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
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,276 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2353
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 2 months ago by Wilt. (7 edits in all)
     
Dec 20, 2018 18:25 |  #166

To put to rest the debate about DOF and far field blur...

Assume the following...


  1. comparison of APS-C vs. FF vs. 645 vs. 4x5 format
  2. all cameras use FL which is equal to 2x the frame height of the format (15mm vs. 24mm vs. 43mm vs. 93mm) in order to capture identical height subject in the same proportion of the frame height
  3. APS-C has 30mm FL, FF has 48mm, 645 has 86mm and 4x5 has 186mm FL, all set to f/4
  4. shooting distance = 6m, so frame's short dimension captures 3m tall height at the 6m shooting distance, and a 2m tall person fills 2/3 of the frame height for all format shots


The 20/20 vision viewer looks at an 8x10" print from all four cameras, at a viewing distance of 25cm he perceives
  • a DOF zone of 219cm for image from APS-C camera
  • a DOF zone of 134cm for image from FF camera
  • a DOF zone of 41.7cm for image from 645 camera
  • a DOF zone of 32.3cm for image from 4x5 camera


The magnitude of blur behind the plane of focus is depicted by this graph for distances of 60cm behind the plane of focus to 50m behind the plane of focus
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/Background_zpsjcoyz336.jpg

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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
paqcman
Hatchling
2 posts
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 2 months ago by paqcman.
     
Dec 20, 2018 19:54 |  #167

Does it matter to real humans looking at real photos" is the more meaningful question. I shoot a D850...but I don't think the answer supports my choice of gear, technically the lens blur https://ai.googleblog.​com …ew-google-camera-app.html (external link) they have the blue blog https://rahhdfg.builde​rall.net …ocus-Understanding+185012 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,398 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4905
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
     
Dec 20, 2018 20:01 as a reply to  @ paqcman's post |  #168

It does sometimes, this is one the most loved photos by the parents of a senior I did a shoot for. The narrow DOF effect that is easier with a FF, but can be obtained with a crop with a fast prime, definitely is noticed by clients, when used properly. I don't claim to know how and when to do narrow DOF shots, but this is one they loved, so yes the average person can indeed like a narrow DOF look more than a wider DOF equivalent.

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/The-Senior-Experience/Shelby/i-fRn4kwb/1/6e5ed935/O/5P1B3611proof.jpg

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pippan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,384 posts
Gallery: 85 photos
Likes: 1773
Joined Oct 2015
Location: Darwin, Straya
     
Dec 20, 2018 20:20 |  #169

Wilt wrote in post #18774953 (external link)
To put to rest the debate about DOF and far field blur...

Geez Wilt, do you have to spoil the fun by bringing some facts to the argument?


— Please feel free to offer your thoughts on how I might improve my images —

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Dec 20, 2018 20:26 as a reply to  @ Pippan's post |  #170

We actually brought up solid numbers starting page 6: where there was enough info from BellPhoto's screenshot to know DOF was 1.38 inches with the APS-C vs .83 with FF.


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
12,814 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3303
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Dec 20, 2018 20:48 |  #171

.

paqcman wrote in post #18774987 (external link)
"Does it matter to real humans looking at real photos?" is the more meaningful question.
I shoot a D850...but I don't think the answer supports my choice of gear.

.
It most surely does matter to real humans looking at real photos. . Didn't you read what I wrote in post #165 ?
(quoted below for your convenience)
.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18774947 (external link)
In my archives are hundreds of photos that, when I look at them, I think, "man, that would be a really good photo - if only the vegetation in the background was blurred out just a wee bit more". . Or, "that branch behind the buck's head - it's kinda blurry, but is still on the borderline of being a distraction - if only it were blurred a slight bit more, then I would like this shot so much more."

So yes, there are times when we cannot use our skill and mastery to manipulate the way the image will be rendered, because we are stuck in one place and cannot move about the way we would like to make a better photo. . And for those times, the very shallowest DOF possible will make an appreciable difference.


.


"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
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,398 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4905
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
Post edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Dec 20, 2018 20:59 |  #172

davesrose wrote in post #18775009 (external link)
We actually brought up solid numbers starting page 6: where there was enough info from BellPhoto's screenshot to know DOF was 1.38 inches with the APS-C vs .83 with FF.

And I gave a very controlled example in this reply showing that the FF has a thinner DOF, yet nothing from the person creating all the drama. :)

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18773491


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
     
Dec 21, 2018 01:18 |  #173

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18775022 (external link)
.

.
It most surely does matter to real humans looking at real photos. . Didn't you read what I wrote in post #165 ?

I think what he means is the average person looking at your photos is never going to be able to tell the difference between f/1.8 on a MFT or f/1.8 on a FF, no one in here could in the photos I posted. DXO charts and graphs from lab studies are fun for us photographers on these forums and many use them to brag and claim that one is superior over the other when in reality, no one notices or cares. We are a very small and insignificant number in the grand scheme of things.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,814 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3303
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Dec 21, 2018 03:31 |  #174

.

BellPhoto wrote in post #18775148 (external link)
no one in here could in the photos I posted.

.
That's only because you didn't post anything that was comparable. . You posted photos of different people taken at different times in different places, none of which had distracting background elements that needed to be blurred out.

When there are distracting things in the background, not far behind the subject, such as a bunch of fine branches and twigs, then yes the average person will be able to tell the difference between FF and crop if all else is equal.

Any other type of comparison is invalid because it is not comparing apples to apples.


.


"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
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,282 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 2 months ago by bobbyz.
     
Dec 21, 2018 09:02 |  #175

I have posted these before
FF, 85mm, @f1.2

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-2/p1470045739-5.jpg
1.5x crop, 56mm (almost 85mm) at f1.2
IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-2/p1470045818-5.jpg

Another
FF

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-2/p1470977905-5.jpg
Crop

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-2/p1470977918-5.jpg

Now I shoot with cropped medium format. DoF might not be as shallow as FF but I see much better transition. Hard to explain. I hear folks call it MF look.:)

5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,398 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4905
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
     
Dec 21, 2018 09:07 |  #176

I see absolutely no differences in any of those shots, they all look the same.

EDIT: Oh wait, I just cleaned the smudges off my glasses, now I see it.... :D


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,895 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4765
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
Post edited 2 months ago by airfrogusmc. (9 edits in all)
     
Dec 21, 2018 10:15 |  #177

One reason I love Leica and Zeiss glass so much is the look those lenses give me. There is a different look you get from Zeiss and from Leica glass. Some prefer Zeiss and some prefer Leica and that can very from lens to lens. A lot of modern lenses especially the Japanese lack a lot of character. Modern lenses tend to be computer designed and mostly about charts and sharpness and less about the look the lens generates. Leica M lenses are designed by people and a long history (almost a century) of lens design and what gives lenses certain characteristics. The only modern Canon lens I really loved that I owned was the 200 2L. In my opinion the three jewels in the Canon stable are the 200 2L, 300 2.8L and 400 2.8L. Leica M is not a camera one buys to do the kind of work that demands the reach that those lenses provide. All 3 are great lenses and each has a little different look to them. Where I say Leica M excels is the normal (50mm) lenses and the wide range though there 90 f/2 APO is a real gem. And their lenses will give a much different look than say Canon.

What also could be going on with a lot of this comparing the 85L with a 56 is they are different lenses and have different characteristics. They provide a different look. I do see a difference in the background. The ff has less DoF and more background blur compared to the 56. And comparing 100 kb jpgs on a web site is also not the way to go.

This comparison is always a silly one. Again what is important is finding equipment that best suits the way one sees and works. I tend to natural see at a slightly wide FoV and in tones and shapes so a Leica MM and a 35mm F/L is all I need to do my personal work. That doesn't mean I can't see and work in color. Most of my pro work is in color and though about 60% of that I shoot with a 35 on FF I still do a lot of work with 90,75 and some with a 24. But I would have no problem shooting with a crop sensor if I could get what i needed from it. I shoot Leica M (2 M10s, M 262, M-E and MM because they don't have big menus, small and unobtrusive, (M 10s have ISO dial on the left top, aperture on the lens and shutter speed on the right top) and I do not have to turn off automation. Great DoF scales on the lenses. And what is most important is they fit for the way I see and work and just get out of the way and let me create.

I have shot manually for over 40 years and I can make much better decisions, faster than any computer, for the way I want my finished work to look. I shot with Canon DSLRs for over a decade (and I shot with F-1s, 500 C/Ms, Leica Ms, large format and a lot of other manual equipment in the film days for several decades) never warmed up to DSLRs. Way to much stuff for me. But thats me. Many need what that world can offer (DSLR world)because that best fits the way the see and work. So if a crop fits the way you see and work go out and use it and don't worry about silly things like FF dies have less DoF. It shouldn't change what you are doing because if a crop mirrorless camera is the tool for you the rest doesn't matter one bit. In this world it is really nice to have real choices. Enjoy it because it might not last.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
soeren
Whoops Im not updated
521 posts
Likes: 193
Joined Nov 2017
Post edited 2 months ago by soeren.
     
Dec 21, 2018 13:19 |  #178

And?? FL and aperture?


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


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,044 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 271
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Dec 21, 2018 15:33 as a reply to  @ bobbyz's post |  #179

But the difference in lenses pulled the background in, and in the crop lenses you have more distance to the background with an obvious amount of additional contrast... not as smooth. The BBQ on the left side is much more pronounced in the corp image on the bottom. The red item behind her is more pronounced in the crop shot as well.In the foregrounds the crop has obviously more depth of field as you can see in the windows.. I could go on... but in the backgrounds these images have a lot that are very different.

Neither image is bad. For the average person, perhaps these are equals, but they are absolutely different, and a photo editor would see it in a nano-second.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 2 months ago by BellPhoto. (8 edits in all)
     
Dec 21, 2018 15:50 |  #180

bobbyz wrote in post #18775276 (external link)
I have posted these before
FF, 85mm, @f1.2
QUOTED IMAGE
1.5x crop, 56mm (almost 85mm) at f1.2
QUOTED IMAGE

Another
FF
QUOTED IMAGE
Crop
QUOTED IMAGE

Now I shoot with cropped medium format. DoF might not be as shallow as FF but I see much better transition. Hard to explain. I hear folks call it MF look.:)

...and this is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned this more recent obsession with shooting everything at f/1.2 on FF cameras. I mean no offense here, this is just my opinion since you posted the two for comparison. That first example is ruined on the FF shot IMO because her hair, shoulders and most everything below her face is out of focus. It doesn't look professional IMO, it looks like someone who picked up an f/1.2 lens and went crazy shooting everything wide open because they could rather than thinking about if they should. No parts of your subject should be blurry or even soft, it looks amateur IMO. You want sharp and in focus for your subject. The shot below it on the APS-C sensor is much nicer and the background is plenty out of focus. The shots below it are better but again, look at her hair in the FF shot, its fuzzy and doesn't look good and her outfit goes out of focus. Any model I shot would not be happy with that and neither would a client if they were paying me to shoot an outfit. The APS-C shot below it, her hair and her entire outfit is sharp, in focus and looks great and again, the background is plenty out of focus. In both instances, give me the APS-C shots every day of the week.

As a side note, I find the hair flyaways on top of her head in the first pics much more distracting then seeing a tiny bit more of the background in the APS-C shot. Those are easy to take out in post :-)




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

7,170 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 phaneendra
1080 guests, 404 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.