Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-12-2016, 07:13 AM   #136
ACG
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 55
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I find nothing at all natural about shallow depth of field/ I think it's manipulative... the photographer decides what you can look at, and blurs everything he thinks is un-important. (<cough> power trip <cough>). What if I want to examine something just to the right of what the photographer considers to be important. I can't because he said I couldn't. Narrow DoF is necessary because of the technical limitations of cameras, but as per usual, after a bit, effects cause by limitation get turned round and become the goal. My ideal portrayal of a scene would be a holographic image that people could walk around and view from any angle. Ultimate depth of field, not narrow DoF.

Much of the time, I use narrow DoF because I have to, not because I want to. And if you have to do it, you may as well make a decent job of it.

In my mind narrow DoF is a technical limitation, that some have turned into an art form. The human eye is so quick, and the brain so good at stitching, it's just not the way we see. It has nothing to do with natural vision.
I agree totally. That is why i only use manual lenses with distance scales on my a7r and with the focus set at the hyperfocal distance. The shallow dof was the biggest shock for me when i upgraded to a ff system.

03-12-2016, 08:08 AM - 1 Like   #137
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 5,572
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I find nothing at all natural about shallow depth of field/ I think it's manipulative... the photographer decides what you can look at, and blurs everything he thinks is un-important. (<cough> power trip <cough>). What if I want to examine something just to the right of what the photographer considers to be important. I can't because he said I couldn't. Narrow DoF is necessary because of the technical limitations of cameras, but as per usual, after a bit, effects cause by limitation get turned round and become the goal. My ideal portrayal of a scene would be a holographic image that people could walk around and view from any angle. Ultimate depth of field, not narrow DoF.
I agree that using shallow depth of field is manipulative, but that's part of the photographer's artistic toolbox. Art itself is manipulative. The photographer is the artist - we don't get to choose how they present a scene (or elements within that scene). That said, I think shallow DoF is often used to poor effect.
03-12-2016, 08:45 AM   #138
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 923
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I agree that using shallow depth of field is manipulative, but that's part of the photographer's artistic toolbox. Art itself is manipulative. The photographer is the artist - we don't get to choose how they present a scene (or elements within that scene). That said, I think shallow DoF is often used to poor effect.
Big Mac, I couldn't agree more.

I feel a photographer is an artist and his camera/lens is his/her brush.

While others here believe in hyper realism and not distorting/adjusting/controling reality. That's fine, but not my cup of tea.
03-12-2016, 08:47 AM   #139
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 703
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I think it's manipulative... the photographer decides what you can look at, and blurs everything he thinks is un-important. (<cough> power trip <cough>). What if I want to examine something just to the right of what the photographer considers to be important. I can't because he said I couldn't.
Yes of course the photographer decides. A photograph shows a personal subjective view and hopefully attracts with a message that affects us somehow. So yes photography is manipulative. The shallow DOF helps the photographer to concentrate on the message he wants to send. It's not only about getting rid of unimportant things it's more about killing the things distracting from the message. In most cases the photographer don't wants the viewer to stroll around. He leads our eyes along the road of contrast lines to the goal of his view.

If we as photographers want to show everything on the two dimensional image sharp, we can get it by taking a lot of images and stitch them like our eyes.

To me it's really not important whether DOF comes from imperfection (a reasonable word within a physical context?) or not. As photographer I have to deal with it and can just use it to support my vision, creativity and imagination to have fun and express my messages. That's nice, isn't it?

03-12-2016, 09:34 AM   #140
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,211
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I find nothing at all natural about shallow depth of field/ I think it's manipulative... the photographer decides what you can look at, and blurs everything he thinks is un-important. (<cough> power trip <cough>). What if I want to examine something just to the right of what the photographer considers to be important. I can't because he said I couldn't. Narrow DoF is necessary because of the technical limitations of cameras, but as per usual, after a bit, effects cause by limitation get turned round and become the goal. My ideal portrayal of a scene would be a holographic image that people could walk around and view from any angle. Ultimate depth of field, not narrow DoF.

Much of the time, I use narrow DoF because I have to, not because I want to. And if you have to do it, you may as well make a decent job of it.

In my mind narrow DoF is a technical limitation, that some have turned into an art form. The human eye is so quick, and the brain so good at stitching, it's just not the way we see. It has nothing to do with natural vision. 5 minutes studying the science of perception and they wouldn't have said that.

On another note, isn't it ironic, that many of the same folks who champion high resolution, also champion narrow DoF? They get the high resolution camera, then they waste most of it's resolving power on many of their images. Just one of life's little paradoxes.

I guess if you're going to reduce the amount of an image you have in focus intentionally, the stuff you do get in focus better be darn good.

These days, you can do the effect of narrow DoF, by shooting a perfect OOF background and just photoshopping your subject into the scene. You don't even need a fast lens for narrow DoF anymore.

Just like backdrops in a photography portrait studio.

Make a catalogue of great backgrounds and just paste the people in.

But now that Ricoh have an FF camera, they have to spout the same BS as everyone else.

And here I thought they were just my kind of people.

They just want my money, just like Canon and Nikon and Sony and all the rest... I am sooooo shocked.
In Norm's inimitable eloquence, an important fact is highlighted. Narrow dof is the way to get rid of details in a scene. Noisy, busy backgrounds, etc. I ran into a photographer a while ago which challenged my assumptions about wildlife shooting. Typically you see the classic blurred background with the face in sharp focus, which is fine. This photographer had shots of wildlife in a scene fully in focus. The level of difficulty and technique, of planning and framing, where not only locating the animals but also locating them in an interesting location, positioning yourself optimally etc. blew my mind. These shots were almost impossible. Yet there they were, captured masterfully.

The photos had a different emotional appeal. Instead of the striking first impression of an isolated detail, which sometimes elicits an emotional expression these shots held your eye for a long time, drawing you into the scene in a rich sensory experience.

So in fact the full frame opens the possibility of sharper small aperture deep focus shots with amazing detail. Isn't that the magic of a larger denser sensor? We may become more interested in diffraction curves of the lenses we purchase.

---------- Post added 03-12-16 at 08:40 AM ----------

If you haven't noticed I am trying to talk myself into buying one of these things 😊
03-12-2016, 01:11 PM   #141
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,600
Why automatically assume everyone shooting landscape is using wide-angle lenses?

Others use telephoto in landscape too, for valid artistic effects (eg subject compression), but with sometimes 'negligent' but unavoidable effect on DOF.

Now we have DOF police, as well as equivalency police, it seems, to deal with in our discussions here.
03-12-2016, 01:24 PM   #142
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,743
QuoteOriginally posted by Tan68 Quote
You recommend comparing both a K5 and D800 at 100% ?

... Or, in other words, I will resize the full output from both K5 and D800 to whatever I typically view.. and then compare.

That's fine, Tan, but there will still be no difference in the noise or dynamic range in the K5 and D800 shots when you do, either.


If you raise the ISO to be 'equivalent' to the APS-C shot as was suggested, the FF will in fact now have more noise. Resizing won't change that.


I hope you realise that the 'Print' stat DXO show you is not a real measurement like the 'Screen' one is.


It isn't fake as in 'faked moon landings', but it's close.


They did not actually check the SNR, dynamic and tonal ranges of a downsized JPG. How many people have looked at DXOmark over the years, even been influenced to buy something because of its ratings, and not realised that?


From a purely mathematical point of view they added 3dB advantage for every doubling in the number of pixels, to their 'Screen' results, assuming that everyone shoots a picture of a uniform monocolour background without a subject.


Nothing to do with FF or APS-C.

DXOmark's downsampling assumption will have the K-50 being better at this than the Sony A7S, and the K-3 downsampling equal to the Nikon D750 and better than the Canon 5D MkIII. It should not be treated seriously!


Stick to the 'Screen' measurements, though, and you won't go too far wrong.

Last edited by clackers; 03-12-2016 at 01:36 PM.
03-12-2016, 02:06 PM   #143
Veteran Member
Tan68's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 396
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
That's fine, Tan, but there will still be no difference in the noise or dynamic range in the K5 and D800 shots when you do, either.


If you raise the ISO to be 'equivalent' to the APS-C shot as was suggested, the FF will in fact now have more noise. Resizing won't change that.


I hope you realise that the 'Print' stat DXO show you is not a real measurement like the 'Screen' one is.
...
DXOmark's downsampling assumption will have the K-50 being better at this than the Sony A7S, and the K-3 downsampling equal to the Nikon D750 and better than the Canon 5D MkIII. It should not be treated seriously!


Stick to the 'Screen' measurements, though, and you won't go too far wrong.
I looked at DX0 'screen' results for K5, K50, A7S

The results did not show the K50 being better than the A7S
The results showed the K50 nearly equal to the K5 with the A7S better than both.
This is what I would expect to see.

I am afraid your arguments are over my head. I am not sure any further comments will help me understand your position. I will have to leave off conversation with you. Thanks for the help, though, and have a good morning.

03-12-2016, 05:14 PM   #144
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
"1. One stop narrower DoF at the same f-stop". Refers for the most part to shooting at the sharpest part of the lens,which is 5.6 on many lenses for both APS-c and FF. So, if you're aiming to shoot with the shapers f-stop, APS-c gives you more DoF at that stop. The FF will be diffraction limited at 8. That would be the theory. Practically, the FF will have slightly more resolution to start with so will likely have a bit more resolution even after crossing the diffraction divide than the APS-c given the same MP. SO, ya, it's pretty much a moot point.
In general I've had no reason to disagree with what you've said in this thread. I'm not sure that the K-1 would be an asset to my shooting style, since {as I observed earlier here} I spend most of my time in f/5.6 or narrower apertures solely to thicken the DOF. However, I'm wondering about the statement I made bold and italics above. To me the word "limited" means "do not go beyond this point or things will get worse"; Is that what you mean here? To put this issue into context, last month I did some controlled experimentation with my Q-7 in our backyard using a paper target. For virtually {I would have to go back and pour through the original images to be absolutely certain} every lens I tested, the lens became sharper, even with that tiny sensor, until I was past f/8. I understand that part of the improvement was a result in using less and less of the "bad" part of the lens, which is a more serious issue with the Q-7 {but diffraction should also be a more serious issue with it}, but wouldn't I start seeing a decline in IQ on the Q-7 sooner if your statements about FF diffraction is true? {so it would start sooner and be much more serious for the tiny Q-7 sensor by f/8?}
03-12-2016, 05:34 PM   #145
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
You'll have to forgive me for my levity before, Jay.

Your dignified response warrants being serious for a bit.

The noise and DR aren't 'matched'. The FF RAW image deteriorates with respect to the APS-C image.

You can head to:

Pentax K-5 IIs vs Nikon D800
[INDENT]Click on 'Measurements'

Click on 'SNR 18%'

Click on 'Screen'
I'll stop you there ^

As Tan68 pointed out, you're misinterpreting DxO results - the 'screen' tab is for when you want to directly compare pixel performance between sensors. Total light & sensor size have been taken out of that comparison - it's a 100% comparison, basically. Interesting for pixel-tech comparison purposes, but not meant to be used for comparing directly how your images will turn out. A new 1'' sensor can be the 'winner' on the screen tab - yet image IQ from it is still worse than any modern aps-c camera.

You should see the D800 and K5 and D7000 for example all have about the same 'screen' performance, since they use almost the exact same pixel tech and sensor. The 'print' tab incorporates the whole sensor's Total Light in the final image.

.
03-13-2016, 04:03 AM - 1 Like   #146
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 1,487
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I agree that using shallow depth of field is manipulative, but that's part of the photographer's artistic toolbox. Art itself is manipulative. The photographer is the artist - we don't get to choose how they present a scene (or elements within that scene). That said, I think shallow DoF is often used to poor effect.
totally agree - photography is about visual editing - you might as well complain that the photographer was arrogant and manipulative not to include what was just out of shot to the left because somebody else might have been interested in it - of course it might have been the safari bus bristling with long lenses all pointing at the lion that you isolated, but that's the difference between art and comment.
03-13-2016, 04:46 AM - 1 Like   #147
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,699
QuoteOriginally posted by MRCDH Quote
K-1 So What Is Full Frame Going To Provide Over A Crop Frame DSLR
At the end of the day the K1 may well not be for everyone, as in each to their own, IMHO it's about having that choice.
03-13-2016, 05:34 AM   #148
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,785
QuoteOriginally posted by Kerrowdown Quote
At the end of the day the K1 may well not be for everyone, as in each to their own, IMHO it's about having that choice.
At the end of the day, there will be times when the K-1 isn't the right choice, and there will be times when it is. IF you want to cover all your bases, you need one, and a 4/3 or the Panasonic 1 inch sensor and a 645z. Whatever it is, you might end up liking it more than what you have.
03-13-2016, 07:06 AM - 1 Like   #149
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Tan68 Quote
I looked at DX0 'screen' results for K5, K50, A7S

The results did not show the K50 being better than the A7S
The results showed the K50 nearly equal to the K5 with the A7S better than both.
This is what I would expect to see.

I am afraid your arguments are over my head. I am not sure any further comments will help me understand your position. I will have to leave off conversation with you. Thanks for the help, though, and have a good morning.
His arguments are not over your head - they're wrong, and he's also now introducing half-baked info that contradicts how DxOmark themselves even describe the tabs. He doesn't understand the purpose of the 'screen' or 'print' tab**, and has given advice the exact opposite of the truth when he says one should focus on the 'screen' tab when buying a camera. That's a very quick path to buyer's remorse.

'screen' doesn't take into account differences in pixel density or total light (sensor size) - it's not meant to. 'screen' tells you the K3, for example, has worse noise at the pixel level than the K5 - yet anyone who owns both can tell you they're actually pretty close at the same display sizes - which is also exactly what the 'print' tab indicates. Not buying a K3 based on 'screen tab' results would be foolish, no?

There's a reason why DxOmarks aggregate scores and sensor rankings don't track 'screen' tab. For another source, see Bill Claff's PDR site, in which he compares photographic dynamic range, which track DxO pretty closely and show how the crop of a D800, for example, almost exactly matches a native D7000 and K5 shot. As you would expect.

Or, buy a used D800 and compare it yourself

50mm f/1.8 on D800 =~ 35mm f/1.1 on K5 (So if both were at f/1.8 - same exposure - DR, noise would be about 1.3 stops better on D800 in that comparison)

Oops - my DOF isn't deep enough at 50mm f/1.8, uncle Buck's face is blurry! Uncle Buck's face has to be razor sharp! Stop down!

50mm f/2.8 =~ 35mm f/1.8 on K5 (DOF, DR, noise about the same, FF @ f/2.8 vs. aps-c @ f/1.8 there.)

So - as I explained before, you had the option of stopping down to match K5 output, and you took that option ^

Or, if you don't have that 50mm lens for FF with you and you need to crop:

FF, 35mm f/2.8 cropped to aps-c and displayed at same size =~ 50mm f/2.8 on aps-c native (DR, noise about the same as well.)

Here's a good post on some of this, staying within PF: Screen vs. Print tab and pixel pitch and cropping

** for anyone new to DxO - 'screen' tab doesn't mean "how it looks on my screen" and 'print' tab doesn't mean "how it looks when I print." A way to think of the screen tab is "100% crop" and 'print' tab as "displaying at the same size, on screen or print."
.

Last edited by jsherman999; 03-13-2016 at 10:21 AM.
03-13-2016, 07:46 AM   #150
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,420
Adam needs to make a sticky thread just for the topic of FF vs. APS-C and equivalency.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, 300mm, advantages, app, aps-c, body, camera, cost, crop, dslr, f/2.8, ff, field, focus, frame, full-frame, k-1, k-3, k3, lens, ovf, pentax, pentax k-3, quality, sensor, sigma, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crop Sensors vs Full Frame :: Crop Or Crap? i83N Photographic Industry and Professionals 44 07-30-2014 06:00 AM
No Pentax Full Frame DSLR, What to Do Now Then? RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 95 07-19-2014 10:57 AM
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing? LFLee Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 11-02-2012 12:55 PM
So It's True....a Full-Frame 'Professional' Samsung Dslr Coming !!!! Confused Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 05-02-2008 04:12 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:40 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top