Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 24 Jun 2017 (Saturday) 16:21
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Figuring FF lens on APSC

 
FEChariot
Goldmember
FEChariot's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
Post has been last edited 3 months ago by FEChariot. 4 edits done in total.
Jun 26, 2017 09:48 |  #61

Bassat wrote in post #18387235 (external link)
... and just to round out the reply, here are 100% crops of the above shots.

I have no idea what your point is here. So you are saying what? From the images, the 6D image that was taken at 2/3 a stop higher ISO looks better than the 80D image. Lets also not forget that the 70D which is released a year after the 6D was superseded by the 80D in the shots which makes the 80D of a full newer generation than the 6D in xxD life cycle terms and a 1/2 generation newer than the 6D in XD life cycle terms. Your properly edited pictures seem to make almost no difference to the comparison that TDP posted.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Sunny California
Post has been last edited 3 months ago by CheshireCat. 3 edits done in total.
Jun 26, 2017 22:49 |  #62
banned

Wilt wrote in post #18386685 (external link)
Please elaborate in detail about what makes the long-standing definition for assessment of DOF to be no longer applicable, rendering the DOF definition in need of redefinition in the digital photo age.

My point is that the standard definition is obviously applicable if you "simulate" the specific printing and viewing conditions dictated by it, however this is usually not the case in the digital era. Furthermore, I think that the standard definition was lacking even in the film era, because visual acuity and viewing conditions widely vary from person to person, let alone print sizes and viewing distances.

Depth of field is all about sharpness, and nowadays people assess image sharpness at the pixel level. This makes sense, as it simply binds the concept of image sharpness to the effective resolution of the camera and lens system, because that is what determines the actual image sharpness in the first place, independently from viewing conditions.

Fewer and fewer people print, as images are now enjoyed on a plethora of devices ranging from small-format phones to huge TV screens, with hugely varying pixel densities, viewing distances, and display medium contrast levels.
Add to that the fact that digital pictures are often cropped at will, and cropping is an operation which changes the DoF according to the standard definition, and you will see why the standard definition is so confusing (hence not only useless, but conterproductive) to the average digital photographer.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Sunny California
Post has been edited 3 months ago by CheshireCat.
Jun 26, 2017 23:03 |  #63
banned

Bassat wrote in post #18387235 (external link)
... and just to round out the reply, here are 100% crops of the above shots.

I am not sure what is the point here, but I am totally sure I am getting thirsty ! :D

That said, I think the simplest answer to the original question is: the only difference between a crop sensor and a full-frame sensor is that the crop sensor is smaller and can only capture the central part of the very same image the full-frame sensor is capturing.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Jun 26, 2017 23:06 |  #64

CheshireCat wrote in post #18387827 (external link)
My point is that the standard definition is obviously applicable if you "simulate" the specific printing and viewing conditions dictated by it, however this is usually not the case in the digital era. Furthermore, I think that the standard definition was lacking even in the film era, because visual acuity and viewing conditions widely vary from person to person, let alone print sizes and viewing distances.

Depth of field is all about sharpness, and nowadays people assess image sharpness at the pixel level. This makes sense, as it simply binds the concept of image sharpness to the effective resolution of the camera and lens system, because that is what determines the actual image sharpness in the first place, independently from viewing conditions.

Fewer and fewer people print, as images are now enjoyed on a plethora of devices ranging from small-format phones to huge TV screens, with hugely varying pixel densities, viewing distances, and display medium contrast levels.
Add to that the fact that digital pictures are often cropped at will, and cropping is an operation which changes the DoF according to the standard definition, and you will see why the standard definition is so confusing (hence not only useless, but conterproductive) to the average digital photographer.

For situations where the displayed photo is dynamic (allowing increasing or decreasing the size), you might have a point. But this is the wrong thread to discuss it.


Hasselblad 500 C/M with 80mm/2.8 Zeiss Planar (trying to sell it); Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Sunny California
Jun 26, 2017 23:20 |  #65
banned

Archibald wrote in post #18387839 (external link)
For situations where the displayed photo is dynamic (allowing increasing or decreasing the size), you might have a point. But this is the wrong thread to discuss it.

Well, zooming-in on people is what most people like to do when checking a photo in 2017.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,052 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 3 months ago by Wilt. 2 edits done in total.
Jun 27, 2017 01:15 |  #66

CheshireCat wrote in post #18387841 (external link)
Well, zooming-in on people is what most people like to do when checking a photo in 2017.

So what YOU the photographer chose as the desired DOF for a photo is indeed an irrelevant aspect of a photograph, given the fact that some folks view on a 27" monitor, others view on a 19" monitor and others view on a 7" diagonal smartphone. That I will agree is a problem today for a photographer who had a certain intention for what was blurred and what was 'in focus' within the DOF.
However, when -- as the photographer -- you chose the aperture to use to take the photo, you chose based upon a particular assumption (such as a viewer with 20/20 vision) and a certain output size...if you intended a photograph to be a wall print 20" tall x 30" wide at the time you pressed the shutter, you had to use different DOF calculation assumptions that the standard (viewer with poor visual acuity looking at an 8x print 12" away. And if you shoot with APS-C you have to choose your aperture based upon a 13x print (same final print size, from a smaller sensor).
Otherwise your choice of f/2 vs. f/22 is "It does not matter at all", according to your premise that you have no control at all what folks do in the digital realm and they pixel peep either image at 100% where the DOF assumptions you had in mind are totally irrelevant.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Sunny California
Jun 27, 2017 03:29 |  #67
banned

Wilt wrote in post #18387885 (external link)
However, when -- as the photographer -- you chose the aperture to use to take the photo, you chose based upon a particular assumption (such as a viewer with 20/20 vision) and a certain output size...

I never think about output size, for the reasons I have already explained.
I use aperture to balance the overall image character and the resolution where viewers are supposed to "explore" (zoom-in) the image. This balance widely varies based on the subject.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Jun 27, 2017 05:54 |  #68

One simple way to ensure that your online images show about the level of DoF that you envisaged is to upload them at 1152×768 pixels, that will give you an approx 12"×8" image when displayed on the average computer monitor, at 100%/1:1 view. It will be exactly 12×8 on a nominal 96 PPI display, most current monitors are reasonably close to that level, unless you go to 4K or better. Even 2560×1440 on a 27" display only gives you 109 PPI. So images at the suggested pixel dimensions will be pretty close to the intended size for the DoF calculation you choose to use.

If you take a range of output resolutions from 109 to 96 PPI, then the image will be between 7"×10.5" and 8"×12" for an 1152×768 pixel image at 100%/1:1. I think they would be close enough, even for Wilt.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bongcruz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Bongcruz's Avatar
Joined Apr 2017
USA
Post has been edited 3 months ago by Bongcruz.
Jul 17, 2017 12:39 |  #69

Just wanted to share guys, ended up with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS for 700$ looks practically brand new except 2 scratches on the hood. only thing i don't like is when focusing, the OS (image stabilizer) does a click sound and you can see a sudden jolt in the viewfinder but after initial focus and start of the OS its perfectly smooth. Could just be a bad copy but hat would probably be another thread anyways. It has amazing image quality still.


Canon EOS 7D Mark II | Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art, 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM | Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM |

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,938 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Jul 17, 2017 14:09 |  #70

Typical sigma behavior with its OS....


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jethr0
Senior Member
Jethr0's Avatar
Joined Aug 2012
ON, Canada
Jul 17, 2017 17:42 |  #71

I have the same lens. Does the same thing.


7DMKII/Sigma 10-20/Sigma 24-70 2.8/Sigma 70-200 2.8/Sigma 150-600
www.jefflowe.ca (external link)
Instagram: https://www.instagram.​com/jefflowe.ca (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Jul 18, 2017 04:17 |  #72

All of the Canon 100-400 V1 lenses that I ever rented also did pretty much the same thing, the IS unit would give a little jump in the VF as it kicked in. My Sigma 150-600 is similar but not nearly as pronounced. The Sigma's OS doesn't seem to lock the VF nearly as much as for shorter lenses. I did though manage to shoot this a couple of weeks ago, 1/40s @ 600mm hand held, with my left elbow supported on the arm of my wheelchair, so the OS does work, it seemed to be moving quite a bit in the VF. IIRC I have the OS set up to be as aggressive as possible using the dock. I usually use the long lenses for aviation subjects, so I am more used to using the lens when panning using mode 2, not stationary in mode 1.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Alan

My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bongcruz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Bongcruz's Avatar
Joined Apr 2017
USA
Jul 18, 2017 08:45 |  #73

Well then, since it's all normal, makes the purchase feel even better!


Canon EOS 7D Mark II | Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art, 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM | Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM |

LOG IN TO REPLY
LonelyBoy
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2014
Jul 20, 2017 08:18 |  #74

CheshireCat wrote in post #18387841 (external link)
Well, zooming-in on people is what most people like to do when checking a photo in 2017.

I really, really doubt that. Most pixel-peeping photographers, maybe. Most people in 2017 consume their photos (especially electronic ones) on social media. This means they're a couple of hundred pixels across, and particularly compelling ones may be viewed fullscreen (or close to). Normal people (non-photographers) never pixel-peep in my experience. Ever. Max viewing size = screen size.


Vice President of the No-Talent Gear Head club
SL1 | 24 STM | 18-135 IS STM | 55-250 IS STM
5D3 | 35/2 IS | 40 STM | Σ50A | 50 STM | 100L | 24-70L 2.8 II | 24-105L | 70-200/2.8L IS II | 70-300L | 100-400L II

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ascenta
Senior Member
Ascenta's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
Jul 20, 2017 08:26 |  #75

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18406619 (external link)
Normal people (non-photographers) never pixel-peep in my experience. Ever. Max viewing size = screen size.

How boring...I feel bad for them :(




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

6,187 views & 43 likes for this thread
Figuring FF lens on APSC
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00124 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is lookingglassphoto
1052 guests, 501 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016