theprehistorian: @Rishi - did you check to see if the flare banding was any different after fine tuning the AF? Presumably the adjustment had the effect of lowering the AF module...
"Presumably the adjustment had the effect of lowering the AF module.."I would assume the AF fine-tune adjustment is a programmable offset in the focussing algorithms, not a physical offset of the AF module.Edit - I see Rishi types faster than me!
ealvarez: I just tried multiple number of entries of serial numbers and found
equal or greater than 8802634 are not affected
equal or greater than 3026254 are unaffected
I found Serial number beginning with 8XXXXXX are for cameras that being sold in asia and 3XXXXXX for USA and maybe Europe. I'm just guessing but
Try for yourself
is there supposed to be an "equal to or less than" in there somewhere?
neo_nights: Let's face it: sensor technology has got to a point where you simply CAN'T decide between cameras based on image quality alone. Unless you pixel peep (which is expected from a gear forum, I know), a picture *well taken* with a Canon 1000D and a Sony A7 is negligible for most people's eyes.
So, while those galleries (by 'galleries' I mean: from all the recent cameras that have been posted on DPR) are nice to give SOME idea about a camera, it can't be the decisive factor.
Too true. The first thing I look for is the size of the viewfinder. Then comes handling and ease/accuracy of focus.
Sammy Yousef: "Better" or "just as good" depend entirely on what you're shooting. Under the right conditions and in the right presentation media the phone will do nicely next to a much more expensive DSLR. If you're buying a DSLR purely to take medium wide angle photos in bright even light only to post them on social media then you may well be wasting your time.
This accessibility is fantastic. It allows people to play with framing and composition without an additional financial outlay. It means where 10 years ago you'd normally be caught out because you didn't have your camera with you, you MIGHT just have something suitable sitting in your pocket to capture that shot.
If that moment you're capturing involves long zoom action sports, wildlife, astrophotography, architecture, extreme low light etc. your phone won't cut it and your current DSLR might not be enough. You might be able to capture something complimentary that would suit your phone. (Crowd watching sports for example).
""Better" or "just as good" depend entirely on what you're shooting."Agreed. Often, in close quarter social situations, whereas taking pictures on a mobile is just part of the scene and unremarkable for that, brandishing a DSLR marks you out as "a photographer" (or even "the" photographer), and changes the scene you are trying to capture.
wetsleet: I'd like to know, comapring say FF with MFT and APSC, what differences in size and weight would result if all the photographic parameters were kept as near identical as possible.
The oft-overlooked parameter for me would be equivalent aperture - i.e. each format would need a lens offering equivalent DOF (as well as angle of view, zoom range, etc), hence the smaller formats would need faster lenses.
I suspect that the apparent size/weight advantage of the smaller formats would be considerably reduced in this case .
Of course in this scenario, smaller formats having faster lenses, would give them other IQ advantages and disadvantages.
And what about the cost of such lenses - would they end up just as expensive as FF lenses?
In short, is the trade-off between the different formats really a trade of DOF control versus size-weight-cost?
At the same ISO you are correct. I am not talking about at the same ISO. I am talking about at the same DOF.So, around we go again, IF you are interested in understanding the impact of different formats when taking essentially the equivalent photograph...(equivalent DOF, shutter speed, AOV, subject distance, etc)... oh, I give up, you are going to bang on about taking pictures at the same ISO, which may be a great discussion, but a different one, hence futile to try to reconcile.
The question I have been considering is, if you alter the size of the sensor, and keep all the other photographic variables equivalent (equivalent focal length and aperture, same shutter speed) so as to take essentially the same picture on each camera, what gives? The answer is, ISO gives.
If you are shooting at a wider aperture on the smaller format (which is the case I am considering in order to achive the same DOF...), for the same shutter speed, for the same exposure, you *will* be using a lower ISO. I am not considering any other constraints. Obviously if you do put other constraints in, such as assuming both cameras are limited to the same base ISO, then you are considering a different question.
Anastigmat: Lenses. Part of the often repeated "advantage" of an APS-C camera is the longer "reach" of the crop sensor. It means you can use a 400mm lens and get the equivalent of a 600mm. but when APS-C fantatics buy odd focal length lenses like a 35mm macro to mimic the working distance (or lack thereof) of a 50mm macro on a FF, or when they buy a 50-135mm zoom to mimic a 75-200mm zoom on a FF, then they instantly threw that advantage away. To add insult to injury these APS-C lenses are way more expensive than their FF equivalents. In fact, a person can buy a FF, a 50mm macro, and a 70-200mm zoom and he would have spent less money than someone who bought an APS-C camera, a 35mm macro and a 50-135mm zoom.
Not only does the APS-C buyer not have an advantage in reach unless he uses FF telephotos, he also have a disadvantage at the wide angle end. In sum, it is another myth that the APS-C sensor has an advantage over the FF sensor for the consumer but the myth lives on.
Thanks HFLM, I think you have answered the questions I was asking - what happens to the size/weight advantage of APSC under conditions of photographic equivalence (i.e. equivalent angle of view and DOF etc). I have long suspected that the advantage is down to sacrificing DOF, which you can just as easily achieve on a FF camera by buying slower lenses (eg Nikon do 70-200mm as both f2.8 and f4 versions).
endofoto: Full-frame sensors are not good for macro and wild life, because of restricted DOF and reach. Their main advantage is portraiture, because of small DOF and better high ISO performance. Furtheremore if you use full-frame for macro you have to increase f upto 16-20 instead of 10-16 in crop sensor cameras. Smaller apertures mean higher diffraction and softness in high f values. I dont advise full frame cameras for macro and birding. It is good only for wedding photography. In near future multi-layer sensors like human retina will be available and ISO performance will not differ between full-frame and crop sensor cameras. I wont move to full-frame because I mainly shoot macro, and portraits with Nikon D300 and D3200 are perfect with good light.
Every FF sensor contains an APSC area witihin, of course, so you can always crop the images yourself on a FF camera, you don't have to use an APSC camera just to get those DOF effects. On a D800 that still gives you a 15Mp image. That used to be considered enough.
As regards using FF for macro and needing to increase the f-stop, I think that it is the physical size of the entry pupil which affects diffraction. At equivalent DOF and equivalent focal length you will have changed the f-stop in the same ratio as the actual focal lengths, which leaves the size of the entry pupil unchanged.
@PerLObviously I have failed to communicate effectively. My argument is this:1) A FF camera with say 105mm f2.8, portrait distance. Get the same subject distance, angle of view and DOF on a smaller format.2) 1 above necessitates a LARGER aperture on the smaller format (if only they would make such lenses, which they don't)3) 2 above mandates a LOWER ISO on the smaller format than on the larger4) 3 above IMPROVES the IQ on the smaller format
Finally, my questions - How big/heavy would such a set up be? Would there be much left of the smaller format's size/weight advantage? Would there be much left of the larger formats IQ advantage?
Boss of Sony: If you're an amateur who wants to avoid hand and shoulder pain, get a smaller camera like APS-C or a compact camera. APS-C with a decent prime will give you perfectly fine low-light photographs. This means the only thing FF can offer is a slightly shallower depth of field.
Why would you not aspire to do both simultaneously, capture the moment and make a decent photograph of it?
@ThePhilips Yes, overlooked, by the manufacturers. You can get a 70-200 or 28-105 lens around f2.8 - 4 for FF. The equivalent lens for smaller formats will have equivalent angle of view, but I've yet to see one with equivalent DOF - i.e. the focal length will be adjusted pro-rata the crop factor, but the aperture won't.
@PerL If you end up with a faster lens to give equivalent DOF on a smaller format, then you can use lower ISO at the same shutter speed, hence a potential gain in IQ. Agreed this needs to be set against all the other factors impinging on IQ, but just maybe it would balance IQ out?
@Plastek you are clutching at straws - I'll take the lighter weight camera, thank you. The day they prove to be so feather light I can't hold it steady is a long way off.
wetsleet: "Fallacy 1: Full frame is the optimal end-point to aspire to"
True. But the very term "full frame" itself implies that anything smaller is something of a half-measure. It would be interesting to know who first coined the term, consumers or marketers?
When the 35mm format was specified, absolutely no allowance was made for the demands and opportunities of digital photography (obviously), and yet somehow it is held up as offering the optimum compromise for digital cameras, and anointed with a name which enshrines that perceived supremacy.
I don't doubt that sensor costs were very high, and this must have been a consideration. But I wonder whether there was not also some anticipation of the evolution of sensor resolution leading to a view of how large a sensor needed to be if (in time, given the anticipated evolution) they were to achieve an equivalent data-density to film.
In other words, I suspect the choice of APS-C size boiled down to an argument of, "if we are ultimately to replace film with an equivalent level of detail captured digitally, this is likely how bid the sensor is going to have to be."
I take your point about maybe that was where the "full" bit came from, a reference to the available image circle, not fully exploited, of legacy lenses.
I'd love to know, if you also wanted to keep DOF equivalent, would the smaller format still have much size/weight advantage?
I'd like to know, comapring say FF with MFT and APSC, what differences in size and weight would result if all the photographic parameters were kept as near identical as possible.
"Fallacy 1: Full frame is the optimal end-point to aspire to"
neo_nights: @ Lars "there simply is not enough space unless consumers accept larger/thicker phones."This is right, but I still don't get this obsession with paper thin smartphones. They are increasing screensize and getting thinner and thinner. Then people complain that they are fragile (obviously!) and battery life is poor (obviously).
I mean, does 2~4mm of extra thickness make THAT much difference for the public?
Yes, I have evidence - the Moto G, a best seller, and not thin. Ergo being not-thin is no bar to sales success.
You choose to exclude that evidence.
The simplest interpretation of the evidence is that where compelling phones are offered, even if they are not thin, they sell well. However there are no compelling premium phones that are not thin, hence premium phone buyers have no choice to exercise.
"Consumers who buy a phone in the Moto G class are certainly much less worried about thinness than iPhone or Moto X users."
Certainly? How do you know? There is no choice, therefore no evidence. If you want a high-end phone then it is stupid-thin, that is it, no choice.
You conveniently dismiss the only data there is on consumers' actual choices. How do you know that given the same choice people who buy high-end phones would not have the same tolerance, preference even, for the benefits offered by a couple of extra millimeters?
The Moto G isn't especially thin, and yet consumers have "accepted" it in their droves. The whole thin thing is not consumer pull, it is marketing push.
The 'obsession' lies with the marketing depts, not the buying public, who are given no choice in the matter for premium phones, and where they are given the choice, as with the Moto G, clearly show that they do not obsess about thin.
Eleson: A review site that can perform repetitive AF testing in various conditions will get lots of clicks!Testing on DR and noise really makes very little sense right now, except to differentiate iPhone's from FF dslr's.
Testing of AF would also drive the industry forward a lot. Much as noise comparisons have done before.
"Weight (with battery) D810 880 g (1.9 lb.)" (table on P1)In the D810 review the weight including battery is 980g. Did something change?