1 hour ago, fabdavrav said:

 

I wasn't having a go...just trying to put a more correct perspective on it...one of my mates shoots medium format film still....& also has 35mm "full frame" digital.....still prefers the medium format for sharpness....

 

but then taking that gear on all day hike in winter up mountains is not for everyone..which is why I get photos even on my "lowly" TG4 that makes people with bigger cameras very jealous....

neither was I...

I used medium format for a few years...6x4 6s6 6x7...and you are right...the trannies look as if they were taken by a micro-fine lens and enlargements didnt seem to loose a thing...dont think MF has grain..??..:)

i used fuji pro 100 asa and lab processing..

bronica SQ with a second back for 6X4 and a fuji 67 rangefinder ...hand held meter for all those

...what a lens!! and being a between lens shutter...no problems with flash sychronisation...

they and the Nikons are all gone as film died as i found the ease of digital to do own processing

but

35mm was a format on its own...thanks to the movies ..and that was the only point i wanted to make

35mm lenses for films were looking at the whole frame..hence full frame

semantics and a pigs ear to boot

i welcome any comments and usually start to go verbatose as i recall all the years of chasing the "fly"...marketing... and badge photography....wouldnt have a canon..!!

M43 for me still..

cheers

geof

Edited 4 October, 20187 yr by mrcrow

2 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

neither was I...

I used medium format for a few years...6x4 6s6 6x7...and you are right...the trannies look as if they were taken by a micro-fine lens and enlargements didnt seem to loose a thing...dont think MF has grain..??..:)

i used fuji pro 100 asa and lab processing..

bronica with a second back for 6X4 and a fuji 67 rangefinder...what a lens!! and being a between lens shutter...no problems with flash sychronisation...

they and the Nikons are all gone as film died as i found the ease of digital to do own processing

but

35mm was a format on its own...thanks to the movies ..and that was the only point i wanted to make

35mm lenses for films were looking at the whole frame..hence full frame

semantics and a pigs ear to boot

i welcome any comments and usually start to go verbatose as i recall all the years of chasing the "fly"...marketing

M43 for me still..

cheers

geof

 

Large format prints/negs I have ages ago seen some first hand...feck me...……..

 

I fell into the picture....grain what is this concept?????...but the weight of the gear & AA used to lug his stuff up mountains..nutter!!!

 

I live near to Ffordes in Beauly.....they have about the biggest collection of second hand gear including masses of medium & large format.....as I do landscapes..I was in my" stupid moments" thinking of going the whole hog ….I'm glad I didn't & bought My Oly stuff from them instead...

 

as for comments & technicalities..I hate all the hype on the websites, blogs, utube vide etc..very little is 100% correct, most I can rip apart as they forget that that same logic applies the other way etc...or they get their facts wrong re f/stops.

 

..& this modern obsession with Bokeh....in the old days we just called it a blurry back ground or out of focus....easy to get it stand farther away, use a long focal length & full open on the aperture..simples...

1 hour ago, fabdavrav said:

 

I'll say it differently....35mm may have had sprockets top & bottom so "full frame"....but its size is smaller than medium format & large format.....therefore it is a so called "crop"...in digital there are no film & no sprocket holes so there are no "full " or "part" frame versions.....so you can argue there is no crop...just a different system.....take your pick....

 

you just have smaller or larger sensors (physical size)……..& all due to the actual physics of light/circles of confusion etc....the smaller the film size or sensor the shorter the focal length to get the same focal length as a bigger film/sensor size....

 

so compared to a small sensor..a large format lens is pinhole telephoto....& the small sensor has a short FL wide angle fish eye compared to the large format..& both to get the same field of view...

 

EDIT to add:-

& that's where the size & weight saving come in....smaller diameter of glass for smaller film/sensor....less weight..also shorter actual lens size even if element number & field of view & f/ the same

 

look old chap!!!

35mm film was produced for a certain kind of photography...you didnt put it in a larger format camera and have it cropped and sprocket images superimposed

i cant make it clearer....you went to the shop and bought 35mm or roll film of your choice..this was fitted into your camera and the lens looked at the whole width...if you wanted wider negatives....you got a camera designed for that with optics to suit....all the film was pulled through the cameras by turning the knob etc...

cropping would take place when differing lens attachments were used...and i assume lenses changed

the sensor was the film....in the case of 35mm borrowed from movie cameras...this was used in a 35mm camera

full frame

some cameras had masks to make the image smaller or different format from 35X24 that would be cropping in camera...why.??

thats all i know

so cheers

geof

Edited 4 October, 20187 yr by mrcrow

1 minute ago, fabdavrav said:

..& this modern obsession with Bokeh....in the old days we just called it a blurry back ground or out of focus....easy to get it stand farther away, use a long focal length & full open on the aperture..simples...

this is really pronounced bouquet...as mrs bucket...and was around when lenses didnt have much dof...

 

 

1 hour ago, fabdavrav said:

EDIT to add:-

& that's where the size & weight saving come in....smaller diameter of glass for smaller film/sensor....less weight..also shorter actual lens size even if element number & field of view & f/ the same

 

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Nikon_D1_8373.jpg

 

here is a lightweight 35mm full frame camera...thank God for crop sensors

Edited 4 October, 20187 yr by mrcrow

2 hours ago, Xavier said:

I wasn't suggesting crop is bad, and my use of the term "crop sensor" was in respect to full frame 24x36mm film cameras (which yes, are a crop on 8x10").

 

 

And yes, WTD is funny and worth a look

 

 

I didn't take it as that. I just find it funny that I assumed once I got my Full Frame the crop would gather dust. But the cost of long fast glass has meant it still is my go to camera most of the time. Of course once I have my 400mm f2.8iii full frame will win. Only kidding, have you seen the price of those things! I like to hand hold a camera and the 400mm is too heavy for a days shooting with my spaghetti arms (I am not a fan of monopods) 

 

I love WTD, only wish he still did new cartoons :( 

18 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

this is really pronounced bouquet...as mrs bucket...and was around when lenses didnt have much dof...

 

 

You might be opening a can of worms (or 'warms' or 'waams' as we say in the North East :D)

 

I've also heard Bokeh pronounced "Bo-ker" which I quite like  

22 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

look old chap!!!

35mm film was produced for a certain kind of photography...you didnt put it in a larger format camera and have it cropped and sprocket images superimposed

i cant make it clearer....you went to the shop and bought 35mm or roll film of your choice..this was fitted into your camera and the lens looked at the whole width...if you wanted wider negatives....you got a camera designed for that with optics to suit....all the film was pulled through the cameras by turning the knob etc...

cropping would take place when differing lens attachments were used...and i assume lenses changed

the sensor was the film....in the case of 35mm borrowed from movie cameras...this was used in a 35mm camera

full frame

some cameras had masks to make the image smaller or different format from 35X24 that would be cropping in camera...why.??

thats all i know

so cheers

geof

 

 

we are arguing the same point from different ends...

 

As far as cropping goes IMHO it, the term,  should only be applied when you can use different lens formats on the same camera body....eg a 35mm lens on an asp-c body......

 

& that's all because you are using a lens from one system on the body of another system...

 

any other use implies (or is generally used to imply) that you can't use one system to take the same picture as another system.....ergo.. x system is better than y...as y is a crop factor of x...just fecking wrong...

FWIW I wouldn't recommend a Canon 7D in either mk1 or 2 guise. The sensor and processor are simply too noisy fir ritual low light images, so forget using it at  iso 1600 or above, and don't try overly pulling back shadows in post as you'll be rewarded by pixel bleed/ banding. A full frame DSLR is worth the investment, but only if a) low light and low noise is critical and b) you want a 16mm UWA to be just that. Otherwise I'd agree spend all your money on top quality lenses, and a decent pc otherwise you'll go nuts with frustration if it's too slow! 

In the meantime, a bit of Pembrokeshire sunset. 

6 minutes ago, Lady Elanore said:

 

 

You might be opening a can of worms (or 'warms' or 'waams' as we say in the North East :D)

 

I've also heard Bokeh pronounced "Bo-ker" which I quite like  

I've mostly heard it pronounced bow - keah

Just now, stever750 said:

I've mostly heard it pronounced bow - keah

 

 

I've asked the pro snappers at various sports events and they don't seem to know the definitive version  I'm sticking with Bo-ker as it sounds funny in my accent. 

2 hours ago, Xavier said:

I wasn't suggesting crop is bad, and my use of the term "crop sensor" was in respect to full frame 24x36mm film cameras (which yes, are a crop on 8x10").

which 8x10 camera has a digital sensor...which can be the base for calling the 35mm a crop on it...

does that camera come with smaller sensors right down to 35mm....or to what i call full frame in a camera which resembles and replaces a 35mm film camera

go for it....i am off to macdonalds soon

cheers

geof

 

http://largesense.com/files/9614/9073/3582/LS911-Front-View-1920.jpg

 

EDIT..BY GEORGE HE'S GOT IT....APOLOGIES...!!!

9 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

 

we are arguing the same point from different ends...

 

As far as cropping goes IMHO it, the term,  should only be applied when you can use different lens formats on the same camera body....eg a 35mm lens on an asp-c body......

 

& that's all because you are using a lens from one system on the body of another system...

 

any other use implies (or is generally used to imply) that you can't use one system to take the same picture as another system.....ergo.. x system is better than y...as y is a crop factor of x...just fecking wrong...

 

clarity and agreement....you can take a 35mm full frame and crop it till it dies, but you cant make a full frame out of a large format piece of film...without the holes..

3 minutes ago, stever750 said:

FWIW I wouldn't recommend a Canon 7D in either mk1 or 2 guise. The sensor and processor are simply too noisy fir ritual low light images, so forget using it at  iso 1600 or above, and don't try overly pulling back shadows in post as you'll be rewarded by pixel bleed/ banding. A full frame DSLR is worth the investment, but only if a) low light and low noise is critical and b) you want a 16mm UWA to be just that. Otherwise I'd agree spend all your money on top quality lenses, and a decent pc otherwise you'll go nuts with frustration if it's too slow! 

In the meantime, a bit of Pembrokeshire sunset. 

 

 

 

I would definitely recommend the 7Dii for sport. Great Focus and AI Servo for tracking (I shoot mostly fast things like jetskis and powerboats). It's relatively impervious to rain and is extremely well built. As I said previously, the sensor is old tech these days, but my keeper rate is excellent with this camera and like most, I ain't swapping brands after investing in a lot of decent glass. We all want better dynamic range and low noise floors, but plenty of pros where producing technically inferior pictures to even the 7Dii in the early days of digital. I'd say the 7Dii and it's equivalent in other makes is a decent start in the sense it handles as a pro camera and you get pro camera features. noise is a pain but it isn't the be all and end all. Plus as it's nearing the end of it's life, there are some great deals appear every now and then on this camera and I suspect they will get even better next year  

5 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

which 8x10 camera has a digital sensor...which can be the base for calling the 35mm a crop on it...

does that camera come with smaller sensors right down to 35mm....or to what i call full frame in a camera which resembles and replaces a 35mm film camera

go for it....i am off to macdonalds soon

cheers

geof

 

http://largesense.com/files/9614/9073/3582/LS911-Front-View-1920.jpg

 

EDIT..BY GEORGE HE'S GOT IT....APOLOGIES...!!!

 

its only a 12MP..utter rubbish I want 42MP!!….(press & certain phot types comments)…..

 

those pixels on it are HUGE!!!!...

8 minutes ago, Lady Elanore said:

 

 

I've asked the pro snappers at various sports events and they don't seem to know the definitive version  I'm sticking with Bo-ker as it sounds funny in my accent. 

and in my northern accent

 

see you jummy...its bluddy fuzzibits...ok??...bam pot!!

4 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

 

clarity and agreement....you can take a 35mm full frame and crop it till it dies, but you cant make a full frame out of a large format piece of film...without the holes..

 

 

WTF got knickers in twist..

Edited 4 October, 20187 yr by fabdavrav

Can I just add the old adage, that the best camera is the one you have with you.

1 minute ago, fabdavrav said:

 

 

yes you can....its all about the initial MP size & physical pixel dimensions of the sensor.....more MP on a smaller sensor will make a bigger pixel size & dimensioned photo than a lower MP on a 35mm frame....

 

That 8x10 camera you linked to is 12MP....your 16MP & my 20MP camera will make a bigger picture than that 12MP...however the 12MP will have way sharper pixels

hmmm

i was taking crop as in cropping your photo??

have i got it wrong

42 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

this is really pronounced bouquet...as mrs bucket...and was around when lenses didnt have much dof…

 

Bokeh....

 

Correct pronunciation is "blurry background"....

Just now, mrcrow said:

hmmm

i was taking crop as in cropping your photo??

have i got it wrong

 arrgh knickers in twist....on "CROP"..

 

if you are talking taking a physical piece of 35mm film & 120film then fine you are right...

 

BUT if talking digital then more MP  (NO matter the size of sensor) will give a bigger display photo..which can be cut down more & still produce a decent image......eg take a picture of an inspect & get it small with loads of background...then go into photoshop & "crop" the image down to just the insect....

 

your 16MP & my 20MP cameras can do this easier than the 12MP 8x10 camera you linked to...as there are more pixels in the images to start with...

10 minutes ago, Lady Elanore said:

Can I just add the old adage, that the best camera is the one you have with you.

and if its your only one with one lens only....you have arrived..

i think

cheers

geof

6 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 arrgh knickers in twist....on "CROP"..

 

if you are talking taking a physical piece of 35mm film & 120film then fine you are right...

 

BUT if talking digital then more MP  (NO matter the size of sensor) will give a bigger display photo..which can be cut down more & still produce a decent image......eg take a picture of an inspect & get it small with loads of background...then go into photoshop & "crop" the image down to just the insect....

 

your 16MP & my 20MP cameras can do this easier than the 12MP 8x10 camera you linked to...as there are more pixels in the images to start with...

cigars all round...and long

30 minutes ago, Lady Elanore said:

 

 

I've asked the pro snappers at various sports events and they don't seem to know the definitive version  I'm sticking with Bo-ker as it sounds funny in my accent. 

North East? Surely it should be like burqua? Lol 

Nice bit of blurry background to get the attention on the insect...f/2.7 at 1/500sec....(low ISO, & not stating as is a giveaway to camera)..now play "which camera this was taken on"..& BTW this has been reduced down to 1000 pixels across for web...