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

[Nick Hughes]

​I don't agree. It's a big difference in the end if you add it all up. It's just very subtle that's why people can't define it but see that something is different/nicer/better looking.

Producing bigger digital sensors than FF is still a big deal, same with better lenses than what it is now.

​Fair. At the end of the day, practicality is what makes the difference. If it's important to your work to have that subject isolation and all the other things that are associated with the 'FF look,' then it makes sense to go with FF over a smaller sensor size, even if you could theoretically match it with another lens. The converse is true as well, if, for example, you really value deep DOF. 

[jcs]

I 'took the sensor size challenge' and used the equivalence math to match the settings for different sensor sizes: full frame vs. Super 35. The predictions by the math were correct: there was no substantial different in looks. The goal was to learn if there really was something unique about the full frame sensor size and the images it could create. While there are differences, there's nothing unique. So there's no point saying 'the full frame look'. Shallow DOF, deep DOF, bokeh character, artifacts (good or bad), are all better in describing what we are seeing or trying to achieve in terms of looks. That said, if there is some kind of unique character that can be measured or defined with any size sensor: m43, Super 35, full frame, medium format, large format, then we can compare cameras as long as they are matched with the equivalence equations to examine the unique differences.

We're already on the same page regarding lens availability for desired looks. Full frame is certainly useful for the variety of options currently available. However smaller cameras are understandably becoming more popular- more options are becoming available all the time.

If one disagrees and knows of examples where the theory isn't true- the ball is in your court: you can share the images so we can learn what those unique traits are. Lots of folks are disagreeing but not providing any evidence to support their position.

[tomekk]

I 'took the sensor size challenge' and used the equivalence math to match the settings for different sensor sizes: full frame vs. Super 35. The predictions by the math were correct: there was no substantial different in looks. The goal was to learn if there really was something unique about the full frame sensor size and the images it could create. While there are differences, there's nothing unique. So there's no point saying 'the full frame look'. Shallow DOF, deep DOF, bokeh character, artifacts (good or bad), are all better in describing what we are seeing or trying to achieve in terms of looks. That said, if there is some kind of unique character that can be measured or defined with any size sensor: m43, Super 35, full frame, medium format, large format, then we can compare cameras as long as they are matched with the equivalence equations to examine the unique differences.

If one disagrees and knows of examples where the theory isn't true- the ball is in your court: you can share the images so we can learn what those unique traits are. Lots of folks are disagreeing but not providing any evidence to support their position.

​As you said it's the whole system and + what Nick said: what you want to use it for. For example,  LF absolutely destroys smaller systems in terms of creative freedom it gives with perspective manipulation which is a key for architectural photography, imho
MF destroys smaller systems on wide end, imho. 

I look at it from a different point of view. Pro's strive for the best - which is at extreme ends where no-one else can match it. I definitely would if I was one. I wouldn't buy LF for shooting flowers in my garden ;). As for MF goes FF can't touch it when you want for example beautiful environmental portraits. Try taking that with 85mm 1.2 for beautiful rendition of people and environment at the same time. You can't. It's too long on FF and if you go wider you get distortion, it's subtle but picture just looks nicer. Have you heard of MF feel ? ;). Now check out MF with equivalent lens.
There is this brenzier method which tries to mimic MF where you stich a lot of frames grabbed with long lens on FF (don't remember, but it's something like 30+ stitched frames from 85mm 1.4 or 1.2):

Well, it's a nice attempt and probably as close as you can get on FF but obviously there is too much background compression. On MF you would have same FOV with much better sense of depth.
Just examples. 

[jcs]

​As you said it's the whole system and + what Nick said: what you want to use it for. For example,  LF absolutely destroys smaller systems in terms of creative freedom it gives with perspective manipulation which is a key for architectural photography, imhoMF destroys smaller systems on wide angle end, imho. 

I look at it from a different point of view. Pro's strive for the best - which is at extreme ends where no-one else can match. I definitely would if I was one. I wouldn't buy LF for shooting flowers in my garden ;). 

 

​For higher resolution, right now medium and large format appear to be better. For tilt-shift like options, they appear to have decent options as well (there are tilt-shift options for full frame too). This may not always be true: the human eye shoots around 600Megapixels with a fairly small sensor. Part of the pro camera world is the psychology of the client. Bigger, more impressive, and better looking cameras appear to open the client's wallet further. Luc Besson's DP for Lucy hadn't considered the Sony F65 (and apparently much of the pro cinema world) because it is "an ugly camera". Only after testing it against the other top cameras did they choose to use it because they liked the look of what it shot better. They couldn't even rent it (not popular enough)- they had to purchase two of them.

If MF and LF destroy full frame & smaller- where is the side-by-side comparative evidence to support the assertion? Without a side-by-side same-scene shot, with cameras set up as close as possible for equivalence, we can't make a useful comparison.

Here's a good shot at matching full frame to medium format: the results match the math predictions: http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/midfmt_eng.htm. He notes the images are basically equivalent.

Medium format helps with resolution (with film anyway)- the resolution advantage is diminished as smaller sensors get more photosites (remember the human eye does around 600Mpixels- there's lots more room for tech to improve with small sensor resolution).

[tomekk]

FF tilt shift is a TOY in comparison to what LF gives you. Read up on it. I don't own them all to give you side-by-side comparison unfortunately. Ansel Adams is one evidence though . I'm assuming a lot of highly regarded photographers don't use them just for kicks too .

 

 

 

 

[tomekk]

Here's a good shot at matching full frame to medium format: the results match the math predictions: http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/midfmt_eng.htm. He notes the images are basically equivalent.

 

​This is very flawed test. It tests basically one condition (although I don't have time to read it thoroughly at all). I can test iphone photo vs LF and conclude the same thing

[jcs]

FF tilt shift is a TOY in comparison to what LF gives you. Read up on it. I don't own them all to give you side-by-side comparison unfortunately. Ansel Adams is one evidence though . I'm assuming a lot of highly regarded photographers don't use them just for kicks too .

 

​LOL, we're getting off topic. Google can provide evidence- I found an example showing equivalence between FF and MF- have you found any that shows MF (or large format) have distinct looks that can be attributed only to sensor size? (not specialized lenses, which could someday become available in other formats).

[tomekk]

​LOL, we're getting off topic. Google can provide evidence- I found an example showing equivalence between FF and MF- have you found any that shows MF (or large format) have distinct looks that can be attributed only to sensor size? (not specialized lenses, which could someday become available in other formats).

I agreed the whole system matters, not only sensor size. The thing is there is no equivalent system to LF now, same with MF vs FF.

[Nikkor]

Oh lol, seriously. I will quote from this topic in the near future.

[jcs]

I agreed the whole system matters, not only sensor size. The thing is there is no equivalent system to LF now, same with MF vs FF.

​There is- you just need to set both cameras up for equivalence, as in this example: http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/midfmt_eng.htm

Here is my test with Super 35 and full frame, along with simplified math: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

More detail on the math & physics here: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

And a physically simulated camera matching full frame to large format: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?334046-The-Full-Frame-Look-is-a-Myth-Here-s-how-to-Prove-it-to-Yourself&p=1986521948&viewfull=1#post1986521948

It is possible to compare- using math & camera settings, or via simulation. Sensor size does not determine any specific look in any of these cases. Example images with cameras side-by-side set up for equivalence are needed to provide evidence otherwise.

[tomekk]

​There is- you just need to set both cameras up for equivalence, as in this example: http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/midfmt_eng.htm

Here is my test with Super 35 and full frame, along with simplified math: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

More detail on the math & physics here: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

And a physically simulated camera matching full frame to large format: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?334046-The-Full-Frame-Look-is-a-Myth-Here-s-how-to-Prove-it-to-Yourself&p=1986521948&viewfull=1#post1986521948

It is possible to compare- using math & camera settings, or via simulation. Sensor size does not determine any specific look in any of these cases. Example images with cameras side-by-side set up for equivalence are needed to provide evidence otherwise.

​If you set them up at overlapping settings. There are settings where they diverge, thus the systems are not equivalent overall at this point in time and space. Right? I am not talking about sensors only as I said before and don't disagree with that at all.

[jcs]

​If you set them up at overlapping settings. There are settings where they diverge, thus the systems are not equivalent overall at this point in time and space. Right? I am not talking about sensors only as I said before and don't disagree with that at all.

​All we are saying is that the sensor size does not by itself create a unique look. Sure, different formats have different strengths & weaknesses, the point of the current discussion is that sensor size alone does not create a unique look- there's no such thing as the FF look, MF look, or LF look (no one has posted any evidence to the contrary).

[Nikkor]

Jcs the math used in vray, and also in common used dof formulas is a simplification. Format size does change the way dof works. I know this for a fact, you can read it in wikipedia (good luck with the messy article),I will not give any prove myself. You can write all kind of stuff, the day you find the answer it will be funny overcoming your ego. 

Just do your self a favour and stop calling it a myth cause it makes you look kind of ...

[tomekk]

​All we are saying is that the sensor size does not by itself create a unique look. Sure, different formats have different strengths & weaknesses, the point of the current discussion is that sensor size alone does not create a unique look- there's no such thing as the FF look, MF look, or LF look (no one has posted any evidence to the contrary).

​FF look never meant to me that I'm shooting with sensor only without lens attached to it and without other things of the system taken into consideration. If it was only about the size... why do you even buy something bigger than smallest sensor available?
 

[jcs]

Jcs the math used in vray, and also in common used dof formulas is a simplification. Format size does change the way dof works. I know this for a fact, you can read it in wikipedia (good luck with the messy article),I will not give any prove myself. You can write all kind of stuff, the day you find the answer it will be funny overcoming your ego. 

Just do your self a favour and stop calling it a myth cause it makes you look kind of ...

Math was used to set up the cameras- the proof is in the real-world images. So far no one has provided real-world images which show that the full frame look is unique or real.

What's a better word than 'myth' to describe something that isn't real? Mythbusters is a pretty popular show...

Bringing up ego is ad hominem in debate. If this was about ego, no requests would be made to show a counter point, right? Ego is about selfishness, not willing to help others, no search for truth that benefits everyone. Is tenacity in a search for truth ego? Challenging the status quo definitely involves egos. I'll be the first to thank and appreciate anyone who can demonstrate with images from real cameras that the full frame look is real- and what exactly the unique properties are! Then we can move on to medium format

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

JCS, Trust me, it's a never ending argument of "You can get FF look with S35 vs. But it's easier and doable with FF, so it's a unique FF look vs no it's not because it can be replicated with right lenses, no it can't because there is a 3mm 1.2 FF Canon L lens and it has no equivalent vs no but you can build a 1.5mm 0.9 lens just as easily, but it's not available already so this lens is a FF look, but no this is not the point it's not technically a FF look it's just a lens design that can be replicated  

 

 

and then a few will agree with you and trash FF saying shallow DOF is for amateurs m43s, go JCS, and you'll go no that's not what I meant, then another will say no it's not shallow DOF it's about DR-Resolution-lowlight performance then we'll say but this is not exclusive to FF and many smaller sensor outperform them in these, then the odd guy will come saying no the FF look is about perspective and background/foreground and shooting a 100mm is entirely different perspective than 50mm then well say no it's not

 

 

 

 

You know what, let's just say, if you have a specific set of lenses that are designed for fullframe and you like that specific look then choose FF because it will give you the edges of these lenses and their entire aesthetic,

 

and if you're starting out from scratch then keep in mind that FF doesn't "necessarily" give a shallower dof or aesthetic as you can get equivalent lenses for the smaller sensors (Which is the good advice we can give people now based on JCS facts) so choose based on the system price whether it will be cheaper to get your wanted aesthetic either way, and based on other characteristics of each camera other than DOF. 

 

This discussion and the facts given by JCS do render FF slightly less important for many who are buying it just because they believe it's an entire different loom and those staying away from m43s cameras because they think they can never possibly get a similar look. 

 

Plus remember the Speed boosting thing, it takes the FF lens and makes it an equivalent s35 lens, so it shows how an identical s35 lens with the same aesthtic could have been built by the manufacturer by just putting a couple of rear elements, again making FF slightly less important. 

 

The FF importance will keep shrinking as they industry keeps making these lens conversion optics, making fast wide s35/m43s (even by just putting SB elements o the back of FF lenses) and while small lens sensors continue to improve performance in resolution, DR, noise, and even outperforming their FF equivalents now. But until then, there's is a place for FF since there isn't an identical copy of each FF for s35/m43s format. Perhaps soon there will be but not yet, it's getting closer, 

[jcs]

Good points Ebrahim.

I reviewed the Brenizer Method, and recall a friend using this technique. It's about using a smaller format camera with limited lens options to achieve... shallower depth of field as is possible with larger formats and current lenses. If the looks we're referring to are only about shallow DOF, we can build a chart/table/interactive database which shows the continuum of DOF possibilities with current sensor sizes and lenses. This would help people mix & match cameras, focal reducers, and lenses to provide the shallow DOF they are looking for within their budget and available technology. This DOF simulator is helpful: http://dofsimulator.net/en/ . Perhaps there's more that include available lenses.

[Nikkor]

Bringing up ego is ad hominem in debate. If this was about ego, no requests would be made to show a counter point, right? Ego is about selfishness, not willing to help others, no search for truth that benefits everyone. Is tenacity in a search for truth ego? Challenging the status quo definitely involves egos. I'll be the first to thank and appreciate anyone who can demonstrate with images from real cameras that the full frame look is real- and what exactly the unique properties are! Then we can move on to medium format

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

I brought up your ego because you seem to have a personal need to believe that format size doesnt matter.

[SleepyWill]

Format size does change the way dof works. I know this for a fact 

 

​Does it though? Do this thought experiment with me. Go into your darkroom, rig up some clamp stands and clamp a lens into one. Peek it through your curtains, then set up a piece of white paper inside, the proper distance from the lens, so the lens is projecting it's image circle onto the piece of paper. Notice it's depth of field characteristics. With me so far? Good. Now change the piece of paper for a differently sized piece of paper. Notice how drastically the depth of field of your lens has not changed.

So now that we have established beyond any doubt that the size of the sensor does not change the optical characteristics of a lens, what we are left talking about is this: If we change the lens to a different lens, will it have the same depth of field . This is trickier to think about (Please note jcs has already shown you the following absolutely working in practice) So let's think about two lenses on your rig now, both projecting images next to each other onto two pieces of paper. They are two identical copies of the same zoom lens. These perfect specimens of theoretical lenses do not exhibit any variance in their pincushion or balloon distortion through their range, just for now. You set one lens to focal length fa and aperture aa. You set the other lens to focal length fb and aperture ab. The images projected are different, right? We know for certain that aperture affects depth of field in a linear predictable way, so it makes sense that we can equate the ratio of depth of fields. As it turns out, depth of field is inversely proportionate to the diameter of the lens opening. Which leads us to the following equation, for our two perfect lenses:

DOFa/DOFb = db/da where d is diameter and DOF is Depth of Field.

So for any given depth of field, at any aperture, we can match that depth of field with the other lens. Will they be projecting the same image, no, one is magnified. What is that ratio of magnification? Well, again it turns out that changing the angle of view changes the depth of field in a linear predictable way and again, this shows a direct proportional relationship, which is:

DOFa/DOFb = la/lb

We have an equivalence:

db/da = la/lb

So for any given depth of field, there turns out to be a linear predictable relationship between the angle of view (which is of course a function of sensor size and magnification) and the diameter, such that you can, with simple maths show the difference in angle of view.

So what does this establish, that given a perfect lens, you can match the depth of field on any different sensor size by merely adjusting both aperture and zoom.

As jcs already showed you yesterday.

No-one disputes that different lenses have optical differences, but that is not what this thread is about, it's about sensor size. You have just been proven correct, that format size (angle of view) does indeed change the depth of field, but because it is a linear, predictable change, and because aperture also changes depth of field with a linear, predictable change, then given any fixed depth of field on two fixed sensor sizes with known focal lengths, perfectly matched to fix an angle of view, you can work out the aperture to set your lens at to give that depth of view on any sized sensor.

So please stop with the personal attacks, it is making you look really really bad. If I, jcs et al are wrong, then you can attack our arguments with logic and wisdom, rather than calling into question our motives and calling us names.

[Nikkor]

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