Lens Diaries Go Now
Glamour, Beauty, Nude, Models, Photographers

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamour™ > Garage Glamour™ Main Forums > Tech Talk Forum
 

Tech Talk Forum Photography & Technical Related Only!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Full Frame is not all that...
Old 10-17-2005, 10:52 PM   #1 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Member GG#: 47178
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2
Comments: 0

hchen is offline IP: 68.231.212.5
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

There are technical issues with full frame sensors....

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html
  View Public Profile Send a private message to hchen Find More Posts by hchen
 
Re: Full Frame is not all that...
Old 10-17-2005, 11:14 PM   #2 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Member GG#: 46640
Location: Cherry Hill
Posts: 12
Comments: 0

Performancephoto is offline IP: 4.238.210.105
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

EXcellent article. Part of the problem is that most photographers when they do a 'Test" have too many variables anddo not have a superficial understanding of optics. One of my favorite lenses in 35mm was the 300mm 2.8, loved the photos but hated carrying it. With my D70 I use the 70-200 VR.
I remember when Nikon introduced the FE and FM series one used a silicon blue cell the other a CDS cell for the meter and all the so called experts were debateing over why Nikon used the "inferior "CDS cell in the more expensive FE. Somehow I think the guys at Nikon know more than most of the socalled experts.
One thing about digital is so many blanket statements rely on all things being equal and they rarely are
Bob
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Performancephoto Visit Performancephoto's homepage! Find More Posts by Performancephoto
 
Re: Full Frame is not all that...
Old 10-18-2005, 01:39 AM   #3 (permalink)
JohnPaul
Guest
 
Member GG#:
Posts: n/a
Comments:

IP: 66.94.220.67
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote



Oh sure,... you can have your 1.5 or 1.6.....or even 2.0 crop .....I'll somehow manage to get bye with my 1.0 and fast telephoto prime lenses, which are so much better than using a 70-200 f2.8 L zoom lens.. The two don't even nearly equate...

I'll be more than happy to do a little "real world" side by side for you as soon as I get my back ordered 5D here..

Cheers!

JP
 
 
Yes it is.....
Old 10-18-2005, 01:45 AM   #4 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member GG#: 35977
Posts: 609
Comments: 0

Andy_Pearlman is offline IP: 72.25.123.27
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

At least as far as the 300mm aspect you commented on. Yes, you can get 300mm using the D70 (I know, I have one, use it with my Tamron 70-210mm), but it won't get you the same effect as the traditional look of a 300 f2.8 on a full frame chip, I know, I tried that too. The problem with the DX format is that in order to frame an image the same on a DX camera as on a FF camera, you have to use a shorter lens, hence less depth of field (assuming the same f-stop). Picture this: if you are a certain distance from a model, and you get a nice tight 3/4 shot using a FF camera and 300mm lens, in order to frame the shot the same way on a DX camera (like a D70) you have to either put a 200mm lens on the camera, or use a 300mm from 50% farther away from her, right? The first solution will increase your depth of field, the second will also, but it will change the perspective (its all right there in that article). The biggest complaint I hear from DX shooters is the too-sharp backgrounds, all things being equal. For many, many years, fashion photographers (forget the sports guys who need all the mm they can get) have used the 300mm wide open because of the specific effect it gives both in terms of compression and shallow depth of field. This is one reason why I am giving up on the Nikons after so many years (and BTW, I bought a D2X, and it is an EXCELLENT camera). Here's an example of a true 300mmm lens, although I think it was shot at f4. You could accomplish something like this on a DX camera (Andy McFarland does it all the time) but only if the background is WAY far away. And yes, the 300mm IS a big (and expensive) lens, which is why I'm thinking of trying something else, which if it works, I will post a message.



Regards,
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman Studio
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Andy_Pearlman Visit Andy_Pearlman's homepage! Find More Posts by Andy_Pearlman
 
Re: Full Frame is not all that...
Old 10-18-2005, 02:13 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
John_Chennavasin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35330
Location: Orange County
Posts: 78
Comments: 0
Send a message via ICQ to John_Chennavasin Send a message via Yahoo to John_Chennavasin

John_Chennavasin is offline IP: 68.5.249.124
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

The background blur is much better with a full-frame camera. Here's a comparison:

Canon 20D, 50mm/1.4 @ f/2



Canon 1Ds, 70-200/2.8 @100 f/2.8

  View Public Profile Send a private message to John_Chennavasin Visit John_Chennavasin's homepage! Find More Posts by John_Chennavasin
 
Re: Full Frame is not all that...
Old 10-18-2005, 09:05 AM   #6 (permalink)
Ed Peters

 
epeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Member GG#: 37945
Location: Lafayette
Posts: 302
Comments: 0

epeters is offline IP: 65.193.202.162
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

The reason that Canon has full frame and Nikon doesn't is because Canon has developed the process to produce FF at an affordable price. I'm sure Nikon will catch up (they always do).
  View Public Profile Send a private message to epeters Find More Posts by epeters
 
Re: Full Frame is not all that...
Old 10-18-2005, 10:06 AM   #7 (permalink)
Free Member

 
JasonNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35318
Location: Denville
Posts: 363
Comments: 0

JasonNJ is offline IP: 208.222.116.199
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Nikon never going full frame. The entire digital and future lens line will be based on a non full frame sensor.

Still nothing wrong with it. Sharp sensor, does well, it has always been the cost comparison factor. Many people survived many a shoots without FF and can continue to do so, used to be the focal length issues but now with another generation of lenses geared towards digital, it should no longer be an issue.

JasonNJ
GPCB
  View Public Profile Send a private message to JasonNJ Visit JasonNJ's homepage! Find More Posts by JasonNJ
 
Re: Full Frame is not all that...
Old 10-18-2005, 12:19 PM   #8 (permalink)
JohnPaul
Guest
 
Member GG#:
Posts: n/a
Comments:

IP: 66.94.220.47
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote



Thank you John!

Day vs Night!

JP
 
 
Re: Full Frame is not all that...
Old 10-18-2005, 12:36 PM   #9 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Member GG#: 37977
Posts: 102
Comments: 0

Sean_Armenta is offline IP: 68.69.179.212
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you John!

Day vs Night!

JP

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious? how are you comparing the background blur on 2 different cameras with 2 completely different lenses? a 50 prime with a 70-200 zoom? LOL
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Sean_Armenta Find More Posts by Sean_Armenta
 
Re: Full Frame is not all that...
Old 10-18-2005, 12:45 PM   #10 (permalink)
JohnPaul
Guest
 
Member GG#:
Posts: n/a
Comments:

IP: 66.94.220.47
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you John!

Day vs Night!

JP

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious? how are you comparing the background blur on 2 different cameras with 2 completely different lenses? a 50 prime with a 70-200 zoom? LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

even with a 70-200mm @ 100mm, and f2.8,...on a full frame camera, the compression, and softness of the depth of field is so much better than a 50mm @f2.0 on a 1.6 format camera....can't you see that..? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Come back to photography, the way it was meant to be! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

JP

 
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discounted Sunbounce wsheldon50131 Main Community Forum 0 04-15-2009 07:55 PM
Canon cameras full frame or cropped ? That_Look_Photo Tech Talk Forum 11 12-16-2008 08:13 AM
My 1st Full Frame Experience Photomart Tech Talk Forum 9 12-15-2008 06:27 PM
It's Canon now, full frame forever. RBP Tech Talk Forum 13 10-10-2005 11:29 PM
Model Holding Frame?? DaveScott Main Community Forum 8 08-27-2005 09:28 PM

Sponsors


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 PM.

© 1999-2017 Garage Glamour™




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94