“The full frame look”

moose10101 wrote in post #18773420
I'm becoming convinced that you don't know the difference between DOF and subject-to-background distance.

I am absolutely sure I know difference between the two.

A majority of the time, control of DOF is attributed to FF discussions, more so than discussions of how you separate your subject from the surroundings.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18773436
I am absolutely sure I know difference between the two. I am talking about DOF and the fact I am able to create a DOF with the M50 that CANNOT be replicated with any FF and lens, using the booster, with those examples.

Take a 35mm EF lens on a FF, then pop it on the M50 with the booster, and you have a combination that cannot be created with a FF.

A majority of the time, control of DOF is attributed to FF discussions, more so than discussions of how you separate your subject from the surroundings.

And take a really fast 21 1.4 put it on a ff and shoot wide open and you have something that I think is the FF look. Again where FF shines is with wide angle lenses and the look you can get with wide fast primes becomes really unique and in my opinion is the FF look.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18773366
There's not? There is a big difference if you want your 35mm 1.4 Summilux to give you a wide FoV and not a so called normal FoV. I tend to natural see at a 35mm FoV on a FF 135 format camera so there is a difference for me. I think those that tend to shoot a lot of wide angle is where FF really makes the difference thus the reason I choose to shoot FF.

I think you took one phrase out of context and didn't bother to read the rest of that paragraph.

When you a) frame the scene the same way with FF vs crop (by changing the focal length) and b) want to equalize the DOF by either going to a more open lens on the crop or shutting down the aperture on the FF, but then have to change the ISO due to the exposure differences, that is where the differences between the two are eliminated, including ISO differences between FF and APS C of the same generation.

EDIT: This happens in discussions alot, we will compare the two, and invariably somebody will come in and say that if you wanted the two photos to be identical, then you have to equalize the DOF, and therefore the FF loses its edge due to shutting it down a stop and raising the ISO a stop. This is why I brought up the 3rd situation in my original reply.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18773439
And take a really fast 21 1.4 put it on a ff and shoot wide open and you have something that I think is the FF look. Again where FF shines is with wide angle lenses and the look you can get with wide fast primes becomes really unique and in my opinion is the FF look.

Sure, absolutely agree, one puts a super fast prime on a FF and you cannot (usually) equal that with any APS C combination. Unless... you use an APS-C with a speed booster.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18773436
I am absolutely sure I know difference between the two.

I never claimed you didn't. None of my posts were addressed to you, which is quite obvious since I quoted the specific posts I was replying to, and none of them were yours.

Please read more carefully.

moose10101 wrote in post #18773445
I never claimed you didn't. None of my posts were addressed to you, which is quite obvious since I quoted the specific posts I was replying to, and none of them were yours.

Please read more carefully.

OOopps sorry... I couldn't see Bell's reply under what you quoted, I just saw my post and images, and had to hit the "See More". I almost wish Pekka wouldn't do that with quoted posts, or have more of the quoted post show, or indent the different levels of replies, they just jumble together. Or make it a user profile setting to compress replied sections....

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18773444
Sure, absolutely agree, one puts a super fast prime on a FF and you cannot (usually) equal that with any APS C combination. Unless... you use an APS-C with a speed booster.

Your still not going to get the image look of Leica glass and the small size of Leica glass.

moose10101 wrote in post #18773445
I never claimed you didn't. None of my posts were addressed to you, which is quite obvious since I quoted the specific posts I was replying to, and none of them were yours.

Please read more carefully.

.
The way you quote posts, with one quote inside of the other, makes it really confusing.

I, too, thought you were replying to me when indeed you weren't. . It'd help if you could format your posts a bit differently so that we wouldn't be so easily misled as to who you are replying to.


.

moose10101 wrote in post #18773425
Shallow DOF causes background blur. The shallower the DOF, the more blurry a particular background object will be.

Ok, lets have a real world test with two images I took then. If a larger sensor produces a more shallow DOF with a more blurry background, it should be easy to spot a portrait shot on a FF sensor and one on a MFT sensor half its size. So which photo was taken with the FF and which was taken with the MFT? 135mm is the focal length.

Here is a better example... (and by the way, the math doesn't lie, why not test your theories on the dofmaster website?)

Crop body and FF, f5.0, same lens, same distance, with the only change being that the crop was at approximately 43mm and the FF was at 70mm, to create nearly the same subject framing.

The crop, just like every other example ever shown and also aligns with the math, has more DOF. This also shows that the OOF fall-off in the foreground and background takes longer.

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773488
Ok, lets have a real world test with two images I took then. If a larger sensor produces a more shallow DOF with a more blurry background, it should be easy to spot a portrait shot on a FF sensor and one on a MFT sensor half its size. So which photo was taken with the FF and which was taken with the MFT?

Hosted photo: posted by BellPhoto in
./showthread.php?p=187​73488&i=i98467042
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Hosted photo: posted by BellPhoto in
./showthread.php?p=187​73488&i=i117677181
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

They are two different portraits - not comparable.

You continually compare things that are not comparable. . Apples vs. oranges. . That doesn't explain or prove anything.

Anybody can shoot a portrait with an extremely blurred out background with a little crop sensor, because we can manipulate the ratio between the subject-to-camera distance and the subject-to-background distance. . Likewise, anybody can shoot a portrait with a not-very-blurry background with a full frame camera, for the same reason. . So two different images of two different subjects taken at different distances does not prove anything at all.

In order for any comparison of images to be meaningful in this discussion, they would have to be shot under the same conditions. . The only time you posted such images to this thread, they proved OUR point, and disproved your point.

Can you please just humble yourself and admit that you have been completely mistaken about this issue?


.

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773488
Ok, lets have a real world test with two images I took then. If a larger sensor produces a more shallow DOF with a more blurry background, it should be easy to spot a portrait shot on a FF sensor and one on a MFT sensor half its size. So which photo was taken with the FF and which was taken with the MFT? 135mm is the focal length.

No one is saying you can't get blurry backgrounds with smaller formats. But under the same conditions, with the same composition, FF will have shallower DOF at the same aperture. For all we know, the u4/3 example was shot with a fast, long prime at minimum focus distance and the FF example was shot with a much shorter lens, smaller aperture, and closer background.

mike_d wrote in post #18773500
No one is saying you can't get blurry backgrounds with smaller formats. But under the same conditions, with the same composition, FF will have shallower DOF at the same aperture. For all we know, the u4/3 example was shot with a fast, long prime at minimum focus distance and the FF example was shot with a much shorter lens, smaller aperture, and closer background.

The FF was shot with a 135mm f/2 and the MFT was shot with a 75 f/1.8 which is really close to 135mm. Both shot wide open and both framed nearly identical. Should be easy to tell the difference based on what's been said in here.

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773509
The FF was shot with a 135mm f/2 and the MFT was shot with a 75 f/1.8 which is really close to 135mm. Both shot wide open and both framed nearly identical.

.
That's not at all comparable.

In order for your images to prove any kind of point, they would need to be shot under tightly controlled conditions in which all variables (except the isolated variable) are eliminated .... the way scientists conduct experiments.

Just a guy shooting a portrait with one camera and lens, and then later shooting another portrait with another camera and another lens, at a different place, without measuring all of the different distances involved ... that doesn't prove anything.

.

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773509
Should be easy to tell the difference based on what's been said in here.

Easy to tell the difference?

Really?

When we discuss the differences in DOF between a crop sensor and a full frame sensor, we are talking about minute differences. . These differences are so small that you don't readily see them. . They are only perceivable if you examine and scrutinize the images very closely.


.

This thread feels like a lop sided boxing match, and one guy just won't stay down...