Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews

Thread started 08 May 2017 (Monday) 20:07

Full Frame or Crop

Dec 04, 2017 14:27 |  #586

rantercsr wrote in post #18510464
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 ?

You're correct, F2 is F2 for exposure purposes.

He's trying to calculate what the equivalent focal-ratio would need to be to achieve similar depth of field at the same physical distance from the camera to the subject on a smaller sensor, relative to a full frame equivalent. And he's trying to calculate basically the focal-ratio relative to surface area for amount of light. He's just trying to steer the topic away because from his full frame can be "just as small" speech.

But remember, he's not a numbers person. He can't be bothered with "fancy numbers" on little lenses. Like F0.95, or F1.2 or something. Just like he's not a numbers person, but wants to make sure you know that 35mm isn't really 35mm and F2 isn't really F2. But nevermind all that! It's just his red herring bait.

Very best,

My Flickr :: My Astrobin

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 14:29 |  #587

MalVeauX wrote in post #18510456
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,

Equivalence works both ways. The only thing you need to learn is multiplying the F-number along with the focal length. Which is easy. Until then I will continue to ignore nonsensical "apples to berries" size comparisons. Good luck

Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~

 LIKES 1

Dec 04, 2017 14:32 |  #588

rantercsr wrote in post #18510464
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 ?

It's not letting more light. At equivalent F-numbers it is letting the same amount of light. You are confusing the amount of light with light intensity.

Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 14:40 |  #589

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18510457
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?

What happened to you not caring about numbers?

Why would I want to pay more for some kind of F1.2 APS-C rip-off (each of them), when I can get the same exact picture with an equivalent F1.8 lens on FF? You are making no sense. I don't care what number is written on the lens if it gets me the image I want. Can't you see that all this APS-C fetish is built around the expression of "look it's just as fast only smaller" ? Point&Shoot cameras have fast lenses too, are they just as good?

Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 14:49 |  #590

ecka wrote in post #18510386
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.

Actually as we are being actual, the crop factor of Fuji APS-C is 1.519 not 1.532
And what ever rhythms with eloquent.

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
Gear & DiscountsInstagramBlog

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 14:51 |  #591

ecka wrote in post #18510492
Why would I want to pay more for some kind of F1.2 APS-C rip-off (each of them), when I can get the same exact picture with an equivalent F1.8 lens on FF? You are making no sense. I don't care what number is written on the lens if it gets me the image I want. Can't you see that all this APS-C fetish is built around the expression of "look it's just as fast only smaller" ? Point&Shoot cameras have fast lenses too, are they just as good?

"Rip-off"

Yes, all those reviews out there (seriously, I think all of them... can't think of many negative reviews for any of the fast Fuji lenses) are just wrong, they must be corporate shills.

Believe what you want to, those of us who've shot both and owned both can see the differences for ourselves. Almost everything about my Fuji files look better or were easier to work with than either of my Sony a7's.

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 // Instagram

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 14:51 |  #592

Charlie wrote in post #18510382
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.

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/

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.

DXO don't measure any of Fuji's X lenses so I don't see how you can fit that comparison in as you don't see the MTF charts for Fuji lenses tested in the same way as Sony on DXO.

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
Gear & DiscountsInstagramBlog

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 14:52 |  #593

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18510498
And what ever rhythms with eloquent.

Primus fan in the house?

Lee

 LIKES 1

Dec 04, 2017 14:53 |  #594

MalVeauX wrote in post #18510477
You're correct, F2 is F2 for exposure purposes.

He's trying to calculate what the equivalent focal-ratio would need to be to achieve similar depth of field at the same physical distance from the camera to the subject on a smaller sensor, relative to a full frame equivalent. And he's trying to calculate basically the focal-ratio relative to surface area for amount of light. He's just trying to steer the topic away because from his full frame can be "just as small" speech.

But remember, he's not a numbers person. He can't be bothered with "fancy numbers" on little lenses. Like F0.95, or F1.2 or something. Just like he's not a numbers person, but wants to make sure you know that 35mm isn't really 35mm and F2 isn't really F2. But nevermind all that! It's just his red herring bait.

Very best,

Well, I'm not trying, I'm doing it . Unlike people who are just talking, talking ... and talking while being afraid to perform an experiment, because they don't know how to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 14:58 |  #595

ecka wrote in post #18510506
Well, I'm not trying, I'm doing it . Unlike people who are just talking, talking ... and talking while being afraid to perform an experiment, because they don't know how to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

What are you even talking about at this point? I've done plenty of experiments with both. I struggled with letting go of my FF kit because of people like you hyperbolizing every FF vs APS-C argument. After all my experiments I concluded the differences were so minute it wasn't even worth mentioning for most of what I was shooting. I haven't regretted moving on from FF for one second.

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 // Instagram

 LIKES 1

Dec 04, 2017 15:01 |  #596

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18510498
Actually as we are being actual, the crop factor of Fuji APS-C is 1.519 not 1.532
And what ever rhythms with eloquent.

Yes, it could be . 1.532 is Sony APS-C crop factor. It doesn't really matter if we don't put the exact lens parameters into equation anyways.

Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 15:26 |  #597

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18510513
What are you even talking about at this point? I've done plenty of experiments with both. I struggled with letting go of my FF kit because of people like you hyperbolizing every FF vs APS-C argument. After all my experiments I concluded the differences were so minute it wasn't even worth mentioning for most of what I was shooting. I haven't regretted moving on from FF for one second.

Only because you never needed a FF in the first place. But it doesn't make FF just as good/bad as APS-C, only that a lesser tool is enough for you.
People are buying expensive photography gear and then what ... they are viewing the images on a 10" tablet ... brilliant ... or a phone ... upload 1-2MP snapshots to the web ... and then look for the difference between FF and crop ... holy shutters

Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 15:43 |  #598

My Full frame is my low light "magic bullet"

Some will say why do you need to shoot such high iso's?? Because I can with full (frame) confidence LOL!!!

Well all of this discussion of why full frame??? Because my 5dmk4 (even my 5dmk3) is substantially cleaner than my Fuji by a large margin in my experience. I can shoot higher iso getting higher shutter speeds so I don't get that motion blur while maintaining cleaner images than my Canon 80D or Fuji X-t2 at lower "high iso" settings with slower shutter speeds.

This is probably why there are still a huge following for Nikon D850/D810, Canon 1dxmk2/5dmk4 not scared to shoot in any type of horrendous bad lighting. With my Canon 80D or Fuji X-t2 I am aware of my limitations and have some form of reservations. With my 5dmk4 I don't even think twice about light conditions.

I know as a fact that I will get cleaner images at high iso than both my Canon 80D and Fuji X-t2. I know Canon does not always retain colour well when you really hit the image hard with high iso but Fuji post processed "worms" is something I do not have to deal with my Canon gear.

In the end I know I can tell the difference between crop and full frame in many cases. For the folks that can't or just praise in a cult manner that full frame is the best or crop sensor is the best....good on you!!!!

I will continue shooting both sensor sizes for specific reasons. For now my Full frame at high iso without a doubt out performs my Fuji and Canon 80D. That alone allows better indoor low light shooting and faster shutter speeds. I have very little tolerance to images that have motion blur when it's obvious that the camera settings were wrong or it cannot go higher in high iso settings to obtain faster shutter speeds. I never make excuses that I was trying to display movement due to blur LOL!!! If I intentionally shoot 1/30 shutter speeds that's for creativity but for people shooting and get blurr on many occasions that's not acceptable for hired events IMO.

I do also observe people to "settle". They just use their gear and get what they get. I see professionals have mediocre work output with noisy images but hammer a lot of workflow using black and white to hide incorporate the black/white and noise as it's less obvious if you compare it to colour. Fuji's Acros crushes the blacks so you can hide noise as the dark crushed black destroys the details of groom's suit/tuxedo as well as any noise present etc. With my Canon 80D if I push the iso hard the colours are harder to recover. Fuji has dreadful worms when I try to do some sharpening and de noise images and since I use LR for my workflow ...... C'est la vie!!!

If we were fortunate to have less night and more "ideal" perfect lighting M43/Crop/Full frame/medium format would all look perfect on print and on computer screen. Since the real world doesn't work that way I personally get more cleaner images in more poor lighting situations with my full frame.

If your style of shooting is usually in good light .....shoot whatever you like some clients/friends can see a difference in image quality when you shoot in challenging light. This is where I still feel more confidence using a FF sensor. If your a studio photog you can also use whatever you like as lighting should be perfect.

It's a photogs responsibility to choose the best tools for certain applications. When skill is not in question but the tools do not meet certain performance levels......that is where noise can be the harming factor.

People can use what they like. Not my concern as I'm concerned with my IQ .......

5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | 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 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | Godox V860iiS

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 16:19 |  #599

ecka wrote in post #18510492
Why would I want to pay more for some kind of F1.2 APS-C rip-off (each of them),...

Fujifilm, who also make H lenses for Hasselblad, a rip off. Really?

And on a another note, IF you are after the best digital quality and QI you are not going to get that on your small full frame sensor, go try shooting a camera with a large sensor, like the IQ3 100Mp, or is Full Frame 'good enough' for you? I guess it probably is much more than good enough for you and most other photographers too.

Do I get great output from my crop, you betcha.
Do I always shoot my lenses wide open at f/0.95(or 2.8 or whatever), not remotely close.
Do I get more DOF for the same exposure, absolutely. (Wonderful for groups and events.)
Do I get clean images that can print big with lots of detail - without a doubt.
Do I need a full frame system to exceed my clients demands, Nope.

Tell me again why you need a full frame camera?

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
Gear & DiscountsInstagramBlog

 LIKES 0

Dec 04, 2017 16:29 |  #600

AlanU wrote in post #18510544
My Full frame is my low light "magic bullet"

Some will say why do you need to shoot such high iso's?? Because I can with full (frame) confidence LOL!!!

Well all of this discussion of why full frame??? Because my 5dmk4 (even my 5dmk3) is substantially cleaner than my Fuji by a large margin in my experience. I can shoot higher iso getting higher shutter speeds so I don't get that motion blur while maintaining cleaner images than my Canon 80D or Fuji X-t2 at lower "high iso" settings with slower shutter speeds.

This is probably why there are still a huge following for Nikon D850/D810, Canon 1dxmk2/5dmk4 not scared to shoot in any type of horrendous bad lighting. With my Canon 80D or Fuji X-t2 I am aware of my limitations and have some form of reservations. With my 5dmk4 I don't even think twice about light conditions.

I know as a fact that I will get cleaner images at high iso than both my Canon 80D and Fuji X-t2. I know Canon does not always retain colour well when you really hit the image hard with high iso but Fuji post processed "worms" is something I do not have to deal with my Canon gear.

In the end I know I can tell the difference between crop and full frame in many cases. For the folks that can't or just praise in a cult manner that full frame is the best or crop sensor is the best....good on you!!!!

I will continue shooting both sensor sizes for specific reasons. For now my Full frame at high iso without a doubt out performs my Fuji and Canon 80D. That alone allows better indoor low light shooting and faster shutter speeds. I have very little tolerance to images that have motion blur when it's obvious that the camera settings were wrong or it cannot go higher in high iso settings to obtain faster shutter speeds. I never make excuses that I was trying to display movement due to blur LOL!!! If I intentionally shoot 1/30 shutter speeds that's for creativity but for people shooting and get blurr on many occasions that's not acceptable for hired events IMO.

I do also observe people to "settle". They just use their gear and get what they get. I see professionals have mediocre work output with noisy images but hammer a lot of workflow using black and white to hide incorporate the black/white and noise as it's less obvious if you compare it to colour. Fuji's Acros crushes the blacks so you can hide noise as the dark crushed black destroys the details of groom's suit/tuxedo as well as any noise present etc. With my Canon 80D if I push the iso hard the colours are harder to recover. Fuji has dreadful worms when I try to do some sharpening and de noise images and since I use LR for my workflow ...... C'est la vie!!!

If we were fortunate to have less night and more "ideal" perfect lighting M43/Crop/Full frame/medium format would all look perfect on print and on computer screen. Since the real world doesn't work that way I personally get more cleaner images in more poor lighting situations with my full frame.

If your style of shooting is usually in good light .....shoot whatever you like some clients/friends can see a difference in image quality when you shoot in challenging light. This is where I still feel more confidence using a FF sensor. If your a studio photog you can also use whatever you like as lighting should be perfect.

It's a photogs responsibility to choose the best tools for certain applications. When skill is not in question but the tools do not meet certain performance levels......that is where noise can be the harming factor.

People can use what they like. Not my concern as I'm concerned with my IQ .......

let me introduce you to Mr Jack of all trades

it shoots FF, it shoots crop, it does 10 fps, focuses to -3ev, in body stabilization

and of course....... out of stock

HOSTED PHOTO

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

 LIKES 2

42,341 views & 382 likes for this thread
Full Frame or Crop
AAA
 x 1600 y 1600

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!