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

 
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,782 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 13:54 |  #211

John Sheehy wrote in post #18418431 (external link)
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.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Exposure is about NOTHING BUT LIGHT. Light to the film (sensor) is regulated in two ways: RATE (f/stop) and DURATION (shutter speed). There is no FOV, or DOF, effect on exposure. If I have to shoot at f/4 and 1/100, it is totally and completely irrelevant what is in the viewfinder, or what it looks like. That f/4 & 1/100 can be almost no DOF and extremely narrow FOV (think 180mm macro at 1:1). That same f/4 and 1/100 may also be the proper exposure for shooting the Grand Canyon at 11mm (HUGE DOF and HUGE FOV). FOV and DOF are irrelevant to exposure.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,782 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 13:55 |  #212

Ascenta wrote in post #18418457 (external link)
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.

Agreed. The total amount of light hitting a sensor is irrelevant to photography.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,782 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 14:00 |  #213

John, try this thought experiment. It is raining at 1/4" per hour. Grab a thimble from your wife's sewing kit. Go outside and stand next to a 55 gallon drum for an hour. At the end of that hour, how deep with the water be in the thimble? The drum? Now take one more measurement. How much total water is in the thimble? The drum? Are they equal?

Same applies to photography. RATE & DURATION are important. The TOTAL amount means nothing.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,782 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 14:08 |  #214

Bassat wrote in post #18418476 (external link)
John, try this thought experiment. It is raining at 1/4" per hour. Grab a thimble from your wife's sewing kit. Go outside and stand next to a 55 gallon drum for an hour. At the end of that hour, how deep with the water be in the thimble? The drum? Now take one more measurement. How much total water is in the thimble? The drum? Are they equal?

Same applies to photography. RATE & DURATION are important. The TOTAL amount means nothing.

EDIT:
OK, total amount does mean one thing. The total amount is the same every time you shoot with zeroed meter. It doesn't matter how you get there. F/1.4 & 1/1000 provides the same TOTAL AMOUNT of light as f/8 & 1/30. (Sure hope I did the math right!)


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,237 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Aug 03, 2017 14:27 |  #215

Ascenta wrote in post #18418457 (external link)
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.

If it can't be backed up by (properly applied) numbers, it may very well be illusion.

There is no question that generally speaking, FF is a better choice for wide angles and shallower DOF, with similar overall sensor technology. Big pixels also absorb more light below f/2.8, the difference increasing the lower the f-number.

However, if someone hears that FF gives sharper results and less noise at the same ISO, and sells their 7D2 to buy a 5D2, and shoots the same things with the same lens from the same distance and crops the 5D2 more than the 7D2, they might actually see more sharpness and less noise at 100% on the monitor, but the thing shot will be smaller on the monitor. Jump to the future, and this person is displaying their work on a 16k monitor. The audience says, make that bird bigger, I can barely see it, and reluctantly, that person cranks up the magnification to 400%, and the bird is more clearly pixelated like a mosaic, with more noise, than if they had shot it with the 7D2 and cranked it up to ~250% for the same bird size on the monitor.

Also, if one is shooting macro and needs significant DOF, the bigger sensor does nothing for your noise; the FF advantage disappears unless you allow arbitrary exposure time at base ISO for a still subject.

To gather more light in a given exposure time and FOV, the FF sensor needs shallower DOF (which requires a larger, longer lens with a larger aperture, or getting closer to the subject with the same lens); it is not "another" option.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Ascenta
Senior Member
Ascenta's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
Post has been last edited 4 months ago by Ascenta. 2 edits done in total.
Aug 03, 2017 14:36 |  #216

John Sheehy wrote in post #18418497 (external link)
If it can't be backed up by (properly applied) numbers, it may very well be illusion.

Certainly no illusion after coming from 10 years on the APS-C. If you want to call me a total liar, I have no problem. I've been called much worse. I'm just happy my photos are much better on my 5D4 than they were just weeks ago on my 7D2, proper or not.

Shirt "A" smells like poop. Shirt "B" smells like fresh laundry. I can't back this up by properly applied numbers, but I'm probably still going to be wearing shirt B.




LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Aug 03, 2017 14:56 |  #217

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.

Clearly you didn't even read the article since he directly addresses what you just pointed out.

When he made that move the change was consequential, it isn't anymore. He's not promoting Fuji in that article at all, he even openly states that it doesn't matter which brand you're talking about, the difference between FF and APS-C is inconsequential and I completely agree with him.

Please remove your tin-foil hat.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,833 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 03, 2017 15:12 |  #218

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18418532 (external link)
Clearly you didn't even read the article since he directly addresses what you just pointed out.

When he made that move the change was consequential, it isn't anymore. He's not promoting Fuji in that article at all, he even openly states that it doesn't matter which brand you're talking about, the difference between FF and APS-C is inconsequential and I completely agree with him.

Please remove your tin-foil hat.

Uh yes I did, I've read the entire thing, he's still a con man. The whole article was about defending his position.

his whole article was about screw the math, it's wrong, I'm right.

This guy is selling you 1+1 = 3, his views on medium format

2 - 1 = 2, his views on APS-C.

Where's the tin foil? He says clearly on the creative live video, "Sensor Size, the Bigger the better"

What's changed since then?


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
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Aug 03, 2017 15:21 |  #219

Charlie wrote in post #18418548 (external link)
Uh yes I did, I've read the entire thing, he's still a con man. The whole article was about defending his position.

his whole article was about screw the math, it's wrong, I'm right.

This guy is selling you 1+1 = 3, his views on medium format

2 - 1 = 2, his views on APS-C.

Where's the tin foil? He says clearly on the creative live video, "Sensor Size, the Bigger the better"

What's changed since then?

Re-read the article, he didn't say that's changed, he said it's reached a point where it really doesn't matter anymore and in my experience that is absolutely true.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,833 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Post has been edited 4 months ago by Charlie.
Aug 03, 2017 15:36 |  #220

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18418553 (external link)
Re-read the article, he didn't say that's changed, he said it's reached a point where it really doesn't matter anymore and in my experience that is absolutely true.

it doesnt matter, yet he still shoots medium format......

what is this talk about "Go big or go home"? He's saying that size matters..... again.

EDIT: FYI, more balony from Zack.

He's considering selling off his X mount fuji setup for...... the Fuji GFX system. Surprise surprise, Zack "size dont matter unless it's fuji" Arias. I noticed his latest gear setup, he upgraded from 44x33 MF to 54x40 MF.... another case of where size doesnt matter.


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
DSMS
Member
DSMS's Avatar
Joined Mar 2017
NZ
Aug 03, 2017 16:21 |  #221
banned

BigAl007 wrote in post #18418197 (external link)
it would be good if we could have a sensor with a native base ISO of 50, and preferably 25

Alan

Totally agree...




LOG IN TO REPLY
DSMS
Member
DSMS's Avatar
Joined Mar 2017
NZ
Post has been edited 4 months ago by DSMS.
Aug 03, 2017 16:38 |  #222
banned

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18418222 (external link)
T
Also, I would suspect you are not shooting motorsports (fast action) using just ISO 100 and stopping motion in all areas of the sport at all times of the day. If you choose action at an apex of a turn, or the action is below 100mph, or the sun is directly overhead, perhaps, but at higher speeds on a curvy section of road where it is more difficult to track and pan in the AM or PM before/after dusk/dawn, ISO 100 and 1/1250th wouldn't be enough. I shoot NBA action and 1/2000th is the recipe for stopping human motion on the court, otherwise you get motion blur.

I don't want to 'freeze' the action, I want motion blur...hence the low ISO, low shutter speed and tracking:

f11, 1/80th sec, ISO100 (7D + 100-400L @200mm)

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2867/9462715605_d38aeea1b5_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/fqbT​F4] (external link)Hot Rod Dirt Track Racing II (external link) by Flick R Sucks (external link), on Flickr



LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Aug 03, 2017 17:14 |  #223

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.

I surprised you are not blinded by the monumental brightness of the light in your back yard.8-)
And how much rain will it take to cover your yard Vs. your acreage?

I might just tape up a section of some film stock [as in crop it] just to see if my exposures suddenly go dark


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,782 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 17:16 |  #224

DSMS wrote in post #18418605 (external link)
I don't want to 'freeze' the action, I want motion blur...hence the low ISO, low shutter speed and tracking:

f11, 1/80th sec, ISO100 (7D + 100-400L @200mm)

QUOTED IMAGE
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/fqbT​F4] (external link)Hot Rod Dirt Track Racing II (external link) by Flick R Sucks (external link), on Flickr

Nice panning skills! Wish I could do that.

Pretty sure the '31 Ford didn't come standard with a Supercharged Tri-Power V-8 Flathead mill.
... but she'll walk a Thunderbird like she's standing still... - (sorry that was '32 Coupe)

Oops, showing my age.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,782 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 17:18 |  #225

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18418619 (external link)
I surprised you are not blinded by the monumental brightness of the light in your back yard.8-)
And how much rain will it take to cover your yard Vs. your acreage?

I might just tape up a section of some film stock [as in crop it] just to see if my exposures suddenly go dark

Use electrical tape. Duct tape isn't opaque. :)


Tom

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

27,740 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 0.00213 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
Latest registered member is Latino Toons
862 guests, 356 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017