Ransome wrote:
I saw the magic you were referring to in a recent post. Someone set up the same shot, same settings with comparable glass with a 5D and XXD. I can't remember the exact models. Basically it demonstrated the difference in DOF and look. I must say, while both cameras took great shots, there was magic in the 5D.
Navyblue wrote:
Nice and civilised? Yes, especially the smilie.
As for me trying to get smart, it's a "yes" too. But I thought we'd communicate better if I speak your language, except that I forgot my smilie.
Here it is.
Sorry I missed that.
Now, please stop posting in this thread if you have nothing constructive to add. (though I'd be surprised if you'd actually do that, but I like surprises)
Here is something constructive for you...
This is what I wrote: Cameras don't deliver "magic"... If you want "magic", focus on your vision, subject and lighting... and use a cam + lens to capture that
It was written with the best of intentions. I wasn't trying to get smart with you. It was written in a friendly tone of voice... hence the smiley. It was not meant as sarcasm, otherwise I would have used this symbol: .
It is too bad that you misinterpreted my response and didn't had the curtousy to ask for clarification...
So, now I will leave you to it... unless you decide to get smart with me again (though I'd be surprised if you actually wouldn't do that...).
Daan B wrote:
It was written with the best of intentions. I wasn't trying to get smart with you. It was written in a friendly tone of voice... hence the smiley. It was not meant as sarcasm, otherwise I would have used this symbol: .
It is too bad that you misinterpreted my response and didn't had the curtousy to ask for clarification...
If that was the case, I was trying to get smart too, but writing with the best of my intention, or else I'd use this symbol.
It is too bad that you misinterpreted my response and didn't had the courtesy to ask for clarification...
Ok that was cheap, but again I was speaking in your language. And actually I intentionally craft my reply to your reply to the same flavour of yours. I thought that if that was just your way of expressing harmless stuffs I'm sure you wouldn't mind. And if you are trying to imply and ridicule what I am trying to say was that gears alone would suffice in making great images (which I don't but you didn't had the courtesy to ask for clarification?), then you might just get what you need. Assuming you are not applying double standard of course. The monkey comment is just a reiterated version of what you are saying, if you find that offensive, well...
So, now I will leave you to it... unless you decide to get smart with me again (though I'd be surprised if you actually wouldn't do that...).
Again you got it all wrong, the only thing that matters is this is the thread I started, the civilised thing to do is to leave when I asked you to.
OP may I suggest in the future if you feel someone is being rude or vulgar to you not to engage with them in the thread. Little positive ever comes from it. Use the report button and let guardian earn the millions that Fred pays him to monitor the threads. The mod will determine if the person was out of line or if the OP was being overly sensitive.
gregoryfo wrote:
OP may I suggest in the future if you feel someone is being rude or vulgar to you not to engage with them in the thread. Little positive ever comes from it. Use the report button and let guardian earn the millions that Fred pays him to monitor the threads. The mod will determine if the person was out of line or if the OP was being overly sensitive.
You are obviously right, I guess I'm just going to leave it as it is, I hope the thread move on.
I moved from 40D to 5D MkII 3 months ago. For reference, I do mostly landscapes and portraits. The biggest difference I noticed is how the lenses perform on FF. With my 40D, my walkaround lens was a 35L, with my 24 and my 50 getting most of the rest. On 5D, it is my Zeiss 50 which I use for walkabout. On 40D, my 135L was way too long to use on portrait, unless I made a point of it. Now it gets a lot more play time. On the other hand, my 35 shows vignetting (corrected in-cam), and my 24 is so wide that I have to compose very differently to avoid distortion. I have also decided to withdraw from the telephoto scene totally and traded in my fine 300mm f:4. This because (a) it got shorter on FF (b) the combo with the camera body just got heavier.
So think about your lens lineup and see whether the shift in effective FL actually gives you a situation you can live with happily. Meaning where you have quality lenses at the FLs you ar going to use most.
This, to me, matters a lot more than the other differences in DOF, DR, pixels, high ISO etc.. Yes, they do exist, and FF does have a special quality. But that only matters if you have the right lens for your type of shooting.
philber wrote:
I moved from 40D to 5D MkII 3 months ago. For reference, I do mostly landscapes and portraits. The biggest difference I noticed is how the lenses perform on FF. With my 40D, my walkaround lens was a 35L, with my 24 and my 50 getting most of the rest. On 5D, it is my Zeiss 50 which I use for walkabout. On 40D, my 135L was way too long to use on portrait, unless I made a point of it. Now it gets a lot more play time. On the other hand, my 35 shows vignetting (corrected in-cam), and my 24 is so wide that I have to compose very differently to avoid distortion. I have also decided to withdraw from the telephoto scene totally and traded in my fine 300mm f:4. This because (a) it got shorter on FF (b) the combo with the camera body just got heavier.
So think about your lens lineup and see whether the shift in effective FL actually gives you a situation you can live with happily. Meaning where you have quality lenses at the FLs you ar going to use most.
This, to me, matters a lot more than the other differences in DOF, DR, pixels, high ISO etc.. Yes, they do exist, and FF does have a special quality. But that only matters if you have the right lens for your type of shooting....Show more →
Thanks. I think you made a good point, my lenses would likely have a different use.
My primes are 20, 35, 50, 85, 135. I wouldn't mind making the 135 a little shorter to make it easier to handhold. I have been wanting to get rid of my 20 mm after I got the 17-55IS but on FF I guess that would give it a new life. On the other hand i would probably render the 85 mm useless, and made the 35mm and 50 mm as a nice general purpose lens. Sounds interesting, but I'd be missing some reach (I rarely shoot tele stuffs), but may be 40D with the cheap 55-250IS would fill that gap.
Focal length wise they all pretty much shift by one approximately one lens gap (in terms of framing) in your collection.
135 -> ~85
85 -> ~50
50 -> ~35
35 -> ~20
If you are strictly a prime shooter then probably time to upgrade the weakest link the 20 to a 24L II and/or possibly 14L II. Otherwise the 16-35 II also fits the bill quite well.
If you are missing something a bit longer then the 200L would give you about the same framing as your 135L now. Or maybe consider a 180L to dabble into a bit of macro as well as doubling ups as a tele occasionally. Two birds with one stone if you can't justify having a tele sitting in the bag.
Sorry this had to my first real post in the forums..It's really upsetting how people take things so literal these days. I'm moving over to the Canon forums from Nikon to find the pro equivalents from Canon and I hope I don't get attacked this way. WTF he meant by magical, was probably the gain in DOF and perspective. Again, sorry fellas if I hijacked this thread, just a bit upset and felt a need to vent.
Navyblue: As you may see in the responses, opinions abound. For my part, I've come to discount them, and have tended to stop reading them.
Instead, I seek to improve my photographic skills. My first efforts in digital photography, as expected, produced amateurish results. I kept striving, setting myself to learn the gear and the software. I’ve even begun to get my mind around flash photography. Today, my skills, while more advanced, still need improvement. Yet, I now sometimes reach results much closer to my vision of an image.
In short, the photographer makes the difference. Equipment comes second. Use what you have, and get the most from it.
Jonathan Wong wrote:
The "pop" that people talk about I suspect, is perspective. Below is an illustration in the difference in perspective using various focal lengths (foot zooming) on a 35mm format. Note that when you are using APS-C, not only that you are using a longer focal range, you are also cropping on top of that. Therefore the difference is actually pretty big at shorter focal lengths.
The different perspective of those images has NOT with focal length to do, but with distance. You will have the exact same perspective at a certain distance, with FF and with APS-C. The focal lenght only determines the angle of view (by changing magnification), and therefore you'll have to choose a shorter FL on APS-C to get the same angle of view.
Perhaps you know this, but I think your post could confuse those who don't to believe that perspective changes with sensor format. Of course it doesn't.
Edit: You prove this very easily at home, by taking a picture at a certain distance from the subject, then from the same spot take another picture with a shorter FL. Then crop the second picture to the same AOV as the first. You will note that the only difference now is that image quality is lower in the cropped picure (and greater DOF at the same aperture). Perspective has not changed.
Makten wrote:
The different perspective of those images has NOT with focal length to do, but with distance. You will have the exact same perspective at a certain distance, with FF and with APS-C. The focal lenght only determines the angle of view (by changing magnification), and therefore you'll have to choose a shorter FL on APS-C to get the same angle of view.
Perhaps you know this, but I think your post could confuse those who don't to believe that perspective changes with sensor format. Of course it doesn't.
Edit: You prove this very easily at home, by taking a picture at a certain distance from the subject, then from the same spot take another picture with a shorter FL. Then crop the second picture to the same AOV as the first. You will note that the only difference now is that image quality is lower in the cropped picure (and greater DOF at the same aperture). Perspective has not changed....Show more →
You are wrong. You can notice a difference especially in background compression. There was another thread on this on this forum with sample images to prove this. The search function isn't perfect and I can't find that thread at present but I am sure another member would point you in the right direction.
EDIT:
5D @ 100mm f/2.8 vs. 40D @ 60mm f/2.8
60mm * 1.6 = 96mm
You can't tell me the difference in background compression is due to the 4mm now can you?
You can notice a difference especially in background compression.
No, you can't.
There was another thread on this on this forum with sample images to prove this. The search function isn't perfect and I can't find that thread at present but I am sure another member would point you in the right direction.
I'd really like to see this be "proven" since it is totally false.
EDIT:
5D @ 100mm f/2.8 vs. 40D @ 60mm f/2.8
60mm * 1.6 = 96mm
You can't tell me the difference in background compression is due to the 4mm now can you?
No, I can't see any different "background compression" at all. What I see is different depth of field. Stop down the 100 mm lens to f/4.5 and there will be very little or no difference. And certainly no "background compression", since it ONLY derives from the cameras position, which of course can't be altered if the comparsion should make any sense at all.
The two examples aren't taken from the exact same position either, which make the "proof" even more false.
I suggest that you try it for yourself, as I described in my previous post.
The perspective in the two images above is the same. Measure the distance in the image between any two points in the background of the scene, it's the same. Measure the distance between any two points in the foreground, it's the same. As Makten says, perspective only depends on distance.
I am not an expert at this, but my simple understanding is that you can achieve the same perspective with both formats. For example, with a 50mm on Canon crop and 80mm on FF, the perspective should be exactly the same. However, DOF will not be. It should be significantly less with FF. The "look" will also be different because a different lens is used, because of a factor called compression, which increases with longer FLs.
Either I am right (great!) or I will stand corrected and learn something (even greater!)
philber wrote:
I am not an expert at this, but my simple understanding is that you can achieve the same perspective with both formats. For example, with a 50mm on Canon crop and 80mm on FF, the perspective should be exactly the same. However, DOF will not be. It should be significantly less with FF. The "look" will also be different because a different lens is used, because of a factor called compression, which increases with longer FLs.
Either I am right (great!) or I will stand corrected and learn something (even greater!)
You're wrong about the compression. See the discussion immediately above. The difference in look is generally due to things like shallower DOF, increased vignetting, etc. in many full frame images.
Let me try to understand. I have learned that, when one goes for a longer FL, there is a commensurately greater compression effect. This can be seen when doing portraits for example. Are you saying that this is in effect cancelled by the difference in sensor format? Now I am not talking about DOF, which results in facial features being in focus or not, but in their being more or less pronounced. Which is why, for example, shooting portrait with a short FL can be quite unflattering. So, would there be a difference between 50mm on crop and 80mm in FF in that respect?
.
