Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Full Frame or Crop

 
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,584 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4869
Joined Sep 2007
     
Dec 04, 2017 11:27 |  #571

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18510071 (external link)
No it isn't.

I shot both systems simultaneously (Sony FF and Fuji) and lens for lens the Fuji is most definitely smaller and lighter, and more importantly has much better ergonomics for my taste.

XF 35/1.4 significantly smaller and lighter than the FE 55/1.8; same FOV, near as makes no difference DOF... Fuji's lens has an aperture ring.
XF 18-55mm smaller, same weight, better construction; more range, same or better DOF. And that's not even comparing it to the Zeiss 24-70mm f4 since optically I'd say that's the more fair comparison.

Add in the fact that the ISO performance between the standard a7/ii is worse than the X-TransIII and DOF becomes the only equivalent measure between the lenses.

I think it's great that Sony gives you the options to be flexible with numerous bodies and some options with their smaller lenses, but without going 3rd party there aren't a whole lot of options for smaller lenses on their system. They've also been pretty clear lately that they're far more interested in developing their high end line and their smaller/lighter FF kit is clearly not a priority.

XF 35 f1.4 -> FE 50 f1.8
XF 18-55 -> FE 28-70

size differences are negligible

MalVeauX wrote in post #18510212 (external link)
Why should it have been? By doing that, I would have been comparing a full frame to a full frame and the point is to compare a full frame to a crop.

Also, a Sony A7 used is around $700~800. That's twice what this crop cost used. They're otherwise the same size. Similar features, similar ISO range, etc. But again at twice the cost. And it forces me to use full frame size lenses, which are larger. For me, that's not worth it. And for me, Sony's color reproduction isn't as good as Canon or Fuji, but that's personal to me. I also don't want Sony-Star-Eater problems.

I'd rather compare a Fuji crop to a Sony full frame, than a full frame to full frame for the purpose of this thread. But I don't have Sony.

I do have Canon full frame and Fuji crop, so that's what I'm using and not just re-stating something I've read (not implying you are doing that, but there are many in these threads that spout off about full frame this, or crop that, and they haven't touched any of these cameras nor have both systems, etc, but they "heard").

Sony has the FE 85 F1.8, yes, and it's small. It's small because it's F1.8. The moment it becomes F1.4 or faster, it gets larger. But almost everything else is not with Sony. Both systems have small lenses. So this doesn't really argue much. What I would be doing is getting the same lenses, but designed for full frame, which are much larger. A Rokinon 35mm F1.4 for the A7 for example is a big lens, compare that to the Rokinon 21mm F1.4 for a crop, it's significantly smaller (and would be for a Fuji or Sony E mount, not the A7). This applies to all the fast standard primes from third parties if you want to really compare sizes stuff. Full frame stuff is bigger for these kinds of lenses. This is another reason I was swayed to a different system, as I was strongly considering Sony. But Sony's E-Mount cameras were not very attractive to me, and I can get the same third party lenses for the E mount as the Fuji. So the only thing to compare there are the cameras themselves.

For my Fuji crop, I have a 12mm F2 (18mm FOV FF EQ), 21mm F1.4 (32mm FOV FF EQ), 50mm F1.2 (75mm FOV FF EQ) & 85mm F1.4 (127mm FOV FF EQ) and they're small lenses (the 85 is the largest and is an old design, they obviously just built the mount adapter into the lens extending it, it's a larger lens than the Canon mount because of this as they added registration distance, the 85 is an old lens with full frame and old dSLR registration distances built in, not a good lens for this example; but, the rest are 3 inches or less in size and are designed for mirorrless crop, and are tiny and light weight and that's the point here). Again, understanding that the Rok 85mm is not a mirrorless/crop designed lens, it's an older design and is larger.

No, it isn't.

Anyone can compare a crop designed lens to a full frame designed lens:

The Rokinon 35 F1.4 (710 grams, 3.27 x 4.39") & Rokinon 21 F1.4 (275 grams, 2.53 x 2.66")

Put them on a Sony A7 (your suggestion) and Fuji XT body and compare size as the cameras are essentially the same size, and all you have left is the obvious huge difference in lens size (see above). Do this for several lenses, any of them really. Do it for equivalent FOV lenses and same or similar speed. So take a look at the full frame designed lenses for that A7 for 17~18mm F2 (doesn't exist, so you have to go slower and wider with a 14 F2.8 which is still bigger than a 12mm F2), 35mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4 (this is huge compared to a 50mm on a crop) and 135mm F2 (85mm F1.4 on crop, the 135 is significantly larger still). All the full frame lenses here are bigger, heavier, longer.

Sony E mount, using small lenses, would by a smaller system than Sony A7 with full frame lenses, equivalent focal lengths and f-stop speed. Not just Fuji.

The only thing out there that is a "full frame lie" is that mirrorless full frame is smaller than dSLR full frame. That is true, because they do not significantly weigh less or are significantly smaller in volume/size. That's full frame to full frame, and that is a known minsconception that mirrorless full frame is "smaller" because it's really not with the big lenses.

But crop mirrorless is smaller. And is lighter. There's no lie there, no misconception. It's clearly measured out and presented everywhere, for both Sony & Fuji.

+++++++++++++++

Here's my full frame ultrawide setup, and my crop ultrawide setup. The only way to get my ultrawide smaller on my full frame is to get an old Tokina 17mm F3.5 prime and it's small and light, so it would be an equivalent size to the 12mm F2 here. But then you're left with the obvious body size and weight difference. So no matter how you slice it, the crop system is smaller and lighter, even if I swap out a lens to a 17mm slow prime to be truly equivalent.

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ZYvf​QL  (external link) X10S9469 copy (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

+++++++++++++++

I think the spirit of this thread is that there was a time when full frame was clearly, significantly better and had more options (especially on the wide end) in lenses. But that time is gone. Today, there's plenty of excellent glass and wide options for crops. There are small, mirrorless crops that are truly smaller than full frame systems even if the body is the same size or close, because the full frame lenses are significantly larger for the fast stuff. The spirit of the thread is that you don't have to have a full frame to achieve specific things that were a full frame thing of the past (such as super shallow DOF with short lenses due to fast focal-ratios, and ultrawide focal lengths, also fast focal-ratios). Someone who really has to ask other people if they should go full frame or crop and have no body of work to present to show what they're even doing prior to the question, probably doesn't need full frame.

You simply don't have to have full frame for the sake of the "magic bullet" that full frame was many years ago. Today's crop systems are excellent and truly smaller. There's a reason a lot of people even went to Micro 4/3's to get smaller, lighter kit because today's smaller crop sensors are excellent.

Very best,

equivalency can and should be debated.




When comparing lenses, grabbing the largest isnt very practical, and third party for comparisons can go both ways. Voigtlander 40mm F1.2 is a very small lens for FULL FRAME. Equivalency would be something like 25mm f0.95 aps-c. I personally shoot with a third party CV 35mm f1.7, which is a very small lens.

so, in that way, equivalency can get messy.

there's a little more to equivalency, in that if you were to shoot said brand, HOW would you shoot it. What would you be comfortable with?

Some folks love carrying around f2.8 zooms from 16-200mm, that can be their preferred shooting style. For people that like smaller options, make now mistake about it, Sony FF does offer small and light lenses if you're actively looking for them.

I'm growing on 35/85 combo, and the lenses picked out are smallish, ranging from 120g to 350g. It's really manageable. I dont really do 24 that often, but I do have the OM 24 f2.8 that's a dslr pancake lens, still pretty small when adapted.

samyang 12mm f2, can be comparable to batis 18 or loxia 21, but will cost a lot more. One has AF the other is MF. Loxia probably even smaller than that SY.

as far as star eatery, generally an issue with high end high megapixel bodies. The older 7 and 7R and 7s dont have problems. It was introduced into late firmware. Similar to fuji, sony has released firmware fixes and gave extra functionality, so I wouldnt count out a fix for it.

Back to the size issue, it's about looking for a small sized kit, if you want one for either system, you can certainly find it. Fuji's smallest kit, will likely be smaller than Sony's smallest kit, but it wont be drastic.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - 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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 3814
Joined Mar 2014
Post edited 6 months ago by rantercsr. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 04, 2017 11:43 |  #572

Charlie wrote in post #18510288 (external link)
XF 35 f1.4 -> FE 50 f1.8
XF 18-55 -> FE 28-70

size differences are negligible


.


XF35 f2 to the fe50 f1.8....size difference maybe not so negligible anymore?

I mean those two could be considered equivalients as well? (more or less same working distance and fstop?)


Fuji XH1 / Panasonic GH5 / Sony A7R3 / Canon t4i / Pentax K1000
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MY flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,156 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 2883
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Dec 04, 2017 11:59 |  #573

Charlie wrote in post #18510288 (external link)
XF 35 f1.4 -> FE 50 f1.8
XF 18-55 -> FE 28-70

size differences are negligible

equivalency can and should be debated.




When comparing lenses, grabbing the largest isnt very practical, and third party for comparisons can go both ways. Voigtlander 40mm F1.2 is a very small lens for FULL FRAME. Equivalency would be something like 25mm f0.95 aps-c. I personally shoot with a third party CV 35mm f1.7, which is a very small lens.

so, in that way, equivalency can get messy.

there's a little more to equivalency, in that if you were to shoot said brand, HOW would you shoot it. What would you be comfortable with?

Some folks love carrying around f2.8 zooms from 16-200mm, that can be their preferred shooting style. For people that like smaller options, make now mistake about it, Sony FF does offer small and light lenses if you're actively looking for them.

I'm growing on 35/85 combo, and the lenses picked out are smallish, ranging from 120g to 350g. It's really manageable. I dont really do 24 that often, but I do have the OM 24 f2.8 that's a dslr pancake lens, still pretty small when adapted.

samyang 12mm f2, can be comparable to batis 18 or loxia 21, but will cost a lot more. One has AF the other is MF. Loxia probably even smaller than that SY.

as far as star eatery, generally an issue with high end high megapixel bodies. The older 7 and 7R and 7s dont have problems. It was introduced into late firmware. Similar to fuji, sony has released firmware fixes and gave extra functionality, so I wouldnt count out a fix for it.

Back to the size issue, it's about looking for a small sized kit, if you want one for either system, you can certainly find it. Fuji's smallest kit, will likely be smaller than Sony's smallest kit, but it wont be drastic.

The FE 50/1.8 is not the same caliber of lens as the XF 35/1.4. For that matter, neither is the FE 28-70mm compared to the XF 18-55mm.

The thing is, with Fuji their top tier glass is smaller and lighter than any FF top tier glass.

Also, skirting over how significantly higher the cost is seems kinda silly to me. Are you getting 2x+ the performance for that cost? For me, absolutely not.


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
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,183 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2023
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 04, 2017 13:08 |  #574

MalVeauX wrote in post #18510212 (external link)
I think the spirit of this thread is that there was a time when full frame was clearly, significantly better and had more options (especially on the wide end) in lenses. But that time is gone. Today, there's plenty of excellent glass and wide options for crops. There are small, mirrorless crops that are truly smaller than full frame systems even if the body is the same size or close, because the full frame lenses are significantly larger for the fast stuff. The spirit of the thread is that you don't have to have a full frame to achieve specific things that were a full frame thing of the past (such as super shallow DOF with short lenses due to fast focal-ratios, and ultrawide focal lengths, also fast focal-ratios). Someone who really has to ask other people if they should go full frame or crop and have no body of work to present to show what they're even doing prior to the question, probably doesn't need full frame.

You simply don't have to have full frame for the sake of the "magic bullet" that full frame was many years ago. Today's crop systems are excellent and truly smaller. There's a reason a lot of people even went to Micro 4/3's to get smaller, lighter kit because today's smaller crop sensors are excellent.

^^^


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://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
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,584 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4869
Joined Sep 2007
     
Dec 04, 2017 13:09 |  #575

rantercsr wrote in post #18510306 (external link)
XF35 f2 to the fe50 f1.8....size difference maybe not so negligible anymore?

I mean those two could be considered equivalients as well? (more or less same working distance and fstop?)

yes, I have previously mentioned, some lenses sony cannot match fuji, and sometimes, fuji cannot match sony. XF 35 f2 equivalence would be 55mm f2.8. Sony doesnt produce such a lens, so in that case, Fuji wins by default.

however, keep in mind, there are other equivalents that fuji does not offer, such as the voigtlander 10, 12, 40, 65, fe 12-24, and many more. Many matches on the equivalence games, and many mismatches as well. XF 18, 35 f2, 50 f2, 10-24, and probably more.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18510317 (external link)
The FE 50/1.8 is not the same caliber of lens as the XF 35/1.4. For that matter, neither is the FE 28-70mm compared to the XF 18-55mm.

The thing is, with Fuji their top tier glass is smaller and lighter than any FF top tier glass.

Also, skirting over how significantly higher the cost is seems kinda silly to me. Are you getting 2x+ the performance for that cost? For me, absolutely not.

MTF scores would show that the cheapo FE's are absolutely in the same league as the fuji's. It's one of the key advantages of shooting full frame, bigger sensor area, easier to translate to sharp photos. FE 50 is a decent lens, not quite FE 55 or 85 standard, but it's certainly not bad. Good contrast, nice calm bokeh, fast enough, decent sharpness wide open for key parts of the frame.

study of the lens can be seen here: https://www.dxomark.co​m …review-affordable-choice/ (external link)

the same concept applies to MF and 35mm. Even cheapo 6x7 lenses would likely blow away 35mm in image quality at the same level print.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - 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
ecka
Senior Member
Avatar
501 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 36
Joined Oct 2009
     
Dec 04, 2017 13:11 |  #576

rantercsr wrote in post #18510306 (external link)
XF35 f2 to the fe50 f1.8....size difference maybe not so negligible anymore?

I mean those two could be considered equivalients as well? (more or less same working distance and fstop?)

NO
35F2 x 1.532 (the actual crop factor) ~ 55F3.1 or 53.6mm F3.07, but such precision makes little sense, because 35F2 isn't exactly 35.00mm and F2.00 to begin with.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 3814
Joined Mar 2014
Post edited 6 months ago by rantercsr.
     
Dec 04, 2017 13:24 |  #577

ok so we don't have exact #'s .. the best we can do is "more or less".. "give or take" ,,, "eh just about there"..


we can always try and compare specific lenses that help support our arguments and ignore the ones that don't (and hope no one brings it up;-)a )...

I'm not that hung up on numbers.. but I know some are.. "negligible difference " is very subjective ...

I know what a 50mm lens (speaking in terms of FF or equivalents )should look like when I look through the view finder .. even if I call it a 35 on my Fuji..

a 1.4 on a full frame is most often (if not always?) bigger than a 1.4 on a lens made for crop sensor...
but I should multiply the f1.4 by something because .. it wont look the same in terms of DOF ? or end up at different ISO?

negligible differences to me ..

I get why all the math is done ..

I had a sony ff.. I stuck to f2's and f1.8 primes not because I didn't 1.4's , but size ...


Fuji XH1 / Panasonic GH5 / Sony A7R3 / Canon t4i / Pentax K1000
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MY flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
Avatar
501 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 36
Joined Oct 2009
     
Dec 04, 2017 13:29 |  #578

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18510071 (external link)
No it isn't.

I shot both systems simultaneously (Sony FF and Fuji) and lens for lens the Fuji is most definitely smaller and lighter, and more importantly has much better ergonomics for my taste.

XF 35/1.4 significantly smaller and lighter than the FE 55/1.8; same FOV, near as makes no difference DOF... Fuji's lens has an aperture ring.
XF 18-55mm smaller, same weight, better construction; more range, same or better DOF. And that's not even comparing it to the Zeiss 24-70mm f4 since optically I'd say that's the more fair comparison.

Add in the fact that the ISO performance between the standard a7/ii is worse than the X-TransIII and DOF becomes the only equivalent measure between the lenses.

I think it's great that Sony gives you the options to be flexible with numerous bodies and some options with their smaller lenses, but without going 3rd party there aren't a whole lot of options for smaller lenses on their system. They've also been pretty clear lately that they're far more interested in developing their high end line and their smaller/lighter FF kit is clearly not a priority.

Wishful thinking ...
xTrans is the actual worst.
You should be comparing existing equivalent optics first, like XF56/1.2 vs FF85/1.8 and not just whatever vs whatever else.
FF55/1.8 ~ XF35/1.2, while the XF35/1.4 is not really on the same level. It's just as cheap as the FE50/1.8, except price.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 3814
Joined Mar 2014
     
Dec 04, 2017 13:37 |  #579

ecka wrote in post #18510386 (external link)
NO
35F2 x 1.532 (the actual crop factor) ~ 55F3.1 or 53.6mm F3.07, but such precision makes little sense, because 35F2 isn't exactly 35.00mm and F2.00 to begin with.


wait.. so the xf 35 f2 is not 35mm? and not f2?


Fuji XH1 / Panasonic GH5 / Sony A7R3 / Canon t4i / Pentax K1000
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MY flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
Avatar
501 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 36
Joined Oct 2009
Post edited 6 months ago by ecka.
     
Dec 04, 2017 13:55 |  #580

rantercsr wrote in post #18510399 (external link)
ok so we don't have exact #'s .. the best we can do is "more or less".. "give or take" ,,, "eh just about there"..


we can always try and compare specific lenses that help support our arguments and ignore the ones that don't (and hope no one brings it up;-)a )...

I'm not that hung up on numbers.. but I know some are.. "negligible difference " is very subjective ...

I know what a 50mm lens (speaking in terms of FF or equivalents )should look like when I look through the view finder .. even if I call it a 35 on my Fuji..

a 1.4 on a full frame is most often (if not always?) bigger than a 1.4 on a lens made for crop sensor...
but I should multiply the f1.4 by something because .. it wont look the same in terms of DOF ? or end up at different ISO?

negligible differences to me ..

I get why all the math is done ..

I had a sony ff.. I stuck to f2's and f1.8 primes not because I didn't 1.4's , but size ...

Well, I don't care about the numbers at all. I care about images. Which is why this equivalence thing doesn't make me nervous (unlike most people) and I can clearly see that it works nicely every time. F1.4 on FF is not the same F1.4 on crop. You need F0.9 for APS-C to match them.
What really is negligible is the wishful thinking I see a lot in threads like this one. And it's always the same story - "Oh, it's good enough and it's small, so from now on FF is dead to me, because I like fancy numbers on my expensive little lens better than humble numbers on a similarly small and often cheaper FF optics" - Well, OK :) fine, have it your way. Just don't preach this silly marketing propaganda to the rest of the world. That's all I'm asking really. The truth is that FF can be just as small when you stop denying equivalence, which takes everything into account - DoF, distance, noise, perspective, ... everything.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 3814
Joined Mar 2014
     
Dec 04, 2017 13:57 |  #581

ecka wrote in post #18510443 (external link)
Well, I don't care about the numbers at all. I care about images. Which is why this equivalence thing doesn't make me nervous (unlike most people) and I can clearly see that works nicely every time. F1.4 on FF is not the same F1.4 on crop. You need F0.9 for APS-C to match them.
.

match them in what sense? DOF?

and , again.. how is the 35 f2 not a 35 and not f2?


Fuji XH1 / Panasonic GH5 / Sony A7R3 / Canon t4i / Pentax K1000
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MY flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
Avatar
501 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 36
Joined Oct 2009
     
Dec 04, 2017 14:00 |  #582

rantercsr wrote in post #18510419 (external link)
wait.. so the xf 35 f2 is not 35mm? and not f2?

35F2 could be something like 33.7mm and F2.13. Those numbers are always rounded to the nearest standard point. If you take 10 different 35mm lenses and compare their actual field of view you will see that they are all a bit different. Not much and not enough to worry about it, but still.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,709 posts
Gallery: 1101 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 8048
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited 6 months ago by MalVeauX. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 04, 2017 14:08 |  #583

ecka wrote in post #18510443 (external link)
Well, I don't care about the numbers at all. I care about images. Which is why this equivalence thing doesn't make me nervous (unlike most people) and I can clearly see that works nicely every time. F1.4 on FF is not the same F1.4 on crop. You need F0.9 for APS-C to match them.
What really is negligible is the wishful thinking I see a lot in threads like this one. And it's always the same story - "Oh, it's good enough and it's small, so from now on FF is dead to me, because I like fancy numbers on my expensive little lens better than humble numbers on a similarly small and often cheaper FF optics" - Well, OK :) fine, have it your way. Just don't preach this silly marketing propaganda to the rest of the world. That's all I'm asking really. The truth is that FF can be just as small when you stop denying equivalence, which takes everything into account - DoF, distance, noise, perspective, ... everything.

You keep bringing up equivalence like its the solution to all the discussion here that is not in agreement. And I agree with you, equivalence can be a very powerful tool for comparison here. You're simply using it backwards, as if full frame is being made equivalent to smaller systems, when it's not; it's the other way around. Equivalence is what smaller systems and smaller kit in general is trying to achieve, equivalent to the bigger systems (full frame), producing similar results from a smaller system. These smaller sensor systems with smaller fast glass was not available just a few years ago. They are producing equivalent results that normally required big sensors and big hunks of glass to achieve. And this is what is different now. We have access to equivalent, and near equivalent stuff to full frame in smaller format. And they are smaller. Some how you are blocking out the obvious physically smaller and lighter weight differences between these things and getting hung up on numbers which you claim you don't care about, when it's clearly obvious how much smaller a lens for a smaller system is compared to the full frame 'equivalent' that you invoke.

"Full frame can be just as small" is an excellent example of how blind you are choosing to be to what's actually available and being discussed here. And this is your propaganda. And it is silly, as you put it. If anyone is preaching it's you, everyone else is offering up examples that you choose to ignore regarding physical size & weight and then you somehow have convinced yourself that a full frame system with full frame lenses can be just as small. That's not just typical web-hyperbole, that's just straight up incorrect.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,156 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 2883
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Dec 04, 2017 14:10 |  #584

ecka wrote in post #18510443 (external link)
Well, I don't care about the numbers at all. I care about images. Which is why this equivalence thing doesn't make me nervous (unlike most people) and I can clearly see that it works nicely every time. F1.4 on FF is not the same F1.4 on crop. You need F0.9 for APS-C to match them.
What really is negligible is the wishful thinking I see a lot in threads like this one. And it's always the same story - "Oh, it's good enough and it's small, so from now on FF is dead to me, because I like fancy numbers on my expensive little lens better than humble numbers on a similarly small and often cheaper FF optics" - Well, OK :) fine, have it your way. Just don't preach this silly marketing propaganda to the rest of the world. That's all I'm asking really. The truth is that FF can be just as small when you stop denying equivalence, which takes everything into account - DoF, distance, noise, perspective, ... everything.

Lol, k.

Why do you feel the need to push FF on a market where the vast majority of buyers won't see any tangible difference in image quality. Why entice people to spend way more on a kit with diminishing returns?

ecka wrote in post #18510450 (external link)
35F2 could be something like 33.7mm and F2.13. Those numbers are always rounded to the nearest standard point. If you take 10 different 35mm lenses and compare their actual field of view you will see that they are all a bit different. Not much and not enough to worry about it, but still.

What happened to you not caring about numbers? :rolleyes:


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
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 3814
Joined Mar 2014
     
Dec 04, 2017 14:14 |  #585

ecka wrote in post #18510450 (external link)
35F2 could be something like 33.7mm and F2.13. Those numbers are always rounded to the nearest standard point. If you take 10 different 35mm lenses and compare their actual field of view you will see that they are all a bit different. Not much and not enough to worry about it, but still.


ah I see..so that's applied to all lenses? even the ff lenses that are being compared... I assume..

and about the crop lens needing to be a .95 was it? to be equivalent ? now why is that ?

wouldn't that make them not equal as the crop sensor lens is letting more light in? wouldn't it ?


Fuji XH1 / Panasonic GH5 / Sony A7R3 / Canon t4i / Pentax K1000
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MY flickr (external link)

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

42,193 views & 382 likes for this thread
Full Frame or Crop
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is brotherbear86
878 guests, 371 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.