Originally posted by Qwntm Who said anything about stitching? Honestly I am not sure what you are saying.
Tennis ball is way smaller than a full size human being. If you looked at the link I posted, there are not photographs of tennis balls. Of course, if the subject is very small, it is very very easy to blurr the background thanks to very close subject, for instance that becomes a major problem for macro that leads to focus stacking.
Originally posted by Heie K-3, DA* 55 and 3 shots at F1.8 (haven't calculated the resulting equivalent FoV/aperture)
Yes, in all of your shots, you produce a blurred background but no perspective, due to narrower field of view of apsc you can't achieve both blurred background, subject compression and wide field of view at the same time. With aspc, when you want to create more blurr, you get closer to your subject and by doing so, you remove the out of frame scene. If you want to include mode of the scene, the background blurr diminishes. Only your second shot shows some perspective, but no progressive blurr for guiding of the eye onto the subject. Take the time to look again at the combined effect of perspective and progressive background blur. The difference is not huge, but you need to take the time to observe , and a small difference is what separate the good photograph from the extraordinary photograph.
Originally posted by Heie Bokeh is not a "sensor-size thing." It's a "lens thing"...
Of course I know this. I also know that 200mm f2 produces a blurred background regardless the format, but on full frame, the field of view is larger so you can get closer to the subject with cropping the face of your subject. At the same distance same lens on apsc camera, your subject does not fit in the frame.
---------- Post added 21-06-16 at 22:56 ----------
Originally posted by monochrome If a particular 36x24 shot can be (nearly) replicated with a crop camera, what difference does it make whether one chooses a K-1 and the appropriate lens or a K-3 and a x * (0.65mm) lens to make the image ? This pointless argument is quite simply snobbery and reverse snobbery.
No sure if I understand the wording here. Technically, I'm talking about the effect where the difference in sharpness between the subject, the subject position in the frame and simultaneous progressive blur drives the eye to the subject around which everything seems to rotate. It a special effect that is rather hard to achieve with apsc, doable with full frame without too much effort, and relatively easy to achieve with medium format.
Here, the replies are interesting. Looks like everyone see images in a different way.
---------- Post added 21-06-16 at 23:09 ----------