5D in House.

On 15/04/2010 2:13 p.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Ray wrote:
David J. wrote:
"Ray wrote:
Alan wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...on5dIhouse.asp

Not a bad idea, but I wonder at using the 5DII when the 7D would do as
well for a lot less. But I suppose that at extra couple thousand
dollars really amounts to almost nothing when it comes to TV
production.

For what they wanted (shallow DoF), FF is a lot better.

Right. Of course.

Not only do you get
a full stop shallower DoF, you get significantly better sharpness at the
plane of focus (for two reasons: longer lenses are usually better and they
are projecting that better image onto a less dense sensor).

Sharpness isn't really relevant (which was my first thought). HD video is
just about 2MP and any good lens will be plenty sharp enough.

Hmm. I was going to argue back, but you are right that 2MP is pretty
minimal. At A4 with full resolution images, the difference would be
noticeable. Probably the only case I might be right for would be the 50/1.4
vs. the 85/1.2, since the 50/1.4 is pretty funky wide open, and at f/2.0
(same DoF) the 85/1.2 is, of course, very sharp. The 85/1.2 would be plenty
sharp wide open, and the blur nukes the background something fierce.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...=0 &APIComp=0

Sure, but very very limited potential use for such shallow DOF if you've
got to lock the actor's head in a vice, get them to stop breathing and
employ jesus as a focus-puller to work for a week to shoot a 15 second clip.

Paul Furman wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...on5dIhouse.asp
Not a bad idea, but I wonder at using the 5DII when the 7D would do as
well for a lot less. But I suppose that at extra couple thousand
dollars really amounts to almost nothing when it comes to TV
production.

For what they wanted (shallow DoF), FF is a lot better.

The only place FF really helps with DOF is wide *and* shallow, which is
a fairly an odd scenario, although there are places where you want the
shallow DOF but don't have room to back up, where FX helps. Any lens put
on DX will have shallower apparent DOF.


Huh?

"Paul Furman" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...on5dIhouse.asp
Not a bad idea, but I wonder at using the 5DII when the 7D would do as
well for a lot less. But I suppose that at extra couple thousand
dollars really amounts to almost nothing when it comes to TV
production.

For what they wanted (shallow DoF), FF is a lot better.

The only place FF really helps with DOF is wide *and* shallow, which is a
fairly an odd scenario, although there are places where you want the
shallow DOF but don't have room to back up, where FX helps. Any lens put
on DX will have shallower apparent DOF. Being able to go wide can also be
useful with a fast lens to allow work in low light, for situations where
DOF isn't that noticeable anyways. Video is much lower resolution than
stills.

Either I've misunderstood what you are trying to say, or you've got it
exactly backwards. It sure looks like the latter...

Ah, this is why it looks exactly backwards:

Any lens put on DX will have shallower apparent DOF.

That's not how serious/profesional photography works. You decide the angle
of view you need and _then_ pick the lens. (At which point FX has shallower
DoF.) Comparing the same lens on FX vs. DX isn't relevant since they take
different photographs.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...on5dIhouse.asp
Not a bad idea, but I wonder at using the 5DII when the 7D would do as
well for a lot less. But I suppose that at extra couple thousand
dollars really amounts to almost nothing when it comes to TV
production.
For what they wanted (shallow DoF), FF is a lot better.
The only place FF really helps with DOF is wide *and* shallow, which is a
fairly an odd scenario, although there are places where you want the
shallow DOF but don't have room to back up, where FX helps. Any lens put
on DX will have shallower apparent DOF. Being able to go wide can also be
useful with a fast lens to allow work in low light, for situations where
DOF isn't that noticeable anyways. Video is much lower resolution than
stills.

Either I've misunderstood what you are trying to say, or you've got it
exactly backwards. It sure looks like the latter...

Ah, this is why it looks exactly backwards:

Any lens put on DX will have shallower apparent DOF.

That's not how serious/profesional photography works. You decide the angle
of view you need and _then_ pick the lens. (At which point FX has shallower
DoF.) Comparing the same lens on FX vs. DX isn't relevant since they take
different photographs.

If you decide you want shallow DOF first and foremost; DX will do that
better (unless you also want wide angle, or don't have room to back up,
or have dim lighting). It's rather rare that I want wide angle *and*
shallow DOF.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...on5dIhouse.asp
Not a bad idea, but I wonder at using the 5DII when the 7D would do as
well for a lot less. But I suppose that at extra couple thousand
dollars really amounts to almost nothing when it comes to TV
production.
For what they wanted (shallow DoF), FF is a lot better.
The only place FF really helps with DOF is wide *and* shallow, which is
a fairly an odd scenario, although there are places where you want the
shallow DOF but don't have room to back up, where FX helps. Any lens put
on DX will have shallower apparent DOF. Being able to go wide can also
be useful with a fast lens to allow work in low light, for situations
where DOF isn't that noticeable anyways. Video is much lower resolution
than stills.

Either I've misunderstood what you are trying to say, or you've got it
exactly backwards. It sure looks like the latter...

Ah, this is why it looks exactly backwards:

Any lens put on DX will have shallower apparent DOF.

That's not how serious/profesional photography works. You decide the
angle of view you need and _then_ pick the lens. (At which point FX has
shallower DoF.) Comparing the same lens on FX vs. DX isn't relevant since
they take different photographs.

If you decide you want shallow DOF first and foremost; DX will do that
better

This remains a "Huh?" bit. Unless you are confusing DX and FX.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...on5dIhouse.asp
Not a bad idea, but I wonder at using the 5DII when the 7D would do as
well for a lot less. But I suppose that at extra couple thousand
dollars really amounts to almost nothing when it comes to TV
production.
For what they wanted (shallow DoF), FF is a lot better.
The only place FF really helps with DOF is wide *and* shallow, which is
a fairly an odd scenario, although there are places where you want the
shallow DOF but don't have room to back up, where FX helps. Any lens put
on DX will have shallower apparent DOF. Being able to go wide can also
be useful with a fast lens to allow work in low light, for situations
where DOF isn't that noticeable anyways. Video is much lower resolution
than stills.
Either I've misunderstood what you are trying to say, or you've got it
exactly backwards. It sure looks like the latter...

Ah, this is why it looks exactly backwards:

Any lens put on DX will have shallower apparent DOF.
That's not how serious/profesional photography works. You decide the
angle of view you need and _then_ pick the lens. (At which point FX has
shallower DoF.) Comparing the same lens on FX vs. DX isn't relevant since
they take different photographs.
If you decide you want shallow DOF first and foremost; DX will do that
better

This remains a "Huh?" bit. Unless you are confusing DX and FX.

Shallow DOF shots are generally done with a long lens. It doesn't matter
that much how long unless you can't back up or have low light and are
hand holding.

Pick your fastest longest lens for that and it will have even shallower
apparent DOF on DX. The FOV will be narrower but that really doesn't
matter much; narrower is better if you want the background to go away.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:

Any lens put on DX will have shallower apparent DOF.
That's not how serious/profesional photography works. You decide the
angle of view you need and _then_ pick the lens. (At which point FX
has shallower DoF.) Comparing the same lens on FX vs. DX isn't
relevant since they take different photographs.
If you decide you want shallow DOF first and foremost; DX will do
that better

This remains a "Huh?" bit. Unless you are confusing DX and FX.

Shallow DOF shots are generally done with a long lens. It doesn't matter
that much how long unless you can't back up or have low light and are
hand holding.

Pick your fastest longest lens for that and it will have even shallower
apparent DOF on DX. The FOV will be narrower but that really doesn't
matter much; narrower is better if you want the background to go away.



Uh no it won't. And I have no idea where you got the idea that changing
the angle of view "doesn't really matter much"!

Stephanie

On 10-04-15 11:53 , Paul Furman wrote:

Shallow DOF shots are generally done with a long lens. It doesn't matter
that much how long unless you can't back up or have low light and are
hand holding.

Pick your fastest longest lens for that and it will have even shallower
apparent DOF on DX.

Only if you back up further to fill the frame to the same nominal view.

The FOV will be narrower but that really doesn't
matter much; narrower is better if you want the background to go away.

One assumes that one frames the shot and then chooses the aperture. If
you want more DOF and don't have the aperture for it, then the cropped
sensor and back up will do. (Or backup and crop in post - but that's
harder to do with motion).

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-04-15 15:04 , wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:

Any lens put on DX will have shallower apparent DOF.
That's not how serious/profesional photography works. You decide
the angle of view you need and _then_ pick the lens. (At which
point FX has shallower DoF.) Comparing the same lens on FX vs. DX
isn't relevant since they take different photographs.
If you decide you want shallow DOF first and foremost; DX will do
that better

This remains a "Huh?" bit. Unless you are confusing DX and FX.

Shallow DOF shots are generally done with a long lens. It doesn't
matter that much how long unless you can't back up or have low light
and are hand holding.

Pick your fastest longest lens for that and it will have even
shallower apparent DOF on DX. The FOV will be narrower but that really
doesn't matter much; narrower is better if you want the background to
go away.



Uh no it won't. And I have no idea where you got the idea that changing
the angle of view "doesn't really matter much"!

He said field of view, not angle. But I agree that that too matters.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-15 15:04 , wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:

Any lens put on DX will have shallower apparent DOF.
That's not how serious/profesional photography works. You decide
the angle of view you need and _then_ pick the lens. (At which
point FX has shallower DoF.) Comparing the same lens on FX vs. DX
isn't relevant since they take different photographs.
If you decide you want shallow DOF first and foremost; DX will do
that better

This remains a "Huh?" bit. Unless you are confusing DX and FX.

Shallow DOF shots are generally done with a long lens. It doesn't
matter that much how long unless you can't back up or have low light
and are hand holding.

Pick your fastest longest lens for that and it will have even
shallower apparent DOF on DX. The FOV will be narrower but that really
doesn't matter much; narrower is better if you want the background to
go away.



Uh no it won't. And I have no idea where you got the idea that changing
the angle of view "doesn't really matter much"!

He said field of view, not angle. But I agree that that too matters.



And the difference is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view

Do you even know what this means? O.o

Stephanie