Entry vs pro

Phil V said:
I'm not a psychiatrist - but I believe it's called a persecution complex;)
Click to expand...
Infamy, infamy... they've all got it in for me :p :D
 
Phil V said:
And I wasn't just doing a 'people who do...' it had to be an argument with YOU:cuckoo: Odd how the 'full frame' weirdo's didn't just respond for an argument? :thinking:

I'm not a psychiatrist - but I believe it's called a persecution complex;)
Click to expand...

To be fair...

Andy has been branded wrongly as a micro 4/3 fanboy but if people would read the thread properly they would see he is trying to indicate their isn't a visible difference between sensors when not pixel peeping.
 
London Headshots said:
Again, your entire point hinges on the fact that you're shooting in conditions which do not require a deep dynamic range, and as a result, put no pressure on the sensor to perform.
Click to expand...
No, my point hinges on the fact Canon produce a sub-par sensor compared to Nikon. It is solely that which allows other formats to compete with (Canon) FF - especially in DR! I started talking about the D800E as in that case, it wipes the floor with smaller sensors as it uses current sensor technology - it does follow the bigger is better rule.

Just refuting the point that FF = ALWAYS better ;)
 
arad85 said:
Nope. CoC has nothing to do with sharpness between FF and APS-C.
Click to expand...


LOL


Stop reading wikipedia. Yes, it is used for that, it's also the smallest point source able to resolved by a lens, and the smaller that is proportion to the film or sensor, the greater the sharpness. This is the very reason largre formats deliver better images. Fact.

Even Wiki agrees with me if you care to read past the first paragraph though.

Real lenses do not focus all rays perfectly, so that even at best focus, a point is imaged as a spot rather than a point. The smallest such spot that a lens can produce is often referred to as the circle of least confusion.
Click to expand...


arad85 said:
Just refuting the point that FF = ALWAYS better ;)
Click to expand...


It is... and you haven't refuted anything.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
No, my point hinges on the fact Canon produce a sub-par sensor compared to Nikon. It is solely that which allows other formats to compete with (Canon) FF - especially in DR! I started talking about the D800E as in that case, it wipes the floor with smaller sensors as it uses current sensor technology - it does follow the bigger is better rule.

Just refuting the point that FF = ALWAYS better ;)
Click to expand...

No, I think your point hinges on the fact that you blew thousands of pound on gear, realised it was way beyond your needs, so you sold it and bought a point & shoot.

You should read Aesop's The Fox and the Grapes.
 
Phil Young said:
To be fair...

Andy has been branded wrongly as a micro 4/3 fanboy but if people would read the thread properly they would see he is trying to indicate their isn't a visible difference between sensors when not pixel peeping.
Click to expand...


There is though. I could tell the difference in a print as small as A3.... but what is a normal viewing distance? I tend to examine prints quite carefully. You may not. Who's right? Stand back far enough and everything looks the same. So why do we bother? Why are you using a D7000? Surely a D40 would produce equally impressive images... at a suitable distance :)
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
This is an interesting read...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

and it backs up my own little experiments both on screen and to A3
Click to expand...

This luminous Landscape article is excellent and I agree with your comments totally for people like me. I've been an amateur photographer for 50 years. I'm sorry to admit starting in B&W and colour film and all the angst about which film to choose. Now I'm in digital which is a fantastic improvement but the angst is now which camera to buy. In digital I've had 5D mk1 and 7d and for the last few years I have carried a back-up G 10. I rarely make a print larger than 10x8 and view a lot on the screen. There are two things to say about my world. First image quality from digital is superior to film and second I can't tell the difference between pictures from my different cameras either.

My biggest problem is how to see a good photograph when I'm walking around with my camera and for me that is a much harder problem to solve than choosing a camera.
 
Pookeyhead said:
There is though. I could tell the difference in a print as small as A3.... but what is a normal viewing distance? I tend to examine prints quite carefully. You may not. Who's right? Stand back far enough and everything looks the same. So why do we bother? Why are you using a D7000? Surely a D40 would produce equally impressive images... at a suitable distance :)
Click to expand...

So what do you do, put your white gloves on an get two images aide by side and examine under lab conditions!? Not everyone is that anal.

Why am I using a D7000? Bit of a silly questions really isn't it? I have never said I don't NEED what the D7000 gives me I've simply maintained throughout the entire thread: in good light at base ISO and not pixel peeping, you won't see a huge difference between the sensor sizes.

Please don't ask silly questions I just had to waste a minute of my life with that anaswer, at least ask something relevant!

Edit: and just to be fair... I haven't said I wouldn't own a FF, I really could haven benefitted from one just yesterday!
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
So what do you do, put your white gloves on an get two images aide by side and examine under lab conditions!? Not everyone is that anal.
Click to expand...

No.. I just look at it.. critically.


Phil Young said:
Why am I using a D7000? Bit of a silly questions really isn't it? I have never said I don't NEED what the D7000 gives me I've simply maintained throughout the entire thread: in good light at base ISO and not pixel peeping, you won't see a huge difference between the sensor sizes.
Click to expand...

But at base ISO, and not pixel peeping, so would a D40. I can prove that as well, as the series of tests I posted earlier also has a D40 set. So.. what's the point? Surely if you don't pixel peep, almost any DSLR would do the same job, right?

Phil Young said:
Please don't ask silly questions I just had to waste a minute of my life with that answer, at least ask something relevant!
Click to expand...

LOL. You're very selective about what is relevant.

This thread is funny.

Seems to me that people's idea of what is required, almost nearly always exactly matches the equipment they happen to have. Funny that. Suggest that something is better and you get "Yeah.. it may be better.. but you don't really need it"... suggest they use something lesser, and you're being silly.
 
London Headshots said:
No, I think your point hinges on the fact that you blew thousands of pound on gear, realised it was way beyond your needs, so you sold it and bought a point & shoot.
Click to expand...
Ahaha... Point and shoot. Prejudiced - no - not you :D
 
Sorry, just Googled it. Genuinely thought it was a point and shoot. I realise now that it's not.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Yes, it is used for that, it's also the smallest point source able to resolved by a lens, and the smaller that is proportion to the film or sensor, the greater the sharpness. This is the very reason largre formats deliver better images. Fact.
Click to expand...
In which case, we are saying the same thing. The smaller the sensor you have to squeeze the image onto - the harder it has to work. That doesn't mean a different lens with different design parameters can't perfom better on a smaller sensor - even when magnified to the same size (i.e. magnified more).

Pookeyhead said:
It is... and you haven't refuted anything.
Click to expand...
I have. You're just ignoring it ;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
No.. I just look at it.. critically.

But at base ISO, and not pixel peeping, so would a D40. I can prove that as well, as the series of tests I posted earlier also has a D40 set. So.. what's the point? Surely if you don't pixel peep, almost any DSLR would do the same job, right?

LOL. You're very selective about what is relevant.

This thread is funny.

Seems to me that people's idea of what is required, almost nearly always exactly matches the equipment they happen to have. Funny that. Suggest that something is better and you get "Yeah.. it may be better.. but you don't really need it"... suggest they use something lesser, and you're being silly.
Click to expand...

David,

Clearly you don't read posts very well.

I also didn't say that a D7000 image would look that different to a D40 image under those conditions.

You must be a nightmare to converse with, if reading is anything to go by then your listening skills would seem a bit lost...

I have nothing against anyone btw and don't hold any grudges...I'm just sounding like this because you're not reading what I write properly.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Seems to me that people's idea of what is required, almost nearly always exactly matches the equipment they happen to have.
Click to expand...
Required for me - yes.

What I (and others) are pointing out, is that moving to FF isn't necessarily going to give you much more. If the OP wants to get much more out of going FF he should swap systems to a Nikon D800/D800E as there is a significant amount more (DR/resolution etc) that can give you. But be prepared to put the best lenses on it. And to have an empty bank account.
 
Phil Young said:
I have nothing against anyone btw and don't hold any grudges...I'm just sounding like this because you're not reading what I write properly.
Click to expand...
There's an smilie for that.... :bang: :D
 
London Headshots said:
I think your point hinges on the fact that you blew thousands of pound on gear
Click to expand...
I know you now know what the micro 4/3rds system is - just to say I have almost as much invested in that as I did Canon gear....
 
Phil Young said:
To be fair...

Andy has been branded wrongly as a micro 4/3 fanboy but if people would read the thread properly they would see he is trying to indicate their isn't a visible difference between sensors when not pixel peeping.
Click to expand...
So you never read my previous thread then to see who I might have been 'having a go at' well done Phil :clap::clap:

here's a snippet;)
Phil V said:
...

Whether you're a FF zealot who insists that you need FF to 'make your lenses work how they were intended':puke:

Or a M43 nut who believes 'it's enough quality for me 98% of the time so surely no-one needs better' :banana:

You really should get out and see that the world is full of different people, with different needs and different budgets and there really is no 'right' system. If there were - that's the one the manufacturers would sell:thumbs:
Click to expand...
 
Phil Young said:
Dont be so insecure Phil, I wasn't referring to your post but in general on this thread.
Click to expand...

You just quoted my post for :thinking:
Nope

Can't think of any reason other than to refer to it.

I've got splinters from sitting on this fence but there are some in this thread that would argue with their dressing table.
 
arad85 said:
I know you now know what the micro 4/3rds system is - just to say I have almost as much invested in that as I did Canon gear....
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, I thought the camera you were talking about was literally just some hand held thing that people buy before they go on holiday.
 
London Headshots said:
Yeah, sorry, I thought the camera you were talking about was literally just some hand held thing that people buy before they go on holiday.
Click to expand...
Nooooooooooo... That really would be stupid to try and argue it was as good as APS-C let alone FF :D
 
joel222 said:
I was just wondering if there is a lot of difference in IQ between say my 550d, and say a 5d. I know there are differences in things like iso capabilities and maybe other stuff that could lead to better IQ in certain conditions, but I mean in general.
Click to expand...

Well, I have a 1000d with a non is kit lens (which is spooky sharp compared to a nifty fifty and an is mark11 kit lens I bought on here) I bloody love this camera, it's taken me forever to learn how to use it but I now take product shots, carefull lit, in my little studio room, that I am over the moon with.

I've got the best I can out of this kit, if I bought a 5d with an L Macro lens or whatever how much difference would I notice?
For what I'm using a camera for I doubt I would be happier with the dearer kit (note, not better kit) to do the job i want it to.

So, to take some well lit small product shots, either camera will probably do for me so both cameras score 10/10

If I wanted to shoot my nostrils flapping on a bungie jump, I bet the 5D would win hands down, 5D 10/10, 1000d 0.1/10
I think you need to establish the use of the before deciding whats the best.

To a diy woodwork loather in a rush, a hammer makes a decent cordless screwdriver:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top