Pro-photographers, time to reconsider

wilonstott said:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_ii

Look at the description of the 5DmkII on the manufacturer's website.

See how they use the term "Full Frame."

You know why? You know what that refers to? You know what it means?

Of course you do. It means the sensor is the size of a 35mm frame of film.
Click to expand...


That's what one would expect from a manufacturer whose dSLRs' EOS system are exclusively under the 35mm umbrella.


If I look at Delta's website, they wouldn't need to qualify "flights" as those made with airplanes. Although one might find it funny to read somebody go and say "do you know what 'flights' means? it means they transport you with planes. there's no way that 'flights' means you go up or down the stairs" 😉
 
As far as I know, it came the moment main brand camera manufacturers started using the APS format and kept the same mount for their 35mm lenses, which carried over when they ported the same format specs over to their first dSLRs.
 
shadowfox said:
I think this article is worth spreading.
The author listed five reasons pros ought to reconsider their reservation against 4/3rd system.

What I like about the article is that it's not preachy, but it gets down to the facts and considerations.

http://blog.giuliosciorio.com/?p=550

What does it say to non-pros?

Discuss.
Click to expand...

hmmm. not true.

the article is about the MICRO 4/3 system!

4/3 and MICRO 4/3 are different lens mounts !

Stephen
 
wilonstott said:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_ii

Look at the description of the 5DmkII on the manufacturer's website.

See how they use the term "Full Frame."

You know why? You know what that refers to? You know what it means?

Of course you do. It means the sensor is the size of a 35mm frame of film.

Why is there debate over the definition of "Full Frame"?

It has a clear and set definition--which issues forth from the industry itself. It's not effing up for debate--it's a manufacturing distinction.

It doesn't mean Medium Format digital---we call that "Medium Format" digital.

It doesn't mean 4/3rds--we call that "4/3rds"

That's the Equivocal fallacy --some of you may not have looked that up, or know exactly what that means either--in that case--here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
I think you'll find that it fits, although I'm sure some of you will disagree, and then we can fight about what color the sky is.

Also, I said there are distinct advantages to FF. They are--IQ from larger sensors, DOF (big one), use of wide angles, legacy lenses, and overall system strength (lens options, accessories, and future viability).
Click to expand...

Hmmm..because "full frame" is an arbitrary distinction? Anyway , the guy in the article was talking about full frame as "the full frame of a 4/3 sensor."

We call 35mm "full frame" now, but when it first came out, the Leica was called a "miniature camera. "Full frame" was something a Speed Graphic had.

Re IQ: Not so sure about that. I think the guy's point in the article is well taken. Once you get beyond a certain number of pixels on a sensor (I've heard 10MB or thereabouts), the top end # of pixels is really bragging rights. Kinda like dissing someone's car because it only tops out at 110 MPH, while yours will go to 130. No one's really going to drive at those speeds--or need to. Same with sensor MBs.

Don't get your beef about DOF. Yeah, you probably get more DOF out of a 4/3 lens, because it's effectively half the focal length of a 35mm lens. But so what? when I shoot, I'm HAPPY to have all the DOF I can get--works for landscape, and useful in concert work, if people are bouncing around on stage. But don't worry--open up , as I have to do in low light, and you can still get great shots isolating a main subject against a nice bokeh background. Or, in daylight, kick up the shutter speed and open up--or use ND filters--and same thing....

I don't get your comment about wide angles, and the apparent lack of a camera system. Shoot with an 11-22mm on my E-3 (that's 22mm at the wide end, in 35mm terms), and everything looks fine.

And as to the lack of a supposed system: well with the E-3, I have a 14-35 zoom, and a 35-100 zoom, which, with a 2x teleconverter, give me an effective 35mm focal length range of 28 to 400mm--pretty good for most situations. AND these lenses are F2 constant apertures--just what I need for a lot of the work I do. And they didn't cost all that much as compared to Nikon and, um, Canon equipment. One more reason I went with Olympus and 4/3...

Given the way technology goes, it's likely that one day 4/3 WILL be considered as full frame. And then we'll probably be arguing whether 6/4 or whatever comes along then is any good because "it's not really full frame".

And I won't argue with you about the color of the sky. Everybody knows it's really cyan...
 
good gosh, whats the furor over the meaning of 'full frame'??!! for the several decades before digital came on the scene, the prevailing consumer/journalist format was 35mm. no one called it FF because there was no NEED to do so. they did however call some cameras that put 2 images on a single 35mm frame 'half frame', like the orig PENS and that funky boxey ricoh.

then out came digital, then digital upon whose mounts one could put 35mm filmoriented legacy glass. however, when doing so, that favorite 35mm lens no longer gave one the FOV it had when they took it off their maxxum. so the phrase 'crop cam' was born! lo and behold, question became 'crop as compared to what?'. well, as compared to FULL FOV image you'd get using the same lens on 35mm film cam. Full Frame is born! a phrase simply derived from having to define the marriage of the prevailing dominant format to the new kid on the block.

who cares? we all know what it means: it means 'compared to 35mm'. as definitions and meanings do evolve, it will mean something else when 35mm is no longer relevent. but since it still is very much relevent, thats what it now means.
tony
 
why should the push be towards smaller sensors?

smaller bodies? smaller circuits? sure. but why would you want the sensor to be smaller?

the promise of smaller, better lenses never materialized to the degree the marketers hyped. the truth is that if you're willing to spend enough money you can get medium format lenses that are good as the better 35mm lenses, and at the same enlargement factors

why not have a 4/3 size body with a 35mm sensor? if the register difference is so short, and they make the sensor right and use good software then they can use symmetrical lenses.

"just as good" almost always means it's NOT just as good. Just my 2c.
 
'the promise of smaller better lenses never materialized'? tell that to my summicron-c 40/2 that doubles as a thumble; or to its even smaller cousin the cv 25/4. how much smaller than the nokton 35/1.4, 40/1.4, summaron 35/3.5 etcetcetc do we want?
 
rbelyell said:
'the promise of smaller better lenses never materialized'? tell that to my summicron-c 40/2 that doubles as a thumble; or to its even smaller cousin the cv 25/4. how much smaller than the nokton 35/1.4, 40/1.4, summaron 35/3.5 etcetcetc do we want?
Click to expand...

these lenses all cover the full 35mm image circle.

I was referring to the promise of m4/3rds lenses delivering the highest resolution and in a smaller package. sure there are some really nice m4/3rds lenses, and some even have irreproachable performance, but they really aren't that small.
 
rbelyell said:
then out came digital, then digital upon whose mounts one could put 35mm filmoriented legacy glass. however, when doing so, that favorite 35mm lens no longer gave one the FOV it had when they took it off their maxxum. so the phrase 'crop cam' was born! lo and behold, question became 'crop as compared to what?'. well, as compared to FULL FOV image you'd get using the same lens on 35mm film cam. Full Frame is born! a phrase simply derived from having to define the marriage of the prevailing dominant format to the new kid on the block.
Click to expand...

I don't think I buy that. I doubt that is what the manufacturers had in mind. I doubt they were planning on people using a lot of legacy lenses on the new digital cameras. They expected to sell new lenses that worked well with the new camera technology. Adapters for legacy lenses probably was an afterthought.

If what I said above is true then your statement about aps-c and 4/3 or m4/3 ruining legacy WA glass is wrong. Nobody expected to be used that way. Also, if you are not using the higher quality legacy lenses on crop sensor cameras then the cropping doesn't hurt much ans the best part of those lenses images is in the middle. The poorer part is cropped out in camera.
 
it has nothing to do with 'cropping not hurting much'. its not an IQ issue its a FOV issue. and it applies even if you buy a 35mm lens made for 'crop' cam: its still 53mm FOV! it has nothing to do with what manufacturers wanted, it had to do with a shotgun marriage between film and digital that changed the prevailing understanding of FOV, and thus led to the concommitant necessity to define terms, the essential question being 'crop as compared to what?' answer: compared to a fullframe FOV, the one everyone was used to having with 35mm film cams.

as for small m4/3 glass, the panny 14 and 20, both outstanding, are pancakes, as is the olly 17, so i dont know how much smaller you can get than a pancake. the 14-42 zooms are about the size of a ping pong ball--standing up the lens cap of any slr 28-80 would equal them in vertical size. i'm not sure what folks are looking for!
 
rbelyell said:
its a FOV issue. and it applies even if you buy a 35mm lens made for 'crop' cam: its still 53mm FOV
Click to expand...
True that the focal length doesn't change if the lens was designed for the crop camera.

However it is not a FOV issue. If you want a 100mm lens to get its full FOV then you buy a FF digital. If you you are fine with the crop then you buy a smaller format. How can it be an issue when you know what you are getting with each format when you buy the camera? The only issue are people (not necessarily you) pulling comparison arguments out of thin air.

This is no different than 35mm vs 120/220 vs large format in film. Each have advantages and disadvantages, and except for the FF comment in the blog it has nothing to do with the point of the article.

My opinion, whether you making living with photography or it's a hobby, is use what you like and meets your needs. If meeting your needs means shooting what the client demands in equipment then a) do it, b) get other clients or c) change your current client's minds.
 
Come to think of it 828 film had a 28X40 mm 'full' frame size on 35mm wide, non perforated, paper backed rolls. That's closer to a Leica S2's 30X45mm frame. Who would want those dinky 24X36 full frame cameras from Nikon and Canon when you can have a super full frame S2.
 
There are those who buy their cameras and learn how to use them; there are those who buy (or rent) cameras according to their suitability for particular jobs; and there are those who just buy cameras.

Cheers,

R.
 
redisburning said:
why should the push be towards smaller sensors?

smaller bodies? smaller circuits? sure. but why would you want the sensor to be smaller?

the promise of smaller, better lenses never materialized to the degree the marketers hyped. the truth is that if you're willing to spend enough money you can get medium format lenses that are good as the better 35mm lenses, and at the same enlargement factors

why not have a 4/3 size body with a 35mm sensor? if the register difference is so short, and they make the sensor right and use good software then they can use symmetrical lenses.

"just as good" almost always means it's NOT just as good. Just my 2c.
Click to expand...

Redisburning: Why a push toward smaller sensors? Moore's Law, for one.

And why a smaller sensor? Smaller, lighter cameras, for one. Hey, wasn't that one of the big selling points of the Leica when it first came out? Anything that moves that ball further down the field is all right by me. If you've ever spent a day hauling around a bag of Nikon Fs and lenses, you'll appreciate smaller, lighter cameras.

As to your comments about lenses, I think another commenter has answered that. But taking your position to its logical extreme, then maybe we should all still be using view cameras and lenses, because after all, smaller doesn't necessarily mean that much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom