[jstevewhite]

Still, in practice, as I keep saying, way more photographers care about the FF advantage at the wide aperture end

LOL... I wrote a whole *novel* in response to this one, and then deleted it. I don't know that this line is true (way more shoot portraits than landscapes? who knows?) or false, and don't really care what the 'vast majority of photographers' care about. Honestly, I only care about the technical side of this discussion because I'm a geek at heart and I like to understand the workings of things, and the whole FF vs APS-c is an interesting puzzle - but that's all.

My intent wasn't even to get *into* the technical side of things, because I originally set out to make two points... The first being that, if we consider photography as an art form, then technical considerations are NOT artistic ones; that is, switching formats won't make better art. Different art, maybe. Soft focus filters were all the rage in the 80's, you know? Everybody had Cokin creative filters. I had a (still have; never sold it, now that I think of it) Zeiss Softar. Even in glossy magazines with the soft focus. I hated 'em, but I used 'em when an AD required it - and that was often. The slice-of-DOF look with blown out backgrounds is the same thing in this decade. So let me say it again: Technical features do not make better aesthetics, they make different ones.

My second point was that, in the end, the photographer matters more than the format, and that goes DOUBLE for the FF vs APS-c. People dismiss my "view test" ideology out of hand, but I think it's important. If I cannot discerne the differences in the output, the differences in the input are irrelevant*. If you have the same photographer shoot 12 images with a P&S, 12 images with an APS-c, 12 images with a FF, 12 images with a MF, and 12 with a 4x5, then print 'em all at 8x10, shuffle 'em together and spread 'em on a table... well, you'll get good separation from the P&S to the others, and good separation from the 4x5 to the others (those are easy to spot). MF will get less separation, but still some of the images will stand out. FF and APS-c will be indistinguishable unless you shoot the same image as jsherman did. Even then if I don't know the focal length, it might be hard to detect. By far the greatest input into great images is the vision of the photographer - so much so that format becomes *irrelevant* except as a preference of the photographer. I've said it before - I've seen arresting gallery hangings by photographers who shot with disposable cameras and got 4x6 prints and made collages. I had a friend who had several gallery hangings of SX-70 images, and they were lovely.

So 1) technology doesn't make art, and 2) artists do. We can get lost in the minutia of technical considerations, but what really matters is what's behind the camera. The claims of objective superiority are aimed at technological features, but technology doesn't make art, people do.

edit:
*Irrelevant in an objective sense; not irrelevant to the photographer, who may have a personal preference.

---

Last edited by jstevewhite; 05-20-2011 at 07:56 AM.

[jstevewhite]

I think the discussion has degenerated quite a bit.

You're right, sorry - I'm a geek, I can't help it. I live in front of the computer (my job), and when the little mail icon pops up... LOL

That said, I pretty much agree with everything you posted here.

[jsherman999]

I Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0. I bet they didn't stop making it because it was selling TOO well; what's your bet?

My bet is that it wasn't optically very good, and was prohibitively expensive, sort of what I would expect from a smallish 30mm f/1.0 for aps-c.

Edit: A quick wiki search says:

...Despite its price (costs $2500 according to Fredmiranda - ed.) and large maximum aperture, the 1.0L was not a particularly sharp lens at any aperture, and the two cheaper 50mm options offered far better sharpness when stopped down beyond about f/2.8.

A good, small, affordable f/1.0 lens is going to always have design barriers for anything aps-c and above. I'd love to be proven wrong.

.

[jstevewhite]

My bet is that it wasn't optically very good, and was prohibitively expensive, sort of what I would expect from a smallish 30mm f/1.0 for aps-c.

Edit: A quick wiki search says:

A good, small, affordable f/1.0 lens is going to always have design barriers for anything aps-c and above. I'd love to be proven wrong.

.

But they sell for more money now that they did new. Why isn't Canon all over that? That's more-or-less rhetorical, as our *opinions* of the business viability of high-priced fast lenses aren't really informed, and can't really be; manufacturers spend thousands and thousands of dollars doing studies to FIND OUT if something is going to make them money.

Most fast lenses aren't sharp wide open. The 50 1.0L is almost certainly sharper than any of them at 1.0, innit? (I got that from some other thread where the same thing was being discussed - the softness of fast lenses, that is ). The Pentax 50mm 1.4 and 55mm 1.4 are *abominable* at 1.4, for instance. (by "abominable", I mean "less sharp than they are at f22", in this instance ). The Canon and Nikon seem to exhibit variations on this theme.

In the 80s nearly everyone was saying "The only reason to buy an F1.4 lens is so you can focus in low light; none of them are sharp at that aperture." I think the absence of 50mm 1.0 lenses has more to do with that than anything. It's a lot to pay for a brighter viewfinder.

[Marc Sabatella]

LOL... I wrote a whole *novel* in response to this one, and then deleted it. I don't know that this line is true (way more shoot portraits than landscapes? who knows?) or false, and don't really care what the 'vast majority of photographers' care about. Honestly, I only care about the technical side of this discussion because I'm a geek at heart and I like to understand the workings of things, and the whole FF vs APS-c is an interesting puzzle - but that's all.

Fair enough. My observation about which end of the scale people care about more is based on "real world" observations - the fact that quite a few people bring this up as an advantage for FF, and hardly anyone ever takers the line of argument you are taking here. And on viewing images and seeing which end of the scale people seem to be exploiting the most. But I'm with you on the geekness of all this. I'd say we've settled out the facts as well as we can, and for that I'm glad. I am still unclear on the whole hyperfocal distance thing and if the traditional DOF formulas really do get this as wrong as the one you posted suggests, and that does kind of bugs me. But knowing that cropping is the workaround to any failure of equivalence when it comes to hyperfocal distance allows my inner geek to let that go.

My second point was that, in the end, the photographer matters more than the format, and that goes DOUBLE for the FF vs APS-c.

Definitely agreed! It's funny, we keep going back and forth on the difference in DOF, and of course, other discussions often center on noise or other attributes, but the actual *magnitude* of the differences are often laughably small when you really get down to it. This is, in a nutshell, why I expect to never have any interest in FF. I can calculate advantages on paper until I'm blue in the face, but I can also very readily see that none of that really matters to me. For most images I take, I've never see the difference, whereas the difference in size/weight and in price I am very aware of.

FF and APS-c will be indistinguishable unless you shoot the same image as jsherman did.

You know, so far, he has managed to sell a lot of people on a lot of lenses based on his images. Now I can see him doing the same for FF. If anyone was ever going to be convinced there was going to be a technical difference that mattered to them, those images are as good a demonstration as you'll get.

[jstevewhite]

Definitely agreed! It's funny, we keep going back and forth on the difference in DOF, and of course, other discussions often center on noise or other attributes, but the actual *magnitude* of the differences are often laughably small when you really get down to it. This is, in a nutshell, why I expect to never have any interest in FF. I can calculate advantages on paper until I'm blue in the face, but I can also very readily see that none of that really matters to me. For most images I take, I've never see the difference, whereas the difference in size/weight and in price I am very aware of.

Word. It's funny, people look at my K-5 with battery grip and say "Good god that's a huge camera." I love the K-5 sensor, but I actually liked the K20D 'in the hand' a little better.

I've said the thing I miss the most about 135 isn't IQ; it's VIEWFINDER... lol.

You know, so far, he has managed to sell a lot of people on a lot of lenses based on his images. Now I can see him doing the same for FF. If anyone was ever going to be convinced there was going to be a technical difference that mattered to them, those images are as good a demonstration as you'll get.

Yeah, but it's not the FF OR the lens, it's jsherman. Give him a kodak Disc camera and he'll make great images. Kinda ironic that this was my original point...

It was fun, and I got a better understanding of the math from it.

[jsherman999]

.

In all seriousness, I really want to get my point across on this stuff, but wouldn't want my enthusiasms to be mistaken for implicit advice to go out and just buy an FF system.

I always harp on 'understanding the numbers', because that's the only way you can understand what a FF camera would mean to your photography, and only then can you determine how important it is, how much that's worth to you. (Unless you're lucky enough to be able to borrow a body and the right lenses for a week or more - which the very best way to understand, because it includes the feel/handling.)

This DOF-control question is one of the last remaining issues that has a lot of confusion around it, so I usually chime in when the discussion turns that way. That doesn't mean that I think the delta in DOF control between the two formats is earth-shattering. It is what it is. I find it valuable and fun, others wouldn't give a rip. And you know what? We're both right.

.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 05-20-2011 at 01:49 PM.

[jstevewhite]

.

In all seriousness, I really want to get my point across on this stuff, but wouldn't want my enthusiasms to be mistaken for implicit advice to go out and just buy an FF system.

I always harp on 'understanding the numbers', because that's the only way you can understand what a FF camera would mean to your photography, and only then can you determine how important it is, how much that's worth to you. (Unless you're lucky enough to be able to borrow a body and the right lenses for a week or more.)

This DOF-control question is one of the last remaining issues that has a lot of confusion around it, so I usually chime in when the discussion turns that way. That doesn't mean that I think the delta in DOF control between the two formats is earth-shattering. It is what it is. I find it valuable and fun, others wouldn't give a rip. And you know what? We're both right.

.

As it stands, the only thing I think we're still disagreeing on is the DOF on the hyperfocal end of the spectrum, right? I mean, I agree that the FF gets less DOF on the wide open end and that's probably preferred by more photographers. I don't agree that you get MORE DOF at the hyperfocal end unless you change lenses and FOV (swap&crop, etc), or allow the FF lens to stop down farther (which seems hardly fair as you won't let the APS-c lens open up farther). That's the only technical issue I can see from our discussion.

[Ratmagiclady]

I've said the thing I miss the most about 135 isn't IQ; it's VIEWFINDER... lol.

We can say that a lot. Viewfinder.

[jstevewhite]

We can say that a lot. Viewfinder.

So based on the recommendation in another thread of this forum, I ordered a 1.36X viewfinder magnifier. I'll report back on it

[jsherman999]

As it stands, the only thing I think we're still disagreeing on is the DOF on the hyperfocal end of the spectrum, right?

I don't know.

If by 'the hyperfocal end of the spectrum' you mean what happens to DOF control between the formats at really small apertures and wide focal lengths where that hyperfocal line is getting close, tell you the truth I don't even have an opinion on that, because I can't remember the last time I shot at f/16 (maybe sometime last summer,) let alone f/22. I'm never feeling restrained by 'not enough DOF' by f/11 in either format. I was letting you and Mark hash that out, because I just find it theoretical, while the f/5.6, f4, f2.8, f.2 etc shooting is something I do in practice every day.

I do think that what Bon Atkins was probably getting at with his 'as long as the subject is a significant distance from hyperfocal' caveats was simply a warning that if you park your subject way out there near the hyperfocal line, you'll have a lot of trouble telling the difference in DOF between formats at any output size. Practical shooting makes this obvious, too.


.

[jstevewhite]

Just to clarify something that we were hashing out in our discussions, I wanted to show people what f/22 looks like at 100%. This is from my FA 50mm f1.4 @ 100%. I apparently forgot to shoot one at 1.4 and at 2, but as it's still improving in sharpness beyond f2.8, this should be a good illustration anyway.

Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch


The f/22 image is CERTAINLY less sharp than the 5.6 image, but it's very close to this f2.8 image. Both are FAR down from the lens peak between 5.6 and 8, but still useful. Here is the f/22 image, uncropped. I think even Marc might agree that it's pretty far from "destroyed" by diffraction




( yeah, I know I blew the highlights. Sorry. )

[jstevewhite]

I don't know.

If by 'the hyperfocal end of the spectrum' you mean what happens to DOF control between the formats at really small apertures and wide focal lengths where that hyperfocal line is getting close, tell you the truth I don't even have an opinion on that, because I can't remember the last time I shot at f/16 (maybe sometime last summer,) let alone f/22. I'm never feeling restrained by 'not enough DOF' by f/11 in either format. I was letting you and Mark hash that out, because I just find it theoretical, while the f/5.6, f4, f2.8, f.2 etc shooting is something I do in practice every day.

I do think that what Bon Atkins was probably getting at with his 'as long as the subject is a significant distance from hyperfocal' caveats was simply a warning that if you park your subject way out there near the hyperfocal line, you'll have a lot of trouble telling the difference in DOF between formats at any output size. Practical shooting makes this obvious, too.

For what it's worth, I do agree that more photographers *nowadays* will be looking for control at the thin end. I do, however, think that's fashion, in some respect; selective focus has always been a technique, but many photographers have turned it into a style. I love your work that I've seen here, and the DOF is well chosen - not many people looking for that DOF control can use it the way you do. But that applies to any technique or piece of equipment, yes? LOL.

[jsherman999]

Just to clarify something that we were hashing out in our discussions, I wanted to show people what f/22 looks like at 100%. This is from my FA 50mm f1.4 @ 100%. I apparently forgot to shoot one at 1.4 and at 2, but as it's still improving in sharpness beyond f2.8, this should be a good illustration anyway.

Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch


The f/22 image is CERTAINLY less sharp than the 5.6 image, but it's very close to this f2.8 image. Both are FAR down from the lens peak between 5.6 and 8, but still useful. Here is the f/22 image, uncropped. I think even Marc might agree that it's pretty far from "destroyed" by diffraction




( yeah, I know I blew the highlights. Sorry. )

.


For a brief second I thought you were using one of my old Tak 35 shots as an example somehow - looks similar, down to the same position of trellis

[jstevewhite]

.


For a brief second I thought you were using one of my old Tak 35 shots as an example somehow - looks similar, down to the same position of trellis

ROFL wow! That is very similar. But your Peony is much brighter!