I'm struggling to decide on a camera, sensor size, mirrorless or SLR...Think you can help? ;)

[Dragster3]

Lens are forever! I love shooting with an old lens I bought from flea market. Dying to get my hands on some Russian lenses...whatever you buy, your gonna think you made a mistake...because since you really don't know much about DSLR cameras, and haven't used many different types, you will always think it's greener on the other side. You need to buy something low cost, then see what you need/ desire in a DSLR, go shooting with other people, look at their set-up, and try different cameras.

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[TimmyD11]

Can someone explain to me the higher dxomark score for the APS-C D7200 compared to the full frame 6D?

It might come down to the difference in sensor technologies. (Sony vs. Canon.)

Does that score necessarily mean that it thinks THAT APSC-C camera is better than THAT full frame camera?

 

[Designer]

Does that score necessarily mean that it thinks THAT APSC-C camera is better than THAT full frame camera?

Yes, I'd say it looks that way, according to their tests.

 

[Derrel]

Can someone explain to me the higher dxomark score for the APS-C D7200 compared to the full frame 6D?

THE D7200 has a DxO Mark dynamic range test result of 14.6 EV....the 6D has a dynamic range result of 12.1 EV; that is a two and one-half EV advantage to the Nikon's sensor. The 6D on the other hand, does better in low light score than the D7200; physically larger pixels almost always perform better in low light than do smaller-sized pixels, which is one area where full-frame cameras usually best smaller-sensored cameras: in low lighting conditions.

The DxO Mark score differences are due to different sensor technology. Now, a 12.1 EV dynamic range sounds good to most people. But a 14.6 EV dynamic range is fantastic; a few years ago we only dreamed of a sensor that could handle such a wide range of exposure values.

 

[TimmyD11]

Derrel, earlier in this thread someone said that you can go long easy with APS-C and you can go wide easy with full frame. Isn't there advantages of a relatively inexpensive 70 to 200mm lens becoming a 112 to 320mm zoom, especially if that APS-C sensor is an exceptional modern one?

Then someone like me would need a 17mm lens to actually have a 28mm lens for landscape photography. Doesn't seem too terrible.

 

[BrentC]

Every day you delay making a decision a kitten dies.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, earlier in this thread someone said that you can go long easy with APS-C and you can go wide easy with full frame. Isn't there advantages of a relatively inexpensive 70 to 200mm lens becoming a 112 to 320mm zoom, especially if that APS-C sensor is an exceptional modern one?

Then someone like me would need a 17mm lens to actually have a 28mm lens for landscape photography. Doesn't seem too terrible.

70-200 is one lens...24-70 is another lens...on the teles or tele-zooms, there's a narrow FOV, which can be hard to utilize indoors. Let's take an 85mm lens; and say we need and 8.47 foot tall field of view...that FOV is obtained at 20.0 feet on FF, but at 34.5 feet on 1.6 APS-C. At 34.5 feet, camera-to-subject distance starts to make depth of field LESS-shallow, even at wider apertures. Your $2,499 70-200mm f/2.8 portraiture lens has JUST become less-useful as a bacground blurring tool when mounted on an APS-C camera. Your 85mm lens has just become almost useless unless you have 35 to 40 or 50 feet to shoot a full-length shot, or a group portrait, when used on APS-C. Your 70-200 that was sooooo useful at a wedding recepion has now become a sniper-position, narrow-angle lens, somewhat useless inside of 30 feet for MANY types of photos!

Indoors, on a 9-foot-wide seamless backdrop...the APS-C studio portrait shooter now wants an 80-foot-long studio...and for group shots, he ends up at 33-38mm lens settings to get a group into one photo...Uggghhh!

Wide-angles now need aspherical elements for decent performance on tiny sensors...

"Going long" on APS-C also means LESS background blurring with 300 and 400mm lenses at distances in football or soccer, or on wildlife...and with smaller max. f/stop lenses, you end up with fairly unspectacular subject/background separation on APS-C even with long teles.

Your 70-200mm lens NEVER becomes a 112-300mm lens...that's simple math, but it ignores the fact that at 85mm, to get a 6-foot tall man in a full-length shot, you need to be 34.5 feet away from him with an APS-C camera! The difference between shooting at 20 feet with FX camera and 34.5 feet is HUGE.

 

[TimmyD11]

Your 70-200mm lens NEVER becomes a 112-300mm lens...that's simple math

Huh?

 

[TimmyD11]

What's the matter with a 50mm lens becoming your 85mm portrait lens with APS-C, besides depth of field issues?

 

[Derrel]

50mm becomes roughly 75mm, not 85mm. And what's "wrong" is that there are 85mm lenses with superb bokeh characteristics, like Nikon's old 85mm f/1.4 AF-D, affectionately called The Cream machine, for its rendering. Most 50mm lenses are only average in rendering beauty, and many are fairly harsh (Canon and Zeiss have made some awful 50's as far as hashy bokeh). But the issue too is that a 75mm lens is not an 85mm. At the short end...where is the 14mm or 16mm or 17mm equivalent for 1.5x bodies? Does not exist.

The difference is that you've got a $199 lens, a 50mm, being used as a substitute focal length, not the 85mm length, where the lens designs and prices are at the very highest level in many cases. Leica has made a 75mm for years. I used to own a 50mm and a 75mm for full-frame...they are two very different lenses. 75mm angle of view is much wider than the field of view that 85mm gives.

Anyway, I gotta get moving. Suffice it to say that if you cannot understand the 20-foot versus 35 foot example and the simple math analogy I used to show that equivalency does not mean equality well,I guess I don't have the time to explain why a 70-200 shot on the format it was designed to be used on is nowhere near the same thing when much of the lens's field of view is cropped off; the focal length NEVER changes, but the outside edges of the field of view are simply not recorded when the lens is mounted on an APS-C body. The lens does NOT "grow longer". There are two sides on every coin; narrowing the view of EVERY, single lens mounted is what APS-C does; it does not "magnify the eagle" so to speak.

Good luck in the camera search, Tim. Gotta run.

 

[Designer]

You are getting confused over the "crop factor" concept. Any lens stays what it is, it will not change. Focal length does not change. Focal length stays the same. The focal length is what it is.

What's the matter with a 50mm lens becoming your 85mm portrait lens with APS-C, besides depth of field issues?

Now to your question; a 50mm lens will have a different field of view than an 85mm lens. The angles of each are different. If you were to fill the frame with someone's face using your 50mm lens, and then compare that with the image you got from your 85mm lens, you would see a difference.

Hope that helps.

 

[TimmyD11]

So a 70 to 200mm zoom lens won't essentially give me more zoom range on a camera with an APS-C sensor?

 

[snowbear]

So a 70 to 200mm zoom lens won't essentially give me more zoom range on a camera with an APS-C sensor?

No, not really. You get a tighter crop, meaning the angle of view gets narrower, but the focal length, and the apparent size of objects in the viewfinder and un-enlarged image, stays the same.

 

[TimmyD11]

From Camera Shopper magazine (UK), comparing the Canon 6D to the Nikon D750:

"The Nikon delivers punchier-looking images and has better autofocus, especially for moving objects. The Canon has better dynamic range and is more able to retain detail in bright highlights and dark lowlights"

and

"There's very little to choose between the two for dynamic range at the base sensitivity setting of ISO 100. However from ISO 200 and upwards, the 6D gives better detail in lowlights, and more convincing tonal range. This remains the case whether the Canon's Auto Lighting Optimizer and Nikon's Active D-Lighting features are enabled or switched off."

AND WHY ARE THEY COMPARING THE 6D WITH THE D750 AND NOT THE 6D WITH THE D600 OR D610?

 

[Dragster3]

Cell phone pic...if it was taken with a Cannon I would be able to see a flea, a Nikon a flea on the flea, and Pentax we would have an x-ray...

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app