Hi Serkan,
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1286891774' post='3594']
Well, what I've learned from forums (and I personally believe so) is that the investment is better made for the lenses. The lenses are the faithful friends... But all in all, I think the choice must be depending on the way we take pictures. My 70-300mm will be fine with the D700 because I barely used the 250-300mm range in my D90. What I'm looking forward to is whether the 70mm will still be deadly sharp or not. Also, my expectations regarding D700 are below the 50mm range (Nikon 24-85D and Zeiss / Nikon 50mm) and moreover the 105mm micro.
Kind regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
I agree with the statement about glass before bodies, but not necessarily when the choice is between FF and APS-C. Certainly for me it was quite a revelation, going from APS-C to FF, and of course, it may be different for others, but the increase in IQ to me was almost earth shattering in nature.
I started with a 350D, and a bunch of lenses when moving to dslr from slr, and that indeed was quite a step up already. At the time I could have gotten myself a 5D instead at the time, maybe with a few lenses less. If I'd known in advance, I actually would have chosen that road, instead of going from 350D to 400D X2 to 40D and finally a 5D in addition, later followed by the 5D II. Apart from the fact that I would have saved money, FF just provides a very difficult to describe quality you don't get with APS-C. Even lesser lenses seem to look better in FF. And really good lenses, well, until this day shots that I throw away are still a pleasure to look at. As indicated, YMMV, but that certainly is how I feel <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />.
Do I regret the path I followed, in the end? No, not really. After all it is an evolutionary path, getting used to the new paradigm and its new way of processing etc., and ever striving for a little more perfection, especially low light performance, IOW, IQ, and then there is the VF as well. However, my biggest step in IQ increase was going from the 40D to the 5D classic. And that was just keeping all lenses the same except for the few EF-S lenses I had, although the EF lenses got slightly different uses.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1286910200' post='3595']
...
However, my biggest step in IQ increase was going from the 40D to the 5D classic.
...
[/quote]
That's how I would like to feel after the D90 --> D700 leap... Actually, I'm pretty sure that I can expect more:
40D (1,6x cropped, 10MP, 14bit, DIGIC-III) --> 5D (FF, 12MP, 12bit, DIGIC-II)
D90 (1,5x cropped, 12MP, 12 bit, EXPEED, 420pixel RGB sensor) --> D700 (FF, 12MP, 14bit, EXPEED, 1005pixel RGB sensor)
Kind regards,
Serkan
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1286885964' post='3592']
For me the #1 advantage of FF is shallow DOF (isolation)
...
[/quote]
...if only we're talking about fixing the FOV (size of object field) and comparing the DOF of cropped and FF bodies. I never had the chance to test it with a FF body but the readings regarding this show that it's the other way around. Let's say that we have a FF compatible 50mm lens and two bodies (FF & 1,5x cropped). The [url="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html"]DOF calculator[/url] gives following results:
FF + 50mm (F=5.6 and 10m distance from subject) --> DOF = 24,8 meters
1,5 Cropped + 50mm (F=5.6 and 10m distance from subject) --> DOF = 11,3 meters
But,
FF + 75mm (F=5.6 and 10m distance from subject) --> DOF = 6,58 meters (same FOV as in cropped 50mm, shallower DOF)
This relationship between focal length / sensor area / and field of view is very tricky.
Kind regards,
Serkan
10-13-2010, 12:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-13-2010, 12:14 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1286970603' post='3604']
...if only we're talking about fixing the FOV (size of object field) and comparing the DOF of cropped and FF bodies. I never had the chance to test it with a FF body but the readings regarding this show that it's the other way around. Let's say that we have a FF compatible 50mm lens and two bodies (FF & 1,5x cropped). The [url="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html"]DOF calculator[/url] gives following results:
FF + 50mm (F=5.6 and 10m distance from subject) --> DOF = 24,8 meters
1,5 Cropped + 50mm (F=5.6 and 10m distance from subject) --> DOF = 11,3 meters
But,
FF + 75mm (F=5.6 and 10m distance from subject) --> DOF = 6,58 meters (same FOV as in cropped 50mm, shallower DOF)
This relationship between focal length / sensor area / and field of view is very tricky.
Kind regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
It is very simple.
if you use 100mm and f2 on full frame, you need to use 100 / 1.6 and f2 / 1.6 (Canon) or 100 / 1.5 and f2 / 1.5 (on Nikon/Sony/Pentax) with APS-C to get the same field of view and the same DOF.
Nothing tricky about that... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Problem is, that there is no 63mm f1.2 lens (Canon), no 67mm f1.3 lens (Nikon).
There is also no equivalent for a 85mm f1.8 (for Canon, the 50mm f1.2 comes close... but look at the price), a 85mm f1.4, a 85mm f1.2, a 50mm f1.4, a 50mm f1.2, a 35mm f1.4, a 24mm f1.4. Or even a 200mm f2.
So yes, of course you can get similar field of view/DOF combinations with APS-C and FF. But also, of course you can do things DOF wise you can not do with FF.
FF only is "important" if you are a photographer who actually uses shallow DOF.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1286970603' post='3604']
...if only we're talking about fixing the FOV (size of object field) and comparing the DOF of cropped and FF bodies. I never had the chance to test it with a FF body but the readings regarding this show that it's the other way around. Let's say that we have a FF compatible 50mm lens and two bodies (FF & 1,5x cropped). The [url="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html"]DOF calculator[/url] gives following results:
FF + 50mm (F=5.6 and 10m distance from subject) --> DOF = 24,8 meters
1,5 Cropped + 50mm (F=5.6 and 10m distance from subject) --> DOF = 11,3 meters
But,
FF + 75mm (F=5.6 and 10m distance from subject) --> DOF = 6,58 meters (same FOV as in cropped 50mm, shallower DOF)
This relationship between focal length / sensor area / and field of view is very tricky.
Kind regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
Not exactly.
Let's say you have the same 50mm f/5.6 lens from your example:
If you shoot with 1.5x crop sensor from 10 m distance, DOF is 11.3 m (so far so good).
However once you mount it on a FF camera, in order to fill the frame with exactly the same picture, you need to get closer to the subject by 1.5x factor.
And if you shoot with FF from ~6.7 m distance, DOF is ~7.5 m.
I just thought - by changing the distance to the subject by 1.5x, DOF decreased by 1.5x as well (11.3m vs 7.5m). However as DOF is based on the hyperfocal distance which uses f^2, DOF / focal distance relation is not linear - you can't just multiply the focal length of the lens by 1.5x (75mm as in your example) to get the FF DOF equivalent. If it makes sense :-)
Well, before that, if this DOF calculator works correctly, the DOF is 5,79m (not 7,5m) for the focusing distance of 6,7m (FF & 50mm focal length, F=5.6). But it is still not equal to 6,58m (as in FF & 75mm & 10m distance). I think because the aperture is the variable here to be taken into conderation (because the of the change of distance from 10m to 6,7m). I don't think simply multiplying with 1.5x factor would show the correct result.
Regards,
Serkan
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1286978300' post='3610']
Well, before that, if this DOF calculator works correctly, the DOF is 5,79m (not 7,5m) for the focusing distance of 6,7m (FF & 50mm focal length, F=5.6). But it is still not equal to 6,58m (as in FF & 75mm & 10m distance). I think because the aperture is the variable here to be taken into conderation (because the of the change of distance from 10m to 6,7m). I don't think simply multiplying with 1.5x factor would show the correct result.
Regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
Use "." instead of "," as the decimal point (put 6.67 m).
Frankly, in spite of my ignorance so artfully demonstrated by Brightcolours, I think this last part of the discussion is loosing sight of the wood for all the trees. I think Wim puts it very well; the IQ, the ability to shoot at lower light with same or similar lenses and the "non explainable quality of the pictures" make he difference. Of course shallow DOF is important, but it is only part of the whole. I have rented a D700 for a couple of days and used it with my FX lenses, the 70-300 and the 50mm 2,8 macro and even for me, a publicly certified ignoramus <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> in the photographic field, the difference is amazing. I am trying to find out when the D800 is coming, but at some time in the not so distant future, I wll be shooting FX. Kindly Vieux Loup
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1286981672' post='3612']
Frankly, in spite of my ignorance so artfully demonstrated by Brightcolours, I think this last part of the discussion is loosing sight of the wood for all the trees. I think Wim puts it very well; the IQ, the ability to shoot at lower light with same or similar lenses and the "non explainable quality of the pictures" make he difference. Of course shallow DOF is important, but it is only part of the whole. I have rented a D700 for a couple of days and used it with my FX lenses, the 70-300 and the 50mm 2,8 macro and even for me, a publicly certified ignoramus <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> in the photographic field, the difference is amazing. I am trying to find out when the D800 is coming, but at some time in the not so distant future, I wll be shooting FX. Kindly Vieux Loup
[/quote]
Aye aye sir grumpy! :-)))
|
