View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
In addition to lower pixel density and wide-angles working as they're intended, there are other advantages to FF that I haven't seen mentioned yet.
1) I dupe my slides; I don't scan them anymore. Right now I'm using an EOS crop body (XS, aka 1000D) and I have to use a combination of extention tubes with my 55mm Nikkor and a cobbled together slide holder to do this. The closest I can get with this combination still leaves a small border around the slide image, so there is some overall loss of image pixel count. With an FF camera, I can use a bellows with slide duplicator for an exact 1:1 reproduction.
A Canon 5D II, with its 21 mp 36x24mm sensor delivers 3744 pixels of vertical resolution, corresponding to the 24mm height of the sensor. Because there are 25.4mm in one inch, this translates into 3962 ppi (3744/24x25.4=3962.4), which is virtually identical in resolution to the best Nikon dedicated film scanners, which offer 4000 ppi. Given the prices that these scanners are selling for these days, one can buy a 5D II, a Nikon PB-4/PS-4, and an adapter, and have money left over. Plus, you've got a damned good camera to use, to boot. Like free of charge, if you were thinking about buying a Nikon scanner only.
2) From what I've been able to ascertain, when using MF lenses, the 5D and 5D II (and I'm sure other FF DSLRs of course) will show you in its viewfinder what is actually being seen by the sensor. None of this annoying bit where the focusing screen lies to you about the actual point of focus because of excessive observed depth of field, the way it does with some (most?) APS-C DSLRs. So this means you can actually focus your 50mm f/1.4 wide open without having to worry about using Live View to insure focus accuracy.
Along with my WA lenses behaving the way they're supposed to, these are the main reasons why I want to get an FF camera one day -- hopefully soon. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sir_c
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 Posts: 67 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sir_c wrote:
One thing that I found is that on FF cameras the viewfinder is much better.
Especially when compared to cheaper consumer models that use a pentamirror instead of pentaprism; there lies a difference as great as night and day (quite literally).
- Much brighter view, making MF in low light easier
- Wider view, not as if one is peering through a keyhole
- Better coverage, so you won't end up with more on the photo than you saw in the viewfinder _________________
Fujifilm: X-T1 Graphite Silver
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asahi Pentax (M42): - Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 24mm f/3.5, Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5, Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 35mm f/3.5, Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4, SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-Takumar 50mm f/4, Super-Takumar 55mm f/1.8, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, SMC Takumar 55mm f/2, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-Takumar 100mm f/4, Auto-Takumar 105mm f/2.8, Super-Takumar 135mm f/3.5
Asahi Pentax (P/K): - SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/2, Takumar (bayonet) 135mm f/2.5
Carl Zeiss (C/Y): - Planar 50mm f/1.7, Planar 50mm f/1.4, Sonnar 135mm f/2.8, Planar 85mm f/1.4
Carl Zeiss Jena: - Aus Jena T 50mm f/2.8, Flektogon 35mm f/2.8, Flektogon 35mm f/2.4
Leica: - Elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8, Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8, Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8, Summicron-R 50mm f/2, Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4
Mamiya/Sekor: - Auto 50mm f/2, SX 55mm f/1.8, Macro Sekor 60mm f/2.8, SX 135mm f/2.8
Pentacon: - Auto 29mm f/2.8, Auto MC 50mm f/1.8, Auto 135mm f/2.8
Misc: - Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestegor 200mm f/4, Petri Auto CC 55mm f/1.8, Soligor Tele Auto 300mm f/5.5
Russian: - Helios 44M-6 58mm f/2, Jupiter-9 85mm f/2, Tair 11A 135mm f/2.8
Tokina: - (P/K) RMC EMZ 70-210mm f/4.5
Yashica: - Auto 50mm f/2 (preset), DX 50mm f/1.7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Very simple to explain the advantage:
Distagon 15mm on full frame:
Distagon 15mm on APS-C:
_________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6943 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
For me, it means that a 50mm lens looks like a 50mm lens. The crop factor irritates me and it's as simple as that; not DR, not ISO performance, not DOF, not anything at all to do with IQ, just my OCD. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4710 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
As many others have mentioned.
Less wide angle
Less dept of field
More noise and less dynamics
I compensate with my 7-14mm panny (af lens) on the wide side for m43 format
On the other hand, some lenses are sharper in the middle (blury corners). You will then have a advantage with smaller sensors. _________________ Lars | Lens collection | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
Orio wrote: |
Very simple to explain the advantage:
Distagon 15mm on full frame:
....
Distagon 15mm on APS-C:
....
|
very illustrative explanation Orio! _________________ .: APO-Maniac :. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dok
Joined: 03 Jun 2011 Posts: 34 Location: France
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dok wrote:
The big viewfinder is one hell of a good reason, especially when talking about manual focusing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Olivier
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 5077 Location: France
Expire: 2015-08-06
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Olivier wrote:
Orio, did you crop a FF picture to APS-C size to show the crop factor is not in favour of Apsc dslrs ?
What about the IQ ?
It would be very interesting to see the difference between a FF and an APS-C, especially with such a great lens as your Distagon.
I read that APS-C Dslrs are less demanding with optical quality of lenses than Full Frame Dslrs.
Do you confirm ?
If so, would it be an advantage for other formats than FF when using MF lenses ?
_________________ Olivier - Moderator
Dslr : Olympus Pen E-P2 - Fujifilm X-Pro2 - Canon 5D MkII.
SLr and MF lenses : for feedback and helping people, cameras and lenses I own : full list here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1442740.html#1442740 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Olivier wrote: |
Orio, did you crop a FF picture to APS-C size to show the crop factor is not in favour of Apsc dslrs ? |
yes
Quote: |
What about the IQ ? |
IQ is always better in a full frame camera, due to the larger sensor area.
Quote: |
It would be very interesting to see the difference between a FF and an APS-C, especially with such a great lens as your Distagon. |
I can make a comparison if you like.
But I already know the result: the 5D Mark II image will be cleaner.
Quote: |
I read that APS-C Dslrs are less demanding with optical quality of lenses than Full Frame Dslrs.
Do you confirm ?
If so, would it be an advantage for other formats than FF when using MF lenses ? |
That is not something that depends on the sensor format, if not indirectly.
Lenses have a resolvance power, which is their limit. Sensors do, too.
So the resulting image will always be quality matched to the lowest common denominator, as mathematic professors taught us
In other words, the resolvance of the image will never be superior to the lower resolvance limit between the camera and the lens.
With most digital cameras (except for the super big ones like the new Nikon D800) lenses' resolvance often exceeds the resolvance of the sensor.
This unless you are using a really junk lens wide open
So generally speaking, and with only a few exceptions, there will be no advantage in using a lower resolution camera with your manual lenses.
On the contrary, the better S/N ratio of full frame cameras will make all lenses look better, including the less resolving lenses.
Of course, sharpness is not only dependant on resolvance. It also depends on acutance (micro-contrast), which is the most important factor in a typical small print format.
Tests have proven that a lens with great resolvance but moderate micro-contrast looks worse in small print photo than a lens with great micro-contrast and moderate resolvance.
This is the reason why most people sharpens like crazy (and some beyond the reasonable) when resizing pictures - they get the thrill of the lens looking better than it actually is
There are lenses - the first example that comes to my mind is that of Macro-Revuenon lenses - that have average resolvance but excellent micro-contrast.
These lenses in small prints usually look better than lenses with high resolvance but moderate micro-contrast (such as some uncoated pre-war lenses).
Of course if you print 70x100 centimeters, brute resolvance begins to make more sense... _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Olivier
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 5077 Location: France
Expire: 2015-08-06
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Olivier wrote:
Thank you Orio.
Orio wrote: |
So generally speaking, and with only a few exceptions, there will be no advantage in using a lower resolution camera with your manual lenses.
On the contrary, the better S/N ratio of full frame cameras will make all lenses look better, including the less resolving lenses.
|
That confirms what I felt looking at my 40D and 5D MkII pictures.
I was surprised by journalists' comments saying that 5D MkII is demanding higher quality lenses because that was not my impression when using my oldies. _________________ Olivier - Moderator
Dslr : Olympus Pen E-P2 - Fujifilm X-Pro2 - Canon 5D MkII.
SLr and MF lenses : for feedback and helping people, cameras and lenses I own : full list here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1442740.html#1442740 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Olivier wrote: |
I was surprised by journalists' comments saying that 5D MkII is demanding higher quality lenses because that was not my impression when using my oldies. |
Probably journalists did refer to the crappiest autofocus lenses that you can find around for 50-100 Euros _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Olivier
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 5077 Location: France
Expire: 2015-08-06
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Olivier wrote:
Orio wrote: |
Olivier wrote: |
I was surprised by journalists' comments saying that 5D MkII is demanding higher quality lenses because that was not my impression when using my oldies. |
Probably journalists did refer to the crappiest autofocus lenses that you can find around for 50-100 Euros |
YES ! _________________ Olivier - Moderator
Dslr : Olympus Pen E-P2 - Fujifilm X-Pro2 - Canon 5D MkII.
SLr and MF lenses : for feedback and helping people, cameras and lenses I own : full list here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1442740.html#1442740 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hexi
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 Posts: 1631 Location: France
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hexi wrote:
Simply because there's no crop factor for me. And the viewfinder, as well. _________________ Happy owner and user of :
SLR's > Contax Aria - RX
DSLR > Canon 5D
Lenses : C/Y Planar 1.4/50 - Distagon 2.8/35 - Planar 1.4/85
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonnar85 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
saltese
Joined: 05 Aug 2011 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
saltese wrote:
I don't use full frame, but I do use a 1.3x crop (which is closer than my first DSLR). Two reasons, the primary one being a bigger viewfinder, which was enough that I'd have switched just for that reason. Secondarily, I have collected a number of manual focus 24-35mm lenses, but don't have many 14-20mm manual lenses, to get a "wide" angle one needs something in that range on a 1.5x crop. I don't use a lot of super wides, so my existing collection works well enough for me, on a 1.3x crop, and leaves the option of getting one of those Samyang 14mm if I decide to experiment a little. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|