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 06 Oct 2018 (Saturday) 10:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

“The full frame look”

 
this thread is locked
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 1 month ago by BellPhoto.
     
Dec 17, 2018 22:58 |  #61

Charlie wrote in post #18772950 (external link)
Did you bother watching the rest of the video? He basically said sensor size made a difference and has a different look for his conclusion.

Think it matters much more in photos than video due to the nature of format. Video is a constant flow with story, photo is static

The demonstrations, both with the light and the shot of the teddy bear tells the story. The APS-C sensor had a more shallow depth of field with the same lens and settings and the background looked better.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,243 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 481
Joined Aug 2009
     
Dec 17, 2018 23:13 |  #62

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773002 (external link)
The demonstrations, both with the light and the shot of the teddy bear tells the story. The APS-C sensor had a more shallow depth of field with the same lens and settings and the background looked better.

But no one is going to look at the APC-C 50mm shot and the FF 50mm shot and call them the same. People shoot for composition. Reproducing the FF composition with APS-C means backing up or using a shorter lens, either of which changes the DOF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
     
Dec 17, 2018 23:19 |  #63

mike_d wrote in post #18773014 (external link)
But no one is going to look at the APC-C 50mm shot and the FF 50mm shot and call them the same. People shoot for composition. Reproducing the FF composition with APS-C means backing up or using a shorter lens, either of which changes the DOF.

That may be. Still doesn't change the fact that he is 100% correct in that video. The smaller APS-C sensor indeed has a more shallow depth of field. People who think otherwise are incorrect, they are thinking field of view, not depth of field. This is an interesting read.

https://www.photograph​ytalk.com …view-explained-in-4-steps (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,436 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5489
Joined Sep 2007
     
Dec 18, 2018 01:10 |  #64

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773015 (external link)
That may be. Still doesn't change the fact that he is 100% correct in that video. The smaller APS-C sensor indeed has a more shallow depth of field. People who think otherwise are incorrect, they are thinking field of view, not depth of field. This is an interesting read.

https://www.photograph​ytalk.com …view-explained-in-4-steps (external link)

That's only in context of a set resolution with different framing of image. Not even the same image. Watch the video, you posted it as some sort of evidence.......

The worst form of cherry picking


Sony A7rii/A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,984 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 884
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Post edited 1 month ago by AlanU.
     
Dec 18, 2018 01:29 |  #65

mike_d wrote in post #18773000 (external link)
It's like smaller sensors have shallower DOF until you actually use them in a camera/lens system. Then other factors come into play which overrides that. As addressed toward the end of the video, my phone is NOT a bokeh monster despite the tiny, high density sensor. Tony Northrup has a video on the subject. Basically, a u4/3 42.5mm could match the DOF of an 85/1.4 on FF, but it would need a lens two stops faster which doesn't exist AFAIK and would likely be nearly as big as the 85. For example, Fuji's 16-55 2.8 is bigger than Canon's 24-70 f/4 which is its actual equivalent, not the 24-70 2.8, if DOF is important to you.

This is why I often say the world of mirrorless is changing a bit.

Fuji's 16-55 is impressive but it's still like using an f/4 zoom on a FF. This is where an events shooter can see a difference in "pop" factor using an f/2.8 zoom on a FF vs an f/2.8 zoom on a crop sensor. The bulky newer Fuji lenses just cannot defy physics and to get faster glass the Fuji lenses must get larger.

If you're a prime lens shooter you can get a very pleasant shallow dof using fast glass on micro 4/3 and crop sensors.

When I do family sessions or events I'd rather use my Sony GM70-200 or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 with FF sensor any day over my Fuji 50-140mm that gives me f/4 dof.

The new Canon RF28-70 f/2 will be a huge lens but on a FF it's gonna be a versatile prime with zoom function :) Heavy beast and you just can't defy physical size for such glass.

If people are prime lens shooters they can enjoy small form factor. With slightly added weight I think the GM 24 f/1.4 on an A7 series/A9 will be a wonderful combo. I do like my little fuji with 16mm f/1.4 prime but it cannot match the pop factor of the Sony FF with fast f/1.4 prime.

FF look is just simple way to describe the slightly easier way of getting more shallow dof IMO. Smaller sensors just have a harder time achieving the larger pop factor especially with a wide prime. I'll say I can get some nice "pop" factor with my Fuji 56mm f/1.2 but my Canon 85Lmk2 f/1.2 produces more cream.

Here's a photo with my Sigma 24 f/1.4 ART. I'll be replacing it with a GM 24 f/1.4 one of these days. However I really dig this Sigma for what it is. The GM 24mm never existed when I purchased this ART lens. I know as a fact my Fuji 16mm f/1.4 cannot produce this kind of pop factor. This is one reason why I love the "pop" of the Sony FF sensor and render for car photos. I love my Canon's but the Sony has been a pleasure to use for car photography.

It really comes down to grabbing whatever you like and the render you want. I still find a great use for crop sensors. Just a matter of when and where to use them for me. If there was a larger selection of f/1.8 zooms for crop sensor I'd be happier. The zinger is a FF f/2.8 zoom the same focal length will probably be smaller....that's the catch!!


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 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 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,243 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 481
Joined Aug 2009
     
Dec 18, 2018 01:56 |  #66

AlanU wrote in post #18773045 (external link)
cannot defy physics

Yep. That's the bottom line, as hard as people like to pretend otherwise. You can only make size/weight/noise/DOF/​cost tradeoffs within the constraints of available products. Would I like a pocketable FF camera with a 14-500 f/2 zoom? Sure. Is it possible? Nope.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,764 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3285
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Dec 18, 2018 02:11 |  #67

.

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773002 (external link)
The demonstrations, both with the light and the shot of the teddy bear tells the story. The APS-C sensor had a more shallow depth of field with the same lens and settings and the background looked better.

But a sensible photographer will not use the same focal length with a crop sensor than he would with a full frame sensor. . A sensible photographer will frame the image the way he wants it framed regardless of which sensor his camera has. . When an image is framed the same, the larger sensor will produce a shallower depth of field.
.

mike_d wrote in post #18773014 (external link)
But no one is going to look at the APC-C 50mm shot and the FF 50mm shot and call them the same. People shoot for composition. Reproducing the FF composition with APS-C means backing up or using a shorter lens, either of which changes the DOF.

Exactly right. . The framing of the shot is a pre-determined given, and therefore does not change when we use a different sensor size. . Photographers who care about composition will always change the focal length (field of view) in order to keep the framing of the scene constant.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 1 month ago by BellPhoto. (7 edits in all)
     
Dec 18, 2018 02:55 |  #68

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18773067 (external link)
.

But a sensible photographer will not use the same focal length with a crop sensor than he would with a full frame sensor. . A sensible photographer will frame the image the way he wants it framed regardless of which sensor his camera has. . When an image is framed the same, the larger sensor will produce a shallower depth of field.
.

Will it? Go back and watch the video again. When he shoots the bear at 80mm on the FF to match the 50mm on the crop sensor, it doesn't look nearly as good. In fact, it looks weird as the lights in the background become giant and distracting. Here is the shot. The APS-C is the superior of the two shots with a more shallow DOF with the exact same framing. I get the feeling people are confusing the background blur and bokeh with DOF. Yes, the FF shot is a bit more blurred with nicer bokeh, but it has a deeper DOF, meaning the subject is not as isolated from its background, it looks closer to the tree. On the APS-C shot, the subject looks further away and more isolated from its background and that tree, its a more shallow DOF.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
soeren
Whoops Im not updated
514 posts
Likes: 193
Joined Nov 2017
     
Dec 18, 2018 04:10 |  #69

Looking back at all those great photographs from the masters through time it strikes me how little they used ultra shallow depth of field in their images. instead they put clever composition and design into the work to tell the story and isolate/emphasize their main subjects and when shallow DOF was used its actually amazing how little for-/background blur you can get away with and still use that to lead the eyes to the right place. sometimes I cant help thinking of this pursuit for ultra shallow DOF as an equivalent to the natural light photographers i.e a poor excuse for not being able to do the composition right. And heck its only when hitting the last stop on the lens it shows and even then not by that much. Do we need to quote Zack Arias again? Negligeable


If history has proven anything. it's that evolution always wins!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,268 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4849
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Dec 18, 2018 07:22 |  #70

Here is my APS C and FF side by side at the same distance using the same focal length, 70mm on my 24-70.

However as we know there is indeed a difference. It required me to use a .71x booster on the APS C, which gives me a 1.1 view on the APS C but at a wider aperture (f2.0 instead of f2.8) and thus the background is actually thrown a bit more OOF than the FF view.

This nifty little device almost negates some of the differences (doesn't fix the fact that FF of the same gen as APS C will yield over 1 stop better ISO performance, etc), but at least does come very close with FOV and DOF.

If there was no difference between APS C and FF, I wouldn't have had to buy a speedbooster...


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,268 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4849
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Dec 18, 2018 07:26 |  #71

Taken with the APS C and booster to gain that FF view...

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Electronics/EOS-M50/i-Hbndcrb/0/026f89b1/X3/potnc-X3.jpg

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Electronics/EOS-M50/i-ZpgDHMp/0/778f28ad/X3/potna-X3.jpg

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Electronics/EOS-M50/i-zmTNzg7/0/9bcb6da0/X3/potnb-X3.jpg

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Post edited 1 month ago by davesrose. (3 edits in all)
     
Dec 18, 2018 08:34 |  #72

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773078 (external link)
Will it? Go back and watch the video again. When he shoots the bear at 80mm on the FF to match the 50mm on the crop sensor, it doesn't look nearly as good. In fact, it looks weird as the lights in the background become giant and distracting. Here is the shot. The APS-C is the superior of the two shots with a more shallow DOF with the exact same framing. I get the feeling people are confusing the background blur and bokeh with DOF. Yes, the FF shot is a bit more blurred with nicer bokeh, but it has a deeper DOF, meaning the subject is not as isolated from its background, it looks closer to the tree. On the APS-C shot, the subject looks further away and more isolated from its background and that tree, its a more shallow DOF.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by BellPhoto in
./showthread.php?p=187​73078&i=i242227949
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

The definition of DOF isn't the subjective judgement of whether the subject has better isolation. DOF is the range of distance that has acceptable sharpness. So admitting that the FF image has a blurrier background means that it perceptually has a shallower DOF (perception of DOF can also be dependent on your viewing distance and size of reproduced image).

Understanding Depth of Field (external link)

There are numerous online DOF calculators that let you see the numerical difference between focus distance, focal length, aperture, and sensor size.

DOF calculator (external link)

Using the DOF calculator, the DOF of the APS-C camera is 1.38 inches while the FF is .83 (from the image's settings). The narrator of the video you linked (who mainly goes over cinematography), also says the crop camera will have deeper DOF when creating similar field of view.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,764 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3285
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Dec 18, 2018 10:50 |  #73

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773078 (external link)
Will it? Go back and watch the video again. When he shoots the bear at 80mm on the FF to match the 50mm on the crop sensor, it doesn't look nearly as good. In fact, it looks weird as the lights in the background become giant and distracting. Here is the shot. The APS-C is the superior of the two shots with a more shallow DOF with the exact same framing. I get the feeling people are confusing the background blur and bokeh with DOF. Yes, the FF shot is a bit more blurred with nicer bokeh, but it has a deeper DOF, meaning the subject is not as isolated from its background, it looks closer to the tree. On the APS-C shot, the subject looks further away and more isolated from its background and that tree, its a more shallow DOF.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by BellPhoto in
./showthread.php?p=187​73078&i=i242227949
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

You have it all backwards.

Your assessment seems to be subjective. . You are talking about what "looks good" to you, instead of sticking strictly to depth of field.

When you say things like, "doesn't look nearly as good" and "the superior of the two shots", you are merely expressing you opinion about what looks good. . This discussion was not about what looks good to you. . It was about depth of field relative to sensor size.

The graphic that you posted that shows the two images actually makes the opposite point than what you are trying to make.

The lights in the full frame photo are "giant" because they are more out of focus, while the lights in the crop sensor photo are smaller because they are more in focus ..... which shows that the full frame sensor has SHALLOWER depth of field and the crop has GREATER depth of field. The graphic you posted shows this clearly, yet you are completely misinterpreting what you see because you are allowing your bias (what "looks good to you) to affect your assessment of the images.

It seems clear to me that you prefer the look of images that have more depth of field, and that you think that images with shallow depth of field have background elements that are "giant and distracting".


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,243 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 481
Joined Aug 2009
Post edited 1 month ago by mike_d.
     
Dec 18, 2018 10:53 |  #74

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773078 (external link)
Will it? Go back and watch the video again. When he shoots the bear at 80mm on the FF to match the 50mm on the crop sensor, it doesn't look nearly as good. In fact, it looks weird as the lights in the background become giant and distracting. Here is the shot. The APS-C is the superior of the two shots with a more shallow DOF with the exact same framing. I get the feeling people are confusing the background blur and bokeh with DOF. Yes, the FF shot is a bit more blurred with nicer bokeh, but it has a deeper DOF, meaning the subject is not as isolated from its background, it looks closer to the tree. On the APS-C shot, the subject looks further away and more isolated from its background and that tree, its a more shallow DOF.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by BellPhoto in
./showthread.php?p=187​73078&i=i242227949
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Don't confuse DOF with telephoto compression. The FF shot is using a longer lens to obtain the same composition which introduces a small amount of telephoto compression, making the monkey and the tree appear closer together. Their more apparent proximity is not caused by the FF shot having more DOF. As the blurry lights clearly show, the FF shot's DOF is shallower. The APS-C shot may be more pleasing to your eye, but that's a subjective judgement, not a measurement of DOF. The FF user could always stop their lens down to tame those bokeh balls but will still see the effects of telephoto compression so the shot will still look a little different.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,268 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4849
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Dec 18, 2018 10:57 |  #75

If you have exactly the same settings on an APS-C and a FF (same focal length, same distance, same aperture), the APS C has less DOF. However this means your framing isn't the same.

If you frame in camera such that the APS C and FF views are the same, and then change nothing else (thus you only change focal length), then this switches around and the FF has less DOF.

If you try to equalize the DOF between the two at this point, then you have to change the aperture, either you have to go more open with the APS-C, or you have to shut down the FF, but then also raise your ISO. This exercise is where you see that there is no real difference between the FF and crop bodies, because you no longer have the same settings.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

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

7,095 views & 138 likes for this thread
“The full frame look”
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 digiculture
660 guests, 365 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.