Full frame issues

[Jon Lewis]

Depth of field has nothing to do with sensor size.

[dustydingo]

SIze = much more discrete - positives in every instance, less intimidating to people you shoot, less attraction from thieves, more stealth everywhere,

I find folk take me much more seriously if I'm carrying what to many looks like a "professional" camera. I'm afforded access and assistance not available to anyone who might be considered "just" a snapper using a less-than-professional-camera (in the opinion of non-photographers of course). It's a moot point that the very few people who have over the years declined me a photo would have agreed had I been carrying a smaller camera (. . . and . . . one might more expect a photo to end up plastered across social medial platforms if it was taken by someone with a little, non-professional camera . . . perhaps )

 

I've never attracted a thief (well, certainly not one who was willing to put their urges into practise). Indeed, I've more than once heard the opinion that petty thieves are more likely to grab small, easily-stuffed-under-their-shirt-as-they-make-their-escape items than large, hard to hide items like a FF camera and sizable lens--a variation of the principle behind the fact that the most popular cars to be stolen are the ones that aren't going to stand out, not the flashy, expensive ones.

 

And I know it may not be the sort of "stealth" that Mike means, but the best way I know for a photographer to get into trouble is to be stealthy when taking photos (excluding nature-photographers of course ). When I'm out and about with my FF Nikons, it's obvious to everyone I'm a photographer, one who is certainly not trying to hide what he is doing. I'm convinced that many, many times over the years this open approach has worked to my benefit.

 

Of course, if I had a dicky shoulder or neck, I'd be speaking to an old mate who hangs out in Little Italy (and here often) for his opinions on <FF gear

 

dd

[Guest]

Lighter and smaller are certainly my reasons for switching, Ann . . . but I'm not doing assignments anymore, as I believe you are. If I were still shooting assignments, I would be conspicuously lugging around several serious looking DSLRs. Why? Because photography is a business, and the image we present is as important as the images we deliver.  

 

Very true Edo, it's one reason I will be upgrading to something as big (ok it might be a A7R with an adapter) as clients don't understand the merits (or otherwise) of small cameras, even when they easily outperform most end uses. A few times a client's client has referred to cameras brought by others as 'instamatics'... younger members may need to google that   So not only are the shoes shiny and 'expensive' but the camera also has to look as if you are a professional and size does matter for that

 

As for FF issues, there are usually only operator issues, the cameras are just fine.

[Inchiquin]

As for FF issues, there are usually only operator issues, the cameras are just fine.

 

 

Precisely.

 

Alan

[Ed Rooney]

"So not only are the shoes shiny and 'expensive' but the camera also has to look as if you are a professional and size does matter for that" -- Geoff

 

LOL I was just thinking that in the long ago I used show up for interviews in hand-tooled cowboy boots made in Fort Worth and jeans, wearing my Rolex GMT Master. The subliminal message was: I don't need this job. Everything is show business. 

[Dyn Llun]

For show business I turn up on commissions with an 8" x 10" field camera and massive Gitzo tripod and a case full of lenses and film holders. What the clients don't see is the tiny mirrorless camera that actually takes the pictures hidden inside the bellows of the 8" x 10" (Please note: last sentence is a joke! Just in case someone thinks I'm serious). 

[Niels Quist]

For show business I turn up on commissions with an 8" x 10" field camera and massive Gitzo tripod and a case full of lenses and film holders. What the clients don't see is the tiny mirrorless camera that actually takes the pictures hidden inside the bellows of the 8" x 10" (Please note: last sentence is a joke! Just in case someone thinks I'm serious). 

 

You better put this in production before somebody else does.....  

[John Gaffen]

Soft images do fail QC  as I found out to my cost, it gave me a problem for months, until I applied some moderate sharpening. This was not a focussing issue at all.

[MDM]

Depth of field has nothing to do with sensor siz

That is not true in fact. Depth of field is much less, all else being equal, with say a D800 (36MP) versus a D700 (12MP) when viewed at 100% on screen. If, for example, you use hyperfocal focusing (depth of field tables or lens barrel markings) to get front to back sharpness, the D800 image will be very soft in comparison to the D700 image viewed 100% on screen (as Alamy QC does). Downsizing the D800 image to the same size as the D700 image gives very similar results (the D800 image will now appear a bit sharper than the D700 image).

 

I learnt this the hard way when I got a D800 almost 3 years ago now and had my only QC fail of this decade so far because I didn’t appreciate this fact. When using a 36MP sensor camera, it’s a matter of adjusting photographic technique if you want front to back sharpness at 100%. I did my own tests for my most common lens-camera combos and I have found that, for example, using a 50mm Nikkor lens at f11, the maximum depth of field is about 10 metres to infinity, whereas the old depth of field tables would indicate something more like 5m to infinity. The only way around this, if you want 5m to infinity sharp at 100%, is to downsize.

 

[Niels Quist]

Soft images do fail QC  as I found out to my cost, it gave me a problem for months, until I applied some moderate sharpening. This was not a focussing issue at all.

 

I haven't been there yet. But I still use Canon DPP and use capture sharpening at 1, which still leaves room for a certain unsharpness and more than adequate sharpening by end user...

[spacecadet]

deleted

[Joe]

"The crop sensor depth of field myth"

 

 

http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/view/the-crop-sensor-depth-of-field-myth

[spacecadet]

 

Depth of field has nothing to do with sensor siz

That is not true in fact. Depth of field is much less, all else being equal, with say a D800 (36MP) versus a D700 (12MP) when viewed at 100% on screen.

 

 

I don't believe that it's actually DoF you're seeing in such a circumstance.

[spacecadet]

"The crop sensor depth of field myth"

 

 

http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/view/the-crop-sensor-depth-of-field-myth

That's what i was trying to say.

You get less DoF on 5x4 than 35mm. because you use a 150 instead of a 50, not because it's 5x4.

[JohnB]

It's quite obvious if you do macro work. To make the subject fill the frame on a larger sensor with the same lens you need to move closer to the subject and thus the DOF appears reduced.

If you take two shots using the same lens at the same distance from the subject using two different sensors and then crop out the middle of the image from the larger sensor and blow that up to the same size as the  image from the smaller sensor the DOF will appear the same. I think although I haven't tried that one.

 

It's all about semantics.

[MDM]

 

"The crop sensor depth of field myth"

 

 

http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/view/the-crop-sensor-depth-of-field-myth

That's what i was trying to say.

You get less DoF on 5x4 than 35mm. because you use a 150 instead of a 50, not because it's 5x4.

 

 

The physical sensor sizes of the D700 and D800 are the same so it's not anything to do with thie above quote or with cropped sensors etc. Viewed at the same size on screen the two are very similar but the difference is evident when viewed at 100% on screen. What I am saying is based on simple observation, not theory, and would definitely result in very poor images and QC failure if not taken into account. I'll post some examples when I get a chance.

[Guest]

DOF is governed by the lens, a 50mm lens produces the same DOF on cropped or full frame. What is different, as mentioned, is that you would say use a 30mm lens on a cropped frame to get the equivalent angle of view as for a 50 mm of a full frame and therefore the DOF will be greater because you use a 30mm lens....not because of the cropping of the sensor.

 

Similarily the DOF on a larger pixel FF sensor is the same for 24mp or 36mp, it's the apparent 'sharpness' of the 24mp at 100% simply because the same image is being spread over more pixels.

[JohnB]

As far as I'm aware there is no great difference in DOF between wide and telephoto lenses . The apparent difference is due to the perspective. ie with the wider angle more stuff is brought in from the sides - some of which will be in focus. I've not done it myself but I'm sure I've seen examples where wide angle images have been cropped to match longer lens shots and they show the same DOF.

AS I said before the reason why people think large sensor cameras have smaller DOFs than small sensor cameras is simply because the large sensor requires that you physically move closer with any given lens to get the same shot. It is the change in object distance that makes the DOF appear smaller. In practice this is how people work so most photographers will see a smaller DOF with larger sensor - even if it's actually the same for the same magnification.

[MDM]

 

Similarily the DOF on a larger pixel FF sensor is the same for 24mp or 36mp, it's the apparent 'sharpness' of the 24mp at 100% simply because the same image is being spread over more pixels.

Yes but tell that to Alamy QC if you submit a landscape image intended to be sharp front to back taken on a D800 using hyperfocal focusing barrel markings (always effective with smaller MP sensors). It's similar to the concept of viewing distance. The middle distance to background will be soft to very soft when viewed at 100%. "It's only apparently softer Mister QC, please view it at a smaller size on screen". That doesn't happen. If I want to know that the images I take will pass Alamy QC at full size, then I cannot use the traditional barrel markings - I've worked out my own settings for front to back sharpness at 100% view for each of my lenses by experiment. That way I don't need to downsize which is the alternative. And I don't apply any sharpening - capture or otherwise.

[Bill Brooks]

 If I want to know that the images I take will pass Alamy QC at full size, then I cannot use the traditional barrel markings - I've worked out my own settings for front to back sharpness at 100% view for each of my lenses by experiment. That way I don't need to downsize which is the alternative. And I don't apply any sharpening - capture or otherwise.

 

 

The depth of field barrel markings on any lens are designed for less sharper film days, and are wildly optimistic.

 

There is really only critical focus on one plane. In front of and behind the critical focus plane is a softer focus area, that is still sharp enough to be considered in focus.

 

I always critical focus on the main subject and choose an F stop, between wide open down to F11, that introduces the correct amount of softness in the rest of the image.

 

Often an attempt to get everything near/far in focus works against the image. In this image the critical focus is on the first tree on the right. Sharp enough focus extends from closest to middle distance. The remainder of the image is out of focus. 

 

I also brushed in a bluish lower contrast haze in the far distance. Compare the contrast of the closest trees to the distant trees. Soft focus and lower contrast bluish haze are mental distance clues, and help retain the 3D look when you render into a 2D image.

 

[M.Chapman]

It's quite obvious if you do macro work. To make the subject fill the frame on a larger sensor with the same lens you need to move closer to the subject and thus the DOF appears reduced.

If you take two shots using the same lens at the same distance from the subject using two different sensors and then crop out the middle of the image from the larger sensor and blow that up to the same size as the  image from the smaller sensor the DOF will appear the same. I think although I haven't tried that one.

 

It's all about semantics.

 

Indeed.

 

In practical terms, if you want to take a picture with the same Field of View from the same viewpoint, then the smaller sensor will (for the same lens aperture) show a greater depth of field. Yes, in reality this happens because the lens focal length required to give the same field of view will be shorter, if the sensor is smaller.

 

However, in practical terms, if you want to take the same picture from the same viewpoint, a larger image sensor will have less depth of field and will require more accurate focusing.

 

Pixel count/size is also relevant if you want your "circle of confusion" to be pixel sized, ie. you're after sharpness at 100% view in the final image.

 

The article http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/view/the-crop-sensor-depth-of-field-myth somewhat misses the real shooting difference when using a smaller sensor to photograph the same field of view from the same viewpoint, which in reality is often the "real life" shooting situation.

[MDM]

The depth of field barrel markings on any lens are designed for less sharper film days, and are wildly optimistic.

 

 

Agree but they worked perfectly on the D700 12MP - if properly marked they correspond to the depth of field tables that used to be supplied with lenses. Speaking of which, I blame you for encouraging me to buy a Zeiss lens late last year. I did and then another one followed thanks . Objectives of beauty and incredibly sharp - why would I want to desharpen them (interesting technique though).