“The full frame look”

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. Should be easy to tell the difference based on what's been said in here.

How can we infer anything when we don't know shooting distance, or distance of background (which in both scenarios it looks like the background is quite far and would stay blurry)? No one is saying you can't get similar DOF with different formats (it just means adjusting factors listed several times)....it seems you're still wanting to change the definition of DOF. It's really telling when your own source says APS-C will have deeper DOF with similar framing, you admit that the FF image has a blurrier background with the image of the bear being framed at 50mm with APS-C vs 80mm with FF, and then reach a conclusion that DOF is not about the accepted range of sharp focus.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18773513
.
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.

.

Well actually, what it proves is what I said from the start, there is no such thing as a "full frame look". Ive just shown that you can achieve the exact same look on a MFT sensor half the size of a FF sensor and no one can tell the difference. Thanks.

LOL

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773540
Well actually, what it proves is what I said from the start, there is no such thing as a "full frame look". Ive just shown that you can achieve the exact same look on a MFT sensor half the size of a FF sensor and no one can tell the difference. Thanks.

.
Well of course you can. . Nobody here ever contested that. . You just can't do it with the exact same camera-to-subject distance and with the exact same subject-to-background distance and the same aperture and the exact same framing. . You have to manipulate one, or some, of those factors in order to get the exact same look.


.

The larger the format the shallower the DoF but don't take my word for it
https://photo.stackexc​hange.com …-shallower-depth-of-field

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18773481

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.


.

I’m just using “quote above post”; if that post has a quote in it, it gets nested, with the one I’m replying to being the outer one. Quoting works that way in every forum I use.

It is somewhat difficult, and therefore expensive, to make fast retrofocus design lenses (wide angle FL)

BellPhoto wrote in post #18772815
There really is no such thing as a "full frame look" IMO
and the myth that you get a more shallow depth of field with a larger sensor has been debunked several times.

no myth!! When you shoot with the focal length that is appropriate to the size of the format, your depth of field will be shallower for the ***same angle of view*** captured in the frame

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18773555
The larger the format the shallower the DoF but don't take my word for it
https://photo.stackexc​hange.com …-shallower-depth-of-field

Did you read any of the comments? The second one on there says

"-1 full frame sensors do inherently have less depth of field, it's not to do with getting closer, in that example the camera was not moved in order to fill the frame with the bottle - I know 'cos I shot it!"

You are arguing against physics. The larger the format the shallower the DoF. It's just physics.
BTW there are few people that post here that have shot more formats both professionally and with my personal work than I have over the decades. A 500C/M has less DoF than a 135 format camera. An 8X10 view camera has less DoF than a 4X5. A FF sensors has less DoF than a smaller format sensor. Find one that works for you and go make some photographs and again the FF look in my opinion has more to do with fast wide primes and that look.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18773553
.
Well of course you can. . Nobody here ever contested that. . You just can't do it with the exact same camera-to-subject distance and with the exact same subject-to-background distance and the same aperture and the exact same framing. . You have to manipulate one, or some, of those factors in order to get the exact same look.

.

Right, and we can discuss which has the more shallow DOF all day and never agree on it. The thread was about the "full frame look" and some people mistakenly think that a 35mm sensor somehow produces images that are not possible to get with smaller sensor cameras, which is completely false. As I showed earlier, with the correct lenses and the proper technique, you can get a tiny MFT sensor to look just like a 35mm sensor when it comes to DOF.

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773598
Right, and we can discuss which has the more shallow DOF all day and never agree on it. The thread was about the "full frame look" and some people mistakenly think that a 35mm sensor somehow produces images that are not possible to get with smaller sensor cameras, which is completely false. As I showed earlier, with the correct lenses and the proper technique, you can get a tiny MFT sensor to look just like a 35mm sensor when it comes to DOF.

I really hope that you are not trying to compare image quality on a web site viewing 100kb compressed jpgs. ha ha

But in the end who gives a $#!T. Go make some photographs with whatever you have found to work for you. I know what works best for the way I see and work. If you have something that works for you rock on. But physics do not lie. The larger the format she shallower the DoF.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18773603
I really hope that you are not trying to compare image quality on a web site viewing 100kb compressed jpgs. ha ha

MFT vs FF in print is not much of a gap either, see the video below. Professional printer can't even tell a difference. Ive shot with MFT, APS-C and FF for close to two decades and the differences between the three are insignificant for 99% of the work anyone would be doing with them, especially once they have been compressed and resized for viewing online. Bottom line is pretty much any camera on the market these days is capable of producing any look you want. There is no "full frame look" and when it comes to real world usage, FF sensors are not superior in any area aside from being able to shoot at higher ISO in lower light with less noise, that's it.


https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773598
Right, and we can discuss which has the more shallow DOF all day and never agree on it. The thread was about the "full frame look" and some people mistakenly think that a 35mm sensor somehow produces images that are not possible to get with smaller sensor cameras, which is completely false. As I showed earlier, with the correct lenses and the proper technique, you can get a tiny MFT sensor to look just like a 35mm sensor when it comes to DOF.

Actually, if you step back and read through the thread, you'll see you're the only one in disagreement about what makes DOF. Your own source says APS-C has deeper DOF with similar field of view. In the case of Teamspeed's example of the ruler (with just change in focal length), or your linked photo of the video's example of bear/monkey at FF/80mm vs APS/50mm, you can visually see more out of focus areas with FF (thereby meaning shallower DOF). Optical physics has been studied for quite some time: there is no argument about determining DOF. Since we know the shooting distance for the bear/monkey photos, we know DOF is 1.38 inches with the APS-C vs .83 with FF for a 10" photo. There are some pretty experienced photographers on this forum: and they know you can get shallower DOF by opening your aperture. One trend that some have noted, is that smaller systems may also not have equivalent wide open apertures as larger systems.

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773639
MFT vs FF in print is not much of a gap either, see the video below. Professional printer can't even tell a difference. Ive shot with MFT, APS-C and FF for close to two decades and the differences between the three are insignificant for 99% of the work anyone would be doing with them, especially once they have been compressed and resized for viewing online. Bottom line is pretty much any camera on the market these days is capable of producing any look you want. There is no "full frame look" and when it comes to real world usage, FF sensors are not superior in any area aside from being able to shoot at higher ISO in lower light with less noise, that's it.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM

What bugs me is the chip many have on their shoulders about whatever gear they have and for some reason feeling inferior. They can't embrace the difference and exploit those differences but instead spend way to much time trying to prove how alike they are instead of going out doing what is important. Making photographs. The most important part of it all is finding equipment that best works for each individual. Full frame and crop are different. What makes one better than the other is personal. What works best for each individual is all that matters. I've already explained what I think the FF look is. One thing that FF is better at is wide and super wide lenses. If you shot in that world then the choice should be FF. Maybe you don't so the difference is not that relevant. These camera's are all tools. Clearly the tool Tom needs is not the tool I need. Doesn't make my tool better or inferior to his tool, just different. And my tool is clearly better for me as his is for him. So instead of trying to make everything the same, figure out what best captures your vision. All of these cameras are fully capable of capturing ones vision the real key is one has to see.