Jump to content

Is full frame really necessary?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, maxmizer said:

how much time wasted in useless chatter...

On the contrary, the last few pages of discussion gets right to the heart of the question raised. And I think many people would agree that the answer is:

  • The necessity or desirability of a format size depend on whether the lenses available for that format will give you the visual qualities that you value.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sad day .  To find out I’ve only been using parts of my images for years?  Bummer. 

You must have a very large penis. 

can i get you boys dueling pistols for xmas ? then we can settle it once and for all 🙄

Posted Images

2 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

On the contrary, the last few pages of discussion gets right to the heart of the question raised. And I think many people would agree that the answer is:

  • The necessity or desirability of a format size depend on whether the lenses available for that format will give you the visual qualities that you value.

This argument overlooks the use of speedboosters, the fact that smaller sensors can via adapters use lenses designed for larger sensors and the issue that many fullframe lenses have crops for certain frame rates.. ie Panasonic for 60p.  

For me the visual qualities I require come with codec and colour science.  Not sensor size.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, noone said:

You think the tests get close enough but then when you see a(often very small) difference you attribute that to a difference between formats instead of between the optics.

No.  You are mistaken.  You need to more carefully read what I have said.  I usually attribute differences in equivalency comparisons to failures of the testers.

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

There is no reason you would get a difference in vignetting if you used identical formula lenses to match the crop (IE scaled).

It might be helpful for you to actually read what I wrote.

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

I simply can NOT match my ancient 300 2.8 with M43 (other than the $35000 plus Arri 150 1.3) or my ancient 24 1.4 (because there are no 12mm m43 f0.7 lenses) or my ancient 85 1.2 (again, no 42.5mm f0.65 lenses which is approaching the limit in air).   No high quality tilt shift lenses either like my favourite 17 f4.

How is this relevant?

 

By the way, if you use mirrorless cameras with shallow mounts, a tilt/shift adapter works with many lenses.

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

If I could do what i can with m43 (or Pentax Q) what i can with FF, I would only be using that.

So, are you saying that larger formats have qualities that are lacking in smaller formats?

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

A 600mm 8x10 f9 lens would be equivalent to about a 90mm 1.4 FF (so about a 45mm f0.7 M43).

600mm 8"x10" lens is more like an 80mm FF lens (or like a 40mm M4/3 lens).

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

If you COULD get a lens to match it  (it IS possible even if there are none) it would yield a very similar photo even without being the exact same lens design.

There are a few 80mm FF lenses.

 

There would likely be a difference between the look of two formats with such a narrow focal length and with the apertures set for a shallow DOF.

 

 

22 hours ago, noone said:

If the lens was 600mm f8, then that would be almost impossible to match with m43 as that would be about a 90mm f 1.2 FF so you would need an aprox 45 f0.65 to even give a similar if not exact photo.

Well, that would actually qualify as a look inherent in a larger format that is impossible in a smaller format, wouldn't it?

 

 

23 hours ago, noone said:

You have yet to show that there is ANY difference BECAUSE of the differences in sensor size and so far all difference have been because of the optics and not getting an exact match.

You really need to read what I wrote in regards to optics and sensor size.

 

The failure to get a match is usually due to tester mistakes.  In addition, all of the testers so far were not actually testing DOF.

 

Incidentally, in regards to your earlier claim about it being impossible to get an exact match with two lenses that have the same focal length and that are designed for the same format, here is that very comparison by Shane Hurlbut.  It looks like an exact DOF/focus match to me, but the exposure is slightly different (likely due to a difference in lens transmission).  So, exact focus matches are possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

None of it is even proving that fullframe is necessary.   I could argue why shooting film is necessary and produces a look different to digital, but it still doesn't prove it necessary.

What makes a format necessary are what someone considers to be desirable qualities.  We are discussing the desirable qualites of larger formats vs. smaller formats -- which involves FF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

This argument overlooks the use of speedboosters,

We haven't directly touched on speedboosters in this thread, but there have been other discussions about how speedboosters/focal reducers are involved in format looks.

 

 

14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

the fact that smaller sensors can via adapters use lenses designed for larger sensors and the issue that many fullframe lenses have crops for certain frame rates.. ie Panasonic for 60p.  

The adapter/crop issue has been addressed in this thread.

 

 

14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

For me the visual qualities I require come with codec and colour science.  Not sensor size.  

The format looks in question do not involve sensor size, per se.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tupp said:

What makes a format necessary are what someone considers to be desirable qualities.  We are discussing the desirable qualites of larger formats vs. smaller formats -- which involves FF.

Its still confusing 'necessary for an individual' to 'necessary for everyone'... if we are narrowing it down to what is necessary for a single individual, the answer is massive and can cover such a wide range to make the question pointless to ask in the first place.  

Maybe the thread has turned from Is Fullframe necessary, to whether larger sensors is desirable to certain needs and style.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tupp said:

We haven't directly touched on speedboosters in this thread, but there have been other discussions about how speedboosters/focal reducers are involved in format looks.

 

 

The adapter/crop issue has been addressed in this thread.

 

 

The format looks in question do not involve sensor size, per se.

I was replying to a single post and answer that summed up what the entire thread had demonstrated..   I feel this thread has only shown personal needs and not whether there is a wider need for others to adopt fullframe or larger sensors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all us older fellows who spent years shooting Kodachrome 135 slides, full frame is what
we used. Anything smaller was grainier and softer. So I think FF has an immediate attraction due
to so much of our personal photo history from the 1960’s to the 2000’s.

But now the smaller digital formats have higher performance in video, years sooner than the larger formats, since smaller sensors are faster. And cheaper.

Fuji will be coming with a new generation of APS-C (XH-2?) which may once again jump way ahead of the new FF, since Fuji does not need to hold back on specs to protect a FF line. Hopefully Panasonic will do the same with GH6 and not skimp on high video performance due to S5.

Note: I just saw a post elsewhere that had pie chart showing FF was about 10% of market vs. APS-C being about 90%, 2018-2019.  FF may be growing but it looks like it's not about to dominate the market for quite a while yet, if ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tupp said:

 600mm 8"x10" lens is more like an 80mm FF lens (or like a 40mm M4/3 lens).

 

I wrote a very long post replying (and mostly disagreeing) to all your individual points but have just deleted it as there is no point continuing.

All I will say is this..

 The crop factor to FF for an 8x10 camera is .15 which means it is a 90mm  equivalent lens.

We do not know what the aperture was for that photo, I do not know if it would be possible to get the same photo (if it was an F9 or f12 lens then YES, it would be POSSIBLE but you would first have to have a lens of the exact same formula and match the crop exactly which no one is going to do ...again, that is WHY I prefer FF, I can get lenses I can not match with M43.   

It seems to me

1) We AGREE that there are lenses available for some systems that are not available for others.

2) You believe there is a difference between formats to the point if anyone ever does do an EXACT scaled match between formats there would still be a difference in the photos. (I do not).

Happy to reply further if you ever post a test or a link to a test that DOES match system EQUIPMENT exactly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

It seems there is disagreement on the crop factor of 8x10 format.

Some sites say .15x (600mm would be 90mm equivalent) some say .13x (600mm would be 78mm equivalent).   I guess you would never get an exact match due to the different aspect ratios.

crop factor calculator sites give 78mm though so I am happy to go with 78mm equivalent if it matters as that does not change anything (differences being down to optics, not sensor size)..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the .13 crop factor would actually mean it IS very doable to "match"  (enough to satisfy me anyway) with a 600mm f9 (or even f8) 8x10 lens to M43.

Using .13 instead of .15 as the crop factor, you would need about a 39mm f1.2 lens for the f9 or an f1 lens for the f8. (again though, we do not know what it actually was).

A 40mm 1.2 would give a close enough photo. but you could even use an existing Kipon 40mm f0.85 (a lens for both M43 and APSC formats) and keep the change!

Just found that interesting and I would love to see someone do a direct comparison (between an 8x10 camera anyone got a digital back that size with a 600mm f8 lens who also has M43 with a Kipon  40 f0.85?   Great! I look forward to the tests).

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Which is the exact reason I’m on M43. 

M43 video IQ, IBIS and compactness in tandem are a great combo for my work.

I also know what I want in FOV’s so I do the math when I mount a lens.  No biggie. 

In addition, the few DOF scenarios we are not able to achieve on M43 are generally setups I wouldn't want to use for video anyway.

I can't match a 85mm full frame f/1.2, but at the same time I want BOTH the eye and the eyelashes in focus at the same time in my videos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

In addition, the few DOF scenarios we are not able to achieve on M43 are generally setups I wouldn't want to use for video anyway.

I can't match a 85mm full frame f/1.2, but at the same time I want BOTH the eye and the eyelashes in focus at the same time in my videos.

I used to have a 55mm Canon FD f1.2 on a speed booster for my M43 cams... I mean, that's kinda in the ball park.  On M43 that would render DOF shallowness like a f1.8 on FF.  So that narrow focal plane capability was there if I wanted it.

(turns out I really didn't that much)

Also had the Voight 42.5mm f.095.  Which is a 85mm f1.9 FF equivalent on M43.  All decent lens stuff and kinda neat to own.  

And I'll be honest, having the extra bit of "oomph" that FF gives is nice sometimes, not going to deny it.  (I mean, I still have a 5D)  But, in my world it's not worth the trade off of exceptional IBIS and some really crazy compact gear...and the shooting flexibility that offers.  

That small gear flexibility is often overlooked by a lot of videographers, I think.  I love going on shoots with modest stuff;  a single small satchel camera bag and a tiny camera --then knocking out ridiculous handheld shots that look like they rolled off a jib or camera dolly tracks.  I'll take that capability as long as it's available.

Other people like piling on a bunch of outboard stuff so much that even a modest DSLR ends up looking like some Panavision rig on a major studio movie production set.  That's fine if that's what you want, just not my tempo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, noone said:

A 40mm 1.2 would give a close enough photo. but you could even use an existing Kipon 40mm f0.85 (a lens for both M43 and APSC formats) and keep the change!

That 40mm Kipon f0.85 is designed for APS-C, so it should be slightly closer in look to larger formats than a lens designed for M4/3.  Also, as I have mentioned, cropping into a lenses image circle will change the look and make the image softer.

 

However, I found examples of that lens wide with a open aperture on an APS-C sensor.  Although that lens is not an equivalent focal length to the lens of the 8"x10" image I linked earlier in this thread, it yields comparably shallow DOF, so it should give us a rough idea of how lenses for smaller formats behave in such shallow DOF scenarios.  Here is one example.

 

Of course, the Kipon APS-C lens looks softer and more mushy wide open, with the 8"x10" lens exhibiting more resolving power and a crisp image.  Also, the plane of focus with the 8"x10" lens seems more solid and well defined than that of the APS-C lens.  The APS-C lens additionally suffers from chromatic aberration (remember, Caldwell confirmed that lenses for smaller formats are more prone to aberrations).

 

I think that these differences between these two lenses are common to most lenses made for lager and smaller formats, and that the such results will largely be consistent in any proper DOF/format comparisons that might follow.

 

 

On 9/20/2020 at 2:04 PM, noone said:

Just found that interesting and I would love to see someone do a direct comparison (between an 8x10 camera anyone got a digital back that size with a 600mm f8 lens who also has M43 with a Kipon  40 f0.85?   Great! I look forward to the tests).

I too would like to see a proper DOF/look comparison done between larger and smaller formats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tupp said:

Of course, the Kipon APS-C lens looks softer and more mushy wide open, with the 8"x10" lens exhibiting more resolving power and a crisp image.  Also, the plane of focus with the 8"x10" lens seems more solid and well defined than that of the APS-C lens.  The APS-C lens additionally suffers from chromatic aberration (remember, Caldwell confirmed that lenses for smaller formats are more prone to aberrations).

I think that these differences between these two lenses are common to most lenses made for lager and smaller formats, and that the such results will largely be consistent in any proper DOF/format comparisons that might follow.

There is another factor with the new digital cameras which will complicate DOF/format test results.

My Fuji X-T3 recognizes specific Fuji lenses and automatically corrects aberrations for those lenses in camera.

I have FF Canon, Takumar, Minolta 35mm prime lenses with dumb adapters, and none of them are as sharp and clean as the two APS-C Fuji zoom lenses I use. The Fuji zooms don't show color fringing. My FF 35mm primes and Nikon F zooms do (on very close examination).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jay60p said:

There is another factor with the new digital cameras which will complicate DOF/format test results.  My Fuji X-T3 recognizes specific Fuji lenses and automatically corrects aberrations for those lenses in camera.

That's a good point, and such in-camera "lens correction" features have existed for a long time and are not unique to Fuji cameras.

 

The primary in-camera feature that might affect DOF tests would be the chromatic aberration correction.  In-camera reductions of barrel distortion, vignetting, and local color changes (from frame center to edge) are less involved in DOF/focus.

 

 

13 hours ago, Jay60p said:

I have FF Canon, Takumar, Minolta 35mm prime lenses with dumb adapters, and none of them are as sharp and clean as the two APS-C Fuji zoom lenses I use. The Fuji zooms don't show color fringing. My FF 35mm primes and Nikon F zooms do (on very close examination).

A few things come into play here.

 

Firstly, Fuji is no slouch in regards to lenses.  Their optics are known for exceptional quality, and I would bet that most Fuji lenses today need very little digital, in-camera corrections.

 

In regards to comparing your APS-C Fuji zooms to FF Canon, Pentax, Minolta primes and Nikkor zooms, keep in mind that when you crop into the image circle of those FF lenses, you are throwing away resolving power and lens character.  A good focal reducer will transfer most of the FF resolution and the lens character to the smaller format.

 

Also, it's not surprising that chromatic aberration appears on some of your non-Fuji lenses that are modern, as camera manufacturers have a tendency these days to rely more on digital correction over optical correction.  So, of course, if your X-T3 isn't correcting the chromatic aberration on the non-Fuji lenses, that would further explain the difference.

 

Keep in mind that these minor in-camera features will not change the DOF nor focus to make APS-C lenses (especially zooms) render images like those from 8"x10" lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts on this topic:

1) I would have expected this equivalency theory would have been tested more reliably by still photographers at the numerous

photography forums long ago. They use a much wider range of format sizes than the video people here at EOSHD.

If not, it could be there is just too many variables to control, or no consensus on the methods to use.

 

2)  I would suggest using a 4x5 sheet film camera (8x10 is at $15 a shot!) and limit the test to manual lenses.

Mount all lenses on a 4x5 lens board and take a 4x5 shot for each, to be scanned for viewing.

This way the camera does not change, the sensor does not change, no digital transformations are done in camera.

The different lenses would have different size image circles in the 4x5s, so would be of different resolutions,

but that should not effect the depth of field comparisons much.

 

21 hours ago, tupp said:

A good focal reducer will transfer most of the FF resolution and the lens character to the smaller format.

I did look at the SLR primes with the Turbo II speedbooster. It shrinks the first fringing seen, but it includes more of the edges of the

image circle, with more CA, so overall the fringing looked the same. It really is not a big problem, in video it will never be noticed unless

you look for it, it's more of a problem in still photos.  I use these SLR primes for stop-motion and time lapse, where you don't want any

communication with the camera that changes the lens settings.

 

Here is a review of my favorite Fuji lens that includes comments on the in-camera corrections (CA, vignetting, distortion) for anyone

unfamiliar with this: https://opticallimits.com/fuji_x/887-fuji1024f4ois?start=1

 

My question is, what about the third party lenses? Do the mirrorless cameras generally apply in-camera corrections to

Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, that come in their lens mounts?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...