Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF

[ahsanford]

Another APS-C vs. FF rant, this time by Zack Arias:

http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/crop-or-crap-zack-arias-takes-a-real-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/

I'm not remotely foolish enough to stir a debate so much as pass on something that will give the pre-digital-era photographers a smile.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its a Fujifilm commercial.

 

[RLPhoto]

I moved to 645 MF digital.

 

[tolusina]

So, he'll shoot his assignment with an APS-C camera, wonder if he would have shot a similar job back in the film days with a Pentax 110?

 

[ahsanford]

Neg-li-gi-ble.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi ahsansford.
Yep got neg-li-gi-ble, can't decipher the gi-ber-ish after neg-li-gi-ble, and to be honest I'm not sure I need or want to know, I quit watching it after that point, I just wanted to grab that stick and tap tap tap him on the head with it!

Cheers Graham.

Neg-li-gi-ble.

 

[Antono Refa]

That video doesn't demonstrate his point. It does demonstrate how to appear as if you're a babbling idiot.

 

[emko]

there is nothing wrong with aps-c if that's what you like who cares BUT FF is just better if someone wants the best they can afford why not? Since i went to FF from APS-C i have not wanted to go back the APS-C at iso100 it is almost the same but FF is sharper and has better DR and every iso after 100 is better on FF. Is there that much size difference between the FF sony cameras vs the fuji?

he says Neg-li-gi-ble i say BS if that where the case he wouldn't need a FF

 

[slclick]

It was that fracking stick he was swinging that killed me. Ugh, I'd rather watch Kai.

 

[9VIII]

I've been thinking roughly the same thing for a while now. It looks to me like "back in the day" you were multiplying surface area several times to differentiate between effective formats, and here the camera companies are now trying to get everyone excited about a 70% increase in sensor size.
If you're constantly on the bleeding edge, fine, you'll be picking up whatever incremental increases happen to come along. If you're looking for something worth investing in, I wouldn't bother replacing all my glass just for "almost a stop" of extra light gathering. 35mm will be standard for a long, long time.
When they start making IMAX sized sensors, a 4X jump, that will have my attention.

As for APS-C vs. FF, the "good enough" argument is still valid, however, I have a hard time investing in an APS-C specific system just from a value perspective. The Fuji 56f1.2 is a fantastic lens, but you're getting the 35mm equivalent of... "drum-role" The Canon 85f1.8 (actually not even, anyway)
...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
That should be a loosely similar comparison.
So instead of an X-T1 and a 56f1.2 for $2,300, you could get equivalent results with a 6D and the cheapest lens Canon makes for about $1,600 (depending on your bargain hunting skills).

Now, this only works because 35mm has been standard for so long, you have decades of infrastructure built around that exact thing. If 645 were in the same situation (you could buy $100 lenses that gave better performance than $1,000 lenses on 35mm, and the body cost almost the same) I would be quite happy to invest in a 645 body. But that's not the situation, and probably never will be.

 

[dpc]

Haven't watched it. Might, might not. I have both APS-C (7D) and FF (5D Mark II). I use both with some regularity, but I honestly use the 7D more. I'm not much interested in the technicalities of the sensors and whatnot. I'm only interested in the pictures and, for what I do, either is sufficient in its own sphere.

 

[distant.star]

.
I like ZA, but this isn't his best work. In a few months, he'll look back at this and be embarrassed.

Despite the pointer, I think it's pretty pointless.

One relevant point is the Fuji APS-C sensor (I'm using one in the X100S) is incomparably better than Canon's APS-C sensors.

 

[unfocused]

.
I like ZA, but this isn't his best work. In a few months, he'll look back at this and be embarrassed.

Probably embarrassed all the way to the bank.

It's quite a bit over the top, but I think his point is legitimate. People obsess over sensor size and convince ourselves that it makes a huge difference. I'm as guilty as the next person, but if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.

 

[rs]

Zack Arias. Sponsored by Fuji.

 

[slclick]

.
I like ZA, but this isn't his best work. In a few months, he'll look back at this and be embarrassed.

Probably embarrassed all the way to the bank.

It's quite a bit over the top, but I think his point is legitimate. People obsess over sensor size and convince ourselves that it makes a huge difference. I'm as guilty as the next person, but if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.

I have issues with your comparison.7D iso over 6400 anyone? I don't get that noise until I hit 25k on the 5D3. to each their own but my 5D3 and 7D images are night and day.

 

[ahsanford]

if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.

I have issues with your comparison.7D iso over 6400 anyone? I don't get that noise until I hit 25k on the 5D3. to each their own but my 5D3 and 7D images are night and day.

I think that's unfocused's point -- the 5D3 may be better, but maybe not for what he shoots or how he shoots it. What if he doesn't need ISO 6400, for instance?

Arias' only argument in that video that I'll back him up on: the limiting factor is usually our ability, camera know-how, composition skills, etc. and not our hardware.

That said, I do need ISO 6400 and I love my 5D3 for it.

- A

 

[unfocused]

if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.

I have issues with your comparison.7D iso over 6400 anyone? I don't get that noise until I hit 25k on the 5D3. to each their own but my 5D3 and 7D images are night and day.

I think that's unfocused's point -- the 5D3 may be better, but maybe not for what he shoots or how he shoots it. What if he doesn't need ISO 6400, for instance?

Arias' only argument in that video that I'll back him up on: the limiting factor is usually our ability, camera know-how, composition skills, etc. and not our hardware.

That said, I do need ISO 6400 and I love my 5D3 for it.

- A

Yes. Most of my photography falls into two categories. Things I shoot for myself for my own pleasure and personal expression and things I shoot for others. Not commercially, but generally as a favor to others who can't afford to pay (head shots for starving actors, senior pictures for kids whose families don't have a lot of money, family member portraits, etc.)

I seldom shoot over ISO 400 if I can avoid it, especially when I'm shooting for myself – which are the images I really care about. But, there have certainly been times when I have needed and appreciate the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3. But, few of those high ISO images are ever going to go in my portfolio, so what I was really referring to was the images that I am most proud of.

Just trying to bring a little perspective to things, I guess. I don't think Arias' point (nor mine) was that there is no difference between formats, but that the differences are not nearly as great as people make them out to be.

 

[slclick]

if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.

I have issues with your comparison.7D iso over 6400 anyone? I don't get that noise until I hit 25k on the 5D3. to each their own but my 5D3 and 7D images are night and day.

I think that's unfocused's point -- the 5D3 may be better, but maybe not for what he shoots or how he shoots it. What if he doesn't need ISO 6400, for instance?

Arias' only argument in that video that I'll back him up on: the limiting factor is usually our ability, camera know-how, composition skills, etc. and not our hardware.

That said, I do need ISO 6400 and I love my 5D3 for it.

- A

Yes. Most of my photography falls into two categories. Things I shoot for myself for my own pleasure and personal expression and things I shoot for others. Not commercially, but generally as a favor to others who can't afford to pay (head shots for starving actors, senior pictures for kids whose families don't have a lot of money, family member portraits, etc.)

I seldom shoot over ISO 400 if I can avoid it, especially when I'm shooting for myself – which are the images I really care about. But, there have certainly been times when I have needed and appreciate the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3. But, few of those high ISO images are ever going to go in my portfolio, so what I was really referring to was the images that I am most proud of.

Just trying to bring a little perspective to things, I guess. I don't think Arias' point (nor mine) was that there is no difference between formats, but that the differences are not nearly as great as people make them out to be.

Gotcha, it just came across as saying they are on equal footing. That made me metaphorically spit all over my keyboard

 

[BL]

Another APS-C vs. FF rant, this time by Zack Arias:

http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/crop-or-crap-zack-arias-takes-a-real-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/

I'm not remotely foolish enough to stir a debate so much as pass on something that will give the pre-digital-era photographers a smile.

- A

I wish all commercials were as fun as this one ;D

 

[Click]

I wish all commercials were as fun as this one ;D

Ha Ha ha ;D +1