Full Frame Aesthetic?

[Timotheus]

29 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

No you cant. Look at the Tony Northup frame I posted. It clearly proves that you can replicate the image from a large sensor in the way you earlier suggested.

I tell you what. Take the three lenses and sensor sizes you listed in your first post. Take three photos from the same distance of the same subject. A person with a background similar to the example I posted.

I will give you $100 it they turns out exactly the same. 

So if I understand you correctly, there is no way to recreate the exact same picture using two different sized sensors from the same position? Nah...sure you can.

Just give Northrup your 100 bucks :-) He made a few videos proving this point. The very example you posted is among the 'evidence' he presents, check the vid.

[mercer]

4 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Well actually you can notice it on every type of screen unless it's so small that everything is in focus (google circle of confusion), actually it's easier to notice on smaller screens (contrary to what I thought) the real limit on percieving this is the resolution of the camera,1080p nikon stuff is soft enough to make it unnoticable to most. Anyway mercer, don't think about it :p If anything, just find two lenses that match color,aberration and flare/glow wise if you want to be anal about it.

It's not necessarily something I am worried about... More curious than anything. But since I don't have a stills background and my first foray into imagery was aps-c from a t2i, I have no full frame, frame of reference other than knowing about FOV from a cropped sensor. Since so many people love the "full frame look," and I am contemplating either the D7200 or D750, I was curious what would be gained or lost by my respective decision.

[Lintelfilm]

4 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

But you can never use a small sensor and achieve the same pictures as a large sensor. Thats why they are so popular. 
Taking a portrait with 100mm looks so much better (to most) than with a 50mm. Only problem is that on a MFT that 100mm has you backing out of the studion ruining the ascetics regarding background compression.

The only difference between sensor sizes is the workable distance to fill the frame on a certain focal length. And that can be replaced with math and equivalent lenses. If you want the ascetics of FF you need to use FF.

Here you see it clearly. The shooter has used an equivalent focal length and aperture. But look at the background.
A smaller sensor can't give the same frame as the larger at a given distance no matter what.

Even if the larger aperture makes the bokeh looking the same the windows have changed size.

 

So again, Yes, the full frame gives the lenses an ascetic that crop sensors can't replicate and vice versa. Trying to use equivalent focal length and apertures does not help.
 

Ahhh Mattias I'm disappointed in you! I am quite a fan of your YT channel but you are WRONG here!

As @Timotheus says you are actually using an example that disproves your own point! Those two images ARE identical (within the realms of reasonable difference - of course you can never replicate the EXACT same look with two different lenses on different cameras). There is no significant difference between them. Background separation, compression, bokeh, etc are within the realms of "the same". 

This is a very confusing subject, because all the terminology gets messy when talking about equivalencies. I made the mistake in my earlier post of refering to "equivalent" F-stop, which you rightly took issue with, but I was only wrong in the terminology I used. What I should have said is "aperture size" (which as we know is a different thing). I absolutely do think there is a use for talking in terms of equivalents when discussing f-stop/aperture on different sensor sizes, but only when thinking about DOF. It makes sense to say F-stop should remain the same because that tells you about exposure/ the amount of light getting to the sensor - but it doesn't tell you about Depth of Field  image characteristics. Here you can talk in equivalencies.

Again, Timotheus is correct: 50mm 1.8 on FF = 35mm 1.2 S35 = 25mm 0.9 MFT

Of course in the real world you have to give a little room for error but in theoretical terms there is no difference in DOF characteristics. Forget about exposure - that is different. This is about depth of field and focal length.

[mercer]

5 minutes ago, Lintelfilm said:

Ahhh Mattias I'm disappointed in you! I am quite a fan of your YT channel but you are WRONG here!

As @Timotheus says you are actually using an example that disproves your own point! Those two images ARE identical (within the realms of reasonable difference - of course you can never replicate the EXACT same look with two different lenses on different cameras). There is no significant difference between them. Background separation, compression, bokeh, etc are within the realms of "the same". 

This is a very confusing subject, because all the terminology gets messy when talking about equivalencies. I made the mistake in my earlier post of refering to "equivalent" F-stop, which you rightly took issue with, but I was only wrong in the terminology I used. What I should have said is "aperture size" (which as we know is a different thing). I absolutely do think there is a use for talking in terms of equivalents when discussing f-stop/aperture on different sensor sizes, but only when thinking about DOF. It makes sense to say F-stop should remain the same because that tells you about exposure/ the amount of light getting to the sensor - but it doesn't tell you about Depth of Field  image characteristics. Here you can talk in equivalencies.

Again, Timotheus is correct: 50mm 1.8 on FF = 35mm 1.2 S35 = 25mm 0.9 MFT

Of course in the real world you have to give a little room for error but in theoretical terms there is no difference in DOF characteristics. Forget about exposure - that is different. This is about depth of field and focal length.

Idk, to me the full frame example clearly pushes the woman's hair off her right shoulder, whereas the m4/3 leaves it draped over her right shoulder. Damn distortion...

[Lintelfilm]

2 hours ago, Timotheus said:

@Mattias Burling we seem to disagree, so let's explore this al little bit, because I think understanding equivalence is useful for anyone, especially when juggling camera's with different sized sensors.

• You didn't respond to what I said, i.e. you can get the same framing, same depth of field, shooting from the same spot...with different sensor-sized camera's. The key is using lenses that compensate for the differences in sensor size.
• The math concerns using crop factors for both focal length and f-stop to estimate the effects on framing and DOF. The physical f-stop obviously does not change.
• You show a screenshot from a Tony Northrup video that proves exactly these points! In the example using 100mm f5.6 on full frame yields the same framing and DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on MFT (2x crop).
• You can hear Northrup explain from 16:06...your example shows up right at 17:18 :-)
• Obviously there are limits as to what is currently possible. Getting the same framing and DOF as a fullframe 50mm F1.2 on a MFT camera would mean using a 25mm F0.6, which doesn't exist (yet!).

Exactly correct.

F-stop is a measurement of exposure - the amount of light hitting the sensor is the amount of light hitting the sensor. However aperture size as related to depth of field is a different thing entirely - not related to exposure but image character. Of course the two things are interrelated as one affects the other, but they should not be confused. 

There will always be real-world advantages to larger sensors, but all things being equal (on paper / mathematically) you can always re-create the "full frame" aesthetic on smaller sensors. 

1 minute ago, mercer said:

Idk, to me the full frame example clearly pushes the woman's hair off her right shoulder, whereas the m4/3 leaves it draped over her right shoulder. Damn distortion...

THIS IS SERIOUS!!!! STOP BEING TRIVIAL!!!!

[DPC]

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[Nikkor]

58 minutes ago, mercer said:

It's not necessarily something I am worried about... More curious than anything. But since I don't have a stills background and my first foray into imagery was aps-c from a t2i, I have no full frame, frame of reference other than knowing about FOV from a cropped sensor. Since so many people love the "full frame look," and I am contemplating either the D7200 or D750, I was curious what would be gained or lost by my respective decision.

Go with the d750 (shouldn't there be a d760 coming soon?). You can always film in crop mode on the d750 if you have a problem.

[mercer]

3 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Go with the d750 (shouldn't there be a d760 coming soon?). You can always film in crop mode on the d750 if you have a problem.

Well that settles it then, moderator please delete this post or close it for further comments... ?

But seriously, yeah there should be a D760 announced, but I assume it will be $2000 plus for body only... The 750 can be had refurbished for less that $1500.

[mercer]

I'd rather stay within the the S35 realm, but with everything Canikon and their damn product segmentation, you are always sacrificing one thing for another.

For instance with the 5500 I don't get any exposure aids but the crop is consistent in 24p and 60p. With the D7200, I'd get the exposure aids, but an inconsistent crop between 24p and 60p. So, if I went with the D7200 I would definitely keep the D5500, but the cost of the two cameras are nearing the cost of a D750... So just considering options.

The downside of the D750 is that I am really used to how the 1.5x crop will affect my FOV. And since I like to stay between the 35mm FOV and 75mm FOV, my cherished 28mm f2 may become a little obsolete. Anyway, just trying to learn the benefits of full frame versus aps-c and if they're negligible in the overall scheme of things.

Thanks for everyone's input... I've already learned a lot!

[Lintelfilm]

25 minutes ago, DPC said:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I just did a calculation:

50mm 1.8 on a 5D

vs

25mm f/1.0 on a GH1 

... with a subject distance of 3m they both came out with a DoF of 40cm (give or take a couple of cm either way).

Definitive, IMO

[Nikkor]

41 minutes ago, mercer said:

Well that settles it then, moderator please delete this post or close it for further comments... ?

But seriously, yeah there should be a D760 announced, but I assume it will be $2000 plus for body only... The 750 can be had refurbished for less that $1500.

Hmm, I just checked 1.5x crop videos from the d750 and it looks mushy... I would double check on that.

[mercer]

8 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

The difference is only the distance you need or can be at from your subject. 
If we take 105mm for example. Its a lovely focal length for a portrait shoot. The amount of background blur in combination with how much the background is compressed is just spot on. But if you put it on a s16 like your BMPCC you need to back up way to long and mess everything up. With the APS-C its not as bad, but still bad enough that you might considering an "equivalent" lens. 
When you do switch to a 75mm you get the subject in frame from a workable distance but loose the FOV and background compression/separation of the 105mm.

The DOF, Light input, etc doesn't change with a smaller sensor. Its the exact same thing as taking a pair of scissors and cutting out a smaller square of a magazine cover.

Thats why Medium and Large format is sweet. With MF I can take a 75mm and get that lovely portrait of my dog. It has the same SDOF of field that you would get with a 75mm on your BMPCC or Nikon from that distance. 
But still have my entire house in the frame without using a wide angle. Because with a wide angle the DOF gets wider on any sensor. 

The pic above would have only her head in the frame on a small sensor like the APS-C. Everything else would remain exactly the same.

With Large Format you can stand a few meters away and photograph a group of people head-to-toe and still get nice separation from a 100mm.

If we take the Fuji x70 that I bought yesterday as another example. Its a APS-C with a 28mm equivalent. Some might thing, ok 28mm on FF with 2.8 would give me SDOF. But it won’t on the Fuji. Not because the sensor is smaller but because it is an 18mm lens. And there for get the exact same DOF as an 18mm on FF, not very shallow.

So in short. You will get the nice SDOF and characteristics of your 50mm on the Nikon but with more in frame. You will get shallower death of filed simply by zooming without zooming so to speak.

And yes its awesome

You can intercut, its not always that big of a difference.

 

 

(Fun fact, the picture of the dog is taken with the first camera any member of my family ever bought. It was my mom who got it as a child. Still works perfectly)

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Certo_Phot

That's such a cool picture of Gunpowder... Fun fact as well. Honestly, your D750 videos are one of the reasons I am considering upgrading to the 750 and the full frame look. As I said... Really nice work. 

[mercer]

19 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Hmm, I just checked 1.5x crop videos from the d750 and it looks mushy... I would double check on that.

I didn't even know the D750 had a crop mode, but I will look into it more, thanks!

[tweak]

I'm confused, but my brain is trying to tell me that the background compression has to change somewhat as you are using a 25mm vs a 50mm from the same distance (regardless of crop), which is what I think @Mattias Burling was saying.

I agree that framing of a person and Bokeh could be made to look similar with an equivalent lens on different sized sensors.

[hyalinejim]

The two shots are not taken from the same viewpoint.

Here I've moved the M43 shot so that the position of the background actually lines up with background of the full frame shot. You'll see that there is no background compression to speak of. OK, there is a slight difference in scale but we don't know if the photographer moved or not. A tripod would have helped this comparison a lot.

13 minutes ago, tweak said:

A 50mm is a 50mm, so soon as you use a 25mm to get that same FOV and a similar bokeh on the smaller sensor it changes the compression of things in the background.

The only thing that can can affect the relative geometry of objects is moving the position of camera. Once the camera is fixed, geometry is fixed. Light goes in straight lens. Focal length and sensor size only affect how much of the scene in front you're selecting for your composition, as if (as mentioned) you're cutting out a rectangle from a magazine cover.

 

[tweak]

I think I'm confused as I don't get whether they are moving the shot or not, I would agree a locked off tripod and static subject would make this a lot better comparison.

The Framing and the Bokeh being very similar between equiv. 50 and 25 makes perfect sense to me, I just feel as though there has to be more to it, it seems too simple hahaha.

[Geoff CB]

**** this discussion. Every time it's brought up people argue about it endlessly.

[tweak]

hahaha. True. I'm more interested than anything. In the past I'd usually side with the general concensus here without much thought, as in practice it pretty similar, but Mattias got me thinking... doesn't mean I'm right of course.

[Timotheus]

Yeah, this discussion... opinions on facts :-/

For those interested, the Northrup video comes recommended. He explains and proves his point.

For readers, Dpreview did an extensive piece on it as well, with 2250 comments full of confusion :-)

[tweak]

How good! @Timotheus