06-30-2016, 05:12 PM
I am "manually multiquoting" to a brightcolors post (I don't want to figure out how the MultiQuote button functions).
"But with cameras that mess that up, set the camera in Av mode and things work like they should."
-Actually AV is the mode that I almost exclusively shoot in. I thought about using a focus screen, but reviews of them have not been all that good. Maybe this has improved?
"(like when I use my Tamron SP 500mm f8)."
-Yay! This probably the one manual focus lens I would keep if I could only keep one. You can complain about what it cannot do, but what it can do is be worn on a case on my belt when I am somewhere with the possibility of wildlife in the distance. Lately I don't get the same results with it, but at worst it is like having a portable telescope!
"If you shoot at 160mm f4 on FF, and at 100mm f4 on APS-C, the FF shot will be shot with a larger aperture size."
-BC, I am confused about this statement. And I'm not attempting to argue with you, because I know from your posts that I have read that you know MUCH more than I do, and have experience with FF that I have never had. But that said, I don't understand why I would have to shoot at f/6.3. Wait maybe I do get it. A shorter depth of field when for 160mm than for 100mm focal lengths. I did not know you could calculate the effect by using the crop factor.
...But if I move closer to frame the photo the same, instead of changing the focal length, so that they are both shot at 100mm, it would still be the same result for the same f-stop, f/4. I would be closer so I would have less depth of field, and to get the equivalent depth of field I would have to increase the f-stop? To f/6.3? Or end up with a shallow depth of field?
Either way that is kind of what I am after. The choice of a shallow depth of field, or the ability to stop down without suffering a diffraction softening.
But my main premise is not about blurring, it is that the 20 MP sensor of a FF, will produce a much higher resolution photo than a 20 MP sensor on an APS-C. That it will have greater dynamic range, smoother color transitions, and less high ISO noise. I do worry about the fact that it is more appropriate for what I think of as "boring distances" - Not macro or telephoto. But I have some suspicion that macros will be better too. I have to admit I am worried, Brightcolours, about your lack of enthusiasm, since a long time ago I thought I remembered you posting, "...I recently upgraded to a 6D", and now it sounds like you are saying, "I recently upgraded to APS-C!"
I read the other posts too, but have to try to understand before I respond, but again, I think I am getting closer to where my dissatisfaction lies, and may have altered my course some as a result.
"But with cameras that mess that up, set the camera in Av mode and things work like they should."
-Actually AV is the mode that I almost exclusively shoot in. I thought about using a focus screen, but reviews of them have not been all that good. Maybe this has improved?
"(like when I use my Tamron SP 500mm f8)."
-Yay! This probably the one manual focus lens I would keep if I could only keep one. You can complain about what it cannot do, but what it can do is be worn on a case on my belt when I am somewhere with the possibility of wildlife in the distance. Lately I don't get the same results with it, but at worst it is like having a portable telescope!
"If you shoot at 160mm f4 on FF, and at 100mm f4 on APS-C, the FF shot will be shot with a larger aperture size."
-BC, I am confused about this statement. And I'm not attempting to argue with you, because I know from your posts that I have read that you know MUCH more than I do, and have experience with FF that I have never had. But that said, I don't understand why I would have to shoot at f/6.3. Wait maybe I do get it. A shorter depth of field when for 160mm than for 100mm focal lengths. I did not know you could calculate the effect by using the crop factor.
...But if I move closer to frame the photo the same, instead of changing the focal length, so that they are both shot at 100mm, it would still be the same result for the same f-stop, f/4. I would be closer so I would have less depth of field, and to get the equivalent depth of field I would have to increase the f-stop? To f/6.3? Or end up with a shallow depth of field?
Either way that is kind of what I am after. The choice of a shallow depth of field, or the ability to stop down without suffering a diffraction softening.
But my main premise is not about blurring, it is that the 20 MP sensor of a FF, will produce a much higher resolution photo than a 20 MP sensor on an APS-C. That it will have greater dynamic range, smoother color transitions, and less high ISO noise. I do worry about the fact that it is more appropriate for what I think of as "boring distances" - Not macro or telephoto. But I have some suspicion that macros will be better too. I have to admit I am worried, Brightcolours, about your lack of enthusiasm, since a long time ago I thought I remembered you posting, "...I recently upgraded to a 6D", and now it sounds like you are saying, "I recently upgraded to APS-C!"
I read the other posts too, but have to try to understand before I respond, but again, I think I am getting closer to where my dissatisfaction lies, and may have altered my course some as a result.