1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
Progressiveabsolution
the camera? In other words, does it degrade the quality of the picture
when comparing to a full framed camera body?
What is the essential difference in image quality between a full frame
body and a 1.5-1.6X cropped body?
How much of a difference is there in image quality between the full
frame body and the 1.5-1.6X sensor bodies?
I'm sure this has been answered but hopefully I can get some more info
on this.
Thanks all for your help!
David
1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
foreground from the background (out of focus background).
1.6 gives you a longer focal length. So, longer at the telephoto end, but
shorter at the wide angle end (not as wide with the same focal length, but
longer with the same focal length).
1.6 gives you more distortion at the wide angle as a 17mm lens is still 17mm
lens.
Vignetting maybe reduced on a 1.6 as the true edges of the lens is wider
than the sensor (unless a EF-S maybe). Although 17mm EF-S wide open on a
1.6 body can still give vignetting.
Full frame has less noise, so you can shoot at a slower ISO/noise ratio.
Full frame has a better range of 'L' lenses available. There isn't a 24-70
equivelent for 1.6 cropped cameras. However, there isn't a 112-320 'L' lens
for full frame bodies either.
So, what you are asking is should I go for a 30D or a 5D? Full frame is
better than 1.6, if you have plenty of money to spend. Disadvantage is you
don't have such a good focal length at the telephoto end, but if the sensor
has more megapixels, then you can always crop the image afterwards to give
the same result. Also, the 5D lacks in the FPS section.
"Progressiveabsolution" <progressiv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146164850.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
railfan
David wrote:
> 1.6 gives you a longer focal length. So, longer at the telephoto end, but
> shorter at the wide angle end (not as wide with the same focal length, but
> longer with the same focal length).
Not really. The digital sensor is 60% as large as a 35mm frame.
Therefore it only sees the middle 60% of a lens' view. It gives the
size of a longer lens, but not the magnification. A 300mm lens on a
digital camera will give the same magnification, but just the 60% of
the image, giving the impression of a longer lens.
>
> 1.6 gives you more distortion at the wide angle as a 17mm lens is still 17mm
> lens.
A digital sensor with a 17mm lens sees only the 60% center of the
image, resulting in the field of view of a 28mm lens. No disortion
here.
B. Boudreau
Canada
David
"railfan" <arai...@post.com> wrote in message
news:1146168017.4...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Not really. The digital sensor is 60% as large as a 35mm frame.
> Therefore it only sees the middle 60% of a lens' view. It gives the
> size of a longer lens, but not the magnification. A 300mm lens on a
> digital camera will give the same magnification, but just the 60% of
> the image, giving the impression of a longer lens.
I appologise for not spelling it out, however I did say later 'but if the
sensor
has more megapixels, then you can always crop the image afterwards to give
the same result'.
> A digital sensor with a 17mm lens sees only the 60% center of the
> image, resulting in the field of view of a 28mm lens. No disortion
> here.
Try shooting vertical buildings with a 17mm on a 1.6 sensor.
Joseph Meehan
It means the sensor is only seeing a portion of the image produced by
the lens that a full size sensor would. It means that to get the same
coverage a lens will need to have a smaller focal length.
The amount of information the sensor can record is more of a factor of
the pixel count than the size. (Note: in some ways the larger sensor can do
better but since there are other factors to consider, I would not worry
about that, just look at comparisons of real images from any lens-camera
combination you are considering.) .
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> Full frame has less noise, so you can shoot at a slower ISO/noise ratio.
>
actually .... " at a higher ISO/noise ratio."
That amounts to you can use higher ISO settings and get less noise than the
smaller sensor cousins.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Alfred Molon
says...
> Full frame with the same lens will have a shallower depth of field than the
> 1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
> foreground from the background (out of focus background).
...and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
resulting higher noise levels.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
John McWilliams
> In article <yqWdnYl6csCGvMzZ...@pipex.net>, m...@privacy.net
> says...
>> Full frame with the same lens will have a shallower depth of field than the
>> 1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
>> foreground from the background (out of focus background).
>
> ...and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
> architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
> will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
> resulting higher noise levels.
Yeah, especially when those pesky buildings don't merely sway, but start
to dance around. Note: Always shoot mountains at 1600 iso in case they
erupt, or jump causing blur at 1/2000.
--
John McWilliams
David J. Littleboy
>> In article <yqWdnYl6csCGvMzZ...@pipex.net>, m...@privacy.net
>> says...
>>> Full frame with the same lens will have a shallower depth of field than
>>> the
>>> 1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
>>> foreground from the background (out of focus background).
>>
>> ...and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
>> architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
>> will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
>> resulting higher noise levels.
This isn't true. The noise and the DOF scale in the same way, so at the same
pixel count, same shutter speed, same DOF, the noise is the same. This is
because statistical noise is reduced by sqrt(2) when you double the area of
the pixel, and is also reduced by sqrt(2) when you divide the ISO by 2.
But in real life, ISO 100 at f/16 for a sunny day landscape has a shutter
speed of 1/100, which is plenty either for landscapes or telephoto with IS.
And if you are serious about image quality, you use a tripod. And maybe a
T/S lens.
Also, while the DOF _at the same f stop_ is much wider for small sensor
cameras, the _maximum DOF obtanable with decent sharpness_ is exactly the
same, since the effects of diffraction scale as well.
In real life, 5MP 2/3" dcams had best sharpness at f/5.6 or f/6.3. Pack more
pixels into a smaller sensor and even f/5.6 will be problematic due to
diffraction, so you are stuck shooting at f/4.0.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Alfred Molon
jp...@comcast.net says...
> > ...and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
> > architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
> > will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
> > resulting higher noise levels.
>
> Yeah, especially when those pesky buildings don't merely sway, but start
> to dance around. Note: Always shoot mountains at 1600 iso in case they
> erupt, or jump causing blur at 1/2000.
How funny. There might not be enough light for a handheld shot at F16-
F22, both outdoors and especially indoors. Stop down the lens and you
get very quickly exposure times in the range of 1/20s or longer, if it's
not a bright and sunny day.
Bryan Olson
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
> What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
> the camera?
Exactly that; no more, no less: it capture a smaller part of
the lens' image circle, by a factor of 1.5, both horizontally
and vertically. In terms of area, it captures the center-most
44.4% of what a 35mm full-frame sensor would capture (39%
for a 1.6X crop-factor).
Other effects often attributed to the crop are fictions of
convenience. They are actually caused by other changes made
to compensate for capturing the smaller field of view. For
example, in order to put the same scene in the smaller frame,
we would use a shorter focal length, by the same factor of
1.5. To make a print of the same size from the smaller sensor,
we necessarily apply more enlargement (from capture to print),
by that same factor.
A lens that has a focal length of 50mm on a full-frame
body will still have a focal length of 50mm on a 1.5X-crop
body. The 1.5X-crop body will simply capture a smaller part
of the image formed by the lens.
> In other words, does it degrade the quality of the picture
> when comparing to a full framed camera body?
>
> What is the essential difference in image quality between a full frame
> body and a 1.5-1.6X cropped body?
>
> How much of a difference is there in image quality between the full
> frame body and the 1.5-1.6X sensor bodies?
Those questions are too general to admit an exact answer.
For one thing there are several full-frame bodies and many
1.5-1.6X-crop bodies. Fortunately there are many comparisons
and examples available on-line.
> I'm sure this has been answered but hopefully I can get some more info
> on this.
Yes, and some of the many answers on this issue have even
been correct.
--
--Bryan
John McWilliams
> In article <Mbmdnagrz-JE18zZ...@comcast.com>,
> jp...@comcast.net says...
>
>>> ...and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
>>> architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
>>> will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
>>> resulting higher noise levels.
>> Yeah, especially when those pesky buildings don't merely sway, but start
>> to dance around. Note: Always shoot mountains at 1600 iso in case they
>> erupt, or jump causing blur at 1/2000.
>
> How funny. There might not be enough light for a handheld shot at F16-
> F22, both outdoors and especially indoors. Stop down the lens and you
> get very quickly exposure times in the range of 1/20s or longer, if it's
> not a bright and sunny day.
Hah! I knew you'd be dour.
Ah, architecture shots in some schools are outdoors, vs. "interior"
shots. Landscapes do tend to the out of doors, world wide. For all three
types just mentioned, I often use a tripod regardless of shutter speed
required.
Or did you merely forget to mention hand held in the post I replied to
prior to this?
--
John McWilliams
Mark˛
The lens still projects a full-frame image...its just that the sensor only
sees the middle portion of it due to the sensor's size being smaller than
the full-frame projection. Think of it as a slide projector projecting a 6
foot wide image onto a 5 foot wide screen. The projected image stays the
same...you're just not catching all of it on the screen.
Because of this, image quality is not changed at all...rather, you are
simply (in effect), utilizing all your sensor's pixels on the "sweet spot"
of your lens. Some see this as an advantage due to decreased vignetting and
the use of only the sharpest portion of the lens. Others who want wide
angle may not like losing the wide angle of view they are used to...
David J. Littleboy
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> Progressiveabsolution wrote:
>> What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
>> the camera? In other words, does it degrade the quality of the
>> picture when comparing to a full framed camera body?
>>
>> What is the essential difference in image quality between a full frame
>> body and a 1.5-1.6X cropped body?
>>
>> How much of a difference is there in image quality between the full
>> frame body and the 1.5-1.6X sensor bodies?
>>
>> I'm sure this has been answered but hopefully I can get some more info
>> on this.
>>
>> Thanks all for your help!
>
> The lens still projects a full-frame image...its just that the sensor only
> sees the middle portion of it due to the sensor's size being smaller than
> the full-frame projection. Think of it as a slide projector projecting a
> 6 foot wide image onto a 5 foot wide screen. The projected image stays
> the same...you're just not catching all of it on the screen.
>
> Because of this, image quality is not changed at all...rather, you are
> simply (in effect), utilizing all your sensor's pixels on the "sweet spot"
> of your lens.
Ah, but you are enlarging the sweet spot 1.5x times more. So the question
becomes: is the center section of a 35mm lens really 1.5x times better than
the whole area of a 50mm lens.
Since the 35mm lens is designed to cover 24x36, it's a much wider angle lens
than the 24x36 50mm lens, and is going to have _worse_ performance, not 1.5x
better performance. Even comparing a point, say, 10mm off axis on the 35mm
lens with a point 15mm off axis on the 50mm lens.
> Some see this as an advantage due to decreased vignetting and the use of
> only the sharpest portion of the lens. Others who want wide angle may not
> like losing the wide angle of view they are used to...
The decreased vignetting _wide open_ comes at the cost of reduced
resolution/contrast. It's really hard to make wide angle lenses, and for
lenses with an 80mm or wider FOV, cropped cameras with legacy lenses are a
bad idea.
The good news is that this effect doesn't apply to telephotos. But
telephotos (other than cheap consumer zooms) don't have a sweet spot,
leaving you with the 1.5x greater enlargement penalty. Oops.
The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.
Skip M
news:1146164850.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
1.6x crop camera and a full 35mm frame:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page12.asp
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Mark˛
By "image quality," I was referring to the image cast on the sensor. The
degree to which one chooses to enlarge that will determine the extent to
which its flaws become visible...right?
You could also say that you are enlarging any flaw by 1.5x.
> Since the 35mm lens is designed to cover 24x36, it's a much wider
> angle lens than the 24x36 50mm lens, and is going to have _worse_
> performance, not 1.5x better performance.
If I implied otherwise, I didn't mean to.
>Even comparing a point,
> say, 10mm off axis on the 35mm lens with a point 15mm off axis on the
> 50mm lens.
>> Some see this as an advantage due to decreased vignetting and the
>> use of only the sharpest portion of the lens. Others who want wide
>> angle may not like losing the wide angle of view they are used to...
>
> The decreased vignetting _wide open_ comes at the cost of reduced
> resolution/contrast. It's really hard to make wide angle lenses, and
> for lenses with an 80mm or wider FOV, cropped cameras with legacy
> lenses are a bad idea.
>
> The good news is that this effect doesn't apply to telephotos. But
> telephotos (other than cheap consumer zooms) don't have a sweet spot,
> leaving you with the 1.5x greater enlargement penalty. Oops.
>
> The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
> photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.
Don't interpret my post as proposing any such assertion as to necessitate
your last sentence, there...
;)
I'm very close to lightening my wallet on the 5D...
-Mark²
David J. Littleboy
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The lens still projects a full-frame image...its just that the
>>> sensor only sees the middle portion of it due to the sensor's size
>>> being smaller than the full-frame projection. Think of it as a
>>> slide projector projecting a 6 foot wide image onto a 5 foot wide
>>> screen. The projected image stays the same...you're just not
>>> catching all of it on the screen. Because of this, image quality is not
>>> changed at all...rather, you
>>> are simply (in effect), utilizing all your sensor's pixels on the
>>> "sweet spot" of your lens.
>>
>> Ah, but you are enlarging the sweet spot 1.5x times more. So the
>> question becomes: is the center section of a 35mm lens really 1.5x
>> times better than the whole area of a 50mm lens.
>
> By "image quality," I was referring to the image cast on the sensor. The
> degree to which one chooses to enlarge that will determine the extent to
> which its flaws become visible...right?
Yes. But I generally assume that one is making the same size prints from
both APS-C and FF. Although I don't consider APS-C adequate for 13x19<g>.
> You could also say that you are enlarging any flaw by 1.5x.
Exactly.
>> Since the 35mm lens is designed to cover 24x36, it's a much wider
>> angle lens than the 24x36 50mm lens, and is going to have _worse_
>> performance, not 1.5x better performance.
>
> If I implied otherwise, I didn't mean to.
I was more arguing with the "sweet spot" theory in general than anything you
said in particular.
>>Even comparing a point,
>> say, 10mm off axis on the 35mm lens with a point 15mm off axis on the
>> 50mm lens.
>>> Some see this as an advantage due to decreased vignetting and the
>>> use of only the sharpest portion of the lens. Others who want wide
>>> angle may not like losing the wide angle of view they are used to...
>>
>> The decreased vignetting _wide open_ comes at the cost of reduced
>> resolution/contrast. It's really hard to make wide angle lenses, and
>> for lenses with an 80mm or wider FOV, cropped cameras with legacy
>> lenses are a bad idea.
>>
>> The good news is that this effect doesn't apply to telephotos. But
>> telephotos (other than cheap consumer zooms) don't have a sweet spot,
>> leaving you with the 1.5x greater enlargement penalty. Oops.
>>
>> The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>> photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.
>
> Don't interpret my post as proposing any such assertion as to necessitate
> your last sentence, there...
> ;)
You made the mistake of using the term "sweet spot" without explicitly
criticizing it, which is like waving a red flag in front of a bull...
> I'm very close to lightening my wallet on the 5D...
You'd better hurry. My pet dSLR theory is that the beasts have an 18 month
product cycle, and if one isn't interested in early-adopter pain and
problems, then 6 months after introduction is optimal. If you wait 12
months, then the next great thing will be announced almost immediately.
By the way, don't I still owe you dinner? If you're going to be in the
Boston area June 5 to 11, you could collect. (But aren't you one of the West
Coast crown???)
Mark˛
>> Don't interpret my post as proposing any such assertion as to
>> necessitate your last sentence, there...
>> ;)
>
> You made the mistake of using the term "sweet spot" without explicitly
> criticizing it, which is like waving a red flag in front of a bull...
Ya...I should have known better. Your techno-speak definitely out-shines
anything I have the patience (or math/physics background) to build a
sentence around...... ;)
>> I'm very close to lightening my wallet on the 5D...
>
> You'd better hurry. My pet dSLR theory is that the beasts have an 18
> month product cycle, and if one isn't interested in early-adopter
> pain and problems, then 6 months after introduction is optimal. If
> you wait 12 months, then the next great thing will be announced
> almost immediately.
> By the way, don't I still owe you dinner? If you're going to be in the
> Boston area June 5 to 11, you could collect. (But aren't you one of
> the West Coast crown???)
Yes you do, as a matter of fact!
I'll be stuck on the west coast in June...but I'm thinking maybe I should
hold off on collection...and instead wait until I win a few more bets...so I
can COMBINE them into a plane ticket to Japan...where you'll be obligated to
provide the original dinner...and...grand tour of the island. :)
--I'm thinking that should take in the neighborhood of 50 bets won.
At the rate we bet...I should reach Japan in approximately 50 years.
By that time, we'll both have scant few teeth, and likely little interest in
dinner that requires chewing.
On second thought...I think I'll take that dinner now, thanks!
See ya in Boston!
;)
M²
Alfred Molon
jp...@comcast.net says...
> Ah, architecture shots in some schools are outdoors, vs. "interior"
> shots. Landscapes do tend to the out of doors, world wide. For all three
> types just mentioned, I often use a tripod regardless of shutter speed
> required.
Even outdoors there might not be enough light for handheld shots at F16
or F22. Not everybody lugs around a tripod all the time, do you?
Mark˛
> In article <IqydnT25V8Hw8szZ...@comcast.com>,
> jp...@comcast.net says...
>
>
>> Ah, architecture shots in some schools are outdoors, vs. "interior"
>> shots. Landscapes do tend to the out of doors, world wide. For all
>> three types just mentioned, I often use a tripod regardless of
>> shutter speed required.
>
> Even outdoors there might not be enough light for handheld shots at
> F16 or F22. Not everybody lugs around a tripod all the time, do you?
Most folks serious enough to buy full frame DSLRs are serious enough to use
a tripod for landscapes.
If you don't care to use a tripod, there is a very good chance that you
won't be making very good use of full frame resolutions. At that
resolution, you need every bit of lens/steadiness sharpness you can muster.
Otherwise, you may as well not bother...unless the only care is a wide angle
of view.
Mark˛
"You" was meant generically, Alfred. -Not picking on YOU.
:)
nikojorj_ja...@yahoo.fr
> What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
> the camera?
It crops as you could do with scissors (on the prints, not on the
sensor, btw).
> What is the essential difference in image quality between a full frame
> body and a 1.5-1.6X cropped body?
The essential and practical difference is the crop, changing the field
of view of the lenses.
More exactly, there are 2 consequences of the crop :
1) It narrows field of view without modifying depth of field,
2) It enlarges the central part of the image that has better
resolution, making it (optically speaking) a neutral operation at first
order.
> How much of a difference is there in image quality between the full
> frame body and the 1.5-1.6X sensor bodies?
It depends also on the sensors and bodies, not only on the crop factor
itself...
But as the FF sensor is bigger, it can either have the same count of
bigger pixels (more dynamic range and less noise, that may be something
like 1.5x higher ISO with same noise) or have more pixels of the same
size (1.5x more resolution... if the lens matches it of course).
That gives an edge to the FF sensor, and may then justify its (much
more than 1.5x) higher cost.
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.
Which is obviously the reason that 8x10 view cameras have always
so damned popular.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Randy Berbaum
I agree with your assessment. First "Quality" of an image depends on so
many factors (lens, accuracy of mechanicals in lens, accuracy of
mechanicals in camera, number and placement of light sensing elements on
the sensor, etc) that the physical size of the sensor is very low on the
list. A sensor that is 2 ft by 3 ft with 12 rows of 16 light sensing
elements will only be able to resolve a detail that is at least the size
of a single light sensitive element. While a sensor with much smaller
physical dimensions but with 1 million sensing elements will be able to
resolve details that are down to 1 millionth of the image (the size of one
light sensitive element).
It is true that it is much easier to focus an image on a large sensor
array. Also a lens that is supposed to focus an image on a huge sensor can
be easier to make and of less expensive materials than one that has to
work on microscopic levels (to a point), but until we are comparing a 1mp
sensor that is 1' square vs a 1mp sensor that is 1/4" square this is not
the major factor in "quality".
If an image of a black square on a white wall is projected on a sensor
such that the outer edge of the black square exactly aligns with the
outer edge of the sensor it makes no difference if the sensor array is
3/4" wide or 2' wide. The only difference that the different sensor
dimensions (but the same number of pixels) affords is that the optics and
mechanicals have to adjust to reflect the different sensor size. True, if
I am composing my shot purely by math I will have to adjust the focal
length to a new set of numbers. But since most of the time I compose my
shots by looking through the viewfinder and moving my body placement and
zoom to achieve the composition I desire. It rarely makes any strong
difference what the actual number on the lens says as long as I get the
composition I am desiring. Mostly I use the focal length numbers as
general guides when choosing what range I am looking for (I don't reach
for a multi hundred focal length lens when I am trying to take an image of
the family sitting around the Thanksgiving table). :) Other than requiring
my lens selection to have more low numbers than I used to have with film,
it really makes little difference to the vast majority of my shots if my
lens is set to 50mm for film or 33mm for digital. I get the same resultant
image, and that's what I am trying for. IMHO
Randy
==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> In article <yqWdnYl6csCGvMzZ...@pipex.net>, m...@privacy.net
> says...
>> Full frame with the same lens will have a shallower depth of field than the
>> 1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
>> foreground from the background (out of focus background).
>
> ...and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
> architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
> will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
> resulting higher noise levels.
Or just use a tripod and get no additional noise.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> In article <IqydnT25V8Hw8szZ...@comcast.com>,
> jp...@comcast.net says...
>
>
>> Ah, architecture shots in some schools are outdoors, vs. "interior"
>> shots. Landscapes do tend to the out of doors, world wide. For all three
>> types just mentioned, I often use a tripod regardless of shutter speed
>> required.
>
> Even outdoors there might not be enough light for handheld shots at F16
> or F22. Not everybody lugs around a tripod all the time, do you?
Absolutely! In any scenario that I can, it will be with me. There are always
exceptions, and I suppose that is where a VR or IS lens becomes useful.
John McWilliams
> Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <IqydnT25V8Hw8szZ...@comcast.com>,
>> jp...@comcast.net says...
>>
>>
>>> Ah, architecture shots in some schools are outdoors, vs. "interior"
>>> shots. Landscapes do tend to the out of doors, world wide. For all three
>>> types just mentioned, I often use a tripod regardless of shutter speed
>>> required.
>> Even outdoors there might not be enough light for handheld shots at F16
>> or F22. Not everybody lugs around a tripod all the time, do you?
>
> Absolutely! In any scenario that I can, it will be with me. There are always
> exceptions, and I suppose that is where a VR or IS lens becomes useful.
>
landscape, I'll "lug" a tripod. If it's midday and I am serious about
the shot, I'll use one.
Besides, in lower light situations, I wouldn't stop down anywhere near
that much. Why would you, smilin' Alf?
--
John McWilliams
David J. Littleboy
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87y7xq5...@apaflo.com...
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>>photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.
>
> Which is obviously the reason that 8x10 view cameras have always
> so damned popular.
They've always been popular. Among people who appreciate/have use for that
level of image quality. It's not for everyone, since the convenience of
smaller formats makes them, well, more convenient. At a cost in image
quality.
Progressiveabsolution
obvious. When dealing with image quality alone, given the same
photographer using the exact same equipment on his/her D30 vs.
D5/1DSMKII, will there be any reason aside from the cropping factor of
view to have the full framed body over the 1.6X D30 body? Lets take
two images where we are shooting a 50mm 1.8 on each Canon body. Both
photos are developed with similar care that they are taken. One is
obviously showing a lot more of the view than the other. But is the
one showing a lot more of the view than the other also showing a better
image (i.e. more resolution/detail/"dimensionality"/etc.)? What I am
trying to figure out is why one camera would produce a better image
than the other camera. What specifically is it that would give the
full framed body an edge over the others? There must be more to it if
someone is willing to shell out $7000 for the 1DSMKII.
I've looked at a lot of images and to my eyes the digital all looks the
same. I think there may be a little more quality with the full bodies
as the images seem to have a little more dimensionality and less
flatness of plane/space, but they all look quite similar. I wish I had
some images in front of me to be able to see the difference which is
why I am asking others what they see and when/why/how they see it.
Thanks again. This has been a very helpful thread and the users here
are very good.
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87y7xq5...@apaflo.com...
>> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>>>photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.
>>
>> Which is obviously the reason that 8x10 view cameras have always
>> so damned popular.
>
>They've always been popular. Among people who appreciate/have use for that
>level of image quality. It's not for everyone, since the convenience of
>smaller formats makes them, well, more convenient. At a cost in image
>quality.
Oh, yes they are very *popular*, and the market is several
millions a year too, unlike those useless SLR cameras with a
smaller image size and nothing else to offer.
I assume you enjoy other fantancies, but that one is good
enough for now.
They are many things, none of which come close to being what we
might describe as "popular".
However... What we *do* have 150 years of common sense
demonstrating is a steady progression from larger to smaller
image sensors *because* as the size gets smaller the versatility
and flexibility of the photographic process grows at a rate
closer to geometric than to linear. Now I suppose you can argue
that doesn't make them "better", but only for strange
definitions of "better".
Neil Ellwood
> In article <IqydnT25V8Hw8szZ...@comcast.com>,
> jp...@comcast.net says...
>
>
>> Ah, architecture shots in some schools are outdoors, vs. "interior"
>> shots. Landscapes do tend to the out of doors, world wide. For all three
>> types just mentioned, I often use a tripod regardless of shutter speed
>> required.
>
> Even outdoors there might not be enough light for handheld shots at F16
> or F22. Not everybody lugs around a tripod all the time, do you?
Monopod, tree pod camera screw etc. There are more ways to skin a cat........
--
Neil
Delete 'l' to reply
Chris in Red Stick
distortion is highest at the edge of a FF sensor, which is cropped out
a 1.5 or 1.6 sensor.
Also, there are good 24-70 range lenses available for (Nikon) 1.5
sensors -- like, say the well-regarded 17-55 f2.8 AFS DX, eh?
nikojorj_ja...@yahoo.fr
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
> When dealing with image quality alone, given the same
> photographer using the exact same equipment on his/her D30 vs.
> D5/1DSMKII, will there be any reason aside from the cropping factor of
> view to have the full framed body over the 1.6X D30 body?
Then, my answer will be obvious : cameras don't make good images,
whereas photographers do. Period.
Given that, an experienced and more or less fortuned photographer may
prefer a 1DsMkII because of thing stated a few posts ago, mainly lower
noise (ie higher dynamic range) and higher resolution, but only to the
point that a bad craftsman has always bad tools...
Are these conveniences, and the necessary hassle to profit of them (eg
heavy tripod...), worth the few grands? Your call!
But be aware that these grands will only buy you a good tool, and not
image quality in itself!
Alfred Molon
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> Most folks serious enough to buy full frame DSLRs are serious enough to use
> a tripod for landscapes.
> If you don't care to use a tripod, there is a very good chance that you
> won't be making very good use of full frame resolutions. At that
> resolution, you need every bit of lens/steadiness sharpness you can muster.
> Otherwise, you may as well not bother...unless the only care is a wide angle
> of view.
Nothing against tripods, I just don't lug them all the time around with
me. A tripod adds to the bulk, it takes time to set it up for the camera
and so on, so it is better if you are not forced to use it.
Generally speaking, cameras with a smaller sensor allow you to shoot at
wider apertures (wide enough for handheld photography) while still
having enough DOF. Instead large format cameras force you to choose
small apertures if you need DOF, which makes tripods necessary.
David J. Littleboy
Bad logic. You can't use the same lens for WA shots on the cropped sensor,
so you have to compare the different lenses, e.g. Canon 17-40 vs. Canon
10-22 or the 10-20mm third party lenses to the 17-35mm third party lenses.
David J. Littleboy
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>news:87y7xq5...@apaflo.com...
>>> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>>>>photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.
>>>
>>> Which is obviously the reason that 8x10 view cameras have always
>>> so damned popular.
>>
>>They've always been popular. Among people who appreciate/have use for that
>>level of image quality. It's not for everyone, since the convenience of
>>smaller formats makes them, well, more convenient. At a cost in image
>>quality.
>
> Oh, yes they are very *popular*, and the market is several
> millions a year too, unlike those useless SLR cameras with a
> smaller image size and nothing else to offer.
>
> I assume you enjoy other fantancies, but that one is good
> enough for now.
>
> They are many things, none of which come close to being what we
> might describe as "popular".
>
> However... What we *do* have 150 years of common sense
> demonstrating is a steady progression from larger to smaller
> image sensors *because* as the size gets smaller the versatility
> and flexibility of the photographic process grows at a rate
> closer to geometric than to linear.
Really? 35mm showed up early on, an until digital, no one made serious use
of anything smaller. In fact, all the smaller formats (half frame, APS,
instamatic) died. Except for Minox which is so bad it's camp. Digital makes
the differences a lot less obvious. But they're still there in the form of
noise and dynamic range.
> Now I suppose you can argue
> that doesn't make them "better", but only for strange
> definitions of "better".
The quality of larger prints goes way down as you move from, say, 8x10 to
6x9 to 35mm.
If you don't give a rats arse about quality prints, then you don't give a
rats arse. But people who understand quality prints know that every format
is a compromise between being small enough to be usable (and actually get
the shot) and the quality of the resultant print. (Or, inversely, that a
given format limits the size of the quality print you can produce.)
Mark˛
> In article <UKi4g.14928$Qz.4704@fed1read11>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>
>> Most folks serious enough to buy full frame DSLRs are serious enough
>> to use a tripod for landscapes.
>> If you don't care to use a tripod, there is a very good chance that
>> you won't be making very good use of full frame resolutions. At that
>> resolution, you need every bit of lens/steadiness sharpness you can
>> muster. Otherwise, you may as well not bother...unless the only care
>> is a wide angle of view.
>
> Nothing against tripods, I just don't lug them all the time around
> with me. A tripod adds to the bulk, it takes time to set it up for
> the camera and so on, so it is better if you are not forced to use it.
I don't always have mine either. But when I intend to create an image for
BIG enlargement, I want to capture as much sharpness as I can. I don't have
a full frame DSLR yet, but even with a crop, you need all the sharpness you
can get. It's truly amazing what a difference it makes when you are doing
big prints.
> Generally speaking, cameras with a smaller sensor allow you to shoot
> at wider apertures (wide enough for handheld photography) while still
> having enough DOF. Instead large format cameras force you to choose
> small apertures if you need DOF, which makes tripods necessary.
Right. So...a tripod becomes all the more necessary with full frame and
beyond.
One of the best investments I've made in photo gear was my recent carbon
fiber tripod purchase.
-But NOT because it is more steady...rather simply because it is SO much
lighter that it means I take it along more often. Its no longer such a
chore to haul around. You can have the steadiest tripod on Earth, but if
its too much of a pain to carry, its rather a waste. :)
I also am a big fan of IS lenses, since it allows for a huge break when not
using a tripod or monopod. For smaller prints, its amazing how helpful it
is. But when you need deeeeep
DOF, like in this shot:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/58828940/original
IS is useless, and its time to break out the tripod.
:)
-Mark²
Mark˛
And what would be wrong with that?
It would be basically accurate to make such an argument.
> The quality of larger prints goes way down as you move from, say,
> 8x10 to 6x9 to 35mm.
>
> If you don't give a rats arse about quality prints, then you don't
> give a rats arse. But people who understand quality prints know that
> every format is a compromise between being small enough to be usable
> (and actually get the shot) and the quality of the resultant print.
> (Or, inversely, that a given format limits the size of the quality
> print you can produce.)
Well put.
While I was impressed with how well my recent half-dome image printed at 17"
wide and 25" tall...my positive reaction to the print was felt within the
context of my understanding of the limitations of my capture device. The
print was not anywhere close to what a medium format sensor of similar
construction could have rendered.
Mark²
Floyd L. Davidson
So you are saying that today the same sensor size commonly in
use is the same as was the case 150 years ago? or 100? or 50?
or even 25?
Your discussion is *not* supporting your original statement.
The fact is that today there are millions of sensors sold every
year that are smaller than 35mm, and 30 years ago that was not
true... but at that time there were millions of sensors sold
every year that were smaller than 4x5, which was not true 50
years before that...
And before that... well you already do know, despite ignoring
it.
We have 150 years of history showing us that smaller sensors
make better cameras. Not the reverse as you claimed.
>> Now I suppose you can argue
>> that doesn't make them "better", but only for strange
>> definitions of "better".
>
>The quality of larger prints goes way down as you move from, say, 8x10 to
>6x9 to 35mm.
But that alone does *not* justify your statement that cameras
with larger sensors are necessarily better. If they were
better, people *would* be buying them by the millions... and
what they *are* buying by the millions is *smaller* sensors.
>If you don't give a rats arse about quality prints, then you don't give a
>rats arse. But people who understand quality prints know that every format
>is a compromise between being small enough to be usable (and actually get
>the shot) and the quality of the resultant print. (Or, inversely, that a
>given format limits the size of the quality print you can produce.)
So you do all of your work with an 8x10???? Why not 11x14, as
that would be even "better".
Or should we first note that a picture you *can't get* isn't
worth the paper you didn't print it on!
Mark˛
> We have 150 years of history showing us that smaller sensors
> make better cameras. Not the reverse as you claimed.
Huh???
>>> Now I suppose you can argue
>>> that doesn't make them "better", but only for strange
>>> definitions of "better".
>>
>> The quality of larger prints goes way down as you move from, say,
>> 8x10 to 6x9 to 35mm.
>
> But that alone does *not* justify your statement that cameras
> with larger sensors are necessarily better. If they were
> better, people *would* be buying them by the millions... and
> what they *are* buying by the millions is *smaller* sensors.
People buy mBILLIONS of McDonalds "burgers" too.
Surely they MUST be teh best burgers... (ugh)
>> If you don't give a rats arse about quality prints, then you don't
>> give a rats arse. But people who understand quality prints know that
>> every format is a compromise between being small enough to be usable
>> (and actually get the shot) and the quality of the resultant print.
>> (Or, inversely, that a given format limits the size of the quality
>> print you can produce.)
>
> So you do all of your work with an 8x10???? Why not 11x14, as
> that would be even "better".
>
> Or should we first note that a picture you *can't get* isn't
> worth the paper you didn't print it on!
Try to see the forest.
That tree seems to be blocking your view a bit.
:)
Scott W
Just about everyone would agree that a larger sensor will give a better
image. But just about everyone will also agree that there are cost to
using a larger sensor, expense, weight and the size of the camera and
lenses.
Are you arguing that a larger sensor does not give a better image or
are you simply pointing out that there are down sides to using a large
sensor?
You would agree I hope that a 4 x 5 camera will produce a better image
then a 35mm camera. This is a different issue from whether lugging
around a 4 x 5 camera with worth the effort.
Scott
Bryan Olson
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>>photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.
>
>
> Which is obviously the reason that 8x10 view cameras have always
> so damned popular.
By that logic the best cameras are disposables, the best
restaurant is MacDonald's, and you-know-who makes the
best operating systems.
The issue was image quality. Check it out.
--
--Bryan
Floyd L. Davidson
The quality of images, billions of which could never have been
taken with 8x10 view cameras, from 35mm cameras are better than
the non-existant images. Non-existant images have *zero*
qualities.
The idea that smaller sensors has not lead to better cameras,
and photography, flies in the face of 150 years of history.
Paul Rubin
> The quality of images, billions of which could never have been
> taken with 8x10 view cameras, from 35mm cameras are better than
> the non-existant images. Non-existant images have *zero*
> qualities.
>
> The idea that smaller sensors has not lead to better cameras,
> and photography, flies in the face of 150 years of history.
The photographic images that most of us see the most often are printed
text pages made by offset printing. All of those, except for the most
recent, were done with large format cameras and couldn't have been
done with small format. Take a look at a 24x36" street map from a gas
station sometime, with all the tiny labels on all the twisty little
streets, and wonder how to do something like that with small format.
These days it's probably generally done with direct computer-to-plate
output, but until recently it all was done with photography.
I also don't see any way of getting a digicam photo of a printed page
to be nearly as sharp as a flatbed scan with the same number of
pixels. Same difference, sort of.
Randy Berbaum
: Thanks everyone for your contributions. I should have stated the
Ok let me see if I can state what I think you are asking. If the image
captured by the two camera bodies include the exact same image and the
number of pixels that make up the two images is exactly equal, then the
level of detail available in the two images would be the same. So there
would be NO difference. The only difference that could be apparent is if
the actual light sensitive elements on the two chips are different. Since
newer chips might have a newer technology that MIGHT have some advantage
in light sensitivity or color accuracy there COULD be a slight difference
in the resultant images. But this difference would be be due to the
upgraded technology not specific to the physical dimensions of the sensor
chip. One possible thought tho, the same number of pixels on a physically
larger chip could leave more room for more technologically advanced
sensors. So in this way it could improve the image capture accuracy, but
the amount of difference apparent and the resultant "worth" would be up to
the eye of the beholder. I personally think that any difference would be
so slight (at the current time) that I would have a hard time convincing
myself that the additional cost is justified for my uses. If you are
working for National Geographic or hanging wall sized prints in a gallery
your opinion may be very different. :)
Of course back in my film days I was very happy with 400 speed print film
while my father insisted on using nothing faster than ISO 64 slide film
and frequently used much slower speed film. To each their own. :)
Floyd L. Davidson
> What is your point here?
Just exactly what I have stated: The idea that 150 years of
common sense indicates that larger sensors are necessarily
better is simply untrue. History demonstrates the opposite to
be the case; and what we have is 150 years of steadily reducing
the size of the sensor, primarily because that affords the
photographer more options, versatility and flexibility.
>Just about everyone would agree that a larger sensor will give a better
>image. But just about everyone will also agree that there are cost to
>using a larger sensor, expense, weight and the size of the camera and
>lenses.
True.
>Are you arguing that a larger sensor does not give a better image or
>are you simply pointing out that there are down sides to using a large
>sensor?
The statement that I objected to did *not* sayt that images of
better technical quality can come from larger sensors. That is
a relatively narrow statement, and which *can* be argued very
effectively.
But the statement that larger sensors are simply better in a
wider perspective is not supported by the claimed 150 years of
history.
>You would agree I hope that a 4 x 5 camera will produce a better image
>then a 35mm camera. This is a different issue from whether lugging
>around a 4 x 5 camera with worth the effort.
And you will agree that a 4x5 camera will not get nearly the
effective photography that a smaller sensor can produce. Photo
journalism during the Korean War, 50+ years ago, proved it.
E.g., a typical pro-quality DSLR will shoot at 5 frames per
second. Your chances of using a 4x5 to duplicate results where
that is significant are none. And of course we could run down a
lengthy laundry list of other similar features available with
typical sub-35mm DSLRs and show that there are multiples more
issues than just a "better image". So granting that a 4x5 *can*
be used to produce a technically higher quality image simply
does *not* demonstrate that larger sensors are better.
Images that cannot be produced by a 4x5 are much better when
actually done with a smaller sensor.
Mark˛
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> What is your point here?
>
> Just exactly what I have stated: The idea that 150 years of
> common sense indicates that larger sensors are necessarily
> better is simply untrue. History demonstrates the opposite to
> be the case; and what we have is 150 years of steadily reducing
> the size of the sensor, primarily because that affords the
> photographer more options, versatility and flexibility.
>
>> Just about everyone would agree that a larger sensor will give a
>> better image. But just about everyone will also agree that there are
>> cost to using a larger sensor, expense, weight and the size of the
>> camera and lenses.
>
> True.
>
>> Are you arguing that a larger sensor does not give a better image or
>> are you simply pointing out that there are down sides to using a
>> large sensor?
>
> The statement that I objected to did *not* sayt that images of
> better technical quality can come from larger sensors. That is
> a relatively narrow statement, and which *can* be argued very
> effectively.
>
> But the statement that larger sensors are simply better in a
> wider perspective is not supported by the claimed 150 years of
> history.
I think you've so oversimplified the term, "better" that you would do well
to use a different adjective.
Randy Berbaum
: You would agree I hope that a 4 x 5 camera will produce a better image
: then a 35mm camera. This is a different issue from whether lugging
: around a 4 x 5 camera with worth the effort.
Ah, here is where the discussion breaks down. With film cameras there is a
definate limit to how many light sensitive crystals per sq inch would be
practical. So given an equivalent number of crystals per inch (a major
factor in ISO speed) a larger film frame size has more crystals per image.
To convert this to digital terms you are comparing a 1mp image to a 10mp
image. True the larger sensor has room for more light sensitive elements
but if the sensor chip does not fill the physical dimensions of the larger
chip to the same density of sensing elements as the smaller chip the size
alone makes no difference. And the raise in density would be quantified by
an equivalent rise in megapixels making up the image.
With film the battle over negative size was roughly equivalent to the
current battle over the effect of more megapixels. :)
Mark˛
> Bryan Olson <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>>>> photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.
>>> Which is obviously the reason that 8x10 view cameras have
>>> always
>>> so damned popular.
>>
>> By that logic the best cameras are disposables, the best
>> restaurant is MacDonald's, and you-know-who makes the
>> best operating systems.
>>
>> The issue was image quality. Check it out.
>
> The quality of images, billions of which could never have been
> taken with 8x10 view cameras, from 35mm cameras are better than
> the non-existant images. Non-existant images have *zero*
> qualities.
Ah. So you're comparing 35mm with non-images?
Now I understand why 35mm wins...because you've reduced the competition to
zero.
:)
A clever approach to argumentation...
> The idea that smaller sensors has not lead to better cameras,
> and photography, flies in the face of 150 years of history.
Ya...You've said that a few times now.
Unfortunately, mere repetition rarely makes a crock into a crown...
David J. Littleboy
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> The statement that I objected to did *not* sayt that images of
> better technical quality can come from larger sensors.
Then you have reading comprehension problems. The issue was image quality.
Some people have been claiming that cropped sensors provide better image
quality than FF sensors, and _that_ is simply wrong and was the issue under
discussion.
Floyd L. Davidson
>fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
>> The quality of images, billions of which could never have been
>> taken with 8x10 view cameras, from 35mm cameras are better than
>> the non-existant images. Non-existant images have *zero*
>> qualities.
>>
>> The idea that smaller sensors has not lead to better cameras,
>> and photography, flies in the face of 150 years of history.
>
>The photographic images that most of us see the most often are printed
>text pages made by offset printing. All of those, except for the most
>recent, were done with large format cameras and couldn't have been
>done with small format. Take a look at a 24x36" street map from a gas
>station sometime, with all the tiny labels on all the twisty little
>streets, and wonder how to do something like that with small format.
The photographs that *most* people have looked at _today_ were
taken with 35mm or smaller format cameras. That is true for
magazine articles, television, newspaper, and home snapshots.
That has been progressively more true for at least 50 years.
>These days it's probably generally done with direct computer-to-plate
>output, but until recently it all was done with photography.
That is merely the reproduction business though. The images did
not originate with a camera that used a large sensor.
>I also don't see any way of getting a digicam photo of a printed page
>to be nearly as sharp as a flatbed scan with the same number of
>pixels. Same difference, sort of.
Insignificant point though. The sensor in that flatbed scanner is
how big?
Don Stauffer
> Let's put it this way: If I'm shooting at dusk or dawn and it's a
> landscape, I'll "lug" a tripod. If it's midday and I am serious about
> the shot, I'll use one.
>
>
>
And any time I know I will be shooting at small apertures (high f/#) I
lug the tripod along. Hey, tripods today are so much lighter and
smaller than they used to be it is not a chore anymore!
Alfred Molon
says...
> And any time I know I will be shooting at small apertures (high f/#) I
> lug the tripod along. Hey, tripods today are so much lighter and
> smaller than they used to be it is not a chore anymore!
What weight does a carbon tripod have and how much does such a thing
cost? By the way, don't forget that even if a tripod is light, you still
have to set it up, extend the legs etc. and that's a pain in the ass.
Mark˛
> In article <9GK4g.12$j%3.3...@news.uswest.net>, stau...@usfamily.net
> says...
>
>> And any time I know I will be shooting at small apertures (high f/#)
>> I lug the tripod along. Hey, tripods today are so much lighter and
>> smaller than they used to be it is not a chore anymore!
>
> What weight does a carbon tripod have and how much does such a thing
> cost? By the way, don't forget that even if a tripod is light, you
> still have to set it up, extend the legs etc. and that's a pain in
> the ass.
Not near so much a pain as it is discovering that your beautiful landscape
shot is only worth printing at 5x7 due to sharpness issues related to
hand-shake or DOF problems...all because it wasn't on a tripod.
:0)
nazanin
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
> What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
> the camera? In other words, does it degrade the quality of the picture
> when comparing to a full framed camera body?
>
> What is the essential difference in image quality between a full frame
> body and a 1.5-1.6X cropped body?
>
> How much of a difference is there in image quality between the full
> frame body and the 1.5-1.6X sensor bodies?
>
> I'm sure this has been answered but hopefully I can get some more info
> on this.
>
> Thanks all for your help!
nazanin
David wrote:
> Full frame with the same lens will have a shallower depth of field than the
> 1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
> foreground from the background (out of focus background).
>
> 1.6 gives you a longer focal length. So, longer at the telephoto end, but
> shorter at the wide angle end (not as wide with the same focal length, but
> longer with the same focal length).
>
> 1.6 gives you more distortion at the wide angle as a 17mm lens is still 17mm
> lens.
>
> Vignetting maybe reduced on a 1.6 as the true edges of the lens is wider
> than the sensor (unless a EF-S maybe). Although 17mm EF-S wide open on a
> 1.6 body can still give vignetting.
>
> Full frame has less noise, so you can shoot at a slower ISO/noise ratio.
>
> Full frame has a better range of 'L' lenses available. There isn't a 24-70
> equivelent for 1.6 cropped cameras. However, there isn't a 112-320 'L' lens
> for full frame bodies either.
>
> So, what you are asking is should I go for a 30D or a 5D? Full frame is
> better than 1.6, if you have plenty of money to spend. Disadvantage is you
> don't have such a good focal length at the telephoto end, but if the sensor
> has more megapixels, then you can always crop the image afterwards to give
> the same result. Also, the 5D lacks in the FPS section.
>
>
>
> "Progressiveabsolution" <progressiv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146164850.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Alfred Molon
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> Not near so much a pain as it is discovering that your beautiful landscape
> shot is only worth printing at 5x7 due to sharpness issues related to
> hand-shake or DOF problems...all because it wasn't on a tripod.
But that happens perhaps in one shot out of 200-300 (unless you are at
"high zoom"). And usually in "strategic" locations I shoot at least a
couple of shots in case a single shot should come out blurred, due to
camera shake or incorrect focusing of the camera. An extra memory card
weighs less than a tripod.
Mark˛
> In article <6dP4g.15024$Qz.7435@fed1read11>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>
>> Not near so much a pain as it is discovering that your beautiful
>> landscape shot is only worth printing at 5x7 due to sharpness issues
>> related to hand-shake or DOF problems...all because it wasn't on a
>> tripod.
>
> But that happens perhaps in one shot out of 200-300 (unless you are at
> "high zoom"). And usually in "strategic" locations I shoot at least a
> couple of shots in case a single shot should come out blurred, due to
> camera shake or incorrect focusing of the camera. An extra memory card
> weighs less than a tripod.
DOF can only be acheived by using small apertures (or small prints) and that
means slower shutter speeds...which, in turn, raises the possibility of
motion blur or camera motion burl. This definitely doesn't merely apply to
telephoto, or "high zoom" as you call it. This shot is an example that
demonstrates this: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/58828940/original
It was taken at a wide 23mm, a small aperture of f20, and 1/13th of a
second.
No matter how steady my hands might be, there is no way to acheive critical
sharpness without a tripod in this case. Everyone seems to have a diferent
standard for what they consider critically sharp. To me, critically sharp
in *landscapes* means that enlargement reveals only the limitations of the
lens optics...rather than my technique. Other factors that are out of our
control sometimes mean sharpness is tough or impossible (blowing grass,
trees, etc.).
If you're not planning to enlarge much, then of course the situational
definition of "critically sharp" can take on a much lower standard for
acceptable results.
I guess there's really no universal definition for sharp images. What I
throw away might be someone else's keeper, or vice versa.
:)
-Mark²
Alfred Molon
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> DOF can only be acheived by using small apertures (or small prints) and that
> means slower shutter speeds...which, in turn, raises the possibility of
> motion blur or camera motion burl. This definitely doesn't merely apply to
> telephoto, or "high zoom" as you call it. This shot is an example that
> demonstrates this: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/58828940/original
>
> It was taken at a wide 23mm, a small aperture of f20, and 1/13th of a
> second.
> No matter how steady my hands might be, there is no way to acheive critical
> sharpness without a tripod in this case. Everyone seems to have a diferent
> standard for what they consider critically sharp. To me, critically sharp
> in *landscapes* means that enlargement reveals only the limitations of the
> lens optics...rather than my technique. Other factors that are out of our
> control sometimes mean sharpness is tough or impossible (blowing grass,
> trees, etc.).
Well, F20 isn't even available on a camera like the Olympus 8080, just
to make an example (smallest aperture is F8). At F8 (and ISO 100) the
exposure time would have been 1/80s, short enough for a blurless
handheld shot (even at ISO 50 and 1/40s you would have obtained easily
avoided camera shake).
By the way, the exif data says that the camera used was a Canon 10D and
the ISO 100. You could have gone up to ISO 400, thereby obtaining an
exposure time of 1/50s, sufficient for a handheld shot without blur.
Obviously noise levels would have been higher, but still low enough with
a camera like the 10D.
Mark˛
Why would I want to introduce noise when I have a tripod?
Again...it just comes down to how intent one is on creating the best image
possible.
Even at 1/50th of a second...while you may not see blur at small print
sizes, it can become apparent in big enlargements.
Neil Ellwood
> In article <9GK4g.12$j%3.3...@news.uswest.net>, stau...@usfamily.net
> says...
>
>> And any time I know I will be shooting at small apertures (high f/#) I
>> lug the tripod along. Hey, tripods today are so much lighter and
>> smaller than they used to be it is not a chore anymore!
>
> What weight does a carbon tripod have and how much does such a thing
> cost? By the way, don't forget that even if a tripod is light, you still
> have to set it up, extend the legs etc. and that's a pain in the ass.
Must be your method of opening .........
--
Neil
Delete 'l' to reply
Mark˛
Ya, I always figure one's hands should be used to open the tripod...
...No need to use one's back-side.
:)
Alfred Molon
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> Even at 1/50th of a second...while you may not see blur at small print
> sizes, it can become apparent in big enlargements.
But at just 6MP and at wide angle you should get sharp shots, unless of
course you are unable to hold a camera steady. With the Olympus 5050 I
was able to get blurless shots down to 1/13s at wide angle (handheld).
I'm currently using a Sony R1 (10MP) and get sharp handheld shots at
even longer exposure times (checked the images at 100%). But then the R1
doesn't have a big mirror which goes up and down and causes camera
shake.
Mark˛
> In article <JtV4g.15287$Qz.10235@fed1read11>, "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>
>> Even at 1/50th of a second...while you may not see blur at small
>> print sizes, it can become apparent in big enlargements.
>
> But at just 6MP and at wide angle you should get sharp shots, unless
> of course you are unable to hold a camera steady. With the Olympus
> 5050 I was able to get blurless shots down to 1/13s at wide angle
> (handheld). I'm currently using a Sony R1 (10MP) and get sharp
> handheld shots at even longer exposure times (checked the images at
> 100%). But then the R1 doesn't have a big mirror which goes up and
> down and causes camera shake.
I'll leave you to your opinion.
One man's treasure...
Don Stauffer
> In article <9GK4g.12$j%3.3...@news.uswest.net>, stau...@usfamily.net
> says...
>
>
>>And any time I know I will be shooting at small apertures (high f/#) I
>>lug the tripod along. Hey, tripods today are so much lighter and
>>smaller than they used to be it is not a chore anymore!
>
>
> What weight does a carbon tripod have and how much does such a thing
> cost? By the way, don't forget that even if a tripod is light, you still
> have to set it up, extend the legs etc. and that's a pain in the ass.
Actually, mine isn't carbon fiber, it is aluminum. I'd estimate it
weighs less than two pounds. Cost me twenty bucks.
Yep, takes a bit of time, not good for snapshots, but ordinarily on
snapshots you don't worry about depth of field and such. If you want a
quality shot, it takes some effort.
Alfred Molon
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> I'll leave you to your opinion.
> One man's treasure...
This opinion is the 1/f rule - focal length in your case is 38mm (35mm
equiv.), so an exposure time 1/38s or shorter is sufficient for a
handheld shot.
Mark˛
> In article <3i35g.15319$Qz.6501@fed1read11>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>
>> I'll leave you to your opinion.
>> One man's treasure...
>
> This opinion is the 1/f rule - focal length in your case is 38mm (35mm
> equiv.), so an exposure time 1/38s or shorter is sufficient for a
> handheld shot.
I am very well aquainted with this "rule."
-So well aquainted as to understand its limitations, and to recognise that
it applies only to a certain degree of what we call "acceptable sharpness."
The words, "acceptably sharp" are SO subjective in meaning that to discuss
it further is likely a waste of our time. Again...it has a great deal to
do with enlargement and end-use/purpose.
In any case...my shutter was 1/13th...not 1/38th...and even if it had been
1/38th, I would have definitely reached for the tripod...just as I would
have definitely avoided ISO 400. While you may find ISO 400 on a 10D
fine...I would never choose it unless I had no alternative means of sharp
capture. That certainly happens, but not in this case. When the world
around me was on fire (literally) a couple years ago, I cranked it up to ISO
3200 and shot what I could before I was overtaken by smoke and flame.
Happily, I wasn't facing that in Yosemite. :)
My life will go on if you never agree...
;)
I don't say you're wrong...just different. There are lengths other photogs
are willing to go to that I am not...so we all have our own levels of
scrutiny. By many standards, I am sloppy a great portion of the time, so
please don't think for a minute that I somehow feel like you're doing
something "wrong." I don't.
-Mark²
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> Well, F20 isn't even available on a camera like the Olympus 8080, just
> to make an example (smallest aperture is F8). At F8 (and ISO 100) the
> exposure time would have been 1/80s, short enough for a blurless
> handheld shot (even at ISO 50 and 1/40s you would have obtained easily
> avoided camera shake).
>
The image wouldn't be "pin" sharp though. Try it and see. Crop in really
close and have a look. Take the same picture on a tripod with a remote
shutter trigger (cable or IR). You will see the difference unless your sensor
or glass are not very good.
> By the way, the exif data says that the camera used was a Canon 10D and
> the ISO 100. You could have gone up to ISO 400, thereby obtaining an
> exposure time of 1/50s, sufficient for a handheld shot without blur.
> Obviously noise levels would have been higher, but still low enough with
> a camera like the 10D.
Without blur is not a solid line in the sand. The lack of blur is a "typical"
viewing. There are some things that you simply can't get without handholding
(or good luck on a tripod), but it is more a matter of opportunity than it is
technique. A landscape doesn't move, plan for it and take the best picture
that you can with your equipment. Settling for handheld because you are
impatient and feel the 1/fl rule (for 35mm) is adequate will only give you
adequate results.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> In article <JtV4g.15287$Qz.10235@fed1read11>, "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest
>
>> Even at 1/50th of a second...while you may not see blur at small print
>> sizes, it can become apparent in big enlargements.
>
> But at just 6MP and at wide angle you should get sharp shots, unless of
> course you are unable to hold a camera steady. With the Olympus 5050 I
> was able to get blurless shots down to 1/13s at wide angle (handheld).
> I'm currently using a Sony R1 (10MP) and get sharp handheld shots at
> even longer exposure times (checked the images at 100%). But then the R1
> doesn't have a big mirror which goes up and down and causes camera
> shake.
You WILL notice the increased sharpness on a 6MP sensor by using a tripod at
the exposures mentioned in this thread. 6MP is NOT a marginal solution.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> In article <3i35g.15319$Qz.6501@fed1read11>, "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest
>
>> I'll leave you to your opinion.
>> One man's treasure...
>
> This opinion is the 1/f rule - focal length in your case is 38mm (35mm
> equiv.), so an exposure time 1/38s or shorter is sufficient for a
> handheld shot.
The 1/fl rule applies to 35mm. Perhaps in the days of digital and crop
sensors, it should be 1/35efl (1 / 35mm effective focal length). Thus, a 60mm
lens on a Nikon D70 1.5x crop sensor would mean you should shoot no slower
than 1/90s.
Alfred Molon
@yahoo.com says...
> The 1/fl rule applies to 35mm. Perhaps in the days of digital and crop
> sensors, it should be 1/35efl (1 / 35mm effective focal length). Thus, a 60mm
> lens on a Nikon D70 1.5x crop sensor would mean you should shoot no slower
> than 1/90s.
His shot was taken at 25mm. The 38mm already included the effective
focal length.
Alfred Molon
@yahoo.com says...
> The image wouldn't be "pin" sharp though. Try it and see. Crop in really
> close and have a look. Take the same picture on a tripod with a remote
> shutter trigger (cable or IR). You will see the difference unless your sensor
> or glass are not very good.
I guess it depends on the photographer then. The rule for me actually is
"2/f", not just "1/f". I do examine my images at 100% and know what I'm
talking about.
ASAAR
>>> Well, F20 isn't even available on a camera like the Olympus 8080, just
>>> to make an example (smallest aperture is F8). At F8 (and ISO 100) the
>>> exposure time would have been 1/80s, short enough for a blurless
>>> handheld shot (even at ISO 50 and 1/40s you would have obtained
>>> easily avoided camera shake).
>
>> The image wouldn't be "pin" sharp though. Try it and see. Crop in really
>> close and have a look. Take the same picture on a tripod with a remote
>> shutter trigger (cable or IR). You will see the difference unless your
>> sensor or glass are not very good.
>
> I guess it depends on the photographer then. The rule for me actually is
> "2/f", not just "1/f". I do examine my images at 100% and know what I'm
> talking about.
You may know what you're talking about, but it's just that you're
satisfied with your results. Using your example of f/8, ISO 100
and 1/80th sec., you say that it allows for blurless handheld shots.
But consider if you took the same shot with an ND filter, allowing
you to use f/8, ISO 100 and 1/20th sec. That would probably have
easily seen blur. Taking the shot at 1/80th sec. doesn't eliminate
blur, it only reduces it. It may be that at the size you make your
prints the blur isn't easily noticeable, but whatever blur exists
would almost certainly be reduced if a tripod was used. If that
reduction isn't noticeable in your prints, then you'd have no reason
to carry the extra weight of the tripod, but that may limit the size
of your prints if you ever decide that you want to make an unusually
large print. Then you'd be limited by your personal rule.
Alfred Molon
says...
> You may know what you're talking about, but it's just that you're
> satisfied with your results. Using your example of f/8, ISO 100
> and 1/80th sec., you say that it allows for blurless handheld shots.
> But consider if you took the same shot with an ND filter, allowing
> you to use f/8, ISO 100 and 1/20th sec. That would probably have
> easily seen blur. Taking the shot at 1/80th sec. doesn't eliminate
> blur, it only reduces it. It may be that at the size you make your
> prints the blur isn't easily noticeable, but whatever blur exists
> would almost certainly be reduced if a tripod was used. If that
> reduction isn't noticeable in your prints, then you'd have no reason
> to carry the extra weight of the tripod, but that may limit the size
> of your prints if you ever decide that you want to make an unusually
> large print. Then you'd be limited by your personal rule.
If the images look crisp and sharp at 100% with a handheld shot, why
should I use a tripod? Nothing against tripods, but they are a pain to
set up (never mind about the bulk and weight), so I only use them when I
have to.
ASAAR
> If the images look crisp and sharp at 100% with a handheld shot, why
> should I use a tripod?
I explained why, but that's not the real issue here. It's that by
saying that you can take a "blurless handheld shot" you invite
argument by those that take your statement literally, that your
images contain zero blur, when you seem to mean that for your
purposes you can take "handheld shots with no apparent blur". You
might also have indicated whether your "blurless" 1/80th sec shots
are limited to any of the C-8080's focal lengths, as I don't think
that the results you'd get at the (effective) 140mm long end would
be as acceptable as what the 28mm wide end can produce.
>Nothing against tripods, but they are a pain to set up (never mind about
> the bulk and weight), so I only use them when I have to.
I agree, but with a difference. For me the extra bulk and weight
is a far bigger pain than the inconvenience of having to setup or
remove the camera from the tripod.
Mark˛
> In article <44560268$0$275$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
> @yahoo.com says...
>
>> The 1/fl rule applies to 35mm. Perhaps in the days of digital and
>> crop sensors, it should be 1/35efl (1 / 35mm effective focal
>> length). Thus, a 60mm lens on a Nikon D70 1.5x crop sensor would
>> mean you should shoot no slower than 1/90s.
>
> His shot was taken at 25mm. The 38mm already included the effective
> focal length.
Right.
Except that the "rule" is only a guide for what most would deem "acceptably
sharp" pictures.
It simply will not consistently keep up with the same shot taken on a
tripod.
Not even close.
Perhaps you should hold off on arguing further until you routinely produce
images with a wide format printer. I really think that until you get into
that "mode" of scrutiny, we're not going to get anywhere.
Mark˛
> In article <4456019a$0$275$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
> @yahoo.com says...
>
>> The image wouldn't be "pin" sharp though. Try it and see. Crop in
>> really close and have a look. Take the same picture on a tripod
>> with a remote shutter trigger (cable or IR). You will see the
>> difference unless your sensor or glass are not very good.
>
> I guess it depends on the photographer then. The rule for me actually
> is "2/f", not just "1/f". I do examine my images at 100% and know
> what I'm talking about.
I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about.
I just doubt (with a fair amount of certainty) that our standards are the
same.
Or...that simply our needs are different.
I still have shots from my old 3.25MP Canon D30 that I only WISH I used a
tripod with! I have some beautiful handheld shots that simply don't hold
up, due to a lack of tripod support. And yes...as a matter of fact...even
at 3.25 MP, it makes a difference.
Mark˛
> In article <kkmc52t3t04rt7spo...@4ax.com>, cau...@22.com
> says...
>
>> You may know what you're talking about, but it's just that you're
>> satisfied with your results. Using your example of f/8, ISO 100
>> and 1/80th sec., you say that it allows for blurless handheld shots.
>> But consider if you took the same shot with an ND filter, allowing
>> you to use f/8, ISO 100 and 1/20th sec. That would probably have
>> easily seen blur. Taking the shot at 1/80th sec. doesn't eliminate
>> blur, it only reduces it. It may be that at the size you make your
>> prints the blur isn't easily noticeable, but whatever blur exists
>> would almost certainly be reduced if a tripod was used. If that
>> reduction isn't noticeable in your prints, then you'd have no reason
>> to carry the extra weight of the tripod, but that may limit the size
>> of your prints if you ever decide that you want to make an unusually
>> large print. Then you'd be limited by your personal rule.
>
> If the images look crisp and sharp at 100% with a handheld shot, why
> should I use a tripod? Nothing against tripods, but they are a pain to
> set up (never mind about the bulk and weight), so I only use them
> when I have to.
Nobody is forcing you to use a tripod.
:)
If you're happy...then great!
2
> Nobody is forcing you to use a tripod.
> :)
> If you're happy...then great!
If all else fails, lower your standards. Right?
Mark˛
If you think I am suggesting that, then you haven't been paying attention in
this thread.
Apparently some feel that way. I do not.
Read.
-Mark˛
John McWilliams
>
By the way, don't forget that even if a tripod is light, you still
> have to set it up, extend the legs etc. and that's a pain in the ass.
You must be using it wrong! It does not double as a seat.
--
John McWilliams
nikojorj_ja...@yahoo.fr
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> > I guess it depends on the photographer then. The rule for me actually is
> > "2/f", not just "1/f". I do examine my images at 100% and know what I'm
> > talking about.
>
> You may know what you're talking about, but it's just that you're
> satisfied with your results.
If I might put again a french grain of salt, I might emphasize the fact
that Alfred Molon has no mirror in his cameras (neither in the Oly 5050
nor in the Sony R1 imho).
While I've generally rather heard "1/(2 or 4)*f.lgth" as a rule for
pin-sharp hand-held pictures with 35mm-like SLRs or dSLRs, I've also
heard leicaists say they could use slower speeds than 1/f.lgth with
very good hand-held results - and you know the amounts of money they
put at the feet of sharpness'goddess statue...
The fact is that they have no mirror flipping while they shoot and very
little vibration induced by the shutter, and that seems a significant
factor for blur induced by camera shake, all other factors equal.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> In article <4456019a$0$275$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
> @yahoo.com says...
>
>> The image wouldn't be "pin" sharp though. Try it and see. Crop in really
>> close and have a look. Take the same picture on a tripod with a remote
>> shutter trigger (cable or IR). You will see the difference unless your sensor
>> or glass are not very good.
>
> I guess it depends on the photographer then. The rule for me actually is
> "2/f", not just "1/f". I do examine my images at 100% and know what I'm
> talking about.
Don't you mean 1/2f? 2/f is slower (i.e. if 60mm ... 1/60s, or using your
rule 2/60s is 1/30s ... I think you meant 1/120s).
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> If the images look crisp and sharp at 100% with a handheld shot, why
> should I use a tripod? Nothing against tripods, but they are a pain to
> set up (never mind about the bulk and weight), so I only use them when I
> have to.
My tripod and head is about 4 pounds and it will fit in a small bag. It is
not hard to carry .. in fact, that is why I bought it.
As far as "looking crisp", why not post one of your 100% crisp images here ...
in RAW format if you have it?
ASAAR
>> You may know what you're talking about, but it's just that you're
>> satisfied with your results.
>
> If I might put again a french grain of salt, I might emphasize the fact
> that Alfred Molon has no mirror in his cameras (neither in the Oly 5050
> nor in the Sony R1 imho).
>
> While I've generally rather heard "1/(2 or 4)*f.lgth" as a rule for
> pin-sharp hand-held pictures with 35mm-like SLRs or dSLRs, I've also
> heard leicaists say they could use slower speeds than 1/f.lgth with
> very good hand-held results - and you know the amounts of money they
> put at the feet of sharpness'goddess statue...
> The fact is that they have no mirror flipping while they shoot and very
> little vibration induced by the shutter, and that seems a significant
> factor for blur induced by camera shake, all other factors equal.
Those can contribute to vibration, but even in cameras where
they're not a factor a tripod will help. The discussion was about
blur caused by handheld shots, and the person doesn't exist that can
hold a camera as steadily as a tripod. Mass helps reduce the effect
of vibration, sharpshooters and snipers being well aware of the
benefit conferred by very heavy barrels, and not just because they
reduce the effect of recoil. Alfred's C-8080 may not be an
ultralight P&S, but it's less massive than many DSLRs, especially
those with large lenses attached. Looking through the viewfinder of
my camera I can easily see how bracing it (or my hands) against a
tree, wall or other solid object reduces camera movement, which is
produced by opposing muscle forces and pulsing blood pressure.
Bart van der Wolf
Alfred Molon
@yahoo.com says...
> >> The image wouldn't be "pin" sharp though. Try it and see. Crop in really
> >> close and have a look. Take the same picture on a tripod with a remote
> >> shutter trigger (cable or IR). You will see the difference unless your sensor
> >> or glass are not very good.
> >
> > I guess it depends on the photographer then. The rule for me actually is
> > "2/f", not just "1/f". I do examine my images at 100% and know what I'm
> > talking about.
>
> Don't you mean 1/2f? 2/f is slower (i.e. if 60mm ... 1/60s, or using your
> rule 2/60s is 1/30s ... I think you meant 1/120s).
This is a handheld 10MP shot, taken at 1/50s, F4.8, 120mm (35mm equiv),
ISO160:
http://www.molon.de/P4150676.jpg (large file, 3.5MB)
There is no camera shake, despite the fact the exposure time is 1/50s
and the equivalent focal length 120mm. We are at 2.4/f here.
And yes, I guess the fact that the Sony R1 has no mirror plays a role.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> 2/f, slower than 1/f.
>
> This is a handheld 10MP shot, taken at 1/50s, F4.8, 120mm (35mm equiv),
> ISO160:
>
> http://www.molon.de/P4150676.jpg (large file, 3.5MB)
>
The spire under the cross doesn't look that sharp to me. That could be
because of movement, but it appears to be because of a lack of depth of fiend
and a close focus on the closest subject. If you could have stopped down, the
spire would have been sharp. Af far as motion blur goes, you appear to have
done alright ... at the expense of depth of field.
> There is no camera shake, despite the fact the exposure time is 1/50s
> and the equivalent focal length 120mm. We are at 2.4/f here.
>
> And yes, I guess the fact that the Sony R1 has no mirror plays a role.
I am not sure why a mirror would have much to do with it. For one, mirror
slap would not likely affect the image at 1/50s. And second, any effect from
mirror slap would be dwarfed by your hand movement ... even yours.
Alfred Molon
@yahoo.com says...
> > This is a handheld 10MP shot, taken at 1/50s, F4.8, 120mm (35mm equiv),
> > ISO160:
> >
> > http://www.molon.de/P4150676.jpg (large file, 3.5MB)
> >
>
> The spire under the cross doesn't look that sharp to me. That could be
> because of movement, but it appears to be because of a lack of depth of fiend
> and a close focus on the closest subject. If you could have stopped down, the
> spire would have been sharp. Af far as motion blur goes, you appear to have
> done alright ... at the expense of depth of field.
True, I hadn't noticed that. So F4.8 doesn't give you sufficient DOF in
such a situation? Although the situation is not too terrible because the
main subject is in focus. Sigh. That's a disadvantage of big sensors.
With the 8080 lack of DOF was never an issue.
Mark˛
> In article <4457b45f$0$721$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
> @yahoo.com says...
>
>>> This is a handheld 10MP shot, taken at 1/50s, F4.8, 120mm (35mm
>>> equiv), ISO160:
>>>
>>> http://www.molon.de/P4150676.jpg (large file, 3.5MB)
>>>
>>
>> The spire under the cross doesn't look that sharp to me. That could
>> be because of movement, but it appears to be because of a lack of
>> depth of fiend and a close focus on the closest subject. If you
>> could have stopped down, the spire would have been sharp. Af far as
>> motion blur goes, you appear to have done alright ... at the expense
>> of depth of field.
>
> True, I hadn't noticed that. So F4.8 doesn't give you sufficient DOF
> in such a situation?
If you are that unfamiliar with depth of focus, it seems a little odd that
you have been arguing with such tenacity. ...On the other hand...that may
explain a lot.
:)
>Although the situation is not too terrible
> because the main subject is in focus. Sigh. That's a disadvantage of
> big sensors.
Big sensors?
What sensor are you referring to? Your Sony?
F4.8 is not what most would consider "stopped down" for DOF.
>With the 8080 lack of DOF was never an issue.
:)
Mark˛
> In article <44574bfe$0$719$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
> @yahoo.com says...
>>>> The image wouldn't be "pin" sharp though. Try it and see. Crop
>>>> in really close and have a look. Take the same picture on a
>>>> tripod with a remote shutter trigger (cable or IR). You will see
>>>> the difference unless your sensor or glass are not very good.
>>>
>>> I guess it depends on the photographer then. The rule for me
>>> actually is "2/f", not just "1/f". I do examine my images at 100%
>>> and know what I'm talking about.
>>
>> Don't you mean 1/2f? 2/f is slower (i.e. if 60mm ... 1/60s, or
>> using your rule 2/60s is 1/30s ... I think you meant 1/120s).
>
> 2/f, slower than 1/f.
>
> This is a handheld 10MP shot, taken at 1/50s, F4.8, 120mm (35mm
> equiv), ISO160:
>
> http://www.molon.de/P4150676.jpg (large file, 3.5MB)
>
> There is no camera shake, despite the fact the exposure time is 1/50s
> and the equivalent focal length 120mm. We are at 2.4/f here.
>
> And yes, I guess the fact that the Sony R1 has no mirror plays a role.
This image is miles away from what I would consider critically sharp, which
illustrates my point:
We simply have different definitions of what "sharp" is.
Alfred Molon
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> > In article <4457b45f$0$721$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
> > @yahoo.com says...
> >
> >>> This is a handheld 10MP shot, taken at 1/50s, F4.8, 120mm (35mm
> >>> equiv), ISO160:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.molon.de/P4150676.jpg (large file, 3.5MB)
> >>>
> >>
> >> The spire under the cross doesn't look that sharp to me. That could
> >> be because of movement, but it appears to be because of a lack of
> >> depth of fiend and a close focus on the closest subject. If you
> >> could have stopped down, the spire would have been sharp. Af far as
> >> motion blur goes, you appear to have done alright ... at the expense
> >> of depth of field.
> >
> > True, I hadn't noticed that. So F4.8 doesn't give you sufficient DOF
> > in such a situation?
>
> If you are that unfamiliar with depth of focus, it seems a little odd that
> you have been arguing with such tenacity. ...On the other hand...that may
> explain a lot.
> :)
Although the DOF calculator here
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
gives me 24-117 metres of DOF with the subject at 40 metres and F4.8
Alfred Molon
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> This image is miles away from what I would consider critically sharp, which
> illustrates my point:
> We simply have different definitions of what "sharp" is.
But it is sharp and there is no visible camera shake at 100%.
Alfred Molon
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> This image is miles away from what I would consider critically sharp, which
> illustrates my point:
> We simply have different definitions of what "sharp" is.
Go ahead and show us a full size, critical sharp image from your camera.
Mark˛
> In article <93X5g.17976$Qz.8465@fed1read11>, "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>
>> This image is miles away from what I would consider critically
>> sharp, which illustrates my point:
>> We simply have different definitions of what "sharp" is.
>
> But it is sharp
You think?
Ee-ghad!
No it isn't.
>and there is no visible camera shake at 100%.
Then what is causing this shot to look so blurred?
Rich
number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <9GK4g.12$j%3.3...@news.uswest.net>, stau...@usfamily.net
>> says...
>>
>>> And any time I know I will be shooting at small apertures (high f/#)
>>> I lug the tripod along. Hey, tripods today are so much lighter and
>>> smaller than they used to be it is not a chore anymore!
>>
>> What weight does a carbon tripod have and how much does such a thing
>> cost? By the way, don't forget that even if a tripod is light, you
>> still have to set it up, extend the legs etc. and that's a pain in
>> the ass.
>
>Not near so much a pain as it is discovering that your beautiful landscape
>shot is only worth printing at 5x7 due to sharpness issues related to
>hand-shake or DOF problems...all because it wasn't on a tripod.
>:0)
>
Landscape shot in daylight usually means about 1/500th second at
f5.6-f8. Tripod? Not needed. Unless you are using a piece of crap
kit lens that needs to be stopped down to f11 to produce a decent
image.
-Rich
Mark˛
Who was talking about "decent"? The question is a lens at its best.
Even top-level lenses are typically at their sharpest in the range of f8 -
f11.
Mark˛
> In article <93X5g.17976$Qz.8465@fed1read11>, "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>
>> This image is miles away from what I would consider critically
>> sharp, which illustrates my point:
>> We simply have different definitions of what "sharp" is.
>
> Go ahead and show us a full size, critical sharp image from your
> camera.
I don't post full size images, but perhaps I'll post a 100% crop from one.
In the mean time, what part of this subject do you consider sharp?
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/59601718/original
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> In article <4457b45f$0$721$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
> @yahoo.com says...
>
>> > This is a handheld 10MP shot, taken at 1/50s, F4.8, 120mm (35mm equiv),
>> > ISO160:
>> >
>> > http://www.molon.de/P4150676.jpg (large file, 3.5MB)
>> >
>>
>> The spire under the cross doesn't look that sharp to me. That could be
>> because of movement, but it appears to be because of a lack of depth of fiend
>> and a close focus on the closest subject. If you could have stopped down, the
>> spire would have been sharp. Af far as motion blur goes, you appear to have
>> done alright ... at the expense of depth of field.
>
> True, I hadn't noticed that. So F4.8 doesn't give you sufficient DOF in
> such a situation? Although the situation is not too terrible because the
> main subject is in focus. Sigh. That's a disadvantage of big sensors.
> With the 8080 lack of DOF was never an issue.
I would expect f/8 or f/11 would do alright.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> Although the DOF calculator here
> http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
>
> gives me 24-117 metres of DOF with the subject at 40 metres and F4.8
I don't think that subject was 40 meters aware from the camera.