Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Fujinon XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR
#31
I think the word "equivalence" should be banned as it's an instant flame bait.  :blink:

My 2 cents though: shallow DOF is the bane of my existence.  :mellow: Well, maybe not so tragic, but I don't like being forced to stop down a lot just to get a meaningful part of the subject (or a group thereof) in focus. That something isn't blurred into an unrecognizable mess doesn't mean it's rendered in a useful way; half-soft image (or parts thereof) is still that - soft and therefore not beneficial to displaying the subject (if it falls into such an area). Therefore shallow DOF shouldn't be peddled as an universally desirable effect.

 

Not that there's that much difference (that you would be able to see in a blind test) one stop apart, or between APS-C and FF crops shot at the same aperture (and so being one stop apart, by this logic). Therefore: peace.  Rolleyes

 

P.S. I may be a little thick but does anybody really calculate the scene in that way - starting with "I need a precise focal length X and aperture Y, if I can't get that it all goes to hell"? I start out by looking into the viewfinder and deciding if I like what I see, if it's too narrow I don a wideangle, if it's too wide I don a telephoto. If I don't get enough DOF I try to stop down (but more often than not I just shoot, I don't usually get gross errors). That my 16mm f/4 lens becomes (or doesn't become) a "21mm f/5.2" or whatever else means zilch to me - I don't think in these terms, I just shoot. Smile

#32
Quote:I think the word "equivalence" should be banned as it's an instant flame bait.  :blink:

My 2 cents though: shallow DOF is the bane of my existence.  :mellow: Well, maybe not so tragic, but I don't like being forced to stop down a lot just to get a meaningful part of the subject (or a group thereof) in focus. That something isn't blurred into an unrecognizable mess doesn't mean it's rendered in a useful way; half-soft image (or parts thereof) is still that - soft and therefore not beneficial to displaying the subject (if it falls into such an area). Therefore shallow DOF shouldn't be peddled as an universally desirable effect.

 

Not that there's that much difference (that you would be able to see in a blind test) one stop apart, or between APS-C and FF crops shot at the same aperture (and so being one stop apart, by this logic). Therefore: peace.  Rolleyes

 

P.S. I may be a little thick but does anybody really calculate the scene in that way - starting with "I need a precise focal length X and aperture Y, if I can't get that it all goes to hell"? I start out by looking into the viewfinder and deciding if I like what I see, if it's too narrow I don a wideangle, if it's too wide I don a telephoto. If I don't get enough DOF I try to stop down (but more often than not I just shoot, I don't usually get gross errors). That my 16mm f/4 lens becomes (or doesn't become) a "21mm f/5.2" or whatever else means zilch to me - I don't think in these terms, I just shoot. Smile
You mean to say that shallow DOF is not for you. That is fine. 

Weird thing: people take equivalence explanations as "this camera is better than that camera". But it never is about that.

 

Also a weird thing: not understanding that equivalence is handy when you go from one format to another format. So, you shoot APS-H. For you, a certain lens means "wide angle" and a certain lens means "portrait". You know that 16mm means "pretty wide angle", so you put that lens on your camera when you want to use a pretty wide angle. 

 

Now suppose your girlfriend one day decides to give you a present, a Olympus OM-D EM-5, because in her idea you should have a small camera for when you can't take along your big DSLR. And you do not want to seem ungrateful and really want to use it. But you want a pretty wide angle lens to go with it. What do you do? You get an EQUIVALENT focal length lens. So you have to calculate in order to get an equivalent lens And it turns out that on that Olympus a 10mm lens is equivalent to that 16mm on your APS-H camera. So you know what to get.

 

That is handy to know, right?

 

And then the DOF question. Not for every photographer shallow DOF is something to use. We get that, everybody thinks on a different level, has a different style, has different subjects and different sensibilities and sensitivities. Understanding equivalence goes both ways. If you know from experience that f5.6 gives you the DOF you want for street photos with say your 24mm lens on your APS-H body, it is easy to know that if you want to use that gifted OM-D EM-5 in the same situations that an equivalent aperture is f3.5 or f4.

 

A bit silly to say that the difference between APS-C and FF DOF wise is only 1 stop. It is more than 1 stop, more like 1 1/3rd stop. And if 1 stop is so silly, why do people buy f2.8 lenses instead of the cheaper and lighter f4 lenses. Why are f1.4 primes being bought over f2 or even f1.8 primes. Why is there a market for the f1.2 primes when there are f1,8 primes.

Answer: 1 stop difference in DOF is a big step.

 

Don't make everything about "me" (meaning you, not me) in discussions, it is fine when something is not for you, and it is fine when it is for someone else. I get that, I get that that some people like EVFs, and I get that I like OVFs. In discussions, I then point out that for ME OVF is preferred, but that for others that may be different. 

For ME,  shallow DOF is a tool I often use for my photography. I am not alone in that. So for me, shallow DOF is something to take into account, while for other photographers (you for instance) it is not. That is fine. Does that mean that it should not be discussed and explained? Of course not.

Shallow DOF in my photography:

 

 

 

 

[Image: ED255F572E94472FA60C8863A73A8A22.jpg]

[Image: 28BCFD31D5CA4112A2BC0BB5D3965EBF.jpg]

[Image: D567A6DE7AE54412A3403768F24E9570.jpg]

[Image: 7CEDB78876BE46F5974DB4484AFC416F.jpg]

[Image: 6060C0444829428AA427291736D60290.jpg]

 

[Image: 8DE91F04E0CC47B68BD04EC759436139.jpg]

It is an important stylistic tool, that I use and need to understand both on full frame 135 format and APS-C. Understanding that the crop factor both influences the FOV and the DOF with is something every photographer should understand. So they can get the image they envision even when they use cameras with different format sensors.

[Image: 5189F8FD46AC45E9AF5AA1BBE71B20E8.jpg]

[Image: BBCC24122E0F46038D2BBABC18E2A90F.jpg]

[Image: 7F4A02F6DC5E4926A6B26716D59EFC30.jpg]

[Image: D8FDA6A9A89B4E76BCA2BD7E94B0DBC0.jpg]
#33
Nice mx5!

#34
I think the main problem with equivalence is that people think this makes their equipment inferior.

No, no, f/2.8 just can't be "f/5.6" - it's f/2.8!

Of course, it's f/2.8 in the specific scope of the system and it will remain so regardless of equivalence discussion.

Equivalence is about equalizing the scope.

 

I like my Fuji lenses and my MFT lenses regardless of these discussions. And my Fuji 56mm f/1.2 APD is a great lens for shallow DoF as well. So ... stay cool ... and be happy  Big Grin

 

Just don't ignore reality.  Tongue

#35
Reality is the camera I have with me and the lens in front of it. Comparing systems by ignoring the advantages of it and reducing other parameters scientifically so they could fit to a different system makes not much sense to me. There are limits of miniturization and other limits of being able to transport a large unit, not to mention to handheld it or to drag attention by pointing a bucket of glass at someone.  ^_^ Also, it's only working downwards - blowing up an APS-C sensor to FF is plain stupid, the pixels just won't increase.

 

If I look how good a certain lens is - and keeping in mind that PZ always tests only one copy - I'm not interested how good an incompatible lens might be compared to the one I'm interested in an for which I own a host body with the right mount

#36
Another hypothetical case to explain the value of understanding lens equivalence, so far removed from most people's personal situations that it is hard to feel offended by it or be defensive about their own gear.

 

Suppose there is a photographer who specialises in flower photos, suppose it is his expression of art. There is this young, budding enthusiast photographer who is taken away by the feel and style, so he writes that photographer asking if he would mind to explain how he gets that look, because the young budding enthusiast would like to go in that direction. The enthusiast mentions that he is using a Nikon D5500.

 

[Image: C425977993DA4CBF831C128353DB0F2C.jpg]

[Image: 9500CB3894B24A488CE68B57A89B3C62.jpg]

The flower photographer, understanding lens equivalence, replies to the budding enthusiast. He explains to him that he himself uses a 135 format full frame camera with a old fashioned 500mm f8 mirror lens to get that specific look. He explains to the young, budding enthusiast that he does not have to buy the same camera as himself, but that he can get the same look by buying a used Tamron SP 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. He goes on to explain why that is an equivalent lens: 

 

500mm divided by the crop factor of your D5500 gives:

500 / 1.5 = 333mm

They will have a similar aperture size:

500 / f8 = 62.5mm

350 / 5.6 = 62.5mm

 

Now the young budding enthusiast can go and try to emulate the look of the photos he admires from that flower photographer, knowing he can have a similar FOV and DOF with a similar lens equivalent on his camera to the lens/camera combination the flower photographer uses.

 

Having been explained lens equivalence, the young budding photographer will have an easier task to use equivalent lenses to other photographers he admires in other fields, like 135 format using 50mm lens shooting photographers like Robert Capa and Henri Cartier-Bresson.

#37
Finally, there's some common ground: everybody is different. Smile Besides, I'm not sure if I'm in a minority or not, but I don't mix different systems in my workflow - the most I had at one given time were 1.3x and 1.6x cameras. Therefore, I did juggle lenses around to get "a lil' wider" or "a lil' longer" than I would otherwise have, but I was never making a big deal of DOF.

 

I had and have fast lenses (f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms - all right, I'm down to one of each now) but most of the time I was using them for working in low light, not for any special defocus effects. I have a 85/1.4 in my sights that may be more in line with what you say, but I'll use it for low light again, because I wouldn't know what to do with it otherwise.  Big Grin

 

 

Quote:Now suppose your girlfriend one day decides to give you a present, a Olympus OM-D EM-5, because in her idea you should have a small camera for when you can't take along your big DSLR.
Ah. If only.  <_<

 

 

Quote:And you do not want to seem ungrateful and really want to use it. But you want a pretty wide angle lens to go with it. What do you do? You get anEQUIVALENT focal length lens. So you have to calculate in order to get an equivalent lens And it turns out that on that Olympus a 10mm lens is equivalent to that 16mm on your APS-H camera. So you know what to get.

 
Since I can't use my Canon lenses on it, what's the point? I'll need to get a dedicated set of lenses anyway, and they have their own nomenclature. Luckily I know the multiplier in the case of Âµ4/3, but if you had been speaking of medium format (it'd take a rrrrreally rrrrrrich girlfriend, I agree), I would've been totally at sea. Therefore, I feel little need for calculations - it'd be easier to just memorize the (approximate) multipliers and just act by feel.

Besides, juggling the aperture numbers is opening a can of worms because there are a few quite odd concepts evolving - especially if you start bringing noise into that equation as some people do...

#38
Quote:Finally, there's some common ground: everybody is different. Smile Besides, I'm not sure if I'm in a minority or not, but I don't mix different systems in my workflow - the most I had at one given time were 1.3x and 1.6x cameras. Therefore, I did juggle lenses around to get "a lil' wider" or "a lil' longer" than I would otherwise have, but I was never making a big deal of DOF.

 

I had and have fast lenses (f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms - all right, I'm down to one of each now) but most of the time I was using them for working in low light, not for any special defocus effects. I have a 85/1.4 in my sights that may be more in line with what you say, but I'll use it for low light again, because I wouldn't know what to do with it otherwise.  Big Grin

 

 

Ah. If only.  <_<

 

 

Since I can't use my Canon lenses on it, what's the point? I'll need to get a dedicated set of lenses anyway, and they have their own nomenclature. Luckily I know the multiplier in the case of Âµ4/3, but if you had been speaking of medium format (it'd take a rrrrreally rrrrrrich girlfriend, I agree), I would've been totally at sea. Therefore, I feel little need for calculations - it'd be easier to just memorize the (approximate) multipliers and just act by feel.

Besides, juggling the aperture numbers is opening a can of worms because there are a few quite odd concepts evolving - especially if you start bringing noise into that equation as some people do...
Klaus already pretty eloquently explained why equivalent f-values does not open a can of worms (other than maybe internet forum troll-worms), not even where noise is concerned  Tongue
#39
Well then... I rest my case Smile If there was ever a case, 'fkorz. I'm just so amused that people here and at dpreview.com spend untold time and effort debating it and agonizing over the question (and its implications). I'm a simple man - just aim, press the goddamn shutter button and in roll dem pics. Smile

#40
Everbody needs a hobby, Rover. Haven't you heard about equivalencing championships? Especially the one with the virtual DoF ruler, simply the only reason to own a smartphone: To host a dozen apps calculating DoF in fractions of millimeters.  B) and other calculators for noise levels. A big step from hunting mammoths, I'd say.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)