Sometimes, for example, I've darkened some skies at times -- so that the clouds stand out like they actually appeared in the scene -- but too often for my taste, I see prints with neon green moss, etc. Looks too unreal. Compressing values to make a live scene appear on a piece of paper within it's limited tone abilities is one thing, but dramatizing color is another. But I understand why lots of people love it -- it's one more way to separate humans from reality. Flamingos are pick enough.
24 mega pixels APS-C vs 24 megapixel full frame???
-
D
- Thread starter BradS
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy (Rada? Rollex?) Roll film back for Kodak Recomar No. 18 camera
- Started by alanshaw
-
Sold Rollei Rolleinar 2 Bay II
- Started by skylight1b
-
For Sale Beseler 8053 35mm Negative Carrier for the 23C models
- Started by mgb74
-
For Sale NIKON 20mm f/2.8 AF-D
- Started by Acere
-
Sold Coolscan 4000/5000 MA-21 Slide mount adapter (free)
- Started by RoboRepublic
Forum statistics
Sometimes, for example, I've darkened some skies at times -- so that the clouds stand out like they actually appeared in the scene -- but too often for my taste, I see prints with neon green moss, etc. Looks too unreal. Compressing values to make a live scene appear on a piece of paper within it's limited tone abilities is one thing, but dramatizing color is another. But I understand why lots of people love it -- it's one more way to separate humans from reality. Flamingos are pick enough.
You may have done this, but it is important that you see the original print in person before you conclude that the calendar version is exaggerated.
MurrayMinchin
Membership Council
We're entering nit picking territory here...he said calendar, so I said calendar.
Do you think E Weston's Pepper #30 looked anything like the print in real life? The contrast was undoubtedly punched up to emphasize light, movement & form. Ansel prints are similarly 'heightened' objects, not direct facsimiles of reality in shades of grey.
That's the point I was trying to make, that we all do it. We see a scene, and try to emphasize that which is most important to us in the print, so the viewer can, hopefully, experience the photo the way we intend them to.
Just like there are poor dodging and burning artifacts in some prints we see, there is a 'point of going too far' in contrast or colour saturation...but it's different for everyone.
Thomas Kinkade has become very rich selling grossly oversaturated, ultra intense colour paintings. It shouldn't come as a shock that some photographers might try to do the same. Personally, I'm not a fan of his paintings or of photos that emulate him.
I don't think the photo in question went too far at all. The forest here stays wet enough for ferns to grow in the moss growing in the branches of trees. The greens are rich.
Last edited:
First, Edward Weston's Pepper #30 is a black and white photograph of a colored object, so who knows what the pepper really looked like. Second, it was a contact print, so there was not much opportunity for manipulation. Other than curiosity, it doesn't really matter whether it was manipulated or not.
And why drag Thomas Kinkade into a photography discussion. That he got rich selling his paintings only proves that a large segment of the population has poor taste. No surprise there.
Last edited:
OP
OP
By the time he returned from New Mexico (maybe even before), Eddie Weston was very well know for not even retouching dust.
I realize that the depth of field discussion was a couple of pages back, and also that (IMO) it is an old chestnut where people argue over different answers because they are holding different things constant. However, I made a figure to illustrate what I feel is a basic point, the size of the background blur relative to the foreground subject. (Because for pictorial purposes, frequently one has a foreground subject and either wishes background objects to be in focus, or to be blurred out.)
Roughly, the diameter of the background blur is proportional to the physical diameter of the entrance aperture. This illustration shows why: light from a background point source is a cone of light entering the lens aperture, and when it passes through the foreground plane of sharp focus, it is not a point but a circle of some diameter, so it shows up in the image as a spread-out circle. This blurred image is indicated by a red bar in the drawing. The blur circle is the same for a 50mm f/2 lens and a 100mm f/4 lens, for example.
Now, if you use a 50mm lens and a 100mm lens on the same camera, at the same position, you'll get different fields of view. If you back up with the 100mm lens to get a similar field of view, you'll change the perspective and relative sizes of subject to background.
If you use a 50mm lens on a small format and a 100mm lens on a 2x larger format, with the two cameras in the same place, you'll get the same field of view and the same perspective, keeping the same composition. But to get the same amount of background blur, you now need different f-stops, like 50/2 and 100/4. If you used the same f-number, like 50/4 and 100/4, the smaller format camera will have less blur. This is the experiment that Cholentpot and wiltw did (except that they used a multiplier of about 1.5x since APS-C is about 1.5x smaller than full frame).
Does this matter? Sometimes. For ex, if you have an APS-C DSLR and the kit lens, something like 18-55/3.5-5.6, your "normal" lens is about 35/4.5 or so (8mm aperture diameter), and you can never get the amount of blur that someone could with a full frame SLR and a humble 50/2 lens (25mm aperture diameter). If you went out and added the 35/1.8 APS-C lens (19mm aperture diameter) you are getting close. These are "normal" focal length lenses, so if you wanted to take portraits you might want a short telephoto, but the same rules apply.
In the film world, it is often said that medium (or large) format has less depth of field than 35mm, for the same reason. If you are trying to get subject and background in focus, holding the composition equal, you'll have to stop down more with the larger format.
Roughly, the diameter of the background blur is proportional to the physical diameter of the entrance aperture. This illustration shows why: light from a background point source is a cone of light entering the lens aperture, and when it passes through the foreground plane of sharp focus, it is not a point but a circle of some diameter, so it shows up in the image as a spread-out circle. This blurred image is indicated by a red bar in the drawing. The blur circle is the same for a 50mm f/2 lens and a 100mm f/4 lens, for example.
Now, if you use a 50mm lens and a 100mm lens on the same camera, at the same position, you'll get different fields of view. If you back up with the 100mm lens to get a similar field of view, you'll change the perspective and relative sizes of subject to background.
If you use a 50mm lens on a small format and a 100mm lens on a 2x larger format, with the two cameras in the same place, you'll get the same field of view and the same perspective, keeping the same composition. But to get the same amount of background blur, you now need different f-stops, like 50/2 and 100/4. If you used the same f-number, like 50/4 and 100/4, the smaller format camera will have less blur. This is the experiment that Cholentpot and wiltw did (except that they used a multiplier of about 1.5x since APS-C is about 1.5x smaller than full frame).
Does this matter? Sometimes. For ex, if you have an APS-C DSLR and the kit lens, something like 18-55/3.5-5.6, your "normal" lens is about 35/4.5 or so (8mm aperture diameter), and you can never get the amount of blur that someone could with a full frame SLR and a humble 50/2 lens (25mm aperture diameter). If you went out and added the 35/1.8 APS-C lens (19mm aperture diameter) you are getting close. These are "normal" focal length lenses, so if you wanted to take portraits you might want a short telephoto, but the same rules apply.
In the film world, it is often said that medium (or large) format has less depth of field than 35mm, for the same reason. If you are trying to get subject and background in focus, holding the composition equal, you'll have to stop down more with the larger format.
As I mentioned in this thread, I am in the market for a digital camera too (Leaning towards the Fujifilm X-T5).
Regarding sensor size, and and the FF v. APS-C debate, YT suggested this vid to me today.
YMMV
Regarding sensor size, and and the FF v. APS-C debate, YT suggested this vid to me today.
YMMV
Overall what he is saying is pretty much true. IF you want to adapt 35mm lenses, it does kind of suck to lose 50% of you the crop though, and for instance turn a 35mm lens into really a normal lens, or a 28mm lens into still a normal lens. When you start going up, 50mm -> 75mm, in some cases it can be an advantage. It is much harder to go wide with APS-C and adapted lenses.
On the other hand if you buy new bespoke prime lenses for the APS-C, there really is no issue, other than maybe capability to enlarge a bit more with a full frame camera with prints.
Last edited:
The crop factor debacle will not go away, adopted lenses or not. Seems like not many can finally figure, at the end of the day, it is what is showing up in the finder that is going to be captured, nothing more, nothing less. Making camera choice decision on this crop factor fixation is not what I would call advantageous to making a ... camera choice.
Do people carry the entire range of local lengths at all times when out shooting and NEVER find themselves "lacking" focal choice? Of course not, but in such cases I use what I have, not cry about what I had left home.
Maybe am too dramatic, but first and foremost, for camera choice is to me what it does but even more, HOW it does it. I have a couple of 1" sensor Sony's, the RX100IV and RX10IV. Comparing to what Fuji gives me, especially in JPEG, I do not particularly like them. But in some cases nothing replaces RX10IV, where you need its reach along with relative compactness in a one-package device. And going that much smaller on the sensor, I still see only minor negatives related to DOF.
There is nothing special about using old lenses on digital camera. None of them make one a better photographer. In most cases they are operational detriment to picture taking anyways.
When I went for Fuji's X-H1, I also got the adapter for Canon FD lenses. Thought I'd use it more often, but why? So I have it, and at long end of things I can go quite far with FD 400 on this smaller sensor, but this was never part of my buying logic.
Do people carry the entire range of local lengths at all times when out shooting and NEVER find themselves "lacking" focal choice? Of course not, but in such cases I use what I have, not cry about what I had left home.
Maybe am too dramatic, but first and foremost, for camera choice is to me what it does but even more, HOW it does it. I have a couple of 1" sensor Sony's, the RX100IV and RX10IV. Comparing to what Fuji gives me, especially in JPEG, I do not particularly like them. But in some cases nothing replaces RX10IV, where you need its reach along with relative compactness in a one-package device. And going that much smaller on the sensor, I still see only minor negatives related to DOF.
There is nothing special about using old lenses on digital camera. None of them make one a better photographer. In most cases they are operational detriment to picture taking anyways.
When I went for Fuji's X-H1, I also got the adapter for Canon FD lenses. Thought I'd use it more often, but why? So I have it, and at long end of things I can go quite far with FD 400 on this smaller sensor, but this was never part of my buying logic.
If folks ignored the fact that APS-C digital came about simply because camera manufacturers simply could not make affordanble FF sensors for a while, and think of APS-C as 'simply a smaller format camera... then
- 4x5 vs. 645, or
- 645 vs. 135, or
- 135 vs. APS-C or
- APS-C vs. 4.3 format
Photographers never had to understand anything about choosing a smaller or larger format...they simply used the lenses made for their particular format of choice and brand of choice, and they never had to understand 'FL conversion' or any of the endless BS that has to be considered by so many photographers making the format choice.
The "crop factor" issue arises only for photographers who want to use their old 35mm lenses on an APS-C camera. Using an old 35mm lens with adapter on an APS-C camera largely eliminates the APS-C size advantages which is the reason for buying an APS-C camera in the first place. It is like adapting your Hasselblad lenses to your Nikon F: possible, but ill-conceived. It is not so much a "crop factor" as a "kludge factor". Be smart; if you want to use your old 35mm lenses, buy a camera whose format they were meant for.
Last edited:
Sorry to disagree.
To me it's just a talk for no reason. Whichever lens, it will produce an image and it's either one we want to take, or we continue looking for another. Nothing different from any other camera/lens combo. Put a Pentax 67 lens on P645 (with factory adapter at that) and you have same kind of problem? Never found that kind of discussion mercilessly burning fossil fuel at the power plant.
I have no idea why would anyone try to think of old lenses in terms of what it did on an old camera vs. what it would do on a new one (with smaller frame at that). Maybe some shoot say MF in a way they do 35mm, which I don't find intuitive at all, but possibly a way.
Personally I never tried to think of any framing relation going LF to MF to 35mm. They each do what they do but are so far apart in most respects, where is that connection? It's not personal style either, by say sticking to an 80 degree angle of view on no matter which format is used.
But, people want to procrastinate over a purchase, they will always find a way to distract their own decision.
Nicely done, and communicative graphic too. Thanks!
Back in my DSLR days, which began around 2007, I used to lust after a FF camera to a painful degree. There were two reasons, really: 1) I wanted more DoF control, which seems silly now, and 2) back then, there were no good, affordable prime options at 'standard' equivalent focal lengths (at least not for Canon). On top of that, all of the vintage lenses worth buying at my budget were 50s, and 80mm FoV didn't do it for me. The older fast 35s were all too bulky and expensive, and the fast 28s were doubly so (and rare).
I did finally get a 5dII, and I loved it. I had a Sigma 50/1.4, which was fantastic, and a Contax 35-70/3.4 that was even better. Unfortunately, the combo of body and either of those lenses was just too damned big! In 2013, I sold everything, got a Sony RX1, and never looked back.
Fast forward to two weeks ago, when I decided to pick up an A7rII to use for film scanning and to take with me on trips where film would be impractical. Just messing around with it a bit has really highlighted the 'real' #1 advantage of FF: high ISO performance. Especially after three years of shooting mostly film, the noise levels at high ISO speeds on the A7rII are mind-boggling. I would consider 51200 to be useable - shot in raw with no NR, converted to B&W, it looks basically the same as HP5 pushed to 800. Incredible.
Having said that, with the variety of mirrorless cameras and lenses available now, I would have absolutely no issue recommending an APS-C camera to anyone who doesn't need specific things. The savings in size and money are definitely appealing.
I did finally get a 5dII, and I loved it. I had a Sigma 50/1.4, which was fantastic, and a Contax 35-70/3.4 that was even better. Unfortunately, the combo of body and either of those lenses was just too damned big! In 2013, I sold everything, got a Sony RX1, and never looked back.
Fast forward to two weeks ago, when I decided to pick up an A7rII to use for film scanning and to take with me on trips where film would be impractical. Just messing around with it a bit has really highlighted the 'real' #1 advantage of FF: high ISO performance. Especially after three years of shooting mostly film, the noise levels at high ISO speeds on the A7rII are mind-boggling. I would consider 51200 to be useable - shot in raw with no NR, converted to B&W, it looks basically the same as HP5 pushed to 800. Incredible.
Having said that, with the variety of mirrorless cameras and lenses available now, I would have absolutely no issue recommending an APS-C camera to anyone who doesn't need specific things. The savings in size and money are definitely appealing.
I haven't bothered or had the patience to read all the posts, but here are my 2¢. The FF 24MP sensor will have larger pixels and that is generally a good thing, for me the images have less of a "digital curse" to them. And if you intend to use your existing analog lenses on a digital camera, be forewarned that they might not perform as well as a good-quality lens designed for digital. And lastly, I have the feeling there is less color fringing with a larger sensor, but I have not done any extensive research into that.
I guess I better buy a big honkin' 24-70 for my D2x so that people would think that I know what I am doing!
The 14-24 is more impressive.
OK. Let me simplify the difference concerning FF vs crop from an engineers perspective.
A crop sensor produces a larger (deeper) distance perspective with a narrower depth of field with the same lens (wide to normal) at the same aperture.
With each significant increase in focal length, the distance perspective difference narrows, but the depth of field difference remains the same.
This video will make it clear:
A crop sensor produces a larger (deeper) distance perspective with a narrower depth of field with the same lens (wide to normal) at the same aperture.
With each significant increase in focal length, the distance perspective difference narrows, but the depth of field difference remains the same.
This video will make it clear:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |