From Fuji-X to Sony FE: my experience with the A7cII - Printable Version +- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com) +-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17) +--- Thread: From Fuji-X to Sony FE: my experience with the A7cII (/showthread.php?tid=5681) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: From Fuji-X to Sony FE: my experience with the A7cII - MLonlooker - 03-29-2024 You don't seem to understand equivalence (between sensor sizes). f32 on fullframe is equivalent to f21 on APS-C. Would you use f21 on APS-C? Again, there is zero advantage to having more depth of field with APS-C (vs FF) as you can always match the larger depth of field with FF by stepping down more. When considering equivalent systems, you must take in account aperture, ISO and focal length. I remember Klaus had written an article on equivalence with examples, but it seems the article is gone :-( I recommend you read the DPR article on the same subject here to help you understand it better: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care Again, there is no inherent advantage to APS-C or smaller formats for macro photography. The only reason why you might think APS-C is more interesting is because there is no equivalent lens available for FF. For instance a 100mm f2.8 macro lens on APS-C would be equivalent to a 153mm f4.3 on FF. So yes, there is no such lens available for FF (yet) ;-) But this has nothing to do with sensor size. [/quote] ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Technically there maybe no advantage in APSc over FF for macro, but practically, there is, subject distance is a biggy, pixel density is another .. size/weight .. I don't care..... I don't know if you guys have seen the work of Thomas Shahan's insect photography, it's breathtaking ....... his was then taking images using a super basic used Pentax K200 with a reversed ringed old 50mm lens (manual focus) and a basic flash ..... a magically calm talented man ........ enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmMcCjEU68Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60&t=204s For all except portraits and the occasional landscape I'll shoot APSc ..... to keep my distance from these capricious easily spooked critters and to have a greater DOF straight off the bat with a higher pixel density ....... and when you crop noise equals out .... many prefer M4/3rds to benefit from more of the same above reasons .... You could apply the same equivalent reasoning to medium format for macro, but it makes little sense ..... I think macro is best adapted to the APSc sensor not because the equivalency theories are flawed, they aren't, but the suitability of FF has a few drawbacks that APSc adapts to more easily. MLonlooker RE: From Fuji-X to Sony FE: my experience with the A7cII - toni-a - 03-29-2024 (03-28-2024, 01:45 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: Toni, your example simply shows that a 85mm f1.8 fullframe lens mounted on an APS-C camera acts exactly as a 130mm f2.8 lens would on fullframe... I was just suggesting you keep the macro lens, anyway, I use mostly full frame except beach and pool shots where I use Olympus Tg5 (because it's waterproof) APS-C is just a backup system when I don't want to lose time swapping lenses and prefer using 2 camera bodies instead. you can do whatever you like When it's about shallow DOF it's obviously full frame myself I use RF 85 and 35mm primes and dropped APS-C primes. For the rest both are good, I don't shoot macro but I don't like very lengthy Minimum Focusing Distance. And that's why I sold EF85mm and bought RF85mm, and that's why during 5D days, I used to prefer 100 macro for portraits over 85f1.8 . Of course minimum focusing distance won't change between APS-C and full frame but angle of coverage will. |