Planning on going full frame.

[GeneralBenson]

bokeh is nicer and you can shoot better in low light. better performance overall. my reasons i want to go FX....

Please do some research.. Bokeh has NOTHING to do with the sensor size; it has to do with the build quality of the lens, such as the glass, the number of elements, etc etc. And why can it shoot better in low light? Because there is a larger sensor area, or because the sensor itself is better? Just some things to think about.


Regards,
Jake

I lolled. Jake, this is just totally wrong bro.

No it isn't.

Bokeh is a term which is nearly always misused. It refers to the quality of the out of focus area in an image. so to say FF has nicer bokeh is completely erroneous. FF is able to make images with a shallower DOF (which also isn't technically true), but that doesn't mean the quality of the bokeh is going to change.

 

[o hey tyler]

Please do some research.. Bokeh has NOTHING to do with the sensor size; it has to do with the build quality of the lens, such as the glass, the number of elements, etc etc. And why can it shoot better in low light? Because there is a larger sensor area, or because the sensor itself is better? Just some things to think about.


Regards,
Jake

I lolled. Jake, this is just totally wrong bro.

No it isn't.

Bokeh is a term which is nearly always misused. It refers to the quality of the out of focus area in an image. so to say FF has nicer bokeh is completely erroneous. FF is able to make images with a shallower DOF (which also isn't technically true), but that doesn't mean the quality of the bokeh is going to change.

The size of bokeh when framing a shot does have to do with the size of the sensor, not the overall "quality" of the bokeh. I'll admit that both D-B-J and Chaosrealm used the terminology incorrectly. If you're shooting on an FX sensor with an 85mm f/1.4, you can stand closer than you could with an APS-C camera to properly frame the shot, thus creating the "illusion" of a shallower depth of field. When in fact, if the APS-C camera and the full frame were placed in the same position, the backgrounds would be extremely similar assuming the subject distance was also the same.

That's where the "difference" in bokeh lies. Even though it's rendered the same depending on lenses.

 

[GeneralBenson]

I lolled. Jake, this is just totally wrong bro.

No it isn't.

Bokeh is a term which is nearly always misused. It refers to the quality of the out of focus area in an image. so to say FF has nicer bokeh is completely erroneous. FF is able to make images with a shallower DOF (which also isn't technically true), but that doesn't mean the quality of the bokeh is going to change.

The size of bokeh when framing a shot does have to do with the size of the sensor, not the overall "quality" of the bokeh. I'll admit that both D-B-J and Chaosrealm used the terminology incorrectly. If you're shooting on an FX sensor with an 85mm f/1.4, you can stand closer than you could with an APS-C camera to properly frame the shot, thus creating the "illusion" of a shallower depth of field. When in fact, if the APS-C camera and the full frame were placed in the same position, the backgrounds would be extremely similar assuming the subject distance was also the same.

That's where the "difference" in bokeh lies. Even though it's rendered the same depending on lenses.

Sorry, but youre still not getting. Bokeh does not refer to the degree to which something is out of focus. It is purely a term referring to the aesthetic or quality of how the bokeh looks, specifically the specular highlights. Think of it like flavor. How you're using it is like saying a food has a certain flavor, and if if were to put more of that food on a bigger plate, it would have a better flavor than when it is on a smaller plate. The flavor doesn't change, there's just more of it.

Same thing goes for bokeh. Yes, being on a full frame allows you to stand closer to make a similar composition, thus rendering the background more out of focus. But the quality of the bokeh doesn't change at all, or very slightly from FF to aps-c. If you took a shot on each with the same lens, with the same camera-to-subject-to-background ratios, the bokeh of the two backgrounds would be nearly identical. If you moved in with the FF to create the same framing as as the aps-c, yes the background would get more OOF, but that's just a matter of DOF, not bokeh. The quality of the bokeh wouldn't have changed, just the degree to which the BG is out of focus.

If order for bokeh to have improved, there would have to be a difference in the quality of the OOF areas of the photo, with the same camera-to-subject-to-background ratio. And that would pretty much only happen by changing lenses, not formats...

Cheers,