[ElJamoquio]

That is an agenda. Otherwise you would say it once, maybe twice and be done with it - but no, you have to tell us that FF is cheaper (sometimes adding that it's "for you").

full frame is expensive!

It was cheaper for what I wanted to do. I suspect it would be cheaper for you, too. Have you looked into equivalence and figured out what the lenses that do what you need cost?

full frame is expensive!

It was cheaper for what I wanted to do. I suspect it would be cheaper for you, too. Have you looked into equivalence and figured out what the lenses that do what you need cost?

full frame is expensive!

It was cheaper for what I wanted to do. I suspect it would be cheaper for you, too. Have you looked into equivalence and figured out what the lenses that do what you need cost?

full frame is expensive!

It was cheaper for what I wanted to do. I suspect it would be cheaper for you, too. Have you looked into equivalence and figured out what the lenses that do what you need cost?

full frame is expensive!

It was cheaper for what I wanted to do. I suspect it would be cheaper for you, too. Have you looked into equivalence and figured out what the lenses that do what you need cost?

full frame is expensive!

It was cheaper for what I wanted to do. I suspect it would be cheaper for you, too. Have you looked into equivalence and figured out what the lenses that do what you need cost?



Yup, I've said it multiple times. For me, it was cheaper than high-end APS-C, and I think it's pretty much true for *most* people - lower end FF would be a better solution than higher-end APS-C.

If you want me to stop reading my posts that challenge incorrect assumptions, you're in the wrong subforum.

---------- Post added 06-14-14 at 09:46 AM ----------

Fantastic. Quote of the year!

---------- Post added 06-14-14 at 06:45 PM ----------



Are you telling that manufacturers are printing the wrong focal lenght on their lenses?

Yes. Lenses are still lenses even if they're attached to sensors.

[normhead]

It's funny how so much of the FF focus ignore the fact that of 90% of the apertures available, there is an equivalent for the FF image on APS-c. It's only wide open. That FF has an advantage... it's always been the flaw in the argument that you need FF for narrow DoF. I can understand why some folks might want that. What I can't understand is that they actually thin the rest of us should.

The good arguments for FF , D800 - and A7r - resolution.
D4s and A7s - low light performance.
Portrait/wedding photographers -the ability to shoot in low light and isolate their subjects using narrow DoF. "The look."

There are reasons not to use FF.
As a rule, narrow DoF is not a reason for using FF, because equivalence says, most of the time, you have every option in APS-c you do in FF. Only wide open does FF have an advantage there. If your the kind of guy trying to maximize resolution with the gear you have, you're not going to be shooting wide open anyway.

I think the coolest thing about a D800 is with it's resolution it lets you shoot wide open at wide open apertures and still get more resolution than you'd get with your APS-c, if you like that kind of thing.

The bad thing is if you have D600 and a K-3, in the long end or macro, the K-3 is going to kick your FF butt.

And it's going to be hard to argue you don't get enough background separation. On images like this the advantage is clearly with APS-c. The most popular thread on the forum with the most likes, is the 300 plus lens club. There's a reason for that. A photographer who knows long lenses and knows what the best bang for his buck is, is going to be shooting APS-c. But the thing is , for me, I couldn't find a narrow DoF portrait on my computer if you asked me to. I look at some of the photos posted by the guys who shoot FF, and you can see exactly why they went that way. They do shoot wide open, and they treasure that 3D look.

To me it's cliche... each to their own.
That being said, if I owned a 31 ltd, 43 ltd and 77ltd, I'd buy a Sony A7r when the price drops.. for the resolution. But those would cost me more than the camera body.

No background separation? pffft we don't need no more stinkin background separation. There are pictures in the post your FF photos thread that don't have as much background separation.

Now lets talk about what having to shoot at a higher f-stop would have done to my shutter speed if i wanted to maintain my DoF on this shot. Equivalence works both ways. The simple fact is, with an FF camera, I could have to reduce my shutter speed so much I got motion blur from the movement of the critter and I wouldn't have had a useful image instead of a keeper.

But hey, the thread is about why you want FF, so refer to the first part of the post.

[ElJamoquio]

It's funny how so much of the FF focus ignore the fact that of 90% of the apertures available, there is an equivalent for the FF image on APS-c.

That would be funny, if it were true.

The fact of the matter is that, if you understand equivalence, you understand that any picture taken on any format can be duplicated on any other format.

If you look at conventional lens availability, sure, DSLR FF has a bit of an advantage over DSLR APS-C in terms of shallow DOF. But you could easily (and Voigtlander has) design fast lenses for other formats.

[Kunzite]

Yes. Lenses are still lenses even if they're attached to sensors.

But are they still lenses when they're not attached on any camera? If so, what's their focal length?

The fact of the matter is that, if you understand equivalence, you understand that any picture taken on any format can be duplicated on any other format.

And if you understand photography you realize this "equivalence" claim is BS.

P.S. Full frame is more expensive for me - and I'm prepared to pay for it.

[ElJamoquio]

And if you understand photography you realize this "equivalence" claim is BS.

If you understand physics and you understand photography, you understand the BS is the BS claim.

[normhead]

That would be funny, if it were true.

The fact of the matter is that, if you understand equivalence, you understand that any picture taken on any format can be duplicated on any other format.

If you look at conventional lens availability, sure, DSLR FF has a bit of an advantage over DSLR APS-C in terms of shallow DOF. But you could easily (and Voigtlander has) design fast lenses for other formats.

Thats what I just said, do you even read what I said?

But if you read the article I linked to, there is absolutely no equivalency at all anywhere, for equivalency has to work it has to have "every thing else equal" and with different sensors and lens designs, nothing is ever equal. That is an absolute optical physics fact. It's a theoretical concept useful only as a rule of thumb... to give folks an overview... not to comment on real world comparisons.

I defy you to find an FF 70 mm lens and a 50 mm APS-c lens that both have exactly the same optical design and sensor. Now here's the catch, they must be the same sensor and have the same absorption characteristics, but the FF has to have 24 MP in a full frame size, and the APS-c has to have the 24 MP in an APS-c format. That is impossible, and strictly speaking, equivalency is impossible.

And the article I linked to says so, if you want to argue, please leave me alone and go argue with him. He's a lot smarter than me, and maybe has more patience.

[Pål Jensen]

Yes. Lenses are still lenses even if they're attached to sensors.

The Pentax FA645 45/2.8 mounted on a K-mount camera is fully equivalent to a hypothetical FA 45/2.8 on a K-mount camera. Thats why both are labeled 45/2.8 by the manufacturer. Where is the lie?

[ElJamoquio]

Thats what I just said, do you even read what I said?

Yes. You're saying some things are correct. You're also saying things about people that aren't correct.

I defy you to find an FF 70 mm lens and a 50 mm APS-c lens that both have exactly the same optical design and sensor.

I defy you to explain to me why a double gauss normal lens cannot be made for an APS-C.

Here's the catch: they must follow some arbitrary and irrelevant set of characteristics.

You do remember that you're in the forum where people are talking about possible future products, right?

---------- Post added 06-14-14 at 10:22 AM ----------

The Pentax FA645 45/2.8 mounted on a K-mount camera is fully equivalent to a hypothetical FA 45/2.8 on a K-mount camera. Thats why both are labeled 45/2.8 by the manufacturer. Where is the lie?

The lie is when - in other circumstances - manufacturers have deliberately modified the focal length of the lens and not modified the aperture, and then declared victory over far superior lenses.

But of course you already know that.

[Kunzite]

If the lie is in writing a fake focal length, how can writing a fake aperture make it right?

[ElJamoquio]

If the lie is in writing a fake focal length, how can writing a fake aperture make it right?

Actual focal length, actual f-stop: fine
Equivalent focal length, equivalent f-stop: fine, easiest to understand if it was an industry-wide trend
Equivalent focal length, actual f-stop: marketing department trying to take the best of both worlds and deceive customers.

fake focal length, fake aperture: I'm not sure what a 'fake' focal length or fake aperture is.

[eyeswideshut]

That would be funny, if it were true.

The fact of the matter is that, if you understand equivalence, you understand that any picture taken on any format can be duplicated on any other format.

If you look at conventional lens availability, sure, DSLR FF has a bit of an advantage over DSLR APS-C in terms of shallow DOF. But you could easily (and Voigtlander has) design fast lenses for other formats.

That is wrong and typical of the fogging introduced by thinking in terms of equivalence.

If the proposition that "any picture taken on any format can be duplicated on any other format" were true it would completely ignore that you are dealing with different lenses and I can assure you, no two lenses are the exactly the same. So if I use my old Olympus OM 50mm f/1.4 on ff and equivalize with a Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 on mft I would have to completely ignore the fact that both lenses have absolutely unique character wide open and produce very different results indeed. The images will simply NOT be the same.

What you mean to say, is that images will be equivalent in terms of equivalency's parameters - but that means nothing in terms of actual photographs. Therefore this whole equivalency notion is just not very useful - no matter how much you may think it helps you make smarter puchasing decisions.

[ElJamoquio]

That is wrong and typical of the fogging introduced by thinking in terms of equivalence.

If the proposition that "any picture taken on any format can be duplicated on any other format" were true it would completely ignore that you are dealing with different lenses and I can assure you, no two lenses are the exactly the same. So if I use my old Olympus OM 50mm f/1.4 on ff and equivalize with a Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 on mft I would have to completely ignore the fact that both lenses have absolutely unique character wide open and produce very different results indeed. The images will simply NOT be the same.

What you mean to say, is that images will be equivalent in terms of equivalency's parameters - but that means nothing in terms of actual photographs. Therefore this whole equivalency notion is just not very useful - no matter how much you may think it helps you make smarter puchasing decisions.

If Voigtlander designed and built a 50mm f/1.8 with the exact same parameters as the 25mm f/0.95, the two systems would produce pictures that would be indistinguishable. I have no idea what that old Olympus lens does and I don't need to know.

This is the vaporware forum, if you recall.

[Pål Jensen]

Equivalent focal length, equivalent f-stop: fine, easiest to understand if it was an industry-wide trend

Equivalent F: stop is the same F:stop. You are mixing up DOF with F:stop just like you are mixing up focal lenght with angle of view....
No wonder equivalency is a mess....

---------- Post added 06-14-14 at 08:53 PM ----------

If Voigtlander designed and built a 50mm f/1.8 with the exact same parameters as the 25mm f/0.95, the two systems would produce pictures that would be indistinguishable. I have no idea what that old Olympus lens does and I don't need to know.

This is the vaporware forum, if you recall.

Not true. That depends on where you focus and what aperture you shoot with among other things.

[ElJamoquio]

Equivalent F: stop is the same F:stop.

No, it isn't.

You are mixing up DOF with F:stop just like you are mixing up focal lenght with angle of view....
No wonder equivalency is a mess....

Let's say I pick up a bridge camera that says '28-300mm f/2.8' on it. I have a FF camera. What focal length should I expect to be able to emulate on my FF camera with that bridge camera?




---------- Post added 06-14-14 at 08:53 PM ----------

Not true. That depends on where you focus and what aperture you shoot with among other things.

I was assuming you'd leave the lens cap on for both systems.

[Kunzite]

fake focal length, fake aperture: I'm not sure what a 'fake' focal length or fake aperture is.

Anything other than the focal length and aperture; for example, aperture multiplied with a random "factor" is a fake aperture.

I was assuming you'd leave the lens cap on for both systems.

You mean, "equivalence" falls apart as soon as you take the lens cap off, and start taking pictures? Finally, something we agree on.