[ElJamoquio]

See the central 50-odd percent of a FF graph - the good bit?

That's what you get, EJ. :-)

Multiply that resolution by 1.523, and you get it in FF!

You're zooming in on APS-C, and that zoom kills quality more than the corners kill quality, in my experience. Haven't seen a lens test that proves me wrong yet, either. I'm not going to say it's true for every comparison ever made, but for equivalent DOF and equivalent FOV, I haven't seen a APS-C corner ever outresolve a FF corner.

[normhead]

That ^ little fable reminds me of a wendyb post. Ah, good times, the wendyb days....

(BTW, in that shot intrusive foreground does nothing to enhance, makes it look like something a few frames away from the actual 'keeper'. And I think the bird may be over sharpened. If you shot it jpeg re-think your settings, if raw tone down the sharpening. I've seen the same problem with your landscapes.)



The folks who buy your landscapes might be interested.



I can see why. Heck, work on your technique, consider some new lens/body choices, you may be able to expand your sales into other areas besides your bread n' butter.


.

It's a true story J... the only thing that stops you from believing it is your bias towards a certain style of shooting. Many people are like me, they want the whole context of an image they want more than just the subject and a blurred background. They want to examine the other details of a scene after they finish with the subject. They resent the photographer blurring out the whole scene to concentrate on the just the subject, they want more. They want to be able to stand an examine the whole scene as if they were there. I expect a photographer to be able to achieve subject isolation through composition. Not through a technical conceit. Look at the article on composition I posted, very few of their prize winning, acclaimed photos use narrow D0F as a conceit. to many of us, it's just irritating. But, what you sell where I live is, wildlife and landscape. By the way, every time you insult one of my images you insult everyone who "liked" that image on this site, and you've insulted a lot of people.... the image you just insulted, 5 people liked it. It's not to my taste, but obviously some people like it.

What you think of my images means nothing. I won't even share what I think of yours, that means nothing as well. What means something is that I enjoy my images, other people enjoy my images, and as I've often said, if 1 in 100 people like my images and 1 in a 1000 buy one, I'll be rich. I don't have to take images I don't like, just to sell more. I can keep myself busy making images I like. And from my perspective people who do so are selling out. This is a matter of artistic integrity. I'm trained in studio product photography. I don't do it because I don't enjoy it. I'm trained in portrait photography. I don't do it because I don't enjoy it to put up with the hassles of the business. I don't do everything I can, just because I can. I do what I enjoy. I am not the way I am because of lack of training, or some imaginary knowledge you seem to think I lack.

It seems to really bother you that APS-c is better for what I do.... and your solution to that seams to tell me to try something different. I Keep saying APS-c isn't a limitation for the way I shoot. You don't seem to be able to respect that. If you're so good, you do something different. I'm happy where I am. I get great trips in one of the best Parks in the world, paid for by my guiding and photography and by taking other photographers to some really beautiful destinations only accessible by canoe. I don't know how it gets better than that. Definitely not by pimping myself to some other persons vision of photography.

[jsherman999]

I have yet to see a comparison of two lenses, where, at same FOV and DOF, an APS-C corner has better lp/ph than a FF corner. And I've looked quite a bit.

Me either. (If anyone has MTF comparisons, please post a link.)

"aps-c always has better corners because it only uses the lens sweet spot blah blah" I think is one of those truthy-sounding myths that doesn't play out in practice much, if at all.

.

[Pål Jensen]

"aps-c always has better corners because it only uses the lens sweet spot blah blah" I think is one of those truthy-sounding myths that doesn't play out in practice much, if at all.

.

It certainly is no myth if you use FF lenses with reduced quality in the corners....

[jsherman999]

It's a true story J... the only thing that stops you from believing it is your bias towards a certain style of shooting. Many people are like me, they want the whole context of an image they want more than just the subject and a blurred background. They want to examine the other details of a scene after they finish with the subject.

You're obscuring the point with generalizations that don't apply. Folks looking for an environmental portrait or something where the background is essential to the aesthetics or point of the image are not going to be fooled by bad, intrusive bokeh and weak subject isolation if the photographer just says "I meant to do that."

They'll bypass the print, go to the next tent at the art fair. I think you actually know what I'm talking about. Your weasel image is a good example of when to *not* bring the background in to share brain-time with the subject.

.

... the image you just insulted, 5 people liked it. It's not to my taste, but obviously some people like it.

Norm, you were the one who first insulted it, said you were embarrassed to have taken it. I was just following your lead. Shouldn't you apologize to the 'likers'?

I won't even share what I think of yours,

Oh, don't be disingenuous. You have, several times.

It seems to really bother you that APS-c is better for what I do.... .

NOT AT ALL. I'm bothered by easily-refutable information being presented as fact. aps-c is just fine for a lot of applications, you don't need to make up things about it.

(By the way - is your 'ignore' list a fable as well? You seem to be avidly following your ignorees. )

---------- Post added 04-03-15 at 02:11 PM ----------

It certainly is no myth if you use FF lenses with reduced quality in the corners....

The worst corners I have in my collection come from my DA15ltd. YMMV.

[Pål Jensen]

You're obscuring the point with generalizations that don't apply. Folks looking for an environmental portrait or something where the background is essential to the aesthetics or point of the image are not going to be fooled by bad, intrusive bokeh and weak subject isolation if the photographer just says "I meant to do that.".

Less than 0,001% of all published images have thinner DOF than can be achieved with APS. Making a big issue of something thats totally esoteric is meaningless. I have 200 photography books and several decades worth of National Geographic and have yet to see one paper thin DOF image in any of them (or anywhere else). The only place you find them is on the internet; they would not have been accepted anywhere else due to the obvious lack of technical skill by the photographer; ie the ability of keeping the subject in focus.

The fact that APS life size fills 50% more of the frame than FF is astronomically more important, judged from the number of worthwhile images that are actually taken, than images that lack DOF.

[clackers]

The worst corners I have in my collection come from my DA15ltd. YMMV.

That's not a FF lens, JS.

Aps-c gets the *best* out of it.

I really like it - and I think you do too - but shudder to think what would happen if I put it on my A7.

Something like the Helios 58mm looks great on APS-C, you can keep it open!

But it's the wide angle lenses that suffer most on full frame.

---

Last edited by clackers; 04-03-2015 at 01:36 PM.

[jsherman999]

That's not a FF lens, JS.

Something like the Helios 58mm looks great on APS-C, you can keep it open!

But it's the wide angle lenses that suffer most on full frame.

My 20mm f/2.8D has much better corners on my D700 & D800 than DA15ltd on K20D... My point is that this 'sweet spot' argument almost never plays out in practice. A given WA on FF may have bad corners, but if you shoot it on aps-c it's not nearly as wide either - the part of the image that's 'bad' on FF isn't even there at all on aps-c. And where you do find different-lens examples with the same FOV, as El J pointed out, it's not a general trend that the FF combos always are 'worse'.

My 20 f/2.8 vs. DA 15ltd is an example of that. It cost me $285 used, it's actually wider (13mm vs. 15mm in aps-c terms,) and it has better corners. (but worse flare control!)

[mohb]

the part of the image that's 'bad' on FF isn't even there at all on aps-c.

Wasn't that the point clackers was making?

[clackers]

Wasn't that the point clackers was making?

Thank you, Mohb ....indeed.

I can always choose a 24mm out of the bag (I have a Sigma and Samyang FF lenses) instead of 35mm if I need wider.

On an A7, I can crop to lose softness and vignetting, but now I'm throwing away pixels.

[mecrox]

Even a Zeiss 25mm has dodgy corners, Mecrox.

APS-C is using the better part of the glass - you're getting the best cut of steak, right? :-D

Only if you are using FF lenses but at that point why not use FF? No free lunch, etc. Mr Sherman above sums it all up, I think. We all know that superb shots can be taken on APS-C but there are limits, alas.

[clackers]

Only if you are using FF lenses but at that point why not use FF?

The FF lens doesn't stop working when you put it on a cropped body, Mecrox - the sweetest part of it gets used.

A Nikon APS-C camera can use *both* DX and FX lenses. The D750 can't without cropping anyway, and now pixels are being wasted.

[mecrox]

The FF lens doesn't stop working when you put it on a cropped body, Mecrox - the sweetest part of it gets used.

A Nikon APS-C camera can use *both* DX and FX lenses. The D750 can't without cropping anyway, and now pixels are being wasted.

Yes but as Mr Sherman points out, the FOV changes dramatically. That might nix the shot. There's not much substitute for a first-class lens being used as its designer intended, in my view though I realise not everyone might agree.

[clackers]

Yes but as Mr Sherman points out, the FOV changes dramatically.

See post 85.

And outdoors, you don't even change lenses, just zoom with your feet ... nothing you don't already do, Mecrox!

The sooner we ditch quasi-mystical notions of 35mm, the better.

It is the result, just like APS-C, of compromising for cost and portability reasons, the 'real' 6x7, 6x9 et al formats shot by pros 'back in the day' - formats many of our forum members used or still use.

[mecrox]

See post 85.

And outdoors, you don't even change lenses, just zoom with your feet ... nothing you don't already do, Mecrox!

Try as one might there are circs in which a D810/A7R or 645z is going to wipe the floor with APS-C, imho. You can zoom with your feet and use all sorts of stratagems but in the end there is no substitute for the real deal. Whether that's worth it is up to the individual. If I had the bucks, I'd buy one or other tomorrow with appropriate lenses. Complete overkill and a silly choice in plenty of situations, sure, but most certainly not in all.