Why do people use APS-C Canon cameras?

>>2850757
Because they want to take photos and Canon cameras are just as good at taking tourist snapshits on kit lenses as any other brand.

I bought a 40D in 2012 because it was cheap used, solid body and decent af performance (I started shooting concerts and motocross, just for fun, I was quite bad at it).

I then invested in a 70-200 f4 (arguably the best f4 tele on the planet) and I stayed with the APS-C system.

I also believe Canon produces the best crop lenses in term of price/quality ratio.

See the 10-18 and 24mm pancake.

>>2850763
>I also believe Canon produces the best crop lenses in term of price/quality ratio
That should go for Pentax but Canon is a close second.
See the Limited primes and the babby primes 50 and 35mm, also the telecreep 55-300.
The star lenses are another story, excellent quality with fair but very high prices.

Probably because they care about taking pictures and not about jerking off to some metrics and charts

Canon spends more on marketing and promotion than any other camera manufacturer, and they hold the largest market share because of that. It wasn't always like this, prior to digital, Nikon had the larger market share.

File: 1464296611985.jpg (132KB, 652x573px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 652x573px

>>2850769
>Pentax

>>2850757
A sensor is only one part of a camera, and once you get a sensor that is 'good enough' you can stop worrying about it and focus on other things, like ergonomics, or lenses, or heaven forbid, actually taking photos.

Canon is known. And most people on this planet do not care enough to do research.

>>2850757
I dunno what lured me in, but now I'm around $15,000 committed. Good thing is, I can have a 480mm f/2.8 for around $3500. It's like a 1.6 teleconverter, just without the loss in f-stops.

Decent lenses (some might say Canon have better APSC lenses than Nikon for selection)
7D/7Dii are solid sports and wildlife camera's paired with some of the awesome tele L glass.
Video on the 70/80D is solid and the tracking is better than anything Nikon can do.

I personally just have an old 500D laying around I will sometimes use it as a second camera when I can control the light (flash) side by side with my 5Diii you can't really tell a difference if you are using flash at ISO 100.

>>2850775
Canon won on autofocus not just advertising, that caused the big switch. Lenses like the magic drainpipe which Nikon had nothing to compare with

>>2850757
But it sounds like a troll? Because pixel peeping is a waste of time? Because good enough can be done on most modern DSLRs? Because if you buy the most expensive camera there is you still wont magically take better pictures? Because "full frame" is just an arbitrary size that happened to be the correct size once in a time?
I have even met people who think that only one brand is superior! their Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Samsung/whatever.
But then again, I run a photography business and every piece of gear needs to have a ROI calculated, especially as I shoot underwater where evry piece of gear needs a housing and/or cabling. An let me tell you friend, that shit is ridiculously expensive compared for what you get!

So summa sumarum, my reason for crop sensor was price. It's good enough and my customers like my photos. I get paid.

I bought Canon 'cause everyone I knew had one and then my friend sold me his old 600D and now I have it. Seriously, Canon vs Nikon in crop cameras in consumer hands doesn't make a fucks difference. They both shoot outstanding pictures with good glass.

But I'm considering changing to Nikon because I can get my hands on old pre-digital lenses for next to nothing. Plus I'm begininng to like their approach more than Canons. The Nikon Df is exactly what I want of a digital camera. It's my only dream digital system camera on the market, even including professional models.

>>2850772
>>2850788
Side note: these are some serious traditional fan-boy arguments.

>>2851006
Pretty much this.

Ran a wedding photography business off a T3i for years before I finally broke the shutter and got a 5D Mk II.

As long as you have a DSLR made within the past 7 years, you'll be fine. Lenses are where your image quality is coming from. As long as you have enough resolution to print a 20x30 you're good.

>>2851020
>Side note: these are some serious traditional fan-boy arguments.

I don't even own a Canon

>>2851052
I don't care
>why would people do that, be mean on the internet

>>2851064
I don't know :'(

>>2850757
because it's cheaper than fool frame.

For birding and such aren't crops basically better than FF since you're using telephotos all the time?

File: 1460977877286.jpg (212KB, 500x706px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 500x706px

>>2850769

File: 12313734_757461364357762_351506321020685726_n.jpg (7KB, 250x221px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x221px

>>2850769
what the fuck

>>2851430
Pentax has a more extensive APS-C only lens lineup. I looked at their user database on some forum and got jelly as fuck.
For my Nikon D3300 there is only a few lenses available, anything more I have to pay the fool frame price, and even then I get fucked on the wide end.
Plus their pancake primes. I don't care if their claims about twinkleshits and bullshit is true or not, they actually look sexy as fuck, there is no alternative like that for me.
Maybe my next upgrade will be switching platform just for those pancakes.

File: 57974116.jpg (114KB, 570x450px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 570x450px

>>2851454
k3ii + that pancake from k01 mirrorless.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:02:02 11:18:17
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	570
Image Height	450

>>2851479
That's hideous, man! I'd rather pay twice as much for the 40mm limited pancake

File: bio-sidebar.jpg (20KB, 310x234px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 310x234px

>>2850757
Because I didn't want to buy a FF when I was getting started but I wanted to buy into the system with the best

>Cameras for birding/sports/action/etc, e.g.:
>AF
>Framerate
>Best resale value / market
>[hand in hand - an ecosystem I can expect to see other photos using and thus talk with about specifics, as well as share gear/etc)
>Good lens value (e.g. not massively overpaying because niche ecosystem)
>A company that is a camera company, not a generic electronics company that will make bad camera decisions or even sell off their camera brand at any random point because the CEO or investors don't like the ROI compared to say, video game consoles
>A company that was financially solvent and not hemorrhaging money (cough nikon)

Why should I have chose something else?

>>2851503
So you were literally a gearfag when you started out.

File: 1460412701948 (1).jpg (33KB, 409x377px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 409x377px

>>2851507
>Want to shoot thing
>said thing requires gear
>know that will buy gear in future
>buy some, but not all, of gear while shooting said thing
>plan to buy some gear later
?

what does a hypothetical non-gearfag try to do, shoot birds with a nifty fifty?

File: EFS_10_18MM.jpg (208KB, 570x600px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 570x600px

As someone already mentioned, one of the best reasons why you'd choose Canon crop over other brands is the incredibly cheap quality glass you can get for them. Think about it, you can buy a 10-18, 24 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8 for less than 600$ total.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2014:06:18 18:02:36
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 092.jpg (68KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 720x480px

>>2851508
I know a guy who shoots birds with UWA. Pic related

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	842
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	25 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3344
Image Height	2229
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	283 dpi
Vertical Resolution	283 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2010:10:28 13:39:59
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	17.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	720
Image Height	480
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2851513
I mean, it is technically a bird, but are you going to constitute this as "birding" too?

>>2851515
Google the name "Bence Mate"

>>2851516
Interesting, I guess camo + waiting + non-tele can work, but that also seems pretty expensive.

And he still uses telephotos, he's got one right there on the upper left even

>>2851512
I'm that canon guy and while I still like it, the EF-S glass strikes me as frustrating since I won't be able to use it on a FF

but then again I guess it's not uncommon to carry two bodies, or at least still use both in different situations.

>>2851512
Khm... http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
Although the listed prices are a bit old, you have to look for the prices on B&H or ebay or something.

>>2851519
Depends whether you plan on migrating to FF.
Either way you can just sell them, Canon glass seems to hold it's price pretty well (at least where I live).

>>2851527
Why wouldn't someone eventually migrate to fullframe? It's better in just about every way isn't it?

It's just more expensive

>>2851529
It's only better so much if you are on a Canon crop body. Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax crop bodies are just as capable as any Canon FF.
How you can utilize that is up to you.

>>2851533

>>2851533
Crop are only ~60% as good for landscape, architecture, and other wide angle shots as FF.

Crop are also something like 33% worse for any use-case that needs bokeh (e.g. portraits)

This is independent of manufacturer.

>>2851533
>Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax crop bodies are just as capable as any Canon FF
People keep saying this and it's categorically false

>>2851536
Those are only niche cases
And for portraits, why not compare your precious FF to a Phase MF? Or even film 6x7? I can tell you your precious BOKEH will be shit compared to those.

>>2851538
It's just benchmark babbies going on about DR/ISO and completely ignoring AF/FPS as always

Not to mention ignoring all economic aspects of the comparison

>>2851540
>canonical dominating types of photography like landscape and architecture are """""niche"""""

>potraits are fucking """"niche"""""

neck yourself

>>2851536
>Crop are only ~60% as good for landscape, architecture, and other wide angle shots as FF.

lol no

>Crop are also something like 33% worse for any use-case that needs bokeh (e.g. portraits)

also lol no

this 'disadvantage' is not inherent to the crop system but to the history of the development of film/sensor size.

>>2851536
Actually, crop is 33% better at any use-case that needs bokeh, because the crop factor means you must treat the lens as a longer one. It would only be worse if you used the lenses for the same purpose between two systems.

Put a 75mm 1.8 on a full frame body, and a 75mm 1.8 on a crop body, and the crop bodied one is more than likely going to be used to take more bokeh-rich photos due to the working distance difference.

This is dependent on you actually taking photos and not just shitposting about them tho.

>>2851575
Except that you'd be using 1.5-1.6x smaller focal length on a crop body to get the same shot at the same location

by your logic everyone should shoot portraits with 800mm

>>2851575
>and the crop bodied one is more than likely going to be used to take more bokeh-rich photos due to the working distance difference.

the crop body would have the subject furthur away for the same framing and thus less bokeh.

>>2851578
You don't frame a 50mm on crop the same as a 50mm on full frame, you idjit. That's what a 35mm is for.

Equivalent focal length applies to how you fucking use the lens too, dinguses, not just to the number stamped on it.

>>2851580

>Put a 75mm 1.8 on a full frame body, and a 75mm 1.8 on a crop body, and the crop bodied one is more than likely going to be used to take more bokeh-rich photos

maybe you should read what you actually typed you cock gobbler.

>>2851581
What's confusing about that to you?

The one on the crop camera is longer, and is going to shoehorn the shooter into a particular mindset when shooting.

The same is true for 50mm, a 50mm on crop's standard usage (portraiture) is going to be more bokeh-rich than a 50mm on full frame's standard usage as just a standard.

If you genuinely think I'm wrong on this, maybe stop spending so much time arguing about lenses on 4chan and actually get out there and use them.

(and no, you cock snuffler, nothing about what I said implies equivalent framing. Equivalent framing on the same lens between formats ain't even a fucking meme. It's just stupid.)

>>2851575
here's your (you) you tripfag piece of shit

you're so wrong

>>2851583

so by your logic if i use a 50mm on my compact camera with 1/3" sensor i would get even MORE bokeh?

>>2851586
It's not 'my logic', it's just the reality of usage differences. You use an equivalent lens as its equivalency, not its nominal length, that's why *you're even fucking talking about equivalency to begin with*

Trying to get equivalent framing on a 50mm crop to 50mm FF is a mindlessly stupid gearfag exercise in "I just wanna see how far back 1.56x is...", anyone that actually *uses* the lens is not going to be using it as a normal. It's a short tele on the system.

And yes, a 50mm on a 1/3" sensor camera is effectively a 360mm, and teles are the realm of always-on bokeh.

By your logic, a 50mm on crop is a good everyday lens...

>>2851585
You're so wong

Look at this cringey af photography website, idk why it exists.
http://aidanlphotography.weebly.com/

>>2851591
jesus crhist

File: FOTO0874.jpg (222KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 900x617px

>>2851593
Krishna Khrist

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2851591

Your thoughts are so muddled as to be completely incomprehensible.

although you are wrong on all counts.

i could simulate a small sensor by cropping to the middle of the frame. if i put my 50mm on and crop to 1/10 of my frame the subject has to be so far away that my focus is essentially @ infinity which means there's no bokeh.

you clearly have no idea wtf you are talking about

>>2851596
by your logic you must've shot that with a 2/3" sensor
>>2851599
this

>>2851599
>Your thoughts are so muddled as to be completely incomprehensible.
Nah, you're just retreating to the familiar territory of "I realize what she meant not, but I cannot admit that, so I am going to dig in deeper by pretending I wuz juz trollan"

>>2851600
By your logic, you are actually a rock.

>>2851603
*meant now

>>2851603
i've got to admit tho you're a pretty good troll, I very rarely post and you made me do so, nice one m8
I mean, I really hope you're trolling, otherwise you're really uninformed. You can literally learn about this by watching some shitty videos in YT.

>>2851575
>crop gets more bokeh
genuinely retarded and perma-filtered.

The larger the sensor, the more bokeh effects there are.
FF bokeh > APS-C bokeh > MFT bokeh > cellphone camera bokeh.

Your retard logic would have it the other way around, with cellphones having the best blur, but 100% of evidence is to the contrary.
Cellphone manufacturers are even having to do trickery to fake having bokeh such as that phone that uses two different lenses, one to get the picture and a side lens to add DoF blur because bokeh is shit the smaller your sensor is.

>>2851607
Genuinely retarded but unfilterable.
He actually thinks it's just sensor size and not a relation between sensor size, focal length, and implied usage scenarios

>me implying that usage scenarios count to gearfags arguing in a gearfag thread about their future purposes

>Your retard logic would have it the other way around, with cellphones having the best blur, but 100% of evidence is to the contrary.
No, you fucking imbecile, because what lens is on there again?

This little dialogue is a classic example of memetic idiocy, desu. You're not being trolled. I'm not having a go at you. I am telling you that, between APS-C and full frame, and taking into account how one actually uses the lens (as its equivalent rather than nominal), just about every scenario, the lens ends up being used for more bokeh on crop than on full frame because *it is a longer lens, necessitating different approaches*

If you think the difference between 50mm on crop and 50mm ff is that you have to stand back further to get the same image on crop, you're completely approaching photography backwards from your central base of gearfaggotry. Get that 70-200 out of your hole.

>>2851610

>hurr durr im a retard
>durr

fuck off retard

how do I filter tripfags? this is the first one I'm actually considering filtering after browsing 4chan for like 6 or 7 years

>>2851610
top kek
I wish you were right though, boke 4 cheap

>>2851610
I envy your ability to troll without actually trolling. You get to be a trollish cunt, but also the smug satisfaction of being correct.

Piece of shit.

>>2851620
>Being mad at someone because they are right
Only on /p/

>>2851619
select tripcode, right side little arrow, filter selected text. Select type as tripcode, check both boxes. Done

>>2851625

i only see report post and hide post

>>2851627
Then just ctrl+C the tripcode and in the settings go to filters, add and do the rest.

>>2851619
>>2851627
Go to the top of the page, to settings
Filters and Post Hiding
Filter and Highlight specific threads
[edit]
(Add)
Type in her name, select "name" from the type, and select hide.

>>2851634
how do I type that symbol??

>>2851637
ctrl+c

>>2851640
I tried it but it doesnt do anything, just a blank space

>>2851643
select the tripcode, you fucktard and filter by that!

>>2851647
fuck you buddy I was just asking a question

>>2851650
Don't be an idiot then
And you ain't my buddy, pal!

>>2851625
awesome thanks
fuck you !z55cZmEHMI

>>2851656
Yep, that's gonna be effective long term :^)

>>2851575
Wow, er, what?...
>>2851634

>>2851663
>implying she's wrong
isi baited all of the summerfags at once innit?

>>2851666
>implying every person didn't soundly prove isi is mentally retarded
Yes, stop samefagging and go play in traffic, everyone has filtered your 70 IQ monkey ass.

>>2851762
You're projecting.
Go ahead. Use a 50mm as a normal on ff, then as a portrait lens on crop. See where you find more bokeh.

Use scenarios matter, you autistic cucks.

>>2851784
I don't see where you are wrong exactly. Maybe my deep love for you blinds me.

>>2850757
90% of people do zero research and just buy the most recognizable brand, or whichever comes in a discount package.

>>2851904
1) What she refers to as "bokeh" is really depth of field.

2) With the same focal length on a crop sensor you tend to stand further back, so you get MORE depth of field, not less.

>>2851912
>With the same focal length on a crop sensor you tend to stand further back
What are you talking about? No the fuck I don't. If I use a 50mm on FF, thats a normal field of view. If I use it on crop, I'm probably shooting portraits. I'm probably standing CLOSER with it on crop, because they're usually head and shoulders or upper body.

What you're talking about is only true when you're testing lenses on a tripod to prove to /p/ that perspective distortion isn't tied to focal length. In real life, you don't use a 50mm on crop the same way you use a 50mm on full frame.

I can't believe we are arguing about this.

>>2851914
You're an idiot and this discussion isn't going anywhere. Stop spewing bullshit, research on the issue, learn, then you will feel stupid.

>>2851912
>1) What she refers to as "bokeh" is really depth of field.
More bokeh = less depth of field.
50mm used on crop = short tele = typically used at a working distance lending to a lot of bokeh, as if it were a 75-90mm lens (depending on the specific crop factor)
50mm used on full frame = classic normal (not mathematical normal) fov = greatly varying working distances, but generally not used for the same degree of isolation as one would with a short telephoto.

Disagreeing with me on this is a goddamn litmus test for "I participate in gear threads more often than I actually use the camera to navigate real world scenarios with subjects"

the only shit thing about aps-c is that the lens lineups are designed for full frame.

>>2851915
>research on the issue
How about you go out in the real world and use the camera and lenses and realize for yourself that you're not using a 50 on crop the same as you would a 50 on full frame, no matter how much you convince yourself that you're gonna be zooming around with your feet.

They are different lenses with different purposes between the two sensor sizes, and that different purpose itself has a tendency to decrease the depth of field, and increase the amount of bokeh apparent. It's a matter of working distance and typical subject matter.

If you take photos, you get it. If you just think about gear, you don't. It's a pretty solid division of knowing vs thinking.

>>2851916
Using a lens on a crop sensor won't magically turn it into a different focal length lens. a 50mm on crop is still a 50mm. Your subject filling the frame has to stand further away compared to FF, hence you get more DoF. That's it. End of this bullshit discussion.

>>2851920
>Using a lens on a crop sensor won't magically turn it into a different focal length lens. a 50mm on crop is still a 50mm.
That'd be nice and relevant if it had any relevancy whatsoever to the discussion, but it ain't senpai.

>Your subject filling the frame has to stand further away compared to FF
Look at this gear-centric mess you call your thought pattern. Jesus.
The subject doesn't have to "stand further away", you *use the lens differently because it is meant for a different task when cropped by this crop ratio.* Do you think the Fuji 56 1.2 is marketed as a normal because 50mm is normal on full frame? No, that is a short telephoto for the system.

I'm starting to believe I'm literally just speaking over some of your heads with phrases like "use scenario", so let me evidentiate that.
This is a typical use case for 50mm 1.8 on full frame: https://www.flickr.com/photos/fadedfilmstrips/4425054179

This is a typical use case of a 50mm 1.8 on crop
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aviewthroughmyeyes/5200451717/

Yes, the working distance is different, and yes, that is the reason for the increase in bokeh.
And yes, that difference in working distance *is more important than your obsession with 50 being 50.*
When you use a crop sensor, the equivalence of the lens is *how it should be used*

If you approach using a 50mm on crop as "its like using 50mm on ff but I have to stand back 15 feet" then you are literally not understanding the point of photography beyond the holding of a camera.

>>2851920
A 50mm on crop behaves like a 75mm lens, which you use for a different purpose. A 50mm, you might use for a whole scene, where your subject is 40 feet away. As a portrait lens, you might only use it from 6 feet away. Using it up close, the depth of field is narrower.

>>2851923
Finish the school first before you try to think with all those big words.
Listen kid, I know photography is something new and wonderful for you but there are many people around with vastly more experience and knowledge about it. You might think you know everything and you're the best because there is no one around you to tell you better.
Take my advice and take back from that attitude of yours, it only makes you look more of a fool.

>>2851932
A 75mm has less DoF at the same subject distance as a 50mm. Crop sensor means you use a smaller portion of the same image. You crop the image. The image is still projected by a 50mm lens, not a 75mm lens.

>>2851933
>read through the entire post waiting for something even worth refuting.
>reach the end, and realize there was no substance at all

OK

>>2851933
“In order to share one's true brilliance one initially has to risk looking like a fool: genius is like a wheel that spins so fast, it at first glance appears to be sitting still.”
:^)

You are aware that confronting peoples misconceptions with a carefully worded and completely true contradiction is a formulative educational technique, correct?

It challenges you, and also grabs your attention.

See me after class tho, we need to talk about your attitude.

>>2851937
That's because there is no meaningful subject for the whole discussion.
You are effectively saying 5-1=6 which is stupid but you still go way out of your way defending it. Just like those flat-earth theorists.
But hey, you don't have to believe me, just google "crop factor" and see all the articles written about it.

>>2851941
Crop factor supports my argument. Even if we go full autism and apply the crop factor to the aperture as well. Let me demonstrate for you.

50mm 1.8 on 5D, subject 2 meters = 1.92 m - 2.09 m in focus. 0.17 m total focus depth.

50mm 1.8 on Xpro1, that's 78mm 2.8 if you wanna do the equivalence before hand, subject 2 meters = 1.95 m - 2.06 m in focus. 0.11 m total focus depth.

This is at the *same* working distance, giving you great leniency. In practice, you'll vary working distance a lot more with a 50mm full frame equivalent field of view, whereas working distance with mid teles tends to be pretty same-y.

Sorry you're an idiot. :^)

>>2851935
what makes you think anyone doesn't know that? did it take you years to make the revelation?

What the sensor doesn't record is irrelevant. Technically your 50mm lens on full frame has a wider field of view than it captures as well, because we shoot rectangles through circles.
It's irrelevant. Stop talking about that. Focus on using it.

>>2851941
You just got into photography recently and think you're an expert now huh?
Summer is upon us. Hold the line.

>>2851958
you already used that "new to photography" thing, but it don't have any basis in anything she's saying, so it didn't work this time either. You're sort of just button mashing at this point, huh?

>>2851915
He's correct you stupid mong. Yes, literally for the same exact shot between the two sensor sizes you'd have to stand further back, but there would be no situation where he'd actually be doing that.

Because it's cheaper and give you very nice results, tho

Canon focused on durability and AF on his 7DmkII, but it's 1,6 crop is shitty when Nikon can make a Crop with 1,3x (d7100 and d7200, dunno about D500)

>Canon gives you 90% what a Nikon can do for 2/3 of a Nikon (high ends crop)

I would have no problem to migrate Nikon to Canon if some nice set up show up for me. I like both Brands, but I prefer Nikon colors bit, the difference in AdobeRGB is kind of visible against Canon AdobeRGB...

>>2851978
>Nikon price**

>>2851978

You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

File: 1459653618537.png (294KB, 392x352px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 392x352px

>>2851946
and the 1.6x<your crop focallength> lens on a FF delivers superior bokeh at the EXACT SAME LOCATION due to the superior sensor

When I first got I to photography I had a film Canon EOS rebel and some shit lenses plus a 50mm. I eventually bought a Canon 40D because I was invested and my lens collection grew with EF-S stuff. I got envious of a friend's Nikon gear with low light so I sold all my Canon stuff and got a D7000 and a few good fast lenses with money to spare. I got annoyed with Nikon for multiple reasons (lenses being #1) and sold it all to go light and got Olympus OM-D EM-5 with the full line of fast primes. Everything but lowlight is great with the m43 format. So now it's on ebay and I now am the owner of a Canon 6D with the essential fast primes and a L zoom.

I've never been displeased with the results of any of the systems and shot weddings on all of them. I have returned to Canon because of the glass this is not available on any other system. I will probably get a crop body to go along with my 6D because it's what works for me and makes me smile.

>>2852008
wedding shooters are the lowest form of life in the world of photography

>>2852008
>I have returned to Canon because of the glass this is not available on any other system.

huh?

>>2852010
Agreed, but I won't turn down money thrown at me.

>>2852011
No equivalent to what consider to be essentials that have a similar image quality

>100mm f/2
>80-200mm f/2.8
>16-35mm f/4 IS

File: 1461842109793.jpg (91KB, 459x612px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 459x612px

why are cropcucks attempting to justify their shit dof/bokeh?

>>2852014

What is

>Nikkor 105 f/2 DC
>70-200 f/2.8
>14-24 f/2.8

>itt isi is the reason the good people left

you contradicted yourself twice lol once is bad enough like the bible, twice in the same thread is just mental issues.

>>2852036
Point to where isi contradicted herself even once?

>>2852037

>>2851575
>Put a 75mm 1.8 on a full frame body, and a 75mm 1.8 on a crop body, and the crop bodied one is more than likely going to be used to take more bokeh-rich photos due to the working distance difference.
75mm lens (same lens) on FX and DX, DX = more bokeh - different subject to lens distances

>>2851580
>You don't frame a 50mm on crop the same as a 50mm on full frame, you idjit. That's what a 35mm is for.

>Equivalent focal length applies to how you fucking use the lens too, dinguses, not just to the number stamped on it.
different lenses, now using equivalent focal lengths, same subject-lens distance - only then DX = more bokej

>>2852047
That's not a contradiction, that's two different scenarios where she's right.

Contradictions actually need to, you know, contradict.

>>2852060
if you cant comprehend that conversation, you're either ricky or isi at a very defensive and denial state, or have some sort of mental instability (like those two lol)

>>2851513
Since when is 25mm on crop uwa?

>>2852066
I can comprehend it just find.
At the same subject distance, the 50 on crop is going to have more bokeh because of crop factor.
At the majority of distances you use either lens at when you're taking photos, that's going to continue to be the case, because you're using it as a longer lens.
It's really simple and far more alarming that you don't get it.

>>2852075
> due to the working distance difference.
implies change in distance, not same working distance

hi isi

>>2852078
You're beyond intellectually impaired if you don't understand why there's nothing contradictory about this.

No matter what your working distance is, a 50mm 1.8 on crop has more bokeh than a 50mm 1.8 on full frame, because it is a 75mm 2.8, and the depth of field of 75mm 2.8 is shorter than that of 50mm 1.8
dofmaster.com maybe you'll learn something

>>2852023
Similar, but they don't produce the same results. Hell, the nikon 70-200 doesn't even go to 200 when you factor in focus breathing. The Nikkor 105 is twice as expensive as the 100. The 14-24 is great, but I prefer the Canon results and IS.

>>2852081
that wasnt the point there isi :) and if you are saying that, you're even more retarded because you focus closer to infinite if you frame the same on 75 2.8 as the 50 1.8
now as you later said to use the 35 f/y.x, you get smaller aperture and a shitty distortion as opposed to a 50, less bokeh therefore as well

so wrong and contradictory, you're on a roll

>>2852081
>>>2852078
>You're beyond intellectually impaired if you don't understand why there's nothing contradictory about this.
>No matter what your working distance is, a 50mm 1.8 on crop has more bokeh than a 50mm 1.8 on full frame, because it is a 75mm 2.8, and the depth of field of 75mm 2.8 is shorter than that of 50mm 1.8
>dofmaster.com maybe you'll learn something

That's idiotic... A 50mm is still a 50mm, it's not a fucking transformer that can change into something else. The field of view will be wider on FF and with the same framing between FF and crop the FF will naturally have a more shallow depth of field due to being closer.

>>2852083

I think you're full of shit. :)

>>2851987

Do you even know how to differentiate sRGB from AdobeRGB? Can you even color range in your post?

You must be one of that .jpeg cucks

>>2852081
By your calculations mounting a 50mm on a cell phone with a 1/3" sensor with a crop factor of 7.21 will result in a 360mm lens with buckets of bokeh. You should ditch your dslr for a iPod.

>>2852092
*You don't use a lens of the same focal length for the same framing between two different sensor sizes*
In the real world, literally no one does this. This is an aborted thought experiment from people trying to wrap their heads around crop factor still.
Wider field of view means wider depth of field, not shallower.

>>2852097
>I think you're full of shit. :)

Maybe, but maybe not. This is 4chan after all...

>>2852092
Reminder that these are the retards critiquing photo threads on /p/.

>>2852101
>>2852104
heres a (you) my friend

>>2852101
I know that my FF 50mm 1.8 shows a more shallow depth of field (more bekeh) than my 2x crop panasonic 25mm 1.4 with the same framing both being shot wide open.

>>2852111
than* not and

>>2852110
we're talking about a 50mm 1.8 on FF versus the same 50mm 1.8 on crop (now functionally a 75mm 2.8)
A 75mm 2.8 is, at every subject distance, shallower depth of field than 50mm 1.8. It's that simple.
What you're talking about is a 25mm lens on 1.4 2x crop body, functionally a 50mm 2.8. Of course that's less bokeh than 50mm 1.8.

>>2852111
In your case, you're just an idiot trying to match framing, without taking into account how you use the bloody glass.

>>2852115
Surly your mother requires you to wear a helmet when venturing beyond the basement with that kind of dim thinking.

>>2852115
we're talking about both scenarios m8

>all of these retards that think wider lenses have shallow depth of field
summer please be short

>>2852128
no one thinks that except isi and ricky the dynamic duo

>>2852138
>being so attached to board drama on a vietgook sketchpad mailing list that you don't realize how obvious you're coming across

>>2852098

Lol wut. Dude couldn't even get crop factor right. What makes you think he (or you?) could eyeball the difference between two brand's renditions of the same color space?

Lol this thread. How do so many of you not understand crop factor beyond memes about sensor size?

no wonder the good guys are gone

File: muhstreetphotos.jpg (319KB, 1280x954px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1280x954px

>>2852010
I thought it was streetshitters like myself

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	LiDE 600F
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:09 19:29:51
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2926
Image Height	2180

The telephoto compression moving from 50mm equivalent to 75mm equivalent decreases depth of field more than the equivalent aperture changing from 1.8 to 2.8 increases it.

Was that so hard to understand?

File: 21217398686_6a6cc2b9fe_k.jpg (595KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 2048x1365px

I shoot canon, i had to buy a DSLR for uni, after months of extensive research and money saving the 600d checked all the boxes I required at the time.
• Flip out screen – which I think is a must and its stupid to not have one.
• Compatible with very good, well priced lenses
• Affordable accessories – I have a Pentax spotmatic II so I wanted to mount the 70’s lenses
• I don’t give a shit about auto focus, never use it
These are all traits of the Nikon as well, but there were 3 deciding factors for me.
• I go to a store to look at the cameras, have a feel and take some test shots.
Whenever I pick up a Nikon it just made me feel uncomfortable, I didn’t like the button lay out, the UI, nothing. That wasn’t a huge deal im sure I’d get used to it.
• I use Magiclantern because im a stickler for manual controls, and the stock 600d does not have functions that would be considered standard in most modern DSLRs, e.g. custom white balance, intervalometer, hrd video and image capture, etc.
• and finally it was 35% off in a canon sale.

I have since purchased a multitude of lenses and use them all on a regular basis. The apsc vs full frame is an issue but I think you will find getting a smaller length lens is much cheaper than buying a longer lens that manages to stay well-lit and not have vignetting.


what a essay, jesus, anyway thats why.

>>2852081
Holy fuck you're dumb.

Neither will have "more bokeh", thats completely down to the lens, same lens, same bokeh, its just a slightly cropped image.

If the image was of a flat wall, that took up approximately half of the ff image in the center, with walls extending toward you on the edges of the frame, which image will have more bokeh? (I'll give you a clue, the crop image has zero bokeh)

Now back up on the crop camera so you can match the framing, then focus closer to infinity because the walls further away, notice how the coc gets exponentially bigger as you focus closer to infinity, but moving back is a linear change; and therefore have less bokeh.

Isi, you're so bad at this whole trying to know more than people thing, learn to accept you're as dumb as an alabaman tree farmer and people might hate you less.

>>2852205
>notice how the coc gets exponentially bigger as you focus closer to infinity, but moving back is a linear change; and therefore have less bokeh.
>the coc gets exponentially bigger

>at this whole trying to know more than people thing

>the coc gets exponentially bigger
>the cock gets bigger
I am erect from your idiocy.

>>2852226
Circle of confusion
Noob.

>>2852205
>Now back up on the crop camera so you can match the framing
MYTHBUSTERS INTERNET SQUAD HERE, TODAY WE ARE GOING TO PROVE THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

>>2851912
>2) With the same focal length on a crop sensor you tend to stand further back, so you get MORE depth of field, not less.
This is the dumbest shit I've ever read. That's just how you prove perspective distortion isn't real. It has nothing to do with how you use the lens.
50mm on crop is usually for portraits.

>>2852267
Op covered both instances of staying where you are having a differently framed image AND backing up to frame it the same.

And showed that neither method produced more bokeh on crop.

You could also have the 3rd argument of using a wider lens on the crop body, but everyone already knows that's going to give less bokeh.

Oh, and you dropped your trip isi.

>>2852272
>Op covered both instances of staying where you are having a differently framed image AND backing up to frame it the same.
I want some of that drug youre having on my drip too

>>2852171
>I don’t give a shit about auto focus, never use it
Why? Do you only use manual lenses?

Also why not get second hand?
I honestly don't get why people who get cameras to study photography don't get second hand bodies.

>>2852266
rekt

>>2852277
What is it you're not quite grasping little isi?
I realise the alabaman school system wasn't the best, but what was written wasn't the most taxing thing to comprehend.

Guys let's be serious for a moment here.

80D Dxomark when?

>>2850769
The limited are pretty expensive for what you get imo. Fuji is where it's at for APS-C

>>2852306
>unique, beautifully crafted lenses that are nothing like any other manufacturer makes.
>overpriced

Personally I think they're cheap as fuck for what you get and wish they would make an AF pentax to nex adapter so I can make use of my full frame ones again.

>>2852141

know your camera, mate

Canon's aps-c is 1,6x
Nikon aps-c is 1,5x and cameras like D7100 and D7200 can be 1,3x, like canon's aps-h

seriously you don't knew that?

yes, you can when you compare both side by side, 2 bits seen a little in comparison of number, but in histogram and HSL some shit is really notable.

I like canon tho, I would migrate to it's brand easily if some good offer shows up, but I know that each brand has a strong and a weakness

>>2852356

All Nikon cameras are 1.5x. Seriously, you did not knew that?

>>2852356
>and cameras like D7100 and D7200 can be 1,3x, like canon's aps-h
Is that real? I didn't know that.

>>2852401

No, it's not real. It's ~24x16mm, just like every other DX sensor.

A few weeks ago i test grabbed the consumer bodies of the local electronics store and except a sorny 58 they were terrible to hold, also plasticy and toy like
Arent these terrible to use with heavier lenses?

File: [Nutbladder] Hidamari Sketch×Honeycomb 10 [FDF5EABB].mkv_snapshot_19.25_[2012.12.08_17.15.33].jpg (92KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1280x720px

>>2852356
>D7100 and D7200 can be 1,3x

>>2851914
>If I use it on crop, I'm probably shooting portraits. I'm probably standing CLOSER with it on crop

>portraits
>closer
>what is perspective distortion?

>>2852736
obviously not what you think it is since you're bringing it up here, lol
>but my wide angle distortion
no

File: 3128_Cooke03_1.jpg (211KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 800x600px

>>2851916
>More bokeh = less depth of field.

Bokeh is the QUALITY of the out of focus areas. ("creamy", "swirly", "smooth", "distracting", etc.)
It is not the QUANTITY.

Common misconception among beginners - don't sweat it :^)

>>2852746
>common misconception
There is no more common misconception than the beginner who thinks his technical distinctions are unknown to those that care not for them, blind to the very nature of casual language.

>>2852746
This is the most autistic thing I've read today.

File: edit2-4585.jpg (290KB, 742x495px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 742x495px

>mfw was looking forward to learning something in this thread since i have a aps-c canon but instead i get a wall of retards that have no idea what they are talking about

bonus points for a complete lack of actual imagery or sources to back up any of your arguments

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 70D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:31 17:09:34
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2852010
>wedding shooters are the lowest form of life in the world of photography

Lower than paparazzi?

>>2850757
used lenses are hella cheap, at least in my country. Also, mid-ends (x0d) are really sturdy while also being cheap (again, used).

>>2852748
>>2852751
>clearly refutes the claim made by a previous poster with facts
>lol fugging audist :-DDDD

Must suck to be wrong all the time.

>>2850757
Because it cost me 80 euros lens included.

that tripfag is hilariously wrong

>>2853993
Is this the equivalent of watching someone say something on TV and leaning over to your dog and going "man that guy is dumb" or did you plan to actually engage and present something of your own?

>>2853993
That tripfag is baiting new photographers with a common misconception and a carefully worded rebuttal to it that seems to imply the exact opposite is true
its more a case of being hilariously right

>>2852010
>confirmed for never having shot a wedding, and fooled himself into thinking it's because he's above it

>>2854097

I'm not that guy, I've shot about two dozen weddings (including one on large format!) and I will still attest to the fact that wedding photographers are the lowest form of life in the world of photography.

OP here. I'm surprised to see so many replies.

>>2850763
I also believe Canon produces the best crop lenses in term of price/quality ratio.
See the 10-18 and 24mm pancake.
Yeah, i think they do pretty good in that aspect in that price range.

>>2850788
>A sensor is only one part of a camera, and once you get a sensor that is 'good enough' you can stop worrying about it
2004 sensor with higher pixel count is "good enough" for many uses, but why buy a new camera then? Autofocus was "good enough" back in 2004, and ergonomics were almost identical.

>>2851006But it sounds like a troll? Because pixel peeping is a waste of time? Because good enough can be done on most modern DSLRs?
Why do people upgrade if "good enough" can already be achieved on their camera?

>especially as I shoot underwater where evry piece of gear needs a housing and/or cabling. An let me tell you friend, that shit is ridiculously expensive compared for what you get!
I suppose you are using Canon 100D? Unless you shoot with that one, choosing Canon over any other DSLR brand does not make any sense, because apart from that particular model, they are not smaller.

>>2854104
cont


>>2851020
>But I'm considering changing to Nikon because I can get my hands on old pre-digital lenses for next to nothing.

If you want cheap but decent quality, check out old USSR and DDR stuff. Old Nikon lenses are actually more expensive then old Canon FD, Konica-Minolta, Pentax... and only they still make those same manual focus lenses. I really like the craftsmanship of Nikon AI/AI-S lenses, i bought a few of those new. TOO BAD THEY DON'T MAKE BODIES DESIGNED FOR THOSE LENSES!

You can already use old Nikon lenses on your Canon 600D, and unlike low/mid end Nikon DSLRS it will meter with them. Nikon is disgraceful. If you want to use old manual focus lenses, but you don't have much money, get a used Canon 5Dc and a split image focusing screen from China.

>Plus I'm begininng to like their approach more than Canons. The Nikon Df is exactly what I want of a digital camera. It's my only dream digital system camera on the market, even including professional models.

They don't have any approach these days, besides being afraid of change and innovation. Df was made because people bugged them for almost a DECADE to make a digital Nikon F. They half-assed it, Df definitely wasn't what all those people(me included) wanted. Nikon is stupid as fuck, and allowed Fuji to take quite a few of its customers.

>>2850811
>I dunno what lured me in, but now I'm around $15,000 committed.
You have Canon full frame stuff, that's not a topic of this thread.

>>2851503
>Best resale value / market
This is not so true. Canon is making updated models of their APS-C lenses relatively often, and naturally their older stuff loses value when that happens.

>Why should I have chose something else?
Because you could use extra 4EV of dynamic range maybe?

>Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax crop bodies are just as capable as any Canon FF
If that was true why would anybody pay so much for Canon 1D?

>>2854107
cont 2

>>2851575 and everything below related to this
I can simply crop a photo made with any 50mm lens on full frame and get the same result from an APS-C camera used with that same lens. You could also get the same (full frame) fov and dof (although not sharpness, noise and color depth) on APS-C, if you change the focal distance, and use a wider lens. The problem is that if i use something like 50mm F/0.95 on maximum aperture you need a 33mm f/0.63(on Nikon/Sony/Fuji) or 31mm f/0.59(on Canon) to achieve the same look. Good luck with that! Hell, it would even be hard for you to replicate the look of a common 50mm f/1.4 on full frame, because you would need 33mm f/0.9 on APS-C. Case closed.


>>2851917
This is the root of the APS-C problem. First parties(except few overpriced lenses from Pentax) were not trying to make full frame comparable lenses for their crop sensor bodies. What Sigma is doing now with their f/1.8 zooms is great(it would be awesome if they fixed the focus issues). Canon and Nikon could have done it a long time ago, professional action and wildlife photographers are using their APS-C cameras, the demand for high quality lenses is there, and they knew it for a long time, but it was not in their interest to make them. Sigma and Fuji are finally making some to feed this demand. Maybe in the future we will even get something as ambitious as a 400mm f/4 APS-C telephoto! Photo industry is pathetic.


>>2851978
>Canon focused on durability and AF on his 7DmkII, but it's 1,6 crop is shitty when Nikon can make a Crop with 1,3x
Canon is 1.6, Nikon is 1.5 and for APS-C Pentax is the king of durability.

>>2854110


>>2852171
The apsc vs full frame is an issue but I think you will find getting a smaller length lens is much cheaper than buying a longer lens that manages to stay well-lit and not have vignetting.

I don't understand. APS-C lenses have vignetting too.

>>2852278
I agree.

>>2852295
I am optimistic this time and hope i will not be able to make this same thread in a year.

>>2852691
>Arent these terrible to use with heavier lenses?
Some people (Sony fags) don't mind that and still think their camera is portable.

>>2853956
I thought Nikon D300 was pretty sturdy too, and Pentax has cheapest water/dust resistant lenses.

>>2853979
What did you get?

>>2854099
That sounds really strange. Weddings are fucking hard, and they make good money, why would people look down on them? It's not like the photo-less retards spouting "le wedding photography is shit" meme are actually out creating art with the time they are not using to shoot the weddings they would have failed miserably at trying to shoot.

>>2854110
>I can simply crop a photo made with any 50mm lens on full frame and get the same result from an APS-C camera used with that same lens. You could also get the same (full frame) fov and dof (although not sharpness, noise and color depth) on APS-C, if you change the focal distance, and use a wider lens. The problem is that if i use something like 50mm F/0.95 on maximum aperture you need a 33mm f/0.63(on Nikon/Sony/Fuji) or 31mm f/0.59(on Canon) to achieve the same look. Good luck with that! Hell, it would even be hard for you to replicate the look of a common 50mm f/1.4 on full frame, because you would need 33mm f/0.9 on APS-C. Case closed.
You obviously didn't take away anything from that conversation about approaching equivalence as a user rather than as an equation.
Smh.

>>2854112
>Weddings are fucking hard
No, they are not. They are draining of time and energy, but they are not hard unless you are doing something untraditional like a documentary approach.
It's checklist photography like going to see Mt Rushmore otherwise.

File: 800px-Canon_18-55mm_IS.jpg (93KB, 800x1202px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x1202px

>>2854111
>What did you get?
Canon EOS 300D + 18-55 IS lens

>>2854119
I think they're really hard, but I'm glad for you that you didn't.
For me it's the stress and work load that will keep me from doing them regularly. Always so afraid I'm going to fuck up and ruin the client's big day, though I haven't yet.

>>2854099
>wedding photographers are the lowest form of life in the world of photography.

Much like other professions in the real world: shitty ass people who get paid bank...

>>2854107
>You have Canon full frame stuff, that's not a topic of this thread.
I dont own a single full frame body. Unless my 35mm bodies count as full frame...

>>2854122
Damn, you have to be pretty mad

>>2854230
It could be a bit better but its not such a bad deal, considering the lens has IS.

>>2854112

It's literally the easiest way to make money with your camera, so it attracts all of the bottomfeeding scum suckers, the ones who think they should charge three grand because their camera was expensive (lol) and because they can, because there are more weddings every summer than there are local photographers. They also think they're hot shit and act accordingly, when really they're somewhere between the DJ and the florist in terms of importance.

If there was licensure, things would improve considerably. As it stands, a wedding photographer is the equivalent (both in terms of quality and status) of the guys who advertise landscaping on spraypainted cardboard signs taped to lightpoles.

>>2854284
But what about people who are good at wedding photography and take it seriously?