[stanleyk]

Those are really nice. You should get the Voigtlander 40mm. It's very sharp at maximum (unlike the 58mm). I love that lens. It does look kind of funny on the front of the D700.

I have the Cosina 55 f/1.2, and it's one of the funnest lenses I'e ever owned - but it's actually quite soft wide-open:




...it's tough to focus accurately, and and 55mm feels pretty long (to me) for indoor or close-quarters shooting.

A 50mm on FF gives me the perfect angle of view, and with FF, a bit more of DOF control if I want to use it. The angle of view is the main reason I think I shoot a 50mm on FF - it's just a small, sharp combo that's incredibly useful and fast-focusing. The DOF is kind of a bonus.

Most of my 50mm shooting is between f/2 and f/4 - where I can enjoy a good dose of sharpness on the plane of focus, good contrast, and a bit less CA while keeping the shallower DOF. My 35 f/1.8 (and FA f/2 before it) is pretty good wide-open, but not quite the same as a 50mm at f/2.8, for example.

The following is 50mm at f/2.8 on FF, no PP, and is about the equivalent of about a 33mm f/1.8 would be on aps-c - now, I'm obviously not trying for 'razor thin DOF' here, just trying for f/2.8 sharpness and contrast while retaining some nice 'subject float', an attempt to keep the attention on the plane of focus, maybe create some 'pop' - look closely at the sharpness, the contrast and color. It's just hard for me to get that wide-open with a 35mm lens I've tried on aps-c, even the 31ltd (maybe a Zeiss?)



(that's a $110 lens on FF)


These kinds of things are subtle - I'll admit that fully - but you really, really do start to notice it if you shoot a lot. You start to develop a taste and a preference.

Yes, I also like the 'look' of a fully-wide-open 50mm shot on FF, but It's not always about that:

50mm f/2 (33mm f/1.2 aps-c equiv)

50mm f/2.2 (33mm f/1.4)

50mm f/2.2 (33mm f/1.4)

50mm f/2 (33mm f/1.2)




.

[Aristophanes]

Some (as yourself) would say that the difference between a 36/2.1 and a 35/1.4 isn't visible or of no interest. Fair enough and many may share your point of view.

I am not saying there is no difference.

I am just saying it is overrated for the majority of subjects shot and display mediums, and why FF cameras are able to garner a premium. It's often extremely hard to see the difference in photos, but very easy to see the price tag.

The reality is most of the differences we see are related to lens FOV, bokeh, and other aesthetic characteristics. We have to churn through all of that and then maybe guess there is an FF shot vs. APS-C.

It is rarely if ever, completely obvious.

[RXrenesis8]

If you are used to this background you automatically assume the one showing the full picture is the creator.

Perhaps now would be a good time to put those assumptions to bed.

[jsherman999]

Those are really nice. You should get the Voigtlander 40mm. It's very sharp at maximum (unlike the 58mm). I love that lens. It does look kind of funny on the front of the D700.

What I really want is to shoot the FA 43ltd.... on the FF Pentax K1.

(Is it going to be called the K1, now that we have the K-01?)

[v5planet]

What I really want is to shoot the FA 43ltd.... on the FF Pentax K1.

(Is it going to be called the K1, now that we have the K-01?)

What I really want to see is a "Q-007", for obvious reasons.

[Aristophanes]

50/1.4 lens @1.4.

Tell me the sensor. Just an exercise. Indulge me.

[RXrenesis8]

Tell me the sensor. Just an exercise. Indulge me.

Ooh! I love these games! Though in this case it really is more a matter of perspective than bokeh. If I am guessing right that's: FF, 400 speed color film if I'm not mistaken!

Really wish there were spoiler tags...

Edit: Haha! found a workaround for em.

---

Last edited by RXrenesis8; 03-10-2012 at 07:30 PM.

[Chex]

is that a crop of a shot or 100& of the image.. because that's when it would be most noticable.. cropping way in on a FF would obviously look the same as a slight or no crop on APS-C..
My best guess would be a crop of a FF shot.. but if my FF had this kind of noise I would be looking to upgrade.. unless the film grain look was added, or it IS film, in which case it's still FF.

[Aristophanes]

is that a crop of a shot or 100& of the image.. because that's when it would be most noticable.. cropping way in on a FF would obviously look the same as a slight or no crop on APS-C..
My best guess would be a crop of a FF shot.. but if my FF had this kind of noise I would be looking to upgrade.. unless the film grain look was added, or it IS film, in which case it's still FF.

Not a crop. It's film. Kodak Portra 400. Pentax MZ-S. FA 50/1.4 @1.4.

[falconeye]

What, in your opinion, is "proper credit"?

If somebody (esp. a photographer) shows a photo which isn't his own, he will quote the full name of the photographer under the image (or add a footnote to the same purpose in a printed publication). And if possible, add a source link (which you actually did, so that's fine).

Always, with no exception. Except the original photographer is anonymous (as is sometimes the case with official product photos etc.)

It is a bit embarrassing to receive acknowledgement for a photo which isn't your's ...

Perhaps now would be a good time to put those assumptions to bed.

This is a shocking proposition. Considering we're all photographers ...

Where are you coming from?

[jsherman999]

Not a crop. It's film. Kodak Portra 400. Pentax MZ-S. FA 50/1.4 @1.4.

I wish you hadn't posted the answer because I was just going to say that there's no doubt that it's a film shot... Not because of a DOF giveaway, just because I can almost always tell when I'm looking at a scanned film shot.

Usually when people start posting images with no context and asking, "Guess me", it's because they personally don't accept or understand the the math, or have never recognized it's practical application in their own shooting. Do you not accept the math, Aristophanes?

[Aristophanes]

I wish you hadn't posted the answer because I was just going to say that there's no doubt that it's a film shot... Not because of a DOF giveaway, just because I can almost always tell when I'm looking at a scanned film shot.

Usually when people start posting images with no context and asking, "Guess me", it's because they personally don't accept or understand the the math, or have never recognized it's practical application in their own shooting. Do you not accept the math, Aristophanes?

I accept the math. In fact, I started this with saying it's math. My contention is that the math is not so obvious as to make much of an aesthetic difference.

It's like trying to tell if a golf shot from the tee is 120 yards or 110 just by eyeball.

There's little empirical evidence that the math makes a huge difference in people's perceptions of a photograph. Those that claim to see FF differences usually have internalized the metrics with their own work. We cannot measure DOF with our eyes. And when we try, we usually get into discussions about lens and softness/sharpness etc. long, long, long before we get into sensor size. Or film size. The bokeh on my film shot is remarkably closer to that from an APS-C sensor. It could easily have been from a DA 70/2.4.

There are too many variables at work to conclude that aesthetically one needs to have FF DOF. Frankly, APS-C lenses often have better bokeh IMO, in the same way that 135 lenses have better bokeh compared to a lot of MF glass. But that's just my generalization which varies from shot to shot and photo by photo with huge variance.

And because people cannot tell readily or without argument and guessing games, it acts a a brake on FF sensor development. The argument for FF DOF is not convincing because it is inconclusive. It's another reason why there's no race to make everything FF. Added DOF is probably down on the list of reasons from a market perspective.

[RXrenesis8]

Not a crop. It's film. Kodak Portra 400. Pentax MZ-S. FA 50/1.4 @1.4.

Woot!

If somebody (esp. a photographer) shows a photo which isn't his own, he will quote the full name of the photographer under the image [...]

That seems perfectly work-able, I'll do that in the future.

This is a shocking proposition. Considering we're all photographers ...

Where are you coming from?

The Internet

Sorry mate, I was never trained formally as a photographer, I'm just picking it up as I go along! I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is common practice. So it doesn't make much sense to be assuming everything people post is going to be their own. A little skepticism goes a long way!

[Canada_Rockies]

The major reason for me to want a 24x36 sensor digital camera is noise, or rather the reduction of it. A 24mp sensor on 16x24 has smaller pixels than a 24mp sensor on 24x36. The 645D or Hasselblad is fine, and would be superb, but only for scenics and studio shots. I somehow think the cougar in the wild might notice the three mules and a pack horse that I would need to carry a 645D with a lens equivalent to a focal length of 560 mm (my 400 + 1.4x = 560 f/8). that lower pixel density also allows the use of lower ISO which has a whole lot of nice effects on the image.

By the way, I tend to say 24x36 rather than "Full Frame" because, to me, a full frame camera is an 11x14 Dierdorf. Everything else is smaller. I don't have an 11x14, but I would love to do the Ansel Adams thing with one. It would only take a larger string of pack horses and mules, not to mention a lottery win or two. Oh, well, back to the K10D, which can take a really nice picture from time to time.

[bossa]

I have the Cosina 55 f/1.2, and it's one of the funnest lenses I'e ever owned - but it's actually quite soft wide-open:




...it's tough to focus accurately, and and 55mm feels pretty long (to me) for indoor or close-quarters shooting.

A 50mm on FF gives me the perfect angle of view, and with FF, a bit more of DOF control if I want to use it. The angle of view is the main reason I think I shoot a 50mm on FF - it's just a small, sharp combo that's incredibly useful and fast-focusing. The DOF is kind of a bonus.

Most of my 50mm shooting is between f/2 and f/4 - where I can enjoy a good dose of sharpness on the plane of focus, good contrast, and a bit less CA while keeping the shallower DOF. My 35 f/1.8 (and FA f/2 before it) is pretty good wide-open, but not quite the same as a 50mm at f/2.8, for example.

The following is 50mm at f/2.8 on FF, no PP, and is about the equivalent of about a 33mm f/1.8 would be on aps-c - now, I'm obviously not trying for 'razor thin DOF' here, just trying for f/2.8 sharpness and contrast while retaining some nice 'subject float', an attempt to keep the attention on the plane of focus, maybe create some 'pop' - look closely at the sharpness, the contrast and color. It's just hard for me to get that wide-open with a 35mm lens I've tried on aps-c, even the 31ltd (maybe a Zeiss?)



(that's a $110 lens on FF)


These kinds of things are subtle - I'll admit that fully - but you really, really do start to notice it if you shoot a lot. You start to develop a taste and a preference.

Yes, I also like the 'look' of a fully-wide-open 50mm shot on FF, but It's not always about that:

50mm f/2 (33mm f/1.2 aps-c equiv)

50mm f/2.2 (33mm f/1.4)

50mm f/2.2 (33mm f/1.4)

50mm f/2 (33mm f/1.2)




.

These shots illustrate perfectly the fact that normal on FF is extreme on APS-C. The tables I posted a day or so ago show clearly the impossible lenses that would be required by APS-C to match even a 50mm @F/2 on FF. The optics on an APS-C are magnified 1.5x at output for starters and enlarge any defects in the lens as well as the CoC relative to the image.

Wide angle and portrait work would seem to have that extra leeway on FF that may or may not break the shot and the relaxed space in these pictures illustrate how subtle it can be.