Larger sensor just a luxury?

[bazooka]

bump

onwards to pg 16

Change it to max posts per page and it's a much less impressive 8 pages.

 

[Derrel]

I think that it is very difficult to draw definitive general conclusions from comparisons of specific cameras because there are so many variables. For example, I've seen side-by-side comparisons between my D3 and the Fuji X100 - both 12 megapixel cameras, but the Fuji is an APS-C. There isn't that much difference in resolution - the D3 might have a slight edge in colour accuracy and contrast, but that might be a software issue, I'm not sure. I'll be interested to see comparisons between the new X-Pro 1 and full frame cameras. I've seen plenty of comparisons between the D3 and 4x5, and the difference is slight until you print larger than 12x18 or so. Meanwhile, there's no harm in having a good grasp of the issues...

Have you seen this comparison of different format capture devices and media? Big Camera Comparison | On Landscape

I thought THIS photo was a really interesting one: miroscope-700.jpg

 

[Helen B]

I think that it is very difficult to draw definitive general conclusions from comparisons of specific cameras because there are so many variables. For example, I've seen side-by-side comparisons between my D3 and the Fuji X100 - both 12 megapixel cameras, but the Fuji is an APS-C. There isn't that much difference in resolution - the D3 might have a slight edge in colour accuracy and contrast, but that might be a software issue, I'm not sure. I'll be interested to see comparisons between the new X-Pro 1 and full frame cameras. I've seen plenty of comparisons between the D3 and 4x5, and the difference is slight until you print larger than 12x18 or so. Meanwhile, there's no harm in having a good grasp of the issues...

Have you seen this comparison of different format capture devices and media? Big Camera Comparison | On Landscape

I thought THIS photo was a really interesting one: miroscope-700.jpg

I hadn't seen that comparison. Thanks for mentioning it. I've seen many of Tim Parkin's comparisons between LF and digital. It should be no surprise that the difference between a good FF 35 mm format digital camera and LF isn't significant until you print large, or that the Mamiya 7 can give similar results to 4x5 - I only notice that particular difference above about 24x30, and I can mix my 4x5 shots with my Mamiya 7 shots at that size with only very slight differences, mostly caused by the graininess of the film. DoF is another issue - if you want really shallow DoF then bigger is still better, because although lenses do generally get faster as the coverage goes down, it isn't quite in proportion to the format size.

Best,
Helen

 

[2WheelPhoto]

bump

onwards to pg 16

Change it to max posts per page and it's a much less impressive 8 pages.

done| thanks for the tip!

 

[chuasam]

This thread is terrific for people who'd rather be arguing sensor size than out there taking pictures. Why am I answering it? It pops up my my "new posts" display.
Why aren't I out taking pictures? I'm waiting for Lightroom to be done exporting last night's shoot.

 

[Helen B]

This thread is terrific for people who'd rather be arguing sensor size than out there taking pictures. Why am I answering it? It pops up my my "new posts" display.
Why aren't I out taking pictures? I'm waiting for Lightroom to be done exporting last night's shoot.

You have no idea what the people who are taking part in this thread are doing, so why don't you just stop making stupid assumptions? If you want to contribute, contribute something positive. Otherwise why not keep out of it?

As for me, I post here in between shots, while the guys are doing the set for the nest shot.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

You keep leaving out important variables.

Depth of field is dependent on magnification, focal plane-to-subject distance, and aperture (iris). You cannot say that at the same magnification and same aperture size, the DoF is the same because you're not considering subject distance. If you have a full frame sensor and a crop sensor, then subject distance MUST change in order to keep the magnification constant. And if subject distance changes, DoF must change as well, given everything else stays the same.

Uhm, as I said, given the same magnification, same final image viewing size, same f stop, a larger format would get the advantage in lesser depth of field. But the same f stop on a larger format means a larger entrance pupil. If both format has the same final image viewing size, same magnification, and same entrance pupil diameter, then depth of field shall be the same.

I'm sure someone has pointed this out by now (I haven't read further yet, but will), but this is incorrect. At the same f stop, the iris is the same. It matters not what sensor or what mount type the lens is. An f/4 has the same size iris/aperture regardless of whether it's mounted on an iphone or a large format. Why? The "f" in f/4 stands for focal length. Aperture(iris) dimension = focal length / 4 . Iris size is not dependent on any factors other than light coming out the other end of the lens and focal length. And the light coming out the end of the lens is going to be "perceived" the same by any medium no matter what size. The difference will be the size of the imaging circle of light the lens produces... not it's brightness/density/amount/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

Hmmm... Try this. Equivalent focal length = 50mm, fstop = f/2. Full frame - 50mm/2 = 25mm entrance pupil. M4/3 - 25mm/2 = 12.5mm entrance pupil. Same?

 

[Derrel]

Language (native? second? third? fourth? written or spoken?), grammar, and punctuation can ALL make communication difficult on complicated matters. I'd like to suggest this article by Bob Atkins.

Fast Primes and Background Blur - Bob Atkins Photography

It shows a small ceramic frog in his ceramic pond; the frog is shown at a more-or-less "identical size" in two small photographs. Both were made with lenses set to a moderate f/stop, f/4.5. While it is true that f/stops are proportional to focal length of the lenses they are calculated for, and that they pass equal "brightness" irrespective of the format of the camera they are used upon, the ABSOLUTE SIZE of the lens aperture leads to a greater degree of background blur. Not Depth of Field, but a seldom-mentioned thing called background blur. Look at the frog pictures: ef_85_1-8_vs a720is.jpg

The title of this post is,"Larger sensor just a luxury?" Well, to me the larger sensor is much more than a luxury: in the d-slr world, the difference in angle of view, camera-to-subject distance, and the way a 24x 36mm sensor works compared to a much smaller-sensored camera that USES THE SAME LENSES--it a HUGE practical, real-world, every-single-day type of difference. With say a 1.6x FOV camera, indoors in a normal living room, and 85mm f/1.8 lens is almost useless if one wishes to shoot a full-length portrait of a six foot tall man, the camera must be around 34 feet distant to encompass the man, and to allow a bit of foot- and head-space for proper framing, or even a smidgeon of cropping room. At 34 feet distant from the subject, the field of view of an 85mm lens on a 1.6x Canon body is about 8.47 feet in the longest dimension of the frame, ie, with the camera in a vertical capture mode.

With a larger, 24x36mm sensor d-slr Canon, and the SAME, EXACT Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens, the same 8.47 foot tall field of view can be achieved with a 20 foot camera-to-subject distance. That represents A HUGE difference in terms of making photos in the real world-in homes, schools, churches, studios, patios, back yards, etc!!!

What this means in social or studio photography is that with a larger-sensor d-slr, one can photograph a standing man, full-length, in a "normal home", indoors, or in a "smallish" studio. With a 1.6x Canon body, the photographer will need to be 34 feet distant. With the smaller sensor size, and the greatly increased camera-to-subject distance, the depth of field with the smaller 1.6x camera is greater than if a larger-format camera were to be used from a much-closer 20 foot distance.

For every picture angle of view, the LARGER the CAPTURE format is, the LESS there is in terms of depth of field. So, a 4x5 has less DOF on a half body shot than does a shot made on a 6x7 camera. An FX digital SLR picture has less DOF in a half-body shot than a 1.6x camera has in a half-body shot. And a P&S digital with a teenie-tiny sensor will have DEEP depth of field in a half-body shot.

So...it's pretty simple? Is a larger sensor "just a luxury"? The answers are so readily discovered, and the visual differences between format are (often, but not always) so striking, that the very question seems contrived, or almost like a question simply designed to provoke. But then again, it's often difficult to decipher the intentions of people on the internet.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Language (native? second? third? fourth? written or spoken?), grammar, and punctuation can ALL make communication difficult on complicated matters. I'd like to suggest this article by Bob Atkins.

Fast Primes and Background Blur - Bob Atkins Photography

It shows a small ceramic frog in his ceramic pond; the frog is shown at a more-or-less "identical size" in two small photographs. Both were made with lenses set to a moderate f/stop, f/4.5. While it is true that f/stops are proportional to focal length of the lenses they are calculated for, and that they pass equal "brightness" irrespective of the format of the camera they are used upon, the ABSOLUTE SIZE of the lens aperture leads to a greater degree of background blur. Not Depth of Field, but a seldom-mentioned thing called background blur. Look at the frog pictures: ef_85_1-8_vs a720is.jpg

The title of this post is,"Larger sensor just a luxury?" Well, to me the larger sensor is much more than a luxury: in the d-slr world, the difference in angle of view, camera-to-subject distance, and the way a 24x 36mm sensor works compared to a much smaller-sensored camera that USES THE SAME LENSES--it a HUGE practical, real-world, every-single-day type of difference. With say a 1.6x FOV camera, indoors in a normal living room, and 85mm f/1.8 lens is almost useless if one wishes to shoot a full-length portrait of a six foot tall man, the camera must be around 34 feet distant to encompass the man, and to allow a bit of foot- and head-space for proper framing, or even a smidgeon of cropping room. At 34 feet distant from the subject, the field of view of an 85mm lens on a 1.6x Canon body is about 8.47 feet in the longest dimension of the frame, ie, with the camera in a vertical capture mode.

With a larger, 24x36mm sensor d-slr Canon, and the SAME, EXACT Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens, the same 8.47 foot tall field of view can be achieved with a 20 foot camera-to-subject distance. That represents A HUGE difference in terms of making photos in the real world-in homes, schools, churches, studios, patios, back yards, etc!!!

What this means in social or studio photography is that with a larger-sensor d-slr, one can photograph a standing man, full-length, in a "normal home", indoors, or in a "smallish" studio. With a 1.6x Canon body, the photographer will need to be 34 feet distant. With the smaller sensor size, and the greatly increased camera-to-subject distance, the depth of field with the smaller 1.6x camera is greater than if a larger-format camera were to be used from a much-closer 20 foot distance.

For every picture angle of view, the LARGER the CAPTURE format is, the LESS there is in terms of depth of field. So, a 4x5 has less DOF on a half body shot than does a shot made on a 6x7 camera. An FX digital SLR picture has less DOF in a half-body shot than a 1.6x camera has in a half-body shot. And a P&S digital with a teenie-tiny sensor will have DEEP depth of field in a half-body shot.

So...it's pretty simple? Is a larger sensor "just a luxury"? The answers are so readily discovered, and the visual differences between format are (often, but not always) so striking, that the very question seems contrived, or almost like a question simply designed to provoke. But then again, it's often difficult to decipher the intentions of people on the internet.

Again - the same lens, which is not fair, because the 85mm lens is not made for the APS-C sensor, a 50mm would be a much better comparison. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you spend some time reading what Helen B said, you'll understand what we're talking about is totally different.

 

[Helen B]

Yes, Derrel, I think that you have missed the entire point of this discussion. I mean, why read what has gone before and try to understand it when it is much simpler to jump to an assumption that you know what the thread is about and then trot out the stuff that everybody already knows (and has already been mentioned without contest in this thread)?

 

[Derrel]

Yes, Derrel, I think that you have missed the entire point of this discussion. I mean, why read what has gone before and try to understand it when it is much simpler to jump to an assumption that you know what the thread is about and then trot out the stuff that everybody already knows (and has already been mentioned without contest in this thread)?

It's difficult for me to tell if you are being sarcastic or just snarky, Helen. Sorry if what I posted did not meet with your approval. Or that there is nothing whatsoever to be understood by providing a basic reference for common ground. For example, EchoingWhisper's comment that the "85mm lens is not made for the APS-C sensor"...well...most cameras in use today are using lenses "made for" 24x36mm film...his comment almost merits a "Well, duh!"

It seems rather disingenuous to even begin a thread entitled "Larger sensor just a luxury?" when the advantages of larger capture formats are so well-known...

I sense a pretty fair amount of language confusion in this long, tiresome thread, both in terms of the grasp of various terms, as well as English as a second language types of confusion. This seems a lot like stepping into a pile of something brown on a lawn and only later realizing it came from a dog's back end...going back to the original post and re-reading it, the OP seems pretty clueless as to what a larger sensor does, and he makes some erroneous assumptions...later posts seem to indicate to me that he is unable to communicate truly effectively in written English with native speakers of the language.

What exactly is "the entire point" of this discussion Helen? In regard to the 231 posts before this, in light of the original post? Can you please distill "the entire point" of this discussion into say, perhaps 50 to 60 sentences and a page or two? That would be nice. Oh, and I'd like a rundown on who is who, and who knows exactly "what" while you are at it! That'd be great!

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Yes, Derrel, I think that you have missed the entire point of this discussion. I mean, why read what has gone before and try to understand it when it is much simpler to jump to an assumption that you know what the thread is about and then trot out the stuff that everybody already knows (and has already been mentioned without contest in this thread)?

It's difficult for me to tell if you are being sarcastic or just snarky, Helen. Sorry if what I posted did not meet with your approval. Or that there is nothing whatsoever to be understood by providing a basic reference for common ground. For example, EchoingWhisper's comment that the "85mm lens is not made for the APS-C sensor"...well...most cameras in use today are using lenses "made for" 24x36mm film...his comment almost merits a "Well, duh!"

It seems rather disingenuous to even begin a thread entitled "Larger sensor just a luxury?" when the advantages of larger capture formats are so well-known...

I sense a pretty fair amount of language confusion in this long, tiresome thread, both in terms of the grasp of various terms, as well as English as a second language types of confusion. This seems a lot like stepping into a pile of something brown on a lawn and only later realizing it came from a dog's back end...going back to the original post and re-reading it, the OP seems pretty clueless as to what a larger sensor does, and he makes some erroneous assumptions...later posts seem to indicate to me that he is unable to communicate truly effectively in written English with native speakers of the language.

What exactly is "the entire point" of this discussion Helen? In regard to the 231 posts before this, in light of the original post? Can you please distill "the entire point" of this discussion into say, perhaps 50 to 60 sentences and a page or two? That would be nice. Oh, and I'd like a rundown on who is who, and who knows exactly "what" while you are at it! That'd be great!

Derrel, read this.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...larger-sensor-just-luxury-12.html#post2498739

 

[Dao]

Derrel,

I agree with you. The fact the matter is if I need to shoot FF with the 85mm at f/1.2 with that FoV and DoF, it is not luxury. It is using the right tool to do the right job.

EW kept saying that lens is not made for APS-C, if ....

I don't know. Maybe I better stay away from this thread. It's all good. Hoping nobody feel bad or anything in this thread. It is just a friendly discussion.

(Also, English is my 2nd language)

 

[Derrel]

This thread is terrific for people who'd rather be arguing sensor size than out there taking pictures. Why am I answering it? It pops up my my "new posts" display.
Why aren't I out taking pictures? I'm waiting for Lightroom to be done exporting last night's shoot.

You have no idea what the people who are taking part in this thread are doing, so why don't you just stop making stupid assumptions? If you want to contribute, contribute something positive. Otherwise why not keep out of it?

As for me, I post here in between shots, while the guys are doing the set for the nest shot.

Where's that summary of the 231 posts in this thread??? EchoingWhisper, until HelenB can get some free time in the studio between shots, can you provide us with a summary of "the entire point" of this thread's 230-some posts??? Thanks!

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Derrel,

I agree with you. The fact the matter is if I need to shoot FF with the 85mm at f/1.2 with that FoV and DoF, it is not luxury. It is using the right tool to do the right job.

EW kept saying that lens is not made for APS-C, if ....

I don't know. Maybe I better stay away from this thread. It's all good. Hoping nobody feel bad or anything in this thread. It is just a friendly discussion.

(Also, English is my 2nd language)

You still don't understand...