Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon vs Phase  (Read 40226 times)
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #200 on: September 26, 2007, 01:20:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What is shocking to me is to see the disrespect some people are judging others by, come on guys we are all adults ??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sadly some people can't find a better way to defend their arguments than "but your work tells me nothing".

I don't know why I'm replaying either. This and other post went way out of track the last months and we're getting everything but what I whish; A great place to talk about our MF photography and to learn of each other.
Logged
Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


WWW
« Reply #201 on: September 26, 2007, 02:05:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sadly some people can't find a better way to defend their arguments than "but your work tells me nothing".

I don't know why I'm replaying either. This and other post went way out of track the last months and we're getting everything but what I whish; A great place to talk about our MF photography and to learn of each other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


First of all, I said goodbye to MFDB, not the forum.
Second, I still think MFDB, technicaly, is better than DSLR.
Third, I was trying to turn the conversation towards images in staid of
all this this futile discussion about what is best and who has the shortest DOF etc.
Everybody who has owned a MFDB and DSLR knows that, technicaly, MFDB
is much better. And has another feel than 35.

We are not learning anything from each other by discussing that.

Just wanted to show a mans pictures and tell that i did not think
about what kind of camera he used when I watched them.

I did not defend my arguments by saying  "but your work tells me nothing", because
I actually did not say that.

I rest my case.  
Logged

Willow Photography
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #202 on: September 26, 2007, 03:50:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
gotta disagree

I'm sure his pictures can go up to 13x19 inches at least.
I used to shoot with a Nikon D70 and could take gorgeous photos, only difference is that there's a lack of detail past a certain point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sure you're right, but I'd want to stand far away to make sure they looked their best. Oh, sorry, your second sentence made my point for me.
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #203 on: September 26, 2007, 03:54:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why do I respond anyway
I post internet versions because I don't have anything else that I can share on this forum.

What is shocking to me is to see the disrespect some people are judging others by, come on guys we are all adults ??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Completely agree, Frank.
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #204 on: September 28, 2007, 11:39:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sample shot on f5.6

This was the 210mm on f5.6 or in 35mm terms roughly a 135mm lens.

When you look at the full ress version only the right (left on the picture) eyeball is in focus, the rest is OOF.
never could accomplisch that with a 35mm 135mm on f2.0
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank,

Did you get hold of a 80mm f/1.9? Attached is from a amateur model shoot I joined up on when in Shanghai last Saturday. Weather was a bit drizzling, so cloudy and light not good, a bit too dark for ZD. The 80 f/1.9 is very nice. Shot hand held and wide open. ISO 160 @ 1/160.

What lens would be used for same on FF135? With 1Ds Mk II/III 16/21MP would I still get the detail and reflections in her eye?

Regards
Anders
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #205 on: September 29, 2007, 01:53:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm still looking for the 1.9

135mm would translate for the ZD to I believe 210.

I don't know if you can get the same details on the 1Ds to be honest.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #206 on: September 29, 2007, 04:24:20 AM »
ReplyReply

@mtomalty,

I was planning on leaving it rest but it keeps bugging me so here I go.

Although the DOF will come out the same in the calculator the IMAGE will not be the same, what the calculator and you don't take into account is the circle of confussion.

The COF is much larger with a sensor twice the size of the 35mm Full frame format, so the experience of the shot is totally different.

I did not want to mention it before to not oil the discussion even more but I think it's vital information for the whole discussion so I posted in anyway
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #207 on: September 29, 2007, 11:21:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Frank, it is not possible to calculate DOF without a circle of confusion value. The DOF calculator has to take the CoC into account somehow, or it cannot calculate an output. Depending on which DOF calculator you use it may not be factored correctly, but to say it is not factored at all is not possible.
Logged

Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #208 on: September 29, 2007, 12:42:11 PM »
ReplyReply

It only gives the inches before and after the model, the larger realestate of the sensor gives a much greater COF.

COF and DOF are connected indeed but not the size to the edges and that's were the big difference lies.
Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #209 on: September 29, 2007, 01:17:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
COF and DOF are connected indeed but not the size to the edges and that's were the big difference lies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry Frank,
If you get a chance and have the time, could you explain that last sentence in a little more detail. I lost the plot somewhere. Alternatively a web reference would be good.

Thanks in advance
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #210 on: September 29, 2007, 02:10:19 PM »
ReplyReply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Luminous landscapes also has some nice things about it.
Logged
T-1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 579


« Reply #211 on: September 29, 2007, 02:28:57 PM »
ReplyReply

What's with all this blurring the background crap?  Bleh, shallow depth of field.  I'm tired of it.  I don't want only one eyelash in focus.  People are too obsessed with this type of photography.  

If I shoot Canon, I don't want to shoot at f/1.2, and if I shoot with Mamiya, I wouldn't want to shoot with an f/1.9 lens either.  Give me an RZ with a "slow" lens and I'll be happy.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #212 on: September 29, 2007, 02:46:42 PM »
ReplyReply

It's all about what you do.
Logged
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 534


WWW
« Reply #213 on: September 29, 2007, 03:34:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The COF is much larger with a sensor twice the size of the 35mm Full frame format, so the experience of the shot is totally different.

Frank,

I'm sure you're correct and I will leave the charts and graphs for others to enjoy.
I'm just basing my observations on 1000's of lifestyle stock images shot with
the 85 1.2L,135 2.0L,and 200 1,8 L

I was only responding to your statemant that accompanied your image with the
shallow depth of field where you said something to the effect, "this could never be
achieved with the 135"

That the two formats will give a different look is undeniable and on this we agree

Mark
Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #214 on: September 29, 2007, 04:22:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Luminous landscapes also has some nice things about it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry Frank, I have read that article... It was 'not the size to the edges' that confused me. Sorry if the answers in the wiki entry. I must have missed it. (Typical man!)
Thanks
Jon
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #215 on: September 29, 2007, 05:33:27 PM »
ReplyReply

What I meant is that with a bigger sensor the whole concept of how the DOF works changes.

You can get a similair "depth" of the in focus area (1 inch for and 1 inch behind) but the COF is larger on the bigger sensor.

Maybe we are talking about the same thing but confused (pun intended).

What I know for 100% sure is that although the calculator gives both lenses the same DOF there is a huge difference between the two lenses on both systems.
Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #216 on: September 30, 2007, 04:46:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What I meant is that with a bigger sensor the whole concept of how the DOF works changes.

You can get a similair "depth" of the in focus area (1 inch for and 1 inch behind) but the COF is larger on the bigger sensor.

Maybe we are talking about the same thing but confused (pun intended).

What I know for 100% sure is that although the calculator gives both lenses the same DOF there is a huge difference between the two lenses on both systems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Frank,
Just a language thing after all :-) (I can't really complain 'cos I can't speak ANY of your language!)

I'd been using fcalc as a ready reckoner, which does suggest different coc for different film sizes, and I'd assumed (perhaps wrongly) that this would translate directly for sensors at that size as well.
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #217 on: September 30, 2007, 07:23:27 AM »
ReplyReply

The COF is something that is very often reason for debate.
It all depends on the print size, the distance to the print etc. etc.

What I PERSONALLY found with the MF system is that with the 1.1 crop of the Leaf and ZD I get a stunning sense of depth compared to the 35mm frame.

This depth is not what I mean with the 3D effect because I see this constant in the MF shots even on f22.

What I mean with this depth is the out of focus parts of the shots are very different from the smaller sensors.

I did similair tests with my 20D when I bought the 5D, shot with the 20D on f2.8 and with the 5D on f4.0 and still the feel of the 5D was very different from the 20D, when you watch on you screen 1:1 the DOF is almost similair but when zooming out to full screen the bigger sensors just have a completly different feel and look.

I was drawn to the MF for those two reasons in the first place, I could not point it out exactly the first time but after some research and testing this was quite obvious in my own work.

Later came the dynamic range and the razorsharp outputs.
The magic for ME was and still is the 3D look of the shots and when working with wider appertures the feel and look of the OOF areas and most importantly the graduation between the in focus to the outfocus (not the bokeh, which is again a different story).
Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #218 on: September 30, 2007, 02:03:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The magic for ME was and still is the 3D look of the shots and when working with wider appertures the feel and look of the OOF areas and most importantly the graduation between the in focus to the outfocus (not the bokeh, which is again a different story).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Frank,
Yes, I have a feeling that there is some compromise in the lens design (I'm thinking 5D and L lenses) which means that the oof areas (call it bokeh if you wish) are very different in character from work I've seen like yours from MF. I'm just waiting on a P45 to arrive this week, to investigate a little more for myself (more as an academic exercise; so, for goodness sake, anybody else reading this, DON'T (please) feel the need to start discussing this in earnest)

I don't quite know whether one is better than the other per se (if you're pixel peeping) but I suspect that the effect, in terms of the impact of the photo, that the 'MF effect' is favourable.
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad