Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 98

Thread: wedding photographer

  1. #21

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    As for "As for ISO performance, you'll get better ISO performance from an APS-C D7000 than from a full-frame D3X - so it really depends on the sensor."

    Did you actually touch and the camera and shoot at least 50 pictures with it? I do and I can tell you D7000 that is arguably best DX camera right now still 1 stop of ISO lag behind fullframe
    Last edited by Yahooo; 23rd September 2011 at 12:42 AM.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Thomas More's Vision
    Posts
    627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo
    As for "As for ISO performance, you'll get better ISO performance from an APS-C D7000 than from a full-frame D3X - so it really depends on the sensor."

    Did you actually touch and the camera and shoot at least 50 pictures with it? I do and I can tell you D7000 that is arguably best DX camera right now still 1 stop of ISO lag behind fullframe
    Really? Considering that D3x has 24.5 megapixels? And D7000's ISO would be worse than that and that of Sony A900?

  3. #23

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    you sound like you are the smartest person here. it's proven:

    ================D7000============================

    Focal length (mm) : 50
    Selected f-stop : 1.4

    Subject distance 5 m

    Depth of field
    Near limit 4.73 m
    Far limit 5.3 m
    Total 0.56 m

    In front of subject 0.27 m (47%)
    Behind subject 0.3 m (53%)

    Hyperfocal distance 88.4 m
    Circle of confusion 0.02 mm



    ==============D700==============================

    Focal length (mm) : 75mm
    Selected f-stop : 1.4

    Subject distance 5 m

    Depth of field
    Near limit 4.82 m
    Far limit 5.19 m
    Total 0.37 m

    In front of subject 0.18 m (48%)
    Behind subject 0.19 m (52%)

    Hyperfocal distance 132.7 m
    Circle of confusion 0.03 mm

    Source: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

    Thank you for proving my point. You compared 50mm to 75mm. As I stated, you would need to change your positioning. Try comparing both at 50mm, as the DOF created by a 50mm lens at f1/4 is the same regardless of APS-C or FF thanks to the laws of physics. You would need to change your DISTANCE to the subject as you now have a FOV that LOOKS like 75mm on APS-C to match the subject frame size of the same 50mm on a full frame camera - that is what changes the DOF. The focal length of the lens itself never changes.

    I am not the smartest here, but your "proven" arguments are based on misconceptions that are easy to disprove.
    Last edited by Rashkae; 23rd September 2011 at 08:45 AM.
    Alpha

  4. #24

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    As for "As for ISO performance, you'll get better ISO performance from an APS-C D7000 than from a full-frame D3X - so it really depends on the sensor."

    Did you actually touch and the camera and shoot at least 50 pictures with it? I do and I can tell you D7000 that is arguably best DX camera right now still 1 stop of ISO lag behind fullframe
    Yes, I have shot with both. And the D3S. When you say "lag behind fullframe", you never mention WHICH full frame camera, which shows how ill-conceived your arguments are. There is a HUGE difference in high ISO performance between a D3S and a D3X, which are both full frame cameras. And yes, a Pentax K-5 or a D7000 will be "cleaner" at high ISO than a D3X, but not a D3S.

    Have you ever tried shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 with a full frame Canon EOS 1Ds? Hint: You can't, because it maxes out at ISO 1250!!
    Last edited by Rashkae; 23rd September 2011 at 08:50 AM.
    Alpha

  5. #25

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Thank you for proving my point. You compared 50mm to 75mm. As I stated, you would need to change your positioning. Try comparing both at 50mm, as the DOF created by a 50mm lens at f1/4 is the same regardless of APS-C or FF thanks to the laws of physics. You would need to change your DISTANCE to the subject as you now have a FOV that LOOKS like 75mm on APS-C to match the subject frame size of the same 50mm on a full frame camera - that is what changes the DOF. The focal length of the lens itself never changes.

    I am not the smartest here, but your "proven" arguments are based on misconceptions that are easy to disprove.
    Your point about shooting at different distances are completely irrelevant. It's not the same as shooting fullframe at the same distance and crop. You move closer perspective changes, DOF changes. Everyone knows that. This is the reason why Macro photography has so shallow DOF. Simply because the distance to subject is too SMALL. Besides, I didn't make this up:

    "...When the “same picture” is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, and the final images (e.g., in prints, or on a projection screen or electronic display) are the same size, the smaller format has greater DOF...."

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

  6. #26

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    with lenses that give the same angle of view,
    That's the caveat. That statement essentially says that comparing a 75mm lens on a FF to a 50mm lens on an APS-C will mean the APS-C has greater DOF, which is perfectly correct, just as shooting the 75mm on the APS-C would give you the same thinner DOF expect a different perspective.

    However, what I am stating is that given the same lens, same focal length, the DOF is THE SAME whether you are on APS-C or FF. The difference is that on FF you need to get closer (change the distance) to get the same subject-frame ratio as the cropped camera provides, thus changing the DOF.

    Distance is NOT irrelevant. For you to claim that shows how little of the links you post you actually understand.
    Alpha

  7. #27

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    Your point about shooting at different distances are completely irrelevant. It's not the same as shooting fullframe at the same distance and crop. You move closer perspective changes, DOF changes. Everyone knows that. This is the reason why Macro photography has so shallow DOF. Simply because the distance to subject is too SMALL. Besides, I didn't make this up:

    "...When the “same picture” is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, and the final images (e.g., in prints, or on a projection screen or electronic display) are the same size, the smaller format has greater DOF...."

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
    FYI, the quote you posted from Wiki backs up my statement. It contradicts yours though. So you continue to prove my point, thanks!

    The Circle of Confusion cast by a lens will NOT magically change just because the sensor is a different size. Only the perceived perspective does because of crop.
    Alpha

  8. #28

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Yes, I have shot with both. And the D3S. When you say "lag behind fullframe", you never mention WHICH full frame camera, which shows how ill-conceived your arguments are. There is a HUGE difference in high ISO performance between a D3S and a D3X, which are both full frame cameras. And yes, a Pentax K-5 or a D7000 will be "cleaner" at high ISO than a D3X, but not a D3S.

    Have you ever tried shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 with a full frame Canon EOS 1Ds? Hint: You can't, because it maxes out at ISO 1250!!
    Oh yeah. D3X is too expensive for me to even try. Maybe my judgement about D3X solely based on what I've come across over the Internet. However I've tried D90, D7k which I own, D700, Sony A850, Canon 5D Mk II. I didn't even bother to shoot at ISO higher than 3200 with D7000 because at ISO 1600 the noises in shadow area are already too obvious that can be annoying without a little noise reduction. Based on this comparison http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ig-three.shtml

    "From ISO 1600 to ISO 6400 the Canon 5D MKII and the Nikon D3x are neck and neck. I think that the visible differences on-screen at I00% are a quibble, and on prints are completely irrelevant.", you are saying that D7000 is better than 5D MK II?

    Also, you mentioned Canon EOS 1Ds which is ridiculous when I'm comparing cameras of the same brand. And you never mentioned which 1Ds, if you implied 1Ds MK IV, I'm pretty confident that it's better than D7000, even 5D MK II. And yes, D7k easily beats Sony A850 which I doubt if it's even as good as D90 at high ISO. Sony is notorious for weak high ISO handling.
    Last edited by Yahooo; 23rd September 2011 at 10:27 AM.

  9. #29

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    FYI, the quote you posted from Wiki backs up my statement. It contradicts yours though. So you continue to prove my point, thanks!

    The Circle of Confusion cast by a lens will NOT magically change just because the sensor is a different size. Only the perceived perspective does because of crop.
    You are just being stubborn. My proof is already solid enough. Your point of comparing at different distances is ridiculous. Yes, sensor not is the only factor that affects DOF. Distance to subject is one of them. Ever wonder why PnS cameras can't give the shallow DOF look that bigger sensors cameras give? It's the sensor size!
    Last edited by Yahooo; 23rd September 2011 at 10:30 AM.

  10. #30

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    By the way, the same link also agrees with me:

    "If pictures taken from the same subject distance are given the same enlargement, both final images will have the same DOF. "

    (enlargement = focal length of the lens)
    Alpha

  11. #31

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    You are just being stubborn. My proof is already solid enough. Your point of comparing at different distances is ridiculous
    You are the stubborn one. Your "proof" has done nothing but undermine your own arguments and support mine. You have NO PROOF of your arguments, but SOLIDLY support mine. Thanks!
    Alpha

  12. #32

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    Oh yeah. D3X is too expensive for me to even try. Maybe my judgement about D3X solely based on what I've come across over the Internet. However I've tried D90, D7k which I own, D700, Sony A850, Canon 5D Mk II. I didn't even bother to shoot at ISO higher than 3200 because at ISO 1600 the noises in shadow area are already too obvious that can be annoying without a little noise reduction. Based on this comparison http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ig-three.shtml

    "From ISO 1600 to ISO 6400 the Canon 5D MKII and the Nikon D3x are neck and neck. I think that the visible differences on-screen at I00% are a quibble, and on prints are completely irrelevant.", you are saying that D7000 is better than 5D MK II?

    Also, you mentioned Canon EOS 1Ds which is ridiculous when I'm comparing cameras of the same brand. And you never mentioned which 1Ds, if you implied 1Ds MK IV, I'm pretty confident that it's better than D7000, even 5D MK II. And yes, D7k easily beats Sony A850 which I double if it's even as good as D90 at high ISO. Sony is notorious for weak high ISO handling.
    No, you are comparing "full frame vs. APS-C". Brand will NOT matter as per your arguments that "full frame will always be better than aps-c at high ISO" as you are making a totally baseless blanket statement unsupported by any caveats. You are the one who came up with a total blanket statement of saying APS-C will not beat full frame for high ISO. You never mentioned which full frame camera, etc. What I am telling you is that it depends. Is a D7000 cleaner at high ISO than some full frame cameras? YES, by YOUR OWN admission. So once again, thank YOU for supporting my argument and undermining your own.
    Last edited by Rashkae; 23rd September 2011 at 10:33 AM.
    Alpha

  13. #33

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    No, you are comparing "full frame vs. APS-C". Brand will NOT matter as per your arguments that "full frame will always be better than aps-c at high ISO" as you are making a totally baseless blanket statement unsupported by any caveats. You are the one who came up with a total blanket statement of saying APS-C will not beat full frame for high ISO. You never mentioned which full frame camera, etc. What I am telling you is that it depends. Is a D7000 cleaner at high ISO than some full frame cameras? YES, by YOUR OWN admission. So once again, thank YOU for supporting my argument and undermining your own.
    LOL. Did I ever say "APS-C will not beat full frame for high ISO" ?. You are just putting words in my mouth. My assessment of D7000 vs Sony A850 already proves that =)
    Last edited by Yahooo; 23rd September 2011 at 10:40 AM.

  14. #34

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    You are the stubborn one. Your "proof" has done nothing but undermine your own arguments and support mine. You have NO PROOF of your arguments, but SOLIDLY support mine. Thanks!
    LOL. you keep repeating this without proof to support your arguments. My point has been made. Everyone can see for themselves. I'm done wasting my time with you =))

  15. #35

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    LOL. Did I ever say "APS-C will not beat full frame for high ISO" ?. You are just putting words in my mouth. My assessment of D7000 vs Sony A850 already proves that =)
    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    I do and I can tell you D7000 that is arguably best DX camera right now still 1 stop of ISO lag behind fullframe

    There ya go. Words out of your own mouth.
    Alpha

  16. #36

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    LOL. you keep repeating this without proof to support your arguments. My point has been made. Everyone can see for themselves. I'm done wasting my time with you =))
    I posted the proof of my arguments FROM THE LINKS YOU YOURSELF provided. You, on the other hand, have just posted links that prove my points and disprove your own.

    Yes, please stop wasting everyone's time with your nonsense and spreading your misconceptions and blanket statements. Your point has been made and disproven by your own "proof".
    Alpha

  17. #37

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    There ya go. Words out of your own mouth.
    Be logical. Obviously I was talking about cameras made by Nikon Corporation Mr

  18. #38

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    Be logical. Obviously I was talking about cameras made by Nikon Corporation Mr
    Nope. You made a blanket statement. It was me who was pointing out to you that you need to be specific.
    Alpha

  19. #39

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    I posted the proof of my arguments FROM THE LINKS YOU YOURSELF provided. You, on the other hand, have just posted links that prove my points and disprove your own.

    Yes, please stop wasting everyone's time with your nonsense and spreading your misconceptions and blanket statements. Your point has been made and disproven by your own "proof".
    My point has been made that comparing at different distances is incorrect and unfair. You, on the other hand keep dismissing my points without any solid proof. You are just making fun of yourself.

    I repeat my point again:

    "...When the “same picture” is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, and the final images (e.g., in prints, or on a projection screen or electronic display) are the same size, the smaller format has greater DOF...."

  20. #40

    Default Re: wedding photographer

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahooo View Post
    My point has been made that comparing at different distances is incorrect and unfair. You, on the other hand keep dismissing my points without any solid proof. You are just making fun of yourself.

    I repeat my point again:

    "...When the “same picture” is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, and the final images (e.g., in prints, or on a projection screen or electronic display) are the same size, the smaller format has greater DOF...."
    And I repeat my point again, from the SAME LINK you provided:

    "If pictures taken from the same subject distance are given the same enlargement, both final images will have the same DOF. "

    Your statement means that the focal length of the lens is changed to give the same angle of view, i.e. 1.5 crop for example. That's exactly what I've been saying. Read clearly from your excerpt: "with lenses that give the same angle of view". This is not the same as "same focal length", which is referenced as "enlargement" in the article.

    Given the SAME distance and the SAME focal length, the DOF is THE SAME, except that the APS-C camera only gives you a centre crop.

    *if* you change the distance so that FF gives the same angle of view as the APS-C equivalent would, *then* the APS-C gives greater DOF - which your own statement agrees with.

    In other words, you have been posting links that prove my point. Thanks!
    Last edited by Rashkae; 23rd September 2011 at 10:54 AM.
    Alpha

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •