[Rondec]

But of course you could've just cropped your hypothetical FF, or ran your 300mm f/4 (why do you need an expensive F/2.8?) at F/8, right?

Think of the DA*300 on FF as a phenomenal zoom lens - a 200-300 F/2.6-4 zoom, with auto zoom.

Well, I was shooting on a K3. But Jay's point about full frame having more depth of field "options" assumes that I am shooting with lenses that give more narrow depth of field options. In this case, a 300mm f4 lens would only give equivalent depth of field options to a 200mm f2.8 lens, not more depth of field options, so I chose the 300mm f2.8 on my mythical full frame camera to allow for the more narrow depth of field options that all true full frame connoisseurs desire.

In my opinion, most people should not be shooting at the extremes of aperture, either narrow or stopped down. You shouldn't shoot at f32 or at f1.4 or even f2 in general, because the results will not be ideal.

[Na Horuk]

Do people ever wonder why the size of a can does not matter for a rain gauge?

But a full frame can gives you 30-40% more practical resolution

[ElJamoquio]

Do people ever wonder why the size of a can does not matter for a rain gauge? This should give you a very good hint as to why aperture size or sensor size do not affect SNR. Think about it.

Exactly my point!

---------- Post added 04-17-14 at 01:58 PM ----------

But a full frame can gives you 30-40% more practical resolution

See, you're getting it!

[nomadkng]

This 'one model's eye in focus' is a constant, tired example - doesn't anyone have any imagination, can't anyone think of any shooting scenario that doesn't involved close-in portraiture?

I sometimes feel like the forum world is made up of 1) studio portrait photographers who constantly worry about both eyes in focus and 2) landscape photographers who didn't realize their lenses even opened up wider than f/8
.

well, let's see, I could use sports images, which is telephoto "portraiture", if the player's in focus but the ball isn't... but if it's far away portraiture with a normal length lens, then you have such a large distance, shallow depth of field isn't an issue because you are reaching hyperfocal distances. probably the reason "everyone" uses close in portraiture as an example is because it is a common shooting theme and one where the point is demonstrated clearly in a manner most would understand. it's not a lack of creativity, it's an attempt to convey a message using a theme understandable and common to the larger reading audience.

and honestly what other scenarios does paper thin depth of field come into play? if you are shooting kids at Christmas in a dark room, you are using f1.whatever because you need a decent shutter speed, it's not creative control.

so why don't you tell me when and why f1.8 would ever be used on a widespread commercially viable product as part of creative control that doesn't involve some sort of closer work. I know plenty of fashion photogs who use ND filters when outdoors because they don't want to shoot f22 but they aren't shooting f2.8 either.

and finally, studio photographers and landscape photographers are the only shooter who really have some sort of creative control over their environment/subject. wildlife shooters shoot in available light and of a moving subject. the have NO control over their images other than fighting for as much shutter speed and as low an iso as they can get. it's point focus and shoot. sports photographers as basically the same. so when it comes to this whole nonsense of DoF/FF/Aperture/whatever equivalency thing, action/sports/wildlife shooters really could care less.

and your correct with your other rant, landscape photogs don't care about apertures below f8 for the most part either because the market expectations for landscape art is expansive depth of field. Only when you get in to macro work like a single leaf or an icicle or what not is there an acceptance of shallower depth of field.

maybe the reason there only seems to be landscape shooters and portrait shooters engaging you in the whole equivalency nonsense on forums is because that's the most common subjects and large demographic of shooter? those whole shoot constantly at f2 or 1.2 or whatever are probably the minority, and probably by a large margin. i'm always open to hear someone explain to us in real terms the value of shooting consistently at these big apertures so we understand your basis, but don't decry an entire format and a large demographic of shooter because you are in the vast minority.

that's the most irritating thing about the whole "APS-C Sucks!" postings by the full frame fanatics. Its a vocal minority who believe everyone should shoot the way they and everyone should cater to their needs. Then they try to justify the position with a false sense of superiority by obfuscating things with complex math and out of context quotes plus a whole lot of disinformation and propaganda. I'm sure i'm not in the minority when I say i'm quite tired of being told I'm an inferior photographer because I shoot and may actually like the APS-C format. Even if Pentax does come with a FF this fall, I'm not sure i'd switch formats, but if I did/do, it won't be because I've been bludgeoned to death by the shallow DoF equivalency formulae Kool-Aid drinkers.

---

Last edited by nomadkng; 04-17-2014 at 02:20 PM.

[dtmateojr]

Exactly my point!

Not really. The rain gauge analogy in fact debunks equivalency.

Edit:

Allow me to expound. Rain gauge size (sensor size) does not affect measured rain levels (SNR). Rain gauge mouth opening (aperture) does not affect measured rain levels (SNR) as long as the ratio of opening to container size is constant (f-stop).

[nomadkng]

Do people ever wonder why the size of a can does not matter for a rain gauge? This should give you a very good hint as to why aperture size or sensor size do not affect SNR. Think about it.

actually the size of the can DOES MOST DEFINATELY matter. the Y vertical scale on the side MUST be calibrated for the diameter of the opening. If you have a wide mouth can and use a ruler and mark one inch you have collected a lot more volume of rain than if you use a test tube and mark one inch on it's side.

that is a horribly out of context analogy filled with uninformed conjecture

[Parallax]

actually the size of the can DOES MOST DEFINATELY matter. the Y vertical scale on the side MUST be calibrated for the diameter of the opening. If you have a wide mouth can and use a ruler and mark one inch you have collected a lot more volume of rain than if you use a test tube and mark one inch on it's side.

that is a horribly out of context analogy filled with uninformed conjecture

Yep.

How to Build a Rain Gauge: 4 Steps - wikiHow

[dtmateojr]

actually the size of the can DOES MOST DEFINATELY matter. the Y vertical scale on the side MUST be calibrated for the diameter of the opening. If you have a wide mouth can and use a ruler and mark one inch you have collected a lot more volume of rain than if you use a test tube and mark one inch on it's side.



that is a horribly out of context analogy filled with uninformed conjecture

Please check my explanation in the edited post above.

---------- Post added 04-17-14 at 02:23 PM ----------

So as long as f-stop is maintained, sensor size does not affect snr

---------- Post added 04-17-14 at 02:24 PM ----------

Ergo, equivalency (f5.6 aps-c vs f8 ff) does not make sense at all.

[jsherman999]

... probably the reason "everyone" uses close in portraiture as an example is because it is a common shooting theme and one where the point is demonstrated clearly in a manner most would understand. it's not a lack of creativity, it's an attempt to convey a message using a theme understandable and common to the larger reading audience.

But it's a constant example (one model eye out of focus,) and it's meant to demonstrate how too-little DOF is an ever-present danger and thus anything that can bring it is potentially a bad thing. *Or* it's used as an imagined goal for FF shooters - that all FF shooters want is to get 'one eye in focus.' It's a lazy narrative, a misleading example IMO.

and honestly what other scenarios does paper thin depth of field come into play? if you are shooting kids at Christmas in a dark room, you are using f1.whatever because you need a decent shutter speed, it's not creative control.

In most cases - I've tried to make this point before many times - you are not trying to get a certain DOF, you are willing to accept the DOF you get to retain the noise advantage. Shots like this, where the DOF isn't the main 'star' of the shot, but does allow the subject to be slightly highlighted, to 'pop' a bit in the frame:

85mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8, 1/125s ISO 3600


Just a b-day kid snap, but it just a slightly more special feel to it than it would if the boxes, etc in the background were slightly more defined. I notice these differences from my aps-c shooting, because I'm always using the same FOVs as I do there and trying to minimize noise - not because I'm trying for a certain DOF. But more often than not, the DOF I get is just a little more pleasing to me.

Here's an example where noise wasn't going to be an issue, but I did try to keep it open to float the subject a bit more:

50mm f/2.2


My 35 1.8G on my D90 can give me a look like that, but would have had slightly more background definition wide-open while not being as sharp on the plane of focus wide-open as that 50 is at f/2.2.

Sometimes you just want people not to notice junk in the background, or notice it much less than the intended subject. Again, the 'pop' here is just effortless to obtain:

50mm @ f/1.8


I think it makes a big difference if you like to or need to be shooting the f/2.8 zooms - you can get looks you can only get on aps-c (from the same distances and FOVs) when you;re shooting f/1.8 primes. In 'zoom' situations, like parties, weddings, etc, you don't necessarily want to be changing primes in the middle of activity. The larger format gives you some more DOF and noise control, while allowing you to stick with that f/2.8 zoom.

Tamron 28-75 2.8 @ 44mm f/2.8


The above shot is at 44mm f2.8 - same FOV and DOF my 31ltd would give me wide-open on aps-c. The Tamron 28-75 becomes like a collection of f/1.8 primes from 18-50mm on aps-c. (& why the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is a godsend to some aps-c shooters.)

A 70-200 2.8 is like a 50-150 1.8 on aps-c. You just feel expanded in some significant ways during your shooting.

that's the most irritating thing about the whole "APS-C Sucks!" postings by the full frame fanatics.

Who are you referring to? In this thread alone I see several 'FF is a waste of time' advocates... they're always around.

Its a vocal minority who believe everyone should shoot the way they and everyone should cater to their needs.

Who's saying this to you?

... I'm sure i'm not in the minority when I say i'm quite tired of being told I'm an inferior photographer because I shoot and may actually like the APS-C format.

I would be angry about that too! Tell me, who has called you an inferior photographer because you like aps-c? I'll go lay into 'em!

.

[dtmateojr]

So the reason to go full frame is so you could avoid backgrounds
How about including backgrounds to add a sense of location? Here are snaps from my "inferior" m43 and kit lens.

[ElJamoquio]

Not really. The rain gauge analogy in fact debunks equivalency.

Not in the least. Your example proves equivalency. You must've missed my post:

Allow me to expound. Rain gauge size (sensor size) does not affect measured rain levels (SNR). Rain gauge mouth opening (aperture) does not affect measured rain levels (SNR) as long as the ratio of opening to container size is constant (f-stop).

...and the raindrop isn't larger than the bucket (diffraction). Fortunately equivalency takes care of this too!


OMGOMGOMGOMGLOLOLOLWTFSHTFIJCMP equivalency is like magic. If I could have equivalency's love child I would totally give equivalency my flower.

---------- Post added 04-17-14 at 03:53 PM ----------

well, let's see, I could use sports images, which is telephoto "portraiture", if the player's in focus but the ball isn't... but if it's far away portraiture with a normal length lens, then you have such a large distance, shallow depth of field isn't an issue because you are reaching hyperfocal distances. probably the reason "everyone" uses close in portraiture as an example is because it is a common shooting theme and one where the point is demonstrated clearly in a manner most would understand. it's not a lack of creativity, it's an attempt to convey a message using a theme understandable and common to the larger reading audience.

and honestly what other scenarios does paper thin depth of field come into play? if you are shooting kids at Christmas in a dark room, you are using f1.whatever because you need a decent shutter speed, it's not creative control.

so why don't you tell me when and why f1.8 would ever be used on a widespread commercially viable product as part of creative control that doesn't involve some sort of closer work. I know plenty of fashion photogs who use ND filters when outdoors because they don't want to shoot f22 but they aren't shooting f2.8 either.

and finally, studio photographers and landscape photographers are the only shooter who really have some sort of creative control over their environment/subject. wildlife shooters shoot in available light and of a moving subject. the have NO control over their images other than fighting for as much shutter speed and as low an iso as they can get. it's point focus and shoot. sports photographers as basically the same. so when it comes to this whole nonsense of DoF/FF/Aperture/whatever equivalency thing, action/sports/wildlife shooters really could care less.

and your correct with your other rant, landscape photogs don't care about apertures below f8 for the most part either because the market expectations for landscape art is expansive depth of field. Only when you get in to macro work like a single leaf or an icicle or what not is there an acceptance of shallower depth of field.

maybe the reason there only seems to be landscape shooters and portrait shooters engaging you in the whole equivalency nonsense on forums is because that's the most common subjects and large demographic of shooter? those whole shoot constantly at f2 or 1.2 or whatever are probably the minority, and probably by a large margin. i'm always open to hear someone explain to us in real terms the value of shooting consistently at these big apertures so we understand your basis, but don't decry an entire format and a large demographic of shooter because you are in the vast minority.

that's the most irritating thing about the whole "APS-C Sucks!" postings by the full frame fanatics. Its a vocal minority who believe everyone should shoot the way they and everyone should cater to their needs. Then they try to justify the position with a false sense of superiority by obfuscating things with complex math and out of context quotes plus a whole lot of disinformation and propaganda. I'm sure i'm not in the minority when I say i'm quite tired of being told I'm an inferior photographer because I shoot and may actually like the APS-C format. Even if Pentax does come with a FF this fall, I'm not sure i'd switch formats, but if I did/do, it won't be because I've been bludgeoned to death by the shallow DoF equivalency formulae Kool-Aid drinkers.

You know this is the full-frame subforum, right? I think you took a wrong turn.

[dtmateojr]

Raindrop is analogous to a photon of light. How is this related to your equivalency-fu? Do you understand how a rain gauge works?

BTW I cant see that image you posted but if that's the "DoF affects noise" joke then I'm already in contact with the author. DoF is affected by distance to subject therefore noise is affected by distance ROFL!!!

[jsherman999]

So the reason to go full frame is so you could avoid backgrounds

No, but one of the benefits that come with larger formats is it can give you more options to do so with available lenses.

How about including backgrounds to add a sense of location? Here are snaps from my "inferior" m43 and kit lens.

You mean like environmental portraits? You got me there! if only there were a way to control the lens pupil diameter, to control that diaphram mechanically or by wire so that DOF can be deepened... somehow... to match what micro 4/3 can bring. Well, something to wish for in the next century I guess.









.

[ElJamoquio]

Raindrop is analogous to a photon of light. How is this related to your equivalency-fu? Do you understand how a rain gauge works?

Do you understand what a photon is? The photon is in a larger place than just the bucket, and we don't know where it will be until we sense it. In other words, the 'rain' doesn't fall straight down.

BTW I cant see that image you posted but if that's the "DoF affects noise" joke then I'm already in contact with the author. DoF is affected by distance to subject therefore noise is affected by distance ROFL!!!

Let me know how it turns out. I think you misunderstood the chart. The same trend is true regardless of what the focal distance is.

[dtmateojr]

Do you understand what a photon is? The photon is in a larger place than just the bucket, and we don't know where it will be until we sense it. In other words, the 'rain' doesn't fall straight down.

That's why you have a lens, right? To make the light fall on the sensor. And when you have a lens, you have a f-stop. A f-stop is a f-stop regardless of sensor size, regardless of aperture. Can't you see how this relates to a tain gauge?!

And yes, he said that noise is NOT related to DoF "per se" but to aperture. Yeah, he started backing down on his words. I have yet to get a reply from him regarding how he measured SNR because it defies physics LOL!

---------- Post added 04-17-14 at 05:31 PM ----------

No, but one of the benefits that come with larger formats is it can give you more options to do so with available lenses.



You mean like environmental portraits? You got me there! if only there were a way to control the lens pupil diameter, to control that diaphram mechanically or by wire so that DOF can be deepened... somehow... to match what micro 4/3 can bring. Well, something to wish for in the next century I guess.









.

So which of your shots is impossible to capture with a m43 :-D