tweak Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, Davey said: This is going to run for thousands of posts. All I know is that the first time I took a picture with the a7sii and 55 f1.8 it blew the fz200 I'd been using for the previous two years clean out of the water. That's all that mattered. Sorry to tell you but - equivalency. FF is a just a scam . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPC Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, tweak said: By having to have your small sensor lens wide open at 0.9 whilst the FF lens is stopped down 2 stops you're never going to have the same level of IQ. Fact. Oh, OK, can't argue with fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, Davey said: This is going to run for thousands of posts. All I know is that the first time I took a picture with the a7sii and 55 f1.8 it blew the fz200 I'd been using for the previous two years clean out of the water. That's all that mattered. There you go. If you want to run the maths with this stuff, fine. Obviously the photo world is full up with these sorts of folks, this is a technical and artistic medium, but ...dang y'all... Just LOOK at the images a camera/lens produces. If it works good 'nuff for you, get to it. Go make something. Don't worry a wit if anyone says what they do is better or worse. Just do your own thing. Davey and tweak 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweak Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Just now, DPC said: Oh, OK, can't argue with fact. Open to proof showing me otherwise. But no 0.9 lens I've ever seen has amazing IQ wide open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 minute ago, tweak said: Sorry to tell you but - equivalency. FF is a just a scam . Most things are, unfortunately. tweak 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhessel Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Quote Image Quality - an image of a decent known standard of quality, as close as you can get to professional cinema applications. By having to have your small sensor lens wide open at 0.9 whilst the FF lens is stopped down 2 stops you're never going to have the same level of IQ. Fact. OK, so you shoot stopped down on the smaller sensor camera to and have the same level of IQ. Sure your depth of field will be greater but the IQ will be the same so this just proves the point that the full frame look is just shallow depth of field. Most lenses are their best around f4-5.6 so MFT will have a deeper depth of field, full frame shallower and medium/large format shallower still at that aperture. There is no magical quality that gives full frame its own asthetic it is just shallower depth of field. If you shoot the same scene from the same location, focal length, f-stop on full frame and crop sensor the common parts of the image will look identical. This can easily be done on a camera like the A7s that lets you shoot crop and full frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 But you are also never going to get the wide angle equivalence with a crop sensor that you do with a full frame, so it's more than just shallow depth of field, that is definitely part of the equation, but the separation, and FOV will not be the same. tweak 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPC Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 18 minutes ago, dhessel said: Sure your depth of field will be less More, surely? Smaller sensor, more depth (=deeper, = wider zone of acceptable focus). tweak 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweak Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 9 minutes ago, mercer said: But you are also never going to get the wide angle equivalence with a crop sensor that you do with a full frame, so it's more than just shallow depth of field, that is definitely part of the equation, but the separation, and FOV will not be the same. Exactly. Sure you can imitate FF in some regards and even calculate what could be equivilent specs in some cases, but it's still never going to be FF for every aspect that FF is. This is why FF exists and this is why FF is still used, the proof is in the pudding. The real kicker is deciding whether those small extras you gain is worth spending your money on or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPC Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Full-frame isn't shallower depth of field. It is and increased possibility of obtaining shallower depth of field, which is not the same thing. That and the possibility of having less noise in some circumstances due to larger pixels. Timotheus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhessel Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, DPC said: More, surely? Smaller sensor, more depth (=deeper, = wider zone of acceptable focus). Miss typed meant to say greater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 Right, I never thought it was some magical unicorn that made the images look like it was shot on a different medium altogether. I think there are two schools of thought with this crap... There are people like me that use terms like organic and filmic and look and there are other people that need those phrases to be quantifiable. I used the wrong word with aesthetic, when I should have just asked the pros and cons of FF. 18 minutes ago, tweak said: Exactly. Sure you can imitate FF in some regards and even calculate what could be equivilent specs in some cases, but it's still never going to be FF for every aspect that FF is. This is why FF exists and this is why FF is still used, the proof is in the pudding. The real kicker is deciding whether those small extras you gain is worth spending your money on or not. Yup, this is what I am unsure of. It helps that the D750 has a DX crop mode, so in some ways you can get double duty out of one lens, but in the end, the aps-c only camera may be enough for me. The Nikons usually go on sale a lot around the holidays so I just want to be prepared and decided, if the 750 goes on some crazy lightning sale or Black Friday sale. tweak 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Caldwell Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 58 minutes ago, tweak said: Open to proof showing me otherwise. But no 0.9 lens I've ever seen has amazing IQ wide open. A Zeiss Otus plus Speed Booster XL has pretty amazing IQ wide-open at f/0.90 on m43. tweak and jcs 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweak Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 One lens is hardly something for most to base a whole kit off, I'm not doubting there's the odd lens that's good wide open at 0.9 (although I did mean stock, not magic speed boosted ). But then that also must beg the question; would it not actually be cheaper to buy the FF equiv in that scenario? I'd say most of the misunderstanding in this thread stems from; one group of people thinking others are saying equivelencies don't exist at all, whilst the other group of people are actually arguing that cameras with different sized sensors aren't really equivalent at this point in time regardless of whether the glass can indeed be spec'd equivalently in some regards. It's all what you consider acceptable I guess. But I know there's a difference between using my Lumix Vs 7d Vs 5d and equivalent lenses don't fix that problem. But it could well be that it's the companies way of up-selling you gear? I don't know, but the difference is certainly there and real throughout most brands. That's what I'm concerned with, not whether CGI's match up or not as I don't shoot with CGI's. p.s. Those other sites linked previous I read through all had a similar theme, people just arguing because they couldn't properly understand what the other was saying as it was mixed in with people who were genuinely confused or just completely wrong. Basically like talking in a loud club to many people at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew19 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 FF can look like APS-C if stopped down. Crop sensors can look like full frame if the DOF+FOV equivalent is possible. Its all about the DOF at a given effective focal length. FF starts to become impossible to emulate with combinations like a 24mm at f/2 or 35mm at f/2 or 2.8 on FF. Those are magic. gatopardo, tweak and Timotheus 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPC Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 11 minutes ago, Matthew19 said: FF starts to become impossible to emulate with combinations like a 24mm at f/2 or 35mm at f/2 or 2.8 on FF. Those are magic. And really hard to focus ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatopardo Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 41 minutes ago, Matthew19 said: FF can look like APS-C if stopped down. Crop sensors can look like full frame if the DOF+FOV equivalent is possible. Its all about the DOF at a given effective focal length. FF starts to become impossible to emulate with combinations like a 24mm at f/2 or 35mm at f/2 or 2.8 on FF. Those are magic. Put a Sony E Mount T Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71 and those lenses on a Sony A6300 (crop sensor camera) and you will have a hard time distinguishing between the photos taken with a full frame camera from the ones taken with this setup. In real world the difference is almost pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 7 minutes ago, gatopardo said: Put a Sony E Mount T Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71 and those lenses on a Sony A6300 (crop sensor camera) and you will have a hard time distinguishing between the photos taken with a full frame camera from the ones taken with this setup. In real world the difference is almost pointless. But then you have to deal with a Sony Speed Booster Ultra 0.71. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatopardo Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, mercer said: But then you have to deal with a Sony Speed Booster Ultra 0.71. Autofocus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, gatopardo said: Autofocus? Nah, just dealing with the adapter in general and extra rear lens caps lying around, one more piece of glass you have to keep clean and protect. If I want FF, I want a camera that shoots it natively. For the price of an a6300 plus lens plus speedbooster, you are almost near the price of a FF Sony... At least a used one. For the price of an a6300 or equivalent aps-c mirrorless plus speed booster you can get a D750 and be done with it. Jmo. Ymmv. Nikkor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.