[ironlionzion]

Remind me what camera you are using? Why not use the earliest DSLR, or 35mm, or view cameras, or pinhole cameras. Even the earliest photographers fiddled with different materials, chemicals, papers. Engineers researched different lens designs. Sometimes they were after a different "look". But the general trend was that they were after a sharper, clearer picture. Whether or not that was beneficial to the artistic side of photography is up to debate.

The debate we are having is about the advantages and disadvantages of FF from a technical viewpoint. No one said anything about FF being more artistic. That is too abstract a concept to debate on a forums. Leave it to the photographers and artists to decide what they want to use, and let the public judge their work.

It must really piss you guys off, the artistic recognition Andy Warhol got for taking pictures with a polaroid camera with a plastic lens.

There are modern painters who use their hands, feet, sticks, branches, almost anything, to paint works of art. Some paint with what we would never have thought of as paint. To think this would anger all other painters who pursue their artwork using their fine tools of the trade is naive and pathetic. What a shallow minded insult.

[bossa]

I have to admit, I did have a few issues with the way the term CoC was being applied, but I've gotten straightened out.. but I have to ask, where is the formula that shows me what a great photograph is? All the DoF charts etc. don't answer the question... what am I trying to achieve? Am I trying to achieve the sharpest image with the most DoF, the most technically perfect image?

You'd have to prove that technical superiority is directly related to artistic superiority.

It must really piss you guys off, the artistic recognition Andy Warhol got for taking pictures with a polaroid camera with a plastic lens.

To use a tennis analogy... you can have a guy who practices every day who has pinpoint control, and who should win 100% of the points. But I can still take a chance , guess where he's going, disguise my movement, get there early, wind up and crush the ball and win the point. Because I have enough skills to play with anyone. Not win as many points as anyone, but to give them a game.

IN tennis I have to decide, do I want to practice enough to be technically as good as that guy. I don't, it's not worth it to me. But I can still win the odd point.

Well with my APS-c camera I have enough , to win a point.

Continue with your illustrations of technical superiority. I just feel l sorry for anyone who listens to them and goes FF , for technical reasons. Photography is not science. It is not defined by technical specifications, and if it was, they were exceeded by primitive cameras, a hundred years ago. They are certainly more than exceeded by APS-c.

Using Warhol as a slight when we have not been discussing ART but just "Why Full frame" and it's perceived advantages is yet another example of your out of context ramblings.

[normhead]

The debate we are having is about the advantages and disadvantages of FF from a technical viewpoint.

Well actually, no it isn't. The question was "WHy do you want full frame?" I realize the number crunchers, the more and less guys will interpret the question that way, the question could be answered many ways. Just the number and formula guys tend to step in and dominate these discussions. I haven't seen one person say their artistic vision is easier realized on an FF camera. IN fact, among the number crunchers the terms "artistoc vision" doesn't seem to come into play. I guess because they can't define it numerically.

[pinholecam]

I wasn't attacking you personally. I was pointing out aspects of the pictures you uploaded as proof that I had no idea of what I am talking about. I gave some constructive observations and nothing more. If you actually read what I said with an open mind you might eventually appreciate what I said. There was no malice in my comments at all and it's unfortunate you took it the wrong way.

Well, for all your comments, were you there with me?
Did you know what was the proximity of the bkground wrt the subjects? (they were as near as your examples, but I managed less DOF without it being a FF camera.... hmmm... that can't be right?? .. )
Would I be able to replicate 1:1 what you shot and you too for my shots?

No.

So your "constructive observations" don't hold; Neither was that the topic of discussion. (shoot a guy first and then say it was for his benefit? Nah! I'll pass.. )
The impression you wanted to bring across was that using a 21mm on FF would result in a certain FOV/DOF that was better against an APS-C at ~14mm and at smaller f-stop.
My samples simply show that for all intents of getting something 'like' it (boarder FOV with less DOF), you could be more flexible and use a longer FL, wide aperture and step back a little, rather than trying to get this dogmatic 'equivalence'.


Anyway, enough of this from me.
That expenditure in the D800 sure needs broadcast to everyone.

---

Last edited by pinholecam; 09-20-2012 at 08:48 AM.

[normhead]

The debate we are having is about the advantages and disadvantages of FF from a technical viewpoint.

Well actually, no it isn't. The question was "WHy do you want full frame?" I realize the number crunchers, the " more this and less that" guys will interpret the question as a technical question but, the question could be answered many ways. Just the number and formula guys tend to step in and dominate these discussions. I haven't seen one person say their artistic vision is easier realized on an FF camera. IN fact, among the number crunchers the terms "artistic vision" doesn't seem to come into play. I guess because they can't define it numerically.

In fact that would be easier to understand than many of the concepts trotted out here.

It's totally subjective, but, when I look at 645 images, they look incredibly sharp, technically, but for the most part, I don't like them as an artistic expression. They are just too hard. Visually I prefer softness. So what I'm arguing is that this discussion needs to be not about the math.. but about the effect.

I look at jsherman's FF images, and he takes some wonderful images... but I'm not sure it's a direction I want to go personally. To me.. you could answer the question by posting one of his excellent FF shots that take full advantage of limited depth of field... and say, if you want to go this way, if this is your artistic vision... then FF is better than APs-c and I think any of us can live with that. If I post one of my blurry pastel dreamy sunsets that is as much a flow of color as it is sharpness, the advantages of having and APS-c with 21 Ltd. mm lens on it are also pretty clear. The fact that I could use an FF camera to produce the image is irrelevant. I can do it with or without. So, I'm afraid that on the issue of technical superiority being more desirable, I'm afraid we're going to have to differ. Both systems are good enough, that for me, other factors come into play. And that's the biggest fault with these kinds of arguments. The fact that one is better than the other in a technical sense doesn't make it more usefull than the other in an artistic sense. The numbers are meaningless, without the example. I can look at a couple of jsherman's pictures and say "I can't do that with APS-c". The problem for me is, even if I had FF I wouldn't be inclined to take that picture. I tend to value FoV options more than DoF options. I can control DoF adequately for my needs with almost any camera.

By the way since I used to have my students build and use pinhole cameras, I've seen some amazing pinhole images... the fact that there has been progress in cameras in no way reduces the utility of what came before. There are clubs etc. devoted to pinhole images.

Camera's are not race cars, the best technical performance by car and driver isn't necessarily the best photograph. The best matching of the technical abilities of the camera you have to render the feel of the scene, not the actual scene, the brain does not process information the way a camera does. You can take your picture in such a way that you convey the essence of a scene when a strict technical interpretation would not. You can take a picture that helps the viewer see and feel what you saw and felt through your perceptual filters. what was actually there is irrelevant. Art is about capturing the evoking a human response, not a measure of technical precision. A pinhole camera can do that. It's not about the technology.

[ironlionzion]

The numbers are meaningless, without the example. I can look at a couple of jsherman's pictures and say "I can't do that with APS-c". The problem for me is, even if I had FF I wouldn't be inclined to take that picture.

Good for you. Maybe all camera manufacturers should just focus building cameras on what YOU, Normhead, want and need. Forget everyone else right?

Maybe you should read up on page 11 where jsherman corrects a lot of your misconceptions and false statements.

[TomTextura]

Well actually, no it isn't. The question was "WHy do you want full frame?" I realize the number crunchers, the more and less guys will interpret the question that way, the question could be answered many ways. Just the number and formula guys tend to step in and dominate these discussions. I haven't seen one person say their artistic vision is easier realized on an FF camera. IN fact, among the number crunchers the terms "artistoc vision" doesn't seem to come into play. I guess because they can't define it numerically.

Look back at my post #126 on page 9 where I quote from the sensor size article I linked to:

I'll leave you with a very relevant, accurate, and succinct quote from the article linked above on sensor size. QuoteQuote: Overall: larger sensors generally provide more control and greater artistic flexibility, but at the cost of requiring larger lenses and more expensive equipment. This flexibility allows one to create a shallower depth of field than possible with a smaller sensor (if desired), but yet still achieve a comparable depth of field to a smaller sensor by using a higher ISO speed and smaller aperture (or when using a tripod).

The tool is not the talent and no one has said otherwise. Another straw man. You've conveniently changed the topic on objective technical matters, after your many attempts to gain ground with your ill-conceived arguments failed, to a subjective one on art. I'm convinced you could give a seasoned politician a run for his money with your ability to duck and dive, twist and bend, ignore and omit, distort and deflect what the true nature of the questions, conversation, and issues are about.

I've seen posts of yours where you've said yourself that you would like an FF camera for various reasons: to get two FoV from one lens, to use the FA31 instead of the DA21, and to get the low light and low noise advantage. You've said those things. Were those not technical reasons? Were they not valid reasons? Sounds to me like your trying to walk with one leg on each side of the fence, so to speak, another similarity to what a less than honest politician would try to do. You've even expressed a desire for medium format. What is that about if not a desire to gain the technical advantages that the larger format has to offer. There are cons too FF and MF, more so for MF, at least in my summation of things. Why don't you want others to be allowed honest and valid reasons for wanting an FF camera? That is what this thread is about: Why want an FF camera?

[normhead]

I'm quite happy o support the reasons for wanting a full frame. When people start using numerical charts to explain why full frame is better than APS-c now we have a problem. The simple fact is, for most of us APS-c is good enough. Now if I can get more out of my lenses by having both FF and APS-c cameras, that's the reason I am looking at FF cameras. But that's an advantage of having both FF and APS-c cameras that can use the same lens, not an argument for FF per se.

larger sensors generally provide more control and greater artistic flexibility,

What does that statement mean.. generally? Generally I don't physically abuse people that doesn't mean it ain't gonna hurt if I slap you upside the head. Just kiddiing.

[normhead]

Maybe you should read up on page 11 where jsherman corrects a lot of your misconceptions and false statements.

jsherman is in the habit of clearing up a lot of my misconceptions and false statement, he's really good at that... and as I said, I really got confused about CoC because I forgot that in theory there is no such thing as sharp focus.. I tend to work things out from the basic math, and that was a pretty critical omission.. the problem is, that with all that he, and you and all kinds of other people have missed my point...

The line at which APS-c isn't good enough and FF is, isn't defined.. so talking technical specs is hogwash. To answer the question "why FF on an APS-c forum " you first have to show that APS-c doesn't meet your needs, then you have to show that FF. Will. I've learned a ton from jsherman, I can't say he's learned a thing from me. Your conclusion will be that's because I don't know what I'm talking about. Technically maybe not. Although, I do have the ability to go over the information in posts like this, examine my assumptions and where I've gone astray. I look at folks like you parroting all this info, but it seems to me you don't really understand it, or you'd be able to simplify in your own words. So you depend on the words of others, which are often as misleading as they are informative. Ie saying that "generally FF gives you more artistic control. " Well honestly you can take that statement at face value, but if you don't know when it does and when it doesn't you don't know anything useful.

The fact is, all the technical mumbo jumbo you've trotted out there (and I've had the joy of verifying to my satisfaction) in that I'm pretty sure I understand completely what you're talking about and could write my own formulas to demonstrate, doesn't change the overall gist of my position

It's quite possible that you could buy an FF camera and it could make no difference at all to your ability to present your artistic vision. That's been my point since day one, I'm getting tired of defending it. The functions of APS-c may be a subset of what you can do with an FF camera, but if it's all the subset you need, FF will make no difference to you.

You can quote all the tech specs you want, and it won't change that.

[TomTextura]

@normhead Well, it's good to see that you've come around a little bit.

I'm quite happy o support the reasons for wanting a full frame. When people start using numerical charts to explain why full frame is better than APS-c now we have a problem.

So you're number adverse, number phobic if you will. What if there aren't photo examples available to show one photographer or another how they might use FF because no one else uses such and such lens, or shoots in such and such situations? Are they to just be left empty handed? Or, could they take some numbers and infer from them how FF may or may not benefit them? What else are people supposed to talk about when addressing this topic? How FF or APS-C makes them feel inspired? How they have an emotional attachment to FF or APS-C? What if that inspiration or those emotions about whatever camera don't transfer from one photographer to another? The technical specs will absolutely stay with the camera regardless of who uses it, whether or not they take advantage of those technical features or not.

Quote: larger sensors generally provide more control and greater artistic flexibility, What does that statement mean.. generally?

I figured that would be pretty clear but since it's not, here's the dictionary definition of "generally".
gen·er·al·ly
adverb
1.usually; commonly; ordinarily: He generally comes home at noon.
2.with respect to the larger part; for the most part: a generally accurate interpretation of the facts.
3.without reference to or disregarding particular persons, things, situations, etc., that may be an exception: generally speaking.

saying that "generally FF gives you more artistic control. " Well honestly you can take that statement at face value, but if you don't know when it does and when it doesn't you don't know anything useful.

A lot of folks look to the numbers to know when FF does and when FF doesn't give more control. Strange, it almost appears as though you are now making a case for numbers being useful to the discussion.

Camera's are not race cars, the best technical performance by car and driver isn't necessarily the best photograph.

To run with that analogy, a faster car won't make a driver be able to drive better but it will allow them to drive faster. As to how much faster that driver will be able to drive, well, you would have to insert a number to answer that question just like you would have to insert a number to answer the questions about how much more you will be able to do or not do with FF.

With cameras and photography, numbers do matter, they can matter a great deal actually. How much dynamic range, how much DOF, how many FPS, how high ISO, how low ISO, how fast of a shutter speed, how many stops of EV compensation, and so on. You can't answer those questions without numbers. So, numbers do very much inform the discussion. Numbers are information and they are part of even the most basic cameras. Numbers answer practical questions as well. For example, how much does the camera weigh, what size is it, how many shots per battery charge, what is the estimated shutter life, etc. Believe it or not, many photographers can take numbers and then apply them not only to their purchase decisions but to their artistic vision! Technical numbers and photographic vision are neither mutually exclusive nor dependent, though you'll be better off knowing a thing or two about exposure (which requires numbers) if you want to take some more compelling photographs. Numbers and vision certainly can compliment each other, and some people give more weight to one or the other, but I don't really see how they can be at odds with each other. Arguing against numbers and/or objecting to their use in a discussion is like, well, I don't know, it's just plain silly and nonsensical. So please, no more taking issue with the use of numbers, charts, DOF calculators, or technical "mumbo jumbo" as you put it. They are valuable, they serve a purpose, and they are necessary to communicate certain points.

Cheers!

[ironlionzion]

We are stating various benefits that FF has, and you keep trying to deny them over and over. Finally, when Jsherman corrects you, you agree with him. Great. Our point has been all along that there IS a difference between FF and APS-C. Conclusion? Let people decide for themselves whether the upgrade, and it IS an upgrade, is worth it for them.

It's quite possible that you could buy an FF camera and it could make no difference at all to your ability to present your artistic vision. That's been my point since day one, I'm getting tired of defending it.

Yes, it could make no difference.

I agree that not everyone will benefit from FF, and that APS-C is everything people could have dreamed of and more, but the fact is that FF pushes that envelope even further. Stop saying that FF is unnecessary.

[ironlionzion]

In the end, Normhead, you are making the exact same argument that people make when upgrading lenses. It's true that my new FA 31mm ltd will have no effect on the quality of images I can produce. But, does that mean that high quality prime lenses shouldn't exist solely because I can't take advantage of it. Nah, that'd be a little selfish of me.

[bossa]

Well, for all your comments, were you there with me?
Did you know what was the proximity of the bkground wrt the subjects? (they were as near as your examples, but I managed less DOF without it being a FF camera.... hmmm... that can't be right?? .. )
Would I be able to replicate 1:1 what you shot and you too for my shots?

No.

So your "constructive observations" don't hold; Neither was that the topic of discussion. (shoot a guy first and then say it was for his benefit? Nah! I'll pass.. )
The impression you wanted to bring across was that using a 21mm on FF would result in a certain FOV/DOF that was better against an APS-C at ~14mm and at smaller f-stop.
My samples simply show that for all intents of getting something 'like' it (boarder FOV with less DOF), you could be more flexible and use a longer FL, wide aperture and step back a little, rather than trying to get this dogmatic 'equivalence'.


Anyway, enough of this from me.
That expenditure in the D800 sure needs broadcast to everyone.

Weren't you the guy who told me that my lens choice was 'inappropriate' for flowers and proceeded to upload pictures to show me the error of my ways?

"being there" ?
There was a repetitive 'usage' coming through in the work you presented and I was pointing that out. It had nothing to do with the environment you were operating in but more the decisions you were making when shooting your pictures. To suggest that the equipment you used created similar outcomes to the images I presented is delusional. Surely you can, at the very least, see the varying spacial aspects amongst the images?

"So your "constructive observations" don't hold"
Regardless of what you feel the discussion was about, my observations about the work you presented were still valid. Constructive input is always a good thing to get if your goal is to become more aware and learn form the insights of those around you. I have a 4 year degree in Fine Art, had numerous exhibitions of my paintings over many years, been an Artist in Residence on several occasions and taught Painting in a Tertiary institution for 2 years. I've had major public and private commissions for paintings and tapestry designs as well as a few government grants early in my career. If you think that any observations someone with that kind of experience might make 'don't hold' then I won't bother offering further insight on your behalf.

"The impression you wanted to bring across was that using a 21mm on FF would result in a certain FOV/DOF that was better against an APS-C at ~14mm and at smaller f-stop."
No. I was saying that there were extra options for full frame in that f/stop and not that FF was inherently "better" than APS-C.

"My samples simply show that for all intents of getting something 'like' it (boarder FOV with less DOF), you could be more flexible and use a longer FL, wide aperture and step back a little, rather than trying to get this dogmatic 'equivalence'."
Your pictures are nothing like my examples at all..

That expenditure in the D800 sure needs broadcast to everyone.
It's obvious there are other issues operating here and it's really not worth my further involvement in this thread.

[aurele]

Do like me, juste give up happily. Don't get sick because you are tired of saying something people don't really read.
That's one of the aspect of forums :-)

[jogiba]

I have pre-ordered the new FF Sony NEX-VG900 to use my many Pentax K-mount lenses in FF mode. My wide angle lenses will work in their native angle FOV like my 20mm, 28-300mm, 35-70mm F2.8, 15mm F2.8 etc. I will also continue to use them on my Pentax DSLR in 1.5x crop mode, 2x crop mode on my GH1/ GH2 and 5.5x crop mode on my Pentax Q.