Posting mode: Reply
[Return]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Verification
Get a new challenge Get an audio challengeGet a visual challenge Help
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳


  • hi friends, let's chat!

    edit: THANKS FOR THE CHAT BROS <3

    File : 1317037336.jpg-(29 KB, 460x371, 5d.jpg)
    29 KB Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)07:42 No.1400984  
    hey /p/, does 35mm even matter anymore for filming?
    >> noko 09/26/11(Mon)07:53 No.1400987
    >>1400984
    Shallower possible DoF on 35mm vs Crop.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)07:55 No.1400988
    >>1400987
    nope.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)07:58 No.1400989
    >>1400988
    >hasn't used full-frame
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)08:14 No.1400995
    >>1400989
    >>1400988
    >>1400987

    It's a tiny effect, but the same lens on the same settings will have a smaller depth of field on a crop body.
    This is solely because the lens is effectively 1.6x longer on the crop body, which changes the equations somewhat.

    To answer OP though, a full frame body's only advantage for filming is the low light performance. You can afford to shoot on a far lower ISO setting, less grain, better quality.

    I suppose you could count the fact that your lenses will act as expected, rather than having the multiplication factor, eg if you want to shoot at 17mm on a crop body, you'll need a 10mm lens, but it's not a huge deal.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)08:14 No.1400996
    >>1400988
    For all practical purposes, yes.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)08:21 No.1400999
    >>1400995
    The effect is not that tiny. You need a 1.6x shorter lens to get the same image. Let us suppose the crop camera is
    2m from the subject with a 35mm/1.4 lens. The DOF will be 17cm wide. A FF camera with a 55mm/1.4 lens at the same distance will produce the same image, but the DOF will be 11cm wide.

    The opposite applies too though. At f/22 the crop camera will have wider DOF, you will be able to focus at a closer object and infinity at the same time.
    >> Chi 09/26/11(Mon)08:24 No.1401001
    >>1400995
    >It's a tiny effect, but the same lens on the same settings will have a smaller depth of field on a crop body.

    No.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)08:45 No.1401011
    >>1400999
    >DOF will be 11cm wide.
    'deep' not 'wide'
    or do you think Depth Of Field refers to Field Of View?
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)08:49 No.1401013
    >>1401001
    >No.
    No?
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)08:53 No.1401015
    >>1401013
    No as in that information is false.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)09:06 No.1401024
    >>1401001

    >>50mm f/2.0, focusing on something 1m away.

    >>Depth of field on 1.6x crop: 2.89cm
    >>Depth of field on full frame: 4.56cm

    It's pretty simple mathematics.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_formulas
    >> Chi 09/26/11(Mon)09:14 No.1401032
    >>1401024

    Ah. So the issue here is the wording.
    When referring to "small" with depth of field, you have to be careful with your wording.
    Small could mean "less shallow" or "more shallow" depending on how you interpret it.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)09:17 No.1401037
    >>1401024
    or another way to look at it; it's the same ratio as per the crop.
    A crop sensor has proportionately less DOF in the same way as it has proportionately less FOV.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)09:18 No.1401038
    >>1401037

    Correct.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)09:20 No.1401039
    >>1401037
    oh.. or maybe i just got that ratio with the numbers i was testing that theory with.
    I leave it open to someone to call me a stupid faggot, correct me, and feel all internet-superior.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)09:39 No.1401052
    >>1401039
    hmm.. it varies, but seems to line up fairly well at 70mm for my sensor crop (1.51x)
    2.47/1.63= 1.5153374233129
    using f2 at 10m
    on a K7 vs 35mm film
    ....intredatsing
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)10:36 No.1401073
    Focal length + distance to subject = DOF

    The larger your focal length, the less your depth of field.

    The closer the subject is to you, the less the depth of field.

    Crop sensors don't magically extend the focal length of a lens, it's just a magnification, thus you need to keep the subject further away and you get MORE depth of field (and a less compressed background)

    Depth of field means the area that is in focus. LESS depth of field means the background is more compressed compared to the subject and is achieved much easier on a full frame because the subject will always be closer in relation to where that person would have to be if the photographer were taking the same picture with the same focal length on a crop body.

    God damn this is entry level bullshit.

    >>1401024

    Again, if you have a 50mm lens on both a crop and full frame, with the crop you will need to back away from the subject to achieve the same composition, giving you MORE depth of field than the full frame and decompressing the background.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)11:21 No.1401090
    >>1401024
    All the retard math in the world won't replace the fact that anyone who has used a format larger than crop knows that is bullshit.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:15 No.1401129
    >>1401073
    >>Crop sensors don't magically extend the focal length of a lens, it's just a magnification, thus you need to keep the subject further away and you get MORE depth of field

    That's like saying my VW Golf is faster than a Ferrari, because in the Ferrari stays in first gear.

    If all conditions are equal, same lens, same aperture, the crop body will produce a smaller (shallower) depth of field.
    Yes, the images will be framed differently because of the crop factor, but the fundamental optical qualities will not change.

    Besides, If you use a 50mm lens on a crop body and move further away to match the focus point of a 50mm lens on a FF body, the image will still be different.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:21 No.1401133
    >>1401129

    >I've never owned anything other than a rabal

    This is all I could read when I read your cancer ridden post.

    8/10
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:24 No.1401135
    >>1401133

    You're terrible at making inferences.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:26 No.1401138
    >>1401135

    And you're terrible at understand the basics of photography.

    Anyone whos ever even looked through the fucking viewfinder of a full frame camera will know that it gives a shallower depth of field.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:28 No.1401139
    >>1401073
    >>Again, if you have a 50mm lens on both a crop and full frame, with the crop you will need to back away from the subject to achieve the same composition

    You will never get the same composition on a Full Frame and a crop body using the same lens.
    The subject might be the same size, but the parallax will be totally different.

    Remember, a 50mm lens on a 1.6x crop body is not a 50mm lens, it's an 80mm lens.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:31 No.1401141
    >>1401138

    It's basic optics, bro.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:45 No.1401148
    >>1401139
    >a 50mm lens on a 1.6x crop body is not a 50mm lens, it's an 80mm lens.
    No it isn't. There are optical properties of a lens which are tied to its focal length which do not magically change when you mount it on a camera with a smaller sensor.

    For instance, if you have a 50mm f/1.4, the effective diameter of the aperture diaphragm at f/1.4 will be 50 (the focal length) divided by 1.4 (the f-stop), which is around 35.7mm. On an 80mm lens, at f/1.4 the diameter would be around 57.1mm. This doesn't happen change. There is no magic involved here. It's still a 50mm lens, all you're doing is cropping out the center of the image.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:54 No.1401157
    If you use an equivalent field of view lens on a crop body it will have the same depth of field at the same aperture. This isn't quite the case with stills as you have a different circle of confusing because you're enlarging the crop image more when printing at the same size, but when you're viewing a video it's just pixels. Full frame's wide field of view advantage is also pretty irrelevant as ultrawides are rarely used for video, probably the widest you'll commonly use is 28mm which is 18mm on crop and widely available. So, the only advantage it does have is noise performance, especially if you get a lower resolution body as anything over 1920x1080 is effectively going to waste. If you don't need the low light performance then there's not much reason to consider full frame, however it is more needed in video as you have a limit to how slow your shutter speed can be that even IS can't counter act (although it is useful, but that's a different subject).
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:57 No.1401161
    >>1401148
    >>the effective diameter of the aperture diaphragm

    LOL what? You're just inventing variables now?

    >>all you're doing is cropping out the center of the image.

    No, you're not. You are focusing the image at a different point behind the rear element of the lens, this completely changes the optical qualities, not just the magnification.
    If you don't understand how crop sensors work optically, I can't really help you.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)12:59 No.1401164
    >>1401161
    Not who you're replying to, but you're a fucking idiot.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)13:30 No.1401175
    >>1401161
    This is literally the worst post in the history of /p/. I have never seen anybody be so wrong or so stupid before in my life.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)13:32 No.1401176
         File1317058365.jpg-(175 KB, 535x798, 1308849686597.jpg)
    175 KB
    >>1401161

    >crop sensors work optically
    EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)14:03 No.1401197
    >>1401176
    inb4 he starts back pedalling and mentioning microlenses and AA filters.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)14:05 No.1401198
    Put a lens on a FF body and take a picture. Look at the DOF.
    Then open the picture in an image editor and crop out the middle portion. Did the DOF change? No.

    The lens creates an image circle inside the camera. A FF sensor captures a large portion of the image circle, a crop sensor captures a smaller portion. The optics are the same whether you use a FF or crop sensor, or even 35mm film.

    The sensor captures the light, it doesn't manipulate it.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)14:06 No.1401199
    >>1401157
    No you WON'T. Just damn it try it. Get a medium format camera and shoot a 80/2.8, a 50/2.8 on a FF and 35/2.8 on a crop. The DOF will be different each time. Or just try a DOF calculator somewhere instead. A f/3.5 35mm on a crop will result in about the same exposure as a f/3.5 on a 90mm 6x7, but the DOF will be more than twice longer.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)14:16 No.1401201
    >>1401199
    First of all I was talking about video. Secondly those lenses you mentioned will have practically the same depth of field on the respective bodies when using the same framing. Yes I admit there will be a slight difference, with the longer lens being shallower, but not a big enough difference that it matters. Now if you also factor in the different print enlargements the difference becomes even bigger (the amount of the crop factor), but ignoring medium format the difference between crop and full frame still doesn't matter. We're talking about 70% considering all the factors, or 1cm versus 1.7cm (or 1m and 1.7m, when you have that large a depth of field 70cm doesn't matter.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)14:52 No.1401230
    >>1401198

    Oh god, the cancer is ravaging my body
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)15:01 No.1401233
    >>1401198
    you're correct. however, you are a full fledged faggot retard for not lurking enough to realize that yes, FF cameras produce a narrower depth of field than crop cameras because you have to use a wider lens on the crop sensor (wider lenses naturally have more depth of field) to get the same field of view as that of a full frame camera.

    of course, all this has already been said in this thread...
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)15:02 No.1401234
    /p/ proves once again it is retarded

    >>1400995

    > the same lens on the same settings will have a smaller depth of field on a crop body.

    This is wrong. The same lens on the same settings on a crop body will have the same DoF, it will only have a tighter crop. The reason it is correct to say that FF has a shallower DoF is that in order to have the same framing from the same distance, you use a longer lens on FF. This is what results in the shallower DoF.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)15:08 No.1401239
    fellow full frame users: it is pointless to argue with these rebel-shooting cretins. they are functionally retarded and literally do not possess the necessary brainpower to understand the basic, fundamental concepts at work here. just ignore them, and let them wallow in their own ignorance.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)15:30 No.1401263
    >>1401239
    And yet they're the only ones that make any sense. Instead of going "herpfull frame god tier, shallow depth of field goodness" they give logical arguments as to why it's a load of bullshit. Enjoy your overpriced camera.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)15:40 No.1401268
    1.6x shorter looks like shorter to me....

    And obviously, same lens on different cameras will have same DOF, just the picture will be cropped on the crop.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)16:21 No.1401292
         File1317068503.jpg-(63 KB, 400x400, 20101204_helpportrait_019_web.jpg)
    63 KB
    >>1401263

    >overpriced camera

    >mfw my 5D was cheaper than a T3i
    EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)16:23 No.1401293
    >>1401292
    >lol5D
    So not only are you a fullframeherper but you're also a poorfag.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)16:25 No.1401296
    >>1401293

    >Bitching about things being overpriced
    >Calling people poorfags

    lol, reaching
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)16:58 No.1401329
    >>1401263
    Ah. So you are just jealous. Thanks for letting us know.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)17:00 No.1401331
         File1317070811.jpg-(4 KB, 200x180, 1308765814399s.jpg)
    4 KB
    >>1401201
    >mfw 35mm movie cameras shoot on film vertically, not horizontally, and only use an area the size of a crop sensor anyways.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)17:02 No.1401333
    >>1401263
    >Enjoy your overpriced camera
    i very much do, though the lenses frequently cost more than the camera.

    enjoy your canon rebel. I know I did when I was your age
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)17:06 No.1401336
    >>1401331

    They tend to shoot anamorphic though. With an anamorphic lens you can get, say a horizontal field of view of a 25mm lens, and shallow depth of field of a 50mm
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:05 No.1401370
    >>1401263
    >claims to be the only one making sense
    >ridicules full frame shooters for using 'overpriced cameras'
    >immediately goes onto call full frame shooter a 'poorfag' because his camera costs less than a crop camera
    I guess that would make sense to you if you were severely autistic or something, I don't know. How do you manage to breathe?
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:32 No.1401385
    >>1401148
    Are you implying that a shot taken 1 metre away from the subject with a full frame body will look exactly like a shot taken with a crop body 1.6 metres away from the subject ?
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:33 No.1401388
    >>1401370
    Actually I figured he was an idiot for paying too much for a full frame body just because it's full frame, but because he's a poorfag he couldn't afford one so went with the cheaper shitter option.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:37 No.1401391
    >>1401385
    No, not at all. What gave you the impression that I was implying that?
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:42 No.1401395
    >>1401388
    You seem awfully insecure about your crop camera. Your entire argument against full frame cameras remind me of a guy with a tiny dick being like "Big dicks are stupid, you don't even need them! You have to spend more money on condoms and they don't even fit inside of underwear. Why would anyone want to have a big dick?? My small dick is obviously better and anyone with a big dick is a retard."
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:47 No.1401400
    >>1401395
    I'm not insecure at all, I just enjoy laughing at idiots wasting money. I could've bought a 5DII if I really wanted but instead I went for a cheaper crop body and spent the rest of the money on decent glass and another crop body.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:50 No.1401403
    >>1401400
    >I'm not insecure at all, I just enjoy laughing at idiots with big dicks. I could've been born with a big dick if I really wanted but instead I went for a small dick and spent the rest of my energy on decent balls and another small dick.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:51 No.1401406
    >>1401403
    That's pretty much spot on.

    Dual wielding dicks and extended balls > Giant nigger cock
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:53 No.1401410
    >>1401406
    Except you can't use both your dicks at the same time, your second dick is only there in case your first one breaks, so it's basically worthless.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)18:56 No.1401415
    >>1401410
    Who says I can't use both at once? Even if I can't manage to fit both into the same girl or separate girls I can still jack it.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)19:05 No.1401418
    >>1401400
    so what glass did you get?
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)19:05 No.1401420
    >>1401415
    The point of having a dick is to fuck things with it. If all you're gonna do is jack it then you might as well have a micropenis. Face it dude, you and your tiny dicks lose. Big dick master race makes the best sex and you know it. Enjoy masturbating alone with your baby dicks.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)19:10 No.1401422
    >>1401420
    One's for fucking, the other's for tugging. Also, >Implying you don't masturbate every night

    >>1401418
    I don't see how that's relevant, but it and both bodies are enough for a 5DII and a 50mm f/1.8 which is obviously a shit decision.
    >> Chi 09/26/11(Mon)19:14 No.1401425
         File1317078871.jpg-(179 KB, 1699x588, filming.jpg)
    179 KB
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)19:19 No.1401427
    >>1401422
    >One's for fucking, the other's for tugging.
    Again, you can't do both at the same time. Why on earth would you want one small dick for each of these things when you can have a big dick for both? It just doesn't make sense to me. One day you will grow up and you'll trade in your baby dicks for a nice big magnum dong and you'll realize what you've been missing all this time.

    There's a reason why people start with crop cameras and then upgrade to full frame cameras, not the other way around. The only conceivable reason to buy a crop camera is because you don't have enough money for the full frame equivalent, so you compromise and spend the rest of your life feeling like you need to justify your purchase because you know you compromised. That's all you're doing right now, you're just trying to protect your fragile little ego by validating your purchase. You don't even realize you're doing it. You're essentially lying to yourself.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)19:46 No.1401463
    >>1401427
    >Again, you can't do both at the same time.
    You can, with two dicks.
    >There's a reason why people start with crop cameras and then upgrade to full frame cameras, not the other way around.
    That's not always true. If full frame was cheaper so that you could get a 5D for the price of a 20D plenty people would get that to start with and then upgrade to shit like the 7D.

    >The only conceivable reason to buy a crop camera is because you don't have enough money for the full frame equivalent
    So all those sport and wild life shooters are poorfags who can't even afford a 5D? I wonder how they ever managed to afford their 1DIVs and 400mm f/2.8s.

    > That's all you're doing right now, you're just trying to protect your fragile little ego by validating your purchase. You don't even realize you're doing it. You're essentially lying to yourself.
    Indeed I am trying to validate it, because most idiots seem to think full frame is god tier. If you want to carry on believing that then fine, just don't try and convince every other retard like some sort of priest spreading Christianity/lies.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:05 No.1401475
    >>1401463
    >You can, with two dicks.
    This analogy is getting out of hand and doesn't even make sense any more in the context of what we're talking about.

    >don't try and convince every other retard like some sort of priest spreading Christianity/lies.
    I came in here to correct all the idiots claiming that you get a smaller depth of field with crop cameras. You started talking about how full frame shooters were idiots and giving them shit for both using cameras that cost too much and for using cameras that don't cost enough. Pretty much every argument you have made has been full of inaccuracies and logical fallacies. I get the impression that your sole purpose for being in this thread is to try to lambast people with full frame cameras, and the only reason I can think of why you would do that is because you feel threatened by and/or jealous of them.

    I don't go out of my way to make it a point that crop shooters are idiots because quite frankly, I don't believe that they are (not as a general rule anyway, you seem to be an exception). I was a crop shooter for years. Crop cameras are great. I happen to like full frame cameras better though, so I upgraded.

    I (and many other full frame shooters) have the luxury of having been on both side of this debate. Nearly all full frame shooters started out on crop, so we can objectively compare the two and give opinions based on first-hand experience. Nearly every single person like you who just goes on and on about how full frame cameras are stupid and overpriced have never owned one, so how can your opinion possibly be objective and free from bias? You have no experience with what you claim to hate to much. That's what leads me to believe that you're just doing it to validate your camera purchase.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:07 No.1401478
    >>1401475
    >full frame fag trying to justify blowing $2500 on a shit tier camera

    you should have gotten a real lens, kiddo
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:09 No.1401480
    >>1401478
    Oh shit, you got me. Great counter argument. You win, damn. I'll get you next time!
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:14 No.1401482
    >>1401475
    >This analogy is getting out of hand and doesn't even make sense any more in the context of what we're talking about.
    Fine, we'll quite with the dicks. Yes I can use 2 bodies at once, the DSLR is for AF lenses and the NEX is mainly for adapted manual glass. The NEX is also better for macros whilst the DSLR is good for sports with my long zoom.

    >I came in here to correct all the idiots claiming that you get a smaller depth of field with crop cameras.
    I only saw one person say that, and he was actually correct (all things being equal the crop will have a slightly narrower depth of field).

    >rest of your post
    tl;dr, I'm going to bed.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:19 No.1401483
         File1317082751.jpg-(46 KB, 230x230, 1307655657119.jpg)
    46 KB
    >ITT: gearfags gearfagging
    >mfw
    EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.
    >> juanCARLOS !!cKt8bKm1c6H 09/26/11(Mon)20:20 No.1401484
    >>1401482

    >all things being equal the crop will have a slightly narrower depth of field

    This is not correct.
    >> juanCARLOS !!cKt8bKm1c6H 09/26/11(Mon)20:23 No.1401488
    >>1401483

    Hey, that's my face, not your face.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:25 No.1401492
    >>1401488
    Instead of making yourself look like an idiot you could at least look it up with a depth of field calculator before posting.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:28 No.1401497
    >>1401482
    >I only saw one person say that, and he was actually correct (all things being equal the crop will have a slightly narrower depth of field).
    Ugh, you're completely wrong. It's been said a million time but I'm going to say it again. In a situation where you are going to take a picture, you need a certain subject framing. To achieve this framing, there are 2 variables, subject distance and lens focal length. To achieve the same framing on a crop camera as you would have on a full frame camera you need to either increase subject distance or use a wider focal length, BOTH of which give you more depth of field.

    If you are trying to argue that you keep both subject distance and focal length the same while taking the same picture, this is another one of your logical fallacies. When you're taking pictures, you don't do this. You wouldn't frame a 50mm composition with an 80mm equivalent lens just because you're using a crop camera. You would either step back or you would use a wider lens.

    In every practical sense, the larger your sensor is, the smaller your depth of field is going to be. This translates all the way up to large format and all the way down to cell phone camera sensors. Crop cameras do not magically break this rule. Crop cameras are to full frame cameras what full frame cameras are to medium format cameras.

    What you're saying is just plain wrong.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:28 No.1401498
    crop cameras require use of a wider lens to approximate the same field of view as a full frame camera. wider angle lenses inherently have a wider or deeper dof. therefore, crop cameras with the same apparent field of view as a full frame camera will have a wider or deeper dof. is anyone still confused by this?
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:32 No.1401504
    >>1401497
    I never said that wasn't the case, the but what I and the other anon said is completely correct. However it is irrelevant so I don't know why he mentioned it, but that doesn't make him wrong.
    >> juanCARLOS !!cKt8bKm1c6H 09/26/11(Mon)20:33 No.1401505
    >>1401492

    I think you responded to the wrong post bro. If you meant to respond to this one, >>1401484, I stand by what I said. First of all, you probably meant to say

    >all things being equal the crop will have a slightly DEEPER depth of field

    In stead you sad

    >all things being equal the crop will have a slightly NARROWER depth of field

    Even if you'd said that though it would have been slightly unclear what you meant. By "all things being equal," did you mean same lens, same aperture, same subject distance? Because in this case they will have the same DOF. Only if you have same aperture, same subject distance, and same FRAMING (which necessitates a different FL) would you have a change in DOF.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:37 No.1401507
    >>1401504
    You're right, it is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant to photography. In every single practical sense, the larger your sensor is, the less depth of field you have.

    And I thought you were going to bed? Oh wait, you just didn't want to address the part of my post where I pointed out unequivocally that you're a complete moron.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:37 No.1401508
    >>1401505
    Bro, stop being a retard and use a depth of field calculator. All things being equal (that obviously means aperture, focal length, and and subject distance) the crop image will have a NARROWER depth of field.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:39 No.1401511
    >>1401507
    I'm in bed actually, can't type much on this phone.

    Irrelevant =/= Incorrect
    >> juanCARLOS !!cKt8bKm1c6H 09/26/11(Mon)20:41 No.1401513
    >>1401508

    >All things being equal (that obviously means aperture, focal length, and and subject distance) the crop image will have a NARROWER depth of field.

    That's incorrect, except for the fact that the crop camera may have a higher pixel density (note: may have), which would allow you to see more accurately when the image becomes out of focus. This is because of pixel pitch though, which is only indirectly related to crop factor.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:46 No.1401516
    >>1401508
    If you're trying to use an online dof calculator as the basis for your argument when you're going against proven practical applications and real world results then you're an idiot.

    That's like telling someone who has been getting fantastically sharp and beautiful pictures out of a lens for years that their lens is soft and unable to create good images simply because you saw an mtf chart of the lens on the internet.

    Congratulations, you have reached level 0.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:50 No.1401520
         File1317084625.png-(35 KB, 716x467, Untitleda.png)
    35 KB
    >>1401508
    I looked it up to see if you were actually right. you're not. if THIS (pic related) is what you are doing, you are dead wrong.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:51 No.1401521
         File1317084698.png-(36 KB, 721x471, Untitledb.png)
    36 KB
    >>1401520
    here's the correct calculation.

    35mm x 1.6 crop factor = 56mm.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:55 No.1401522
    >>1401521
    It calculates crop factor automaticly if you select the corect camera
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:59 No.1401524
    >>1401522
    yea, stupid ass. it does. and 55mm on a crop is 88mm on full frame. shut your stupid high school ass up and don't post in /p/ again until you get your head out of your massively abused anus.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)20:59 No.1401525
    Stupid people, DOF is a nice thing about DSLR and filmaking, the MAIN difference between crop and full frame is the amount of light gathered and the noise difference at a given ISO, the ONLY two canon DSLR's that professional people will use for filming are the 5dMK2 and 7D - rebels are shit.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:03 No.1401526
    >>1401525
    ok the 5d2 is one thing, it's the only ff canon dslr that does video. but the 7d has the same 18mp sensor as the rebel. it really has no advantage in shooting video other than... weathersealing I guess
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:07 No.1401530
    >>1401522
    [ ] not told
    [x] told
    [ ] left with dignity
    [x] anally ravaged
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:18 No.1401539
    >>1401129
    >If all conditions are equal, same lens, same aperture, the crop body will produce a smaller (shallower) depth of field.
    >Yes, the images will be framed differently because of the crop factor, but the fundamental optical qualities will not change.
    Yes, THIS is the reference point I think most people want.
    Yes we know the frame will be different, thats why we are ignoring that and just looking at DOF at a given range. As stated below at length, it seems.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:22 No.1401541
    >>1401539
    >Yes, THIS is the reference point I think most people want.
    No, this is the reference point that pedantic internet jackoffs want. Maybe that is most of you, I pray that it is not.

    Actual photographers know that in 100 out of 100 cases, you would change either subject distance or focal length to compensate for the framing difference, which would give the larger sensor the smaller depth of field. The only people arguing with 'all things being equal' are jackoffs. In this case, in any real world scenario, all things will never be equal so it is completely pointless to argue this fact.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:24 No.1401543
    >>1401539
    >we're ignoring real world application and instead are comparing two things that aren't comparable
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:26 No.1401546
    >>1401539
    >my 85mm full-frame equivalent has less dof than your 50mm on full frame
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:29 No.1401547
    >>1401541
    >>1401543
    Well yo ucan be mad and get insulting if you like, it really doesn;t help you to look all superior. Quite the opposite.
    All I can say is that when I was pondering this recently I was intentionally NOT changing the range in my hypothetical comparison, because (as previously mentioned) that changes parallax.
    I was interested in it from a purely same-range based comparison.

    We are both right, you are just choosing to be a belligerent asshat and insult people because you fail to recognize their perspective on the issue as valid.
    Standard internet tough guy.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:33 No.1401550
    >>1401546
    referencing a lens focallenght by what it is on a given crop factor is confusing, not standard, and fairly ignorant.
    Refer to the lens as what it's got written on it. Add 35mmEquiv if you really must, but consider that to be obfuscatory and babbys first explanation.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:35 No.1401553
    >>1401547
    Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were on your period. Did you expect to come onto 4chan and be showered with compliments? Should a team of midgets in white suits walk in front of you, throwing rose petals on the ground for you to walk on? Jesus Christ, either grow some fucking balls or get the hell out of here. Holy shit.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:36 No.1401554
    >>1401547
    >>1401547
    >I was intentionally NOT changing the range in my hypothetical comparison
    you were intentionally invalidating your results then.
    >I was interested in it from a purely same-range based comparison
    that has no application in real life.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:42 No.1401560
    >>1401550
    >referencing a lens focallenght by what it is on a given crop factor is confusing, not standard, and fairly ignorant
    o rly? because a 50mm lens on a crop camera is 85mm full-frame (or 35mm) equivalent. stating the facts is ignorant?
    >Refer to the lens as what it's got written on it
    I assume at this point, you haven't read the thread and don't realize we're all talking about the standard 50mm lens here. but here, I fixed it for you since you struggle so much with understanding basic technical points of photography
    >my 50mm lens that is 85mm full-frame equivalent has less dof than your 50mm that is 50mm full-frame equivalent.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:42 No.1401561
    >>1401554
    It was a simplified comparison with a single variable, to facilitate a crisp first principle understanding so that I could be sure of what I was saying to someone else, and concisely explain it to them if needed.
    Also fuck you for being the kind of cancerous cunt that makes this board so tedious.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:46 No.1401564
    >>1401560
    No i read the thread. and thoroughly understand what you are discussing.
    I was just being a dick to you because you are being intentionally obfuscatory just because you mad, and can;t let it go gracefully.
    But I do see that you were trying to make a self referential self explanatory, if overly smartass, comment.
    I just had to be an ass to you because you are being such a gigantic faggot about it.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:49 No.1401567
    >>1401561
    >It was a simplified comparison with a single variable
    no dude, there are two variables. the crop factor and the field of view. you screwed up on the latter.
    >to facilitate a crisp first principle understanding
    nothing about your point that a 50mm on crop has less dof than a 50mm on full frame has any application in real life. that's a bad "first principle understanding" to lay down for yourself. it's completely useless information.
    >Also fuck you for being the kind of cancerous cunt that makes this board so tedious
    who is more cancerous, the entire board that agrees that full frame cameras provide a shallower depth of field compared to crop sensors, or one cunt dead-set on proving his own moronic thesis correct?
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:50 No.1401568
    >>1401561
    You continue to argue about this irrelevant technical proof of concept, but it has absolutely no real world application. It's so beyond pointless that I don't understand why you are still doing it. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of wasting my fucking time, but this is just insane. Is your existence really that meaningless?
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)21:55 No.1401573
    >>1401564
    First, you say this:
    >Well yo ucan be mad and get insulting if you like, it really doesn;t help you to look all superior. Quite the opposite.
    and then call me a standard internet tough guy, all because i called you a 'pedantic internet jackoff'. Then you go on to use the following terms over the next few posts to describe those of us whom you are arguing against:
    >fuck you
    >cancerous cunt
    >you mad
    >gigantic faggot

    Gee, glad to see you're taking the high road here, Mr. I'm So Mature.
    >> Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:23 No.1401603
         File1317090215.png-(54 KB, 2000x2000, 1313972017982.png)
    54 KB
    >>1401292
    >> Anonymous 09/27/11(Tue)00:03 No.1401675
    >>1401400

    Did you ever stop to think that maybe I bought the 5D1 for the same reason? I don't need another video camera. That $1700 dollars saved has bought shit tons of other things along with glass.

    inb4 "You buy used shit? Thats dumb hurrr"
    >> Anonymous 09/27/11(Tue)00:39 No.1401704
    >>1401568
    >irrelevant technical proof of concept, but it has absolutely no real world application
    wow, you are really getting worked up over this aren't you?
    Like I said, it's relevant in understanding the basic principle without changing any of the other base variables. It's a simplified abstraction for understanding the principle.
    >t's so beyond pointless that I don't understand why you are still doing it.
    That's exactly right: you don't understand, because you are so fixated on your version of 'right'.
    Here, watch part 1 of this:
    http://youtu(dot)be/dbh5l0b2-0o
    >> Anonymous 09/27/11(Tue)00:48 No.1401710
    >>1401704

    >he doesn't know you can post youtube URLs here!
    >laughingwhores.mov
    >> Anonymous 09/27/11(Tue)01:44 No.1401744
    >>1401710
    The board stopped me till i ninja'd it.
    ..little bitch



    [Return]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]