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 General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera
Thread started 08 May 2017 (Monday) 20:07
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Full Frame or Crop

 
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,234 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Aug 03, 2017 11:36 |  #196

AlanU wrote in post #18350660 (external link)
For slow moving subjects I'd take a 5dmk2 in a heart beat compared to a 7d.

I felt the same way when those were my two main cameras. When I got my 7D2, though, the character of the noise was so much better than the 5D2 that the 5D2 became a paperweight, when I wasn't shooting super-wide-angle. I found the 17-55/2.8 IS on the 7D2 did better than the 24-105/4L on the 5D2, with similar DOF and FOV.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,234 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Aug 03, 2017 11:46 |  #197

Bassat wrote in post #18418308 (external link)
My entire property is 30 acres. My yard is two acres. More light falls on the entire property than falls on the yard. Size does matter.

If rain is falling at 1 acre inch per hour, my yard will get 2 acre inches in an hour. The entire property will get 30 acre inches in an hour. Size matters.

Where do "subject" and "DOF" and "FOV" and other such things fall in your rainscape?

Your analogy is only applicable to a very small range of photography: photographing OOF solid gray walls where DOF and FOV do not exist.

Yes, if you shoot a white wall at f/4 and 1/100, the larger sensor will capture more light. So what? What does that have to do with most concepts of composition?




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,767 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 11:47 |  #198

John Sheehy wrote in post #18418311 (external link)
10mm on APS-C1.6 gives the FOV of 16mm on a FF. APS-C also crops the image circle of fish-eye lenses, losing the rounding edges, unless there are APS-C-designed fish-eyes that I am not aware of.

While I see no intrinsic value to a crop for putting more pixels on subject (pixel density is what matters there), the wide end of the FOV spectrum is substantially served by a larger sensor, until the day when all FF wide lenses are replicated for APS-C.

A couple of points about your second paragraph.

1.) My 80D puts more pixels on target than does my 6D, with the same framing. If I need to crop, the 80D will give me better results. If I don't need to crop, the 6D will give me better results.

2.) I don't EVER see the spectrum of EF-s lenses even approaching the breadth of the spectrum of EF lenses available, especially at the wide end. Who would pay big money for an EFs15mm f/2, when you'd get better DOF control, out of a (likely) less expensive 24A. Oh, sure, I could buy an 85II, for my 80D. But the much cheaper 135L does the same thing on my 6D for less than 1/2 the money. And the 85 1.8 works just fine on my 80D.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,767 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 11:50 |  #199

John Sheehy wrote in post #18418334 (external link)
Where do "subject" and "DOF" and "FOV" and other such things fall in your rainscape?

Your analogy is only applicable to a very small range of photography: photographing OOF solid gray walls where DOF and FOV do not exist.

Yes, if you shoot a white wall at f/4 and 1/100, the larger sensor will capture more light. So what? What does that have to do with most concepts of composition?

If you shoot ANYTHING at f/4 and 1/100 more light falls on a 35mmx24mm sensor than falls on a 15mmx22mm sensor. Physics doesn't take a holiday just because we're inside a camera.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,424 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Aug 03, 2017 12:02 |  #200

Fun article whether you like Zack or not.

http://dedpxl.com/crop​-or-crap-math-or-moment/ (external link)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 03, 2017 12:09 |  #201

"I use Full Frame because I'm the most gifted superior photographer in the world. I use toy camera's like Fujifilm because I just want to see how normal mortals exist."

Now that it's all clear to you all..... carry on with this non constructive heated babble!! LOL!!!

An analogy of this thread would be like an autotech debating/discussing how they are great techs using SnapOn or MAC tools vs another Tech using tools purchased from Amazon.com. The real question is the user/operator of the hardware.

I've seen some poor "quality images" (poor composition, lighting, posing, post processing skills) from photogs using digital medium format to 1 inch cmos sensor point and shoots. Usually the tool that requires the most attention is the one pressing the shutter button......I definitely include myself as one of these "tools" requiring work in progress everytime I shoot

Go out and shoot guys!!! Talk is cheap so post your photos in a POTN gallery with your "Epic quality". Photography is a collective effort in skill and without a doubt "hardware/tools" help!!! Let us judge you with your photo not your words :)


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,280 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Aug 03, 2017 12:44 |  #202

Bassat wrote in post #18418308 (external link)
My entire property is 30 acres. My yard is two acres. More light falls on the entire property than falls on the yard. Size does matter.

If rain is falling at 1 acre inch per hour, my yard will get 2 acre inches in an hour. The entire property will get 30 acre inches in an hour. Size matters.

But what folks fail to understand is 'getting more light' is not the same as 'getting more INTENSITY of light'.

In terms of Bassat getting more water because the property is bigger, IF you collected all the water falling on that land, you indeed collect more TOTAL GALLONS that are captured in a larger total area.
But if the rain is falling at 0.25" of water per hour, that 0.25"/hr applies whether his land was 1/4 acre or 40 acres!

The exposure is determined by the RATE of light falling on the scene, and NOT by the total number of photons falling upon the larger sensor.


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
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,767 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 12:58 |  #203

Wilt wrote in post #18418378 (external link)
But what folks fail to understand is 'getting more light' is not the same as 'getting more INTENSITY of light'.

In terms of Bassat getting more water because the property is bigger, IF you collected all the water falling on that land, you indeed collect more TOTAL GALLONS that are captured in a larger total area.
But if the rain is falling at 0.25" of water per hour, that 0.25"/hr applies whether his land was 1/4 acre or 40 acres!

The exposure is determined by the RATE of light falling on the scene, and NOT by the total number of photons falling upon the larger sensor.

Exactly!

What has the TF done to you, Wilt? That is just horrible.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,828 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 03, 2017 13:02 |  #204

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18418349 (external link)
Fun article whether you like Zack or not.

http://dedpxl.com/crop​-or-crap-math-or-moment/ (external link)

from an old quote of mine:

"zach arias is the biggest con-man fuji shill. Consider he went from FF to crop MF and said it was the greatest move since slice bread, files richer, better tones.... but when it comes to APS vs FF an EVEN BIGGER jump without low light penalty or speed penalty of MF, he does the opposite and says the move is inconsequential."

I stand by this.

The guy is a total shill all about promoting his sponsored products. Read his previous blog posts about going from FF to 44x33 cropped MF. In his video, he tries to conflate MF digital with a true 645 film..... his MF digital cam at the time wasnt even close to that size. Con man spotted.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,767 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 13:07 |  #205

Charlie wrote in post #18418399 (external link)
from an old quote of mine:

"zach arias is the biggest con-man fuji shill. Consider he went from FF to crop MF and said it was the greatest move since slice bread, files richer, better tones.... but when it comes to APS vs FF an EVEN BIGGER jump without low light penalty or speed penalty of MF, he does the opposite and says the move is inconsequential."

I stand by this.

The guy is a total shill all about promoting his sponsored products. Read his previous blog posts about going from FF to 44x33 cropped MF. In his video, he tries to conflate MF digital with a true 645 film..... his MF digital cam at the time wasnt even close to that size. Con man spotted.

645 is a VERY broad category. I shot 645 50 years ago, in a P&S Kodak. My BIL shoots Pentax 645 (not-D), I made snapshots. He makes money. The 645D puts anything 35mm Full Frame to shame.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,828 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 03, 2017 13:21 |  #206

Bassat wrote in post #18418407 (external link)
645 is a VERY broad category. I shot 645 50 years ago, in a P&S Kodak. My BIL shoots Pentax 645 (not-D), I made snapshots. He makes money. The 645D puts anything 35mm Full Frame to shame.

MF sensor sizes are 54x40mm and 44x33mm. Between the two, there's a difference that makes them noticeable.

with relation to the video, zack was doing his basic double talk routine, saying 23.6mm x 15.6 mm to 35.8mm x 23.9mm was in consequential

yet 35.8mm x 23.9mm to 43.8mm x 32.9mm was HUGE..... except that from APS-C to 35mm FF is actually a bigger jump, than FF 35mm to 44mm MF. Dude is a total phony.

pick a side and stick with it.

here he is promoting MF, size matters



Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,234 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Aug 03, 2017 13:29 |  #207

Wilt wrote in post #18418378 (external link)
But what folks fail to understand is 'getting more light' is not the same as 'getting more INTENSITY of light'.

In terms of Bassat getting more water because the property is bigger, IF you collected all the water falling on that land, you indeed collect more TOTAL GALLONS that are captured in a larger total area.
But if the rain is falling at 0.25" of water per hour, that 0.25"/hr applies whether his land was 1/4 acre or 40 acres!

The exposure is determined by the RATE of light falling on the scene, and NOT by the total number of photons falling upon the larger sensor.

So the length of the exposure doesn't affect the exposure?




LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,234 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Aug 03, 2017 13:32 |  #208

Bassat wrote in post #18418339 (external link)
If you shoot ANYTHING at f/4 and 1/100 more light falls on a 35mmx24mm sensor than falls on a 15mmx22mm sensor. Physics doesn't take a holiday just because we're inside a camera.

Quoting "physics", even if true, is meaningless if it isn't applicable to the context. You haven't even created a practical context. You have left your description open to the possibility of any subject distance, any FOV, any DOF; just about anything. More light of WHAT? "More light" is not necessarily useful light.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,767 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 13:46 |  #209

John Sheehy wrote in post #18418427 (external link)
So the length of the exposure doesn't affect the exposure?

Length of exposure certainly affects the exposure. 1/10 allows more light hit the sensor than 1/1000. That is not the topic at hand.

You stated, I believe, that the same amount of light falls on a full frame sensor and a crop sensor, both at f/4 & 1/100. That is simply not true.

To be sure, that different AMOUNT of light is irrelevant, much like rain on my farmland. Let us equate f/4 to 1/4" per hour. Light (and rain) are falling on the sensors (land) at the same RATE. Over any given period of time (shutter speed), more light (rain) will fall on a bigger sensor (piece of land). The concept has nearly nothing to do with photography, which is about RATE (f/stop) and duration (shutter speed).


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ascenta
Senior Member
Ascenta's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
Aug 03, 2017 13:50 |  #210

This is even worse than PC vs Mac or iPhone vs Android.

I think it just comes down to trying both and going with what you like. After 10 years with an APS-C I finally went FF. Not going back. I'm totally thrilled with the quality and just the overall feel...something numbers, math and youtube videos can't do.




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

27,610 views & 351 likes for this thread
Full Frame or Crop
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera


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 0.00252 for 7 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is xeunskate
766 guests, 315 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017