PDA

View Full Version : FF lens on a crop body


Graham_of_Rainham
22nd December 2015, 11:36 PM
The answer to why your kit lens can be a lot better than expensive "FF" glass.

http://youtu.be/YDbUIfB5YUc

pdk42
22nd December 2015, 11:48 PM
Oh no - not Northrop!! Run away, run away!!

Kiwi Paul
23rd December 2015, 07:49 AM
Interesting video but I think it's a bit simplified and there are other factors to consider that will affect the overall quality of a shot.

Paul

Bikie John
23rd December 2015, 09:52 AM
Oh dear, I had to stop at about 2 minutes because the poor chap appears to be suffering from an advanced case of scrotal tonsillitis.

John

Petrochemist
23rd December 2015, 08:54 PM
Oh dear, I had to stop at about 2 minutes because the poor chap appears to be suffering from an advanced case of scrotal tonsillitis.

John
I managed much the same, it was quite long enough to notice errors, but it was the presentation that drove me away.

I use quite a few FF lenses on crop cameras. I've hes some of them much longer than any of the bodies, and others have been cheaper than crop equivalents.

pdk42
23rd December 2015, 09:06 PM
The guy's a prize dick. Don't fall for his click bait! I watched some excrement he did once on equivalent aperture and he was just talking junk.

Sorry - am I being too extreme? The guy just winds me up!

David M
23rd December 2015, 10:21 PM
The guy's a prize dick. Don't fall for his click bait! I watched some excrement he did once on equivalent aperture and he was just talking junk.

Sorry - am I being too extreme? The guy just winds me up!

So your normal Internet 'expert'

Otto
23rd December 2015, 11:19 PM
I couldn't cope with him for long either, but I have heard in the past that some large format lenses with good reputations don't work so well on smaller formats. It makes sense - larger format negatives don't need so much enlargement for a given print size so negative detail in terms of dots per inch doesn't need to be so high.

In these days of digital photography however, software can correct a lot of optical deficiencies. My mFT 9-18 isn't especially good in the corners either but DxO Optics Pro 10 sharpens it up considerably and reduces the CA compared to the out-of-camera JPG.

drmarkf
24th December 2015, 12:26 AM
This video is a mix of reasonable points leavened with utter bollocks.

He's talking 100% bilge about the effective aperture of crop sensor lenses being reduced compared to FF in terms of light gathering (although not depth of field, where he's correct). An f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens: that's how the number's calculated.

He then explains nicely how he's got it wrong by going on to talk about light gathering of crop sensor cameras effectively concentrating the light on a smaller sensor: precisely, squire.

He needs to learn that physics always works the same in both directions,

Anyway, I lost the will to live after a few more minutes, but what the hell are Percieved Pixels? I don't think they are explained, and if you don't do that then the whole thing's meaningless.

I am deeply sceptical about DXO. If you look at their lens scoring tables you'll see that the most expensive FF lenses score best, followed down the sensor scale: so, the 40-150 Pro scores about as highly as a cheap standard kit zoom from Canikon. Now, that is also utter bollocks in terms of the perceived sharpness of the resulting images, and I can prove that by posting any number of images from my own 40-150 and the 70-200 f2.8 VRII Nikkor I used to own.

Bed time, I think...

Harold Gough
30th December 2015, 05:19 PM
I use almost exclusively Full Frame lenses, several of them Large Format, on m4/3.

Harold

alfbranch
30th December 2015, 05:46 PM
Please define Full Frame?

Harold Gough
30th December 2015, 05:55 PM
Please define Full Frame?

Lens designed to have an image circle for film or sensor of a given format, usually 36 x24mm film.

Harold

alfbranch
30th December 2015, 06:04 PM
Lens designed to have an image circle for film or sensor of a given format, usually 36 x24mm film.

Harold
Ah that bullshit.

So what would 6X6 cm or 10X8 inch formats.


Well actually 4/3 is full frame IMO as the lenses were designed for frame size not a bigger one likev35 mm.

pvasc
30th December 2015, 06:23 PM
Please define Full Frame?

8X10...hope I learned something from Mr McGilicuddy.

pvasc
30th December 2015, 06:30 PM
I always listen to him, entertaining if nothing else. I agree with all posts, and can't help but wonder if he ever figured out the the rattle in the Sigma 19mm was because the elements float unless powered by the camera? But he really shows his stuff when he tries convincing people that FF @ F4 gathers four times the light as 4/3 does at F4! I love that one. The only argument to that is of course it does the sensor and lens is bigger, but the light is the same relatively speaking, (F4 is F4 no matter).

pvasc
30th December 2015, 06:32 PM
Ah that bullshit.

So what would 6X6 cm or 10X8 inch formats.


Well actually 4/3 is full frame IMO as the lenses were designed for frame size not a bigger one likev35 mm.
That is my understanding, if the image circle covers the sensor then it is or can be considered FF. I think DM was referring to true FF from the old days.

Petrochemist
30th December 2015, 06:33 PM
8X10...hope I learned something from Mr McGilicuddy.
IIRC 10x8 is actually slightly bigger than 'whole plate' there are of course larger formats available too.
Due to it's widespread usage in the latter half of last century 35mm does seem to be a reasonable standard to pick. It only adds confusion to claim 4/3 is more than full frame 110...

David M
30th December 2015, 06:43 PM
IIRC 10x8 is actually slightly bigger than 'whole plate' there are of course larger formats available too.
Due to it's widespread usage in the latter half of last century 35mm does seem to be a reasonable standard to pick. It only adds confusion to claim 4/3 is more than full frame 110...

Whole plate was 8 1/2" × 6 1/2" IIRC.

Mdb2
30th December 2015, 06:59 PM
I did watch these on utube. I must admit that the section that dealt with DOF was interesting, the part where he showed the window panes in the background of his wife's portrait was more prominent in the 4/3 format than FF.
Kind regards mike

drmarkf
30th December 2015, 09:36 PM
I did watch these on utube. I must admit that the section that dealt with DOF was interesting, the part where he showed the window panes in the background of his wife's portrait was more prominent in the 4/3 format than FF.
Kind regards mike

Sure, it's not completely rubbish, just some of it :D

He's a very plausible fellow: the sort of person who's now dodging prosecution for causing the 2008 financial crash, methinks.

Graham_of_Rainham
30th December 2015, 11:25 PM
So much is written on these issues, that one can easily follow the "wrong guru" :rolleyes:

When all else fails, what does Ken Rockwell say :confused:

*chr

Petrochemist
31st December 2015, 11:18 AM
When all else fails, what does Ken Rockwell say :confused:


'All else' NEVER fails that badly! ;)

drmarkf
31st December 2015, 11:44 AM
'All else' NEVER fails that badly! ;)

Ha!

You can rely on Ken for two things: he always has an opinion; and some of them are correct.

Harold Gough
31st December 2015, 04:06 PM
Ah that bullshit.

So what would 6X6 cm or 10X8 inch formats.



I have a lens with an image circle of 66mm, irrelevant when in normal use but invaluable when tilted.

Harold

Graham_of_Rainham
31st December 2015, 04:40 PM
Unfortunately what has become known as "Full Frame" has become so in the same way as Hoover became used for a vacuum cleaner.

Equally unfortunate, is the often held belief that possession of FF kit, somehow confers quality on the images.:rolleyes:

Whole Plate is often mistakenly considered as Full Frame, but that too is not the case.

A reference to various sizes of film, plate, etc., is here (http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/sfs.html) but there are many many more...

Ricoh
31st December 2015, 08:43 PM
Yeah, but most of us think of FF in terms of 35mm, especially when talking about digital.
I have both U4/3 and 35mm FF, and both are good at what they do. I'm so shocked with the FF stuff that I think I'm doing something wrong in LR, so little adjustment required and the image file is so maliable with little or no noise even at high ISO. That's not to say I don't respect the U4/3 for what it does.

Harold Gough
1st January 2016, 08:04 AM
Yeah, but most of us think of FF in terms of 35mm, especially when talking about digital.
I have both U4/3 and 35mm FF, and both are good at what they do. I'm so shocked with the FF stuff that I think I'm doing something wrong in LR, so little adjustment required and the image file is so maliable with little or no noise even at high ISO. That's not to say I don't respect the U4/3 for what it does.

The trouble with generalisations is that, generally, they are not very useful. :D

Harold

pdk42
1st January 2016, 09:42 AM
Let's face it, there's no substitute for square millimetres so far as image quality is concerned (given a comparable generation of sensor technology). However, bigger sensors bring bigger bodies, bigger lenses, challenges with shallow DOF, are harder to image stabilise and generally cost more.

Having said all that, the image quality from u43 is more than good enough for 90+% of what I use my camera for and I really do appreciate the small form factor. But be honest - who wouldn't love to see an Olympus FF system (FF = 24x36, a de facto definition of the term)?

Horses for courses.

But that dick Northrop - argghhh!

Harold Gough
1st January 2016, 10:36 AM
Let's face it, there's no substitute for square millimetres so far as image quality is concerned (given a comparable generation of sensor technology). However, bigger sensors bring bigger bodies, bigger lenses, challenges with shallow DOF, are harder to image stabilise and generally cost more.

Having said all that, the image quality from u43 is more than good enough for 90+% of what I use my camera for and I really do appreciate the small form factor. But be honest - who wouldn't love to see an Olympus FF system (FF = 24x36, a de facto definition of the term)?

Horses for courses.

But that dick Northrop - argghhh!

Just a guess but I suspect that Olympus are making a their mistakes on the current range before launching a FF and matching lenses.

Harold

drmarkf
1st January 2016, 11:52 AM
I've recently bought a Sony A7S from a friend, with the intention of replacing my Fuji X100T for street photography, especially at night, and also to use my small collection of classic full frame lenses better (Zuikos and others).

There's no way this is going to replace my Oly system for most general photography, but it does have some strong, specific advantages, and if you want useable street images at 12800 ASA or to use a 21mm Zuiko as a wide angle lens, there's no other way to do it.

I agree 100% that in normal lighting conditions the amount of processing needed to get a punchy image is minimal and the dynamic range is noticeably greater, but it would be surprising if otherwise.

The Sony is actually slightly smaller than the E-M1 although it is heavier, and I'm currently mainly using it with a Zeiss 35mm f2.8 which is about the same size as the PanLeica 25 f1.4 but again heavier. However, there's virtually no good native telephoto glass available for the system, so even if you could carry a pro-standard 100-400mm f4 there isn't one.

Interestingly there are a lot of rumours around the Sony forums that a new manufacturer is just about to announce lenses for the FF E-mount, with Olympus being the front runner. So that would fit well, I think. Reinventing the digital Zuiko 35-100 f2 and 300 f2.8, plus a teleconverter, for the Sonys would be amazing. You'd just need a sack truck, or a slave, to carry them!

Ricoh
1st January 2016, 12:42 PM
You want to try something like a 50mm/ f1.4 on 35mm FF, or even an f1 or f0.95. It's enough to blow your socks off!

pdk42
1st January 2016, 03:05 PM
You want to try something like a 50mm/ f1.4 on 35mm FF, or even an f1 or f0.95. It's enough to blow your socks off!

Well, I dunno. I had a Canon 5dii before I bought into u43 and I had the 50/1.4. It was OK, but really nothing special. I reckon the Noc 42.5 f1.2 is a better lens - significantly sharper wide open and with similar DOF - although you do need to step back a bit to have the same framing of course.

Ricoh
1st January 2016, 03:24 PM
Well, I dunno. I had a Canon 5dii before I bought into u43 and I had the 50/1.4. It was OK, but really nothing special. I reckon the Noc 42.5 f1.2 is a better lens - significantly sharper wide open and with similar DOF - although you do need to step back a bit to have the same framing of course.
I was thinking Leica M glass when I wrote that earlier. Something special about their optics, and they're designed to be used wide. There's no benefit paying £5k or more for a .95 and use it at f2.8, may as well buy an f2.8.

Graham_of_Rainham
1st January 2016, 03:41 PM
<snip>... that dick Northrop - argghhh!

I'm starting to think you don't like him... :D

*chr

Ricoh
1st January 2016, 03:45 PM
Who is this dick called 'Northrop' or is it 'Dick Northrop' ? Either way, who is he?

drmarkf
1st January 2016, 03:47 PM
I was thinking Leica M glass when I wrote that earlier. Something special about their optics, and they're designed to be used wide. There's no benefit paying £5k or more for a .95 and use it at f2.8, may as well buy an f2.8.

There's a lot of useful-looking information around on using classic glass with the Sony A7 series: I haven't yet got round to trying this much, beyond the OM Zuiko 24mm f2.8 which is a winner (as it is on the E-M1 of course, where it becomes a very useful and compact '50mm-ish'. I've also had very good preliminary results with my Rokkor 58mm f1.2, but mainly at the moment I'm getting to know it with the Sony-Zeiss 35mm f2.8 auto - there's a lot to try, including getting the focus peaking and magnification right. It's quite different from the Oly menus and performance we all know and love (well, tolerate, anyway :D )

One of the issues with the Sonys is that they've got a thick sensor stack, which leads to vignetting and colour casts with some non-native FF lenses. I assume this relates to the angle of exit from the rear element. Hence you can't just assume that any old lens will work, especially wide angles. I do know the Tr-Elmar 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH is OK, but I doubt I'll be affording it!

I've got a Voigtlander 50mm f1.1 in Leitz M mount that I'm keen to try, but haven't got round to yet.

Certainly the DoF thrown by the 1.2 Rokkor at full aperture on the Sony is a marvel (frankly it's difficult enough to use on the E-M1, although middle-distance shots take on a unique presence, with fantastic subject isolation, so I am looking forward to trying it more).

Ricoh
1st January 2016, 03:56 PM
A lot of M users speak highly of the Voigt 50/f1.1 and it's available at a fairly keen price by comparison.
Sounds like you've dabbled with the M system yourself, or did you buy it with a view for adapting for the Sony?

Graham_of_Rainham
1st January 2016, 04:08 PM
I'm seeing yet another "trend" in the use of fast lenses, producing precariously shallow depth of field. Subject isolation can work very well, but has its place in photography along with all the other genre and "niche" styles. Used too often it can become somewhat cliché.

With some sub f/1.0 lenses on FF bodies having a DoF of around 20mm, working with this limitation, can be quite tricky. We now have focus stacking to overcome the limited DoF of some lenses, so it would be somewhat amusing to see that used to offset the issues with a very fast lens.

Ricoh
1st January 2016, 04:18 PM
The trend with paper-thin DoF does come and go, just like the ability to nail the focus point. But when it's done correctly, it's quite startling to see the results.

Thorsten Von Overgaard uses a 50/0.95 regularly, but there's no way of knowing his percentages.

pdk42
1st January 2016, 04:29 PM
Who is this dick called 'Northrop' or is it 'Dick Northrop' ? Either way, who is he?

He's an annoying American photo blogger. Smug, ill-informed. Worse than Ken Rockwell by a mile. I won't recommend you go look at his videos - that'll only gain him the clicks and in any case I wouldn't want to inflict him on the unsuspecting!

drmarkf
1st January 2016, 05:18 PM
A lot of M users speak highly of the Voigt 50/f1.1 and it's available at a fairly keen price by comparison.
Sounds like you've dabbled with the M system yourself, or did you buy it with a view for adapting for the Sony?

I've got 2 M-mount lenses - a Leitz Elmar 135mm that I inherited from my father and the f1.1 Voit I picked up maybe 3 or 4 years ago when I spotted a s/h one in pristine condition in one of the LCE stores during a sale. I've used them occasionally on OMDs, mainly for garden photography, and I'm looking forward to getting a bit more value from them at their native magnification.

More recently I also got an 'R' 90mm f2.8 Summicron from a well-known classic Leica dealer while on a trip to Germany, and likewise I hope to get more use from it now. R-mount lenses are fantastic value now, and some of them are just as optically good as Ms and have had very little use because the Leitz reflex body series died out.

After I get the hang of the Sony for street work, and as long as this goes well, I'm tempted to swap the Sony-Zeiss auto f2.8 35mm for the new Zeiss f2 Loxia manual 35mm, which apart from its faster aperture seems to have much better optics. This would then make a nice, quality manual pairing with the 90mm R-Summicron.

Jim Ford
1st January 2016, 05:58 PM
The professionals where I worked used Nikon F1s with f1.4 for the standard lens. They never shot wide open as the lenses were too soft. The sole advantage of the fast lens was for ease of focussing.

Jim

Ricoh
1st January 2016, 06:12 PM
I use the summicron 35/f2 for street work and sometimes zone focus or otherwise guess the distance. RF are not particularly brilliant in a dynamic street scenario, but I'm practising my technique trying to speed-up response using a combination of the focussing tab and muscle memory, well what's left of it. In trapper mode it's much easier of course, pre-focus, wait and snap.
I'm told the price of 'R' lenses increased when the M240 came out, due to live view and the ability to adapt to the M camera.

I'm not sure if it's of help to you, but a non-tabed lens can simply be modified with one of these: http://www.lenstab.com/