Full Frame or Crop

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18427550
Finding a camera system that works for you is all that matters, people who bang one about this is better than that because this and that... whatever. You show those people an image from a Phase 100Mpx back and they just comment some excuse as to why it doesn't count. It's all a bit of fun down the pub [or on the internet/camera club where it much more heated it seems] but out in the real world, as in doing it for clients, all that matters is you exceed their expectations and deliver what was discussed. What system you do that with is up to you. Full frame is better and so is APS-C and so is Medium Format and so is a mobile Phone...

This is that shot of Dwayne Johnson by supremo photog Michael J. LeBrecht II for the cover of Sports Illustrated that was shot on a Mobile phone - looks mighty fine to me.

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=184​27550&i=i261799890
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Some people can do that without a camera, any camera at all, by literally painting it all in a photoshop.
How much photoshop is in this picture? I think plenty. Maybe even too much to call it a photograph

Charlie wrote in post #18427482
at some point, you can apply that logic to APS-C vs M43 vs large sensor pns.

a7x and 55 is a higher level setup than anything fuji, that lens scores so high on the dxo charts, that fuji doesnt have anything to compete. Even the lowly FE 50 f1.8 can match/exceed the fuji 35 f1.4, and it costs less. Canon/Nikon also have budget 50's that can match the fuji 35, so it isnt some miracle setup. There's also a very high performing 28/85 for the budget conscious.

Yup, and I have, in this very thread in fact

You were there when I left Sony so you probably remember the vast list of reasons why I did (since you were among the people burning me at the stake for it). There were many more factors than image quality for me switching to Fuji, image quality was my main reason for waiting for so long, I got sucked up into the hyperbole of people like you swearing up and down that it'd be a massive downgrade to go back to APS-C... nonsense. The difference in image quality was so minute (except for very high ISO shots) that I can't see any real difference, in fact, my workflow has gotten faster because of how much better the shots look SOOC so I couldn't care less about whatever insignificant loss of quality there may be when viewed pixel for pixel.

Bottom line; if you feel strongly that the difference between APS-C and FF matters to you, awesome, keep your FF gear, literally nobody is telling you not to. That being said, going into threads to overstate how important it is and state this supposed chasm of quality between the two is silly, it just suckers novices into spending way more on gear than they need to.

ecka wrote in post #18427631
Some people can do that without a camera, any camera at all, by literally painting it all in a photoshop.
How much photoshop is in this picture? I think plenty. Maybe even too much to call it a photograph

Yea, sometimes you just gotta call it the way it is.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18427642
Yup, and I have, in this very thread in fact

You were there when I left Sony so you probably remember the vast list of reasons why I did (since you were among the people burning me at the stake for it). There were many more factors than image quality for me switching to Fuji, image quality was my main reason for waiting for so long, I got sucked up into the hyperbole of people like you swearing up and down that it'd be a massive downgrade to go back to APS-C... nonsense. The difference in image quality was so minute (except for very high ISO shots) that I can't see any real difference, in fact, my workflow has gotten faster because of how much better the shots look SOOC so I couldn't care less about whatever insignificant loss of quality there may be when viewed pixel for pixel.

Bottom line; if you feel strongly that the difference between APS-C and FF matters to you, awesome, keep your FF gear, literally nobody is telling you not to. That being said, going into threads to overstate how important it is and state this supposed chasm of quality between the two is silly, it just suckers novices into spending way more on gear than they need to.

Well, it is an obvious downgrade and it shows in your images.
OMG! Just look at that xTrans mess . Seriously.
How is it even possible to ignore on the UHD screen? Must be a really small UHD screen. Is it a 4K phone display?

Charlie wrote in post #18427522
I was just pointing out FF misconceptions of being bigger and costlier. Often not the case

Yes indeed, I remember the first time I had a play with an A7, the videographer at a wedding I was shooting had a few of them so I nabbed one for a quick play while we ate, still smile with I think about just how small it was considering the large sensor in there but I guess ergonomics play a roll when deciding the size of a camera, no point making it too small or it risks being unusable by the majority of your customers. Shame we can't get [most of] the lenses to shrink also.

On larger note, and those reading should be able to understand to whom this applies, POTN does not take kindly to brand fighting in general. It violates the forum rules when it devolves into being insulting to the forum membership.

Feel free to espouse the virtues of your own choices, but if you scream from hill tops that someone else' choices suck, you are engaging in a personal attack, which has always been a no no here.

davesrose wrote in post #18427564
Although it's a bit of a misnomer: he used the Hasselblad True Zoom camera attachment attached to the Moto phone. Your average smart phone user also isn't going to have an expensive studio setup either.

Yep, a little cheeky of me to say 'phone' but it's still only a 1/2.3-inch sensor and that it waaaayyy smaller than the 36X24mm one in a 'Full Frame' camera. Plus it's 'only 12Mpx and did the print cover of a major glossy mag. Hopefully those who read this, rather long and heated, thread will weed out the crap and, ahem, see the light.

That was shot on location in the foyer of the Beverly Hills Hotel, backdrop and floor laid out, a 'few' lights rigged and the props rolled in. Not that expensive [Broncolor is not expensive - right?] but yes, the average phone shooter will probably not go to the trouble of setting a scene like that to get a shot, mind you the average camera owner wouldn't either, probably.

Really I think if you've never shot a 'large' censored -ha - camera then you should go get one for a while and enjoy the feeling of getting out and shooting with it. Otherwise all your time might be taken up with wondering & guessing and letting yourself be held back - "oh if only I had a [new fancy camera] I could get the shots I always dreamed about..."

Yeah, my first DSLR was a lowly 12MP: I've got a 19x13 printer at home, and can print crystal clear pictures from the old RAWs. Looking at DxO, the iPhone does have substantially less DR then a DSLR/mirrorless....as well as comparatively lower high ISO. But the SI cover is an example of how the photographer's skills were able to control the light and camera settings for good exposure (but it was a bit of a cheat to include a camera module, which apart from different sensor and aperture, includes more manual camera features). It is interesting to read the whole Peta Pixel story on it. He says he uses a Canon 5DS for studio work, and the Hasselblad Mod is more suited for someone wanting to get into photography (that it's a stepping stone for learning manual exposure).

first-sports-illustrated-cover-shot-smartphone

As for brands, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I've debated about investing in Fuji or Olympus mirrorless for a secondary travel setup: but that requires me spending more on this GAS heavy endeavor

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18427663
Yes indeed, I remember the first time I had a play with an A7, the videographer at a wedding I was shooting had a few of them so I nabbed one for a quick play while we ate, still smile with I think about just how small it was considering the large sensor in there but I guess ergonomics play a roll when deciding the size of a camera, no point making it too small or it risks being unusable by the majority of your customers. Shame we can't get [most of] the lenses to shrink also.

having the options of small lenses vs big lenses is something I take advantage of. There are plenty of small and powerful lenses for the sony system at this point.

12-24 f4, 16-35 f4, 24-70 f4, 28-70 f3.5-5.6, 10 f5.6, 12 f5.6, 14 f2.8, 15 f4.5, 18 f2.8, 21 f2.8, 25 f2, 28 f2, 35 f2.8, 50 f1.8, 55 f1.8, 85 f1.8

that's a mighty big list of small lenses, and if you needed larger longer lenses, then you're options get smaller or you go into manual focus specialty lenses. The bulk of my shooting is with lenses 85mm and wider, so the system works for me. Some lenses from the canon system that were too big or left too much to be desired were the 50, 85, and 11-24. When I first got into the system, there was no alternative for the aforementioned lenses.... and now, I will have all three.... in fact, if I could only bring the 12-24 + 50 f1.8, I could probably cover all my vacation needs..... however due to tinyness of the 35, I can take that along with my special pack, and I've got a high quality Pns that I can clip to my belt. Add on the godox 350 rather than 685....... i'm in business!

davesrose wrote in post #18427731
Yeah, my first DSLR was a lowly 12MP: I've got a 19x13 printer at home, and can print crystal clear pictures from the old RAWs. Looking at DxO, the iPhone does have substantially less DR then a DSLR/mirrorless....as well as comparatively lower high ISO. But the SI cover is an example of how the photographer's skills were able to control the light and camera settings for good exposure (but it was a bit of a cheat to include a camera module, which apart from different sensor and aperture, includes more manual camera features). It is interesting to read the whole Peta Pixel story on it. He says he uses a Canon 5DS for studio work, and the Hasselblad Mod is more suited for someone wanting to get into photography (that it's a stepping stone for learning manual exposure).

first-sports-illustrated-cover-shot-smartphone

As for brands, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I've debated about investing in Fuji or Olympus mirrorless for a secondary travel setup: but that requires me spending more on this GAS heavy endeavor

Yes indeed it'll entice your G.A.S.

What you may discover is getting back into the enjoyment of photography. Small body with small native lenses from an extremely capable crop sensor was truly a shock to me.

Most of your casual / documentation needs a Fuji system would easily fit the bill. A 16mm would "almost" be like a 24Lmk1 on your 5d3, A Fuji with a 56mm f/1.2 would surpass the Canon 50 f/1.4 w/ 7dmk2 by a huge margin. I almost feel that the 56mm f/1.2 is like a mini 85Lmk2 on my Fuji X-t2.

I feel my Canon 5d3 delivers what I want with my current lenses (Love to get a 5d4). For my personal preference I feel my Fuji gear can deliver me complete satisfaction in IQ for majority of my casual photography. Just so happens I prefer the AF performance of my 5d3 and high iso performance advantages. This has very little to do with crop vs FF.

What I find odd is that I own crop and FF for very specific reasons. For me a secondary system is imperative. I get a bit of both worlds with complete satisfaction.

I think photogs should test as much gear as possible. If the tool does not fit your needs.....move on......

I'll have to admit Fuji has been one of the best G.A.S. I've done in a long time. Mind you I love using my 80D crop sensor but even that is heavier with no IQ advantage over my Fuji. However for more demanding AF situations I prefer the 80D for a lighter mirrored body with EF lenses.....I'm waiting/anticipating for the 7d3 to see what it has to offer

ecka wrote in post #18427625
See, that crop is no good

Rather than the subjective 'no good', please articulate what characteristic(s) of that crop is the objective reason(s) for that judgment, so that we can assess those same issues that you raise.

I think the term small is subjective, what might be small to some would be huge to others. Ask any micro 4/3 shooter.

My point was that although the cameras are loosing bulk the trend is not equaled in lens design, on the most part. I know ditching the AF motor can help in reducing the size, those Samyang lenses are small alright but Leica already had the small full frame camera and lenses covered in that regard albeit at a price.

Even the Fuji 35/1.4 compared to the FE 55/1.8 [a fine lens by all accounts], the full frame lens is bigger and heaver & it's a 1.8, perhaps lets not go f:f here. Not much getting round the physics, not yet anyway.

Wilt wrote in post #18427885
Rather than the subjective 'no good', please articulate what characteristic(s) of that crop is the objective reason(s) for that judgment, so that we can assess those same issues that you raise.

It is all about the amount of information the image contains. I'm not a big fan of DxO type of tests, but they clearly show that a 20mp APS-C image can contain around 10-13p-mp of detail, while 20mp FF contains around 15-17p-mp of detail, when both using the same prime lenses. Which means that crop images are storing more noise and less information than FF. Glass has its physical limits too.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18428036
I think the term small is subjective, what might be small to some would be huge to others. Ask any micro 4/3 shooter. I know many give out about the Fuji XF 16-55 f/2.8 as being big, yet it is smaller that the Sony 24-70 f/4 you mention above (I guessing it was a native lens).

My point was that although the cameras are loosing bulk the trend is not equaled in lens design, on the most part. I know ditching the AF motor can help in reducing the size, those Samyang lenses are small alright but Leica already had the small full frame camera and lenses covered in that regard albeit at a price.

Even the Fuji 35/1.4 compared to the FE 55/1.8 [a fine lens by all accounts], the full frame lens is bigger and heaver & it's a 1.8, perhaps lets not go f:f here. Not much getting round the physics, not yet anyway.

What are you talking about ... The FE 24-70/4 (426g, 73x94.5mm, $1100) is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the XF 16-55/2.8 (655g, 83.3x106mm, $1200).
Equivalent lenses are equal in size, but different lens designs may not be. So there's always a bit of variation. The EF 50/1.4 USM is smaller than the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 or Sigma 50/1.4 Art.
Fuji XF 35/1.4 is nowhere near the FE 55/1.8, forget it. Try FE 50/1.8 instead. And it's 3 TIMES cheaper!
Then goes the XF 56/1.2 vs FE 85/1.8 ... Guess who wins that one