Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Not sure I wanna go FF...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Not sure I wanna go FF...

    Hmm, after shooting my 7 on Ektar 100 last week, I'm not sure I need an 850/900. Most of my shots on my fast primes were OOF due to too much aperture and too little DOF. Will this continue on digital, or will I be able to shoot more shots to compensate?

    I figure there's not much point in learning to stop down, because then I really haven't bought much performance over my A700. I don't need the pixels, and I haven't gained much if any lowlight performance.

    I seem to have missed more shots than I do with medium format, which I attribute to the generally smaller aperture on those lenses. Having a f/1.4 prime on FF seems like a tantalizing recipe for disaster.

    Did anyone else get bit by shooting f/2.8 and below when they went FF? If so, how did you deal with it?

    PS. My beercan seemed to work REALLY well on Ektar. It didn't seem to suffer from the normally low contrast I seem to get on my A700.

    Greg

  2. #2
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: Not sure I wanna go FF...

    The straight answer is that it will continue on FF just as it did with film. You just need to learn how to deal with it.

    Stopping down on FF is not the same as stopping down with a cropped sensor either.

    Personally I enjoy the creative possibilities with FF and FF lenses more than using cropped camera/lens set up's. The narrrow depth of field can be used to great advantage for many subjects and yet by stopping down for landscape work, the definition is outstanding compared with a cropped sensor of much lower Mpx count.

    However for very long lens work such as sports or wildlife subjects, the A700 might be the preferred option but I manage quite well with a 200-500mm lens on the A900 when shooting wildlife.
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  3. #3
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: Not sure I wanna go FF...

    What Dave said.

    I (essentially) shoot entire weddings @ f2 and larger on FF... excepting formals and architectural shots. You just have to know what you're doing. We all get "bit" from time time, but it's usually a situation of going beyond either your or your camera's ability.

    Having an f/1.4 prime on ff is a tantalizing recipe for fun

    The a900 has very accurate AF... so getting things in focus isn't really a problem. It's only when you mix large apertures, very low light, and fast action that you may have troubles.

    At that point you need a specialist's tool for low light, like a d700/d3/idsmkiii or similar.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Not sure I wanna go FF...

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    The straight answer is that it will continue on FF just as it did with film. You just need to learn how to deal with it. .
    Which is how, exactly? I assume you're not including stopping down, which means your shallower DOF has to be compensated either by better focus or better odds (higher frame count).

    Since I was using the Minolta 7 on static subjects, I have to conclude the AF system is not adequate enough to be trusted.

    And the focusing screen is nowhere near good enough to be useful for MF...meaning my 50mm f/1.2 can't be used wide open.

    Unless I spray and pray.

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    Stopping down on FF is not the same as stopping down with a cropped sensor either. .
    How is it not? Other than starting with one step shallower DOF?

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    Personally I enjoy the creative possibilities with FF and FF lenses more than using cropped camera/lens set up's. The narrrow depth of field can be used to great advantage for many subjects and yet by stopping down for landscape work, the definition is outstanding compared with a cropped sensor of much lower Mpx count..
    Yes, but I don't need the definition, as I'm not printing larger than 11x14.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Not sure I wanna go FF...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis View Post

    At that point you need a specialist's tool for low light, like a d700/d3/idsmkiii or similar.
    Right. I have an 11mp "FF" in a cropped MFDB, so I "get" the tonality and IQ I want out of that, without the ubershallow DOF to get me in trouble.

    At ISO50 and f/4, though...I have to pump gobs of light through it.

    I've gotten a couple shots at f/1.9 on the 80mm, but not many.

    I'm sure at 9fps, I could sway back and forth and get SOMETHING usable.

    The lack of a D3 in Sony colors has kept me away from FF. Well, that and other niggles with features Sony has removed or crippled from the A700.

    I sent them a rant demanding they put back in the lens-check disable function, and of course instead of getting the reply I asked for, I got a survey asking me whow they did! THEY DIDN"T EVEN REPLY!

    How's that for customer service, Sony? Take out features and ignore your users who ask that they be put back in...on your BEST cameras, no less.

    Harbinger of doom, I suppose.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boulder Creek, Ca.
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Not sure I wanna go FF...

    Not sure what you're getting at with your concerns about DOF. With a given lens at a given aperture and same distance to subject, DOF will be exactly the same between the a700 and a900.

    It might be helpful to look at it this way:

    - Any non-DT lens will behave exactly the same on the a900 as with the a700, except that you will have a wider FOV.

    - Any DT lens will behave exactly the same on the a900 as on the a700, except that the smaller image circle will look funny in the VF and AF/AE may be compromised by the severe vignetting. But DOF & FOV will be, for all intents and purposes, identical.
    α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Not sure I wanna go FF...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Anderson View Post
    Not sure what you're getting at with your concerns about DOF. With a given lens at a given aperture and same distance to subject, DOF will be exactly the same between the a700 and a900.

    It might be helpful to look at it this way:

    - Any non-DT lens will behave exactly the same on the a900 as with the a700, except that you will have a wider FOV.

    - Any DT lens will behave exactly the same on the a900 as on the a700, except that the smaller image circle will look funny in the VF and AF/AE may be compromised by the severe vignetting. But DOF & FOV will be, for all intents and purposes, identical.

    Dave,

    Except...why the heck would anyone spend $1000 for a larger sensor, just to stand in the same spot? This would mean you'd have to crop out all those pixels you just paid for, or be left with a poorly framed photo.

    I'm not sure why you're trying to insinuate that larger formats don't have less DOF, because for all intents and purposes, they do.

    Greg

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boulder Creek, Ca.
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Not sure I wanna go FF...

    Quote Originally Posted by gsking View Post
    Dave,

    Except...why the heck would anyone spend $1000 for a larger sensor, just to stand in the same spot? This would mean you'd have to crop out all those pixels you just paid for, or be left with a poorly framed photo.

    I'm not sure why you're trying to insinuate that larger formats don't have less DOF, because for all intents and purposes, they do.

    Greg
    I understand your perspective on this... that's just one way of looking at it. FF just changes FOV, what you do with it may affect the choices you have WRT DOF. I get that. My perspective is that APS-C is the format that is problematic -- which is why I waited until I could go straight from 35mm film to a FF DSLR. Having to back way up to get the same framing, not being able to get the DOF as thin as I wanted, the claustrophobic viewfinders, the impact on UWA, etc. kept me away from the first generation of DSLRs.
    α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.

  9. #9
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Not sure I wanna go FF...

    Quote Originally Posted by gsking View Post

    I'm not sure why you're trying to insinuate that larger formats don't have less DOF, because for all intents and purposes, they do.

    Greg
    The point is that, assuming a similar pixel pitch, the larger format can be cropped to give the same DOF as the smaller format, so the larger format is more versatile.

  10. #10
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Not sure I wanna go FF...

    Quote Originally Posted by gsking View Post
    Dave,

    Except...why the heck would anyone spend $1000 for a larger sensor, just to stand in the same spot? This would mean you'd have to crop out all those pixels you just paid for, or be left with a poorly framed photo.

    I'm not sure why you're trying to insinuate that larger formats don't have less DOF, because for all intents and purposes, they do.

    Greg
    Well it all depends on how you look at it. If using the A900 you take a picture in a particular spot with say a 135 and then crop to get the framing you would have had with a 200 from that exact same spot the perpective will be exactly the same. The only difference is that with the 200 you would have had less DOF than with the crop from the 135. So, because cropping a 135 to 200 with the 900 really is perfectly feasible without any apparent loss of quality you might argue that a A900 gives you the possibility to have more DOF.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •