February 26, 2015, 11:08:41 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 - ecka

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 50
256
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 04, 2014, 06:16:28 AM »

A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. Including some who think they know better in this thread.  ;D   Its shown quite well in this article.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

Note that no where in the luminous landscape article did the guy refer to subject isolation.
DOF and subject isolation (or background blur - or do you mean something else?) are not necessarily the same.
Taking pictures with a short focal length and short subject distance vs with a long focal length and longer subject distance (for the same framing, using the same camera and aperture) results in the same dof, but the latter will give you a much blurrier background.

How about - "For the same magnification of the area in focus (different lenses, different distances), longer focal length at the same aperture will give you same DoF and more background magnification".

257
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 04, 2014, 05:47:25 AM »
"Wide open" vs "wide open" is pointless.

I see your point, but I beg to differ concerning the conclusion: If you want the thinnest dof (or fastest speed) with any lens/camera combination you'll use "wide open" a lot in reality, so it's perfectly valid to look at this performance no matter the synthetic equivalence.

Look? - yes. Compare? - no. If you want the thinnest dof, then you should get a FF camera in the first place. The fact that 10-22 can't do f/1.8 (which is the FF equivalent for f/2.8 ) doesn't justify your logic. There is no f/1.8 UWA for APSC (for now, maybe the mighty Sigma will make one later :) ) and that's another reason to go FF.

258
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: March 03, 2014, 02:02:00 PM »
Sony needs to release uwa asap for a7 system. ...otherwise, it could be "dead end" as eos-m.

FE 16-35/4.0 zeiss/sony is next up for 2014 according to the roadmap.
http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sony-lens-roadmap.jpg
Current 24-70 f4 size is kinda big for this system. They need to release compact prime at f4.

Yeah, for an UWA 14mm (or even 20mm) f/4 would be nice, but for 85mm ... wee..ell :-\ I think f/2 is small enough for me ... I could live with that :).

259
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 03, 2014, 10:35:44 AM »
16-35mm f/2.8 L II on a 5D3 Vs 10-22mm on a 70D, which theoretically would give the better image?

The often criticized "problem" of current Canon ff lenses is the lack of corner performance esp. wide open (if you care about that). Ignoring that, the ff sensor can always generate higher res yadayadayada (see posts above), this is visible in the iso crop.

Another potential fact to keep in mind is that you can buy nearly 3x 70d+10-22 for 1x 5d3+16-35 :->

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=271&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

For fair comparison it should be 16-35L@16/5.6 vs 10-22@10/3.5, or at least choose the best performing aperture number from each lens. "Wide open" vs "wide open" is pointless.

260
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 07:17:06 PM »
I think that "excellent detail and sharpness" is a matter of opinion. I thought my 7D+Sigma 50/1.4 was excellent, until I tried 5D2+50/1.8'II (I hated the build, pentagon aperture and AF noise, but it was SHARP!). FF wins thanks to either bigger pixels or more of them.

I'm going to be blunt because I've shot both combinations (owned both lenses at one time, now just the Sigma): at low ISO and wide apertures, if your final 7D+Sigma file doesn't look better then your final 5D2+NiftyFifty file something is wrong.

By SHARP! I mean f/2.8+ sharp :). Sigma 50/1.4 produces much nicer bokeh (I think it is one of the best 50s), but I don't think it is sharper wide open on crop, than 50/1.8'II on FF. However, sometimes wide open images from 50/1.8'II are a bit dreamy with glowing high contrast edges.

261
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:25:58 PM »
Ecka you are right. In the real world with good light I would not hesitate to use a crop sensor camera with a good lens. The problem is noise at high ISO when light levels drop. This is where a full frame body comes into its own. The maximum ISO I use on my 7D is 800 whereas on my 5Dmk111 I will go to 4000 ISO. I do not rely on test charts to tell me what the best images are from a camera, I rely on experience and the final image displayed on my computer.

Actually, I was talking about low ISO :), but yes, FF wins the high ISO battle by 2 stops.

262
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 02:00:27 PM »
Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
The Full Frame Myth

Interesting musings.  His viewpoint seems to be that current APS-C sensors can deliver IQ on par with FF sensors in many situations - and that's true.  But the converse is that FF at it's worst is equivalent to APS-C, and in many situations, it's better. 

Also, aside from the IQ considerations, can I get DoF from an APS-C sensor equivalent to f/1.2 on a FF sensor with the same framing and perspective?  No.  Likewise, a significant portion of my shots are at ISO 3200 or higher, and APS-C is significantly inferior to FF in terms of noise at those high ISO settings. 

From a practical level, we buy cameras and not sensors.  There is not an APS-C dSLR that can deliver 12 fps or has the most advanced AF and metering systems that Canon has to offer.

So I keep coming back to my earlier point:  the primary advantage of APS-C sensors, and the cameras in which they are used, is that they cost less.

+1

Smaller pixels tend to produce more false color (noise, grain, bayer demosaicking errors, rough color gradation patterns). Therefore, APS-C requires better lighting conditions to achieve the IQ level similar to same resolution FF sensor ... and perhaps a better lens, which would make the price close to FF combo (it is sad to watch m4/3 users being robbed by Pana, Oly and Leica). In perfect lighting conditions, the difference may be negligible.

263
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 11:05:04 AM »
This is why I have said (and got pounced on for it), that a future 50+ MP full frame camera, is rarely if ever going to fully resolve detail on all of its pixels on most every lens there is...

I wouldn't "pounce" on you for this, but I would disagree. If we were to scale up current APS-C densities they would equal 45 MP or more on FF. The number of lenses and aperture combinations that yield excellent detail and sharpness on my 7D and M are quite large actually. Granted it's more challenging to hold that across the frame on 35mm, but I don't doubt that a 50 MP FF body would prove excellent with good glass and a tripod or IS. I think we would be looking at 75-100 MP before there would be hardly any lenses or apertures that benefit.

I think that "excellent detail and sharpness" is a matter of opinion. I thought my 7D+Sigma 50/1.4 was excellent, until I tried 5D2+50/1.8'II (I hated the build, pentagon aperture and AF noise, but it was SHARP!). FF wins thanks to either bigger pixels or more of them.

264
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:05:26 AM »
There is very little to gain by sticking an L lens on a crop body.

So what ef-s tele lenses do you use (hint: there are none), or what non-L tele lenses do you recommend at a lower price than for example the 70-300L with the same sturdiness and weather sealing?

Actually, there is one pretty decent EF-S tele lens EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens.

265
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:26:20 AM »
Quote
FF Sharper than crop?

Yes, it is, because crop is cropped :).

266
When I was using 7D for macro (mostly hand held) it was very difficult to get the right framing and the subject in perfect focus at the same time. Now, with 6D I don't worry about the framing so much (or at all), because FF is much more crop-friendly, so I can focus on timing and DoF positioning.
Another FF advantage is MP-E 65/2.8 1-5x Macro, which is somewhat limited by it's lowest magnification of 1:1 macro and not every insect is small enough to fit inside APSC framing without cropping something off (long legs, whiskers, etc). You can always crop, so FF gives more flexibility.
TBH, when talking about size, I think that crop sensor has no advantages other than price.

267
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 10:54:02 AM »
I'm stool a little confused... but I'm glad the topic of conversation has gone back to full v crop and how we measure the difference... having said that... I'm still just as confused as when I first posed the question...

Maybe you are asking the wrong question?

268
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:39:09 AM »

The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.
That's a leftover from the film era, when the body was mostly a light-tight box for your lenses and for your sensor (film), and no one caring about quality were shooting APS.

Now, an FF body will make your L lenses work better.


I still agree with the sentiment... for 2 reasons... Lenses don't depreciate quickly... so you are better off running your body into the ground (150K of actuations) because it won't really be worth that much after a few years when you try and sell it.  Point in case... the 1d iii which sold for $6K and is now selling for $1k.  Whereas... if you bought a few nice lenses, you can still get well more than 16% of their original value.

And you can put an L lens on an older body and still get fantastic results... depending on what you are shooting.  If it is landscape or portraiture, the advances in high iso performance and AF performance are minimized and you can still get some amazing images using an older XTi.  Heck... if you are still rocking the t2i, there haven't really been that many advances along the lines of the crop sensors that would warrant buying a t5i. 

When I sold my XS... it was a wash... when I sold my 60D, I lost $200 in depreciation... and when I sell my 5D mkiii, I will lose around $1000 in depreciation... which kills me.  But maybe I avoid that by just using the mkiii until it dies in 10 years.

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

"marriage without sex"...isn't that just "marriage"?  :P

Maybe, can't confirm yet :D.

269
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:12:49 AM »
Dear Larry,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

The web is loaded with very skilled photographers pictures - in which we can easily identify that the "picture" we are viewing - is NOT a photograph of something real - but a photograph that was taken "to the next level" and changed into something I would call "digital art".

I am not discussing the what label I would use for the person who created this picture. He or She may well be a world class photographer. I am saying, that to my mind, the result is not a photograph but a picture, and reflects PP skills more then VISION.

Look any pro photographer selling his work, is coerced to doctor up his photos- so the client will be impressed.

PP is so advanced, easily obtained, and easy to use - that we are all tempted to use it!

The results are stunning. The client does not care about how we did it.

However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design.

Is there any camera that can capture a real photograph by your standards? I don't think so. Human vision has much wider dynamic range than any photographic system these days, including film. You can fake it in PP (that's what I'm trying to do most of the time). For me, photography is about capturing information about the real world. Then by manipulating it in PP I can either purify the true data (make it look like I saw it with my own eyes), or add some false information (which would make it a "digital art"). So let's be honest, there is always some amount of false information in all photographs. There is no such thing as a real photograph. You can only decide for yourself if the image contains enough information to call it a photograph.

270
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 10:55:37 PM »
And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?

DoF is dependant on the 'circle of confusion' (CoC) of the sensor, which is determined by the pixel size.
Smaller pixels have smaller CoC so the DoF will be narrower - all else being equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Phil.

That's not it. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from the same distance, you get the same DoF, but 2.5 times smaller FoV on APSC camera. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from different distances to achieve the same framing, then you get different DoF. So, when you are using 35/1.4 on APSC the FL doesn't change, it's still 35mm, but you are using it at a longer distance than on FF, but now it is cropped, so the FoV is 56mm equivalent and that's why you are getting deeper DoF. In other words, you are cropping 56mm FoV out of 35mm FoV shot at a longer distance.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 50