gdanmitchell wrote:
I’ll respond from my own long experience with the 14mm, which I’ve had for over a decade. It works great with 40MP sensor cameras — I use mine on the XT5. There’s a myth that older (which, oddly, now means “more than five years!”) lenses aren’t up to the resolution of the higher MP sensor, but that is generally incorrect. Quite a few lenses aren’t more than capable of taking advantage of the higher resolution sensor in the obvious ways, and all lenses will perform a bit better on it.
If you are coming up with your DOF figures using some sort of “DOF calculator,” you should be aware that those are generally relying on some old-school notions about how sharp is sharp enough… that came from decades ago and were based on acceptable sharpness when enlarging to relatively small sizes — often smaller than a full monitor size on your computer. Today we expect, for various reasons including making much larger prints, a higher level of sharpness and detail.
That’s a long way of saying that you aren’t likely to actually get the sharpness you want across the distance range you suggest at a wide-open f/1.4 aperture.
While I can (and do occasionally) shoot an f/2.8 lens like the 14mm at f/2.8, its largest aperture, I usually don’t have to even with interiors, and I’m way more likely to use something like f/4 with it and other lenses....Show more →
Traditional DoF calculations are based on looking at the whole image from a distance large enough to see the whole image. It matters not one bit how large the image is, if it's bigger you stand further way. The whole billboard industry is based on that.
They are based on the human eye/brain capabilities to see sharpness, and nothing has changed in that regard, we do not see any better.
Anyone would think we never made big prints from small negatives in film days, I used to do it, with a horizontal enlarger. I went to see a travelling exhibition of Cartier-Bresson's stuff once, 6ft x 4ft prints from 35mm. I didn't waste time peering at a corner of the image.
My point remains. Back in the day we would not magnify a 35mm original to anything close to what we expect to do today. The OOF that was accepted in a 11x 14 (typically about what people would expect from the format) will not be acceptable to most photographers in a 30 x 40 print today.
gyoung143 wrote:
Traditional DoF calculations are based on looking at the whole image from a distance large enough to see the whole image. It matters not one bit how large the image is, if it's bigger you stand further way. The whole billboard industry is based on that.
They are based on the human eye/brain capabilities to see sharpness, and nothing has changed in that regard, we do not see any better.
Anyone would think we never made big prints from small negatives in film days, I used to do it, with a horizontal enlarger. I went to see a travelling exhibition of Cartier-Bresson's stuff once, 6ft x 4ft prints from 35mm. I didn't waste time peering at a corner of the image.
gdanmitchell wrote:
My point remains. Back in the day we would not magnify a 35mm original to anything close to what we expect to do today. The OOF that was accepted in a 11x 14 (typically about what people would expect from the format) will not be acceptable to most photographers in a 30 x 40 print today.
Sorry, but your point is wrong: It depends on proper viewing distance.
gyoung143 wrote:
Yes but a typical interior likely has church pews a few feet in front of you, and the chancel might be 100ft away, that's quite typical, of palaces, museums etc as well.
And while I am a firm advocate for 'tradional' DoF figures, I've always treated them with a stop or so of caution. Not so much as the utterly pointless and useless 'pixel based' figures.
The 14mm does as well as ever, on Xt5, or 3 or Xpro2 if you look at the results as complete pictures. I'm not interested in peeping at minute parts of the image. I didn't leave half my lenses at home when I used Pan F instead of FP3. A good lens is a good lens, and produces good pictures. Where the Xt5 helps is IBIS. That and good high iso noise performance means I don't use the bean bag or mini tripod much anymore.
Wouldn't call Pixel Based DoF indication pointless. Quite useful to understand how limited DoF is if one moves too close, crops or views at 100% from close (PC Monitor) distance.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Wouldn't call Pixel Based DoF indication pointless. Quite useful to understand how limited DoF is if one moves too close, crops or views at 100% from close (PC Monitor) distance.
But how close? What magnification? Why choose one set of calculations? Doesn’t tell you anything useful about the finished product, a picture, looked at as a whole. Enough to know how it works and then you can appreciate what will happen if you stray from the specIfield parameters.
It is actually defined, as x times the diagonal, I can't remember the spec. But in general terms enough to see the whole finished picture from the frame, uncropped.
As a guy who has traveled with just about everything, here are my thoughts.
1) taking a camera you enjoy using is the single most important thing.
2) weight matters, size matters too, but not so much.
3) don’t take more gear than you can make do with; corollary is most of us can make do with less.
4) the images are more important than the gear; a technically inferior image is better than no image.
Specifically as respects Fuji APSC vs contemporary Full Frame and your original question. Before I went to Fuji X, I traveled with Nikon Z7 and 9. The 7 had some issues focusing at night. The 9 was overly large but it worked. By comparison the size of the Fuji XH2 kit was a blessing. The af about matched the Z7’s. Speaking for myself, I missed the look of FF and I missed the shallower available DoF from f2.8 lenses, but liked the smaller size of the Fujis.
Earlier this year I made the move to Sony and have settled on the A7R6. It’s not significantly larger than the Fuji XH2 it replaced. AF is in a different (vastly superior) universe. IQ is second to none. My Tamron 12-20 zoom is about the same size and weight as my Fuji 8-16 zoom was. My Sony 20-70 zoom is about the same size as my Fuji 16-55 was. My Sony 70-200/4 is maybe a tiny bit bigger, but not much different on weight than my Fuji 50-140 was; and this particular Sony is incredible optically and focuses to 1/2 life size natively, so you get a travel two-fer with it. My Sony 55/1.8 is a bit longer and maybe a bit lighter than the Fuji 33/1.4. Everything mentioned is similar sized enough that it all fits easily in the same travel shoulder bag. Optically every ff lens mentioned is as good or better than the APSC’s mentioned. I’ve done two trips with this new kit and can confirm there’s no way I’ll be going back to APSC — there’s simply no reason to.
One final lens comment: I haven’t traveled with it yet, but plan to trial it next trip just because it’s so remarkably good. The Sony 24-70/2.8 GMii is superior optically to any similar zoom I’ve ever used in any system. The added bit of size and weight squeeze may well be worth the extra optical juice. FWIW.
Since you have an XT5 and X100 VI, I think you're fine. Both of those cameras make amazing photographs. I used a X100 IV followed by a X 100 V for Euro travel cameras for years.
Edit: I still sometimes use my X-H1 for family gatherings and for when I want the Fuji experience.
p.3 #12 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
Here's my crazy suggestion, have you considered GFX? If you are to move to heavier stuff might as well go big and go GFX plus in that way you get to stay with Fuji I really enjoy using adapted T/S lens on GFX for things like buildings and interior of church etc.
p.3 #13 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
gyoung143 wrote:
It is actually defined, as x times the diagonal, I can't remember the spec. But in general terms enough to see the whole finished picture from the frame, uncropped.
Gerry
So there is a formula that tells you where to stand to view a print. Funny, the times I venture into galleries I see people viewing prints from all sorts of distances from right up close to quite far away. I actually start viewing prints from quite far away and then come in close to view the details within a print…sort of fully emerging into the print.
p.3 #14 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
chez wrote:
So there is a formula that tells you where to stand to view a print. Funny, the times I venture into galleries I see people viewing prints from all sorts of distances from right up close to quite far away. I actually start viewing prints from quite far away and then come in close to view the details within a print…sort of fully emerging into the print.
This “proper viewing distance” is a bunch of BS.
The whole thing is an illusion, to make practical pictures. There is only one plane of sharpest focus, but DoF exploits the failings of the human sight system to make it possible to do photography, and to explain the phenomenon that more than that plane of focus appears 'sharp'. It has to have parameters defined within which it works. I described the practical interpretation, seeing the whole image, and the scientists define that distance based on human sight systems.
You don't HAVE to stand at that distance, but if you get closer the DoF illusion falls apart. Just as it does on your monitor if you magnify part of the image, or on your enlarger baseboard when you are focussing to make a print.
'Pixel based' DoF scales are an attempt to explain that which does not need explaining if the theory behind it and reasons for it are understood
Probably started by some youtube warrior with content to create and no background knowledge of photographic theory.
p.3 #15 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
chez wrote:
So there is a formula that tells you where to stand to view a print. Funny, the times I venture into galleries I see people viewing prints from all sorts of distances from right up close to quite far away. I actually start viewing prints from quite far away and then come in close to view the details within a print…sort of fully emerging into the print.
p.3 #16 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
aerowing wrote:
Here's my crazy suggestion, have you considered GFX? If you are to move to heavier stuff might as well go big and go GFX plus in that way you get to stay with Fuji I really enjoy using adapted T/S lens on GFX for things like buildings and interior of church etc.
I have seriously considered the 50R, I've handled the 50sII but that is getting large, plus the lenses can be big, although there are a few smallish lenses available. Wish it had IBIS.
p.3 #17 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
chez wrote:
So there is a formula that tells you where to stand to view a print. Funny, the times I venture into galleries I see people viewing prints from all sorts of distances from right up close to quite far away. I actually start viewing prints from quite far away and then come in close to view the details within a print…sort of fully emerging into the print.
This “proper viewing distance” is a bunch of BS.
you have it all wrong. Hang the picture over/behind the grand piano and viewing distance is always at least 6-7' . I don't allow people to climb on the piano - ha
p.3 #18 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
People always used to wonder why I was so anal about achieving good detail in my big prints. The common response was always something on the order of "They'll need to be at least 5 feet away to see it all anyway." My answer was simple: Big prints seem to have the opposite effect on people. While they initially start backed off to take it all in at once, they almost always then walk up close and stick their faces into various areas and study them. A "normal" sized print has multiple "small details" that often go un-noticed precisely because they are so small; but once printed large they are more easily seen, and tend to invite the closer inspection.
p.3 #19 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
Jack Flesher wrote:
People always used to wonder why I was so anal about achieving good detail in my big prints. The common response was always something on the order of "They'll need to be at least 5 feet away to see it all anyway." My answer was simple: Big prints seem to have the opposite effect on people. While they initially start backed off to take it all in at once, they almost always then walk up close and stick their faces into various areas and study them. A "normal" sized print has multiple "small details" that often go un-noticed precisely because they are so small; but once printed large they are more easily seen, and tend to invite the closer inspection. ...Show more →
A natural reaction I think, once you've admired the composition as a whole then you (especially if you're a photograoher) think, 'let's see if his technique is good enough to warrant his decision to print it that big.
But the vast majority of prints really big are made either to be seen at a distance, such as billboards,or as decor such as backdrop to a reception area, in which case a bit of fuzziness or 'grain' either doesn't matter or adds drama to it,
p.3 #20 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
aerowing wrote:
Here's my crazy suggestion, have you considered GFX? If you are to move to heavier stuff might as well go big and go GFX plus in that way you get to stay with Fuji I really enjoy using adapted T/S lens on GFX for things like buildings and interior of church etc.
Our OP is concerned about bulk and weight for travel, and is happy enough with the APS-C gear that the move to FF is not a slam dunk. Doesn’t seem to fit the use case for GFX, right?
- - -
On a different subject that has come up in this thread… that “normal viewing distance” business only works in some situations.
For example, I’ve sold/licensed work for quite large reproductions in, for example, retail locations. The largest is 31’ (that’s feet, not inches) wide in a retail location near a national park. I have not personally seen the installation, but I’ve seen similar installations, for example a full wall-sized image of Pinnacles National Monument at my local REI store. (That is not mine.)
In this kind of case, that “viewing distance” principle works quite well. Virtually no one walks up to the wall to count the needles on a tree in that situation — instead the images are almost always function as environmental background. I think there are other, smaller instances that work the same way. For example, I have some relatively large prints in places like restaurants where it is hard to imagine many people (OK, a few oddball photographers excluded) excusing themselves from the table before the desert course to go inspect for sharpening halos at “nose-length distances.)
However…
I’ve also seen large work that has different aspirations in galleries, museums, and private collections where viewers initially look from “normal viewing distances” but they get additional pleasure by moving it closer to see what is revealed close up.
This isn’t odd at all. We do it with paintings, where it is not at all odd to get in close to see how the brush strokes turn into the impression of, say, light on water. It is also common in music where, while you can enjoy the first movement of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 1 knowing little about the details, the “closer you get” to seeing beneath the surface the more you enjoy and are astonished by what goes on.
And, again, there’s the simple practical point that photography has evolved, and photographers (witness these forums) and viewers have different expectations for sharpness than were common a few decades ago.
I really enjoy using adapted T/S lens on GFX for things like buildings and interior of church etc.