aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.13 #1 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
I would agree and this is a good summary, but would add these corollaries:
In poorer light if there are equivalent lenses, which is a big if, then considering smaller sensor cameras can save money. It isn't just macro photography and group photos, but action photography, including wildlife and sports, that often are shot in poorer light at higher ISOs. The primary advantage of FF for these types of shooting is not the better DR that is available at base ISO, which is rarely available, but instead the availability of lenses for which there are not equivalents for smaller sensor cameras. If you aren't using such lenses or can't afford them--and they are quite expensive--then smaller sensor systems can make sense.
In even moderately good light, stationary targets should be shot at base ISO if possible. If people care about DR at all, and I agree they probably should as it maximizes image quality, then they should slow the shutter speed and shoot at base ISO when they can. This works of course for stationary targets. Shooting at base ISO for stationary targets is always available even in poor light on a tripod and with the better IBIS of modern cameras for stationary targets you can shoot at base ISO with surprisingly slow shutter speed even if you are handholding and especially so if you can take a few shots to get the best one. Base ISO shooting is a primary advantage of FF cameras and if you aren't using that advantage you should consider using it more. Sacrificing base ISO performance for sensor scan speed if you shoot stationary targets doesn't make sense in most instances as the sensor scan speed gains you almost nothing and you will gain from the better base ISO performance.
In low light shooting there if often a tradeoff between wanting detail in enough of the image and shooting at a lower ISO. The lower ISO brings better DR, but the wider aperture that is needed to get a good exposure limits detail as shooting at wider apertures usually means a worse performance of the lens and always means less of the image is in focus. In practice stopping down, even in low light, is often desirable to get the level and amount of desired detail. In these instances in which stopping down is chosen a higher ISO will be required, and then the DR advantage of a FF camera will be negated if a smaller sensor camera has a lens with equivalent performance at the same depth of field. This happens fairly often in my own photography when shooting in low light. If I am shooting a low light portrait, let's say on the street at night, and I want the depth of field that even an f/2 FF shot would provide, then I can shoot an APS-C system at f/1.4 and get similar DR with the APS-C system.
The relevant questions then become how often in low light do I want to shoot wide open? My own answer is rarely. A second question, however, is what is the quality of lens that I can get at my chosen aperture? And for me the answer varies. Sometimes, in fact often, I can get a better lens for FF, but when I can get a quality lens for APS-C or a smaller format that matches the depth of field I recognize there is no disadvantage to the smaller sensor system.
Putting these two points together in this post, what keeps me in a FF system is the better base ISO performance, which matters for me because the majority of my shots are at base ISO, *and* the better availability of the the lenses I want to use that have excellent performance at wider apertures. I do have an APS-C system as well, however, and it has its advantages too--smaller size and lower prices are two of them--and in many circumstances it can serve me as well as a FF system would....Show more →
Steve Spencer wrote
The primary advantage of FF for these types of shooting is not the better DR that is available at base ISO, which is rarely available, but instead the availability of lenses for which there are not equivalents for smaller sensor cameras.
I agree with how lens availability is important.
For example, there are plenty of 50mm f/1.2 lenses for full frame, but is it even physically possible to make the equivalent 25 mm f/0.6 for Micro 43? Or a 14-35/f1.0 to match a 28-70/2?
I think for action photography, its "better DR at high ISOs" that matters and not "better DR that is available at base ISO"
Steve Spencer wrote
Base ISO shooting is a primary advantage of FF cameras and if you aren't using that advantage you should consider using it more.
I indeed have a custom hold button set to base ISO to achieve this when the situation calls for it.
Steve Spencer wrote
The lower ISO brings better DR, but the wider aperture that is needed to get a good exposure limits detail as shooting at wider apertures usually means a worse performance of the lens and always means less of the image is in focus.
Physics tells us that in an aberration free lens, the highest resolution is achieved at the brightest aperture. However most camera lenses are not sufficiently aberrations free for this to hold true. Closing the aperture reduces the aberrations which is why we observe resolution improving as we stop down towards the diffraction limit.
Better optics can help with aberrations for example the 50/1.4GM achieves 89 lp/mm at f/2
Another trick in low light is to prefer wider focal lengths, and shoot standing further away from the subject. This results in more DoF at the same aperture.
Steve Spencer wrote
If I am shooting a low light portrait, let's say on the street at night, and I want the depth of field that even an f/2 FF shot would provide, then I can shoot an APS-C system at f/1.4 and get similar DR with the APS-C system.
You will get similar DR but FF will yield more fine detail and overall lp/ph.
I use the APSC DSLR (with cheaper lenses) when shooting in risky scenarios where I don't want a nice camera to get damaged.
When I shot only Canon I shared mostly the same EF lenses on both APSC and FF cameras. Buying separate lenses for APSC is extra cost.
Steve Spencer wrote
The relevant questions then become how often in low light do I want to shoot wide open? My own answer is rarely.
Personally I do shoot wide open fairly often. In the past I have too often set the shutter speed too slow resulting in motion blur in what would have been the best frames.
These days for kid "action" photography regardless of lighting conditions I use ISO auto min ss = 1/500s and an ISO range limit of 12,800. The priority here is capturing the right moment. In good light I use a f/2.8 or f/4 zoom but In low light the aperture will be wide open (f/1.4).
If you rarely use f/1.4 then a 28-70/2 or that Sigma 28-45 f1.8 becomes very attractive instead of a prime.
|
.
