Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
- Thread starter Sabaki
- Start date
Zv said:
Only if your camera is faulty, exposure has nothing to do with sensor size. Absolutely nothing.
Upvote
0
philmoz said:
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.
Upvote
0
ecka said:jdramirez said:
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"?
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I see. Could it be due to the larger pixels then?
Edit - I am talking like a crazy person, please ignore my stupidity.
Upvote
0
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
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.
Larry said:koolman said:
Hi Koolman,
"totally" disagree?
You have broadened the subject from the definition of a photographer to what his subject should be, i.e., what he chooses to present, and how he chooses to present it, to the viewer. Now we are in subjectivity-land.
I'll go back to my carpenter analogy - the carpenter may be a good or poor craftsman. He may choose to make a fine home (by YOUR standards), or some piece of woodworking "art" to take to the Burning Man Festival. Or the very same carpenter may do both on different occasions. What he chooses to "carpent", makes him no less a carpenter. ;-)
In any case, he will likely make use of the best tools available to him to do his type of creating.
I made no mention of "digital art", and my comments about what defines a photographer, I believe, hold while discussing your preferred "realism" style.
I personally think that your preference that the photograph represent "something that the photographer saw" is reasonable, considering that digital art may readily be created on a computer alone, with no camera involved at all..
I believe that the usual expectation is that a photographer would use a camera. With that understood, I would then expect him to point the lens at something of his choosing, operate the camera as he chooses or as his ability allows, and then, using the image presented to his recording medium by the lens, complete the photograph per his personal "vision", using his "completing" tools, …the same as A. Adams and the host of acknowledged-to-be-great-photographers have (usually) done. "Usually", because there is always, among any numerous group of creators, some few "purists" who have decided that less is more. These same few might declare that the artistic fine woodworker is not a carpenter, because he decided to add some particular finish or stain, to, in his opinion' "enhance" the piece.
I hardly think this would disqualify him as a carpenter. But the purist might be left wondering what the natural wood would look like, if the so-called carpenter hadn't "messed it up", with his post-processing.
When the definition of photographer is a person who "realistically " presents all his subject material, …if this could be perfectly done, and if numerous persons attained this level of expertise, there would be no such thing as a recognizable "style" by which to differentiate among them.
If we add the requirement that the composition be perfect ( by some arbitrary standard), that the lighting be perfect also, by the same arbitrarily decided standard, then when all was done, there would be ONE style. Any one's work would be perceptually the same as that of any other.
"Vision" would be limited by decree, and any expression of personal style, a digression, …disqualifying the offender, one would expect, as "a photographer". :-[
If the intent is more than the "accuracy" expected in photographic recording in the fields of science, medicine, archeology, etc., … if the objective is to create something pleasing to look at or display,then some degree of artistic license has to be permitted, if all work is not to be the same in presenting "Just the facts, Ma'am" ;-)
I wonder if you would consider A. A. less than a photographer, because the lighting he presents in a print of "Moonrise" (or some other work of his) wasn't REALLY as dramatic in the flesh? ( For a before-and-after example of Ansel's "post-processing" see this link:
http://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/
There is discussion on the above linked-page that will be of great interest, I'm sure, to anyone participating in or enjoying this part of this thread! Accuracy vs. Interpretation(or "Vision")
(Is a bell pepper really seen as in Weston's print without some contrivance as to lighting , and without a few darkroom touches? Set one on your table, and see if it looks the same :
http://www.edward-weston.com
It would cause somewhat of stir to declare either of these two men "not a photographer!".
Do we think they would have used Photoshop?
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.
Upvote
0
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
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.
koolman said:
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.
Upvote
0
Zv said:
Zv...my 5d3 and 1dx always seem to underexpose by 1/4 stop if I let the camera choose the exposure. Different cameras expose differently even in manual with the same settings. Maybe the reasons are technical design differences, manufacturing allowances, product manager goals/ objectives for marketing the camera...I don't have the answer, maybe someone else does.
Upvote
0
CarlTN said:ecka said:jdramirez said:
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
"marriage without sex"...isn't that just "marriage"?
Maybe, can't confirm yet
.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
ecka said:
Or more accurately, maybe because there is no correct answer...just never-ending commentary on web forums from people who are convinced they are right, when if they would just listen they would know that I am the one who is right.
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:
If I understand the question, see if this helps make sense of it:
Depth of field is affected by two things: absolute aperture and subject magnification. In terms of exposure, sensor size doesn't change anything, the whole "2.8 on crop is like 4.5 on FF" only refers to DoF.
If you took a picture, with a given aperture and subject distance, on FF and crop, you would get the same depth of field on both, just framed differently. (The FF image would have a wider angle of view.) if you framed them identically, your subject distance would have to change, therefore changing depth of field as well.
I just don't worry about it, as I'm quite happy with my 7d and the depth of field it gives me.
Edited to steal PBD's words, since I had ignored focal length.
Upvote
0
bseitz234 said:
No, dof is affected by two things, aperture size (not number) and subject magnification.
A 17mm and 200mm shot from the same place with the same aperture value have different dof, your statement says they would be the same.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Ok good point. I was taking FL as static, basically trying to distinguish lens from sensor. But that is more accurate, I will edit.
Upvote
0
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
Where has all that crop vs FF discussion gone?
I understand PP is a philosophical rather than technical argument and that there will be no winner.
Take for instance David Nightingale's B&W work. It's terrific. (I highly recommend this course of his: https://www.udemy.com/the-art-of-black-and-white-photography/) He manages to get B&W images that really stand out, even though they're not accurate representations of the real scene. There's a dull photo of a wrecked ship that he converts to B&W with such a dramatic sky that you think it's Noah's ark and the flood is about to come. It's far from an accurate representation, but it looks rather good. Right? Wrong? I don't care.
On the other hand, I've learned through the years that correcting in PS is not my thing. I'm not into removing power lines from an image; it feels (to me!) like cheating. I do crop to hide a few things, however...
To each his own, but to me it works like this: I like PP when it helps you get something that you could not achieve in camera, but I'm not fond of it for "correcting" things.
I like this one very much, from Zack Arias: “If you find yourself out shooting a client and you’re sayin’ in your head ‘oh I’ll just fix that later in photoshop’ stop what you’re doing and slap yourself as hard as you can.’”
Cheers
Daniel
koolman said:
Where has all that crop vs FF discussion gone?
I understand PP is a philosophical rather than technical argument and that there will be no winner.
Take for instance David Nightingale's B&W work. It's terrific. (I highly recommend this course of his: https://www.udemy.com/the-art-of-black-and-white-photography/) He manages to get B&W images that really stand out, even though they're not accurate representations of the real scene. There's a dull photo of a wrecked ship that he converts to B&W with such a dramatic sky that you think it's Noah's ark and the flood is about to come. It's far from an accurate representation, but it looks rather good. Right? Wrong? I don't care.
On the other hand, I've learned through the years that correcting in PS is not my thing. I'm not into removing power lines from an image; it feels (to me!) like cheating. I do crop to hide a few things, however...
To each his own, but to me it works like this: I like PP when it helps you get something that you could not achieve in camera, but I'm not fond of it for "correcting" things.
I like this one very much, from Zack Arias: “If you find yourself out shooting a client and you’re sayin’ in your head ‘oh I’ll just fix that later in photoshop’ stop what you’re doing and slap yourself as hard as you can.’”
Cheers
Daniel
Upvote
0
bseitz234 said:
Well we still aren't quite there. If you take the same picture from the same place with the same lens and settings and on a crop and ff cameras, then make two prints the same size, the image is different (obviously) and the dof is less in the crop camera image.
If you have two different sized prints, such that the subjects were the same size then the dof would be the same from both cameras.
DOF is dependent on magnification, to get a same sized print you have to enlarge the crop camera more so it has less dof.
It isn't until people accept that dof is subjective and dependent on magnification, that it clicks that crop cameras can have, more, less, or the same, dof as a ff camera.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
