Full Frame Aesthetic?

[fuzzynormal]

2 hours ago, Timotheus said:

2250 comments full of confusion :-)

Could it be a circle of confusion?

[tweak]

I guess the missing part is actually the sensor equiv., as lens equiv. means nothing when the sensor is never actually equiv. 

[Mattias Burling]

9 hours ago, tweak said:

I guess the missing part is actually the sensor equiv., as lens equiv. means nothing when the sensor is never actually equiv. 

Or camera equivalent

A Canon 550d with a 50mm L Prime equals a Nikon d750 with a cheap 35mm.

17 hours ago, Lintelfilm said:

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.

No this is not about Depth of field. It never was about depth of field. I suggest rereading my posts or just letting it go. Its not about exposure either.

A 50mm f1.8 on a s16 has the exact same dof as it does on a FF from the same distance.

The exposure is also the same.

So is the compression/separation.Switch to an equivalent lens and the compression/separation changes accordingly to the focal length.

Its simple physics.

[Timotheus]

32 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

A 50mm f1.8 on a s16 has the exact same dof as it does on a FF from the same distance.

(...)

Its simple physics.

Dude, please stop dancing around. We (you included) were talking about recreating the same picture (dof and framing) from the same spot using different sensors.

Also a fan of your YT reviews, but I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're trolling us here.

But yeah, let's let it go...there's enough in this thread for everyone to make up their minds.

[tweak]

I'm not a troll .

[Mattias Burling]

5 minutes ago, Timotheus said:

Dude, please stop dancing around. We (you included) were talking about recreating the same picture (dof and framing) from the same spot using different sensors.

Also a fan of your YT reviews, but I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're trolling us here.

But yeah, let's let it go...there's enough in this thread for everyone to make up their minds.

Exactly what option do give me when calling me a troll besides telling you to fuck off?

Im all up for debate, specially on this subject where so many are confused. And you could have tryed to understand, tryed to explain your view in a different way to get your point across, find other facts. Instead you resorted to name calling and just dissmissing people as trolls.... sigh.

I will ad another smily incase someone thinks I would let a non issue such as an internet discussion put me in a bad mood on this sunny and gorgeous sunday morning

Im out of the discussion but will make a video instead that explanes what different sensor sizes mean and does to images. I didnt think it was necessary since guys like Daniel Levine has prooven this a long time ago in a very excellent video. And since its simple Photography 1.0.

Better ad another smily

Have a great day, Im of to Stockholm for some street shooting. Better start calculating my equivalents...

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

No this is not about Depth of field. It never was about depth of field. I suggest rereading my posts or just letting it go. Its not about exposure either.

A 50mm f1.8 on a s16 has the exact same dof as it does on a FF from the same distance.

The exposure is also the same.

So is the compression/separation.Switch to an equivalent lens and the compression/separation changes accordingly to the focal length.

Its simple physics.

Exactly.

And this is the salient point here.

Go and actually put a 200mm f2.8 on a M4/3 and then put a 400mm f2.8 on a FF and point them at the same thing.

They'll look completely different. 

This web page is actually a decent source for it and the differences would become even more obvious with longer lenses than the 58 and 85mm used there.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/

[hyalinejim]

Well, yes, of course because the aperture is not equivalent even though the focal length is. When comparing sensor sizes you multiply the focal length and aperture of the smaller sensor camera to give the equivalent focal length and aperture of a full frame camera that would give an equivalent angle of view and depth of field from the same viewpoint. 

I honestly believe that this topic is so complex that it is quite difficult to hold together in your head the relationships of the variables in such a way that corresponds to reality. Hence, extended and heated discussions like this one, and the 2000+ comments on the dpreview thread which, as previously mentioned, is worth a read and a re-read.

 

 

 

[tugela]

22 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!).

Different sensor sizes will give different looking images no matter what framing you use because of parallax changes. Parallax will be in direct proportion to how far you are from your subject and independent of things like aperture. It would also be affected by the size of your front objective as well. The effect will be more obvious with an object closer to you than one that is further away. So there would not be a big difference if you were shooting landscapes, but there would be a significant difference if shooting portraits, for example.

[BTM_Pix]

29 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

Well, yes, of course because the aperture is not equivalent even though the focal length is. When comparing sensor sizes you multiply the focal length and aperture of the smaller sensor camera to give the equivalent focal length and aperture of a full frame camera that would give an equivalent angle of view and depth of field from the same viewpoint. 

Apologies for adding to the confusion, I was referring to the spec of the lens being a 2.8 rather than that the actual aperture that has been set. 

[Lintelfilm]

5 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

No this is not about Depth of field. It never was about depth of field. I suggest rereading my posts or just letting it go. Its not about exposure either.

A 50mm f1.8 on a s16 has the exact same dof as it does on a FF from the same distance.

The exposure is also the same.

So is the compression/separation.Switch to an equivalent lens and the compression/separation changes accordingly to the focal length.

Its simple physics.

Mattias compression is only about distance from the subject. It has nothing whatsoever to do with lens choice OR sensor size. You can test this without a camera using your eyes and your feet. Wider lenses have the ability to get more FOV in the frame but they can't magically see around or behind objects. Just as longer lenses can't magically make background objects larger.

This discussion/disagreement is about equivalent focal lengths and whether or not the same image characteristics can be recreated regardless of sensor size if the correct lens spec is used. Depth of field doesn't have to be part of that discussion but it can be and has been (I think you talked about bokeh for example).

So yes a 50mm lens at 2m from a subject creates the compression as it does on a small or big sensor. But so does a 25mm lens kept at that same distance. And therefore the only variables that influence image character are FOV, sensor size and aperture size. These variables however can't magically make background and foreground objects move in 3D space! 

Or to put it another way ...

 

[bunk]

On 29/10/2016 at 3:58 PM, Mattias Burling said:

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

In Cinema 4D I set up 2 cams. A FullFrame Camera driving a Crop camera. I used releas 13 which is from around 2010, way before the whole Northrup discussion

The Xpresso above is based on Crop x Focal Lenght, Crop x Aperture and (crop)squared x Iso.

Resulting in for instance the properties below.

Three different points of view. 2 x a 50mm f1.4 and 1x 105 mm f2.8 lens in FF

 

You can check them in Photoshop, or better render them out yourself (file attached, Download the demo) but I'm pretty sure they are to the pixel precise.

Let me know how to contact you so I can give you my Paypal info.

CinemaFile.zip

[sondreg]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15efDoJJEaew-7WdoCDim5anYvbdSXnVjOH-RRD656Ws/edit?usp=sharing

Created a spreadsheet for calculating fullframe equivalents based on F-stop and sensor, it's a little messy I apologize. I'm not sure how to properly setup a google sheet document for public sharing (individual values) - if you do know please tell me so. I'm not a math guy so it might be off some.... 

I'm not sure if this is actually useful, I'm tired and didn't really read the whole thread

With this you can calculate specs on FF equivalent lenses for different sensors for the same result.

 

Please correct me if the maths wrong

[tweak]

I don't think anyone was arguing the math... These CGIs are useless, they show us nothing of sensor difference only equivalence of focal length and aperture, which as far as I can tell everyone had agreed on.

[Timotheus]

4 minutes ago, tweak said:

I don't think anyone was arguing the math... These CGIs are useless, they show us nothing of sensor difference only equivalence of focal length and aperture, which as far as I can tell everyone had agreed on.

I'm pretty sure Mattias didn't agree with what @bunk proves ;-)

What kind of sensor differences do you mean exactly? Noise, bit depth, resolution etcetera? Sure there can be differences in technical picture quality, but as shown above: framing and DOF can be made identical while shooting from the same spot with different sensor sizes...by using equivalent lenses.

[tweak]

Was he arguing that? I took it as he wasn't, but I don't really know haha.

I think I made this whole thing worse earlier by using the word "compression" which wasn't the right word. I mean if there's no difference between FF vs smaller sensors, why don't we all just have s16 sensors? Or even an Iphone? I thought that was what this whole thread was really about, camera "aesthetics" not whether or not your equiv framing/aperture is the same.

[Timotheus]

Yeah, there is a certain overlap in what you can achieve with different sized sensors. As shown, this goes for composition, but to an extent also for technical picture quality. Example: with a 25mm f1.4 on MFT you get the same FOV/DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on fullframe, but you also (partially) negate the smaller, noisier sensor because you have a faster lens.

But there are limits as to what is practically possible. There is no MFT equivalent lens for the famous 50mm f1.0 on fullframe. On the other hand, you won't find a compact drone with a fullframe sensor (for now, ha!).

[tweak]

32 minutes ago, Timotheus said:

Yeah, there is a certain overlap in what you can achieve with different sized sensors. As shown, this goes for composition, but to an extent also for technical picture quality. Example: with a 25mm f1.4 on MFT you get the same FOV/DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on fullframe, but you also (partially) negate the smaller, noisier sensor because you have a faster lens.

But there are limits as to what is practically possible. There is no MFT equivalent lens for the famous 50mm f1.0 on fullframe. On the other hand, you won't find a compact drone with a fullframe sensor (for now, ha!).

True. The thing is who shoots a 50 2.8 on FF? Most people would have a 1.4 as a standard.

I also see this discussion working both ways, for example the "S16 aesthetic". You can't use say a 50mm on FF and have as deep DOF as on S16. If you tried you would be stopping down the lens to the point that diffraction is simply destroying the image. It's also true in reverse for M4/3 S16 vs FF, if you want that shallow depth assosiated with FF, using super fast lenses at their wide open apertures on these smaller sensors (to get anything close) usually gives you pretty crappy results (Bad CA, Bad sharpness, Bad MTF etc.). That's without even getting into the benefits a larger sensor can give.

[noone]

6 hours ago, tweak said:

True. The thing is who shoots a 50 2.8 on FF? Most people would have a 1.4 as a standard.

I also see this discussion working both ways, for example the "S16 aesthetic". You can't use say a 50mm on FF and have as deep DOF as on S16. If you tried you would be stopping down the lens to the point that diffraction is simply destroying the image. It's also true in reverse for M4/3 S16 vs FF, if you want that shallow depth assosiated with FF, using super fast lenses at their wide open apertures on these smaller sensors (to get anything close) usually gives you pretty crappy results (Bad CA, Bad sharpness, Bad MTF etc.). That's without even getting into the benefits a larger sensor can give.

Maybe not as many shooting a 50 2.8 lens on FF but many of those using a faster lens will stop it down to 2.8 (or f4 or even 5.6)  in many cases.    I like using my 55mm lens at f4 or 5.6 for portraits often enough.

The 40 2.8 Canon STM lens is quite nice on FF cameras too (as well as on M4/3 and APSC).   

A lot will depend on the subject distance and size though.     50 2.8 FF at a subject distance of 9 feet will have depth of field from 8.25 feet to 9.91 feet (1.66 ft total) and that may be just what is needed.         

As for the other way around, if you stop down enough FF, you will reach infinity a lot sooner than many think.

Lenses 50mm and under wont generally have diffraction issues before reaching infinity very often and lenses around 24mm and shorter would likely almost never.    Someone might have  diffraction issue with 50mm shooting very close in wanting infinity DOF but I haven't seen where that would happen yet.      

Sure if you are shooting a subject at closer distance with a longer lens that (diffraction) will happen more often.

Having different sensor sizes just gives more choice

[jcs]

More example pics here: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/