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
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,243 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 481
Joined Aug 2009
Post edited 2 months ago by mike_d.
     
Dec 21, 2018 15:59 |  #181

BellPhoto wrote in post #18775531 (external link)
...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, it looks amateur IMO. 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. 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 :-)

So what you're saying is, despite your previous claims, FF systems have shallower DOF. I'm glad to see you've accepted reality.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Post edited 2 months ago by davesrose.
     
Dec 21, 2018 16:16 |  #182

To each his own when it comes to DOF for any format. Some still desire a "medium format" look...in which the assumption is that DOF has to be razor thin. Now some will even stitch mutliple photos for a Brenizer method. Part of the charm of some 19th century photos is just how random it seems areas of sharp focus are (due to what we think of now technical issues). On the opposite end, larger formats also support smaller aperture. Ansel Adams was part of the F/64 group (which also since film formats didn't have continuing higher densities, there was less issue with diffraction).

Also, when it comes to generalizations of portraits, I've also found that older women tend to like softening. I'll try to have enough detail for eyes and nose, but may still have to PP blur in neck and spot heal crows feet.


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
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 2 months ago by BellPhoto. (3 edits in all)
     
Dec 21, 2018 16:35 |  #183

davesrose wrote in post #18775543 (external link)
To each his own when it comes to DOF for any format. Some still desire a "medium format" look...in which the assumption is that DOF has to be razor thin. Now some will even stitch mutliple photos for a Brenizer method. Part of the charm of some 19th century photos is just how random it seems areas of sharp focus are (due to what we think of now technical issues). On the opposite end, larger formats also support smaller aperture. Ansel Adams was part of the F/64 group (which also since film formats didn't have continuing higher densities, there was less issue with diffraction).

Also, when it comes to generalizations of portraits, I've also found that older women tend to like softening. I'll try to have enough detail for eyes and nose, but may still have to PP blur in neck and spot heal crows feet.

Yes but softening/smoothing the skin is done in post, you don't want a lens producing soft photos at all. I want a sharp lens and I want my subject sharp and in focus. Not parts of them soft and out of focus. Softening up sharpness from a lens in post is easy, doing the opposite is nearly impossible.




  
  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
     
Dec 21, 2018 16:45 |  #184

BellPhoto wrote in post #18775553 (external link)
Yes but softening/smoothing the skin is done in post, you don't want a lens producing soft photos at all. I want a sharp lens and I want my subject sharp and in focus. Not parts of them soft and out of focus. Softening up sharpness from a lens in post is easy, doing the opposite is nearly impossible.

How do you know what someone needs in their work? When we did portraits back in film days we would always shoot with Hasselblad softar filters. I always used a softer 1 on my 180mm lens (500 C/M) because it was to sharp for portraits. Depending on what the piece is and what the designer and art director are looking for I will shoot with such a sallow DoF only the eyes are tack sharp.




  
  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 2 months ago by davesrose.
     
Dec 21, 2018 16:47 |  #185

BellPhoto wrote in post #18775553 (external link)
Yes but softening/smoothing the skin is done in post, you don't want a lens producing soft photos at all. I want a sharp lens and I want my subject sharp and in focus. Not parts of them soft and out of focus. Softening up sharpness from a lens in post is easy, doing the opposite is nearly impossible.

It's still not accurate...if you can do it in camera, there's less time for post. The only contribution you've made in this thread are photos of models that are isolated from backgrounds that are very far away. Others have shown where there is different transitions with same framing/aperture with photos in which there is a recorded range of depth. Even your early claim from a screenshot that clearly showed shallower DOF from the FF image (your claim was that blurrier background didn't mean shallower DOF). I'm also involved with 3D graphics. 3D software is convenient in that you can generate a depth mask that goes completely white from your extreme foreground to black with farthest background. It's then easy to dial in what DOF you want after the fact...unfortunately no technology exists for traditional photography that's at least not tracked by computer.


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
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
     
Dec 21, 2018 17:04 |  #186

davesrose wrote in post #18775558 (external link)
It's still not accurate...if you can do it in camera, there's less time for post. The only contribution you've made in this thread are photos of models that are isolated from backgrounds that are very far away. Others have shown where there is different transitions with same framing/aperture with photos in which there is a recorded range of depth. Even your early claim from a screenshot that clearly showed shallower DOF from the FF image (your claim was that blurrier background didn't mean shallower DOF). I'm also involved with 3D graphics. 3D software is convenient in that you can generate a depth mask that goes completely white from your extreme foreground to black with farthest background. It's then easy to dial in what DOF you want after the fact...unfortunately no technology exists for traditional photography that's at least not tracked by computer.


And to bellphoto I find that blown out flower in your example to be far more disturbing, as would any art director I work with, than the soft areas you mentioned in the other example.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 2 months ago by BellPhoto.
     
Dec 21, 2018 17:26 |  #187

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18775574 (external link)
And to bellphoto I find that blown out flower in your example to be far more disturbing, as would any art director I work with, than the soft areas you mentioned in the other example.

Thanks. As Ive mentioned already, those were just test shots wide open on both lenses. Shot in aperture priority mode. I rarely, if ever shoot any fast prime lens wide open for reasons I have mentioned.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,380 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4896
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
     
Dec 21, 2018 17:39 as a reply to  @ BellPhoto's post |  #188

I am confused as to what you are even arguing any more. First it was the crop bodies have less DOF, then you seem to see that when framing is identical, then FF has less DOF and when examples are shown, you completely change the topic about how small DOF looks bad and the examples show bad aesthetics, etc. What exactly what point are we to discuss again?


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
     
Dec 21, 2018 17:48 as a reply to  @ TeamSpeed's post |  #189

I think Tom nailed it earlier when he tried pointing out that Bell is identifying with sharper focus. He mislabeled APS-C as being shallower DOF, because to him, there was better isolation subjectively. Preferring more sharpness is one thing, then arguing blurrier background means deeper DOF is another.


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
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
     
Dec 21, 2018 17:53 |  #190

davesrose wrote in post #18775603 (external link)
I think Tom nailed it earlier when he tried pointing out that Bell is identifying with sharper focus. He mislabeled APS-C as being shallower DOF, because to him, there was better isolation subjectively. Preferring more sharpness is one thing, then arguing blurrier background means deeper DOF is another.

Probably correct!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,279 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 2 months ago by bobbyz.
     
Dec 21, 2018 23:12 |  #191

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18775320 (external link)
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.

Would love to see the look from the Leica. I don't own one. Have tried all the canon and to me Fuji MF lenses are very very good.


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
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,279 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 21, 2018 23:14 |  #192

soeren wrote in post #18775432 (external link)
And?? FL and aperture?
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by soeren in
./showthread.php?p=187​75432&i=i65408049
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

f4 or slower IMHO.


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
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,279 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 2 months ago by bobbyz. (3 edits in all)
     
Dec 21, 2018 23:20 |  #193

BellPhoto wrote in post #18775531 (external link)
...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 :-)

Just quick tests, nothing more. Not saying that I wouldn't shoot at f1.2 but nailing focus at those apertures on dSLRs is pain in the buxx. Mirrorless no such issues. Here at f2 (f1.6 equivalent)

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2854538040-6.jpg
f2.2 on GFX, so probably like f1.8 on FF

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2759318419-6.jpg

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2778320062-6.jpg
f2 (f1.6 FF)

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2766517987-6.jpg

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2854832859-6.jpg

If you can nail focus on the eyes, little softer back of the head, hair etc is not an issue for what I shoot. Now if I was shooting for wardrobe, magazines etc, they won't be f2 apertures.

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
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 2 months ago by BellPhoto. (6 edits in all)
     
Dec 22, 2018 13:17 |  #194

bobbyz wrote in post #18775753 (external link)
Just quick tests, nothing more. Not saying that I wouldn't shoot at f1.2 but nailing focus at those apertures on dSLRs is pain in the buxx. Mirrorless no such issues. Here at f2 (f1.6 equivalent)
QUOTED IMAGE
f2.2 on GFX, so probably like f1.8 on FF
QUOTED IMAGE
QUOTED IMAGE
f2 (f1.6 FF)
QUOTED IMAGE


If you can nail focus on the eyes, little softer back of the head, hair etc is not an issue for what I shoot. Now if I was shooting for wardrobe, magazines etc, they won't be f2 apertures.

I like these better. The main thing that jumps out most to me, is the same thing I think every time I have done comparisons for myself or seen others do them. The difference between even a MF camera and an APS-C camera is insignificant for what we do, especially in a studio and especially once they have been resized. Not to mention that most people who love shooting wide open (or close to it) aren't taking into account that every lens has a "sweet spot", and its never at its widest aperture. Most lenses hit their peak performance stopped down a bit, usually in the f/5.6 range. This is even more crucial to portrait shooters because again, something most people don't think about is we shoot most of our shots in portrait mode and we are using the edges for our focus points, not the center of a lens which is its sharpest. As we know, the edges and corners on most lenses are their weakest point and sharpness falls off from the center as it moves into the corners, especially at the widest apertures. So many are actually doing themselves a disservice by shooting portraits with the lens wide open using the edges of the lens, unless of course you have lenses that stay tack sharp into the corners wide open, which are few and far between.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,279 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 22, 2018 14:54 |  #195

BellPhoto wrote in post #18776082 (external link)
I like these better. The main thing that jumps out most to me, is the same thing I think every time I have done comparisons for myself or seen others do them. The difference between even a MF camera and an APS-C camera is insignificant for what we do, especially in a studio and especially once they have been resized. Not to mention that most people who love shooting wide open (or close to it) aren't taking into account that every lens has a "sweet spot", and its never at its widest aperture. Most lenses hit their peak performance stopped down a bit, usually in the f/5.6 range. This is even more crucial to portrait shooters because again, something most people don't think about is we shoot most of our shots in portrait mode and we are using the edges for our focus points, not the center of a lens which is its sharpest. As we know, the edges and corners on most lenses are their weakest point and sharpness falls off from the center as it moves into the corners, especially at the widest apertures. So many are actually doing themselves a disservice by shooting portraits with the lens wide open using the edges of the lens, unless of course you have lenses that stay tack sharp into the corners wide open, which are few and far between.

Fuji lenses are good, really good. They used to make MF lenses for Hasselblad. And they are plenty sharp wide open. Here is at f2.8 where her face/eyes is at the edge.

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p3208358782-6.jpg

Don't have PS handy to make the 100% crop but I can count the hair on her eye lashes. I am not doing any dis service by not shooting f5.6.:)

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

7,162 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 MJVSR
1635 guests, 376 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.