aps-c or full-frame
>>2761789
For what.
Nah forget it. Doesn't matter.
Pick one. Won't affect your shots.
>>2761791
/thread
>>2761789
the difference is negligible
20 by 24 inch faggots
>muh portability
kill yourselves
anything over 1/2.5 is for chumps
>>2761789
>aps-c or full-frame
yes.
>>2761791
Exactly.
I fell for the hype and sold my D7100 and bought a D750. Took thousands of shots. Compared them to my cropped sensor shots. Didn't see a damned difference. Paid double the price for nil benefit. Fuck FF.
>>2761849
>I am a shit photographer who didn't improve
what a kek
Why should you even care, anyways? If you take shit photos they're not going to magically get better by swapping out camera bodies
>>2761789
>rhythmic stick tapping
>>2761870
I'm referring to benefits in terms of DOF and low-light shooting. I advanced in all other respects, areas where skills are relevant. But FF for extra shallow DOF and cleaner low-light shots? It's of marginal benefit.
>>2761810
neg-li-gib-le!
What processor does she prefer lads?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2012:04:16 18:46:49
>>2761968
obviously a BIONZ X
>>2761789
read the sticky, mate
>>2761914
If you used the same lenses then you're not going to notice any difference, you fuckhead.
When are you all going to learn that DOF is not effected by any camera in the world...
DOF aside, everything you said is just blatantly wrong. FF is superior cause the lenses are used the way they were designed and perspective is more natural.
>>2762111
Nope.
>>2762030
update that for the D500
>>2762111
But you do notice a difference when using the same lenses. An 85mm f/1.4 wide open on a full frame will show less DOF than on cropped sensor on identically composed shots. And FF allows for less noisy shots than cropped sensors when shot at the same ISO level. The fact that you don't know this is astonishing. The fact that you angrily argue the opposite by calling that guy a fuck head is equally baffling. What a difficult, cantankerous life you must lead.
>>2761968
she prefers my dick. ayyy
>>2762111
what is circle-of-confusion?
>>2761789
>full frame
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3X Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Photographer Lonna Tucker Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 1046 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 6048 Image Height 4032 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 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 2010:09:15 09:35:47 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 1 EV Subject Distance 2.51 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 900 Image Height 600 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2762778
Holy fuck, imagine the resolution of a 20x24 slab of Velvia. You would be able to see fleas on the back of squirrels five miles away
>>2762778
Does this lens even resolve such area
>>2761789
As someone who dropped their camera and watched it tumble 80 feet or so down the lower gradient in pic related (camera was fine besides flash mount being smashed up). Why the fuck is that camera in the salt water with all that sand. P.S. I want a full frame for my shitty astro attempts
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties:
>>2762955
Yeah. in fact, the demands on a lens actually decrease with increasing format size, since the need to enlarge basically disappears at 8x10. you would be very disappointed if you compared a 35mm frame to a 36x24mm area of a 20x24 inch photo. The 35mm will have vastly more fine detail.
>>2762111
>lenses are used the way they were designed and perspective is more natural.
This retarded idea again.
I though everybody understood how perspective worked by now. - apparently not.
>>2761789
Depends on what you're doing.
>>2762954
You'd see nothing because of either a damn shallow dof or motionblur due to damn long exposures.
>>2761789
I love fool frame due to the higher dynamic range, I curse it if I have to stop down to get more dof.
Pixel peepers enjoy lower pixel densities, this may also be a reasonable argument if you like to crop in pp.
For me, I cannot decide between a fully loaded APS-C or beginner full-frame camera. Both offer advantages and disadvantages, the expenses are about the same.
>>2763016
What is the measured dynamic range difference between the a6000 and the A7?
>>2763019
A6000 has ~13,5 evs while the OG A7 has ~14,3 evs
>>2763004
:(
none, m43 all the way
I used my friend's crop the other day, just to pick it up and feel it, and bah gawd. The VIEWFINDER. So much brighter and wider in my FF. Didn't think it was a big difference, but coming from someone who sued a T3i, it's a big difference.
>>2763069
Also much more expensive
>>2763069
Actually this is a great point that hardly comes up. There is a world of difference between a crop and a FF camera.
>>2763071
Bad argument, because there are quite expensive crop sensor cameras, like the 7D MK II, $1500, almost as much as my FF.
>>2763072
In regards to the viewfinder, of course. Try them both before deciding on them.
>>2763069
Yeah, I can see the stars through my viewfinder at night on my fooru framu, and use it for focusing, in my crop it's so dim that I can't see the stars at all. Doesn't sound like a big of difference but It's quite luxury.
>>2763081
In the context of Astro I've taken many a blurry shot with a prime 50mm any advice you can give to a crop chip user besides selling my kidneys for a full frame body.
I've tried focusing on distant objects with light sources, and then shooting but it seems pretty hit or miss and it's pretty discouraging to sit in the cold for 30 seconds to receive shit.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4272 Image Height 2848 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2016:02:07 15:19:04 Exposure Time 20 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance Infinity Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 625 Image Height 417 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2763154
There is a filter for this very purpose, jewgle "sharpstar focusing rool". And of course use the live view.
>>2763154
I usually boost the exposure, use live view and the optical zoom to zoom in 1:1, then I focus on the brightest star and turn the focus ring untl it's as small as possible, then leave the ring alone and adjust the exposure to proper.
I don't actually use the OVF for focusing at stars, I just "CAN" and have once as a test, with decent results.
>>2763081
Should've used a Pentax.
>>2763154
I just marked where the ideal manual focus point is with a sharpie during the day, and just set it to that at night.
>>2763154
You go into liveview, 100% magnification on a bright star, focus ontil it appears as a single point and it is done.
>>2763004
rekt
>>2762970
so what you're saying is that in fact that lens DOENST outresolve the resolution of the film
Post more p girls
>>2763465
That's basically correct, but it's worth remembering that the 8x10 is so much bigger that it still ends up having much higher quality in the finished product.
That 24x36 crop may be lower quality than a full 35mm frame, but if you took identical photos with a 35mm camera and an 8x10 and printed them both the same size, the area of that crop will only be like 2x3mm of the 35mm frame.
It might be easier to imagine as digital, actually, it's like a 50mp image shot through an ultrawide vs a 6mp through a supertele, you may have less quality if you crop the 50mp image to the field of view of the supertele, but the overall full image has far more information.
>>2763465
Lines per millimeter, no, it probably doesn't outresolve the film. It doesn't have to, though, because individual details are much bigger on 20x24 than they are on 35mm. Where a lamp post might subtend one millimeter on 35mm (or full frame), it will be 16 times bigger on 20x24. If you have a large format lens that is really horrible (say that it resolves 1/2 as much detail as a small format lens of equivalent FOV), the lamp post will still be 8 times as detailed.
>>2761810
APS-C user detected.
>>2763154
also make sure optical stabilization is turned off.
neg
L
I
gi
B
L
E
It depends.
>>2761952
I'm imagining him saying it now
>>2761789
>this photo
APS-C for daily carry and general snapshitting fun
FF for srs business
>>2761952
TOO SMALL!
