Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Size matters
Page <prev 2 of 9 next> last>>
Nov 29, 2018 09:05:29   #
AlfredU Loc: Mooresville, NC
 
I think the pot just called the kettle black.

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 09:14:05   #
DaveC1 Loc: South East US
 
Actually the smaller the format the larger the depth of field not the other way around.

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 09:20:17   #
Low Budget Dave
 
Size of sensor matters, but not so much that I would give up an all-around camera to get it.

As far as the current quality of landscape photography declining, I disagree. One of the links I would use to show examples of current amateurs producing great results with normal cameras:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-5-1.html

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2018 10:07:03   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
DaveC1 wrote:
Actually the smaller the format the larger the depth of field not the other way around.


Depends on whether we mean for same subject distance or same FOV.
Courtesy DOFMaster: for the same subject distance and aperture, larger format = greater DOF. Now if you, move closer with the FF to get the same field of view as the crop, then the result changes.

Canon 5D3 (Full Frame)
Canon 5D3 (Full Frame)...

Canon 7D (crop)
Canon 7D (crop)...

5D3 at 6 ft (~same FOV as crop at @10’)
5D3 at 6 ft (~same FOV as crop at @10’)...

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 10:24:31   #
duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa
 
rook2c4 wrote:
Surely you must be joking. Those are horrible examples of landscape photography. Everything drowned in candy colors. Nothing looks real. That's fantasy photography, not landscape photography.


Looks good to me. You see what we have here is a failure to understand you have personal tastes that differ from others and vice versa.

Those examples are not horrible and the man is probably making a living doing so. It is Fine Art landscape photography.

As for the OP I say prove it or show us examples and many here can show you just as good examples. Comparing large format to digital is like comparing apples and oranges anyway.

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 10:29:21   #
AlfredU Loc: Mooresville, NC
 
Yeah, that's the way I learned it too.

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 10:31:52   #
duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa
 
AlfredU wrote:
Wow, "And we kind of got off the topic of size matters. I thought the OP made an interesting and somewhat thought provoking comparison. Again, my opinion.


He did conclude in the final comment landscape photography has gotten worse so I believe the other posts are on topic.

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2018 10:35:36   #
DaveC1 Loc: South East US
 
TriX wrote:
Depends on whether we mean for same subject distance or same FOV.
Courtesy DOFMaster: for the same subject distance and aperture, larger format = greater DOF. Now if you, move closer with the FF to get the same field of view as the crop, then the result changes.


What your neglecting here is that the focal length of the lens and the format "Play together" in the overall picture. For instance a 25mm lens in a 4/3 format is roughly equivalent to a 50 mm lens in 35mm or ff. And that is roughly equivalent to a 75mm lens in 6X6cm. Once you take those differences into account the smaller the format the greater the DOF for an equivalent image. You can't hold the lens focal length constant and get comparable images when moving between formats.

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 10:41:14   #
nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY
 
Bipod wrote:
Smaller format:
Pros--
* Faster lenses (for a given angle of view, e.g.,, a "normal". lens)
Cons--
* More diffraction (for a given f/stop)
* Fewer usable f/stops
* Less maximum depth-of-field (e.g. for a "normal" lens)
* Smaller sensor/film area = less resolution possible

Larger format:
Pros--
* More "pixels"
* Less diffraction (for a given f/stop)
* Higher resolution (for both the above reasons)
* More usable f/stops (for a given angle-of-view lens, e.g, a "normal" lens)
* Hence, capable of greater depth-of-field
Cons--
* Slower lenses (for a given type, e.g., "normal".)

Choices available right now range from 1"x1" digital sensor to 8" x 10" film
(80 times more area). Tradtiionally, these are classified as:

Sub-minature format: below 36 mm x 24 mm
Minature format: 36 mm x 24 mm
Medium format: 120 film (several different frames)
Large format: 4" x 5" and above

You pay your money, you take your choice. There is no single "best" format--
it depends on subject, lighting, location, your style and how you intend to display
or print the image. But the limitations of any given format are real: format matters.

Unfortunately, medium format digital cameras start at about $4500 with DSLRs
starting at about $5000 (body only). That's unaffordable for most photographers.
And large format digital cameras (4" x 5" and larger) are not available--sensors
that big aren't made.

By contrast, a sheet of 8" x 10" film costs about $5 and can be used in home-made
box camera: expensive per shot, but not per camera.

That home-made box camera can shoot at f/64 on its "normal" lens (about 300 mm)
-- with enormous depth-of-field. But a brand new, top-of-the-line, "full-frame" camera
can't (the image would be hopelessly unsharp, so they don't even put f/32
on the focus ring--let alone f/64).

Digital vs. 135 film has good points on both sides. But digital vs. large format film has no
points on the digital side--because there are no large format digital cameras, except in observatory
telescopes.

Large format was the predominant form of photography for over 100 years. Now it is
almost extinct. We shouldn't fool ourselves by pretending this is not a loss. The drop
in quality in landscape photography since the 1970s is very noticable.
Smaller format: br Pros-- br * Faster lenses (for ... (show quote)


Is there a point or conclusion to be found here?

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 11:05:52   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
DaveC1 wrote:
What your neglecting here is that the focal length of the lens and the format "Play together" in the overall picture. For instance a 25mm lens in a 4/3 format is roughly equivalent to a 50 mm lens in 35mm or ff. And that is roughly equivalent to a 75mm lens in 6X6cm. Once you take those differences into account the smaller the format the greater the DOF for an equivalent image. You can't hold the lens focal length constant and get comparable images when moving between formats.


Sorry no, I’m not neglecting anything. Note that I pointed out that it depends on whether we’re discussing equal distance or equal FOV (which is determined by distance, FL and format). Just pointing out that one needs to define the terms rather than make a blanket statement as to DOF vs format. I could have changed the lens from 50mm (crop) to 80mm (FF), but chose to change the subject distance for purposes of illustration.

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 11:35:43   #
DaveC1 Loc: South East US
 
TriX wrote:
Sorry no, I’m not neglecting anything. Note that I pointed out that it depends on whether we’re discussing equal distance or equal FOV (which is determined by distance, FL and format). Just pointing out that one needs to define the terms rather than make a blanket statement as to DOF vs format. I could have changed the lens from 50mm (crop) to 80mm (FF), but chose to change the subject distance for purposes of illustration.


So just to summarize here for an equivalent image the larger the format the smaller the DOF. Which is the only logical way to compare formats without getting into the weeds.

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2018 11:51:36   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
rook2c4 wrote:
Surely you must be joking. Those are horrible examples of landscape photography. Everything drowned in candy colors. Nothing looks real. That's fantasy photography, not landscape photography.


He is one of the more popular photographers around, so I’d say that I was very serious.

Here is another site - https://www.photocascadia.com These guys are the top guns today.

I respect your opinion, you don’t have to like the work and I understand that most people go out midday to shoot and never see some of the colors one would see at sunset or around sunrise.

So I welcome you to prove me wrong, instead of just calling the example horrible.

Btw, how much do you dislike B&W photography? And lastly, do you personally have any examples from any of his locations? What do your colors look like and how well do they sell?

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 11:58:54   #
GeneC123us Loc: Sugar Land, TX
 
My first boss once said - "It's a poor worknan who blames his tools".

Reply
Nov 29, 2018 12:01:31   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
GeneC123us wrote:
My first boss once said - "It's a poor worknan who blames his tools".



Reply
Nov 29, 2018 12:58:16   #
xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
Your point is?????



Bipod wrote:
Smaller format:
Pros--
* Faster lenses (for a given angle of view, e.g.,, a "normal". lens)
Cons--
* More diffraction (for a given f/stop)
* Fewer usable f/stops
* Less maximum depth-of-field (e.g. for a "normal" lens)
* Smaller sensor/film area = less resolution possible

Larger format:
Pros--
* More "pixels"
* Less diffraction (for a given f/stop)
* Higher resolution (for both the above reasons)
* More usable f/stops (for a given angle-of-view lens, e.g, a "normal" lens)
* Hence, capable of greater depth-of-field
Cons--
* Slower lenses (for a given type, e.g., "normal".)

Choices available right now range from 1"x1" digital sensor to 8" x 10" film
(80 times more area). Tradtiionally, these are classified as:

Sub-minature format: below 36 mm x 24 mm
Minature format: 36 mm x 24 mm
Medium format: 120 film (several different frames)
Large format: 4" x 5" and above

You pay your money, you take your choice. There is no single "best" format--
it depends on subject, lighting, location, your style and how you intend to display
or print the image. But the limitations of any given format are real: format matters.

Unfortunately, medium format digital cameras start at about $4500 with DSLRs
starting at about $5000 (body only). That's unaffordable for most photographers.
And large format digital cameras (4" x 5" and larger) are not available--sensors
that big aren't made.

By contrast, a sheet of 8" x 10" film costs about $5 and can be used in home-made
box camera: expensive per shot, but not per camera.

That home-made box camera can shoot at f/64 on its "normal" lens (about 300 mm)
-- with enormous depth-of-field. But a brand new, top-of-the-line, "full-frame" camera
can't (the image would be hopelessly unsharp, so they don't even put f/32
on the focus ring--let alone f/64).

Digital vs. 135 film has good points on both sides. But digital vs. large format film has no
points on the digital side--because there are no large format digital cameras, except in observatory
telescopes.

Large format was the predominant form of photography for over 100 years. Now it is
almost extinct. We shouldn't fool ourselves by pretending this is not a loss. The drop
in quality in landscape photography since the 1970s is very noticable.
Smaller format: br Pros-- br * Faster lenses (for ... (show quote)

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.