Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
Click said:
Don't be too harsh on him, he is a nice guy. I do (did) agree on most points of his photographic philosophy (before he lost his way
) ), like learning the full potential of one lens before buying another, or that "glass before body" is BS (there has to be a balance), FF + nice and cheap primes work amazingly well!
Upvote
0
I noticed that in a link listed on the initial linked page for this thread, Arias makes note of what many here have mentioned: that he's "back pedaling now".
The link ( http://dedpxl.com/crop-or-crap-math-or-moment/ ) also has the video where has expresses a view contrary to his current one, the very video ecka mentions earlier in this thread.
In the article, he writes, "Look. Some of the trolls out there are going to think this is a Fuji sponsored message. It isn’t. While Fuji is a client of mine and I have done work for them they sure as hell don’t keep food on my table or a roof over my head on any sort of regular basis. " He continues in the same paragraph to explain his perspective.
It appears that he is aware that he holds a different perspective now and is aware also of what he has stated in the past. He gives reasons for which he holds his current view.
Is it not reasonable to see him merely as someone who has changed his mind about something in light of his self-reported experience, and also to take his word that he is not doing Fuji's bidding?
Just a question I'm left with as I read this thread.
The link ( http://dedpxl.com/crop-or-crap-math-or-moment/ ) also has the video where has expresses a view contrary to his current one, the very video ecka mentions earlier in this thread.
In the article, he writes, "Look. Some of the trolls out there are going to think this is a Fuji sponsored message. It isn’t. While Fuji is a client of mine and I have done work for them they sure as hell don’t keep food on my table or a roof over my head on any sort of regular basis. " He continues in the same paragraph to explain his perspective.
It appears that he is aware that he holds a different perspective now and is aware also of what he has stated in the past. He gives reasons for which he holds his current view.
Is it not reasonable to see him merely as someone who has changed his mind about something in light of his self-reported experience, and also to take his word that he is not doing Fuji's bidding?
Just a question I'm left with as I read this thread.
Upvote
0
notapro said:
I think the lesson to be learned is not to have too strong opinions or the feeling you are absolutely right. That is what makes it odd that such a strong proponent of 'cannot go back to crop' now says 'difference between crop and full frame is negligible'.
I think both his viewpoints are partially correct, but that doesn't prevent him from looking like an obnoxious, repetitive, opinionated know-it-all who likes to hear his own voice, in the video (even though he might be a perfectly nice guy in person).
He might have said some good points in favor of his viewpoint in the last few minutes- I don't know, because I couldn't watch past the first 10 minutes. All I remember from those 10 minutes is 'people shouldn't care between APS-C and FF because the difference between them is 'negligible' compared to FF and MF'.
That's very poor logic- would you not care whether you buy a two-seater compact or a four-seater sedan, because both are so much smaller compared to a minivan!
There are lots of reasons why APS-C should suffice, but I didn't hear him utter any. For example, under strong lighting and plenty of DoF, it doesn't matter.
Upvote
0
MichaelHodges said:
You really need to learn how to use it, and how to convert and process the files from it properly, then.
Your interminable bashing just makes those of us who know how to get the best out of the 7D, realise how much it must suck to be you.
Obviously at high ISOs (say, over 6400 ISO), crop sensors give ground to FF, but that's true of all crop sensors.
The 7D's sensor is, even today, broadly comparable with any other crop sensor out there at high (for crop) ISO, converted and processed intelligently.
I've long said the 7D's biggest problem is some of the people that bought it...
Upvote
0
Obviously a Fuji Sponsored campaign.
However - I agree with the idea - that the advantages of FF over Crop - are getting smaller all the time, as far as overall IQ. The DOF issue will always remain as it is an issue of optics and not electronics.
CROP also has many advantages - primarily smaller cheaper gear, lenses that are cheaper to develop.
Less to carry, and cheaper price for many of us = more fun taking pictures.
However - I agree with the idea - that the advantages of FF over Crop - are getting smaller all the time, as far as overall IQ. The DOF issue will always remain as it is an issue of optics and not electronics.
CROP also has many advantages - primarily smaller cheaper gear, lenses that are cheaper to develop.
Less to carry, and cheaper price for many of us = more fun taking pictures.
Upvote
0
Important Points!
I should not have seen this video...
I know how big the difference is between FF and APS-C, and I use both formats as I need them... According to him, however, the difference is negligible...! Wao...! What is negligible to him, is very important to me, but I see his point about the even larger formats! His presentation simply suggests that it would be an even larger step ahead in quality! Now I begin to long for the Medium and Large formats...!
I should not have seen this video...
I know how big the difference is between FF and APS-C, and I use both formats as I need them... According to him, however, the difference is negligible...! Wao...! What is negligible to him, is very important to me, but I see his point about the even larger formats! His presentation simply suggests that it would be an even larger step ahead in quality! Now I begin to long for the Medium and Large formats...!
Upvote
0
All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here. I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used. And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review. I'll admit it, I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used. But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference. I'm now worried that I must be missing something. Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on).
Help me! When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera? If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12. I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.
Help me! When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera? If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12. I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.
Upvote
0
LOL, I look at my 5dIII as a crop to the S2, which is a crop to the 4x5, which is a crop to LH 8x10
Upvote
0
Hillsilly said:
This "dead horse" has a message written on him long time ago - "Superior camera can shoot poor snapshots too, so what?"
). If you don't/can't exploit larger format potential, then you don't need one to do the job.
Upvote
0
wsheldon said:
No, it will be true.
I'm sure most people here on CR would consider the 5DII and the 6D to produce higher IQ / resolution than the original 5D, or even the APS 650D.
On my website at Building Panoramics about 40% of the images are shot on the 5D, about 45% on the 5DII, about 15% on the 6D. There are two shot on APS.
I'll offer a $500 reward to anyone who can tell me which pictures were shot on the 5D.
Upvote
0
Just watched the video.
That's 13 minutes of my life I'm never going to have again.
You all have covered the technological arguments far better than I ever could. So I'm just going to say that I found Arias to be incredibly annoying and unprofessional in that video. I kept hoping that someone would come from behind the camera filming the video to yank that twig out of his hand and break it in two.
If I were Fuji, I would consider that video to be terribly unflattering to my product and I would be trying to figure out how to distance my company from this performance of a grown man having a tantrum.
That's 13 minutes of my life I'm never going to have again.
You all have covered the technological arguments far better than I ever could. So I'm just going to say that I found Arias to be incredibly annoying and unprofessional in that video. I kept hoping that someone would come from behind the camera filming the video to yank that twig out of his hand and break it in two.
If I were Fuji, I would consider that video to be terribly unflattering to my product and I would be trying to figure out how to distance my company from this performance of a grown man having a tantrum.
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:wsheldon said:
No, it will be true.
I'm sure most people here on CR would consider the 5DII and the 6D to produce higher IQ / resolution than the original 5D, or even the APS 650D.
On my website at Building Panoramics about 40% of the images are shot on the 5D, about 45% on the 5DII, about 15% on the 6D. There are two shot on APS.
I'll offer a $500 reward to anyone who can tell me which pictures were shot on the 5D.
There is, obviously, little difference between images taken with any SLR under optimal conditions FOR that camera.
A daylight image with a Rebel vs a 1D might not look different.
However, that doesn't still mean a 5DIII isn't a far superior camera to the 5D, because when the highlights are blown, for example, I can recover them in my 5DIII and not in my 5D (just one of many factors).
It's those suboptimal conditions when a superior camera shines.
If it weren't so, professionals like yourself won't be using FF, would you?
On the other hand, I have seen many studio photographers who use APS-C, shooting mostly under strobes at f/7.1 and smaller.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Hillsilly said:
Well, of course you've got it all wrong. First, you are looking at prints, which means those images are meant to be shown to others and to be shared. Anyone knows that real photographers only care about looking at their images on a computer screen at intense magnification.
When you look at a print, you can be too easily distracted by such mundane things as whether or not the picture is interesting, whether or not the composition works, if the picture actually has something to say, etc. etc. Those things can get in the way of what's really important -- things like how much dynamic range the RAW file has and what kind of shadow and highlight detail can be seen in the electronic files.
Really, you should never look at printed pictures at all. You mention 8 x 12, but honestly, it's impossible to tell the difference in format even at much larger sizes if you insist on looking a printed images. If you really must do that, at least buy yourself a good quality loupe and hold it up to the print so you can examine the image properly.
If you do this all the time you will soon learn. In fact, although the museums frown on it and you can even get tossed by a guard, if you take the loupe with you all the time you will soon learn what terrible photographers Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Lee Friedlander, Garry Winogrand, W. Eugene Smith and others were.
Upvote
0
Here is an article from Michael Reichmann, it is quite old, from 2008, that fit right in with this discussion. Like his photography or not, he knows what he is talking about.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
Upvote
0
sagittariansrock said:Sporgon said:wsheldon said:
No, it will be true.
I'm sure most people here on CR would consider the 5DII and the 6D to produce higher IQ / resolution than the original 5D, or even the APS 650D.
On my website at Building Panoramics about 40% of the images are shot on the 5D, about 45% on the 5DII, about 15% on the 6D. There are two shot on APS.
I'll offer a $500 reward to anyone who can tell me which pictures were shot on the 5D.
There is, obviously, little difference between images taken with any SLR under optimal conditions FOR that camera.
A daylight image with a Rebel vs a 1D might not look different.
However, that doesn't still mean a 5DIII isn't a far superior camera to the 5D, because when the highlights are blown, for example, I can recover them in my 5DIII and not in my 5D (just one of many factors).
You are of course quite right, the 5DIII is a far superior camera technically, and yes I very much agree on the highlights. The latest Canon FF also have much better tonal graduation and graduation to White and black, as good as film now really, in fact IMO this aspect of the film-like tonal graduation is better on the 5DIII than the D800, at lowest ISO too.
[/quote]
If it weren't so, professionals like yourself won't be using FF, would you?
On the other hand, I have seen many studio photographers who use APS-C, shooting mostly under strobes at f/7.1 and smaller.
[/quote]
Actually I'm only professional when I feel like it
To be honest the reason I'm using FF is because I come from an era when APS was the most hideous creation of film ever developed, and the crop factors on lenses drove me nuts.
There are many brilliant photographers using four thirds, never mind APS. I could produce all my pictures on APS and no one would know - except for me, and that's enough.
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
For me, it was the noise on my 7D.
I am not good with artificial lighting (yet, I hope) and I always end up in situations where the ISO would jump to 1600 (which is BAD, in a 7D) or above.
And the difference in ISO performance between FF and crop is NOT neg-li-gi-ble
Upvote
0
