Sell me on full frame cameras...

[Overread]

To be honest you can pretty much get whatever look you want in post processing as long as you get the exposure right.

But you really can't - and if you can chances are you're going to be spending an eternity perfecting layermasks and area selections so that you can selectively blur and sharpen different areas. Yeah it can be done, but most photographers would choose a lens and get the shot right in camera (in seconds) over hours spent at the machine editing to get a similar effect (which to get right takes a good long while).

Heavy editing can result in some fantastic works, but honestly I would say that its time wasted if you are just trying to get the same effect as another lens could provide.*


* within reason of course. Once in a while or for a very specific shot it can be more than worth it to edit more heavily. Just not for you day to day shooting.

 

[gryffinwings]

To be honest you can pretty much get whatever look you want in post processing as long as you get the exposure right.

But you really can't - and if you can chances are you're going to be spending an eternity perfecting layermasks and area selections so that you can selectively blur and sharpen different areas. Yeah it can be done, but most photographers would choose a lens and get the shot right in camera (in seconds) over hours spent at the machine editing to get a similar effect (which to get right takes a good long while).

Heavy editing can result in some fantastic works, but honestly I would say that its time wasted if you are just trying to get the same effect as another lens could provide.*


* within reason of course. Once in a while or for a very specific shot it can be more than worth it to edit more heavily. Just not for you day to day shooting.

Does not answer my question requesting the reasons why the 85mm is superior to the 50mm. I get the point though, but I'm looking for a bit more technical answer.

 

[IByte]

Does not answer my question requesting the reasons why the 85mm is superior to the 50mm. I get the point though, but I'm looking for a bit more technical answer.

The 85 1.4 is made up of 9 blades of quality, cream-cheese bokeh! To have that lens ...le sigh.

 

[Netskimmer]

Does not answer my question requesting the reasons why the 85mm is superior to the 50mm. I get the point though, but I'm looking for a bit more technical answer.

The 85 1.4 is made up of 9 blades of quality, cream-cheese bokeh! To have that lens ...le sigh.

I have been doing some reading on the 85mm and 50mm 1.4g and 1.8g and a lot of people say that the 1.8g versions of both lenses are nearly as good and in some cases noticeably superior to their more expensive 1.4g counterparts.

 

[Yantropov]

If you need to be "sold" on FF body's, probably means that you should stick with a crop sensor body.

 

[Derrel]

October, 2012 at Thom Hogan's Nikon site has been "DX Month". On OCtober 5, he wrote a very short column. HERE is a lengthy excerpt from that column:

"But consider this: portraiture is partly about perspective. A head and shoulders shot of a bride-to-be is often in the 85-105mm range for a reason: it provides a very flattering perspective. Nikon wants you DX users to use an FX 50mm f/1.4G for this. But let's see what happens.When I shoot an 85mm at 8' on FX I get a cut-off just above the elbows, a traditional chest/shoulder/head view. With a 50mm on DX at 8' I am framed slightly below the waist and well below the elbows; in fact, it's an awkward framing. I have to move in nearly two feet to get the same framing as FX, but now my perspective is starting to not be flattering on the model.

So what FX lenses do we have that can put us in the right position and perspective? The 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, which is going to be too sharp for most portraiture (unless you like doing lots of skin fixing after the fact) and not allow us as much DOF control. The 70-200mm f/2.8 (or any other f/2.8 lens that can get us to 70mm). Same comment about DOF control.

Back in 2001 (yes, over ten years ago; consider that in considering the DX portrait problem), I wrote that the perfect FX lens for portraiture on the DX DSLRs that Nikon made was...the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT. Almost immediately every used NOCT on the market disappeared and the price sky-rocketed. Partly because every pro shooting portraits realized I was right. It's 87mm equivalent on DX and it's got that fast aperture, a fast enough aperture that we almost get to 85mm f/1.8 FX equivalence on a DX body. To this day, it still is the best choice for a DX wedding shooter looking for that classic 85mm portrait look. Did Nikon notice? No. Did Nikon ever release a true DX portrait lens? No.

This is just one of the reasons why I don't think that "just use FX lenses" is the right answer to supply DX shooters. It's a hostile answer that tells photographers that "We don't care what you think about perspective, just do it our way and shut up." How's that for customer support?
Professional photographers understand and care about perspective, depth of field, and all the other elements that allow them to make their imagery exactly as they want it. If they're using DX cameras, the company that makes them doesn't care about those things nearly as much. That's being "at the heart of the image"? That's a focus on what's necessary to be the leader in imaging? I don't think so, because it doesn't actually show much understanding of what makes an image what it is."

The above is quoted from Thom Hogan's site, at http://www.bythom.com/dxweek1.htm

 

[The_Traveler]

October, 2012 at Thom Hogan's Nikon site has been "DX Month". On OCtober 5, he wrote a very short column. HERE is a lengthy excerpt from that column:

"
Back in 2001 (yes, over ten years ago; consider that in considering the DX portrait problem), I wrote that the perfect FX lens for portraiture on the DX DSLRs that Nikon made was...the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT. Almost immediately every used NOCT on the market disappeared and the price sky-rocketed. Partly because every pro shooting portraits realized I was right.
The above is quoted from Thom Hogan's site, at http://www.bythom.com/dxweek1.htm

That large noise you hear is Thom Hogan's ego exploding.

 

[gryffinwings]

October, 2012 at Thom Hogan's Nikon site has been "DX Month". On OCtober 5, he wrote a very short column. HERE is a lengthy excerpt from that column:

"But consider this: portraiture is partly about perspective. A head and shoulders shot of a bride-to-be is often in the 85-105mm range for a reason: it provides a very flattering perspective. Nikon wants you DX users to use an FX 50mm f/1.4G for this. But let's see what happens.When I shoot an 85mm at 8' on FX I get a cut-off just above the elbows, a traditional chest/shoulder/head view. With a 50mm on DX at 8' I am framed slightly below the waist and well below the elbows; in fact, it's an awkward framing. I have to move in nearly two feet to get the same framing as FX, but now my perspective is starting to not be flattering on the model.

So what FX lenses do we have that can put us in the right position and perspective? The 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, which is going to be too sharp for most portraiture (unless you like doing lots of skin fixing after the fact) and not allow us as much DOF control. The 70-200mm f/2.8 (or any other f/2.8 lens that can get us to 70mm). Same comment about DOF control.

Back in 2001 (yes, over ten years ago; consider that in considering the DX portrait problem), I wrote that the perfect FX lens for portraiture on the DX DSLRs that Nikon made was...the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT. Almost immediately every used NOCT on the market disappeared and the price sky-rocketed. Partly because every pro shooting portraits realized I was right. It's 87mm equivalent on DX and it's got that fast aperture, a fast enough aperture that we almost get to 85mm f/1.8 FX equivalence on a DX body. To this day, it still is the best choice for a DX wedding shooter looking for that classic 85mm portrait look. Did Nikon notice? No. Did Nikon ever release a true DX portrait lens? No.

This is just one of the reasons why I don't think that "just use FX lenses" is the right answer to supply DX shooters. It's a hostile answer that tells photographers that "We don't care what you think about perspective, just do it our way and shut up." How's that for customer support?
Professional photographers understand and care about perspective, depth of field, and all the other elements that allow them to make their imagery exactly as they want it. If they're using DX cameras, the company that makes them doesn't care about those things nearly as much. That's being "at the heart of the image"? That's a focus on what's necessary to be the leader in imaging? I don't think so, because it doesn't actually show much understanding of what makes an image what it is."

The above is quoted from Thom Hogan's site, at http://www.bythom.com/dxweek1.htm

i don't understand why moving 2 feet with the 50mm would make perspective not flattering.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I'm finding it hard to imagine people don't get it with the DX vs FX and 50mm vs. 85mm?

 

[manaheim]

It's not a matter of opinion. Full frame cameras produce better quality images and produce images with lower noise at higher ISOs.

The one thing that crop sensors gain you is some additional effective focal length on lenses.

 

[invisible]

The one thing that crop sensors gain you is some additional effective focal length on lenses.

I wouldn't say that's a gain for everyone – if you shoot in close quarters, that's a loss.

 

[manaheim]

The one thing that crop sensors gain you is some additional effective focal length on lenses.

I wouldn't say that's a gain for everyone – if you shoot in close quarters, that's a loss.

Well my statement was objective. I didn't say it was good or bad. Just that you gain (add) focal length.

 

[Derrel]

i don't understand why moving 2 feet with the 50mm would make perspective not flattering.

You apparently do not understand "perspective". A lot of people who have not studied the fundamentals of photography do not understand it either,so you are not alone. At six feet distant, extended hands and arms and legs appear disproportionately LARGER than objects that are just a little bit behind...heck, even noses are prone to perspective distortion that is just not flattering at six feet. At close distances like six feet with a 50mm on DX, you get the odd field of view Thom mentions. In group shots, people who are standing just a few inches in front of a second person are distorted in their size when the photographer stands close...and whehn taking group photos with a DX camera, the focal length often drops wayyyyyyy down to 19,20,21,22mm in length. Even at 30-33mm in focal length with DX when doing full-length shots indoors in normal rooms, the lens length is very short; the angle of view needed to get everything in ALSO brings with it deep depth of field, due to the small sensor size and short focal legnth, so there is very little ability to throw the background out of focus. AND, there is quite often apparent perspective distortion, with closer people appearing unnaturally LARGER than people who are just a little ways behind those in the "front" position(s). These are some of the issues that differentiate DX versus FX, especially when photographing people....and not 18 inch tall, single, stuffed monkeys...

As to Thom and his ego, mentioned by The_Traveler...yeah...a nice ad hominem attack. Great cheap shot!!! Classy!!! Maybe when you write 18 books on Nikon products, your ego gets kind of big? Maybe when you do an on-line poll and in one month receive 10,000 replies, you get a bit of an ego? Maybe when Nikon Corporation, Japan invites you to fly to Japan and personally deliver a speech on the camera industry to Nikon senior executives, you start thinking people are listening to you... I dunno...

 

[IByte]

I have been doing some reading on the 85mm and 50mm 1.4g and 1.8g and a lot of people say that the 1.8g versions of both lenses are nearly as good and in some cases noticeably superior to their more expensive 1.4g counterparts.

The 1.8s' are good a good bang for your dollar, but the 85 1.4 is just a top notch piece of prime glass.