Full Frame or Crop

DSMS wrote in post #18418605
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 LINK: https://flic.kr/p/fqbT​F4 Hot Rod Dirt Track Racing II by Flick R Sucks, on Flickr

Sure, I stated that in my post about tracking and panning. Following a vehicle on straight line and shooting them so there is motion is the background is different than other kinds of sporting events, and even within motorsports, this is just a subset of what people shoot. Go shoot a rally race where a car is kicking up dirt as it flies in the air, or as it crashes, and you aren't going to have as good a pic as one that can shoot at a higher ISO to get a better shutter speed.

This is where what we shoot is VERY different. I cannot stop motion when a player is dunking a ball by following them and shooting, because their arms and the ball and usually legs are all moving too. I might get their head in focus, the rest of the body is a blur. So again, you have put yourself into a situation where ISO 100 works in daylight situations on some events in some cases, that just isn't for many of the rest of us.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18417767
Please don't start throwing straw man arguments at me.

Here's some links to people who have actually tested this instead of just speculating;
-http://www.stevehuffph​oto.com …3-vs-aps-c-vs-full-frame/
-https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=aVT7C6FdDC8
-http://www.thewanderin​glensman.com …ference-between-full.html
-https://tysonrobichaud​photography.wordpress.​com …pissing-contest-commence/

I could honestly find more if I cared to keep looking, but I don't think anything I could say would ever convince you, so I'll leave it to the future readers of this thread to sift through.

Yes, the Internet is full of nonsense . To compare cameras properly, you have to push them to the limits. Not just look at default OOC JPGs and 100% crops. You have to take into account all the tricks and quirks, which each and every manufacturer tries to exploit or use to fool the consumer. Like those Fuji ISO sensitivity numbers not matching Canon or Sony ones . Put them side by side and see it for yourself. Those people you mentioned have no authority on the subject. And they are doing it wrong. I can throw some links too. Will that change your mind? - No. I don't think so. If you can't provide some logical facts in a few sentences, then don't bother quoting books and articles, don't waste our time, because I've read most of them already.

So you don't know how to use a real camera ... . Well, OK, I'm not judging ... nobody's perfect.
But, seriously?! OMG! You have to be kidding me ...

DoF is not measured in stops. It's a side effect and there is a uniform connection between DoF and the amount of light in any given lighting conditions. If you do care if your lens is F1.4 or F2.8, then you must care just as much if your camera sensor is FF or m4/3. Why don't you? Because some guys on the Internet said that you shouldn't? Well, there are other people saying that you should and I'm one of them. All these "glorified fast food" in the form of OOC JPG is just useless to me. Sorry.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18417830
Sorry late back to the party I saw a crack in the pavement had just had to go unpack my Fuji and shoot it...

Wait, two stops more light... So if I get a shutter speed of 1/125 with and aperture of f/2 the ISO on a crop would be more than two stops higher than the full frame, like 1600 ISO on FF will give me more than 6400 ISO on a crop.....
I'm going rush out now and try that one out. And how will an XF100Mp work out will it give me four stops less ISO? Hang on you are saying only one stop more light if you put a lens on it now I'm really confused. I thought this photoing thing was about composure and lighting, about timing and anticipation, about waiting for the moment, being ready for that moment. Full frame or crop doesn't matter, until you have a real need for one over the other. Sensor size won't make a camera better for everybody, for landscape and portraits perhaps, for sports probably not, although JR brought a 5x4 to LeMans, along with a load of hipster cameras - just saying.

Whaat?.. No. Twice the light is one full stop, not two. Two stops is four times and it's for m4/3 equivalence, because m4/3 sensor is four times smaller than FF.
Fuji 1/125 F2 ~ FF 1/125 F4, with whatever ISOs to get the EV you need, will get you what you want to compare. I can't tell you exact ISO numbers, because Fuji ISO is a scam. Turn on the LiveView with a histogram and try to match them.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18417727
Strange, as there wasn't any photoshop done there except to crop and frame, and perhaps just a bit of USM to overcome the haze. I think my 14 year old daughter took some great photos, she did the boat show a few years back.

I'm sorry, but those comments are excellent examples of "internet asshattery". I guess sometimes the actual problem is the reflection you see when you look in the mirror.

Here is the full image she took and then the crop I did when we saved off the images to our NAS. Straight from the raw, but only ISO 500, the 7D2 has no discernible noise at this ISO, especially during a bright day. We are strictly talking about noise, and not critiques on the photos. Go ahead if you want, but look like a jerk for making fun of an 11 year old's photos. Of course I believe you already established that, given the foot you firmly planted into your mouth on how professionals only use 1D series bodies and would never use lesser bodies, and if you did, you couldn't possibly be a pro.

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=184​17727&i=i136825706
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=184​17727&i=i167592382
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

I was talking about those other shots.
Yes, when there's plenty of light, APS-C can produce something less noisy .
I've never said that professionals only use 1D series. I said that Canon makes 1D series purely for professionals and if you are looking for THE professional camera, then that is the one. While the rest are like mixtures for Pro, enthusiasts, hobbyists and consumer. 5D/7D are not Pro, they are semi-pro/pro-sumer class cameras. They are made for those (like me) who appreciate reliable and durable tools with uncompromised image quality or speed (not both , unfortunately).

Charlie wrote in post #18418548
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?

He started working with Fuji, which must be bad for ones intellectual capacity. It's a common illness these days . Streets are full of brainwashed "zombies" .

Shall we play a game? Two images taken at different times by different cameras - guess what camera took what shot?

Image hosted by forum (868806) © Two Hot Shoes THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

No, today's APSC can produce very low noise shots at the higher ISOs, even in a basement. It is all about exposure, not how bright the light appears to be with your eyes...

The fire shot also not photoshopped, and yes, the moon shot was a 100% crop and had to be processed a bit since I was using 2 TCs and a long lens, which degraded the IQ quite a bit.

Ascenta wrote in post #18418514
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.

Have you even read my posts in this thread? It doesn't seem like you have, because you have not addressed what I have actually said.

I have said that sometimes FF benefit is real, and sometimes it is illusion. If you want to argue that it is *never* illusion, then there is something to argue, but you don't even seem to understand the distinction I made.

I have owned FF and APS-C simultaneously for 8.5 years. There are times when each camera gets to stay home, because the other one is better for what I intend to do that day. It would take a FF with better AF, and higher pixel density, and probably crop mode, for FF to completely replace APS-C for me.

DSMS wrote in post #18418597
Totally agree...

That's not going to happen easily with current technology. You can only capture so many photons per unit of area in a sensor, so the only way to get really low ISOs is make the color filters more neutral-density-like (which might make ISO 25 noise the same as ISO 100 now), or read the sensor quickly and start letting it start charging up again from photons, with a rolling electronic shutter, but that causes some blackout time, so you will get dark bead in light streaks and such with long exposures.

It seems like it would be inexpensive, though, to offer alternative versions of cameras that did have stronger color filters that separated color better, with lower ISOs. Besides the filters over the sensor, the only change to the camera would have to be the metering and some metadata values to change and change the JPEG conversion parameters. Very little physical variation would exist from the normal camera body. High ISOs would be bad, though.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18418702
...

I have said that sometimes FF benefit is real, and sometimes it is illusion. If you want to argue that it is *never* illusion, then there is something to argue

...

Ah, something we can agree on. Sometimes I KNOW I need the full frame 6D. Sometimes I KNOW I need the crop 80D. If I don't know, I use the 80D because it is smaller/lighter.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18418645
Two images taken at different times by different cameras - guess what camera took what shot?

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=184​18645&i=i256923196
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Well, I wouldn't need a camera for such tiny little snapshots. Nice snapshots though.
You could have used a smartphone for that. I like your style of dealing with contrast.
When you shrink an image so much (like 600x400) it doesn't matter anymore what camera you used. The data is wasted.

Ascenta wrote in post #18418514
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.

And considering the comparison of a 2016 launched FF camera vs. an APS-C from 2014, that is what should be expected!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18418631
Go shoot a rally race where a car is kicking up dirt as it flies in the air, or as it crashes, and you aren't going to have as good a pic as one that can shoot at a higher ISO to get a better shutter speed.

I disagree...slow shutter can be just as effective...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/dZ3m​k8

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Xk3e​7E

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/djmK​iu

More 'dirt flying in the air'...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ftwx​bj

nice shot!

Charlie wrote in post #18418568
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.

He also shoots with micro four thirds... but they must be paying him too, right?

ecka wrote in post #18418635
Yes, the Internet is full of nonsense . To compare cameras properly, you have to push them to the limits. Not just look at default OOC JPGs and 100% crops. You have to take into account all the tricks and quirks, which each and every manufacturer tries to exploit or use to fool the consumer. Like those Fuji ISO sensitivity numbers not matching Canon or Sony ones . Put them side by side and see it for yourself. Those people you mentioned have no authority on the subject. And they are doing it wrong. I can throw some links too. Will that change your mind? - No. I don't think so. If you can't provide some logical facts in a few sentences, then don't bother quoting books and articles, don't waste our time, because I've read most of them already.

So you don't know how to use a real camera ... . Well, OK, I'm not judging ... nobody's perfect.
But, seriously?! OMG! You have to be kidding me ...


He started working with Fuji, which must be bad for ones intellectual capacity. It's a common illness these days . Streets are full of brainwashed "zombies" .

First of all... is this real life? I got banned for a week last month for debating someone about the benefits of PC/Mac using kind words and links to actual relevant data and yet I come in here and stuff like this is flying around... seems a little unfair to me, but I digress...

I compare cameras in the real world (where I live) shooting real world subjects (as I do). In my comparisons and time owning and using these cameras both professionally and as a hobby I came to the conclusion that my Fuji X-Pro2 is every bit as capable (and more in some areas) as my 6D was, more capable than my a7R was (in nearly every regard) and mostly as capable (less so in extreme ISO's) as my a7S was. If you want to scrutinize over every quantum of difference there is in an image when viewed at 100% magnification, you go on ahead, we'll be out shooting pictures while you rot your eyes on a computer screen. Here in the real world though, APS-C has caught up to FF in every measure that actually matters for the vast majority of photographers out there, both professional and not.

Yup, we're all "zombies", that must be it One of us! One of us! One of us!

DSMS wrote in post #18418605
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 LINK: https://flic.kr/p/fqbT​F4 Hot Rod Dirt Track Racing II by Flick R Sucks, on Flickr

Genuinely no offense meant by this... but how can you be so adamant about never going above "high" ISO and having the utmost amazing image quality and then over-process your image to the point where I honest to God could have taken it with my Nikon P300 point and shoot? It's a cool shot, don't get me wrong, but if IQ is your top metric, you've got a strange way of representing that.

i'm baffled as to why so many are biting the bait

the trolling is obvious