Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 142
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    full frame..just do it.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    i see, so now that you are about to buy an a850 all of a sudden everyone else is a hack.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i see, so now that you are about to buy an a850 all of a sudden everyone else is a hack.
    rooz is up early!
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    I am speaking more in general terms for all FF cameras, not just the Sony's 24.6MP CMOS ........
    ................Don't get me wrong there are a ton of benefits for a FF camera, but for the average user, it's probably not necessary, which goes back to the original question, what is a serious photographer, and what do they need?
    This is the Sony forum so I was expecting to be referring to Sony cameras.
    Look, take the a900, the a700 and any full frame lens.
    The Sensor of both cameras will see exactly the same image except the a700 will see a smaller part of it.
    This has to be the case; the exit pupil of the lens has to be the same distance from the sensor in both cases otherwise OOF.
    Resolution is a different thing altogether and it's true that the a900 has a slighly lower pixel density than the a700, about 17% I think.
    But we all now that pixel density is not a measure of IQ even if it rules in Joe Bloggs land.

    You could take it to the extreme and compare a 12MP APS-C to an older 12MP FF camera and make some sort of case; but what's the point in that.

    As to your other point I agree that for many users APS-C is just fine. Personally, I can't wait to get back to FF.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    what is a serious photographer ?
    someone who takes great pictures.

    and what do they need?
    whatever it is that helps them achieve the above.

    the proof is in the pudding. you can keep upgrading and buying lens', bodies...dare i say it...light meters...but at the end of the day if all your energy is being devoted to the gear and not the craft, then you have it all ass about face.

    to a degree photography is about raw talent. peopel like mcnally have **something** special. but its REALLY about practice and commitment. the more you shoot, the better at it you get. your "eye" improves, your composition improves, your ability to see, control and manipulate light improves. everything keeps getting better; regardless of whether its apsc or FF. true, take yourself on a journey from the first photo you ever took on dslr and compare it to what you take now, the difference is enormous.

    some prefer the fov of FF like peek. i know i do, but thats not what defines me as a photographer, its just my preferred option. the context of this topic is just pretentious crap.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    This is the Sony forum so I was expecting to be referring to Sony cameras.
    Look, take the a900, the a700 and any full frame lens.
    The Sensor of both cameras will see exactly the same image except the a700 will see a smaller part of it.
    This has to be the case; the exit pupil of the lens has to be the same distance from the sensor in both cases otherwise OOF.
    Resolution is a different thing altogether and it's true that the a900 has a slighly lower pixel density than the a700, about 17% I think.
    But we all now that pixel density is not a measure of IQ even if it rules in Joe Bloggs land.

    You could take it to the extreme and compare a 12MP APS-C to an older 12MP FF camera and make some sort of case; but what's the point in that.

    As to your other point I agree that for many users APS-C is just fine. Personally, I can't wait to get back to FF.
    Don mentioned other brands and the question posed is quite general. But we've already been over how APS-C and FF cameras don't actually achieve the same image, there are subtle differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    someone who takes great pictures.

    whatever it is that helps them achieve the above.

    the proof is in the pudding. you can keep upgrading and buying lens', bodies...dare i say it...light meters...but at the end of the day if all your energy is being devoted to the gear and not the craft, then you have it all ass about face.

    to a degree photography is about raw talent. peopel like mcnally have **something** special. but its REALLY about practice and commitment. the more you shoot, the better at it you get. your "eye" improves, your composition improves, your ability to see, control and manipulate light improves. everything keeps getting better; regardless of whether its apsc or FF. true, take yourself on a journey from the first photo you ever took on dslr and compare it to what you take now, the difference is enormous.

    some prefer the fov of FF like peek. i know i do, but thats not what defines me as a photographer, its just my preferred option. the context of this topic is just pretentious crap.
    Yeah thanks for your input, I was being more rhetorical , but I know it's the photographer, not the camera that makes the picture great. It's definitely a journey, I remember when I first started, and looking back, my pictures were crappy. Part of the problem was the AUTO mode lol . But truly, the difference is night and day. I'm interested to see where I would be at the end of the year, one year from now, and beyond.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    The need addressed in this thread, despite some people trying to steer it to make some kind of errant point, was the return to FULL FRAME as the "heir apparent" to digital sensors. APS-C sensors were a lot cheaper to make, obviously, due to their small size, back when this DSLR trend all started. DCF (digital cropping factor) was a major point of contention, because the major manufacturers would not settle on a standard.

    Canon = 1.6x
    Nikon, Sony, Pentax = 1.5x
    Olympus got a wild hair and went with the 4/3rds sensor = 2x

    Well ... FULL FRAME = 1x (no matter who makes it!)

    and you get the shot that the standard (non-APS-C trimmed) lens was originally designed to shoot. You dial in 50mm ... and by cracky, there it is ... a 50mm framed shot ... not 75mm or 80mm ... like an APS-C sensor (APS-C crop) gives you.

    My contention is RETURNING to FULL FRAME is looking to be the name of the game, for the higher end shooters, once the price becomes reasonable ... and APS-C will eventually be abandoned (say, in three more years).

    Now, I'm not quite sure how that plays among the rest of you ... but, I see it as "natural progression" to reestablish the "standard" 35mm-film shot.

    I really hope that clears things up.

    Hacks, indeed. I request you quit projecting your own feelings. Your debate seems counterproductive.

    It also should be considered that camera-dom did not make a sweeping change to recalibrate the framing measurements on the dedicated APS-C lenses (SONY DT, TAMRON Di-II, SIGMA DC)... they simply made "wider" versions to match up with the traditional 35mm-film/Full Frame lenses (e.g. 17-50mm Di-II {on an APS-C sensor} = 28-75mm Di {on a Full Frame sensor}). I contend that this effort would support this eventual migration BACK to the FULL FRAME sensor.

    IMO, SONY appears to be "holding the line" on the SLR tradition and not giving into gimmickry.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 08-05-2009 at 06:50 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    The need addressed in this thread, despite some people trying to steer it to make some kind of errant point, was the return to FULL FRAME as the "heir apparent" to digital sensors. APS-C sensors were a lot cheaper to make, obviously, due to their small size, back when this DSLR trend all started. DCF (digital cropping factor) was a major point of contention, because the major manufacturers would not settle on a standard.

    Canon = 1.6x
    Nikon, Sony, Pentax = 1.5x
    Olympus got a wild hair and went with the 4/3rds sensor = 2x

    Well ... FULL FRAME = 1x (no matter who makes it!)

    and you get the shot that the standard (non-APS-C trimmed) lens was originally designed to shoot. You dial in 50mm ... and by cracky, there it is ... a 50mm framed shot ... not 75mm or 80mm ... like an APS-C sensor (APS-C crop) gives you.

    Wait, you're basing your argument on a completely arbitrary focal length measurement that is absolutely, utterly meaningless to 99% of photographers?

    I'm assuming you count yourself among these "serious" photographers, Don? Well, okay, to a "serious" photographer, FOV is all that matters, because focal lengths have always been dependent on capture plane size, and there have always been many, many, many different sizes of films and plates available.

    Before you start denigrating crop-factor sensors, they are far superior to full-frame in wildlife and sports photography not for resolution or telephoto power, but because the crop allows for fasting framing and more reliable auto focus when a subject fills a greater amount of the frame.


    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    IMO, SONY appears to be "holding the line" on the SLR tradition and not giving into gimmickry.
    I don't even know where to start with this...
    E-510
    E-1
    Zuiko 14-54 F2.8-3.5 MkI
    Zuiko 70-300 F4.0-5.6
    Konica Hexanon 52mm F1.8
    Cullmann 2503
    Benro KS-0

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Lightbulb

    Let's start by eliminating that decision of whether to take a "still image" ... or go with video.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by jekostas View Post

    Before you start denigrating crop-factor sensors, they are far superior to full-frame in wildlife and sports photography not for resolution or telephoto power, but because the crop allows for fasting framing and more reliable auto focus when a subject fills a greater amount of the frame.
    lol that's what I was trying to say! As for af speed though, I think that a D3 could probably AF faster than a Nikon D700 or D300.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •