Full frame "look" alternatives for X Pro-1

[GaryLH]

As I said.. Dof specific looks are not my thing.. Not ignoring it.. Just not the reason I got the speedbooster.

Gary

 

[rivercityrocker]

I wanna get a speed booster for my Bronica SQAi lenses. You think they could squeeze it down to APS-C and get my 50mm f/2.8 down to an f/0.7?

 

[NicoM]

there is no such a thing as full frame look, or aps-c look or p&s look. these illusions are created by gear-addicts who will believe any voodoo in order not to feel bad about their spending habits.

don't take my word for it, get a SD card go to a decent camera store and do your own tests.

photography is a science, if one cannot prove an idea empirically then that idea is false... the photoshop lens blur is not an idea but an actuality and its not meant to be used like a heavy dose of blur, its all about nuance and not destroying the image reality and of course its 'real'. ff look and aps-c look and p&s look is an 'idea'.

The look that I was referring to has nothing to do with the color, sharpness, contrast or any of that stuff. What I was referring to was the relationship between angle of view and field of view, which is science.

For example, an 80mm f2.8 on medium format and a 50mm f1.4 of full frame are supposed to have very similar DoF and field of view (the amount that you see in the frame) if you shoot a subject that's x distance away, yet they have a different "look". The MF shot is usually given the characteristic of being "more 3D". This is because although they'll have the same amount of DoF and framing is the same, the 80mm will still give you a narrower angle of view compared with the 50mm. The narrower angle will make it look as if the background is pushed futher back even though they technically have the same amount in focus.

To get the MF look with full frame, people often resort to stitching images together as you can achieve a narrow angle of view while getting a lot in the frame.

 

[Paul T.]

there is no such a thing as full frame look, or aps-c look or p&s look. these illusions are created by gear-addicts who will believe any voodoo in order not to feel bad about their spending habits.

don't take my word for it, get a SD card go to a decent camera store and do your own tests.

photography is a science, if one cannot prove an idea empirically then that idea is false...

i'm sorry, but that statement is patently nonsense.

A lens of a particular focal length, gathering a certain amount of light and projecting it onto a certain size sensor has a unique set of characteristics. Other 'equivalent' setups may well be similar enough to exhibit minimal differences - but are not the same.

 

[Spyro]

For example, an 80mm f2.8 on medium format and a 50mm f1.4 of full frame are supposed to have very similar DoF and field of view (the amount that you see in the frame) if you shoot a subject that's x distance away, yet they have a different "look". The MF shot is usually given the characteristic of being "more 3D". This is because although they'll have the same amount of DoF and framing is the same, the 80mm will still give you a narrower angle of view compared with the 50mm. The narrower angle will make it look as if the background is pushed futher back even

I dont think that last statement is correct. I think the magnification of the backround in the photo will be identical in both cases (if I understood correctly and that's what you're talking about?)
but happy to be proven wrong, if you can demostrate 🙂

 

[NicoM]

I dont think that last statement is correct. I think the magnification of the backround in the photo will be identical in both cases (if I understood correctly and that's what you're talking about?)
but happy to be proven wrong, if you can demostrate 🙂

I may be wrong as well, but that's how I've always looked at it.

 

[nongfuspring]

The look that I was referring to has nothing to do with the color, sharpness, contrast or any of that stuff. What I was referring to was the relationship between angle of view and field of view, which is science.

For example, an 80mm f2.8 on medium format and a 50mm f1.4 of full frame are supposed to have very similar DoF and field of view (the amount that you see in the frame) if you shoot a subject that's x distance away, yet they have a different "look". The MF shot is usually given the characteristic of being "more 3D". This is because although they'll have the same amount of DoF and framing is the same, the 80mm will still give you a narrower angle of view compared with the 50mm. The narrower angle will make it look as if the background is pushed futher back even though they technically have the same amount in focus.

To get the MF look with full frame, people often resort to stitching images together as you can achieve a narrow angle of view while getting a lot in the frame.

You're talking about DOF again, not a specific "look" that different that is intrinsic to a particular format. I think what you're wanting to say is that OOF areas in larger format cameras fall away at a more hyperbolic rate than on a smaller format, but that isn't the case, bokeh is proportional to distance, the relationship (regardless of lens or sensor size) is linear. Some lens/sensor combinations have steeper rates of focus loss in and out of the plane of focus, and others have flatter - any one of the variables (sensor size, aperture, lens length) can be compensated for by the other variables.

It's so often mentioned online about certain format "looks", which is basically a myth - not to mention never actually explained empirically by people who claim to appreciate it. Certain lenses have different characteristics, certain lens designs are better suited to certain relative focal lengths, and different sensors have different qualities, but the format itself isn't the sole factor in deciding if and how things go out of focus.

 

[NicoM]

You're talking about DOF again, not a specific "look" that different that is intrinsic to a particular format. I think what you're wanting to say is that OOF areas in larger format cameras fall away at a more hyperbolic rate than on a smaller format, but that isn't the case, bokeh is proportional to distance, the relationship (regardless of lens or sensor size) is linear. Some lens/sensor combinations have steeper rates of focus loss in and out of the plane of focus, and others have flatter - any one of the variables (sensor size, aperture, lens length) can be compensated for by the other variables.

It's so often mentioned online about certain format "looks", which is basically a myth - not to mention never actually explained empirically by people who claim to appreciate it. Certain lenses have different characteristics, certain lens designs are better suited to certain relative focal lengths, and different sensors have different qualities, but the format itself isn't the sole factor in deciding if and how things go out of focus.

That interesting. I've never gotten a real explanation, which is why I went with what I knew. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[FA Limited]

i find the Canon 6D files way better than the X-E1 files that I have. Does that mean I believe in the full frame look? 😉

 

[NicoM]

i find the Canon 6D files way better than the X-E1 files that I have. Does that mean I believe in the full frame look? 😉

I find the Fuji files to be closer to Nikon than to Canon. I'd describe it as more analytic. I find Canon files to be "creamy" (in a good way). Not sure if my adjectives make sense 😛