Full Frame or Crop

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18418730
Genuinely no offense meant by this... but how can you be so adamant about never going above "high" ISO and having the utmost amazing image quality and then over-process your image to the point where I honest to God could have taken it with my Nikon P300 point and shoot? It's a cool shot, don't get me wrong, but if IQ is your top metric, you've got a strange way of representing that.

I never said anything about amazing image quality...

And, it's over processed as this was the intended outcome, to make the 'photograph' look more like an artistic rendering...

It's part of a series...

Whether you like the processing, or hate it; the processing does not detract from the fact that it is still possible to shoot at low shutter and low ISO...

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18418631
Sure, I stated that in my post about tracking and panning. Following a vehicle on straight line and shooting them so there is motion is the background is different than other kinds of sporting events, and even within motorsports, this is just a subset of what people shoot. Go shoot a rally race where a car is kicking up dirt as it flies in the air, or as it crashes, and you aren't going to have as good a pic as one that can shoot at a higher ISO to get a better shutter speed.

These (as with most of my motorsport images) were shot in speed priority, hence the low shutter speeds.

I could easily (with a flick of the dial) speed this up to 1/250th or 1/300th of a second to freeze an instant, while still being in ISO100...

There's no need to ramp up the ISO, especially not to the ludicrous levels used today: ISO12000, yep, that'll be a high quality image...

DSMS wrote in post #18418744
These (as with most of my motorsport images) were shot in speed priority, hence the low shutter speeds.

I could easily (with a flick of the dial) speed this up to 1/250th or 1/300th of a second to freeze an instant, while still being in ISO100...

There's no need to ramp up the ISO, especially not to the ludicrous levels used today: ISO12000, yep, that'll be a high quality image...

There is no need for you, but again you shoot safe and comfortable things. Those look soft to me at even a small wallet sized web image, and again, those are just a subset of motorsports, and even a smaller segment of overall sports. Motorsports requires some of the slower speeds of alot of sports, most speeds to capture motion are under 1/1000th. This is one of the safer sports to shoot, and if during daylight, then sure, I can see how you don't need to really push any technical capabilitie, nor does it matter what format you use.

The sports I shoot requires 1/2000th, and at f2.8, that puts me at ISO 6400+.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18418730
First of all... is this real life? I got banned for a week last month for debating someone about the benefits of PC/Mac using kind words and links to actual relevant data and yet I come in here and stuff like this is flying around... seems a little unfair to me, but I digress...

I compare cameras in the real world (where I live) shooting real world subjects (as I do). In my comparisons and time owning and using these cameras both professionally and as a hobby I came to the conclusion that my Fuji X-Pro2 is every bit as capable (and more in some areas) as my 6D was, more capable than my a7R was (in nearly every regard) and mostly as capable (less so in extreme ISO's) as my a7S was. If you want to scrutinize over every quantum of difference there is in an image when viewed at 100% magnification, you go on ahead, we'll be out shooting pictures while you rot your eyes on a computer screen. Here in the real world though, APS-C has caught up to FF in every measure that actually matters for the vast majority of photographers out there, both professional and not.

Yup, we're all "zombies", that must be it One of us! One of us! One of us!

Your "real world" must be in some kind of parallel reality with different laws of physics . Imaginary Fuji reality?

rantercsr wrote in post #18418734
i'm baffled as to why so many are biting the bait

the trolling is obvious

Agreed. TeamSpeed summed it up nicely in post 181.

DSMS wrote in post #18418741
I never said anything about amazing image quality...

And, it's over processed as this was the intended outcome, to make the 'photograph' look more like an artistic rendering...

It's part of a series...

Whether you like the processing, or hate it; the processing does not detract from the fact that it is still possible to shoot at low shutter and low ISO...

My apologies, I mixed up your comment with the other guy's.

I understand that, and as I said, have no problem with it, I like what you did with it

My point is that with a shot processed like that it really wouldn't matter if it were at ISO100 or ISO10,000.

A lot of work went into that 'look', trust, me, it would have been almost impossible at high iso....due to noise...

After years I finally could upgrade to FF. I'm in love with the dinamic range and the depth of field. The only reason to move to another type of sensor could be moving to medium format.

MagicAlex wrote in post #18418805
After years I finally could upgrade to FF. I'm in love with the dinamic range and the depth of field. The only reason to move to another type of sensor could be moving to medium format.

Yeah, I don't know why all the fuss over FF. Medium format is where it's at.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18418754
There is no need for you, but again you shoot safe and comfortable things.

Trust me, there is NOTHING safe about shooting amateur Drift from trackside...


...also, and, i'm just throwing this out there...

The terms "full frame" and "crop" are a bit pointless. Images from my 7DII are 'full frame' for this camera, not 'crop', unless I am cropping the full image from my sensor...

The sensor on my 7DII may be a different physical size to one on a 5DIII, but it also has more resolution than the sensor in a 1Dx...and, the same as a 1DxII...

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18418730
He also shoots with micro four thirds... but they must be paying him too, right?

He does campaigns for Fuji and phase. He doesn't even like his aps-c stuff.

"That Xpro2 though. I do love that camera so much. I’ve shot a lot of stuff with it. But damn… once you shoot medium format you want EVERYTHING to be medium format. ALL of my personal work in the last year has been shot medium format and there’s no going back from the 645 100MP sensor. There just isn’t."

His latest gear entry blog. More double speak of course, and you're eating it all up. Zach is undoubtedly a gear freak, he's got the latest and greatest, however make no mistake, he's a salesman just like Scott Kelby.

Charlie wrote in post #18418822
He does campaigns for Fuji and phase. He doesn't even like his aps-c stuff.

"That Xpro2 though. I do love that camera so much. I’ve shot a lot of stuff with it. But damn… once you shoot medium format you want EVERYTHING to be medium format. ALL of my personal work in the last year has been shot medium format and there’s no going back from the 645 100MP sensor. There just isn’t."

His latest gear entry blog. More double speak of course, and you're eating it all up. Zach is undoubtedly a gear freak, he's got the latest and greatest, however make no mistake, he's a salesman just like Scott Kelby.

Whether he is or isn't is irrelevant (even though I maintain that he isn't); my own experiences with FF and APS-C mirror his own, as do the experiences of many other photographers (and that number is growing).

Not sure what I'm "eating up"... but it must taste great because I haven't thought about switching my main camera once since buying my X-Pro2, something I've not been able to say about any other camera I've owned, FF or otherwise.

MagicAlex wrote in post #18418805
After years I finally could upgrade to FF. I'm in love with the dinamic range and the depth of field. The only reason to move to another type of sensor could be moving to medium format.

It's the type of ADC system and the number of pixels that determine base-ISO DR. Sensor size plays no role in DxO-type base-ISO DR, and only a very slight role in base-ISO PDR (especially with Canon's sensors and Nikon's non-Sony sensors).

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18418645
Shall we play a game? Two images taken at different times by different cameras - guess what camera took what shot?

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=184​18645&i=i256923196
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Well the answer is...
The left one was with a Fujifilm X-PRO2 and the right one was a PhaseOne XF 100MP.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18418298
Why are those separate?

Because, when I want a shallower DOF with a particular lens, I put it on the 5D3

When I need better image quality at 12,800 iso, I grab the 5D3

Sometimes, what I need is a big buffer and I grab the 7D2 no matter what. Sometimes, I need more dof at a certain aperture, and I go for the 7D2.

Those are two separate criteria *I* use to determine which camera I use, and I don't always factor both of them in for any given situation.

If your shooting style has those two things as equals, all the time, then hey, that works for you!