leeys Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The Sigma 20mm f1.8. Photographers tend to dismiss that lens but I effing love it!Because for photography, it's a freaking awful lens. The Nikon is so much better.As you can tell, I'm not really a big fan of ultra-shallow DoF. Even in stills, I stop down quite a bit; I don't like the aesthetic of having portraits with just one eye in focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The thing is, equivalence math doesn't work when fullframe can go f1.4, what is the equivalent s35mm lens on that thing? Or in my example, an equivalent of 200mm f2.8? I have the 20mm f1.8 on a fullframe lens and there is nothing that can create that look on a s35mm system, except for real cinema lenses. Sure if you drop your aperture down and down and down, sooner or later you will get an image that basically matches 1/3" cameras. FF 1.4 equivalence for S35 is F1.4/1.5 = F.93. So, you can stop down an F.7 Kubrick-Zeiss . Or use a focal reducer. It's not about the sensor- it's about the optics and the complete camera system. Lens availability/affordability is a valuable point, but a different topic. The sensor size does not create a unique image.This guy doesn't get into the math. At all. However he makes good points: https://fstoppers.com/gear/zack-arias-debunks-full-frame-crop-sensor-debate-26944 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbp Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I thought some of the difference was not only on the long end, but on the wide end.For instance, something like a 16mm f2.8 on FF, is there such a lens on S35 that can match? Much less m4/3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I thought some of the difference was not only on the long end, but on the wide end.For instance, something like a 16mm f2.8 on FF, is there such a lens on S35 that can match? Much less m4/3 FF: 16mm F2.8S35: 16mm/1.5 = 11mm, F1.9. Tokina comes close with an 11-16 F2.8. On m43 with a Speedbooster the crop factor becomes 1.42:m43+SB: 16/1.42 = 11mm, F2.Again, if an 11mm F2 doesn't exist, it's a current limitation of lens systems. Nothing special about the 35mm sensor in terms of looks. Does the 'full frame look' go away when an 11mm F2 becomes available?Looks like Canon already has a patent for an 11mm F2 design: http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/It's best to focus on measurable image characteristics we're looking for, such as shallow/deep DOF, bokeh, contrast, color, resolution/detail, MTF, low light, distortion, flare, starburst pattern, coma, chromatic aberration, astigmatism, etc. (sometimes we want defects, for character). From there we can figure out how to put together a camera+lens system to meet the requirements we're looking for. Focusing on sensor size when it doesn't provide a unique measurable look isn't useful. jase 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeys Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I thought some of the difference was not only on the long end, but on the wide end.For instance, something like a 16mm f2.8 on FF, is there such a lens on S35 that can match? Much less m4/3Yea, you use a focal reducer on the 16/2.8. Tada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Jcs I think all the discussion is revolving around this: is it not correct to call it a ''FF look'' if you can technically match it with a smaller sensor, or is it correct because it is much eaiser and more commonly achievable and available with a FF format? By the way the fullframe look and aesthetic is 100% about depth of field. Some will of course be offended by that as if it were shameful to shoot with a shallow depth of field, but let's be honest, it's dof that gives it an aesthetic. The difference of aesthetic between a t2i and a 5D was never a distinct DR change, or a distinctly different resolution, and the aesthtic doesn't come from having less noise at 6400 ISO, these are all variables that change with sensor technology, there are many s35 sensors that have more DR resolution and better lowligfht performance than many FF sensors, and vice versa. It's depth of field and how dreamy that background looks that gives a FF look, especially to the normal end viewer, nothing shameful about that. I love and always shoot wide open with the shallowest dof I can get... but sometimes I love to shoot a portrait at f8 with a 36mp sensor, it's a lovely look to get all these sharp little details in ones face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Again, if an 11mm F2 doesn't exist, it's a current limitation of lens systems.Well how far down the ladder can you go? I never got any depth-of-field on a 1/3" camera system and I do with FF-systems. Do I blame the system? I don't care, I just know that I can work with FF easier. Now you can also get quite close with s35mm and stepping down a bit maybe with m4/3 too. Modern focal reducers also help a lot. But everytime you step down until you get to 1/3" you lose the ability to control dof easily.That's a bit like saying "who needs anamorphic, it's just a system?" well yeah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Because for photography, it's a freaking awful lens. The Nikon is so much better. Freaking awful? Like AWFUL? If that is not hyperbole then what is? I've gotten some great shots out of that beauty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeys Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Showing an image where the weaknesses of the Sigma 20/1.8 (and it has many) are minimised isn't going to change my mind. I used the lens back in 2001 and it was awful even through a 4.0x loupe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Hughes Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Jcs I think all the discussion is revolving around this: is it not correct to call it a ''FF look'' if you can technically match it with a smaller sensor, or is it correct because it is much eaiser and more commonly achievable and available with a FF format? Exactly- it's not that FF is better because it has this otherworldly look that can't be replicated. It's that it is cheaper and more practical in many situations to achieve this look using a FF camera. It might seem like a moot point to some (same way that it's not a tele lens that causes compression, but rather your own distance from a subject), but I personally think it's an important discussion to be having. If you know what's really going on with your camera, then you have more opportunities to 'exploit' it to your advantage. leeys 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raf702 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I like both actually, I got use to shooting in S35 when I had my FS100. And my old 5D2 was fun to use, but I only used it for low light and for getting a wider fov. I noticed more shallow dof with S35 and smaller sensors. Now I've gotten use to m4/3 sensors, so I haven't had any reason to use FF sensor cams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 RIght- agree that the full frame look is shallow DOF, and shallow DOF can be achieved with smaller sensors: S35, m43 (get's trickier as we go down in size due to current lens availability). We've been looking mostly down. How about up? Can we achieve shallow DOF with medium and large format? We can! Since shallow DOF isn't an exclusive trait with full frame, there's no point calling shallow DOF 'the full frame look'. Currently larger sensors can provide more resolution, though keep in mind there's a common sensor that's relatively small that has about 600Megapixels resolution: the human eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomekk Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I haven't read the thread, just last jcs's post. I don't think bigger sensors are about shallow DOF. For me they're about LESS distortion @ same FOV. Everything looks much more flattering People don't know how describe it and call it "FF look" because it's hard to describe without seeing proper comparisons and larger formats (especially LARGE FORMAT ;)), IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I haven't read the thread, just last jcs's post. I don't think bigger sensors are about shallow DOF. For me they're about LESS distortion @ same FOV. Everything looks much more flattering People don't know how describe it and call it "FF look" because it's hard to describe without seeing proper comparisons and larger formats (especially LARGE FORMAT ;)), IMHO.what do you mean by distortion Tom? If it's normal Barrel/pincushion distortion, this is purely an optical flaw related to the lens design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWill Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I haven't read the thread, just last jcs's post. I don't think bigger sensors are about shallow DOF. For me they're about LESS distortion @ same FOV. Everything looks much more flattering People don't know how describe it and call it "FF look" because it's hard to describe without seeing proper comparisons and larger formats (especially LARGE FORMAT ;)), IMHO.Funny, I heard the precise opposite argument over a coffee time discussion of this thread. My collegue whom I have a great deal of respect for was raving about how, for the same lens, FF picks up all the interesting, more distorted, less perfect and precise edges of the image circle, and there lies a unique aesthetic. Nick Hughes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 SleepyWill- indeed distortion and artifacts can be desirable traits. For architecture, lower distortion is preferred. Both can be achieved with different lenses.dhessel posted physically-modeled camera and ray-traced images of multiple sensor sizes on dvxuser: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?334046-The-Full-Frame-Look-is-a-Myth-Here-s-how-to-Prove-it-to-Yourself/page6 . VRay is a kick *ss renderer, and its physical camera model can also simulate distortion and vignetting: http://help.chaosgroup.com/vray/help/150SP1/examples_vrayphysicalcamera.htm .It would be helpful to see medium and large format comparisons to full frame with real cameras and lenses- perhaps we'll discover something interesting. But in theory, and in practice (full frame vs. Super 35 and m43 etc.), the full frame look is a myth, and the concept extends for all sensor sizes. The sensor size does not define the look. It's the lens+sensor system, which can be matched to other combinations of lenses and sensor sizes, smaller or larger. In the real world available lenses or lenses on hand are constraints, but the sensor sizes themselves do not define the look. studiodc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomekk Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 what do you mean by distortion Tom? If it's normal Barrel/pincushion distortion, this is purely an optical flaw related to the lens design.I was thinking more about perspective distortion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomekk Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 It would be helpful to see medium and large format comparisons to full frame with real cameras and lenses- perhaps we'll discover something interesting. But in theory, and in practice (full frame vs. Super 35 and m43 etc.), the full frame look is a myth, and the concept extends for all sensor sizes. The sensor size does not define the look. It's the lens+sensor system, which can be matched to other combinations of lenses and sensor sizes, smaller or larger. In the real world available lenses or lenses on hand are constraints, but the sensor sizes themselves do not define the look.Yeah, sensor + lens defines the look but can you really match bigger sensor system with smaller one? On the smaller sensor system you have to stand back further to frame the same portion of the subject, thus changing perspective distortion or go wider, therefore changing optical properties. Is it correct? So I guess, sensor size doesn't have a direct impact on the "look" but it has an indirect one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Hughes Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Yeah, sensor + lens defines the look but can you really match bigger sensor system with smaller one? On the smaller sensor system you have to stand back further to frame the same portion of the subject, thus changing perspective distortion or go wider, therefore changing optical distortion. Is it correct? So I guess, sensor size doesn't have a direct impact on the "look" but it has an indirect one. You pick a wider lens for the smaller sensor and you can theoretically match the image- it is possible that there doesn't exist a lens that will perform optically as well, but that is an issue of lens manufacturing and not necessarily sensor size. This whole discussion seems to be really about theory vs practicality. There is a very big area where the two overlap, but there are certainly areas where they diverge. All it takes is more innovative lens design to bridge the gap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomekk Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 You pick a wider lens for the smaller sensor and you can theoretically match the image- it is possible that there doesn't exist a lens that will perform optically as well, but that is an issue of lens manufacturing and not necessarily sensor size. This whole discussion seems to be really about theory vs practicality. There is a very big area where the two overlap, but there are certainly areas where they diverge. All it takes is more innovative lens design to bridge the gap. I don't agree. It's a big difference in the end if you add it all up. It's just very subtle that's why people can't define it but see that something is different/nicer/better looking.Producing bigger digital sensors than FF is still a big deal, same with better lenses than what it is now. 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.