[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by ampere

The Sony 50mm 1.8 is superb and comes under 20K. DXO Mark Rating
(Even I was stunned at the performance.)

Remember these are focal lengths and as we are more used to full frame lenses sizes, once the fudge factor of 1.5 is put in 50 becomes 75mm equivalent. I remember in the early 1970's there was a lot of noise about the Olympus Zuiko 50mm resolving over 200 lines. Back came Nikon with a pic of the 50/f2 with the caption 'The highest resolution ever recorded'. Now with the smaller field of view (smaller sensor) the resolution may be even better. The resolution is a moot point since the sensor (even 20MP) limits you something far lower than what a film camera used to give. I remember blowing up less that 1/4 of a 35mm negative (50ASA film) to over 12x15 inches with no loss of quality or fuzziness. Remember I did my own developing (high acutance developer), and then used my EL-Nikkor f/f4 in a Durst F30 to print. All high end stuff.

To get an A4 print you need only 3-4MP or so! So we are talking of gross overkills.

[sairamboko]

Originally Posted by sairamboko

Thanks everyone for your suggestions! Ordered the canon Eos 1300d for ₹20,449. It fits my budget and requirements. Thanks again everyone for your suggestions!

Edit : Cancelled amazon order and ordered in snap deal for just ₹16,990 . Price was 18,990 and Citibank instant discount ₹2000 Also snap deal includes 16gb card whereas amazon was just 8gb card.

[condor]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Remember these are focal lengths and as we are more used to full frame lenses sizes, once the fudge factor of 1.5 is put in 50 becomes 75mm equivalent.

On an related note, for the photography many of us do, that fudge factor is of hardly any consequence.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by condor

On an related note, for the photography many of us do, that fudge factor is of hardly any consequence.

Not sure why it is called a fudge factor

It has very real composition and depth of field implications. Positive and negative depending on what one is trying to do.

[condor]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Not sure why it is called a fudge factor

I used the term while referring to SG's post. Personally, I would go with the term magnification factor

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

It has very real composition and depth of field implications. Positive and negative depending on what one is trying to do.

Agreed that apart from effect on focal length, it also affects aperture .. DoF. But am not shooting a product, not a model for a ad campaign or a magazine cover. Neither is your tiger

Many of us are looking for a good image, it's the art. The important point is - how did the image turn out. When I look at your pics, it's your skill that I am looking at, and not which cam / lens combination that you used.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by condor

On an related note, for the photography many of us do, that fudge factor is of hardly any consequence.

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Not sure why it is called a fudge factor

It has very real composition and depth of field implications. Positive and negative depending on what one is trying to do.

I am using the term fudge factor as a convenience. Full frame is 36x24mm, now the APS-C sensors (most common in higher end DSLRs) are 25.6x16.7mm. So the smaller image size has to be 'corrected for'. I use the term for this.

@condor; the correction defines a smaller field of view, and consequently the equivalent focal length becomes longer. Thus if I use a 50mm on full frame, it will work like a 75-80mm on APS-C sensors. Thus when thinking in terms of the focal length this has to be kept in mind. Classically 85-90mm was the lens of choice for portraiture. To get the same angular coverage lens will have to be more like 55mm. My main objection to the 'kit' zooms is that they end or start at 55mm thus before 'not so good' for portraiture.

[condor]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

My main objection to the 'kit' zooms is that they end or start at 55mm thus before 'not so good' for portraiture.

The max aperture limits more than the starting / ending FL of these lenses.

A balance between FX/ DX, between 55mm to 85 mm and individual preference should hit the spot for the individual.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by condor

But am not shooting a product, not a model for a ad campaign or a magazine cover. Neither is your tiger

Huh? Tigers don't shoot humans, humans shoot tigers

I face/juggle crop factor and depth of field compromises all the time when shooting wildlife.

Portraits: get close and try to isolate the subject (shallow depth of field), especially if the background is cluttered.
Animalscapes; Don't get close, have good depth of field

If one isn't carrying two lenses, then the compromises are a pain.

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I am using the term fudge factor as a convenience. Full frame is 36x24mm, now the APS-C sensors (most common in higher end DSLRs) are 25.6x16.7mm. So the smaller image size has to be 'corrected for'. I use the term for this.

Thus if I use a 50mm on full frame, it will work like a 75-80mm on APS-C sensors. Thus when thinking in terms of the focal length this has to be kept in mind. Classically 85-90mm was the lens of choice for portraiture. To get the same angular coverage lens will have to be more like 55mm. My main objection to the 'kit' zooms is that they end or start at 55mm thus before 'not so good' for portraiture.

Yes, I get that part, most DSLR shooters know that. But that is one part of it. The other part is depth of field. Some portraits come out well using a shallow depth of field. If one is using DX to reach the same equivalent focal length and field of view with same lens, the depth of field will be approximately one stop equivalent more.

Example:
At 55mm, the Nikon 18-55mm on a DX body is a equivalent to a 85mm, f/8 lens on a FX body when you factor in depth of field (note: this is not about absolute aperture that is light coming in through the lens)

Now, imagine a full frame camera with a 85mm f/1.8 lens

If one moves to get the same field of view with both, then same composition. Same equivalent focal length.

But f/1.8 vs f/8

That is what makes the difference in subject isolation for portraits, if one wants isolated subjects in the first place.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by condor

The max aperture limits more than the starting / ending FL of these lenses.

A balance between FX/ DX, between 55mm to 85 mm and individual preference should hit the spot for the individual.

Aperture does not bug me that much. Why - earlier 400ASA (maybe pushed to 1000) was the limits. I have myself used Ektachrome 400 push processed to 1000ASA.

Today the digital cameras can handle far weaker light. So the aperture may come in more for controlling the depth of field.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

That was at 85mm, wide open. That is why I said cost effective. The Canikon 85mm f/1.8 lenses are below 30K.

That is a very good and simple summary applicable for folks starting today. General use = mirrorless. Specialist use = dslr.

Interesting debate guys..

I would like to say that I have both Canon and Olympus cameras and the Olympus mirrorless has some interesting options I wish canon had. I think both dslr's and mirrorless cameras can be used for General and specialist use.

I have a Olympus 45mm 1.8 that's so tiny but is amazingly sharp! Doesn't burn a whole in your pocket either. I got it used for 180$ (225$ new). I use it with EM5 MKII and its so much fun. I never use my canon 85 1.2 anymore.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

.....

Portraits: get close and try to isolate the subject (shallow depth of field), especially if the background is cluttered.

.....
At 55mm, the Nikon 18-55mm on a DX body is a equivalent to a 85mm, f/8 lens on a FX body when you factor in depth of field (note: this is not about absolute aperture that is light coming in through the lens)

Now, imagine a full frame camera with a 85mm f/1.8 lens
.......
But f/1.8 vs f/8

That is what makes the difference in subject isolation for portraits, if one wants isolated subjects in the first place.

The bit in bold is totally foxing me! Can you please elaborate
How a 18-55mm becomes like an 85/f8.
Also, how does a 85/f/1.8 come into the discussion.

The bit of requiring a small depth of field for portraiture is again a given, and I do not like fudging about with Photoshop to try and get an unsharp background. It is never the same.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

The bit in bold is totally foxing me! Can you please elaborate
How a 18-55mm becomes like an 85/f8.
Also, how does a 85/f/1.8 come into the discussion.

The bit of requiring a small depth of field for portraiture is again a given, and I do not like fudging about with Photoshop to try and get an unsharp background. It is never the same.

Before I explain please go through these two articles

http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-fram...epth-of-field/
https://photographylife.com/depth-fi...-fx-cx-sensors

1. 55mm F5.6 (on a 18-55) on DX will have the same DOF as say 85mm at F5.6 on FX at the same camera to object distance, but the image sizes will be different.

2. 55mm F5.6 (on a 18-55) on DX will have effective DOF of F8 compared to 85mm at F5.6 on FX at the same image size because the distance has been changed

In short the DOF for a given F Stop is same at a given distance, but as the FOV increases with decreasing focal lengths we generally get closer and the DOF decreases.

I think that F1.8 came into the discussion because 85mm F1.8 is one of the most used portrait lenses and its DOF is very narrow, isolating background much better than the F5.6 of the kit lens.

[sgiitk]

@ARoy; saw both the articles, what they are essentially claiming is the the dof increases by about a stop. I am not reapply convinced. However, I will let it go. None of them say that they are using RAW images only, else this can also arise from the compression process use.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

@ARoy; saw both the articles, what they are essentially claiming is the the dof increases by about a stop. I am not reapply convinced. However, I will let it go. None of them say that they are using RAW images only, else this can also arise from the compression process use.

For all practical purpose the only difference between RAW and JPEG coming out of camera is
. Number of data bits 8 (jpg) vs 12/14 (RAW)
. Unprocessed (RAW) vs processed (jpg)

DOF is an optical characteristics, so should not change from RAW to JPEG.

[shantonob]

Finally got the 200-500 and the D7200. This is what my bag looks now.





And a few test shots taken early in the morning. Awesome lens. The VR is fantastic. Getting to know the D7200 which has a whole lot more functions than the D3200.







;