TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I’m using 25GB and 100GB Verbatim. I buy them off Amazon from whoever has the best deal.

Cheers,
Chris

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
Be sure to look at the high ISO chart for the bodies you’re comparing under the graph.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

For hardware I purchased the ASUS drive; for software I got Nero 2016; All Discs purchased from Amazon -- As for the discs themselves -- 4.7 GB are Verbatim & the 25GB are M-Disc BD
All disc purchases are based on PRICE

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Unless it’s a low light situation (indoor sports, weddings, churches, concerts...) in addition to landscapes which comprise a fair percentage of many (but of course not all) photographer’s work.

BTW, I use my “little” APS Fuji for travel where weight is more important than ultimate performance. Horses for courses - whatever is the best tool for the job at hand - sometimes it’s a Japanese pull saw, sometimes a table saw.

tomcat

Thanks. I looked at all 3 of my Nikons and I was glad to see that the D3s was about the same DR as the D750 in the higher ISO ranges, >1200, that I use the D3s in----almost exclusively for low light in gyms or award ceremonies. At ISO's below 800, I use the D750 because of the weight and the better DR of course.

epd1947

Larger sensor size does not determine depth of field - at least directly. There are only three (3) things that do - aperture, camera to subject distance and focal length of the lens in use. Here is a simple experiment that can be done to prove the point. Place a subject a fixed distance from your camera - decide on a focal length to use as well as the aperture to be used. Now capture that image with a full frame camera. Changing only to a crop sensor body (not changing camera to subject distance, focal length or aperture) take another photo. How will the images differ? The image taken with the crop sensor camera will result in your subject being more prominent in the frame and will contain less of the surrounding area than in the image captured with the full frame body. Now study the main subject and objects closer to as well as farther from the camera in both images - you will clearly see that the depth of field in both images is exactly the same - the size of the sensor did not change the dof because we locked in the only three parameters that do.

So why do we have people still saying that the size of the sensor controls depth of field - it is actually because in trying to create the same framing of an image we need to either use a longer focal length lens on the full frame sensor camera, if we keep the same camera to subject distance - or - if we want to keep the same focal length we need to move closer to the subject when using the full frame body versus the crop sensor body to achieve the same image framing - using a longer focal length lens or moving in closer does result in less depth of field, all else being equal - so the best we can say is that sensor size affects our choice of focal length and/or camera to subject distance to achieve similar framing - so it is an indirect component only.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The DOF changes because the CoC (circle of confusion) changes.

Canon 7D (crop) 55mm, f8, 10ft. DOF=3.08ft


Canon 5D3 (FF), 55mm, f8, 10ft. DOF = 5.03ft.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

For an equivalent field of view of the crop body, the FL of the FF would be ~88mm:

5D3 (FF) 88mm, f8, 10ft. DOF=1.82ft.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

You really see that come into play (DOF) when you compare 35mm to 70mm

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Fully aware.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Check any DoF calculator and you'll find that the the crop sensor will have LESS DoF, not more, when all that you change is the sensor size.

Viewing distance of the print also figures into DoF, as does image magnification.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

A lens is a lens is a lens - the sensor size does not change the optical characteristics of any particular lens at a given focal length - the lens spits out an image at a predetermined distance from the lens onto the focal plane (sensor) - when in focus. Imagine a hypothetical digital camera with interchangeable backs - M43, APSC, FF, MF...assume the lens can cover at least the largest sensor (MF) and that the sensor is centered on the optical axis of the lens...focus the image on the focal plane. Now change the backs - rotate through the different size sensors...does the change of the backs alter the image in any way (except for cropping of course)....does this make sense?

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

I have 2 full frame cameras one with 11 mega pixels and another FF with 21 mp's and then a 10 mp 1.3 crop.
For me, I like the idea of bigger pixels. Quality over quantity.

gwilliams6

Thanks

Crombie

Another aside is depth of focus. While isolating a subject with shallow focus is effective and FF certainly has an edge here, but for landscapes the benefits of foreground to infinity in critical focus is very welcome. The FF shooter to obtain this is forced to use small apertures with the attended image degradation... sounds like the image quality advantage has vanished. Add to this if say a shutter setting of 1/60 is needed the FF shoot wanting identical depth of focus vs MFT has to use a small aperture will have to the boost ISO... another IQ issue.