The "Which camera is right for me?" thread V2 - Get a used Rebel
1,690 replies, posted
my 55mm FL lens at 1.2 sits at (about) 85mm on my crop sensor, and I must say it's a great focal length to work with. backgrounds can pretty easily disappear, and i'm sure that you'll get a way shallower dof on your big sensor.
can someone please explain what effect crop sensors have on lenses etc?
thanks
[QUOTE=Alcapwne;33124844]can someone please explain what effect crop sensors have on lenses etc?
thanks[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Y01ZZ.jpg[/IMG]
A lens that's designed to work on a crop or "APS-C" sensor won't work on film or a "full frame (35mm)" sensor size.
I <3 using the 85 1.8 on the 5D MKII
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;33124856][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Y01ZZ.jpg[/IMG]
A lens that's designed to work on a crop or "APS-C" sensor won't work on film or a "full frame (35mm)" sensor size.[/QUOTE]
and similarly medium format lenses are different than 35mm equiv. so a 50mm lens would be a normal lens on 35mm, but a wide angle on medium format.
and for some reason the larger the format, the more shallow the dof is, which is why point and shoot cameras have a lot of things in focus. they have tiny sensors. as to why this occurs i am not entirely sure, but just work around it.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;33131860]and similarly medium format lenses are different than 35mm equiv. so a 50mm lens would be a normal lens on 35mm, but a wide angle on medium format.
and for some reason the larger the format, the more shallow the dof is, which is why point and shoot cameras have a lot of things in focus. they have tiny sensors. as to why this occurs i am not entirely sure, but just work around it.[/QUOTE]
that's a dodgy explanation of Depth of Field... You have the end result correct but not the cause.
a 50mm lens at f/4 will always have the same amount of depth of field. On a compact that would be a telephoto field of view, on fullframe that's 'standard' and on medium format it's seriously wide angle. The different formats need varying focal length lenses to achieve the same field of view. to get the field of view of a 50mm on full frame on medium format, you're going to need a lens that's roughly 100mm, and as a result you get 100mm depth of field.
[editline]5th November 2011[/editline]
hope that makes sense
I made [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1089372?p=30140049&viewfull=1#post30140049]an explanation[/url] a few months back. Posting mainly for the pictures. If I spent more time, I'm sure I could make it more clear.
[release][QUOTE=Funny;30138359]So tell me - what advantages does MF bring?[/QUOTE]
Adding on to what haze said, it also gives you less DOF.
For example, on a normal camera, 105mm gives you more bokeh than 50mm, but you get a tighter image and a smaller field of view. Medium format makes the 105mm field of view roughly equivalent to 50mm, but still gives you 105mm-bokeh. This is extremely useful for me because its not how much bokeh there is, its how far away and big my subjects are while still being able to blur out the background slightly.
It's the same thing as saying "35mm gets less DOF than 1.6", except on a larger scale.
This is what 105mm looks like on a 35mm camera, or full frame sensor.
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5065/5776944818_baaeacf924.jpg[/img]
This is what 105mm looks like on medium format (6x7)
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5087/5376382096_ba65d28249.jpg[/img]
I brought these two images to the same size on your screen to show you what the final difference looks like (posting on the internet at 500px wide). If you took those same images and posted them at their original resolutions, the medium format would be significantly larger. You can look at H4Z3Y's post to see the difference. I also have this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/83Zcx.png[/img][/release]
i think i understand now... it was always a dodgy concept in my mind but that does make sense.
A then there's all the talk about vignetting if you use a lens designed for a smaller sized lens etc
What would be the best lens for my 400D for portraits?
I've been looking at [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-35mm-Wide-Angle-Lens/dp/B00007EE8P/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I31QNWII5GTUBP&colid=1H05ZULJFUJ3B[/url]
for that, get a 30mm 1.4 from sigma
Just for portraits?
Get a 50mm f/1.8 and save a lot of cash.
I have a 50mm 1.8 2 and thought that would have been a suitable upgrade, I was hoping for an extra degree of sharpness with a better lens as the 50mm gets sharp at f.5
Although it does produce some pretty good images none the less.
Also not buying this for a long time, but was just wondering any how.
Will the 50mm f/1.8 work well on a D5100 with crop of 1.5?
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;33161323]Will the 50mm f/1.8 work well on a D5100 with crop of 1.5?[/QUOTE]It will be quite tight for a walk around lens, which version are you looking at? The D will not autofocus on the D5100 but the G will. Superb lens to have, if you have the kit lens set it to 50 and walk around with that for a while. Alternative is the 35 1.8 which is super sharp but not so snazzy in the bokeh department.
[video=vimeo;25773354]http://vimeo.com/25773354[/video]
Another go at crop factors.
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;33161323]Will the 50mm f/1.8 work well on a D5100 with crop of 1.5?[/QUOTE]
Yes, just make sure you get the G version so it autofocuses on your camera.
[editline]7th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dierag;33158821]I have a 50mm 1.8 2 and thought that would have been a suitable upgrade, I was hoping for an extra degree of sharpness with a better lens as the 50mm gets sharp at f.5
Although it does produce some pretty good images none the less.
Also not buying this for a long time, but was just wondering any how.[/QUOTE]
Then a 50mm f/1.4 maybe, it's a lot sharper.
[QUOTE=Dierag;33158821]I have a 50mm 1.8 2 and thought that would have been a suitable upgrade, I was hoping for an extra degree of sharpness with a better lens as the 50mm gets sharp at f.5
Although it does produce some pretty good images none the less.
Also not buying this for a long time, but was just wondering any how.[/QUOTE]
f/5?
fuck you smoking, mines alright at f/1.8 and much better at f/2.8
It's pretty bad even at f/2.8.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;33168068]It's pretty bad even at f/2.8.[/QUOTE]
Mine's tack sharp by f/2.8. It's easily usable at f/1.8 if you don't view it at 100% crop. And how often to do you do that? The 50mm 1.8 is an amazingly sharp lens.
Okay so maybe it's fine if all you do is post your pictures in 500 pixel medium sized images online.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;33173365]Okay so maybe it's fine if all you do is post your pictures in 500 pixel medium sized images online.[/QUOTE]
There aren't many lenses sharper than the 50mm 1.8 @ 2.8. [url=http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0]17-55 vs 50mm 1.8 @ 2.8[/url] [url=http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0]24-70 2.8 vs 50mm 1.8 @ 2.8[/url] It performs almost exactly the same as the 85mm 1.8 @ 2.8: [url=http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2]85mm 1.8 @ 2.8 vs 50mm 1.8 @ 2.8[/url] Heck, even the [url=http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2]50mm 1.4 @ 1.8 isn't really any better than the 50mm 1.8 @ 1.8[/url] When you get them both down [url=http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4]to 2.8 the difference is negligible.[/url]
People place way too much importance on sharpness when it really matters very little. If you're shooting for a magazine print ad then sure you want a tack sharp photo, but if you're shooting for a canvas print or something it doesn't matter anywhere near as much as people make it out to. Unless you're going to view it at 100% then don't worry about sharpness.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;33173365]Okay so maybe it's fine if all you do is post your pictures in 500 pixel medium sized images online.[/QUOTE]
Oh come on you know better than pixel peeping!
Oh well, if we're talking about the Nikon D 50 1.8 then yes, you are absolutely right! Just check this horrendous 100% crop of a SOC photo that demonstrates the unacceptable quality of this 100$ lens: [URL]http://i.imgur.com/4g0eM.jpg[/URL]
I mean, holy shit what were they thinking :pwn: it soft like a butter knife!
Holy fuck it's like one giant pixel.
Hello, I love viewing the threads in here, espescially some of the amazing photos everyone keeps uploading.
I was considering getting a Nikon D5000 or would it be better to save up a bit more and get the D5100?
[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;33279878]Hello, I love viewing the threads in here, espescially some of the amazing photos everyone keeps uploading.
I was considering getting a Nikon D5000 or would it be better to save up a bit more and get the D5100?[/QUOTE]
Get the D5100.
Sweet, thanks. I shall save up a bit more cash. I'm quite excited to get the camera now.
maybe see if you could get the 550D, it's a bit cheaper
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;33287336]maybe see if you could get the 550D, it's a bit cheaper[/QUOTE]
But a bit worse.
The D5100 is newer and will have a longer lifetime before it's cripplingly out of date for the user (he'll grow out of it slower).
yes, the 550D is a horribly limiting camera.
it's not like older lenses autofocus on it or anything like that
oh wait
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.