[osv]

lol... feel better now? yes, you'll have to suck it up, ovf is dead tech, it's just a matter of time until canikon/pentax dumps it.

the real question is, if the evf magnification is pulling pixels at a 1:1 ratio, will 24mp give the same level of magnification, regardless of sensor size.

[Rondec]

I wonder how many APS-C F/1.8 lenses you'd need to have to get system that does what a couple of FF F/2.8 zooms would do.

Depends on whether you are buying brand name or not. I don't think Nikon f2.8 zooms are cheap. The 24-70 is what, 1900? And the 70-200 is 2400. Seems like you could buy a couple of f1.8 primes for that -- even if you got FA limiteds.

[Imageman]

1900+2400=4300


You can buy 200 primes for that. I bought 12 primes for 200


Oh yes I have to manual focus, big deal.


If I want a zoom for walkabout I use the zoom I bought with a film camera for all of 20, oh yeah I had to pay postage on top must have cost me all of an extra 10.


Come on guys this hobby doesn't have to cost a lot if your willing to do some traditional photography.


Buy cheap gear, save some money, get some beer in, have a party.

[wullemaha]

Come on guys this hobby doesn't have to cost a lot if your willing to do some traditional photography.
Buy cheap gear, save some money, get some beer in, have a party.

How dare you having fun with your hobby using antique gear?!
It's all about the numbers...

:-P

[normhead]

How dare you having fun with your hobby using antique gear?!
It's all about the numbers...

:-P

Everytime someone sees a 30x20 print on my wall, people asks me "How many lw/ph is that image, and what are the CA numbers of that lens."

But really.. nobody cares. in fact, if I look at prints Tess and I have sold, I'd have to argue lower resolution is better.

[jsherman999]

"That was always been true with FF anyway."


I have been shooting outdoor portraits for years and I can tell you (regardless of your test) that when I switched to a cropped digital camera I had to move my subjects several feet from the background. Sometimes 20-30 feet whereas with a film camera the subject only needed to be 5-10 feet from the background at the same aperture.

This ^^ is the kind of thing a lot of apsc-only (or m43-only) only shooters don't have first-hand experience with, so they discount it as 'not important' - as if what they find important should apply to everybody

If you shoot a lot in a certain FL range, and especially if you value clean low-light shots in these circumstances - you really notice the difference, and begin to value it. If you shoot f/8 landscapes all day, obviously not so much.

58mm f/1.1 on aps-c

(85mm f/1.8 on FF)

33mm f/1.4 on aps-c

(50mm f/2.2 on FF)

120mm f/1.8 on aps-c

(180mm f/2.8 on FF)

13mm f/1.8 on aps-c

(20mm f/2.8 on FF)

33mm f/1.1 on aps-c

(50mm f/1.8 on FF)

33mm f/1.4 on aps-c

50mm f/2.2 on FF


Then maybe there are times when you just want prime-like DOF (and noise) control from your workhorse f/2.8 zooms:


50mm f/1.8 on aps-c

(75mm f/2.8 on FF, from Tamron 28-75 2.8)

50mm f/1.8 on aps-c

(75mm f/2.8 on FF, from Tamron 28-75 2.8)

29mm f/1.8 on aps-c

(44mm f/2.8 on FF, from Tamron 28-75 2.8)


Just a slightly-enhanced ability to 'float' your subject more at those same FOVs, and the ability to enjoy less noise in the low-light situations where you can accept (or prefer) the less-DOF.


.

[ElJamoquio]

To be honest, if you want shallow deph of field, the 1.5 factor is not enough to make the difference. If the deph of field is huge on APSC is will be still huge on FF (a little less so). If the deph of field is very small on FF it will be be very small on APSC (a little less so).

Using a 24mm (or even 35mm) f/1.4 on an FF will not make make the scene very shallow if you are not near your subject... And APSC would get it too anyway.

On the opposite using a long lens like 85mm f/1.4 will allow for very shallow deph of field on both sensors. For things to really start to be of importance, the crop factor should be like 2 or more. Here this start to be really visible.

Nikon and Canon sell F/2.8 lenses for, more or less, $1k more than their F/4 lenses. They seem to have sold millions of them over the years.

[normhead]

Great photos as per usual Jay... a true aficionado of the narrow DoF genre.

[Rondec]

This ^^ is the kind of thing a lot of apsc-only (or m43-only) only shooters don't have first-hand experience with, so they discount it as 'not important' - as if what they find important should apply to everybody

If you shoot a lot in a certain FL range, and especially if you value clean low-light shots in these circumstances - you really notice the difference, and begin to value it. If you shoot f/8 landscapes all day, obviously not so much.


Just a slightly-enhanced ability to 'float' your subject more at those same FOVs, and the ability to enjoy less noise in the low-light situations where you can accept (or prefer) the less-DOF.


.

I think, Jay, that most of your images would not have been harmed by having a little more depth of field. My experience is that it is a lot easier to spoil an image through too little depth of field than through too much.

I took this photo of my son the other day with the DA *55 at f2 and I wished after the fact that I had stopped down more so that the toy was in focus as well as my son (I also took a photo with the toy in focus and my son soft, but if I could go back I would have shot at f4 and gotten both in focus, even if the background was less blurred).

[MMVIII]

lol... feel better now? yes, you'll have to suck it up, ovf is dead tech, it's just a matter of time until canikon/pentax dumps it.

the real question is, if the evf magnification is pulling pixels at a 1:1 ratio, will 24mp give the same level of magnification, regardless of sensor size.

Sure. But be aware, whatever EVF you buy this month it will feel and be old tech in half a year. If you are happy with a 2000$ - or 645z 6000$ - investment with the technical half life of a mobile phone then this is fine. If not, like me, you would hope for this technology to come to a maturity point where I don't see it for the next two generations.

[Imageman]

Sure. But be aware, whatever EVF you buy this month it will feel and be old tech in half a year. If you are happy with a 2000$ - or 645z 6000$ - investment with the technical half life of a mobile phone then this is fine. If not, like me, you would hope for this technology to come to a maturity point where I don't see it for the next two generations.

digital technology will never mature we have to get used to it, its the corporate strategy of the 21st century.


I worked for a major car manufacturer. Their policy was every single model they make is updated and changed for a newer model every single year without exception.


Consequently they employ thousands of design engineers just to cope with all the design changes to every single model.


This will never change and digital camera manufacturers are no different, new sales are generated by keeping right up to date with technology advances and generating new sales through improved image making this has never been more important than it is now.


As for the cost of our "hobby" manufacturers cannot make shutters that last more than 100,000 actuations it appears, and other parts are wearing out in less than 20,000 actuations on some cameras.


As many digital "photographers" now machine gun 1000 actuations in a days shooting, that means that as photographers become more prolific and less discerning, future cameras will last maybe 6 months before theyr completely worn out.


4000 dollars a year makes for a very expensive hobby.


Take fewer better pictures, use a camera - FF or APSC or 4/3 or Q or film, whatever floats your boat and stick with it, I have some news, - They are all good

[Class A]

It's much easier to keep more of the subject in focus and I get more enlargement of the subject.

It is just as easy to get as much of the subject in focus using a larger format, simply by stopping down one more stop. The larger f-stop on a larger format does not translate into a noisier image because the total amount of light is the same (as you know, if you understand equivalence between formats).

You only get more enlargement of the subject, if your pixel pitch is higher. Nothing to do with format size. You get as much enlargement out of a D800 as you get out of a K-5.

It is true that there is currently no FF camera that gives you as much (digital zoom) enlargement as a 24MP APS-C camera, but it is also true that the APS-C format is rather "resolution hungry" as a smaller part of the image is enlarged to the same size as an FF image, thus establishing higher requirements regarding lens sharpness and AF accuracy.

Once you take the different enlargement factors into account, some IQ concerns are seen in a different light. For instance, the myth that FF corners are weak has been dispelled by falconeye. Since FF requires less enlargement the aberrations in the FF corners are less visible than you probably expect.

BTW, there are further advantages to FF which have been discussed at length elsewhere. It is tiring to see FF proponents being reduced to "shallow DOF" aficionados time and again.

shoot lots of landscapes macros and wildlife images, and look more to have everything in focus. I don't shoot portraits very often, so for me, giving up the extra DoF of APS-c to get the narrow DoF of FF, is pretty much a bad idea.

You don't have to give up any extra DOF when switching to FF. Just stop down a stop more.

It is true that you won't get f/32 (the equivalent of f/22 on APS-C) on an FF camera because many lenses do not stop down further than f/22, but they don't for good reason: Already at f/22 you get so much blur through diffraction that IQ suffers badly. Effective resolution drops down to ~2MP. Such high f-stops don't make sense on these format sizes. If you need the DOF, either get a view camera or perform focus stacking. Stopping down to f/32 is not a good solution.

[hjoseph7]

Then you have lots of photos to show us, demonstrating this point right?

Or are you just another internet expert, saying "trust me"?

But in any case, it's like me saying I've never had the same succes with macros with a 35mm sensor, I had with my K-3. It's much easier to keep more of the subject in focus and I get more enlargement of the subject. So you shoot lots of outdoor portraits and love narrow DoF. I shoot lots of landscapes macros and wildlife images, and look more to have everything in focus. I don't shoot portraits very often, so for me, giving up the extra DoF of APS-c to get the narrow DoF of FF, is pretty much a bad idea. Now when I taught student to do DoF separation from a point and shoot, I did have to have them 30-40 feet from the background, and I notice you slyly said "cropped digital camera" not APS-c camera, which totally negates your argument.

See I'm a guy that with film (35x24) thought 85-105 was a good portrait lens. SO to me using 70 for portraits is an easy switch. If you like wide angles for portraits, then the difference becomes more pronounced. But that is not strictly camera dependant. it's a combination of your style and the camera selected. I hope you'll understand that what you say might appeal to a very limited audience, among those who have chosen to shoot APS-c. They tend to be people for whom APS-c works really well.

Guy there is no need to get hostile and emotional, the numbers speak for themselves F2.8 X 1.5 =f4.2, f5.6 x1.5 = f8.2, no matter how much you rationalize.
The magic word here is "Choice". It's like having a Zoom lens . With a zoom lens I have the choice to go from 24mm to 70mm, not so with a fixed 24mm lens. Same goes with a FF camera, you have more choices(given a certain lens) to shoot the type of picture you want. Does not mean that you are ever going to use all the choices only that the choices are there.

---------- Post added 08-10-14 at 10:59 AM ----------

I think, Jay, that most of your images would not have been harmed by having a little more depth of field. My experience is that it is a lot easier to spoil an image through too little depth of field than through too much.

I took this photo of my son the other day with the DA *55 at f2 and I wished after the fact that I had stopped down more so that the toy was in focus as well as my son (I also took a photo with the toy in focus and my son soft, but if I could go back I would have shot at f4 and gotten both in focus, even if the background was less blurred).

That's a good point you have to be careful with a shallow depth of field, but let's say you are shooting group shots, whether outdoor or indoor and the background is really busy and distracting. A shallow DOF will help you blur that background so that it is not so distracting, or keep it from blending right in with your subject. Of course these days you might be able to do this in Post Processing, but this might require a lot of work, especially if you have hundreds of images to edit.


How to get blurred backgrounds with a kit lens:
How to get a blurred background from your dSLR's kit lens - CNET

[normhead]

Funny how, when you explain something, people accuse you of getting hostile. Is pointing out the error of someone's thinking hostile, or just trying to correct an impression someone makes that amy not be accurate? If you think that's hostile, you're definitely in the wrong place.

I'm not disputing your numbers, I'm telling you, they don't mean what you think they mean.

Oh, and you haven't seen me hostile

[hjoseph7]

Funny how, when you explain something, people accuse you of getting hostile. Is pointing out the error of someone's thinking hostile, or just trying to correct an impression some makes that amy not be accurate? If you think that's hostile, you're definitely in the wrong place. T

I'm not disputing your numbers, I'm telling you, they don't mean what you think they mean.

How to get blurred backgrounds with a kit lens:
How to get a blurred background from your dSLR's kit lens - CNET