Hasselblad mirrorless camera

[Mattias Burling]

FF is not MF in the same way that a Smartphone isnt a Large Format.

Your not gonna shoot a portrait of three people from head to toe at a six feet distance in a small room with a 105mm lens on a FF, no matter what the math say.

Yes the DOF and exposure is the same no matter what the sensor size is. Adding crop factor to the aperture is BS.

The difference is in usage. Can I get the DOF in combination with the perspective I want from the working distance that I want.

Thats why MF and LF is "better" for portraits. You can get the whole person and the room from a short distance with the lovely perspective of a 105 or there about.

 

[fuzzynormal]

8 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

The difference is in usage. Can I get the DOF in combination with the perspective I want from the working distance that I want.

Thats why MF and LF is "better" for portraits. 

These facts are well known to anyone that really uses various cameras to do stuff.  It's not as complicated all the words pooped out onto the Internet would have you believe. 

Just shoot with the stuff for 5 minutes and figure it out for yourself. 

Results are blaring obvious. 

[John Matthews]

OMG this discussion seems pointless. FF vs. MF vs. phone vs. etc. That's not what this post was about. Let's move on... next.

Guess what...

"You can't convince someone against their will." Someone's grandmother once said that.

[jcs]

47 minutes ago, kaylee said:

its funny how the most technical people often have zero aesthetic sense

ooo looks like i have 236 e-penis points ?

How is that helpful? Copying other's work without fundamentally understanding why something looks good isn't being an artist. Understanding why something looks good from a technical standpoint doesn't eliminate aesthetic sensibility. Rather it helps with original creative works since it's not necessary to mindlessly copy-paste other people's ideas into a new work. Nothing wrong with being inspired by other works, only that original works are better when it's understood why inspirational material is good, and those concepts can be applied in more general and creative ways. Not taking the time to understand the tech behind the art is lazy, and will fundamentally limit creative works.

All art is technical. The greatest artists are also master technicians: Michelangelo, DaVinci, etc. Who was perhaps the biggest camera nerd ever? Stanley Kubrick.

Understanding why something is aesthetically pleasing is technical. If a particular camera and lens combo has a pleasing aesthetic, we understand why using technology.

[Mattias Burling]

32 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

These facts are well known to anyone that really uses various cameras to do stuff.  It's not as complicated all the words pooped out onto the Internet would have you believe. 

Just shoot with the stuff for 5 minutes and figure it out for yourself. 

Results are blaring obvious. 

I shoot MF, LF as well as s16 almost daily and your right, it took me 5 minutes to figure out that crop factor on aperture is the dumbest rumor on the internet.

[jcs]

8 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

I shoot MF, LF as well as s16 almost daily and your right, it took me 5 minutes to figure out that crop factor on aperture is the dumbest rumor on the internet.

Are you joking? Multiplying the aperture by the crop factor is mathematically required if one wishes to shoot with equivalence between two camera systems (for example, shooting a GH4 and 5D3 and desiring to get the same basic FOV and DOF for both cameras). Did you try the DOF/POV simulator? http://dofsimulator.net/en/ . Of course you can also try setting up two different sensor size camera systems and try to match FOV and DOF. If you do, you'll find that you need to multiply the aperture by the crop factor (and the ISO by the square of the crop factor if desiring to also match exposure). Perhaps you could post an example with your cameras where you match DOF and FOV along with focal length, aperture, and ISO for both cameras? (you can skip the math and do it by eye, the results may surprise you)

[Mattias Burling]

11 minutes ago, jcs said:

Are you joking? Multiplying the aperture by the crop factor is mathematically required if one wishes to shoot with equivalence between two camera systems (for example, shooting a GH4 and 5D3 and desiring to get the same basic FOV and DOF for both cameras). Did you try the DOF/POV simulator? http://dofsimulator.net/en/ . Of course you can also try setting up two different sensor size camera systems and try to match FOV and DOF. If you do, you'll find that you need to multiply the aperture by the crop factor (and the ISO by the square of the crop factor if desiring to also match exposure). Perhaps you could post an example with your cameras where you match DOF and FOV along with focal length, aperture, and ISO for both cameras? (you can skip the math and do it by eye, the results may surprise you)

Here is my example.

Take a magazine cover, take a pair of scissors, cut out a crop of the cover. 

Did it get darker? Did the DOF change? Did the compression change? 

Or was is just a crop?

[jcs]

1 minute ago, Mattias Burling said:

Here is my example.

Take a magazine cover, take a pair of scissors, cut out a crop of the cover. 

Did it get darker? Did the DOF change? Did the compression change? 

Or was is just a crop?

Well, that's not the same thing as a lens system and camera sensor collecting photons. A lot of folks here don't like math (including me- I learned it to write video games!). So you can set up two different camera systems and match them as close as you can: FOV, DOF, and exposure. When you look at the final results, you may be surprised. The DOF simulator is also helpful if one is short on time.

[Nikkor]

Equivalences are true, they will give you a similar image. The only thing that gross math can't predict is why 25mm f1 on m43 is something super blurry for except one tiny little distance where it sort of looks in focus, and 100mm f4 on a 72cm wide area will look very much in focus around the focusing distance, and gently roll of into the glory of the same blurred background.

[richg101]

13 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Instead of reputation points, I am replacing the forum system with e-penis points from now on.

i'm gonna have to start working hard to get some points.  anything to make up for my 1.5" fully extended.

6 hours ago, John Matthews said:

OMG this discussion seems pointless. FF vs. MF vs. phone vs. etc. That's not what this post was about. Let's move on... next.

Guess what...

"You can't convince someone against their will." Someone's grandmother once said that.

this opinion is one of the main reasons certain very good photographers miss out on the better work - the disregarding of how important equipment really is from separating two equally good photographers.  naturally the one who decides to go that little further - investing in equipment you need to pay a lease to use, rather than saying to themselves they can spend the extra money on a holiday or a new car and carry on using run of the mill canon crap.  shooting medium format digital separates the men from the boys in the same way shooting Alexa and cooke s4 differenciates from someone shooting c300ii and eos lenses.  they're not that far off, but the people with the ability to differentiate see the difference and value the difference.  If it wasn;t there, phase one and arri wouldn;t be servicing the upper end of the market.  

[Nikkor]

20 minutes ago, richg101 said:

i'm gonna have to start working hard to get some points.  anything to make up for my 1.5" fully extended.

this opinion is one of the main reasons certain very good photographers miss out on the better work - the disregarding of how important equipment really is from separating two equally good photographers.  naturally the one who decides to go that little further - investing in equipment you need to pay a lease to use, rather than saying to themselves they can spend the extra money on a holiday or a new car and carry on using run of the mill canon crap.  shooting medium format digital separates the men from the boys in the same way shooting Alexa and cooke s4 differenciates from someone shooting c300ii and eos lenses.  they're not that far off, but the people with the ability to differentiate see the difference and value the difference.  If it wasn;t there, phase one and arri wouldn;t be servicing the upper end of the market.  

Well well, e-penis is actually something they used to describe people posting their PC-specs on gaming forums in order to brag. Maybe alexas,etc... are p-penises

 

[richg101]

13 hours ago, jcs said:

I think we all agree with that point- what we can do in the real world with available equipment is all the really matters vs. math and theory. If there was a business reason to use a Phase One, I'd use one. Their cameras systems are top notch (design, usability, and final image quality). Currently the 5D3 and 1DX II with fast lenses (especially the 85mm 1.2L and 135mm F2L) can create crazy shallow DOF (sometimes too shallow to be usable wide open).

Here's a test many don't realize they can try with any camera to better understand equivalence. Shoot with the same lens, change settings, then crop in post (images 3 and 4 from: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ )

Full Frame

Super 35 (cropped in post- same lens)

Is there a difference? Sure, but so minor that the average person (client etc.) won't ever notice the difference. You can do this test with your MF camera, and crop to FF! Since you are using the exact same lens, only changing camera settings and cropping in post, lens and sensor technology will be identical. The only thing changing is effective sensor size. Try it!

Thus unless a client could clearly see the difference, why would a business invest in MF bodies and lenses? At the ultra high end, it's more marketing/appearances, and perhaps most importantly, Phase One for example does produce the highest megapixel professional/studio cameras(?) along with what looks like the best processing currently available. As noted in the link posted in this thread, the 50Mpixel 5DSR is very similar in quality to the 50Mpixel Phase One for ultimate image quality.

 

point of focus is the text on the front of the lens.  bokeh bubbles are the same for both shots meaning the ratio between the in focus and fully out of focus areas is the same.  HOWEVER, on the aps-c shot the canon text on the camera body, the underside of the tripod head, and the text on the flash are are more blurred than the full frame image.  

so for a bigger sensor the dof rolloff is slower and therefore more of the camera is in focus.  as distance increases and focal length is lengthened this attribute is magnified.

 

[Nikkor]

2 minutes ago, richg101 said:

 

point of focus is the text on the front of the lens.  bokeh bubbles are the same for both shots meaning the ratio between the in focus and fully out of focus areas is the same.  HOWEVER, on the aps-c shot the canon text on the camera body, the underside of the tripod head, and the text on the flash are are more blurred than the full frame image.  

so for a bigger sensor the dof rolloff is slower and therefore more of the camera is in focus.  as distance increases and focal length is lengthened this attribute is magnified.

 

Yeah, but he will tell you that's because the test is not perfect, I picked that out the first time he posted it.

[ND64]

Quote

- 45mm is wide, yet close to the subject, perfect rendering of a human face, perfect focus fall off from the eyes to the ears, it's beautiful. You can't test it by shooting a 5D on a stick like JCS

- 45mm will have lower distortion than 28mm

shocking statements. especially from experienced videographer.

what actually changes the human face shape is Perspective Distortion. and perspective is only, and only, and only depended on your distance to object. period. NOT ANGLE OF VIEW! that's why a fixed position zoom lens doesn't change the perspective (a 200mm image has same perspective of 100mm image, its only 2x crop of same image). so photographer A with 35mm lens on his A7S with 5 meters distance to model girl, has same perspective of her that photographer B with 50mm lens on his MF camera in same distance, already has. and No, BIG NO! 50mm lens of a bigger format does not necessarily has lower optical distortion than its equivalent brother 35mm on smaller format. clear example: Fuji 16mm f/1.4 distortion: %1.39  Nikon FX 24mm f/1.8 distortion: %1.9 negative. Canon 24mm f/2.8: %1.8 (heck Fuji is sharper than both of them wide open).

what you guys talking about here is mostly about optical design approaches, not format advantage. sometimes designers' goal is to achieve maximum resolving, sometimes they go for character. sometimes they care too much about astigmatism, sometimes they don't. sometimes they accept some trade-offs to make it smaller, sometimes they don't. look at these two monsters, both made for FF format, both have near identical FOV (43.7° vs. 40° 50'), both f/1.4. but one is 385 g and the other is 1030 g! Nikkor is much softer wide open, but people love its 3D look and focus transition. the thing is many of those designed-with-character-aim lenses are made for MF format in the past. it doesn't mean they cant do the same for FF. it doesn't mean they cant do the same for smaller than FF. Fuji did the same for DX format with its 56mm f/1.2 APD. 

 

[Nikkor]

24 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

shocking statements. especially from experienced videographer.

what actually changes the human face shape is Perspective Distortion. and perspective is only, and only, and only depended on your distance to object. period. NOT ANGLE OF VIEW!

That's only true in the Platonic world of ideas and not even there. 

If you don't believe me take an hasselblad view body with the biogon 38mm and shoot some portraits, they won't look like wideangle crap.

[ND64]

2 hours ago, Nikkor said:

That's only true in the Platonic world of ideas and not even there. 

If you don't believe me take an hasselblad view body with the biogon 38mm and shoot some portraits, they won't look like wideangle crap.

Again, even if true, its because of optical formula, not format advantage. 

[Nikkor]

1 minute ago, Eric Calabros said:

Again, even if true, its because of optical formula, not format advantage. 

That moves us away a little step from the statement that only only only only only onlyyyyy

[jcs]

5 hours ago, richg101 said:

point of focus is the text on the front of the lens.  bokeh bubbles are the same for both shots meaning the ratio between the in focus and fully out of focus areas is the same.  HOWEVER, on the aps-c shot the canon text on the camera body, the underside of the tripod head, and the text on the flash are are more blurred than the full frame image.  

so for a bigger sensor the dof rolloff is slower and therefore more of the camera is in focus.  as distance increases and focal length is lengthened this attribute is magnified.

 

Those are indeed visible differences for as 'ideal' a test as is physically possible since a very high quality zoom lens was used on the same camera (cropping in post after changing settings to simulate an APS-C crop). Since the differences are very subtle, the aesthetic quality boost may be lost on the general public, in the same way as fine food and alcohol, can be etc. Were the Hateful 8 and The Revenant better movies being shot on the ARRI 65? Did they make more money because of the large format camera used? (smaller format cameras were also used). The answers to both questions is probably not significantly. With effectively unlimited budgets, why not shoot on the 'best'? The relative cost of the larger format camera is insignificant to the film's budget. However using the pinnacle-best gear makes the directors and DPs happy, and that counts for something.

Using the DOF simulator, I noticed the circle of confusion and other parameters weren't exactly the same between formats. While FOV and DOF will be nearly identical, subtle things as noted such as blur transition region stretching can be analyzed by tracing individual light rays- photons. My crop test was not perfect, however there is a way to study this without worrying about issues of optics or lenses: computer simulation via ray tracing. This could be used to create graphs showing the increase in blur transition regions based on the sensor size. If it's a real effect, the results could be presented to optical designers such as Caldwell to show a possible market for a MF to FF focal reducer. If not by Caldwell, perhaps someone else in HK or CN.

Someone with the desire and free time could explore ray tracing to create renders showing any advantages to larger sensor sizes using Blender (free): https://www.blender.org/features/cycles/ . Since this is a controversial subject, showing these kinds of results could help visually explain effects previously difficult to put into words. I need to get back to working on improving content and storytelling- more important than tech!

 

 

[tugela]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 3:58 PM, BrooklynDan said:

I'm not talking about math. I'm talking about SOUL. Something our industry is sorely lacking in.

You mean you are talking about magic. Physics is physics. Ignoring that and believing something to the contrary is what magic is.

[kaylee]

On 6/18/2016 at 11:41 PM, fuzzynormal said:

Sure, but it's a technical medium. Nerds are needed. That's why cinema is such an inclusive craft/art form.  Making movies needs a big tent. The technical and artistic. 

agree

honestly i was so high when i wrote that post? and i didnt mean to be an asshole. i just want e-penis points

theres a lot of right brain/left brain stuff that goes on in filmmaking that i find very interesting, and also very challenging. the struggle is real

edit: oh btw... i rented a 5ds for some stills, and it, imho, sucked. i got the shots i needed but its super noisy when the iso is turned up ~at all~. no different than what id seen online, and what i expected, just kinda lame for a full frame "high resolution" sensor to need sooo much light for optimal results. just my experience; anybody have different results...? i havent done the research on digital mf bodies, but i sure hope that those bigger sensors do a LOT better with less light