I'm missing full frame, but I know I shouldn't be.....

I
Cagey75 said:
It's my birthday [actually], I'm allowed! :p

I don't care who agrees with me, I know that's the usual response, but if you knew me .... *virtual shrug*
Click to expand...

Happy Birthday Keith :)

I was always under the impression all cameras recorded Full Frame ? What ever format you shoot:eek:
it wasn’t that many years ago 35mm format was a poor mans format to a Rollei or Blad
This article from everyone’s favourite photographer should help over the battle of the Formats and Full Frame :p

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm#digital

https://gizmodo.com/why-medium-format-is-so-gorgeous-its-about-more-than-r-1601938278
 
Last edited:
soeren said:
Funny thing is it never was much of a subject when talking 24x36, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5" and 8x10"
Click to expand...

I agree that if we’re only using one system, we only need to know what’s wide, std, and telephoto.

We never discussed equivalence in the past because we never used the same lenses across systems.

We ‘knew’ that a std lens on 24x36 was 50mm 645 was 75mm, 6x6 80mm, 6x7 was 90mm, 4x5" and 8x10 had longer (not used them)

So now we’re using ‘miniature’ cameras often with our existing 24x36 lenses, it’s useful to understand that relationship. Doing the maths is only necessary when people have questions about why their gear performs differently.
 
Cagey75 said:
He's not the type to say as he's told,. He uses FF cameras regular too, also MF
...
Click to expand...
The same Zack Arias who spent years promoting the nigh on useless Nikon off camera flash system, saying radio offered no advantage o_O, then started promoting their (still inferior) radio system as soon as it became available, :thinking:

No, he’s clearly principled :LOL:
 
Mark Dell said:
Ok this chaps old XT1 gallery absolutely rubbish work......http://www.lovegrovephotography.com/fujifilm-x-t1/
It’s all horses for courses really isn’t it?
Click to expand...

Whilst they are alll excellent photos, I think you’ve missed the point somewhat as the thread is about those niche qualities which larger formats can offer.

No one is saying smaller formats can’t give stunning results. I could post up some great images taken with a 1 inch sensor but they’d have no more relevance to this thread than the link above.
 
Brazo said:
Whilst they are alll excellent photos, I think you’ve missed the point somewhat as the thread is about those niche qualities which larger formats can offer.

No one is saying smaller formats can’t give stunning results. I could post up some great images taken with a 1 inch sensor but they’d have no more relevance to this thread than the link above.
Click to expand...

I haven’t missed the point with the greatest respect the “look” of full frame is true But I personally don’t miss it.
I have done some of my favourite photos with the X100
I used to have a 5D mk2 with L glass
 
Mark Dell said:
Ok this chaps old XT1 gallery absolutely rubbish work......http://www.lovegrovephotography.com/fujifilm-x-t1/
It’s all horses for courses really isn’t it?
Click to expand...
And his latest work?

Shot on Fuji MF. ;)

Again, no ones saying great pictures can’t be shot on any format, but it’s more than a little naive to use brand ambassadors to prove a point, they’ll use the best kit for them - which is the kit they make the most money for promoting. :p
 
Phil V said:
And his latest work?

Shot on Fuji MF. ;)

Again, no ones saying great pictures can’t be shot on any format, but it’s more than a little naive to use brand ambassadors to prove a point, they’ll use the best kit for them - which is the kit they make the most money for promoting. :p
Click to expand...
True they make us buy the stuff!
 
Mark Dell said:
True they make us buy the stuff!
Click to expand...
You've only got to go to the photography shows and watch the presentations by the brand ambassadors. Thats why they are there "with this kit I can get great images" implying you can too.
 
Wow. This has gotten a little, um, heated... ;)

Basically (for me) the difference IS there. It's not going to be evident in every picture I take,and its probably is mainly going to make a difference to me more than anyone else, but the more I looked at my older FF pictures compared to my APSC ones (not just the Fuji but Canon APSC as well) I know that I will prefer having a FF camera again.

Part of it is the sensor size and part of it is the fact that I love the way the Canon renders colour (esp with pics of the kids). Fujis colour rendering is also great though but in a different way.

And I know that a lot of people will say a cameras rendering is not relevant if you shoot RAW, but to me it does make a difference as the closer the cameras RAW files are to my liking the less time it takes to process them. It's all subjective of course but that's how it is for me.
 
I might be on my own on the "colour" issue, but I've never been able to differentiate much between camera systems that I've used (Canon & Fuji mainly). Sure, I can see that they render differently with regards to colour temperature, one being slightly cooler or warmer than the other. Both colours and temperature can be adjusted to taste in post, so I just can't get my head around why people would completely change systems on the grounds that they prefer the colour.... and then process the raws anyway! Sure, if someone loves the look of say, the Fuji classic chrome film simulation for all of their shots and shoots jpegs only accordingly, then I can understand a move to Fuji. But, generally, I read about people changing systems for "colour" reasons and can't understand such a move. Having said all that, I'm just a casual hobbyist that doesn't find that important.... Besides I'm poor too....
 
Diamonddec said:
I might be on my own on the "colour" issue, but I've never been able to differentiate much between camera systems that I've used (Canon & Fuji mainly). Sure, I can see that they render differently with regards to colour temperature, one being slightly cooler or warmer than the other. Both colours and temperature can be adjusted to taste in post, so I just can't get my head around why people would completely change systems on the grounds that they prefer the colour.... and then process the raws anyway! Sure, if someone loves the look of say, the Fuji classic chrome film simulation for all of their shots and shoots jpegs only accordingly, then I can understand a move to Fuji. But, generally, I read about people changing systems for "colour" reasons and can't understand such a move. Having said all that, I'm just a casual hobbyist that doesn't find that important.... Besides I'm poor too....
Click to expand...

Yep Canon is known for it and sometimes criticised.

The critics say the Canon look is unnatural, cartoonish, has a plasticy look to it etc etc
 
Diamonddec said:
I might be on my own on the "colour" issue, but I've never been able to differentiate much between camera systems that I've used (Canon & Fuji mainly). Sure, I can see that they render differently with regards to colour temperature, one being slightly cooler or warmer than the other. Both colours and temperature can be adjusted to taste in post, so I just can't get my head around why people would completely change systems on the grounds that they prefer the colour.... and then process the raws anyway! Sure, if someone loves the look of say, the Fuji classic chrome film simulation for all of their shots and shoots jpegs only accordingly, then I can understand a move to Fuji. But, generally, I read about people changing systems for "colour" reasons and can't understand such a move. Having said all that, I'm just a casual hobbyist that doesn't find that important.... Besides I'm poor too....
Click to expand...

Honestly, I cannot explain it either but I do know there is something to it. A few years back I moved from D300 to D700 and noticed a very different look to the raw images. Okay that was going from DX to FX but the D700 was eventually replaced by a D610, also full frame but quite a different look again. I assume certain sensors are more sensitive to certain colour channels and sometimes that is apparent even in the raw files. Not to say, these things cannot be sorted in post but it's always easier starting with something you broadly like the look of.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
They do make some people buy the stuff, I’m afraid I’m too old and set in my ways. (And poor)
Click to expand...
So am I.
I think David Duchemin has some pretty good comments on the camera discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Colour differences between brands are hard to justify, there are so many variables. You can't really say Canon or Fuji or whatever are better in broard objective terms. Sensors vary in subtle rendering, even within brands, format has an impact on contrast and saturation, lenses vary even of the same brand, and light changes dramatically all the time.

And that's before we get to post processing where, if you're minded, you can change anything you want. Fuji's film simulations for example, are just a bunch of pre-sets that tweak the numerous post-processing parameters as a starting point. You can do that yourself if you like, or use an X-Rite Color Checker etc for perfect neutrality, but few people bother. I'd do that if I was shooting say catalogue fashion where critically accurate and consistent colour is vital, to neutralise all those other variables for a particular shoot, but otherwise there are 101 more important things to worry about. Colour balance is (usually) more of an art than a science, because of the different and subjectively individual ways our eyes/brain process colour. When it looks right, it is right. Edit: except that my version of right or 'best' might not be the same as yours. Both are valid ;)
 
Last edited:
Diamonddec said:
I might be on my own on the "colour" issue, but I've never been able to differentiate much between camera systems that I've used (Canon & Fuji mainly). Sure, I can see that they render differently with regards to colour temperature, one being slightly cooler or warmer than the other. Both colours and temperature can be adjusted to taste in post, so I just can't get my head around why people would completely change systems on the grounds that they prefer the colour.... and then process the raws anyway! Sure, if someone loves the look of say, the Fuji classic chrome film simulation for all of their shots and shoots jpegs only accordingly, then I can understand a move to Fuji. But, generally, I read about people changing systems for "colour" reasons and can't understand such a move. Having said all that, I'm just a casual hobbyist that doesn't find that important.... Besides I'm poor too....
Click to expand...

HoppyUK said:
Colour balance is (usually) more of an art than a science, because of the different and subjectively individual ways our eyes/brain process colour. When it looks right, it is right.
Click to expand...

And there's what looks nice too. There could be quite a difference between what looks right and what is preferred. For example getting the WB wrong can lead to a lovely effect :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
And there's what looks nice too. There could be quite a difference between what looks right and what is preferred. For example getting the WB wrong can lead to a lovely effect :D
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Classic examples are sunsets, candle light or light from an open fire. They would look completely wrong if everything was correctly neutralised.

The colour of an object is not 'fixed'. The colour we see is the light reflected from it, which is totally dependent on the colour of the light falling on it - and that changes all the time. It is only in clear midday sun that we get a full and balanced colour spectrum and at all other times our eyes/brain do an automatic colour adjustment to make it look right. Mostly that brings everything back to something close to midday sun, but at other times when our brains detect big changes our auto-correction switches out and sunsets look orange and coloured lights at a concert are seen as they actually are.
 
Phil V said:
The same Zack Arias who spent years promoting the nigh on useless Nikon off camera flash system, saying radio offered no advantage o_O, then started promoting their (still inferior) radio system as soon as it became available, :thinking:

No, he’s clearly principled :LOL:
Click to expand...

I'll still take his word over random forumites ;) He is also allowed to change his views when things do improve. I like him, I learned the basics of off cam flash photography from watching him, I believe he says it as it is and I don't care who's paying him for it.

I found him through the D200 in fact, he was still shooting with one when I bought mine so it was easy to follow his tutorials
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I'll still take his word over random forumites ;) He is also allowed to change his views when things do improve. I like him, I learned the basics of off cam flash photography from watching him, I believe he says it as it is and I don't care who's paying him for it.

I found him through the D200 in fact, he was still shooting with one when I bought mine so it was easy to follow his tutorials
Click to expand...
Have you read ‘the hotshoe diaries’?
The photography is excellent and he tells great tales to support it, but the pathetic hoops he jumps through to make the CLS system work for him is beyond a joke.

It’s obvious to anyone reading it that he could have made the same shots easier using pocket wizards (at the time of writing), but he stays 100% on message.

Edit to add:

As for random forumites, I’d take Richards word over any brand ambassador, only a complete idiot would take a paid for recommendation over the opinion of someone who has professionally tested and reviewed more cameras than I’ve ever used. Likewise Stewart who owns more heavily used gear than any pro could get close to.

Forums are great sources of knowledge, you just have to know who’s opinions worth something and who to ignore. ;)
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Have you read ‘the hotshoe diaries’?
The photography is excellent and he tells great tales to support it, but the pathetic hoops he jumps through to make the CLS system work for him is beyond a joke.

It’s obvious to anyone reading it that he could have made the same shots easier using pocket wizards (at the time of writing), but he stays 100% on message.

Edit to add:

As for random forumites, I’d take Richards word over any brand ambassador, only a complete idiot would take a paid for recommendation over the opinion of someone who has professionally tested and reviewed more cameras than I’ve ever used. Likewise Stewart who owns more heavily used gear than any pro could get close to.

Forums are great sources of knowledge, you just have to know who’s opinions worth something and who to ignore. ;)
Click to expand...


Who's Richard? [edit - nm, I see now, I rarely notice names besides the alias, and no it wasn't directed at Richard specifically] Of course forums are a great source of info, like you say, once you know who to take seriously. That comment was more in jest, I didn't have any 'forumite' in mind, just in general ;) I use a very simplistic flash set up now for M43, just a cheap old Yongnuo with dirt cheap triggers and a Godox TT350o, does the job for my needs.
 
Last edited:
If I wanted full frame and top notch image quality with a range of focal lengths, I'd go used Sony a7r, Voightlander 15/f4.5 Mk3, Zeiss M 35 f2 or 50 f2 and Leica Tele-Elmarit 90/f2.8. The latter are difficult to come by, so if it's the Zeiss 35mm I'd go for the Voightlander 75/f1.8. Just over £2,000 the lot. My son uses this kit most of the time, along with a Voightlander Bessa for film (using the same lenses).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top