FULL FRAME or SUPER 35 - What do you prefer and why?

[SleepyWill]

Your math is wrong and only is semi accurate, the variances in this matter are not lineal.

​I didn't actually do any math, don't know if you noticed, I just quoted formulas drawn directly from wikipedia, the reference you supplied us with earlier.

So if your own evidence is "semi accurate" and the variances are not "lineal" [sic], it is actually irrelevant. All that matters is that there is a relationship between aperture size and dof as well as a relationship between sensor size and dof. Which you acknowledge there is. So you use one to adjust for the change in the other, because by understanding that there is these two relationships, you understand that there is a relationship between aperture size and sensor size for any given dof. This is primary school math.

If you understand that there is a relationship between aperture size and sensor size, then you can achieve the same depth of field on a different sensor size by changing the aperture. Simples.

[Nikkor]

Oh come on, the problem is that you are still believing that your primary school math works out in real optics.

[jase]

Maybe we can stop insulting and come back with some hard evidence? I cannot really add anything substantial to this post, but i am very interested in proof that actually contraditcs to the sayings of jcs, because for me they make quite sense.

[SleepyWill]

Oh come on, the problem is that you are still believing that your primary school math works out in real optics.

​Show me then, come on, put up or shut up, demonstrate to me a single specific example where either

1) Change in aperture does not change the DOF with all other setting remaining the same

2) Change in sensor size does not change DOF with the focal length adjusted to give a fov equivalence but all other settings remaining the same

Because that is what you are arguing right now.

Unfortunately, that specific principal of maths, that is taught in primary schools, is the basis for algebra, being that if you can equate thing a with thing b and thing a with thing c, you can equate thing b with thing c. It doesn't matter how deep into optical physics you delve, the most basic principle of algebra, the bedrock for all of modern mathematics remains true.

[Nikkor]

Haha ,dont put words into my mouth. [removed by moderator]

And remember, if you are so blind that you cant notice the benefits of larger formats, it's no shame, focus on story telling,etc and leave the image department to someone else as if you would do if you were colorblind.

[SleepyWill]

Haha ,dont put words into my mouth. [edited]

​So, am I to understand that you believe that one can't adjust the aperture on a camera lens to change the depth of field, such that it matches the depth of field that a different sized sensor would have for an equivalent fov? 

See image: Am I also to understand that you have changed your mind since december?

And that you changed your mind regarding medium and large format cameras between 12:31 on sunday:

Bigger formtas are totally useless, specially medium format. Don't buy any lenses for it, its totally crap, expensive and complicated. Largeformat cameras are only sold to rich people and fashion photographers who need to appear professional with big cameras.

and 7:21 on sunday:

 I need a digital 6x7 camera, FF is not fun anymore.

[Nikkor]

I think its called sarcasm.

[SleepyWill]

I think its called sarcasm.

​You didn't answer my first question. It was the on topic and important one

 

[Nikkor]

Because its not what I am saying. You can have a 25 f1 lens on m43 and on your classic dof calculations it will have the same dof and field of view as a 50 f2 on FF. Yes, nobody denies that. Now I would have to repeat again where thedifference lies but its getting boring. I mean, why do you even care if you cant see the difference.

[SleepyWill]

Now I would have to repeat again where thedifference lies but its getting boring.

​In english, we use the word repeat when we are saying something a second time. You haven't ever told us what the difference that you see is. You've said:

The obvious differences you can see in comparisons between different formats are only in our minds.

While being sarcastic,and:

the differences should be much more noticable

while talking about doing the practical test with a different lens, and:

I will not give any prove myself

After talking about a link to wikipedia being proof enough, which then you then later explained the maths in that article to be " wrong and only is semi accurate", next:

There is no debate, the format differences are a fact.

Which was as helpful as a chocolate teabag.

 

So no, you haven't ever told us what you think the difference is. You've told us now that it definitely isn't field of view or depth of field as you agree they can be replicated interestingly enough using primary school maths to work out how to select the correct lens for the equivalence. If it's a fact, as you say it is, state the factual differences, in a clear, precise way, without calling people colourblind or retards or any "sarcasm" [sic]. 

Maybe someone with an A7s and speedbooster would prepare a blind test for us, to see if we learn from your mighty intellect that shines through in every word you write. Perhaps you would lower yourself to take part in such a silly, easy little quiz, just to cement your superiority over us minions, begging at your feet for scraps of knowledge.

[Nikkor]

I have pointed it out over different threads. But hey, you just made the differences between formats dissapear, congratulations you saved a lot of people a lot of money, please have your cookie.

[SleepyWill]

I have pointed it out over different threads. But hey, you just made the differences between formats dissapear, congratulations you saved a lot of people a lot of money, please have your cookie.

​Yes, by recommending full frame, the budget option, as I explained in my second comment in this thread.

You do realise it took you just as long to write that you're not going to tell us as it would have taken to just tell us. Is there a reason you won't?

[Nikkor]

How could you possibly know how long it takes to come up and write down the actual proof.

[SleepyWill]

How could you possibly know how long it takes to come up and write down the actual proof.

​Another deflection, I was thinking you could just link to one of these countless other threads, or instead of coming up with proof, just state your theory, e.g. "I believe the size of the sensor increases the area of the sensor at a different rate to the propagation of, say f2's worth of light being spread over a different area. This means that it is impossible to have as shallow dof at any given ambient light on a crop frame sensor and have them expose the same, thus the full frame look is about proper exposure with natural light"

See, easy.

You could even, if we were using my example, simply say "FF exposes better", without having to dive into those awkward technical details.

[Nikkor]

 

You could even, if we were using my example, simply say "FF exposes better", without having to dive into those awkward technical details.

Ok: larger formats render better defined and at the same time smooth images compared to smaller formats, given the same equivalent lens set up. Thats the bottom line.

Or just: larger format, better image.

[jgharding]

Larger formats can work some magic that smaller can't. This is because to create the equivalent DOF of 65mm film/sensor on 35mm for example, you'd need an impossibly fast lens or some kind of massive speed booster.

Truth is though, it's quite hard keeping even Super 35 in focus at apertures of f2.8 and wider.

As a result I find S35 to be the best balance between a great look and handleable focusing. I spend most of my time shooting about f4 or f2.8 on Super 35 unless it's very dark or I want the super shallow aesthetic.

[SleepyWill]

OK, here we are then. 4 cameras, 4 different sensor sizes, 8 of the blandest lenses in my collection (read: most uniform). One camera is full frame, one is crop, one is 4/3's and a lot of kudos if someone identifies the other, with sound reasoning.

My method was to use the full frame camera first, to take a shot. Then I examined it and set up all the other cameras to attempt to get them to replicate that look precisely. I used every trick in, on and around the camera that I know, with the exception of additional lighting, reflectors etc. Once I was happy with my setup for each, I took all four shots (including the ff again). Camera profiles were the most basic straight forward, consumer friendly ones, the reason being, so that the only post processing done was in photoshop where I combined the 4 shots into a single picture. No work was done on the pictures beyond pasting them into a square and putting a letter on them.

The question is, of course, can you tell which sensor size took which image, failing that can you identify only the full frame?

 

[Nikkor]

If you ask me those 4 shots were done with the same camera. Nice try on bulshitting me, but after seeing the photos I remember who you are and Im going to play nice.

[SleepyWill]

If you ask me those 4 shots were done with the same camera. Nice try on bulshitting me, but after seeing the photos I remember who you are and Im going to play nice.

​It's almost as if sensor size is irrelevant and skill (and skill at equipment choice) is everything! But sure, hit the conspiracy theories instead. Is there anyone on this board you trust to perform the test? Or will you only trust them after the test, if their shots are easy for you to tell apart.

[Nikkor]

Come on man the last two shots dont even have the slightest change in perspective, and for the other two are perfect color and character match. You are the perfect camera operator who can put cameras one a tripod without moving it at all and who can match two different cameras with different lenses to have exact the same color. Seriously you should go to hollywood they will pay you bigtime.