Jump to content

Full Frame Bubble Burst

Guest

By Guest
in Photography Gear and Technique

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ChrisH said:

I also made the switch from MFT to Full Frame some years ago and have never looked back.

 

My reasons for the switch were:

- the 4:3 ratio of the MFT System didn't appeal to me, I like the 3:2 better

- back then the optical viewfinder was far superior to the EVF (different story today!)

- the files of my Olympus always had a blue water color that I did not really like and it was kind of hard to get a pleasing color (for me) in post processing; the colors from the Nikon FF were much more to my taste

 

Image quality in a sense of pure resolution or details was not on that list. I still think that the pure details and resolution is mostly limited because of the medium we are dealing with - water. The shot taken through less water will almost always have a better resolution/more details than the shot taken from a bigger distance. If shot from the same distance, there will be an advantage for FF, but I too found it to be less than expected and it might be not enough for some people to justify the additional cost and weight.

 

But there is one point where the FF sensor really can shine underwater: shooting wrecks or caves. There is a significant ISO advantage and you can get much more clarity out of the FF files, when shooting without strobes. If you use lights inside caves or wrecks, the lighting situation can become tricky and the FF sensor will give you better dynamic range at higher ISO settings, giving you better image quality, and much more headroom for post processing. 

That you can shoot well in ambient light however it is only true to an extent because at the end you work at constrained depth of field and no full frame camera has two stops of ISO advantage over MFT in this example. When you talk about low light wide aperture photography at night certainly true but underwater ambient shots are not f/1.4

Interesting point about 4:3 indeed I find 3:2 less useful unless I print as now all computer stuff is 1:1 5:4 or 4:3

 

The nature of my post is to stimulate a reflection and is deliberately an hyperbole but then once you cross that bridge you don't want someone to give you the smallest hint that you were wrong

The resolution is impacted by water, the small aperture and other things in certain type of shots you see more benefit in others you don't

 

What I can say is that if I am taking a landscape which I would always take at ISO 100 there really is no comparison, as paradox the issue is when ISO goes up when you can match depth of field. When I shoot a portrait especially not in studio full frame gives me more separation and at night well you cannot match a full frame f/1.4 lens

 

I guess I am a bit frustrated that IQ did not improve esponentially and in some case has actually gone backwards

I have taken several shots with my A1 and lenses that I could not take before and none of them has been underwater they have all been low light topside scenarios or night photography

Pooley Barracuda

Pooley

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

which point exactly have you countered? None that I can read just offered other unsubstantiated point of view and besides you have no idea of the photos I take 

The whole point about focus on the artistic is a mere way to divert the discussion which is not about eastatic and just get some easy likes

It is lazy and poor and shows lack of depth, just stereotype and reboiled old soup which happens when you stir something that is uneasy to hear

 I wasn't going to reply but as it seems to be getting personal...

 

1. I couldn't care less about easy likes. Never have, never will. 

 

2. I have pointed out benefits in areas you don't like to shoot - but you are so arrogant you don't want to hear it. 

 

3. Where am I saying its the artistic merit that counts? Or are you just talking yet more rubbish?

 

4. I see the photos you publish, and to be fair, they don't inspire me. De-saturated sharks that have clearly been over processed do not give me any viewing pleasure and look false

 

You really are the most arrogant, unpleasant argumentative bore I have ever had to deal with on wetpixel / waterpixels.

 

I've no doubt your ego will make you reply to this- crack on, I'm out trying to deal with you

Edited by Pooley
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Pooley said:

 I wasn't going to reply but as it seems to be getting personal...

 

1. I couldn't care less about easy likes. Never have, never will. 

 

2. I have pointed out benefits in areas you don't like to shoot - but you are so arrogant you don't want to hear it. 

 

3. Where am I saying its the artistic merit that counts? Or are you just talking yet more rubbish?

 

4. I see the photos you publish, and to be fair, they don't inspire me. De-saturated sharks that have clearly been over processed do not give me any viewing pleasure and look false

 

You really are the most arrogant, unpleasant argumentative bore I have ever had to deal with on wetpixel / waterpixels.

 

I've no doubt your ego will make you reply to this- crack on, I'm out trying to deal with you

The desaturated sharks are actually in ambient light

the look comes from the shark being at 20 meters and not using a strobe

 

this is indeed an example where a photo is different from what one would expect with strobes which is normally a single shark as the moment you fire the others leave while my shots are a series of bursts in ambient light 

besides with minimal processing other than correction of white balance which of course is insufficient compared to a strobe


it is risky business to make statements like that without knowing the circumstances

 

my photos look different not because they are ‘overprocessed’ but because I don’t tend to go to photography destinations stereotypes recently I have preferred places where there was a lot of adrenalin or the opposite have been diving during a family holiday both not really destinations a photographer would go or if he did wouldn’t come back with many shots (respectable photographers on my malpelo boats came back empty handed)

 

the other examples you make are specific devices that are indeed not specific to full frame it is just that there would not be a market for cropped sensor users for such prices so it doesn’t really way anything about image quality but more about a use case

 

the artistic comment was about show us beautiful images. What does that mean?

i am a diver that takes photos i like situations that are difficult and naturally dont lend themselves to classic shots hence I squeeze my equipment to the limit and I need technique and performance 

next year I have decided to go on some more classic itinerary which is a bit overdue have a look then for your classic shots

Edited by Interceptor121
DreiFish Hammerhead

DreiFish

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

 

1. You need small apertures. No matter what you think most people shoot f/14 with a fisheye and with rectilinear lenses edges are not great even at f/16 with typical reef subjects. Here there is a gap of 2 stops. Lens resolution drops dramatically past f/8 and the same lens looses so much resolution going to f/16 that barely is compensated by more than double megapixels

2. Small apertures means you shoot wide angle at higher ISO start at 400 so you are using one stop higher ISO and loosing dynamic range advantage

3. Net of aperture and ISO you are still one full stop strobe power behind which means you need bigger more expensive and bulky strobes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could you explain point #3? I think actually the higher aperture needed for wide angle (WACP line notwithstanding* -- you can shoot the WACP-1 at F5.6 or even F4 on full frame just fine) is directly counterbalanced by better iso performance. F16 ISO 800 gives you the same dynamic range and image quality (diffraction) as F8 ISO 200 on m4/3, and therefore the strobe power needed is also the same.

  • Like 1
TimG Leviathan

TimG

Posted
Posted

Folks

 

We have said a good number of times on various threads that posts should be courteous and respectful of members' views. Agree to disagree by all means, but this must not cross the courtesy line.

 

We are concerned by a number of comments in the various posts above. As a result we will be using the sanctions we have available to encourage members to stay within the guidelines. We will be in touch with individual members about this.

 

Again, if you have particularity concerns about views expressed which you feel cross the boundary, please do not hesitate to let us know.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1
ChrisH Marlin

ChrisH

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

That you can shoot well in ambient light however it is only true to an extent because at the end you work at constrained depth of field and no full frame camera has two stops of ISO advantage over MFT in this example. When you talk about low light wide aperture photography at night certainly true but underwater ambient shots are not f/1.4

 

Interesting point about 4:3 indeed I find 3:2 less useful unless I print as now all computer stuff is 1:1 5:4 or 4:3

 

The 4:3 vs 3:2 ist just a personal preference for me and might be of no interest for others, but I have often seen people that were not really aware of this when considering buying a MFT (maybe also downgrading from FF).

 

Regarding depth of field: yes it is true that you usually shoot with smaller apertures with FF. But inside wrecks or at night you can open up the aperture and reduce corner sharpness. It does give you options, especially if corner sharpness isn't needed for the shot (corners not lit up in wrecks or shooting at night with just water around the subject). So you will have options, with the smaller sensors you will run out of options at a much earlier point in those circumstances.

 

But I am too convinced that there are many people that are led by their experience from cameras over water to buy housings for their full frame cameras and are utterly disappointed because they find their expectations not matched with the results.

 

On the other hand, I would always go for FF personally: I shoot different subjects and conditions. So a very versatile camera system is key for me. I need a camera that can deal with wide angle, fast action, macro, blackwater, wrecks. And the FF setup will provide me that. It can just handle everything you trow at it. 

But, if I were to shoot mostly macro for example, I would maybe tend do go to MFT because of their lens selections and the smaller footprint.

 

 

  • Like 1
Architeuthis Dolphin

Architeuthis

Posted
Posted

The choice of system/camera/lenses is, of course, very individual and different UW-photographers have different preferences...

In early 2023, I switched from Olympus EM1II (MFT) to Sony A7R5 (FF). I am still experimenting and still do not have a final opinion, but it is unlikely that I ever will switch back to a MFT system. The FF system is better in many aspects (but, unfortunately, not in every aspect). Below the points that I find important to mention:

 

#1.: 61 Mpixel vs. 20 Mpixel makes cropping much more forgivable. I am not using the native aspect ratio of the sensor all the time. I mostly show my photos to other people on a beamer that has an aspect ratio of 16:9 and therefore, whenever possible, I crop the final image for viewing to 16:9, to use the maximum of the projected area abd show a big slide (for print, I crop to the ratio of the print medium). When 16:9 is not so good for the motif, I take other ratios, as 3:2, 4:3 or even 1:1, depending what is the best to my feeling. This, together with a little bit of cropping, due to imperfect framing (well, i am not a perfect UW-photographer) makes already a lot of cropping, but in average, 40 Mpixel remain, what is still more than plenty...

 

#2.: 14-bit vs. 12-bit RAW file. 14-bit give just a lot of more headroom in postprocessing, is it for enhancing the shadows or the adjustment of colors. Especially the better possibility to avoid blown-out sun, when the sun appears in the photo is important to me (of course overexposure of the sun has to be avoided when taking the photo, but upon postprocessing the better ability to enhance the shadows comes into the play).

 

#3.: AF is working very well, both with EM1II and A7R5: I, personally, find that the difference in AF is overrated, when I read reviews and posts. For WA and normal range photos I find it, more or less, the same (at low light the EM1II was even slightly better, but maybe I am nostalgic). Even for macro there is not a big difference, especially when I consider the size of an object, relative to the frame. In this terms, the EM1II with the Pana 45mm gives the same magnification of an object. relative to frame, as the A7R5 with Sony 90mm plus SMC-1. C-AF&tracking (used to frame the photo finally) works pretty well with both combinations. EM1II plus CMC-1 would struggle, but then the object, relative to the frame, would be similar to Sony 90mm plus SMC-2 (which I do not have (yet), so I cannot compare). AI with object recognition works much better on A7R5 compared to EM1II, but in my hands, this is of limited use UW...

I find, however, that sharpness and color on macro photos is (slightly) better with A7R5 (better must be so, as the macro setup is a monstrum compared to the slim EM1II/Pana 45mm setup)

 

#4.: The difference in size and money is overrated to my feeling. Most money is spent, when buying a lot of different things, that are not used in the end, and switching from one system to the other. In addition, a fully equipped MFT setup with all lenses/domes etc. is also not cheap. Buying once and using for a long time the right stuff is the most "economical" (:classic_laugh:) solution. When really short in budget, better not go for a system camera, but go for compact (both price and size advantage for compact). Differerence in size depends on the setup (see below, #5 "lens choice")...

 

#5.: Lens choice (and size difference):

(i) For the "normal range" (e.g. fishportraits), I was using the Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 behind 170mm domeport. With FF, I use the Sony 20-70mm behind the same domeport. Almost no difference in size, but the 20mm at the wide end is a sunstantial gain (I find IQ slightly better with the FF). Advantage for A7R5 here...

(ii) Ultra-WA: EM1II with adapted Canon 8-15mm is practically same size as A7R5 with adapted Canon 8-15mm (both with 140mm domeport). With MFT this was outstanding IQ and zoom range, with FF no zoomrange, just 15mm (180° diagonal) and IQ is just good. Same size, but advantage for EM1II...

(iii) Macro: EM1II with Pana 45mm (or Zuiko 60mm) makes a slim and smart setup. A7R5 with Sony 90mm plus SMC-1 is the biggest setup I ever used. IQ is, however, better with FF (I find well exposed photos "crisper" (sharper, more contrast and colors better (but just subjective feeling, did not make objective measurements).

Lens choice is no comparison: with the MFT system one has the choice between 30mm, 45mm and 60mm dedicated macro lenses, all working perfect. Now even a dedicated 90mm macro with native 2:1 magnification is available. For Sony FF the dedicated 90mm is excellent, but that is it (A 50mm, but very slow focusing, 50mm is available; I read here that people even have to use adapted 60mm APS-C lenses for macro)

Advantage for size and lens choice goes clearly to EM1II, but advantage for IQ to A7R5...

(iv) WA: EM1II with adapted Canon 8-15mm was everything I ever wanted (great zoom range and outstanding IQ). The A7R5 WA is more problematic. At present, I use Sony 28-60mm with WACP-C. IQ is very good. The designation "C" in WACP-C stands for "compact", this seems a little understatement to me, it is a hughe piece of equipment to lug around. Also the setup is quite big. With EM1II the Canon 8-15mm does both Ultra-WA and WA. With A7R5 I need both Canon 8-15, plus WACP-C. Clear advantage for MFT here...

 

At present, I would not exchange my Sony FF system against a MFT system. The FF system is, however, not just more expensive and heavier, but excels in any other aspect. There is light and shadow, as always, and it remains a very personal choice...

 

 

Wolfgang

  • Like 2
Architeuthis Dolphin

Architeuthis

Posted
Posted

Great and vivid discussion here...

Some comments were a little bit harsh, but I could not read any personal insultation here that would justify banning of a member...

 

Wolfgang

Architeuthis Dolphin

Architeuthis

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, ChrisH said:

 

The 4:3 vs 3:2 ist just a personal preference for me and might be of no interest for others, but I have often seen people that were not really aware of this when considering buying a MFT (maybe also downgrading from FF).

 

Regarding depth of field: yes it is true that you usually shoot with smaller apertures with FF. But inside wrecks or at night you can open up the aperture and reduce corner sharpness. It does give you options, especially if corner sharpness isn't needed for the shot (corners not lit up in wrecks or shooting at night with just water around the subject). So you will have options, with the smaller sensors you will run out of options at a much earlier point in those circumstances.

 

But I am too convinced that there are many people that are led by their experience from cameras over water to buy housings for their full frame cameras and are utterly disappointed because they find their expectations not matched with the results.

 

On the other hand, I would always go for FF personally: I shoot different subjects and conditions. So a very versatile camera system is key for me. I need a camera that can deal with wide angle, fast action, macro, blackwater, wrecks. And the FF setup will provide me that. It can just handle everything you trow at it. 

But, if I were to shoot mostly macro for example, I would maybe tend do go to MFT because of their lens selections and the smaller footprint.

 

 

 

I believe that the "depth of field" argument applies mostly to macro images. When the ambient light is dim, the performace in the very edges is not really important. In addition, there are the WWL/WACP lenses that make FF photography at wider apertures very well possible...

 

Wolfgang

Edited by Architeuthis
TimG Leviathan

TimG

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Great and vivid discussion here...

Some comments were a little bit harsh, but I could not read any personal insultation here that would justify banning of a member...

 

Wolfgang

 

Hey Wolfgang. 

 

You'll appreciate I'm sure that we cannot discuss individual cases, but there are a range of options before "banning". That would be the nuclear, DEFCON 5 option which, we hope, we would never have to use.

 

We really have no wish to act as school prefects. 

  • Like 2
  • 2 weeks later...
Jim Laurel Moray Eel

Jim Laurel

Posted
Posted

Ahem...it might be time to stop digging.
 

On 6/9/2024 at 12:16 AM, Guest said:

The desaturated sharks are actually in ambient light

the look comes from the shark being at 20 meters and not using a strobe

 

this is indeed an example where a photo is different from what one would expect with strobes which is normally a single shark as the moment you fire the others leave while my shots are a series of bursts in ambient light 

besides with minimal processing other than correction of white balance which of course is insufficient compared to a strobe


it is risky business to make statements like that without knowing the circumstances

 

my photos look different not because they are ‘overprocessed’ but because I don’t tend to go to photography destinations stereotypes recently I have preferred places where there was a lot of adrenalin or the opposite have been diving during a family holiday both not really destinations a photographer would go or if he did wouldn’t come back with many shots (respectable photographers on my malpelo boats came back empty handed)

 

the other examples you make are specific devices that are indeed not specific to full frame it is just that there would not be a market for cropped sensor users for such prices so it doesn’t really way anything about image quality but more about a use case

 

the artistic comment was about show us beautiful images. What does that mean?

i am a diver that takes photos i like situations that are difficult and naturally dont lend themselves to classic shots hence I squeeze my equipment to the limit and I need technique and performance 

next year I have decided to go on some more classic itinerary which is a bit overdue have a look then for your classic shots

 

  • Haha 1
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Thanks for your support

    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo

     

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.