Serious question;
Why would anyone bother with digital crop sensor cameras when fool-frame is as accessible and as affordable as ever (hint: important words for you medium and large format dorks)?
Don't say "I can afford the lenses!". There are fool-frame bodies that natively support crop lenses and if not, then you can get a cheap extension tube to mount it on there anyway.
>>2729425
Because full-frame cameras cost significantly more? What's so hard to understand about that?
I find it hard to believe that that is actually a serious question.
>>2729432
>Because full-frame cameras cost significantly more
I hope you're not just pretending to be retarded. I think you missed the whole "fool-frame is as accessible and as affordable as ever" part.
You can get a Canon EOS 6D or Nikon D600 for less than $1,000 or if you want to go cheap, a Sony a7 for $700 or less.
And yes, this is a serious question.
>>2729425
I just printed a 20" x 30" photo of this taken with my X-T1 (CMOS II sensor) at 162 dpi
It came out beautifully with no hint of pixelation. Could maybe go another 5-10 inches
I accept my wonderful image quality if I must surrender a few centimeters of DOF to physics
OP is a fag
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:15 21:13:36 Exposure Time 1/1200 sec F-Number f/1.2 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.2 Brightness 4.9 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2304 Image Height 1536 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2729432
$500 difference in price isn't "significant," at least not to me. especially considering that if you can afford $1500/2000 on a luxury expense you can probably save up for another $500 and go straight to full frame. people are just uneducated and think that they're saving money when really it costs you in the long term having to switch formats. only like sports and birders prefer a crop body.
>>2729425
>using crop lens on a full frame
fool
>>2729439
>still paying for the fullframe jew
How does my CMOS II's asshole taste?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:15 21:21:55 Exposure Time 1/2000 sec F-Number f/1.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.6 Brightness 3.9 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2304 Image Height 1536 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2729450
>shitty, crop, slow
>fuji
Who's memeing who?!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:16 12:55:05 Exposure Time 1/3000 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 9.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2520 Image Height 1536 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2729454
this is a cropped to hell photo btw
have another
also,
>Sony
Ive picked up an A7 several times and the interface makes me sick. Fuji for aesthetic and functional masterrace.
Do I need to get rhythmic stick man out here to fuck your world up?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:15 21:13:05 Exposure Time 1/3000 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 10.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2304 Image Height 1536 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2729457
At least you wouldn't be a cropbabby anymore.
>>2729437
It's funny, because that picture is soft and posterised and noisy on my 15" laptop screen.
>but whatever makes u happy m8
>>2729459
>I prefer cinderblock sized cameras for insignificant increases in DOF and even less in IQ
>>2729462
not my fault you have a shite laptop screen
it might also be because Im posting from my phone
regardless, you're a cunt
>>2729464
>you're a cunt
You're the only one being the cunt here.
>>2729466
>fool framers constantly feel the need to whip their dicks out
>Its fucking nothing
cunts :^)
>>2729467
>How do crop lenses work
great thread. You're a great troll or a fucking moron. I hope you didn't make the OP image yourself, because that's not how it works.
>>2729447
>"how does my crop sensor's inability to recover shadows taste?"
>f/1.2 on a 50mm, near portrait f2/0, 85mm on crop body
>literally pushing the limits of lenses to get mediocre bokeh
If we're talking good bokeh then fool frehm has you beat with the same lens.
>>2729471
>that lack of reading comphrension
Oh no! The cropbabby IS full retarded!
>>2729435
>$700
>affordable
i got a m43 body with two lenses.
also, bokeh is boring. if youre an amateur/enthusiast that wants to actually get better, bok3h isnt more than a cheap crutch so you dont have to try to take actually good photoes
>>2729435
>I think you missed the whole "fool-frame is as accessible and as affordable as ever" part.
I did not. You stated a premise and I rejected it.
>>2729439
>$500 difference in price isn't "significant,"
When that more or less doubles the price, it is.
I personally think that full frame is worth the extra money, especially if you work in a lot of low light or high dynamic range situations, but not everybody has that extra money and it seems egocentric to claim that $500 is not a significant amount of money.
>>2729475
I could easily pull out those shadows and it would look fine. I chose not to.
It also wasnt fully wide and the bokeh looks great to me. A full frame sensor would not make a sensible difference, you stupid bastard.
>>2729478
No, you actually don't know that crop lenses are constructed differently than full frame lenses, otherwise you wouldn't have said
>If you had a full-frame sensor, you could have captured the entire scenes instead of cropping out all those important features.
See how fucking retarded you are?
My lens labeled "35mm" looks just like 50mm TLR when I put it on. Make sense to you, you obtuse fucking giganigger?
>>2729485
You should just delete that shitpost instead of piling on more shitposts, cropbabby.
>>2729425
> There are fool-frame bodies that natively support crop lenses and if not, then you can get a cheap extension tube to mount it on there anyway.
Lel, what? The best APS-C lenses are barely sharp enough on a modern APS-C. You really don't want to stick them on a FF camera.
>>2729486
wew lad
>>2729483
It's still f/1.6, which means you're getting approx. an f/2.6 aperture. Damn what a fool frehm can REALLY do.
>>2729425
NEGLIGIBLE
https://youtu.be/PHYidejT3KY
>>2729467
>If you had a full-frame sensor, you could have captured the entire scenes instead of cropping out all those important features.
If he had 8x10 hueg box he could capture 360 deg panorama. What a fool.
The humour of it is that while FF sensors are obviously objectively superior, anyone who actually argues about them like a faggot on the internet probably only gets iPhone-tier snapshits. Full frame is more expensive and it will be for a while.
In 10 years you're gonna come back and ask why anyone bothers with 35mm when there's medium format cameras, like the faggot that you are.
>>2729532
NEGLIGIBLE!
because the best cheap entry to ff is the a7 at $900, while you can buy a g1 for $90 or a k10d for $50 and use it for years.
as to why people spend $1300 on APS-C canikons is beyond me
>>2729457
bro how do you get to shoot bad-ass planes like that, and from the air at that?
what a terrible, brain cell killing thread
affordable is so relative, yet you clearly have some predetermine notions of what people can buy
such lack of reasoning
much dumb
so troll
wow
>>2729554
this
>>2729435
Some people don't like to buy last generation's used cameras.
>>2729425
Size, weight, my needs, and price. I COULD afford an 8x10 camera and have "undeniably better" image quality, but I have no use for it whatsoever, and I'd rather have an X-T1 with a 35mm f/2 on it and not have to worry about it.
Why by a 90 foot ladder in stead of a 75 foot ladder when you only have to go up 75 feet? Is more always better? No. For me, smaller lenses are great. And buying a full frame camera to put crop lenses on it is retarded. Why would you do that? Just because you could win more arguments on /p/ about whose camera could take better photos if you ever left the house with it? No thank you.
There is literally no consistent difference anymore between FF and recent crop sensors.
What has changed is that today you can buy still amazing FF cameras for cheap, really any FF sensor made in the last 6 years is great.
FF sensors can easily fit in a "fuji sized" camera, it's just a matter of economies of scale.
>>2729685
>it's just a matter of economies of scale.
not sure you know what that means.
>>2729687
It means that sensors are made from a single wafer, cut up many times to make the sensors. Problem is, all wafers have some small faults, bigger sensors possibly include more faults, and a single fault is enough to trash the sensor.
So, it's much more economical to make crop sensors from a wafer, you get more of them and less faulty ones, than the bigger full frame sensors. Which is probably why Fuji went for crop instead of FF: they didn't want to blow up the price so much, since crop delivers 90% of the quality. They went around the slight "lolbokeh" and ISO limitations by building excellent fast lenses, and it worked out.
>>2729690
Thar's not what "economy of scale"
means.
>>2729691
>1 wafer that makes 100 sensors
vs
>1 wafer that makes 60 sensors
>wafer cost is the same
>but it makes more crop sensors than ff
"economies of scale are the cost advantages that enterprises obtain due to size, output, or scale of operation"
Scaling up crop sensor production has much bigger returns from the same starting product than scaling up FF sensor production.
>>2729425
use a shorter lens on crop sensor to get the same results as a longer lens on a full frame sensor
it literally doesn't matter
>>2729692
imagine if they made a whole wafer into a sensor
it would be some CSI Miami enhance image shit
>>2729425
because my apsc sony is better than your 5d1
>>2729697
In many many ways related to sensors and their performance, it's probably better than a 5Dmk3
>>2729554
>>2729659
I was an Osprey crewchief in the Marines from 2010-2015 (only flew from 2012 on but anyway)
I did photography and highschool and didnt buy another camera til the X-T1 a few months after it came out because I needed to fill a void my ex-gf provided.
So I started bringing my X-T1 on flights, and just went crazy. Whenever I got to take pictures like that, we were flying in formation and my ass was sitting on the open ramp of my Osprey as I took pictures of our dash 2 while sitting or laying in the prone.
It was a unique opportunity that pretty much no one gets to do. My job in the military was pretty sick compared to 98% of MOSs and when I started bringing my camera it got even more rewarding.
All these photos were taken on deployment this time last year. We were in Kuwait but flew into Iraq to do anti-ISIS stuffs every day or two.
While I was over there I got to go to Saudi Arabia once, Jordan twice, Iraq several times, and Bahrain once.
Everywhere was a shithole, except Jordan, which was a mysteriously pretty shithole that I'd *consider* going back as a tourist
>>2729695
It's your lucky day son
For $45,000 all this can be yours
btw fellas I may start a thread later tonight dumping my military pictures as well as other stuff.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 864 Image Height 577 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2012:08:08 14:18:02 Color Space Information Unknown Image Width 2246 Image Height 1500 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2729462
Sounds like you need a new display.
>people are falling for this obvious troll thread
>>2729811
/p/ is a troll board at this point. The real threads and the troll threads are the same, and so you just pick whatever point lets you be the angriest and rage out, regardless of whether the OP was serious or not.
>>2729462
Your laptop is shit.
My 23" 1080p monitor shows no banding or noise.
>>2729457
Legit question: Why so much falloff at f4 if f1.8 lens?
Is it post vignette?
Apart from that nice pics OP
>>2730119
It's obviously post because
1) it's a slight feather at the edges and then the same negative EV to the border
2) f/4 shouldn't vignette on crop ever
>>2730119
It's post vignette
I know its kind of strong but it looks better than not having it
My X lenses never vignette on their own
>>2729481
I just love how people on here like to whine about how bokeh is a crutch and is boring, and then proceed to give zero tips on making a photograph better in any way, nor specify in which what you are supposed to make a good shot, or what even makes a shot good in the first place? Hello? Subjectivity calling?
>>2730138
cool, I thought fuji made good lenses
>>2729462
It's funny, because you're trying to shitpost on your shitty 15" tn laptop screen.
>>2730141
composition is hard.
bokeh fixes this.
>>2729485
>crop lenses are constructed differently than full frame lenses
how?
I'm genuinely curious to see how you'll try to justify that completely made up thing you just posted
>>2730152
not him, but it's quite known that lenses made for crop cameras have a smaller image circle.
they only cover what's necessary for the aps-c size, and that's not enough for a full-frame sensor.
unless you like vignetting in black circles, of course.
>>2729435
> 6D
> less than $1000
> A7
> less than $700
You gotta tell what you're smoking.
Don't assume that's the price if you see one listing on eBay or something for a used camera.
Anyway, why the fuck do you care what cameras people use?
Crops are cheaper, significantly, D3100 vs D600, if you think they're at the same price you need water and a psychologist, they're usually used as either learning cameras at institutions/uni or family cameras or poorer hobbyists.
>>2730149
Composition shouldn't be that hard, just use a grid and follow the rule of thirds or the golden ratio
>>2730153
They're designed to mathmatically project onto the smaller sensor. A crop lens only creates vignette if you can put it on a full frame body. On a crop body they look perfectly fine.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Shove a full frame lens onto a hasselblad and then allow me to shit in your mouth about how poorly your lens is made when it vignettes
>>2730570
you're literally just repeating what he said in a different way and then calling him an idiot for it.
>as accessible and as affordable as ever
well this is technically accurate seeing as ff digital has never been very accessible or affordable
>>2729481
Not going to lie, using bokeh as a crutch is degenerate, but so is blaming bokeh because you can't get any. Quit being a degenerate, degenerate.
>>2730565
Well yeah, but if you don't blur it all out, then you have to actually pay attention to it, or make it pleasant looking. Then I might have to actually put some effort into finding a pleasant scene, with a nice background... why would I put effort into my photos when I can just buy a faster lens and smear the whole frame around to impress my aunt Beatrice and 14 year old girls on tumblr? Also, it looks really professional to blur out the background. (ignore the fact that most pros don't do this, when I say "professional" I mean soccer moms and dentists)
>>2729467
>all those important features
Like what? You're probably an uneducated gearfag who's literally incapable of taking a single good photograph and try to compensate your lack of skill. Pityful.
Because cameras are just tools and sometimes the camera with an APS-H or APS-C sensor is the better tool.
As someone wanting to get into photography and has literally just started his research, which side of the argument do most people take, and are prints taken with APS-C (23.5 x 15.6 mm) good/ large enough to consider selling, or are they for hobbyists strictly?
My camera is mostly for leisure, so having a camera with quality normal, wide and tele primes fit in coat pockets or manpurse is good, and idgaf about 40mp and borkeh whoring.
>>2732837
You won't be able to tell the difference unless it's HUGE prints or extreme shallow dof.
>>2732837
sensor size doesn't reflect image size (megapixels)
literally changes nothing but fov
>>2733639
> literally changes nothing but fov
And pixel size, larger sensor == less compressed pixels
>>2733828
>compressed pixels
a pixel is a pixel is a pixel, you can't make a pixel smaller. it's a singular point, it has no physical size.
a photosensor's size won't impact quality either.
it's just another stupid myth like "field compression".
>photographers pretending to be engineers
>>2733828
Get an APS-C with less megapixels if you care so much.
>>2733839
>a photosensor's size won't impact quality either.
Sure it does.
>>2729447
ewww ospreys, skids is where its at
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS CORPORATION Camera Model E-M10MarkII Camera Software OLYMPUS Viewer 3 1.5W Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Color Filter Array Pattern 7864 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:12:25 14:23:02 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 0.8 sec F-Number f/3.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 27.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 4087 Image Height 3065 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation High Sharpness Hard
>>2733968
then why has quality only improved while megapixel count does as well
is it that there's no impact, or that we can sufficiently counter the impact, making the whole argument moot
>>2733996
Your confusing causation and correlation. Quality has increased irrespective of resolution. Current generation 12 megapixel bodies are leagues beyond older 12 megapixel cameras.
>>2734087
Is anyone willing to get a "current generation 12MP" camera for the sake of "uncompressed pixels"?
Do people actually look for that?
>>2734098
No, they buy a current 12mp camera for the benefits that brings. A7s
>>2734098
Yeah, a fuckton of people do that. Have you never heard of the A7S and its 409,600 iso?
>>2734099
Of course it's Sony...
