Crop factor here to stay?

[x-ray]

My appologies

But I do detect a bit of "Im a pro and this is how it is..." in your post, which does not add any additional weight. (pros dont usually need to say that sort of thing!)

Best wishes

Richard

My initial response was a rebutal to the statement that there were problems with the edge sharpness of the FF chip in the Canons. I statd it was not the chip but due to the lens and pixel peeping at 12 inches from a 70 inch equivalent image is not a realistic evaluation of anything. Anyone throwing rocks at Canon, Nikon, Leica or whatever better have the story right. there's just to darn much misinformation floating around.

End of conversation.

 

[jaapv]

That is indeed the worst thing about digital. See the number of "backfocus"threads on LUF.

 

[jaapv]

Digital - Analog discussions allways tend to result in "heated" discussions.

each to his own I say, but cropped digital sensors do not provide a similar quality DOF or OOF as full frame, be it digital or film. It will produce some DOF/OOF but not similar to full frame.
I for one want optimal DOF/OOF it contributes my shooting style, for other like Jaap the DOF/OOF provided with a small sensor might be adaquate .... he apparantly is happy with it ... so fine

Happy is the wrong word. It is more that after far too many years of photography with <6x9, 6x6, 6x4.5, 4x4, 36x24, aps, 110, minox> formats, I tend to see this issue very relativistic....

 

[x-ray]

That is indeed the worst thing about digital. See the number of "backfocus"threads on LUF.

I'm not certain there's any more back focus than with film bodies. I think it's just that we're able to more closely examine the image than ever before. How many time in our life do we make 7o inch prints and examine them that close. Digital has made us more critical of lenses then ever before. This isn't all bad because it may drive manufactures to produce even better hardware.

 

[jaapv]

Indeed, that is what I meant to say. However, the inherent thickness of film may make it a bit more tolerant than the plane surface of a sensor.

 

[Richard Marks]

I gather from your post that you go around with a chip on your sholder anytime anyone says something about the M8 that you disagree with.

My initial response was a rebutal to the statement that there were problems with the edge sharpness of the FF chip in the Canons. I statd it was not the chip but due to the lens and pixel peeping at 12 inches from a 70 inch equivalent image is not a realistic evaluation of anything. Anyone throwing rocks at Canon, Nikon, Leica or whatever better have the story right. there's just to darn much misinformation floating around.

End of conversation.

Dearest Ray
I must appologise again if i have given you the impression that I have a "chip on my shoulder" regarding criticism of the M8. This is quite simply not the case. I merely point out that you persist in making a distinction between your opinion as a "professional" and other posters. Whether or not you are a "professional" or not and how the "pros" do it is not adding anything objective to an argument. I note that you do not wish to continue this conversation, and whilst I am sure that there is as you say, "a great deal of mis information floating around", we should at least consider ourselves fortunate indeed to have you here on this site, as a pro, sparing us your valuable time to put us in our propper place.
best wishes.
Richard

 

[photogdave]

I'm not certain there's any more back focus than with film bodies. I think it's just that we're able to more closely examine the image than ever before. How many time in our life do we make 7o inch prints and examine them that close. Digital has made us more critical of lenses then ever before. This isn't all bad because it may drive manufactures to produce even better hardware.

This is the number one cause of less experienced (avoiding the word amateur) photographers returning their lenses, and the unfortunate proliferation of "there are bad copies of lens X so buy several to test and keep the best one" threads on the internet.

 

[Toby]

I'm not certain there's any more back focus than with film bodies. I think it's just that we're able to more closely examine the image than ever before. How many time in our life do we make 7o inch prints and examine them that close. Digital has made us more critical of lenses then ever before. This isn't all bad because it may drive manufactures to produce even better hardware.

I think the issue is that digital had less depth of field because it behaves like a film that has a one molecule layer of emulsion, the thickness of film is such that the sharp area is slightly less sharp and goes out of focus more gradually as I understand it.


What I slightly take issue with is is the idea that full frame is somehow tougher on lens quality than smaller formats. Surely the current deciding factor is the level of enlargement from the sensor size. Historically speaking medium format and large format lenses have generally been less sharp than their 35mm equivalents they produce sharper pictures because of the smaller comparative enlargement factor for a large print. What we have now is full frame sensors that comparatively speaking have the same resolution as medium format but have to enlarged many more times to produce the same size print. The limiting factor is the lens. Surely APS sized sensors, despite the fact they use the sweet spot of a 35mm lens are put under even greater strain because the enlargement factor increases again. In the same way that high MP cameras are often a waste of time because the lens runs out of gas long before the sensor does.

I wonder how a mature technology like lens making will ultimately cope with this problem, my guess is as sensor technology advances MF sensors will be easier to make than 35mm lenses that can cope with the next generation of sensors.

 

[x-ray]

I think the issue is that digital had less depth of field because it behaves like a film that has a one molecule layer of emulsion, the thickness of film is such that the sharp area is slightly less sharp and goes out of focus more gradually as I understand it.


What I slightly take issue with is is the idea that full frame is somehow tougher on lens quality than smaller formats. Surely the current deciding factor is the level of enlargement from the sensor size. Historically speaking medium format and large format lenses have generally been less sharp than their 35mm equivalents they produce sharper pictures because of the smaller comparative enlargement factor for a large print. What we have now is full frame sensors that comparatively speaking have the same resolution as medium format but have to enlarged many more times to produce the same size print. The limiting factor is the lens. Surely APS sized sensors, despite the fact they use the sweet spot of a 35mm lens are put under even greater strain because the enlargement factor increases again. In the same way that high MP cameras are often a waste of time because the lens runs out of gas long before the sensor does.

I wonder how a mature technology like lens making will ultimately cope with this problem, my guess is as sensor technology advances MF sensors will be easier to make than 35mm lenses that can cope with the next generation of sensors.

I think you're on the money here. The only thing about FF sensors is they allow us to look into the extreme corners where most lenses suffer most.

I agree that the limiting factor is soon to be the lens and not the sensor. Lens resolution is bound by physical laws dependint on wave length of light. Once that point is reached then the resolution is at the maximum. APS sensors certainly put us closer to that limit.

You're very correct about MF and LF lenses being less sharp then 35mm and the saving grace being less enlargement to achieve the same print size.

I think another factor in critical focus at the edges is related to film flatness in the camera vs a totally optically flat sensor. Most lenses, particularly wides, have some degree fo filed curvature. Some of this is offset by the curvature of the film that doesn't exist in digital sensors.

FF sensors are essential for much of my current work. I do a great deal with the TSE lenses and particularly with the canon 24mm tse. Unfortunately there's no equivalent in any other make for small sensors. I'm also particularly fond of the 90 tse and Nikon has an 85mm tse as well but on the aps sensor it's about a 127mm equivalent. On the other hand the 1.5x is particularly good for sports and wild life shooters. Smaller, less expensive and faster lenses for the aps size sensors achieve relatively the same result as larger more expensive lenses for FF.

 

[Toby]

FF sensors are essential for much of my current work. I do a great deal with the TSE lenses and particularly with the canon 24mm tse. Unfortunately there's no equivalent in any other make for small sensors. I'm also particularly fond of the 90 tse and Nikon has an 85mm tse as well but on the aps sensor it's about a 127mm equivalent. On the other hand the 1.5x is particularly good for sports and wild life shooters. Smaller, less expensive and faster lenses for the aps size sensors achieve relatively the same result as larger more expensive lenses for FF.

I'm wondering how the digital Pentax 645 is going to turn out - that might work well with the Pentax 67 75mm shift lens.
At the moment I'm experimenting with offering a bespoke portrait service shot with my pentax 67 (The world and his wife are shooting digital and portraiture in my market is getting very 'samey') and I'd love to have a digital system that had a MF signature wide aperture work on canons just isn't quite the same.

 

[x-ray]

I'm wondering how the digital Pentax 645 is going to turn out - that might work well with the Pentax 67 75mm shift lens.
At the moment I'm experimenting with offering a bespoke portrait service shot with my pentax 67 (The world and his wife are shooting digital and portraiture in my market is getting very 'samey') and I'd love to have a digital system that had a MF signature wide aperture work on canons just isn't quite the same.

I think we'll se a MF digital system in the 10K range in the not too distant future. Just speculation but the pricing of the MF digitals have dramatically dropped and the quality has made major leaps. I've been looking at the H3D with a 31mp back recently. Don't know if i will do it but the pricing is very attractive. Now the complete camera with the 80mm and 31mp back is just slightly over what the 22mp back was a year ago. Imacon introduced the 17mp square back for the V series a year or so ago and at the time it could be picked up new for just over what the 1DsII cost. The big problem was the 1.5x though. The technology is there now and the prices are getting relatively reasonable too. The MF backs certainly deliver stunning images but for the quantity of really large images that I shoot I'm not certain whether the economy would be there vs shooting film and scanning like I do now. I guess if I had it i would use it more. Clients are demanding larger and larger files now that they're used to digital. This is one of the reasons i don't think the M8 would be any real value in my business. When I give clients an option on file size 90% of the time they say "give me the largest you got". I have a project that's starting that is on 4x5 and possibly 8x10 and will be scanned to 2 gig files. It is portraits for a museum so scannin backs are out.