I do not know which focussing screen reviews you refer to. I know from 1st hand that for big aperture manual focus, the Eg-S is very nice. For small apertures not so much (gets dark).
I agree on the SP 500mm f8. In film times we did not magnify images so much, so that kind of lenses seemed more impressive. But now, it still is most lovely to take along (compact and light!). With FF you get a bit less reach, due to the crop factor. Which helps the lens' limited resolving power somewhat, of course. At its best when using live view and a support, so you have the time and stability to nail focus (magic lantern firmware is nice for this lens too, with focus peaking and magic zoom).
Yes, you can calculate equivalent f-stops for the same DOF with the crop factor. Handy to know.
I do not know how exactly DOF "reacts" with changing the distance and the sensor format and the focal length/FOV and aperture size. Too many variables for my brain to process today?
About diffraction softening: When you stop down both APS-C and FF to the same DOF (so: equivalent F-stops), you get similar diffraction softening on image level, too.
With equivalent settings (so: same FOV/equivalent focal length, same DOF/equivalent F-stop) you get similar sharpness on FF as on APS-C. If the lenses are the same "sharpness", one can argue that the central sharpness gets smeared out over the whole image due to the crop factor, of course. But then one can also argue that the weaker borders of the projected image get cropped away on APS-C due to that same crop factor. But yeah, with FF and APS-C with equivalent settings, you get similar softening due to diffraction.
At base ISO, when a minimum exposure time is no factor, FF does have an advantage. The moment you do need to crank up the ISO to maintain a certain minimum exposure time, the FF advantage (providing we do use equivalent settings) mostly disappears, as we have a higher F-stop on FF and therefore also a higher ISO setting. So, in practice, only when there is more than enough light, you get the FF IQ advantage.
I am happy with my 6D, I just do not agree with that FF is better for everything and everyone! For me, yes, FF has the advantage of possible bigger apertures = more shallow DOF. So, I am a happy camper with my FF 6D, indeed.
So, if you also have a more shallow DOF desire (be it a main purpose or a side-purpose), by all means try FF. But for stopped down stuff for big DOF stuff only, in my opinion FF makes way less sense. Unless you always have enough light to be shooting at base ISO regardless of the stopped down nature of things, because then FF can show a slight advantage in IQ. Although, I am quite sure the 80D narrowly beats the 6D at base ISO (at least noise wise).
About the macro thing (APS-C getting more subject magnification on the resulting image): you can always ad stuff like an extension tube when you need more magnification than 1:1 on FF. I very, very rarely find myself going towards 1:1, so it does not impact my move to FF.
Yep, happy with my 6D. Happy with it being FF, happy with it running Magic Lantern extended firmware, happy with the FF OVF it has, happy with the WiFi remote live view, happy with the Eg-S Super Precision screen for larger aperture manual focusing. And happy that I understand lens equivalence, exposure/ISO equivalence.
@ chrismiller. I guess you read me loud and clear. I do believe higher pixel counts, (and larger imager physical size) result in sharper images, and sharpness is one of the main goals. So, I did take a look at the Foveon. It sounded like a miracle at first. After looking at photos taken side to side against a FF DSLR. I came up with much the same conclusions as Brightcolors.
To give the devil its due, the camera preserves amazing detail! In most respects it outperforms the traditional sensor. The main problem I have with it they attempt to conceal (I think) by including actual different color modes! The truth is IMO, the sensor cannot reproduce natural colors. It is a shame, but not really unexpected given how it works.
You mention the Sony which produces good pictures. I happen to like the Olympus Micro Four Thirds for going that route. Their flagship has 16 megapixels but it takes awesome photos. But the lenses (only 4 really needed) are several thousand dollars, and yes they are amazing...but it bringing me full circle. I know in my heart of hearts that FF is better in some situations. But if a lens can turn a puny 4/3 sensor into a great camera...Maybe what I lack are a couple L lenses? That's might answer some questions!
After reading the posts, I noticed you are like us infected with the " I wanna get more gear" virus which is fairly common here, I am one of the most affected here since in 2 years I bought 2 cameras (5D and 750D), one flash, reflectors, filters, camera bags and other accessories and of course seven lenses (8mm fisheye, 18-55 STM, 24-105L, Y50mmf1.8, 10-18 STM, T16-28f2.8, 70-300IS), am I using all of them ? of course no.
It was hard for me to get separated from one of my 2 50mm primes, but now I don't regret it. now I am planning to sell/donate some gear not for money but to make my bag lighter, and because I don't need it.
I suggest you do the same, it is difficult when you do it, but it helps and now I ask before buying of course it is nice, but will I use it ?
just a thought.
OTOH what improved my images is of course not lenses, nor cameras, but other accessories, a simple reflector can do marvels to a picture no lens can do. Now I am working on myself not on my gear (although I am still lurking for some lenses)
Quote:I do not know which focussing screen reviews you refer to. I know from 1st hand that for big aperture manual focus, the Eg-S is very nice. For small apertures not so much (gets dark).
I agree on the SP 500mm f8. In film times we did not magnify images so much, so that kind of lenses seemed more impressive. But now, it still is most lovely to take along (compact and light!). With FF you get a bit less reach, due to the crop factor. Which helps the lens' limited resolving power somewhat, of course. At its best when using live view and a support, so you have the time and stability to nail focus (magic lantern firmware is nice for this lens too, with focus peaking and magic zoom).
Yes, you can calculate equivalent f-stops for the same DOF with the crop factor. Handy to know.
I do not know how exactly DOF "reacts" with changing the distance and the sensor format and the focal length/FOV and aperture size. Too many variables for my brain to process today?
About diffraction softening: When you stop down both APS-C and FF to the same DOF (so: equivalent F-stops), you get similar diffraction softening on image level, too.
With equivalent settings (so: same FOV/equivalent focal length, same DOF/equivalent F-stop) you get similar sharpness on FF as on APS-C. If the lenses are the same "sharpness", one can argue that the central sharpness gets smeared out over the whole image due to the crop factor, of course. But then one can also argue that the weaker borders of the projected image get cropped away on APS-C due to that same crop factor. But yeah, with FF and APS-C with equivalent settings, you get similar softening due to diffraction.
At base ISO, when a minimum exposure time is no factor, FF does have an advantage. The moment you do need to crank up the ISO to maintain a certain minimum exposure time, the FF advantage (providing we do use equivalent settings) mostly disappears, as we have a higher F-stop on FF and therefore also a higher ISO setting. So, in practice, only when there is more than enough light, you get the FF IQ advantage.
I am happy with my 6D, I just do not agree with that FF is better for everything and everyone! For me, yes, FF has the advantage of possible bigger apertures = more shallow DOF. So, I am a happy camper with my FF 6D, indeed.
So, if you also have a more shallow DOF desire (be it a main purpose or a side-purpose), by all means try FF. But for stopped down stuff for big DOF stuff only, in my opinion FF makes way less sense. Unless you always have enough light to be shooting at base ISO regardless of the stopped down nature of things, because then FF can show a slight advantage in IQ. Although, I am quite sure the 80D narrowly beats the 6D at base ISO (at least noise wise).
About the macro thing (APS-C getting more subject magnification on the resulting image): you can always ad stuff like an extension tube when you need more magnification than 1:1 on FF. I very, very rarely find myself going towards 1:1, so it does not impact my move to FF.
Yep, happy with my 6D. Happy with it being FF, happy with it running Magic Lantern extended firmware, happy with the FF OVF it has, happy with the WiFi remote live view, happy with the Eg-S Super Precision screen for larger aperture manual focusing. And happy that I understand lens equivalence, exposure/ISO equivalence.
And I'm happy to have your input! I have a lot of older primes: 17, 24, 28, 50, 55, 90, 100, 135, 200, 300, 400 & 500mm. And it is fun to just pick one and go out shooting. But these new zooms are really addicting when you are going somewhere special and don't want to miss anything. I'm going to get a couples special lenses. But I'm less fixated on sensor size now. And I think if I really try hard, I can get it down to no more than 8-10 lenses, many of them quite small!
Quote:After reading the posts, I noticed you are like us infected with the " I wanna get more gear" virus which is fairly common here, I am one of the most affected here since in 2 years I bought 2 cameras (5D and 750D), one flash, reflectors, filters, camera bags and other accessories and of course seven lenses (8mm fisheye, 18-55 STM, 24-105L, Y50mmf1.8, 10-18 STM, T16-28f2.8, 70-300IS), am I using all of them ? of course no.
It was hard for me to get separated from one of my 2 50mm primes, but now I don't regret it. now I am planning to sell/donate some gear not for money but to make my bag lighter, and because I don't need it.
I suggest you do the same, it is difficult when you do it, but it helps and now I ask before buying of course it is nice, but will I use it ?
just a thought.
OTOH what improved my images is of course not lenses, nor cameras, but other accessories, a simple reflector can do marvels to a picture no lens can do. Now I am working on myself not on my gear (although I am still lurking for some lenses)
You are totally right! I feel I learned a lot from trying some many lenses, and most of the old lenses were cheap, and...They are things of beauty to hold, and look at. But the bottom line is during the periods when I only had one lens on my camera for years or months, I probably took the best photos, because I really learned what the lens could, and could not do. I don't really need any of the manual focus lenses. There is just some sort of mean spirited satisfaction when I can do better with a MF lens, than someone who understands even less than I do using high end gear. I think I could live with 6 good AF lenses...and I have 5 of them already!
My concession to learning lately has been getting a ring light, a ring flash, and a speedlight. Reflectors make a lot of sense as do a set of white, grey, and black cards. And I want some remote flashes. But I am not spending high dollars on these. Yongnuo actually makes good flashes. The ring light uses real flash tubes, and has to modeling LED's to assist focus. It's only like $100. And their RF remote flashes and controllers are good from what I hear.
I know no one asked but I wanted to give back a little, because you guys have helped me a lot. If you've dreamed of a ring flash or remote flashes, you can sort of live the dream. But yeah. Good lenses. Good light. Good color balance. I think we are getting somewhere!
At the moment I have old MF primes that I use om my 6D:
55mm f1.2 (Nikkor and Canon), 85mm f1.8, 135mm f3.5 and f2.8 (all Nikkor), 500mm f8. Oh, and a 55mm f3.5 micro Nikkor
For fun, a silly projection lens 140mm f1.8 thrown in there.
New MF prime (chosen strictly for size/weight): Voigtlander 20mm f3.5.
Old AF primes: Canon EF 35mm f2, Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Di macro.
AF zooms: EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM, EF 70-400mm f4 L USM.
For fun, a EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM, "converted" with a saw to mount on FF EOS, usable in the 14-18mm range.
My current APS-C kit consists of EOS M, EF-M 22mm f2, EF-M 18-55mm IS STM and that EF-S 10-18mm IS STM. Got it because it was so damn inexpensive and small. And the ultra micro nikkor 55mm f2 (too small image circle to totally cover FF frames).
Quote:At the moment I have old MF primes that I use om my 6D:
55mm f1.2 (Nikkor and Canon), 85mm f1.8, 135mm f3.5 and f2.8 (all Nikkor), 500mm f8. Oh, and a 55mm f3.5 micro Nikkor
For fun, a silly projection lens 140mm f1.8 thrown in there.
New MF prime (chosen strictly for size/weight): Voigtlander 20mm f3.5.
Old AF primes: Canon EF 35mm f2, Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Di macro.
AF zooms: EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM, EF 70-400mm f4 L USM.
For fun, a EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM, "converted" with a saw to mount on FF EOS, usable in the 14-18mm range.
My current APS-C kit consists of EOS M, EF-M 22mm f2, EF-M 18-55mm IS STM and that EF-S 10-18mm IS STM. Got it because it was so damn inexpensive and small. And the ultra micro nikkor 55mm f2 (too small image circle to totally cover FF frames).
EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM you mean?
I had the Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 Di Macro on my camera 90% for 3 years until I broke it accidentally. I used to be sure it was the sharpest lens I've ever used, but now I realize without using it on the same camera I cannot know for sure. Let's just say, I wouldn't be surprised if it was. I loved the lens, but now I'm kind of used to silent and anti-shake. As well as weather sealed, though it was well protected against dust and scratches being so recessed.
It's a nice collection you have. My (our?) weakness is in super telephoto AF. I've held out this long because I can't get what I want cheap. So...I either have to just do it, or do without a necessary part of the puzzle. As usually, I've been agonizing on which one. There are several good candidates. I think EF 100-400. I'm not sure which one. There are huge price, performance, and handling differences. Plus the mark ii is better sealed. And of course there are the really big guns by Tamron and Sigma. But I like the size of the Canon! I could actually carry it around for a while!
Quote:EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM you mean?
No, I mean the EF 70-200mm f4 L USM. :lol: The one without IS and with smooth bokeh and very good MFD IQ. (the old one).
@ chriswilson
Thanks for the suggestion to check out strobist.com. A 101 section would do me some good. I am a total believer in good light, but I am a little worse when it comes to actually learning. Usually I try something and just live with it for as long as possible. But as I think some of you have suggested, lighting really is not all that expensive. I still don't have any kind of tenting, or "studio in a box" for quickly photographing products without something like my coffee maker in the background. But I'm interested in learning about strobes and reflectors and remote flashes. So product photography with controlled lighting and background and strobe lighting and reflectors for my gorgeous models. (Whoever will put up with me!)
MY FIRST L LENS EVER HAS ARRIVED!!!
That probably doesn't make me sound very sophisticated does it? Oh, well!
Yes, that is another choice, bokeh, or stabilization. Most of my photography is done while walking around. I probably could do OK without...but I have to admit I love IS!
BTW, I have the Tamron Adaptall-2 80-200mm f/2.8. I think I must have broken it because I get terrible images with it now. I used to think it was so sharp that you would notice smaller shakes. At any rate, I don't do well with it. So I ain't takin' no chances!
|
