Is Full-Frame really a better way to shoot?
Sep 10, 2017 16:09:00 #
More diffraction, more vignetting ... more exposure inaccuracies ... who needs it?
Sep 10, 2017 16:10:39 #
To reply to your question, as opposed to your opinion, definitely yes.
--Bob
--Bob
ChrisT wrote:
More diffraction, more vignetting ... more exposure inaccuracies ... who needs it?
Sep 10, 2017 16:17:58 #
you need to explain yourself better is this what you get when shooting ff or are you as I suspect generalizing for no real purpose.
ChrisT wrote:
More diffraction, more vignetting ... more exposure inaccuracies ... who needs it?
Sep 10, 2017 16:22:21 #
Sep 10, 2017 16:22:43 #
Sep 10, 2017 16:25:08 #
dandi
Loc: near Seattle, WA
rmalarz wrote:
To reply to your question, as opposed to your opinion, definitely yes.
--Bob
--Bob
, it is better in my experience.Sep 10, 2017 16:34:29 #
The value placed upon your photography is in the hands of others - the cost is in yours.
The difference between the systems: is entirely dependent upon your skills and opportunities.
Bit like life really
The difference between the systems: is entirely dependent upon your skills and opportunities.
Bit like life really
Sep 10, 2017 17:10:17 #
ChrisT wrote:
More diffraction, more vignetting ... more exposure inaccuracies ... who needs it?
What makes you think these things are true??
Diffraction depends on size of sensor pixels. FF has diffraction issues, compared to APS-C, at given aperture only when it has many more pixels than the APS-C camera does.
FF has vignetting only when using APS-C lens
I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about exposure inaccuracies.
Sep 10, 2017 17:13:10 #
Sep 10, 2017 17:38:56 #
ChrisT wrote:
More diffraction, more vignetting ... more exposure inaccuracies ... who needs it?
I must be doing something wrong. I'm not getting any of that stuff!
Come to think of it, I do not notice any increase in vignetting or exposure inaccuracies when I examine the images captured with my medium format film camera either. Use the correct lens hood, learn how to interpret the exposure meter readings, and these problems can be avoided.
Sep 10, 2017 17:42:07 #
Sep 10, 2017 17:45:46 #
Sep 10, 2017 17:48:10 #
You're incorrect when it comes to the diffraction part. It's like rehess said above, it's the size of the pixels that has a bearing on that. I pulled up the Cambridge in Colour diffraction calculator. I selected 24 megapixels for a 1.5X crop sensor camera and a for full frame camera. The full frame camera is going to have larger pixels and is not affected by diffraction as soon when stopping down the aperture.
Sep 10, 2017 17:54:44 #
jerryc41 wrote:
FX is .5 better than DX. )
Good one! You recently purchased the miracuolous DSLR training course twice so you could be twice as good as the next guy.
Sep 10, 2017 18:54:35 #
ChrisT wrote:
More diffraction, more vignetting ... more exposure inaccuracies ... who needs it?
To your title's question - unquestionably!
For a host of reasons that if you have any experience with, for if you had, you would likely not be posting this question along with your inaccurate statements about diffraction, vignetting. And completely incorrect statement about exposure inaccuracies, which are entirely photographer-based in every case. Just sayin'
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.