Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Technical Discussion' started by Iliah, Sep 10, 2005.
Not enough information. What lens? Aperture? Distance?
105/2 DC would do the job :biggrin:
Lens is not so relevant, but distance and scene arrangement for both shots are.
one more funny:
Just what I thought - in their ff shot you can see the model's eyes, and her hair is frizzed out on the left. Not so in their 1.6 shot, which was probably shot with the same lens from a greater distance. I wouldn't mind to see an honest boke off, but this ain't it. But the set of pix do hold some composition lessons, huh?
I should have said focal length.
I do not like pots moved together on the APS-C shot. They add to mess on the background.
Nope, shooting distance
In addition to distance :smile: ....
As Julia has commented on dpreview, the background is quite blurred in the APS-C pic (Canon web site). I've noticed that the "quality" of the blur is not as good as for the FF pic. Therefore I am wondering whether the same lens has been used for both shots (and of course a lens with lesser bokeh is used for the APS-C pic ).
What do you think ?
All the shots are "carefully" arranged to give the "right" impression. Canon 70-200 has very different bokeh character depending on the focal length. We also do not know the aperture values used for both shots at Canon site.
I thought this was an interesting website comparing images for DOF diferences between D2x and 1DsMII. If it has been posted, I apologize. I have not had time to read as much as I used to and may have missed it. Hope you find it as interesting as I did.
Dear Scott, Thank you for the link.
One minor comment. I wonder how cell size (OK, let's say cell pitch) influences DoF and CoC. The smaller the pitch is, the more camera is sensitive to shake; but "A typical colour negative film (such as consumer 35 mm film) has silver-halide crystals to sense the light. These are (depending on the speed of the film - faster = bigger), in the range of 0.5 to 3 micro-metres in diameter" (Harry Adam, Research Division, Kodak Limited). I know of much finer grained film, which you can try yourself - http://gigabitfilm.com/html/english/menu.htm According to Zeiss, they had no problems recording 400 lpmm on that media (Camera Lens News, #20, September, 2004, http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN20en/$File/CLN_20en.pdf ). Working with that film myself, I never saw anything special in regards to CoC.
Thanks for the reply, Iliah. So Canon's marketing changed the relative distance to background - the pots are bigger relative to the subject in one pic - change camera to subject distance (perspective on the subject's face), and either swapped lens or used the same lens but chose a focal length with so-so bokeh characteristic in one but not the other. Possibly they changed aperture. Not to mention the different composition more flattering in one pic that another.
With that kind of "arrangements", lend me a FF dSLR and I'll "prove" to you that my D70 with its APS-C sensor has better background blur than the FF camera :tongue: :biggrin:
What I find funny is when FF advocates say that FF gives you "more control" over DOF. Excuse me, but how does less DOF = more control? That's a pretty one-sided view of the issue, and one that I think quite a few landscape photographers (among others) might disagree with. For shallow-DOF portrait shooters FF might make sense, although I think with the right lenses getting sufficiently shallow DOF from APS-C is not so difficult. But there are plenty of situations where more DOF for a given aperture/FOV is a good thing. And in fact I would argue that the extra DOF when you need it is more important because you can't just upgrade to a faster lens to solve that problem. Sure you can stop down more but now you're shooting outside the lens sweetspot and diffraction may become a problem. I personally think being able to shoot a wideangle landscape shot at f/8 and still have plenty of DOF is a pretty compelling advantage of APS-C. And if I want shallow DOF I'll just break out the f/1.4 primes.
With the 105/2 DC it is hard to keep all of the eye lashes in sharp focus. I would not want less DOF than that. :wink:
Dear Jeff, as DX format provides more DoF at given aperture I see things quite in reverse to that statement. With DX lens I can safely open the aperture up 1 1/3 of stop to get the same DoF as with FF. So, while I cant shoot a portrait I want using FF with 85/1.2 @1.2 because of DoF, I can do that using 50/1.2 or /1.4 fully opened on APS And I still have the possibility to stop both lenses down all the way. FF stealed from me 1 stop of the lens, not even mentioning money
I want FF, for the full sized viewfinder. That's it. :biggrin:
In addition to what you all have mentioned the exposure on the first image is lighter and on the second (FF) it is much more pleasing. The comparison is pretty phony if you ask me.
Ya know, apparent viewfinder size is strictly a matter of the finder optics. I have an eye level finder on my Mamiya 645 and it looks smaller than the view through my OM1.
Also, Nikon makes 3 different finder magnifiers.
Indeed if you want more DOF then APS-C is more flexible. But if I like the perpective when I am at, and want shallower DOF with the 50mm @f1.4 on my APS-C camera , then the FF body allows it with firstname.lastname@example.org :smile: . So APS-C and FF offer different DOF ranges. It is not about better, but about complementary DOF control .
If Ansel Adams was still around, he would have both cameras in his back pack.