What's going on with the trace amounts of uranium across EU
Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
251–258 of 258 posts
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference in DOF is more of a minor technicality than a "Your 1500 dollar lens performs like a 350 dollar one!" though. OP is correct that you are exaggerating, though OP was definitely wrong to ignore the difference.
I ignored it because when you get into practical image making the difference in image related to depth is negligible compared to the image quality to cost ratio. My point was that a small sensor can have a use, telephoto compression as a by-product of a crop is pretty handy when you have very expensive primes you want to make longer, hence i only used L series lenses in my example. I forgot there is tie between maste…
In terms of equivalence, you're just mathematically wrong.
To demonstrate why you're also wrong with overall quality, consider the Canon 5Ds/5DsR. An incredible 50-something megapixels; famous for being able to reveal flaws in (or at least exceed the limits of) some of the most expensive glass. This is because its pixel pitch of 4.14µm is so incredibly fine.
The latest APS-C bodies, the 80D for example, have a pixel pitch of 3.7µm, which is even finer still. Using full frame glass on an APS-C body is like putting it on a hypothetical 5Ds Mark II and cropping into the middle 40% in post. It's just not going to be sharp.
This is because when you put that expensive full frame lens onto an APS-C body, you're only using half of the actual physical glass you paid for. The rest of it is going to waste. You're just using the middle bit... then magnifying it to accentuate the flaws.
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems you're mixing your arguments. From your education you are aware that the 'equivalence' between APS-C and full-frame extends beyond focal length and into aperture and ISO performance I presume? That's the point the parent you're replying to is making. It is physically impossible to achieve the kind of equivalence you mentioned in your first post because the 'crop factor' is also applied to aperture and the cr…
The difference in DOF is more of a minor technicality than a "Your 1500 dollar lens performs like a 350 dollar one!" though. OP is correct that you are exaggerating, though OP was definitely wrong to ignore the difference.
Here we go. The $350 on full-frame in all likelihood outperforms the $1500 lens that is heavily cropped by an APS-C body. According to DxOMark, the Canon 85mm f/1.8 has substantially higher overall sharpness than the middle 40% of a Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens.[1][2]
It is true that the cheaper lens has slightly greater pincushion distortion and vignetting, however both flaws are trivially (and automatically) corrected in post processing. What can't be fixed in post is overall sharpness and depth-of-field.
[1] https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF50mm-f-1.2L-USM-mount...
[2] https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF85mm-f-1.8-USM-...
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.
> A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. Only as it pertains to DOF. On the other hand, it will still be a 1.2 lens as far as light gathering is concerned. And you can get a 35mm 1.2 for your 50mm equivalent on APS-C. The loss of DOF we know, but you still…
> it will still be a 1.2 lens as far as light gathering is concerned
Also incorrect, because less than 40% of the light gathered by a full frame lens hits the APS-C sensor.
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.
> A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. Only as it pertains to DOF. On the other hand, it will still be a 1.2 lens as far as light gathering is concerned. And you can get a 35mm 1.2 for your 50mm equivalent on APS-C. The loss of DOF we know, but you still…
> you can get a 35mm 1.2 for your 50mm equivalent on APS-C
According to DxOMark[1][2], the $1400 Canon 35mm f/1.4 on an APS-C body is comparable to a Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM on full frame and stopped down to f/2.4.
[1] https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-35mm-F14L-USM-...
[2] https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-50mm-F18-STM-m...
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
I ignored it because when you get into practical image making the difference in image related to depth is negligible compared to the image quality to cost ratio. My point was that a small sensor can have a use, telephoto compression as a by-product of a crop is pretty handy when you have very expensive primes you want to make longer, hence i only used L series lenses in my example. I forgot there is tie between maste…
In terms of equivalence, you're just mathematically wrong. To demonstrate why you're also wrong with overall quality, consider the Canon 5Ds/5DsR. An incredible 50-something megapixels; famous for being able to reveal flaws in (or at least exceed the limits of) some of the most expensive glass. This is because its pixel pitch of 4.14µm is so incredibly fine. The latest APS-C bodies, the 80D for example, have a pixel…
And just so it's abundantly clear, I am not saying that APS-C is inferior because it absolutely isn't. Nothing is stopping lens manufacturers from making similarly good lenses for a smaller image circle.
The issue entirely boils down to using lenses optimised for one sensor size (in this case full frame) on a camera that has a significantly smaller sensor (in this case APS-C).
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of equivalence, you're just mathematically wrong. To demonstrate why you're also wrong with overall quality, consider the Canon 5Ds/5DsR. An incredible 50-something megapixels; famous for being able to reveal flaws in (or at least exceed the limits of) some of the most expensive glass. This is because its pixel pitch of 4.14µm is so incredibly fine. The latest APS-C bodies, the 80D for example, have a pixel…
And just so it's abundantly clear, I am not saying that APS-C is inferior because it absolutely isn't. Nothing is stopping lens manufacturers from making similarly good lenses for a smaller image circle. The issue entirely boils down to using lenses optimised for one sensor size (in this case full frame) on a camera that has a significantly smaller sensor (in this case APS-C).
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lense...
Also, I went through 4 or 5 85 1.4s to find a sharp one because the built quality was so bad, and even after a couple of weeks traveling it had gone soft, never found this with my 50 1.2 (although I ended up ditching all the crop gear and going to FF when I bought the 85 1.2) - However, it was a really good substitute till I could afford it (as I mentioned above) :)
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good journalism still exists, yes I couldn't agree more. But I don't think it's rewarded as much as poor journalism. This is the problem.
I think that's precisely the trump issue... "Reality" TV costs peanuts and gets more views, even if everything in it is staged.
Yeah politics has had this issue for a while too.