Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: JerseyT on December 18, 2013, 11:35:45 am

Title: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: JerseyT on December 18, 2013, 11:35:45 am
An interesting essay, as usual. But I think Michael meant Panasonic 35-100mm, rather than 200mm as the lens he used with the OM-D E-M1.
Regarding the assertion that the new small Sony's will become a major market force when lenses are available, I think that's true for primes. But zooms equivalent to the above mentioned Panasonic will still be large and heavy. So for zoom users like me, the M43 kit will still have considerable appeal.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: MarkL on December 18, 2013, 12:05:12 pm
Though people make a big deal about shallow dof I often find myself stuggling for more depth of field and needing to bump the iso than the reverse. Often I wonder if I may well be served with a smaller sensor.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: bjnicholls on December 18, 2013, 01:04:32 pm
It's "Achilles' heel".

It doesn't matter how small Sony's mirrorless bodies are, high performance full frame lenses are larger for a given maximum aperture. It's not the weight of the camera body that got me into a Micro Four Thirds system to complement my full frame system. The real difference is the lenses.

While I have fast, compact f/2.8 zooms for my MFT system they do not equal my full frame "equivalent" zooms. Discounting the poorer image performance of the MFT sensor, the MFT lenses would need to be two stops faster to provide the same creative depth of field capability. Landscape photographers typically look for more DOF, so there are some benefits that come from the smaller format.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Jeff Kott on December 18, 2013, 01:36:41 pm
I always like Michael's take on things. He's got the best combination of practical and technical on the web.

My take on his take on FF vs. smaller sensor cameras is that we need to own at least one of each, like him.  :)
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Vladimirovich on December 18, 2013, 02:14:07 pm
Discounting the poorer image performance of the MFT sensor, the MFT lenses would need to be two stops faster to provide the same creative depth of field capability.
less than two stops, because imaging area of FT/MFT sensors are not 4 times less than 24x36mm (that is if you believe that 24mmx36mm is actually the area from which the image data is written to raw files and not just the sensor size), but 3.7 times or better.

43/m43 sensor specs that provide data vs "wikipedia" style "2-crop"

http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Small_Business/Images_Sensor_Solutions/Datasheets%28pdfs%29/KAF-8300LongSpec.pdf

http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/ds8/c3/IS00006AE.pdf

now if you can show similar spec from sensor (not camera) manufacturers about FF sensors  ;) ?
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Hans Kruse on December 18, 2013, 02:49:06 pm

The argument of smaller size and weight made me do a little calculation between using a Sony A7 and a Canon 6D with two zoom lenses. Sony A7, 474g, 24-70 f/4, 426g, 70-200 f/4, 840g and Canon 6D, 770g, 24-70 f/4, 600g, 70-200 f/4, 756g. Sony total 1740g and Canon 2126g. So the Canon weighs 386 g more or 22%. If we did the same calculation for Fuji with the X-Pro1, 18-55 and 55-200 zooms, the total weight would go to 1360g and loose a little on the wide angle side.

So to me it seems as a small difference which might be possible to shrink further on the DSLR side. The main thing is f/4 lenses. On the Canon side f/2.8 lenses would add 1kg. The Fuji set is again 400g less.

Regarding resolution, the questions is, as Michael writes, how much do you need? The Sony A7 and the Canon 6D are very close to each other in resolution and probably also with the lenses mentioned. Obviously there are no DxO measurements to check, but test images from http://www.imaging-resource.com/ clearly shows that the detail from the Canon 6d is considerably better than the Fuji X-Pro1. The test scene is this one http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7/AA7hSLI00100NR0.ARW.HTM as a RAW file. The A7 resolves a little more than the 6D in the test. The performance of the 24-70 lens from Sony is unknown at this point.

Larger sensors give higher resolution, better dynamic range and less noise for the same output size which can be seen via DxO measurements (although m43 and Fuji are missing for lens and camera body measurements).

Yes, Sony will stir up the market with the A7(R) but the difference in size and weight for a system is not as large as one might think. We are still waiting for the fast PDAF in the mirrorless bodies to implemented such that the mirrorbox in DSLR's can be made redundant. However the reduction in size and weight on a system level is not huge but welcome.

Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 18, 2013, 04:58:09 pm
I just got the A7r today. This is crazy. LOL

Iphone image folks but same sensor in a different package.
Title: Re: What does this say about MFDB?
Post by: bjanes on December 18, 2013, 05:53:37 pm
An interesting essay, as usual. But I think Michael meant Panasonic 35-100mm, rather than 200mm as the lens he used with the OM-D E-M1.
Regarding the assertion that the new small Sony's will become a major market force when lenses are available, I think that's true for primes. But zooms equivalent to the above mentioned Panasonic will still be large and heavy. So for zoom users like me, the M43 kit will still have considerable appeal.

An interesting and well thought post, as usual for Michael. If full frame (24x36 mm) is no longer needed for most purposes, what does this say about MFDB (medium format digital backs)? Probably overkill for all but the most demanding applications.

Bill

Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: David Sutton on December 18, 2013, 06:05:13 pm
(http://davidsutton.co.nz/externalposts/20131217comparecameras1040.jpg)

This photo says it all for me. For prints up to 24 inches wide the IQ of the Fuji is no worse and is in some respects better than the 5DII, and certainly better than the 7D shown here. But at around 2.5 kg versus 4.5kg, there's not a lot to dislike. I am tired of getting heavy kit onto planes.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: AFairley on December 18, 2013, 06:07:29 pm
What is "needed" for the amateur (such as moi) is very personal.  If I were shooting for the web or publication m4/3 would be a no-brainer, but I'm not.  I can't tell the difference between 17x22 prints on the wall from D800E and E-M5.  But I can from 6", and that keeps me lugging the Nikon around instead of the Oly even though it's a lot bigger and weighs a full 2 pounds more (with their respective lenses).  To me, the A7r with the Zeiss zoom looks a lot like the best of both worlds, I'm looking forward to renting it for a couple days when the zoom is available.  It's a question of whatever floats your particular boat.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: leeonmaui on December 18, 2013, 06:27:08 pm
Aloha,

My fully loaded camera bag weights north of 30 LBS, my working kit for ten days, including the camera bag, weights north off 100 LBS shaving a few pounds of doesn't interest me much, I do big prints, and I do crop, so I guess I'm stuck, but in a good way!
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: NancyP on December 18, 2013, 06:52:31 pm
I do enjoy the Sigma DP Merrills (APS-C), particularly for lightweight hiking kit with monopod or lightweight tripod. The DP Merrills weigh ~ 500 g each with permanently attached L bracket/ grip, versus 1.5 kg for APS-C DSLR and 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, my other hiking kit. I grab ONE DPM when I head out the door for a conditioning hike, and either a monopod or a tripod (additional 0.75 to 1.5 kg) - my water bottles weigh more! I suppose that there still is some advantage to having view camera style movements for some uses, and most of the time that has meant MFDBs.

On the other hand, I want to go on a birding long weekend in early spring (Nebraska), and need to start pumping iron so I can hand hold the rented 4 kg supertelephoto lens....
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: JohnBrew on December 18, 2013, 09:47:59 pm
Ya know, after a year of shooting with the D800, there is no doubt that I don't need that many mp for what sizes I print. The crop factor is something I appreciate, though. I tried an NEX-7 and quickly discarded it because of the interface and the quirky nature of the EVF. I won't ditch my Nikon but I probably will do more shooting with my Leicas. While I like the size factor of the Sony's, I am not convinced they have their act together. I recently tried a Zeiss Otus, but what's the point when I only print to 24" on the short end? OTOH, isn't this a great time to be a photographer, with all these high quality choices. Yummy.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: slackercruster on December 18, 2013, 11:56:29 pm
Hi mp is generally useful at night / low light street shooting. My Fuji's get grainy at high ISO
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: John Camp on December 19, 2013, 12:28:36 am
Like Michael, I have a D-800 system with a range of lenses, and an m4/3 (Panasonic) system with a range of lenses; and for the same reasons. When I'm working out of my SUV, I take the Big Trombone, and a suitcase full of lenses. Why not? Otherwise, it's the m4/3. But as for the future of the systems, I somewhat disagree with the article. As he says, the A7 cameras are in fact the size of some m4/3 cameras -- almost identical in size to the Panasonic GH3. But the GH3 is the largest of the m4/3 cameras, because it's basically a movie camera, and has to meet some movie camera requirements. I had one for a while, because I liked the sensor, but it was too big; not enough difference between it and APS-C cameras, so my son now has it. The future of the m4/3 still-camera systems, I believe, lies in the smaller bodies like the GX7, which are notably smaller than the A7 cameras (or the GH3.) I'd agree that small lenses are coming for the A7, and why not, if Leica can do it? But the thing is, I don't believe people really want those small Leica-style lenses...because the small lenses that are coming aren't zooms, just as the small Leica lenses aren't zooms. And I think people really want zooms -- and the enthusiasts want fast zooms. When I'm traveling by air, as I did this morning between LA and Santa Fe, I take my m4/3 system in two small padded Eagle Creek cases, not specifically meant for cameras, and I carry them in a business-style backpack. My basic kit includes 2 f2.8 zooms, (12-35 and 35-100) plus an f4 7-14, an Olympus 45mm and the Voightlander f0.95 42.5mm, a battery charger, and two spare batteries. Sometimes, I'll drop an extra GX7 body in the bag. Not bad, for a system that shares a fairly small pack with a Surface tablet, pens, pencils, books, chargers, spare glasses, sun glasses, pills, etc. That system is *smaller* that two of my Nikon f2.8 zooms alone. In my opinion, in a situation where cost is not a major factor, the *only* real reason for carrying a system smaller than FF is size and convenience..I'd never argue that the image quality is as good, or that the systems are more photographically flexible. But if you're going to go small, I would suggest that you want to go as small as you can, and still meet your IQ requirements, whatever they may be. The m4/3, for me, meets my IQ requirements for the kind of shooting I use it for -- otherwise, it's the Big Trombone.

I should also mention the epitaph I plan to have inscribed on my tombstone, which I feel is relevant here: "No great photograph ever depended on resolution."
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on December 19, 2013, 01:59:12 am
We are still waiting for the fast PDAF in the mirrorless bodies to implemented such that the mirrorbox in DSLR's can be made redundant.

Fuji X-E2
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: trichardlin on December 19, 2013, 03:38:30 am
I can't tell the difference between 17x22 prints on the wall from D800E and E-M5.  But I can from 6", and that keeps me lugging the Nikon around instead of the Oly ...

Yes, you can look at a image from 6", or even with a loupe.  But to me that's not really looking at an image, it's looking at pixels.  With that, bigger sensor is always better.

But photography is about much more.  It's the light, the idea, the composition, the subject.  Most of the time, I couldn't get these things right.  Having slightly better resolution and dynamic range really doesn't help me that much unfortunately.  But having a small, easy to handle system with super fast focusing can sometimes increase my odds of taking better photos.  That's how I ended up ditching all my Canon gears and getting into the M43 system.

 
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: trichardlin on December 19, 2013, 03:43:43 am
...The future of the m4/3 still-camera systems, I believe, lies in the smaller bodies like the GX7, ...

GX7 is a great camera.  Panasonic really hit a sweet spot with it.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: OldRoy on December 19, 2013, 05:38:27 am
Sony A7 mount (whatever it's called in Sony's horrible proliferation) prime lenses will be as small as M4/3 examples? I'm looking at mine now and feeling sceptical about that.
Roy
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: fredjeang2 on December 19, 2013, 09:18:41 am
I think that the future of M4/3 could be to be the best in video, always keeping 1 or 2 generations ahead.
Pana can do it for sure. (they did it)
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: NancyP on December 19, 2013, 11:59:51 am
One limitation of small camera size is ergonomics. In 1970, I thought that my small to average SLR was just the right size, now I hold it, and my fingers bump into each other. I have gotten used to the larger rubbery grip of modern DSLRs. I use a Canon Rebel T1i, a small consumer DSLR, at work - too small, not that it matters, since it sits on a copy stand (specimen photography). I have size 6 hands, and if I like the grip of a Canon 6D, an average size enthusiast DSLR, I can imagine that people with size 8 hands might have a hard time adjusting to really tiny cameras.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 19, 2013, 12:10:09 pm
To me it seems that so called "full frame" ( like D4 and D800 etc.) kind of sits in a sweet spot of size, ergonomics and price. At least every time somebody complains about the lack of quality in APS-C or smaller sensors they compare it to FF, not mid format cameras. So why does FF always give enough IQ (mid format is hardly ever mentioned in this context) and smaller sensors not, even though modern APS-C cameras are better than FF bodies were 6 years ago and smaller sensors are better than APS-C was a few years ago? FF is the gold standard and we are reluctant to admit that APS-C, or even M4/3 is now good enough for most purposes, even professional photojournalism. After all I liked to shoot with the ancient EOS-1D with 4.7 MPix, as it gave better results than Provia, so just about any serous small sensor camera should be good enough for me. There is also, for professionals, a distinct lack of believable true pro quality systems with smaller sensors, systems which could seriously challenge the pro lines of FF cameras from Nikon and Canon. For one thing they would be DSLRs, not mirrorless,  as the EVF time lag is not acceptable in many situations. This is mostly a lens problem, making a slightly smaller pro body would be easy, but building a large collection of lenses is hugely expensive. Nikon and Canon have a 60 year history of 135 format lenses to build on.

That said, if I made any sense at all, I shoot mostly with D4 (speed, ergonomics) and D800e (quality, quality) even if (large) part of the IQ goes to waste in print. On the other hand I have a full Fuji X-Pro1/X100s kit with lenses from 14 to 200mm and like them a lot for travel and reportage for their size, weight and "camouflage" quality (harmless old man with old camera). And the IQ is, again, more than good enough, and also slightly different in a nice way, even others notice it. So there is room for all systems (except mid format for me) depending on situation. As long as we have hands and arm strength like we have now something like D4/D800 feels OK and provides a good "standard" for lesser formats to aspire to. In IQ they are almost there or close enough, from the usability and ergonomics side of things going too small is not good, if we are talking about tools, not something to snap a vacation picture with. Many times I take D4 to an assignment, just because it is bigger than D800 and has an integrated vertical grip...
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: trichardlin on December 19, 2013, 12:15:57 pm
One limitation of small camera size is ergonomics...

I agree.  Cameras like the GF1/GX1 are almost too small to handle easily.  Years ago, I took my newly bought GF1 on a family trip to England, because it was so small and slippery it flew off my hands and tumbled on the road for quite a distance before it stopped.  Lucklily, it was pretty tough and functioned flawlessly.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: trichardlin on December 19, 2013, 12:28:09 pm
...(mid format is hardly ever mentioned in this context)...

To me, that's largely because of the price.  If they can make a $2000 medium format body, I'm sure there will be a market.

I totally agree with the EVF issue.  The blackout/lag makes it very hard to shoot sports.  But if I have to guess, this can be solved relatively easily if the manufactureres put their mind to it.

Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 19, 2013, 12:55:47 pm
To me, that's largely because of the price.  If they can make a $2000 medium format body, I'm sure there will be a market.

I totally agree with the EVF issue.  The blackout/lag makes it very hard to shoot sports.  But if I have to guess, this can be solved relatively easily if the manufactureres put their mind to it.

A certain sized, small market, as if there are no AF lenses at reasonable prices, the buyers would be only pros and landscape enthusiast.

EVF can be better, but never truly real time. After all the video signal has to be read off the sensor, processed and shown in the viewfinder. This can never happen in zero time.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Isaac on December 19, 2013, 02:13:41 pm
EVF can be better, but never truly real time. After all the video signal has to be read off the sensor, processed and shown in the viewfinder. This can never happen in zero time.

Could anything happen in zero time :-)

"Compared with electronic devices, neurons are exceedingly slow... (http://www.stanford.edu/~wine/202/HO-202-2008-Neuron.pdf)
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Isaac on December 19, 2013, 02:37:40 pm
Sony A7 mount (whatever it's called in Sony's horrible proliferation) prime lenses...

Please enumerate the "horrible proliferation" of Sony lens mounts for me, because afaict there are 2 lens mounts: the 30 year old A-Mount and the 8 year old E-Mount; and both have lenses designed for FF and APS-C.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: John Camp on December 19, 2013, 02:57:08 pm
@ Isaac:

I don't know Sony mounts. Are the E mount and the FE mount the same?

I have large hands, but find the GX7 pretty manageable, although the strap lugs can sometimes get in the way. Not really a problem after you get used to it. My D800 has a solider grip, because it's a lot larger, but I prefer the smaller GX7 size simply because of the weight differential. I don't think there is any solution to this problem, other than personal adaptation.

I think (but don't know because I haven't tried) that I could shoot sports with a GX7, using the burst mode.

 
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Isaac on December 19, 2013, 03:02:54 pm
SONY® INTRODUCES FIRST FULL-FRAME E-MOUNT LENSES (http://blog.sony.com/press/sony-introduces-first-full-frame-e-mount-lenses/)

"In addition to the A7 and A7R full-frame cameras, the new lenses fit any of the existing E-mount cameras including Sony’s acclaimed NEX-6 and NEX-7 models."
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: HSway on December 19, 2013, 07:18:22 pm
MFT have earned respect for having managed to build remarkable compact systems. It’s the first sensor size I call large associated with the compact cameras. The IQ today is what was said it is and it doesn’t end there but it will enjoy further improvements.

Sony has managed something with the FE-mount and I think it will move with the camera market a little. It’s a brand not so popular or loved perhaps but it still is the greatest force of successful innovations in photography today (sensor or camera technology.)

It brings the aspects of a small camera system perhaps uncomfortably close to the MFT. Both systems have set typically different relations between the sensor size and the lens (effective aperture, size of the lens.) The bottom line can be that the MFT retains its size advantage (or its potential) but smaller sensor and less light collected limit IQ indications. Any differences in size prove very individual requirements,  judged and chosen highly subjectively and that for good reasons. That is one of the strongest points of MFT cameras, especially at today’s practical level of IQ achieved (already). And so the train called A7 stormed a bit nearer than usual for two quite different formats but passed at a safe distance and its rails didn’t cross the MFT tracks.
It has brought a new option for compact camera considerations, however, making the choices more diverse. It is an interesting choice (and outlook) for sure and another of Sony's advancements brought to the photographic community.
Not that it means that the MFT are without merits in creating the mirrorless segment or without very attractive offerings of tools for photographers.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: OldRoy on December 20, 2013, 01:56:38 pm
Please enumerate the "horrible proliferation" of Sony lens mounts for me, because afaict there are 2 lens mounts: the 30 year old A-Mount and the 8 year old E-Mount; and both have lenses designed for FF and APS-C.
I seem not to be the only person who is unclear about this: in my case it's because I'm not in the market for Sony cameras and only vaguely interested. But there seem to be "A", "E" and "FE" variants plus at least one adaptor. I could be wrong but it looks like a mess to me.
Roy
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on December 20, 2013, 02:17:11 pm
I seem not to be the only person who is unclear about this: in my case it's because I'm not in the market for Sony cameras and only vaguely interested. But there seem to be "A", "E" and "FE" variants plus at least one adaptor. I could be wrong but it looks like a mess to me.Roy


But not as bad as Windows 8, which is now going to cost me a fee if I can persuade a chap I know to come install enough crap into the new computer to let me use it. I can't make head nor tail of it. Should have gone 7.

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: telyt on December 20, 2013, 02:35:12 pm
I seem not to be the only person who is unclear about this: in my case it's because I'm not in the market for Sony cameras and only vaguely interested. But there seem to be "A", "E" and "FE" variants plus at least one adaptor. I could be wrong but it looks like a mess to me.

FE is an extension of E, the difference is an FE lens has an image circle big enough for a full-frame sensor, and an FE body has a full-frame sensor.  FE and E lenses will work fine on either FE or E bodies.  Should we discuss Nikon F-mount variants instead?
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: HSway on December 20, 2013, 02:37:17 pm
The FE is for 135 format E-mount lenses launched recently with the A7/A7R cameras, not a mount as such - a name for newly designed full frame lenses for already existing Sony E-mount. I see I also mention FE-mount in the above post which should read Sony has managed something with the FE (lenses)/E-mount.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 20, 2013, 03:47:39 pm
EVF can be better, but never truly real time. After all the video signal has to be read off the sensor, processed and shown in the viewfinder. This can never happen in zero time.

Camcorders manage this quite well. Television camera operators have been able to follow all kinds of sports in real time for years.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 20, 2013, 04:16:15 pm
Camcorders manage this quite well. Television camera operators have been able to follow all kinds of sports in real time for years.

They do not need to snatch freeze frames of the best moments, just follow the flow...
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: AFairley on December 20, 2013, 07:13:11 pm
They do not need to snatch freeze frames of the best moments, just follow the flow...

I'm willing to speculate that EVFs have advanced to the point where the image refresh shorter than human reaction time, which seems to be from .15 to .3 seconds.  Someone on the interweb measured rear LCD lag at .05 seconds.  Point is, to capture the "decisive moment" with OVF or EVF, you are going to have to be following the flow and anticipating the moment.

That said, I will be interested to find an old clock with a smooth sweep second hand and compare the view through the EVF and my other open eye.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: trichardlin on December 20, 2013, 09:43:13 pm
The FE is for 135 format E-mount lenses launched recently with the A7/A7R cameras, not a mount as such - a name for newly designed full frame lenses for already existing Sony E-mount. I see I also mention FE-mount in the above post which should read Sony has managed something with the FE (lenses)/E-mount.

Brilliant!  A great way to confuse your customers. 
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 21, 2013, 12:44:33 am
I should also mention the epitaph I plan to have inscribed on my tombstone, which I feel is relevant here: "No great photograph ever depended on resolution."

John,
If you do that, then people like me, when reading the epitaph, will find it odd that you were of the opinion that all great photographs are like blurred waterfalls with the sharp, surrounding bits removed.  ;D

Most photographs, whether considered great or not, are vitally dependent upon resolution.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth - Correction
Post by: dreed on December 21, 2013, 06:00:04 am
"Full Frame means a Canon 24MP DSLR or a Nikon 36MP DSLR"

Wrong. Canon does not have a camera with more than 22MP.

Nikon's FF DSLRs are both 24MP and 36MP.

Canon is bottom of the pile in terms of FF DSLR MP.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: alban on December 21, 2013, 11:59:35 am
I just got the A7r today. This is crazy. LOL

Iphone image folks but same sensor in a different package.


Turn them around and then one starts scratching his head .I am all for the smaller package minus all of the buttons,apps and so forth.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on December 21, 2013, 12:53:28 pm
Rob, a book would be a far better investment.


Keith, my son-in-law has sent me a PDF link to a Dell/Dummies e-book that seems to be pretty good; problems exist though even on things such as e-mail, where you have to go through a somewhat convoluted route to get the thing to accept/send e-mail other than a few (4) selected ones of Window's choice. I shall do that bit when I have calmed down a bit and actually rediscover what my own E-mail password might have been! I need to set up a Microsoft one, but to retain my old one, need to find that password info before I go any further. Considering all the previous version of Windows Mail were open to all, this seems as restrictive as it comes - mabe it'll all end up in another profitable 'cloud'!

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Telecaster on December 21, 2013, 02:36:56 pm
Most photographs, whether considered great or not, are vitally dependent upon resolution.

There are of course no photographs without resolution.   :)  But I suspect John is refering to the runaway obsession with spatial detail that typically results in all other aspects of photography being relegated to secondary status.

Here's a link to a selection of photos from one of my favorite photo books of 2013, Edward Burtynsky's Water:

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/Water.html

I wanted to xref one particular photo, titled Thjorsá River #1, but can't do so...at least not via my iPad. Anyway it's my favorite from the book and probably my overall favorite of the year. It was taken with a Hasselblad H4D-60 and 50mm lens. It's an abstract. What makes the photo is its fine, subtle tonal detail: a range of metallic blue, gray and green hues. IMO this attention to tonality helps Burtynsky stand out from the sharpness-fixated landscaper crowd.

-Dave-
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 21, 2013, 03:19:32 pm
Hi,

My take is that resolution is a good thing.

Best regards
Erik

There are of course no photographs without resolution.   :)  But I suspect John is refering to the runaway obsession with spatial detail that typically results in all other aspects of photography being relegated to secondary status.

Here's a link to a selection of photos from one of my favorite photo books of 2013, Edward Burtynsky's Water:

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/Water.html

I wanted to xref one particular photo, titled Thjorsá River #1, but can't do so...at least not via my iPad. Anyway it's my favorite from the book and probably my overall favorite of the year. It was taken with a Hasselblad H4D-60 and 50mm lens. It's an abstract. What makes the photo is its fine, subtle tonal detail: a range of metallic blue, gray and green hues. IMO this attention to tonality helps Burtynsky stand out from the sharpness-fixated landscaper crowd.

-Dave-
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: John Camp on December 21, 2013, 05:57:29 pm
Hi,

My take is that resolution is a good thing.

Erik


I also think it's a good thing. But no great photo is considered great because of its (high) resolution.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 21, 2013, 06:28:02 pm
I also think it's a good thing. But no great photo is considered great because of its (high) resolution.

Yet, most low resolution images are not even considered to begin with ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 21, 2013, 08:42:51 pm
There are of course no photographs without resolution.   :)  But I suspect John is refering to the runaway obsession with spatial detail that typically results in all other aspects of photography being relegated to secondary status.

Here's a link to a selection of photos from one of my favorite photo books of 2013, Edward Burtynsky's Water:

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/Water.html

What makes the photo is its fine, subtle tonal detail: a range of metallic blue, gray and green hues. IMO this attention to tonality helps Burtynsky stand out from the sharpness-fixated landscaper crowd.

-Dave-

If subtle tonal detail is important for you, the larger sensor generally has better tonal range regardless of resolution.

Having the option of more resolution than one sometimes needs for a particular output can be a tremendous practical advantage, regardless of the pixel-peeping obsession which John Camp seems to decry.

I imagine if Nikon were to produce a full-frame 54 mp DSLR, a successor to the D800, there would be howls of protest from people who never print larger than A3, claiming that they don't need 54 mp and that the extra file sizes would merely slow down their computer and take up more storage.

This is a very shortsighted view. For anyone who needs only 10 mp, a 54 mp DSLR can be tremendous value and a great tool. A 50mm prime lens on such a camera becomes effectively a high quality 50-150mm zoom, from the perspective of someone who doesn't need more than 10 mp.

Simply through a process of cropping one can get a range of focal lengths. A 54 mp full-frame image taken with a 50mm lens, when cropped to 10 mp produces an image with a 150 mm equivalent focal length and a sensor size which is a bit smaller in area than the 4/3rds format. (Hope my maths is correct.  ;) )
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: telyt on December 21, 2013, 09:18:08 pm
Having the option of more resolution than one sometimes needs for a particular output can be a tremendous practical advantage, regardless of the pixel-peeping obsession which John Camp seems to decry.

+1

I like having the option even if I don't take advantage of it in every photograph.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: KirbyKrieger on December 21, 2013, 09:36:19 pm
Could anything happen in zero time :-)

"Compared with electronic devices, neurons are exceedingly slow... (http://www.stanford.edu/~wine/202/HO-202-2008-Neuron.pdf)
  • Conduction of an electrical signal along a copper wire is about 2.5 million times faster than impulse transmission in the fastest axons.
  • It is ~10 million times faster than more typical axon conduction speeds.
  • Or, one minute vs. 19 years"

Is there an EVF that will show the time-variations in luminance of light reflected off wind-blown ripples onto the feathers of a large bird?

I have never seen one.

My gripe with EVF's has much more to with bandwidth and resolution than with delay.  Fwiw   ;) .
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Hans Kruse on December 22, 2013, 10:59:01 am
If subtle tonal detail is important for you, the larger sensor generally has better tonal range regardless of resolution.

Having the option of more resolution than one sometimes needs for a particular output can be a tremendous practical advantage, regardless of the pixel-peeping obsession which John Camp seems to decry.

I imagine if Nikon were to produce a full-frame 54 mp DSLR, a successor to the D800, there would be howls of protest from people who never print larger than A3, claiming that they don't need 54 mp and that the extra file sizes would merely slow down their computer and take up more storage.

This is a very shortsighted view. For anyone who needs only 10 mp, a 54 mp DSLR can be tremendous value and a great tool. A 50mm prime lens on such a camera becomes effectively a high quality 50-150mm zoom, from the perspective of someone who doesn't need more than 10 mp.

Simply through a process of cropping one can get a range of focal lengths. A 54 mp full-frame image taken with a 50mm lens, when cropped to 10 mp produces an image with a 150 mm equivalent focal length and a sensor size which is a bit smaller in area than the 4/3rds format. (Hope my maths is correct.  ;) )

The cropping argument is often given, but I don't think it is very valid. A crop from 54 to 10MP is a crop factor of 2,32 and the m43 is 2. A m43 at 16MP not cropped would give better IQ. I don't see much point in walking around with a full frame camera unless one uses the full sensor area for taking the pictures.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on December 22, 2013, 12:06:32 pm
The cropping argument is often given, but I don't think it is very valid. A crop from 54 to 10MP is a crop factor of 2,32 and the m43 is 2. A m43 at 16MP not cropped would give better IQ. I don't see much point in walking around with a full frame camera unless one uses the full sensor area for taking the pictures.


Absolutely; that's the only reasonable way of looking at the situation. It can't be that difficult to engage the brain before leaving home for the greater outer world. Anyway, one format should really be all anyone needs, unless they depend on it for a living.

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: PeterAit on December 22, 2013, 12:20:55 pm
Is there an EVF that will show the time-variations in luminance of light reflected off wind-blown ripples onto the feathers of a large bird?


Is there a combination of eye, brain, finger, and shutter that will capture a feather-ruffle at the exact instant? No (DUH!). So, why care?
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: KirbyKrieger on December 22, 2013, 02:27:02 pm
Is there a combination of eye, brain, finger, and shutter that will capture a feather-ruffle at the exact instant? No (DUH!). So, why care?

Peter:

I said nothing about feather ruffle.  Putting words in my mouth, and then citing them to imply that I am an idiot, is churlish.

What I did mention was the luminance variation of sunlight reflected from rippled water.  The ripples are wavelets.  They, and thus the reflections, are rhythmic.  Timing the shutter duration to coincide with either the light or dark phase of the result of the wave action is physically and mentally trivial, and artistically important.

I care.

That you might not in no way diminishes the value of my caring.

I use the above example specifically to illustrate one of the shortcomings of an EVF.  I carry a light-recorder in order to record light.  I see variations in light.  I expect my light-recorder to allow me to record what I see.  In that specific illustration, and many like it, I cannot.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Telecaster on December 22, 2013, 02:33:33 pm
If subtle tonal detail is important for you, the larger sensor generally has better tonal range regardless of resolution.

Having the option of more resolution than one sometimes needs for a particular output can be a tremendous practical advantage, regardless of the pixel-peeping obsession which John Camp seems to decry.

Absolutely. This isn't an either/or scenario. I mentioned Burtynsky's Hasselblad for a reason. I'm all for larger sensors and having more photosites on 'em. What I'm not a fan of are photos taken by people who think mega-resolution by itself makes those photos worth looking at. It doesn't.

-Dave-
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 22, 2013, 06:12:57 pm
The cropping argument is often given, but I don't think it is very valid. A crop from 54 to 10MP is a crop factor of 2,32 and the m43 is 2. A m43 at 16MP not cropped would give better IQ. I don't see much point in walking around with a full frame camera unless one uses the full sensor area for taking the pictures.

Hans,
The cropping advantage is clearly less of an advantage for those who are  obsessed with pixel count and resolution, as I am and I suspect you are.

I would certainly prefer to use a 150mm lens with my 54 mp Nikon rather than crop a shot to 10mm. which had been taken using a 50mm lens.

I was addressing the concerns of people who are not particularly obsessed with resolution, such as John Camp. That is, people who might think that 10mp is quite sufficient for their needs.

It wasn't so long ago that I was very pleased with the performance of my Canon 40D, which is 10mp. Just out of curiosity, I checked the DXOmark test results comparing the Nikon D7100 with the Canon 40D, at the pixel level.
The pixel quality is very similar, except for DR of course. The smaller D7100 pixel wipes the floor with the 40D, regarding DR performance. If I weren't a bit obsessed with resolution, I would definitely prefer a 10mp crop from a Nikon 54 mp full-frame than an uncropped shot of the same contrasty scene taken with the 40D and 150mm lens.

Of course, a good 150mm prime should give at least marginally better resolution on a 40D because the  40D pixels and sensor are a bit larger than the 10mp crop from a 54mp full-frame and therefore make less demands upon the lens.

On the other hand, a fairer comparison would be the 50mm prime versus a 50-150 zoom. Does a 50-150 zoom with a constant aperture of F1.4 exist? I think not. If some manufacturer were to make one, it would be rather heavy. I suspect that such a lens attached to an Olypus 4/3rds, or Canon 40D, would weigh more than a Nikon 54mp full-frame with 50/F1.4 attached.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 22, 2013, 06:33:58 pm
This dilemma of chip resolution, frame size and focal length is preventing me from buying a new telephoto.  So far. : )

Two items are in contention: the Nikkor 80-400 f5.6 (that Kevin took to Antarctica) and the as-yet-unannounced but soon-to-appear Nikkor 300mm f4. 

Which lens will provide the ultimate resolving power on print?  A crop of the probably-superb 300?  Or the whole frame from the not-quite-as-sharp, especially-at-full-zoom 400?

Until the 300 appears, I just have to suffer.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: barryfitzgerald on December 22, 2013, 07:26:28 pm
John,
If you do that, then people like me, when reading the epitaph, will find it odd that you were of the opinion that all great photographs are like blurred waterfalls with the sharp, surrounding bits removed.  ;D

Most photographs, whether considered great or not, are vitally dependent upon resolution.


Honestly the "resolution" debate ended years ago for most people.
I think the only ones left wanting more either have such specific demanding needs (ie mega crop shooters) or make prints that fit on bar door standing a few inches away and want it tack sharp at that distance.

If you fall into that trap I think even 50mp isn't enough you'll want 75mp then 100mp and even 200mp
Personally I see it as a marketing triumph for the camera makers v what most people's needs are.

I call it the "boy racer" theme..no matter how fast you think you can go, there is always something better out there.
We could apply it to high ISO too, we're up to the point where it's very good now (even on non FF sensors) probably good enough for most

And yes I still use my 6mp DSLR's from time to time, and yes for the normal print sizes it's actually sufficient for much of what I do.
I'm up to 16mp now (nope not a micro 4/3 user either) really that is more than enough for most people's needs. And the 10/12mp point was really a watershed for most people (ie enough to crop somewhat, decent resolution for bigger print sizes)

I'm sure the debate will range on but it's been over for a while now  ;)
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 22, 2013, 08:26:43 pm
What I'm not a fan of are photos taken by people who think mega-resolution by itself makes those photos worth looking at. It doesn't.

-Dave-

Dave,
The concept of mega-resolution by itself doesn't make any sense. Whether a photo is high resolution or low resolution, it is reasonable to presume that the shot was taken because something in the scene interested the person holding the camera and inspired the person to take the shot. High resolution is merely an attribute of a composition which can enhance the experience of viewing it, assuming the intention was not to create a semi-abstract blur. In other words, there's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept, except a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept.

For example, the attached shot is nothing special. It wouldn't come into the category of a 'great' shot, but the reason I'm keeping it is because of the reasonably good resolution. I get pleasure from viewing the fine detail in the feathers, and since the lens used is not particularly excellent, the Nikkor 24-120/F4 at 120mm and F8, that enhanced resolution is largely due to the high pixel count of the D800E. Anyone see any aliasing?  ;D  

Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Telecaster on December 22, 2013, 08:59:13 pm
Ray, IMO you're in danger of beating a dead horse. Have another look at the Ed Burtynsky photos I linked to earlier in this thread. Now they may not be to everyone's taste—which is quite fine by me—but they show, to my eyes, a creative balance of concept, composition & technique. No fuzzy strawmen to be found.

-Dave-
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 22, 2013, 09:47:24 pm
I call it the "boy racer" theme..no matter how fast you think you can go, there is always something better out there

I agree. But once you've zoomed in on a D800 image shot with a really good lens, it's hard to go back.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: John Camp on December 22, 2013, 11:17:23 pm
I have no problem with high resolution cameras. I have one myself (a D800.) And I have very good lenses to go with it. But some people here -- I'm looking at you Ray -- have interpreted what I said to what they think I said, and then rebut it without realizing I didn't say that. I simply said that no famous photo (that I can think of, and I can think of a lot) depends on high resolution.

As an example, possibly the most famous photo ever taken: Moonrise, Hernandez NM by Ansel Adams. Taken with a camera, lens and film combination that would be universally denigrated by the contemporary high-res crowd because his equipment (and especially the film) could probably be out-resolved by a GX7. Yet, he made big beautiful prints, and nobody (I know) who looks at a good print of MHNM really thinks it lacks resolution. It's just fine. Many of the most famous photos were made by equipment that would probably be out resolved by today's point-and-shoots.

But I don't think high resolution is bad...I just don't think it's ever been as necessary as some think it is, at least since film got really good, and even the really good film wasn't as good in resolution as what we have now in digital...

(I would agree that some people need as much resolution as they can get, like wildlifephoto with his bird shots, which I much admire. But that's a pretty extreme exception.)   
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: David Sutton on December 23, 2013, 02:21:33 am
John, I have been working on trying to nail down the source of this quote, so far without success. So I can't swear to its veracity.
The ongoing development or the Daguerrotype in the early 1840s led to a huge improvement in image quality compared to the work of Talbot and others. A regret expressed at the time went:
"Our young men should spend more time considering the composition and merit of their images, and less time with magnifying glasses counting how many bricks and shingles they can resolve"
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 23, 2013, 02:25:15 am
As an example, possibly the most famous photo ever taken: Moonrise, Hernandez NM by Ansel Adams. Taken with a camera, lens and film combination that would be universally denigrated by the contemporary high-res crowd because his equipment (and especially the film) could probably be out-resolved by a GX7.

Maybe not in this case, as he used a 8x10 view camera for this shot. Generally large part of the whole Ansel Adams fame is based on technical perfection and I do not remember him ever using smaller format than 6x6 with Hasselblad (with 5 backs loaded with same film to be push or pull processed, maybe even pre-exposed) to get the exposures perfect for each subject.

One criticism levied against AA was precisely the amount of technological honing he did glorifying sometimes slightly mundane subject matter. If he was living now he would possibly the biggest pixel peeper of all… And using D800e comparing different RAW converters and sharpening strategies ad infinitum…
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Maarten on December 23, 2013, 03:17:13 am
About six weeks ago I was ready to buy the OMD-1 after an oly-day of shooting with it. Lucky for me it was still on "pre-order" so I was able to reflect on my premature decision and, as a philosopher, that's always the right thing to do. Ask yourself "what is the truth". Some thirty years ago I travelled, with my backpack, through Canada, US and Central America carrying an additional 10 kilo Hasselblad set: IQ is more important than weight.

When I read Michael's essay, I couldn't help thinking of an old man (like me  :) ) complaining about the load he has to carry (not me  ;D), justifying the smaller and lighter MFT camera's with the "resolution and image quality" argument.

I bought my D800 two weeks ago, it's a nice ergonomic body that fits very well in my (not so big) hands. The truth is that FF IQ is better than MFT IQ and I will carry the weight  :D. Why 36mp's? Why not!

Maarten (European)
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 23, 2013, 03:53:45 am
I simply said that no famous photo (that I can think of, and I can think of a lot) depends on high resolution.


And I simply refuted that statement as appearing false. I find it odd that you should refer to the work of Ansel Adams as an example to support your argument. We should all know what a stickler for detail was Ansel Adams, as Petrus has stated quite well in reply #65.

My understanding is that most of the great photographers of the past used large or medium format plate or film. That was not because small plates were not available, but presumably because those great photographers of the day, such as Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, Frank Sutcliffe and so on, appreciated the greater resolution and the smoother tonality that the larger format provided.

My father was taking photos in the 1920s as a school kid, using very small format plates which are about 2 &1/2" x 1 3/4". I was surprised to discover them after he passed away. I didn't know such small-format plates existed but they obviously did, and the cameras would have been very affordable and portable. But probably not the sort of cameras used by great photographers of the day to create 'great' photos.  ;)
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: bcooter on December 23, 2013, 06:28:26 am
If you guys want to blast to the past, then blast then the look of modern photography was set by Art Kane.

http://Artkane.com/

Some of this holds up today, some doesn't but Kane didn't do the "let technique rule the concept", which we see as much if not more today than he did when he started.

He went to 35mm when in the professional world  that was heresy.  Then again he shot fashion with a 20mm, martini glasses in the sahara when nobody dared shoot a product shot outside in the sun, Louis Armstrong on a railroad track, when even today, that shot would have been on a white background at the standard boring NY studio on a white cove.

They knew Kodachrome wasn't 8x10, but then again, they knew that dropping an 8x10 down low, adding a wide, checking the corners for cutoff, focus, compose, focus compose would cut into the spontaneity.

I've shot people with 8x10 but only because I wanted to but only one client ever  demand it (and this is right before we went to digital capture), so I dunno it depends on what you shoot., how you shoot, what style you shoot in.

But digital has changed the format definition.   Large format is 645, medium format is 35mm, small 35mm format is micro four thirds and the micro four thirds cameras like the om1 reflect that.

I own all three formats, actually with the RED cinema cameras 4 formats and see a use for all, but don't believe that there are any rules when it comes to formats.

This is a still from the RED1, why . . . cause I like it.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/julia_spot.jpg)

This was a video with a p21+ a Contax and flash , because . . . I wanted that cut frame look.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/frank_lola_cover.jpg)
http://www.russellrutherford.com/cut_frank_lola.mov

This image I shot with a 5d2 because I left the 1ds3's and contax in LA, was in Paris shooting motion and had an editorial come in.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/paris_hallway_sm.jpg)

This made a 5'x9" print sold in auction for 5 figures and I'm not a fine art guy.

I have one of these prints in my Hallway.  Last night I looked at it and I can promise you, the technical quality (whatever that means) isn't any better if as good as the omd em1.

I'm positive of that, but the photo worked, the editorial ran and the cherry on top was the fine art sale.

Now if Sony made the A7 series (which is a shameless rip off of the omd em-1 design) as good a camera as the em1(it's not) or shot as pretty (it' doesn't other than megapixel detail with a sandbag on top), then I'll buy it, but if anyone makes a a larger format small camera I hope it's olympus cause those cats can make a camera and they don't seem to give a rats a__ about who has the largest in the room.

IMO

BC.


Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: fredjeang2 on December 23, 2013, 06:53:28 am
I agree with Olympus.
This is a brand I respect very much.
I had an Om2 (analog) and a wide range of glasses,
It was a gas

I think, even more than bodies themselves, that the
Oly real strengh were their lenses.
In fine arts we used to call Oly, the "japanese Leica".
For the quality of the lenses.

Before they did the micro 4/3 and it was just 4/3
They created a range of digital glasses that were
Absolutly outstanding, on the Leitz level.

And the only camera I regret to have sold was the
E1. I'd buy one again today.
(http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Olympus-E1/ol_e1b.jpg)
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Manoli on December 23, 2013, 07:44:01 am
If you guys want to blast to the past, then blast then the look of modern photography was set by Art Kane…  He went to 35mm when in the professional world  that was heresy.  Then again he shot fashion with a 20mm, martini glasses in the sahara when nobody dared shoot a product shot outside in the sun,…

http://Artkane.com/

Good link, BC - thanks. But wasn't Bert Stern the one who did the martini glasses in the sahara ?
(That's not rhetorical, it's a 'I thought, don't know, not sure, do you know' question)
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: OldRoy on December 23, 2013, 07:59:12 am
For anyone who needs only 10 mp, a 54 mp DSLR can be tremendous value and a great tool. A 50mm prime lens on such a camera becomes effectively a high quality 50-150mm zoom, from the perspective of someone who doesn't need more than 10 mp.
Apart from the fact that "10 mp" is a somewhat arbitrary baseline, the statement above seems to me one of the most significant advantages of increased resolution - but one that seldom seems to, ahem, crop up in this kind of discussion.
Having adopted M4/3 and a Panasonic 100-300 lens for snapping birds (usually stationary, admittedly) I wince when I  see people lugging 5-600 mm lenses around.
Roy
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: telyt on December 23, 2013, 10:12:21 am
While I would rather make photos with more than enough detail and smooth tonal gradation it appears from several recent sales that some of my clients don't give a rat's a$$ about such nonsense.

I can't make a blanket statement about the market as a whole, nor can I accurately guess whether my sales would be any different if my technically weak images were sharper or less noisy.  What I do know is that at least in some segments of the market, technical quality is either not on the radar screen or the clients have no idea how much more detail, tonality and color richness is possible.  I'd like to satisfy this market segment and also the segments that want the technical quality along with the content.  There isn't a right or wrong in this, it's more a question of what sells and what doesn't.

My conclusion: poor technical quality doesn't always prevent sales; weak content almost always does prevent sales.  Does better technical quality, all else being equal, help sales?  I can guess that it does but I don't have enough data points to reach a conclusion.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on December 23, 2013, 10:31:24 am
Good link, BC - thanks. But wasn't Bert Stern the one who did the martini glasses in the sahara ?
(That's not rhetorical, it's a 'I thought, don't know, not sure, do you know' question)




Yes, and in fact I think it was a Heublein ad. with a mirror part-buried in the sand providing the reflected images. I think it was for Smirnoff Vodka, part of the Heublein stable in the day.

In my eye, Art Kane and Pete Turner could have been colour twins.

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Telecaster on December 23, 2013, 03:34:53 pm
Galen Rowell used 35mm film, Kodachrome & later Velvia, and made it look like medium format due to his compositional & technical skills. If you've ever been to his gallery in Bishop, CA, and seen large prints of his best work you'll know it still holds up.

Every interchangeable-lens camera system from m43 on up currently in production can outperform, in terms of spatial resolution and dynamic range, every color transparency film ever made. Technically we've never had it so good.

So how come so many people are so grumpy about it all? It's almost as though some of y'all resent having the technical bounty spread around. I prefer the James Russell approach myself.

-Dave-
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Alan Smallbone on December 23, 2013, 03:45:51 pm


So how come so many people are so grumpy about it all? It's almost as though some of y'all resent having the technical bounty spread around. I prefer the James Russell approach myself.

-Dave-

This forum would never be the same without the grumpiness and the endless discussions...  ;D

Happy Holidays and best wishes for the New Year,

Alan
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: telyt on December 23, 2013, 05:15:51 pm
Galen Rowell used 35mm film, Kodachrome & later Velvia, and made it look like medium format due to his compositional & technical skills. If you've ever been to his gallery in Bishop, CA, and seen large prints of his best work you'll know it still holds up.

I've been to his gallery in Bishop, and at Rowell's former Emeryville gallery I've seen his prints side-by-side with Bill Atkinson's (http://www.billatkinson.com/) who at the time was using Hasselblad film cameras.  Rowell's photos do not look like they were made with medium format equipment and film, the difference is obvious.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Telecaster on December 23, 2013, 09:34:45 pm
I've been to his gallery in Bishop, and at Rowell's former Emeryville gallery I've seen his prints side-by-side with Bill Atkinson's (http://www.billatkinson.com/) who at the time was using Hasselblad film cameras. Rowell's photos do not look like they were made with medium format equipment and film, the difference is obvious.

I'll take your word for it in this particular context as Atkinson is himself a highly skilled photographer.

-Dave-
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: John Camp on December 23, 2013, 10:43:24 pm
Ray, I picked the Adams shot precisely because most people find it beautiful and technically excellent, although Adams did not have access to equipment that could do what ours does. So do we really need to do more than what he did? Is there much sense in this continual pixel-peeping?

As far as the technical quality of the 8x10 goes, I suspect, but can't prove (because I'm not a tech head) that a GX1 could match the technical quality of a good 8x10 negative on 1941 film stock. I would be less certain about this if you were to compare 8x10 equipment from the 90s versus digital. Anybody with any information about this, other than simple opinion?

David Sutton: I think I've heard a version of that quote...pretty interesting.

Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Joe S on December 24, 2013, 01:13:28 am
I recently viewed an exhibit of  Ansel Adams work along with some other landscape master works.     I was most struck by the same thing I have been for some while when viewing silver gelatin prints....how generally soft the prints appear!   I realize this is heresy.    I don't believe that there is any doubt that current moderate quality equipment exceeds that which made the vintage masterworks we all enjoy.  
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 24, 2013, 01:13:47 am
As far as the technical quality of the 8x10 goes, I suspect, but can't prove (because I'm not a tech head) that a GX1 could match the technical quality of a good 8x10 negative on 1941 film stock. I would be less certain about this if you were to compare 8x10 equipment from the 90s versus digital. Anybody with any information about this, other than simple opinion?

I am usually the first one to stand up to defend digital IQ against ancient film technology, but good old 8x10" is just too much to be matched by a tiny digital sensor.

Quick and dirty approximation: When 135 full frame cameras started to get better than any 135 film, there were outrageous claims about 135 film sharpness, over 20 MPix and so. Practice has shown that it was not the case, 135 film frame holds about the same amount of detail as 6-12 MPix digital file. Using this as a base and thinking that the camera/lens/film combination AA used was really bad and misaligned, I used a figure of only 2 MPix per 24x36mm film area. Even then the 8x10" plate would have 120 MPix, versus 16 THEORETICAL MPix GX1 has. So the real difference is at least tenfold.

So it is no contest. There still is no replacement for square inches, especially when one has enough of them.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 24, 2013, 01:20:06 am
I recently viewed an exhibit of  Ansel Adams work along with some other landscape master works.     I was most struck by the same thing I have been for some while when viewing silver gelatin prints....how generally soft the prints appear!   I realize this is heresy.    I don't believe that there is any doubt that current moderate quality equipment exceeds that which made the vintage masterworks we all enjoy.  

There are now ways to make prints appear sharper than they really are, something that was not possible with film. Still I would draw a line somewhere, if "moderate quality" equipment means 16+ MPix APS-C and larger sensor cameras, then yes, they equal and beat old 120 systems, but 4x5 and bigger sheet films are a tougher nut to crack.

AA 8x10" prints could be bettered with some stitching with something like 5D3 or D800, easily. But with one frame from M4/3 camera, no way.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 24, 2013, 03:04:24 am
Ray, I picked the Adams shot precisely because most people find it beautiful and technically excellent, although Adams did not have access to equipment that could do what ours does. So do we really need to do more than what he did? Is there much sense in this continual pixel-peeping?

John,
Of course we do. That's progress. The attitude that what was good enough for our grandfathers should be good enough for us would have left us all still in the Stone Age.

I always resisted buying MFDB equipment, not because I didn't appreciate the benefits of its higher resolution and better tonality, but because (1) it didn't seem to me to be good value and therefore I couldn't justify the expense, and (2) there seemed to be serious disadvantages in terms of overall weight and functionality which would not have suited my shooting style, which is taking photos mostly during walks and treks. The relatively poor high-ISO performance of most DBs was also discouraging.

Each person has his own standards regarding technical quality, or just follows the standards of others. What I always try to do is balance the benefits of high resolution and low noise against the disadvantages of bulk, weight and cost.

My ideal camera would be something like a Panasonic FZ200 with the resolution and low noise of a D800E. Perhaps some day, after significant development in nanotechnology, such a camera might become a reality.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on December 24, 2013, 05:06:38 am
It obviously won't change any minds, but I do think it unfortunate that so many folks get so wound up about technicalities. There always was and always will be something 'better' than the thing we currently own, but if what we own is good enough to make nice images possible when in reasonably skilled hands, I see little point in looking ahead to the next best thing. It becomes a race instead of a creative pastime. In a way, it represents the difference between pleasure sailing and competing. One is done calmly and for its intrinsic pleasure where the other is a driven thing, forced by the need to appear better than everybody else. They are much the same thing about being in a boat, but utterly different in approach and purpose.

Wasn't photography simply meant to be about making pleasing images? In the end, for most of us, who gives a shit about how wonderfully sharp our ten-foot-wides appear? It's a digital print, for crissakes; it's lost its virginity even before it's been born.

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: barryfitzgerald on December 24, 2013, 09:09:31 am
I've been to his gallery in Bishop, and at Rowell's former Emeryville gallery I've seen his prints side-by-side with Bill Atkinson's (http://www.billatkinson.com/) who at the time was using Hasselblad film cameras.  Rowell's photos do not look like they were made with medium format equipment and film, the difference is obvious.

Doesn't matter he took some damn nice photos.
I'll take a great 3mp image over a ho hum 36mp one every day of the week  ;D
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: telyt on December 24, 2013, 09:35:40 am
Doesn't matter he took some damn nice photos.
I'll take a great 3mp image over a ho hum 36mp one every day of the week  ;D

That's not in question.  Would you rather take a great 3mp image or a great 36mp image?
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on December 24, 2013, 09:55:37 am
Rob, I agree with much you have said.

On the other hand there are many folk simply looking for solutions to issues they perceive to be problems or irritations. Perhaps a good example would be improvements to Nikon DSLR viewfinders and screens or the introduction of lightweight and compact medium format cameras ;)

Happy Hols.



Keith, you have been reading my posts as well as my mind!

Happy break to you too!

I tooK Ms Coke for an adventure today after lunch - unfortunately, I have to reconnect the old computer to discover whether she did or did not enjoy it, because the  new one won't yet let SanDisk, the Reader, do its thing and send NEFs to a folder of my choosing. They go forcefully into a Windows thing from which they are currently impossible to budge other than by simply cancelling them.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 24, 2013, 09:57:23 am
That's not in question.  Would you rather take a great 3mp image or a great 36mp image?

That's exactly the point. However great a low resolution image is considered to be, it would be even greater at a significantly higher resolution, and with significantly smoother tonality and cleaner shadows.

Most Stock Photography sites price photos according to the file size, ie. resolution.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 24, 2013, 10:14:04 am
I see little point in looking ahead to the next best thing. It becomes a race instead of a creative pastime. In a way, it represents the difference between pleasure sailing and competing. One is done calmly and for its intrinsic pleasure where the other is a driven thing, forced by the need to appear better than everybody else. They are much the same thing about being in a boat, but utterly different in approach and purpose.
Rob C

Can't understand that attitude at all, Rob. I've never bought a camera in order to compete with someone and appear better. I buy cameras to take pictures. I get more pleasure processing noise-free, high resolution images that provide fine detail than I do processing low resolution images with banding in the shadows. It's as simple as that.

Quote
Wasn't photography simply meant to be about making pleasing images? In the end, for most of us, who gives a shit about how wonderfully sharp our ten-foot-wides appear? It's a digital print, for crissakes; it's lost its virginity even before it's been born.

Not at all. A lot of photography is about taking very ugly images, as in a war zone. If the photo is 10 feet wide, I want it to be reasonably sharp as reality is. The sharper the better.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: barryfitzgerald on December 24, 2013, 10:30:51 am
That's exactly the point. However great a low resolution image is considered to be, it would be even greater at a significantly higher resolution, and with significantly smoother tonality and cleaner shadows.

Most Stock Photography sites price photos according to the file size, ie. resolution.

Couple of points, stock photography is a dying area few make a living purely on that work. Even so they will happily accept images that are well below 36mp native size.
Regarding the resolution point, it's as I said of no practical significance to 95% of photographers nowadays.

About the only thing that might be interesting isn't more megapixels, but newer sensor technology as bayer bows out replaced by better technology.
For most folks many cameras even at the lower price points offer more than enough resolution even for demanding tasks. But let's not forget that makers have exploited this for their own sales too.

If 9 out of 10 Nikon D3200 buyers never put anything on their camera bar the 18-55mm kit lens, then having 24mp is completely wasted on such an optic. Yes some will have better lenses, most won't. So I still say with confidence it's got a lot more to do with marketing and camera sales than it has printing big.

As for the cropping argument, fine fire away, but poor technique can never really be substituted with huge crops.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on December 24, 2013, 12:05:48 pm
I recently viewed an exhibit of  Ansel Adams work along with some other landscape master works.     I was most struck by the same thing I have been for some while when viewing silver gelatin prints....how generally soft the prints appear!   I realize this is heresy.    I don't believe that there is any doubt that current moderate quality equipment exceeds that which made the vintage masterworks we all enjoy.  



Wasn't part of the St Al mystique built around the story that he preferred making 8" x 10" contact prints? I doubt there be much unsharpness there unless he went hand-held after a gentleman's luncheon.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 24, 2013, 02:32:08 pm
AA had a contact print box with a matrix of bulbs so that he could "lightshop" even the contact print images...
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on December 24, 2013, 03:21:41 pm
AA had a contact print box with a matrix of bulbs so that he could "lightshop" even the contact print images...



Now that sounds cool! Did it work?

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 24, 2013, 03:49:53 pm
Of course, with 8x10" plates. Each bulb could be turned on and of individually.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: LesPalenik on December 24, 2013, 05:40:04 pm
Quote
Most Stock Photography sites price photos according to the file size, ie. resolution.

Theoretically, that's true, however many stock photographs sold today for print or web pages are small in size, or sold on subscription basis where the buyer pays the same price regardless the size.
 
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 24, 2013, 07:23:29 pm
Regarding the resolution point, it's as I said of no practical significance to 95% of photographers nowadays.

I'm quite happy to be part of the other 5%. I've never been one to follow the mob.  ;)

Quote
As for the cropping argument, fine fire away, but poor technique can never really be substituted with huge crops.

Every photographic image that has existed is a crop. It's not possible to produce an image which is not a crop of the scene being photographed. Cropping is always an essential part of good technique whether such cropping is done through choice of lens and camera format at the time the shot is taken, which usually results in higher resolution, or later in post-processing, which usually results in lower resolution.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: bcooter on December 24, 2013, 07:33:45 pm
Bottom line is this.

I can absolutely build a set of circumstances where every format film or digital that has been mentioned here I could shoot (within a specific scenario) and prove technically that that format was superior.

We all say it 1000 times a minutes but all the matters is the photo.  On this top of this forum is a banner ad, for some metallic silver paper.  Has an interseting image of a woman in white holding some silver thing.

With the right post work I can shoot from 6 to 80 mpx and even the most trained, pixel peeping, chart making tech loving cat will never tell the difference.

So the real bottom line is if it works for you, your images are beautiful (to you and if you work for commerce the people that pay you) if you love photography, then go with what you like, produce great work and live a happy life.

If ol' Ansel built a 10 lightbulb contact printer then good for him, that's thinking outside of the box, or in this case inside the box and if he did it he did it to present the best image possible, from selection to final.

Isn't that the goal?  

Me, right now I dig those olympus 43 omds.  I can build a film, shoot them like I use to shoot 35mm cameras before they got the size of a mini cooper and  .. . ok hold it . . . I gotta confess.  I love those cameras but since I'm such a contrarian I also love the fact that not a lot of professional photographers use them.

I firmly believe that the reason I stuck with the Contax/Phase so long was because everybody else gave up.   I like different stuff, but what I like really has nothing to do with anyone else's work.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on December 25, 2013, 03:32:25 am
Bottom line is this.

I can absolutely build a set of circumstances where every format film or digital that has been mentioned here I could shoot (within a specific scenario) and prove technically that that format was superior.

We all say it 1000 times a minutes but all the matters is the photo.  On this top of this forum is a banner ad, for some metallic silver paper.  Has an interseting image of a woman in white holding some silver thing.

With the right post work I can shoot from 6 to 80 mpx and even the most trained, pixel peeping, chart making tech loving cat will never tell the difference.

So the real bottom line is if it works for you, your images are beautiful (to you and if you work for commerce the people that pay you) if you love photography, then go with what you like, produce great work and live a happy life.

If ol' Ansel built a 10 lightbulb contact printer then good for him, that's thinking outside of the box, or in this case inside the box and if he did it he did it to present the best image possible, from selection to final.

Isn't that the goal?  

Me, right now I dig those olympus 43 omds.  I can build a film, shoot them like I use to shoot 35mm cameras before they got the size of a mini cooper and  .. . ok hold it . . . I gotta confess.  I love those cameras but since I'm such a contrarian I also love the fact that not a lot of professional photographers use them.

I firmly believe that the reason I stuck with the Contax/Phase so long was because everybody else gave up.   I like different stuff, but what I like really has nothing to do with anyone else's work.

IMO

BC




On which reasonable, and optimistic, note - Merry Christams BC!

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 25, 2013, 04:35:31 pm
If ol' Ansel built a 10 lightbulb contact printer then good for him, that's thinking outside of the box, or in this case inside the box and if he did it he did it to present the best image possible, from selection to final.

It was more like a 25 bulb box. I had a zone system handbook which had a picture of it, but I can not locate the book anymore. Can not find any info about it in the net, which really does NOT have everything in it, especially about certain obscure things of the past. It is of course possible to dodge and burn a large contact print with the traditional methods when using a small light source like a single bulb or an enlarger.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: aduke on December 25, 2013, 05:26:55 pm
AA's book, "The Print" mentions that he had used an "Air Force printer" which contained 12 lamps, each with its own switch. I could not find any reference to such a thing on the net.

Alan
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Steve Weldon on December 25, 2013, 06:48:29 pm
I always like Michael's take on things. He's got the best combination of practical and technical on the web.

My take on his take on FF vs. smaller sensor cameras is that we need to own at least one of each, like him.  :)

Yes.  This is really the common sense approach.  A different tool for a different job.  A photographer needs as many different tools as their applications demand.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Petrus on December 26, 2013, 02:17:45 am
AA's book, "The Print" mentions that he had used an "Air Force printer" which contained 12 lamps, each with its own switch. I could not find any reference to such a thing on the net.

Alan

That must be the one. Funny that the net does not have anything about this.

Addendum: the full text of "Print" by Ansel Adams is available at http://archive.org/stream/The_Print/The_Print_djvu.txt

Here is the relevant section from the book:

"Contact-printing light boxes have few advantages and one major
disadvantage in that the negative cannot be seen while printing.
However, for printing large quantities I have used an early "Air
Force" printer, which contained twelve frosted lamps, each with its
own off-on switch. It is thus possible to control the distribution of
light during the printing exposure, to broadly compensate for uneven
negative densities; turning off the central lights, for example, will
increase the relative exposure of the borders and edges of the image.
Actual dodging and burning, however, are quite difficult to accom-
plish with such a printer, since they require the use of translucent
masks, cut to the appropriate shape, inserted below the negative.
The printing-frame principle remains, for me, simpler and more
efficient."
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 26, 2013, 02:54:04 am
Hi,

I just made a 70x100 cm. I took it with my Sony Alpha 99, it is nice but could be sharper. Did it depend on camera or the photographer? I don't know! The same week I took another image with my P45+ on Hasselblad that I printed at 60x80 cm (because I could not crop to 70x100), that P45+ image is really sharp.

It is nice to be able to print large, that suggests megapixels and sharp lenses are good stuff. The way I see it:

The Hasselblad/P45+ makes great images, but is a bit limited compared with my full frame DSLR. The DSLR makes great images, too. For short walks I simply carry both. Long walks? The DSLR comes along.

I also have a smaller APS-C DSLR, it has 24 MP. I use that camera for telephoto shots and as a walk around camera. The full frame DSLR with it's large lenses is simply to monstrous and heavy.

I also have a Sony RX100, it doesn't get much love, but makes some nice images.

It is nice to have high MP count, but it needs lenses to match.

Best regards
Erik


Yes.  This is really the common sense approach.  A different tool for a different job.  A photographer needs as many different tools as their applications demand.
Title: a big sensor in a small kit; not if telephoto (and macro) are important
Post by: BJL on December 26, 2013, 01:06:52 pm
I also like the essay overall, and it is fascinating to compare the attitudes to sub-35mm formats now to what was being said at this site five or ten years ago. But some words about lenses, as suggested by bjnicholls
It's not the weight of the camera body that got me into a Micro Four Thirds system to complement my full frame system. The real difference is the lenses.
You can combine a reasonably large sensor (say "35mm" format) with a small overall kit (body and one or more lenses) when it is enough to cover a FOV range from wide to just a bit longer than normal; more so when one or two prime lenses are enough. So it is no surprise that the various "big sensor, small kit" offerings are typically based on wide to normal or sort telephoto primes, or zoom lenses with a limited and slowish long end, like the Sony EF 28-70 f/4. That lens sets a record amongst modern standard zoom lenses for its combination of limited wide coverage [28mm vs 24mm], limited zoom range [2.5x] and limited aperture range [f/4 vs f2.8 for most 28-70 or 24-70 zooms].

But for the great majority of system camera buyers, at least ones willing to pay several thousand dollars for the body alone, telephoto reach is also an important factor, and it is here that systems like Micro Four Thirds offer a huge advantage in lens and kit size over 35mm format. To rework Ray's example but using actual cameras, trying to do telephoto (or macro) photography with a 36MP, 36x24mm sensor using the same focal length as used in MFT involves cropping to 9MP (or 6MP from a 24MP sensor) And as Ray says, resolution matters: there are often significant visible IQ advantages to 16MP over 9MP or 6MP. More so when even the MFT image must be cropped: I have got some very useful images with a 2x crop to 4MP from my E-M5; but would be less satisfied with the 2.25MP given by the same focal length from the D800 or A7R or the 1.5MP or less from any other 35mm format DSLR.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth ... Re:Ansel
Post by: hsteeves on December 26, 2013, 10:11:42 pm
I was Ansel's darkroom in Carmel in 86 - the year after he died.  One of his enlargers was on horizontal rails that were room length.  The easel was vertical. The light source was the multiple light bank with individual switches for each bulb.  It was the neatest thing.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: barryfitzgerald on December 29, 2013, 09:07:40 am
I'm quite happy to be part of the other 5%. I've never been one to follow the mob.  ;)

Every photographic image that has existed is a crop. It's not possible to produce an image which is not a crop of the scene being photographed. Cropping is always an essential part of good technique whether such cropping is done through choice of lens and camera format at the time the shot is taken, which usually results in higher resolution, or later in post-processing, which usually results in lower resolution.


Composition is selective, so is every aspect of photography including exposure/choice of settings lens used etc etc.
Cropping in camera via composition? That's a new one even for mp die hard fans!

I only usually crop for print (regardless of sensor arguments you will likely have to do this depending on the print aspect ratio) I try to avoid much cropping in post because I think it's not a good sign you on the "ball" behind the camera, bar wildlife/sports shooters who have different needs. As this is primarily a landscape shooters site that's one area where you shouldn't be cropping much at all.

Anyway back on topics, full frame is nice (not essential) it's like anything else on the market, once it's more affordable the adoption rates will increase, simple as that really.
Same reason Android overtook IOS some time ago, Apple don't compete in the low price tablet market..thus cannot sustain market share longer term.

Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on December 29, 2013, 07:12:17 pm
I only usually crop for print (regardless of sensor arguments you will likely have to do this depending on the print aspect ratio)..

Whereas I never crop for print. I make the paper's aspect ratio fit the composition, not the other way round, which would be like the tail wagging the dog.

Quote
I try to avoid much cropping in post because I think it's not a good sign you are on the "ball" behind the camera..

Whereas I am not at all concerned whether anyone thinks I am on the ball behind the camera. The reason I try to get the composition as I want it when I take the shot, by choosing an appropriate focal length in conjunction with position, is because I appreciate detail and fine resolution in an image.

However, I'm not as obsessed with resolution as some folks appear to be. I prefer to use zoom lenses because I know that the resolution lost, if the prime is too wide for the intended composition which then requires cropping during post-processing, largely defeats the purpose of using a sharp and high-quality prime lens, especially considering that aberrations and distortions like color fringing and barrel distortion can be successfully removed in software.

The reason I've raised this option of using a high-resolution camera with a relatively lightweight, high quality prime lens, is  for the benefit of those who claim they do not need or want more than 4 or 6 or 8mp for their final, processed image.

If those people really are not at all concerned with high resolution, then the ultra-high resolution camera offers a marvelous opportunity for them. Think outside of the box. With such a camera, and high quality fixed prime lens attached, you can really be 'on the ball'.

It takes time to change lenses, and no zoom lens has a maximum aperture of F1.2, or F1.4 across its range of focal lengths. And just think of that lovely bokeh, eh!  ;D
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Martin86 on January 01, 2014, 12:13:19 pm

  Well, the author of the article forgot to mention one but crutial thing: The depth of field possibility. Yes, I can see that it is not a hot topic for a landscape shooter but for the experienced eye of the experienced street / portrait / people shooter the full frame abilitites in this respect are not a "myth" at all. With m4/3 or even APS/C, one cannot reach the same field of view with the same level of the shallow DoF. There are no equivalents for 21/1.4, 24/1.4, 35/1.4 or 50/0.95 or 85/1.4 lenses. No need to say in this forum that IT IS the lenses what greatly contributes to the final perception, atmosphere, "pop" and concept of the final images. While in the high-iso department I think we can live up with the offerings from APS-C or m4/3 sensors, the real benefit of the above mentioned facts shouldn´t be forgotten. The size still matters, I´m afraid.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on January 02, 2014, 07:27:54 am
Homrich used to have enlargers with adjustable lighting. Based on one light source and small mirrors if I recall the technology correctly.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: bcooter on January 02, 2014, 09:16:23 am
  Well, the author of the article forgot to mention one but crutial thing: The depth of field possibility. Yes, I can see that it is not a hot topic for a landscape shooter but for the experienced eye of the experienced street / portrait / people shooter the full frame abilitites in this respect are not a "myth" at all. With m4/3 or even APS/C, one cannot reach the same field of view with the same level of the shallow DoF. There are no equivalents for 21/1.4, 24/1.4, 35/1.4 or 50/0.95 or 85/1.4 lenses. No need to say in this forum that IT IS the lenses what greatly contributes to the final perception, atmosphere, "pop" and concept of the final images. While in the high-iso department I think we can live up with the offerings from APS-C or m4/3 sensors, the real benefit of the above mentioned facts shouldn´t be forgotten. The size still matters, I´m afraid.

Don't know what you shoot and I always buy the fastest lenses I can find, though rarely use them with great effect wide open, especially with dlsrs, because the optical viewfinder on a dslr shows a lot more focus pull than what you actually get.

I do think on the small cameras 2.8 is the minimum speed, but on the 43's there are so man options autofocus or not and there are even .95 lenses out there and the beauty of evf is you can actually see well enough to manually focus, even on moving subjects.

IMO

BC

Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on January 02, 2014, 10:12:51 am
Don't know what you shoot and I always buy the fastest lenses I can find, though rarely use them with great effect wide open, especially with dlsrs, because the optical viewfinder on a dslr shows a lot more focus pull than what you actually get.

I do think on the small cameras 2.8 is the minimum speed, but on the 43's there are so man options autofocus or not and there are even .95 lenses out there and the beauty of evf is you can actually see well enough to manually focus, even on moving subjects.

IMO

BC




Hi James,

I don't quite understand what you mean: can you amplify, please?

My experience has always been that the faster the lens the more rapid it is to focus: fast ones display such a shallow dof that you are instantly in or out of focus. Yes, I know there is sometimes a shift in focus on stopping down, but if you are shooting wide open then this is not going to happen.

In the 'old' film days, it seemed to be a general rule that where, for example, you had an f2 and also an f2.8 option of, say, the 35mm focal length lens, the slower optic would give the better overall performance, both lenses working best at about two to two-and-a-half stops down from max. In fact, when I bought my Nikkor 2.8/35mm it was because the f2 version didn't perform as well as the slower one. I took the advice from tests run for the BJP by a chap called Geoffrey Crawley, who was a long-time, greatly respected contributor/tester there. Experience with the f2.8 one led me to consider it the sharpest Nikkor I ever owned. Having sold all of those things off years ago, and now restocking - up to a point - I have the f2 version because my interests have changed from the commercial imperativeness of max. sharpness to the personal one of 'interesting' shallow depth on wide-angle motifs, not a thing that I had much call for in my work.

In effect, the longer the focal length of lens the more shallow the depth of field but the more deep the depth of focus at the film plane.

I don't think the f2/35mm is as good as my old f2.8, though, just 'different' - in a positive manner for me now - because of its speed.

Ciao -

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 02, 2014, 04:03:21 pm
Hi,

I guess there are different needs. Most decent lenses do pretty well if stopped down to f/8 (or so). Large aperture lenses may have issues with focus shift and not perform so well at maximum apertures. Most high performance lenses are also large aperture.

I would suggest that medium aperture lenses like f/2.8 lenses and 24-105/4 zooms may be a bright idea for many of us.

Best regards
Erik



Hi James,

I don't quite understand what you mean: can you amplify, please?

My experience has always been that the faster the lens the more rapid it is to focus: fast ones display such a shallow dof that you are instantly in or out of focus. Yes, I know there is sometimes a shift in focus on stopping down, but if you are shooting wide open then this is not going to happen.

In the 'old' film days, it seemed to be a general rule that where, for example, you had an f2 and also an f2.8 option of, say, the 35mm focal length lens, the slower optic would give the better overall performance, both lenses working best at about two to two-and-a-half stops down from max. In fact, when I bought my Nikkor 2.8/35mm it was because the f2 version didn't perform as well as the slower one. I took the advice from tests run for the BJP by a chap called Geoffrey Crawley, who was a long-time, greatly respected contributor/tester there. Experience with the f2.8 one led me to consider it the sharpest Nikkor I ever owned. Having sold all of those things off years ago, and now restocking - up to a point - I have the f2 version because my interests have changed from the commercial imperativeness of max. sharpness to the personal one of 'interesting' shallow depth on wide-angle motifs, not a thing that I had much call for in my work.

In effect, the longer the focal length of lens the more shallow the depth of field but the more deep the depth of focus at the film plane.

I don't think the f2/35mm is as good as my old f2.8, though, just 'different' - in a positive manner for me now - because of its speed.

Ciao -

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Telecaster on January 02, 2014, 10:24:59 pm
I would suggest that medium aperture lenses like f/2.8 lenses and 24-105/4 zooms may be a bright idea for many of us.

Agreed. Whenever the format wars break out extreme examples always get cited in support or defense of one's favored format. The practical reality of actually taking photos is a different thing.

Rob, focus pull is a cinema term. Remember, BC is a multi-media guy. A typical D-SLR's optical viewfinder is limited to roughly f/2.8 in terms of showing accurate DOF. No focusing aids, mind you, not that they'd be of much use with video anyway. This is a problem if you're pulling focus manually with an f/1.4–2.0 lens used wide-open or close to it...the accuracy isn't good enough.

BTW, Geoffrey Crawley was The Man.   :)

-Dave-
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Ray on January 03, 2014, 03:25:46 am
Of course, for those who are not concerned about resolution and are prepared to crop heavily to get an effectively longer focal length from a short prime, the DoF issue, which is also related to focusing accuracy, and the lower resolution of the lens at wide apertures, should not be an issue.

For example, whilst  the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 G is sharpest at F4, at F1.4 it's still reasonably sharp, certainly sharper than the Nikkor 24-120/F4 zoom used between 85mm and 120mm at F4.

If one were to use the Nikon 50/1.4 G as an effective 150/F1.4 by applying a 3x crop factor on a D800, one would get a 4mp (or 12mb) file with a DoF similar to that gained from an actual 150mm lens used at F4 on the D800.

If the 36mp of the D800 were downsampled to 4mp, I would expect to see slightly better resolution than the 4mp crop, as a pixel-peeper. However, in many circumstances I would also expect to see significantly less noise in the crop of the 50/1.4 shot, assuming both lenses do not have VR. A difference of 3 stops is the difference between ISO 100 and 800.

If the alternative F4 zoom lens, which would considerably add to the weight of the system, had image stabilization equivalent to 3 stops, then for stationary subjects there would be no advantage in the wider aperture of the 50/1.4 without VR. However, if the subject is moving, then that F1.4 aperture could produce either a cleaner image or a sharper image, due to the faster shutter speed that a wider aperture allows..

It's such a pity I'm so obsessed with resolution.  ;D
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on January 03, 2014, 04:09:40 am
Agreed. Whenever the format wars break out extreme examples always get cited in support or defense of one's favored format. The practical reality of actually taking photos is a different thing.

Rob, focus pull is a cinema term. Remember, BC is a multi-media guy. A typical D-SLR's optical viewfinder is limited to roughly f/2.8 in terms of showing accurate DOF. No focusing aids, mind you, not that they'd be of much use with video anyway. This is a problem if you're pulling focus manually with an f/1.4–2.0 lens used wide-open or close to it...the accuracy isn't good enough.

BTW, Geoffrey Crawley was The Man.   :)

-Dave-


Thanks, Dave; I hadn't realised the 'focus pull' reference was to motion photography!

Yes, Crawley was one of those people you felt instinctively that you could trust - glad that he lived when he did. (He also had a thing in favour of Leitz M glass - so I think it was a deserved distinction - at least at the time!)

Thanks again for the clarification -

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: eleanorbrown on January 09, 2014, 08:25:52 pm
Erik, I have been doing a few test prints with my Zeiss Otus 55 on my D800e and also Sony A7R.  Today I printed a 22X32 inch test print of shrubbery with lovely leaves that has wonderful texture tones veins etc.  .  The Otus, shot at f2.8 on the A7r is stunning...I cannot do anywhere near this with a smaller sensor. I'm in the quality range that my Phase/Hassy medium format gives me.  This just amazes me.  Eleanor

Hi,

I just made a 70x100 cm. I took it with my Sony Alpha 99, it is nice but could be sharper. Did it depend on camera or the photographer? I don't know! The same week I took another image with my P45+ on Hasselblad that I printed at 60x80 cm (because I could not crop to 70x100), that P45+ image is really sharp.

It is nice to be able to print large, that suggests megapixels and sharp lenses are good stuff. The way I see it:

The Hasselblad/P45+ makes great images, but is a bit limited compared with my full frame DSLR. The DSLR makes great images, too. For short walks I simply carry both. Long walks? The DSLR comes along.

I also have a smaller APS-C DSLR, it has 24 MP. I use that camera for telephoto shots and as a walk around camera. The full frame DSLR with it's large lenses is simply to monstrous and heavy.

I also have a Sony RX100, it doesn't get much love, but makes some nice images.

It is nice to have high MP count, but it needs lenses to match.

Best regards
Erik


Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 10, 2014, 01:10:16 am
Eleanor,

Great to hear! Thanks for sharing!

I have some interest in the A7r, but I guess I want to see where Sony goes in with both A-mount and EF-mount. Also I am in a money saving mode after buying my P45+. It is very interesting to see what other users find.

Best regards
Erik


Erik, I have been doing a few test prints with my Zeiss Otus 55 on my D800e and also Sony A7R.  Today I printed a 22X32 inch test print of shrubbery with lovely leaves that has wonderful texture tones veins etc.  .  The Otus, shot at f2.8 on the A7r is stunning...I cannot do anywhere near this with a smaller sensor. I'm in the quality range that my Phase/Hassy medium format gives me.  This just amazes me.  Eleanor

Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Rob C on January 10, 2014, 04:58:30 am
Eleanor,

Great to hear! Thanks for sharing!

I have some interest in the A7r, but I guess I want to see where Sony goes in with both A-mount and EF-mount. Also I am in a money saving mode after buying my P45+. It is very interesting to see what other users find.

Best regards
Erik




Erik, you are too late! Your genie has already fled the bottle. You should have had that mental attitude and strength before spending the money!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Manoli on January 10, 2014, 06:43:04 am
Today I printed a 22X32 inch test print of shrubbery with lovely leaves that has wonderful texture tones veins etc.  .  The Otus, shot at f2.8 on the A7r is stunning...I cannot do anywhere near this with a smaller sensor. I'm in the quality range that my Phase/Hassy medium format gives me.  This just amazes me.  Eleanor

Eleanor, music to my ears …
Now, the interesting sequel will be how great a difference between the Otus v SUMMILUX-M 50/1.4 on an A7r.
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: bcooter on January 10, 2014, 09:36:30 am
I never looked at the R due to the focus, but looked at the A7.

I'll bet that most people that were shopping the olympus compared the em-1 to the a7, but I doubt if anyone shopping for an A7 and especially the a7r ever compared them to the olympus.

It's hard to deny the thought of full frame, but for me it was hard to deny the results I saw.

IMO


BC
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Manoli on January 10, 2014, 10:59:28 am
… but I doubt if anyone shopping for an A7 and especially the a7r ever compared them to the olympus.
It's hard to deny the thought of full frame, but for me it was hard to deny the results I saw.

Well, one did. Mainly because of your persuasive arguments in its favour and MR's A7r/ Leica review. But the bottom line, as I posted elsewhere was this: your priorities were "autofocus, tracking, stabilisation, colour, in-camera corrections and extensibility" whereas mine were " B&W, tonality, stills only, prefers manual focus and has a host of top-grade legacy glass (that he's not willing to discard) ".

In the end it also came down to the fact that I wasn't buying any overpriced Sony lenses to go with it, whereas with the Olympus it would have been impossible not to buy 'that' zoom and the 75/1.8 as a minimum. I like the OM, like the Olympus DNA, liked the quality feel to the whole camera (hated the menu system) but neither needed nor wanted the advantages the OM offered.

Two comments though; the results you saw were mainly, if I'm not mistaken, based on jpeg output. Sony jpeg's, by all accounts, are … 'not the best'. And the construction of the A7 is not to the standard of the A7r - it's only partly magnesium.

But yes, I guess that in the end, m43 v FF counted - for my usage.



Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: bcooter on January 10, 2014, 02:32:46 pm
Well, one did. Mainly because of your persuasive arguments in its favour and MR's A7r/ Leica review. But the bottom line, as I posted elsewhere was this: your priorities were "autofocus, tracking, stabilisation, colour, in-camera corrections and extensibility" whereas mine were " B&W, tonality, stills only, prefers manual focus and has a host of top-grade legacy glass (that he's not willing to discard) ".

In the end it also came down to the fact that I wasn't buying any overpriced Sony lenses to go with it, whereas with the Olympus it would have been impossible not to buy 'that' zoom and the 75/1.8 as a minimum. I like the OM, like the Olympus DNA, liked the quality feel to the whole camera (hated the menu system) but neither needed nor wanted the advantages the OM offered.

Two comments though; the results you saw were mainly, if I'm not mistaken, based on jpeg output. Sony jpeg's, by all accounts, are … 'not the best'. And the construction of the A7 is not to the standard of the A7r - it's only partly magnesium.

But yes, I guess that in the end, m43 v FF counted - for my usage.







If I was you I would have done the same thing.  If I needed 30mpx I would have given the A7 a much closer look.

I hope this doesn't come as a misunderstanding, because I wanted the A7 to be the camera I needed, not just wanted.   

What surprised me was on the A7 vs. the em-1 "I" like the 43 file better, found the sharpness and detail more interesting (not more detailed, just more interesting) and I love the olympus camera, except it doesn't tether.

Personally I don't understand the camera companies, except Canon and Nikon.

You may never need tethering, or focus tracking or a large lens set, but is nice if you do, whether your a professional or an advanced amateur.

You may never need a wide acceptance by the rental companies like borrow lens, or lens rentals, but once again, it's nice if you do.

What I really don't understand is software is 1/2 the equation of all digital cameras, motion or still and only Canon has a good oem tethering suite (other than phase/leaf/hasselblad) and all the rest rely on difficult, less than robust software.

That just kind of freezes my brain, because once you write the suite, isn't the hard work done?

In other words the camera companies have come to realize that cheap point and shoot business is gone and the higher end is where the profit is, but once they get close to the high end, they kind of stop.

Anyway, I understand the A7R for a lot of people, I just wasn't one of them.

IMO

BC


Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 10, 2014, 03:04:48 pm
Hi,

I guess that the two companies you understand are in command of something like 80% of the relevant market, which may mean that you may not be alone…

Joke aside, I would suggest that Nikon and later Canon built their marketplace by consequently delivering adequate solutions to their customers needs.

Nice to hear you enjoy 4/3.

Best regards
Erik




Personally I don't understand the camera companies, except Canon and Nikon.


Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Telecaster on January 10, 2014, 03:42:28 pm
Well, I'll be picking up my A7r later today on the way home from the Upscale Mega Mall (where my friend Bruce & I are drinking coffee, chatting, people watching and typing away on our respective gizmos). So we'll see how it stacks up against the E-M1 in our opinion. When I told Bruce what I had in mind for the Sony (16:9 aspect ratio, downsampling, no printing, Y/C Zeiss lenses) he looked at me like one of my eyes had fallen out. But after many emphatic repetitions of "4K is the Future, dude!" he seems less perturbed.   :D

-Dave-
Title: Re: The Full Frame Myth
Post by: Vladimirovich on January 11, 2014, 12:10:56 pm
There are no equivalents for 21/1.4, 24/1.4, 35/1.4 or 50/0.95 or 85/1.4 lenses.
with APS-C and the likes of Metabones speedbooster you are almost there (wider by 0.7 and faster by 1 stop)...