is anyway not the lens to use.

Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« on: Today at 05:01:18 AM »
Now, although Canon may not have listened to me personally, it's nice to know that they are finally starting to do what I've been saying for years ... EF-S primes! Really makes you wonder what other great recommendations I have to offer them. :D

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 22, 2014, 08:21:46 AM »
Finally Canon releases the camera we should have had years ago. Now for the (weather-sealed) EF-S L lenses to match ...  ;)

Well, if the lens is up to the job, obviously any high megapixel count sensor at a low ISO setting will provide more image detail than a bigger sensor with a lower megapixel count at the same ISO setting with the same lens.


Thanks for that lengthy reply. I now see where the problem lies: we are comparing different things. Oh, and thanks also for attributing statements which I never made to me.  ;)

If Sella wanted to compare tech he should have said so, but he used the term "full frame;" by definition, that is a sensor with dimensions equal to a frame of 35mm film.  That is the defining characteristic of "full-frame."

It is in truth neuroanatomist who keeps insisting that a sensor of "full-frame" size has better "characteristics" than an equal sensor of "crop-frame" size, e.g.

You're suggesting that if I crop an APS-C FoV from a shot with my 1D X, that the IQ of the resulting 7 MP image will be the same as the IQ an uncropped image (assuming I adjusted the framing with a zoom lens or changing the distance).  Sorry, that's simply not true.   


Just because a sensor is larger doesn't mean it has less noise and indeed, if you were to take two sensors that used pixels of the same design then both sensors would have equal noise.

But is that not what I've been saying all this time?

If you want to compare sensor technologies, then the size of the sensor is less imporant.  If you want to compare a FF camera to an APS-C camera, then it's essential to include the entire area of each because those are the defining characteristics of each.

So what's your intention?  Are you comparing sensor tech or actual cameras with FF and APS-C sensors?

I am comparing sensor technology, whilst neuroanatomist responds by comparing actual camera sensors. Very confusing.

Um, if you're excluding the light outside the center (crop-equivalent) area, you're not comparing a FF to a crop-frame; you're comparing a crop-frame to a crop-frame.

More correct would be say that one is comparing a crop of a "full-frame" sensor to a "crop-frame" sensor.

The comparison is absolutely meaningless unless you compare the full area of the FF against the full area of the crop-frame.

But even that is a meaningless comparison, because a "full-frame" sensor is physically larger in area than a "crop-frame" sensor and thus always illuminated by more light. For this type of comparison to have any real meaning, the two sensors must be normalized ... somehow.

Lenses / Re: This thing's gotta go!
« on: June 11, 2014, 05:31:56 PM »
Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D Macro - fully disassembled, I was able to fix what was causing the zoom and focus to not be smooth, however, I was not able to reassemble it (I like fixing Canon gear much more)

I sometimes fix Nikon lenses and, yes, yuck to reassemble. You have to get all the gears and such correctly aligned in the correct order or it won't go back together. Very, very troublesome.

So it boils down to these two points?

Three points, actually. You forgot the +36MP "full-frame" camera, with lenses to match. (Oops, that's a fourth point.)

So you're wrong even about your own behavior.  Interesting.

OK, since my understanding is apparently wrong ... and I want to learn.

Given a "full-frame" sensor and a "crop-frame" sensor, made of the same "sensor technology", i.e. same size photosites, same A/D converter, same everything except area.

The statement is that a "full-frame" sensor gathers more total light than a "crop-frame" sensor.

Explain to me how and why the "full-frame" sensor collects more light in the centre area of the same equivalent size as the "crop-frame" sensor, than does the "crop-frame" sensor; or, stated differently, how and why does light falling in the area on the "full-frame" sensor outside the "crop-frame" equivalent centre area affect the amount of light gather within the designated centre area of the "full-frame" sensor, thereby causing said designated centre area of the "full-frame" sensor to gather more light than the "crop-frame" sensor.

I'm not really sure what your point here is ...

The point was simply that "full-frame" is not the ultimate objective in camera ownership for everyone who is not a "soccer-mom" and that some enthusiasts are quite happy with "crop-frame" cameras. I guess in the same way some are not content with the current 20MP'ish "full-frame" offerings from Canon, even though most "full-frame" users are quite happy as it stands.

Wrong.  Care to try again?

Who cares? I'll just move the lens forward, as all that does is change the aesthetic perception.  :P

Changing the distance would alter only perspective, an aesthetic change with no relevance to the sensor comparison.

No further comment ... it is futile.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45