Canon - Nikon
- Thread starter ishamy
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Ha, yea I know I don't quite yet though. Just want to find out if I am missing anything first as to me it's quite a bit of cash to slap on one bit of glass, want to make sure its the right bit of glass though
Be aware that the 24-105mm is only an f/4.0 lens. What is it you intend to gain by going full frame?
You currently have a fats f/2.8 zoom on a crop camera, so if you go full frame and use an f/4.0 lens you will gain almost nothing in terms of depth of deficits control or low light ability. In fact, a newer crop camera like the Nikon D5200 would give you better low light performance and general IQ.
So assuming you don't actually care about shallow DoF and low light photography but are interested in say landscapes (the main other reason to go full frame), is the 5Dc really for you. Again, a modern crop camera will offer higher resolution (in actual print, not just in numbers) and will offer higher dynamic range which is vital for landscape work.
The only value a 5Dc has is putting on it f1.4 or 1.2 primes and getting razor thin DoF which is all the fad these days, much like overdone HDR and selective coloring was in the mid 2000s.
Lets take a step back. What is it you don't like about your current crop camera? What is it you expect to achieve going to a 5Dc?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
It's not a fad. The truth is paying clients don't want something that's full of distractions and looks like it was taken with a point and shoot.
A shallow DOF means you have much more freedom where and when you shoot, especially as you can hide the ugly in the frame.
If it is a fad, then it would be over by now, as it's actually been going on for a very long time.
Selective colouring never actually looked good, but it did look different when it first was being implemented. Photographers back then probably jumped on the badwagon in an attempt to be 'different' from the pack. Now from speaking to bride and grooms, they tell me they associate selective colour with low-end budget fauxtographers, and this is coming from people who were not previously exposed to the fad.
Over cooked HDR never looked good either, but HDR that makes a scene look similar to what our eyes see, looks good and will always look good.
^^ There we go.
D.P. as much as you might say it's a fad, the fact is that the reason it's come out, if nothing else, is because you need to differentiate yourself from your client's nan with her point and shoot. I think it looks cool, and while I may get tired of it at some point, it's not a fad in the same way as ridiculous HDRs...
Also, in addition to not having background distractions, it gets closer to our actual perspective as our eyes result in background blur regardless due to the non-parity between the paths of each eye to focus on the same point. In addition, when someone is attracted to the person they're looking at, their pupils dilate. This has the effect of widening the aperture on the lens, causing shallow dof in both eyes. Wider aperture could trick the brain into thinking it's gone through that process when looking at a photo. It's just a random little non tested theory I have but it's something on top of the "less distracting backgrounds" shpeel that goes around normally.
D.P. as much as you might say it's a fad, the fact is that the reason it's come out, if nothing else, is because you need to differentiate yourself from your client's nan with her point and shoot. I think it looks cool, and while I may get tired of it at some point, it's not a fad in the same way as ridiculous HDRs...
Also, in addition to not having background distractions, it gets closer to our actual perspective as our eyes result in background blur regardless due to the non-parity between the paths of each eye to focus on the same point. In addition, when someone is attracted to the person they're looking at, their pupils dilate. This has the effect of widening the aperture on the lens, causing shallow dof in both eyes. Wider aperture could trick the brain into thinking it's gone through that process when looking at a photo. It's just a random little non tested theory I have but it's something on top of the "less distracting backgrounds" shpeel that goes around normally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
It doesn't always have to mean attraction, but it does mean they are having an exciting emotional reaction to you, or something you are doing/saying.
With regards to the brain being tricked, never actually thought of that, but it makes perfect sense, and I'm sure there will be a subconscious influence on the viewer. It may be even more powerful effect I guess with attractive subjects, as the viewer will likely already be attracted to the person in the picture, and the shallow DOF will heighten the emotional reaction.
No where did I say that a shallow DoF is not needed, it is often very important to reduce the background and create a subject separation.
But razor thin DoF is not the same as a shallow DoF in the same way that overcooked HDR is not the same as appropriately compressed dynamic range. Razor thin DoF is a very specific effect that only works under some circumstances and certainly does not work well in a majority of photos. It can give a very nice effect and add some interest to some photos within a set. It is not a technique to apply liberally to all photos.
Some situations you definitely want to avoid razor thin DoF completely. E.g., it is a very feminine effect so should never in general be used for male portraiture.
The thing is, you don't need an f1.4 prime on full frame to get shallow DoF in majority of cases. An aperture like f/2.8 at 50mm on a crop body works well enough for a majority of cases if appropriate technique is used, f/2.8 on FF is certainly very shallow in most circumstances. Heck, I can get very nice shallow DoF at f/5.6 on a crop body!
Getting a pleasant background and subject separation is much more than simply shooting at f/1.4 on a FF body. It depends on composition, selecting the background (which may mean simple decisions like a side step to the left to avoid the fire exit sign), appropriate focal lengths etc.
The quality of the out of focus rendering/Bokeh is also paramount, nothing worse than some hexagonal yuck that some cheap primes produce.
And that is why razor thin DoF is a fad, because like overcooked HDR people take the effect too far and apply to more photos than necessary and end up produce worse results. When applied appropriately it is great.
If the only way you can differentiate your photos from a granny with a P&S is by overuse of razor thin DoF then you should be much more concerned with your fundamental techniques of composition and technical skills than taking photos of the groom with only 1 hair on the stubble of his chin is in focus.
Any idiot can go out and buy some fast primes on a FF body and achieve razor thin DoF. Only a good photographer (and artist...) can go out and take great photos.
As to your our ideas about connection to human perception, yes that is a very important and well known. Any textbook on composition will explain the neurophysiology side of photographic perception. Controlling the focus plane is critical for good compositions. You don't need a fast prime on FF for that theory to apply, it works equally with a 18-55mm f/5.6 crop lens.
Oh right, fair enough. I certainly wouldn't said it's as bad as overcooked HDR, but I see your point. I certainly don't just stick my 85 at 1.4 and shoot as if it were auto all day, but then there are definitely times when a full frame's depth control is needed or should I say, used. If you want it dreamy, and you're careful with how you use it, then razor thin dof is a good thing, but I understand when you say that f/1.4 isn't always the answer.
I'm not saying DoF is all it takes. I'm saying it's often needed or useful.
I'm not saying DoF is all it takes. I'm saying it's often needed or useful.
Also a lot of the time I feel that f/1.4 isn't enough depth of field control. Now, obviously I see that razor thin is too thin in many cases, so I don't shoot macro at 2.8. But there's a lot of occasions when 1.4 will still have a distracting background and, if I could, I would shoot wider.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
If the subject is small, or you are going for a tighter crop, then yes. But as soon as you want to get some full length portraits with subject/background separation, you are really going to struggle at 2.8 50mm APSC. The best you can hope for is some slight softening.
Also nothing wrong with blowing out a background for male subjects either. It depend on the look your going for, but the combination of colour, light etc. all add up to make a hard image or soft image. Bokeh does not make a picture = feminine, although curves or circles will make the image feel softer.
Also regardless of 'feel', bokeh can just make a great backdrop.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewcoughlin/5581541258/in/photostream