Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Aptus 22 vs 5DII  (Read 107854 times)

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #60 on: December 04, 2008, 12:45:33 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
Let's make it very simple.
MF systems make it possible to shoot portraits with a 200mm lens wide open and give you much less DOF than the same 200mm on a FF DSLR.
When you want to achieve this one could opt for a 300mm lens for example and use that on f2.8 (if possible) but still there is a different look, the 300mm will compress the scene different than the 200mm.

you are not right with this frank.
the 300 @ f4 with a 36x48mm sensor wont compress much different as a 200 @ f2,8 with a 24x35.
it would be exactly the same if the 200 would be on a 26,5x36 mm sensor. optical laws.
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

ihv

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
    • http://www.flickr.com/ihv
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #61 on: December 04, 2008, 01:04:15 pm »

It seems to me that due to brigther lenses actually the small format
has narrower DOF. For example: 35+85@1.2 vs MF+120@4
(comparing these focal lenghts in order to maintain the
same FOV, the same distance from the subject). Any reason
why this comparison is not valid?
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #62 on: December 04, 2008, 01:20:26 pm »

Quote from: ihv
It seems to me that due to brigther lenses actually the small format
has narrower DOF. For example: 35+85@1.2 vs MF+120@4
(comparing these focal lenghts in order to maintain the
same FOV, the same distance from the subject). Any reason
why this comparison is not valid?
yes. because this things follow optical laws.
some basic books about optics and photography dont fit bad into this discussions.
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #63 on: December 04, 2008, 02:27:42 pm »

@rainier,
I don't doubt your knowledge let me set that first.
What I meant to say is that even with the same or different lens choices there is a difference in the endresult (workflow).
For the same portret with the same lens you have to step closer to the model with a MF format, and thus rendering a different look.

It's hard to explain on a forum what is meant, and probarbly my example doesn't come over the way I intended.
What I'm trying to say is that with the bigger sensor and the lenses for MF you can achieve a different look than with a DSLR.

I did try some tests ,before I switched, with the 120mm macro on the 645AFD/III and a 85mm on the 5D and when comparing those shots there was a much more pleasant compression on the 120mm macro shot with the Mamiya than on the 85mm on the canon 5D.
With the MF system I can shoot at 210mm wide open (f4.5) and throw my background completly out of focus, standing in the same location with the 70-200L f2.8 I can not achieve that to this extend, I can throw it out of focus a bit but not as creamy as with the 210mm on the MF (distance model / background / photographer is the same).

The reason for this (or at least I thought it is) is that the focal length of 120mm is different than the 85mm and when standing at the same location there is a difference in behaviour, called it FOV or compression. Or at least that's my experience, but I could be totally wrong so if you can point me in a right direction I would love to read about it (one learns every day).

My simple conclusion was as follows.
When I shoot a person with a 200mm lens the DOF will fall off quicker than with a 135mm lens (same crop, FOV)
When we now replace the lenses for cameras one could say (or at least that is my conclusion) that we can now shoot with a person with a longer lens from the same distance and thus have a quicker fall off of focus and more compression.


Sample shot by the way with the background, this was by the way just a test shot so nothing special but I hope it explains it a bit:

This is shot at the narrowest part of the old studio and with the 5D I could not get the background and focus on the model like this, not even with the 70-200L f2.8 wide open (by the way could not shoot at 200mm with that lens due to space limitations). So I was limited to the same place on both cameras.
Hope this helps a bit with what I'm trying to say. (always difficult on a forum).
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 02:42:36 pm by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #64 on: December 04, 2008, 04:33:02 pm »

Quote from: bcooter
what I think more than lenses, format or mpx, what would stop all this conversation is if someone would just rip the aa filter off a 5d2 or a 1dsMark III.

Has anyone tried this: http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #65 on: December 04, 2008, 05:02:21 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@rainier,
I don't doubt your knowledge let me set that first.
What I meant to say is that even with the same or different lens choices there is a difference in the endresult (workflow).
For the same portret with the same lens you have to step closer to the model with a MF format, and thus rendering a different look.

It's hard to explain on a forum what is meant, and probarbly my example doesn't come over the way I intended.
What I'm trying to say is that with the bigger sensor and the lenses for MF you can achieve a different look than with a DSLR.

I did try some tests ,before I switched, with the 120mm macro on the 645AFD/III and a 85mm on the 5D and when comparing those shots there was a much more pleasant compression on the 120mm macro shot with the Mamiya than on the 85mm on the canon 5D.
With the MF system I can shoot at 210mm wide open (f4.5) and throw my background completly out of focus, standing in the same location with the 70-200L f2.8 I can not achieve that to this extend, I can throw it out of focus a bit but not as creamy as with the 210mm on the MF (distance model / background / photographer is the same).

The reason for this (or at least I thought it is) is that the focal length of 120mm is different than the 85mm and when standing at the same location there is a difference in behaviour, called it FOV or compression. Or at least that's my experience, but I could be totally wrong so if you can point me in a right direction I would love to read about it (one learns every day).

My simple conclusion was as follows.
When I shoot a person with a 200mm lens the DOF will fall off quicker than with a 135mm lens (same crop, FOV)


When we now replace the lenses for cameras one could say (or at least that is my conclusion) that we can now shoot with a person with a longer lens from the same distance and thus have a quicker fall off of focus and more compression.


Sample shot by the way with the background, this was by the way just a test shot so nothing special but I hope it explains it a bit:

This is shot at the narrowest part of the old studio and with the 5D I could not get the background and focus on the model like this, not even with the 70-200L f2.8 wide open (by the way could not shoot at 200mm with that lens due to space limitations). So I was limited to the same place on both cameras.
Hope this helps a bit with what I'm trying to say. (always difficult on a forum).


 
you give lessons in photography and  don't even understand the basics - the relation between shooting distance, magnification, aperture  and focal length  WOW !  what you observe is correct but the conclusion you draw
in favor of mf is ridiculous , not everybody has limited studio space...
Logged

ixpressraf

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #66 on: December 04, 2008, 05:08:27 pm »

It's strange that people who never shot MF think they know all about it. I think it is better to stop discussing these things and let everyone shoot the way they like. frank really knows what he is talking about and like him, i will continue to shoot MF because there will never be a replacement by a 35mm camera. This has never been when shooting film and will not be digital.
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #67 on: December 04, 2008, 05:15:53 pm »

Not everyone has unlimited studio space.
Yes I teach and I do understand the basics that's also why I try to explain what I see.
However when I saw your name I already knew what your response would be.

For me the discussion is closed when we can't just talk without turning to trying to hurt someones reputation.
With all due respect I love talking about photography and the discussions it yields and I believe one can learn from a healthy discussion but in the end this will only hurt people.

Maybe it's time also for me to just don't post anymore, a lot of the people I loved to see shots from and read their tips are also not posting anymore and that's a shame.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 05:19:19 pm by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

E_Edwards

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #68 on: December 04, 2008, 05:27:14 pm »

Whilst it's true that it may be easier to achieve this rapid decrease of depth of field with a digital back, frankly the usage of images such as these, (Frank's) with such extreme fall off, is quite rare in commercial applications, for instance, open Vogue and look at all the main top end advertisers of fashion, make up, perfumes and beauty. Nothing like this to be seen.


In fact, if anything it's the opposite, i.e. closing down to get good focus coverage of the model. I shoot commercial with 1DS2 and I find that for 3/4 length, I need to use an aperture of at least f8 with an 85 or 100 lens. Although I have medium format, which I use for product photography, I am not comfortable enough, or at least not as comfortable and free as shooting with the Canon. I get all the sharpness I need and more with the Canon (but I always focus manually, I find auto focus a waste of time) and the skin tones are really not any different to adjust as with a digital back. Sometimes I shoot higher ISO on purpose, so that the images are not so clean, sharp or digital looking. Sometimes a bit of imperfection gives the pictures something magical.

Edward
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 05:32:50 pm by E_Edwards »
Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #69 on: December 04, 2008, 05:35:03 pm »

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 09:22:42 am by gwhitf »
Logged

epatsellis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #70 on: December 04, 2008, 05:38:28 pm »

I think Frank has a valid point, one that most people that have never explored larger formats discover. Each format, be it 6x4.5, 6x7 or larger (I prefer 8x10 for my "serious" work personally) has a certain "look" the jump from 24x36 to 6x4.5 for instance, means that while technically, the DOF characteristics will be identical for each f.l. , the fact that one moves closer for larger formats means that the DOF comparison is thrown out the window. Likewise, I shoot alot of my portraits with a 19" Red Dot Apo Artar on 8x10, a 480mm (+/-) lens on that large of a format renders totally differently than the same f.l. on smaller image formats. DOF is virtually non existant below f16-f22 in fact at most portrait distances (and btw, we're creeping up on close to 1:1 magnification as well).

If the relative distance between camera, subject and background doesn't change, then yes, perspective is the same, but in reality, they do change as the AOV changes, and we reframe to compensate, so everybody's right, if you want to look at the bigger picture.

Frank's strongest point is lighting, and intimately understanding and seeing it, if you've never looked at his work, you really should.


erie
Logged

E_Edwards

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #71 on: December 04, 2008, 05:40:14 pm »

Quote from: gwhitf
I tested my 1ds3 today, to compare the apparent depth of field that I see in the viewfinder, versus what is rendered in the file. I've tested this before and it seems like digital has so much less depth of field than film, for some reason.

Today, I tested fstops, and to get sharp in my 1ds3 viewfinder, (viewing thru the 50 at f1.2), I had to stop down to f8 or even 11 to get the file focus depth to match the viewfinder depth.

1.2 viewing, versus f8 in the file. A massive difference.

So we can no longer say WYSIWYG about the viewfinder.

Test it yourself, you'll be shocked. Yet another reason to have a high quality LCD out in the field, if you're not shooting tethered.

Hell, maybe it's always been that way, even with film, but it was just too much trouble and time consuming to test it with film.

It may be to do with the fact that our brain is telling our eyes to correct or compensate, and we form a different impression of reality. I wonder what focal length our eyes are?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 05:41:34 pm by E_Edwards »
Logged

Snook

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #72 on: December 04, 2008, 05:40:48 pm »

I just made some jiffy Pop PopCorn,
Because I love reading Arguments between Non Native English speaking/writing people on these forums..
Kind a get a kick out of it...
Just want to jump in an help them out.. Or give'em a Big-O-Bear Hug


Snook
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 05:43:13 pm by Snook »
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #73 on: December 04, 2008, 05:54:40 pm »

@gwhtff
The remark on film could be debit to the fact that the sensor is 100% flat and film never is ?

Don't know about seeing the difference in dof through the viewfinder never saw that but will look at it now you point it out.
What could also change the appearence of dof through the viewfinder is the magnification factor of the viewfinder if there is any.
When for example compare the viewfinder of the 5d to the 1ds3 there is a difference and both are ff. That could ofcourse also be debit to the change you see.

I don't say it's exactly what you are meaning but it could be or part of it.
Any change in the optical path will have some influence on the results.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 06:00:24 pm by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #74 on: December 04, 2008, 06:05:03 pm »

Quote from: E_Edwards
I wonder what focal length our eyes are?

depends on thier diameter - have you got a big head ?

supposedly about 80mm 645 or 50-55 35FF

if bringing the viewfinder to you eye is no different from bringing a bit of cardboard with a hole in it then that lens has the same focal lenghth as the eye

-----

The DOF thing over sensor size - I am convinced there is a difference - trouble is you need to mesure 3 points not two

ie 50 35FF F2.0 may render A sharp and C has a CoC of N

and with an 80 645 F2.8 may give A sharp, C CoC of N

leading  people to beleive the look is the same

HOWEVER if you take a midpoint B the CoC will not be the same

What I find interesting with MF is that Even at 8 or 11 the background is still chucked lovely OOF

So you can get for a fashion pic 2/3 upright the clothes sharp, eyes sharp and background OOF WHILE still maintaining a sense of scale of the backgroung that would be rendered 'wrong' if one backed off with a longer lense on a 35FF to get the same drop focus

I did a blog here some time ago

Check out the Hassy Blur even at F11

SMM

CoC = circle of confusion = 'blur' BTW
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 06:11:37 pm by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

hauxon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #75 on: December 04, 2008, 06:12:09 pm »

Quote from: csp
you give lessons in photography and  don't even understand the basics - the relation between shooting distance, magnification, aperture  and focal length  WOW !  what you observe is correct but the conclusion you draw
in favor of mf is ridiculous , not everybody has limited studio space...

135mm@f/2.8 on FF DSLR and 210mm@f/4.5 on 645 is not the same.  FOV and DOF may be the similar but the f-stop is different, the lights act different, the oof area may render more pleasantly on his prime than the Canon zoom etc, a lot of variables come into play.  One thing I've sometimes thought about is if the amount of OOF is linear or in parabolic relation to the sensor size.  .....what I'm trying to say is that even if the in-focus area is the same, is it possible that the larger sensor makes the rate of OOF somehow steeper?

Best, Hrannar
Logged

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #76 on: December 04, 2008, 06:16:45 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@gwhtff
The remark on film could be debit to the fact that the sensor is 100% flat and film never is ?

Don't know about seeing the difference in dof through the viewfinder never saw that but will look at it now you point it out.
What could also change the appearence of dof through the viewfinder is the magnification factor of the viewfinder if there is any.
When for example compare the viewfinder of the 5d to the 1ds3 there is a difference and both are ff. That could ofcourse also be debit to the change you see.

I don't say it's exactly what you are meaning but it could be or part of it.
Any change in the optical path will have some influence on the results.

No.

There is an explanation by someone here about why the Canon ground glass has a different dof than the actual file. The same with the Nikon's.

I know I have tested it recently shooting background plates in china that we need to matte behind certain images, where the chinese letters are slightly in focus to tell they are chinese but out enough not to be readable.   If you look through the viewfinder what you can read at a certain focal point will not be readable on the lcd or the file.  What looks almost sharp in the viewfinder is still somewhat soft.

Now I don't know if my Contax's do this with the Phase backs but I know with Canon and Nikon that's the case.

Then again it really doesn't matter because at some point most of us know what F 1.2 vs. 2.8, 5.65, 8 etc  will pull into focus.

Frank,

I am a little surprised that you can't get the same blur with a Canon 85mm that you did with your medium format cameras.

This I have also tested with the Contax and nothing throws focus like the 85 1.2.  At the framing you showed you can almost pick which eyelash you want in focus with the Canon, with the NIkon 85 1.4 you can pick which eyelash and a half you want in focus.

Actually the only way I can get the type of 85 1.2 limited dof with the Contax is with the Hasselblad 110 2.0 lens wide open.





Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #77 on: December 04, 2008, 06:22:08 pm »

Another thought on the DOF thing..

Humans have perception - how they expect things to look, also the size of background objects give scale

we are doing complex calulations

therefore one could argue that one should always use a 50mm lens and shoot from a distance that it is natural to see that object from

shooting a 50 on a 5.4 gives a wide view, shooting on a APS crops in close - but the perspective stays the same - natural and correct

This does not work however when one is close to an object, close enoungh for our two eyes to see significantly different views - at this point we do different calulations with our brains and feed a different perception to our concience

hense shooting a headshot on a 50 is not considered flattering

bizarrely famous baseball/soccer players may look wierd in real life because we 'know' them through extreme telephotos

S





Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #78 on: December 04, 2008, 06:26:54 pm »

Quote from: hauxon
is it possible that the larger sensor makes the rate of OOF somehow steeper?

Best, Hrannar

exactly the rates of change are different - it might be possible to find two points on the different curves that intersect
but never three
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2008, 06:31:20 pm »

Quote from: James R Russell
No.

There is an explanation by someone here about why the Canon ground glass has a different dof than the actual file.

I dont think this is correct

with a piddly little focusing screen one just cant see as much than at 200% on a monitor - we just cant see the blur as well in camera

the 85 1.2 can give less DOF than any MF but not the same DOF IMO

S
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12   Go Up