Saturday, December 12, 2015

Merry Christmas! What's Full Frame and what should I buy?



Since we’re in the Christmas season  - I thought I’d be educational for those people out there that may be confused by this whole “crop sensor” or “full frame sensor” business.  I’d also like to pass along some tips on Christmas shopping for your budding photographers out there looking at getting into photography.

Caveat:  I do not subscribe to the thought that “full frame” is better than “crop frame” when it comes to digital cameras.  So I’m not going to get into an argument about it.  It is what it is, and plenty of great photographs have already been made with both.  People who really believe passionately in the subject will argue all kinds of technical points about it, both good and bad.  Let’s just say that I do not care all that passionately about it, and I think the whole reason we got in to “crop sensor” in the first place was more economical anyway.

So why do I even bring it up?  Well, because as a budding photographer, you will get into discussions with people about it, and the full framers will make you feel inadequate for not having a full frame sensor, and the effect it has on the crop frame shooter is that he’s always wishing he could upgrade, and worse, that his photographs aren’t good enough.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Before we get into technically what it is, just understand that when someone talks about “full frame” sensors, he’s failing to mention that there are much BIGGER sensors out there than his dinky little ‘full frame’ sensor in his dinky little DSLR.  So if you were really into FULL FRAME - you’d be spending more money and getting into BIGGER FULL FRAME sensors - which will generally run up the cost into the tens of thousands for those particular cameras.  So I would further argue that the “full frame” shooter who puts down the “crop frame” sensor shooters is really feeling inadequate himself - because in photography (like other things) SIZE DOES MATTER, I suppose.

Here’s my simple synopsis on “Full Frame” sensors:  back in the day, on your standard 35mm film camera, the 24mm x 35mm size of a single exposure on your roll of film was the size of the image you took - hence the name, “Full Frame Sensor”.  The actual light gathering chip in that DSLR camera you have is the same size as a frame of 35mm film.  When you make the sensor smaller, hence the name “Crop Frame”, you have a sensor smaller than your standard 24mm x 35mm frame used in 35mm film.  

[HISTORICAL NOTE - 35mm film was always considered “amateur” because it was so small.  Before 35mm film hit, there were all kinds of bigger sizes, like 6cm x 6cm, or in inches, like 4x5 or 8x10.  Heck, I think Ansel Adams dragged around a view camera that could take 11x14 sheets of film and that would be his “sensor size” - this is why I find it comical that people make such a HUGE deal out of the 24mmx35mm frame as being FULL FRAME].

What does this do?  With the smaller sensor, your vision through the lens tunnels a little bit more (cropping off what would’ve been there had your sensor been the same size as a piece of 35mm film.  So you’re seeing a smaller portion of that frame, and you may have to back-up from your subject if you wanted to get more of them in the frame (or at least more than just their eyes and nose if you’re that close to begin with).  

What this means is that your lens adds some length, and you usually have to multiply by a certain number to know what your actual focal length really is.  

So, if you have, say a 50mm lens on, with a Nikon crop sensor camera, if you multiply the focal length by 1.5, you get the actual length of the lens you’re using.  So if you shoot with a 50mm, it effectively becomes 75mm.  On a Canon, the sensor is a bit smaller, so you multiply by 1.6 to get the effective focal length.  50mm times 1.6 equals 80mm.  80mm is perfect for doing nice portraits.    On the other hand, if you have a Full Frame Sensor, 50mm stays 50mm, and so on.  

This is the only reason I like Full Frame:  when I put a 20mm or a 50mm lens onto the camera, I actually get 20mm or 50mm lenses!    I grew up in the film era so I got used to a 50mm lens being 50mm, and so on.  Although I do it pretty often, I don’t like having to multiply to know what effective length I’m putting on the camera.  When I shoot a portrait session, I know if I put the 50mm on my little Canon DSLR, I know it’s at textbook portrait focal length because the lens becomes an 80mm lens. 

Getting distance is cool, right?  This can only be answered by how you like to shoot.  If you’re into nature photography or portraiture, then yeah, distance is cool.   You put a 300mm lens on your crop frame camera, you get an effective length of 450mm, so you’re getting more distance to get the same shot.  You can be farther away from the wild animals if you’re on safari (safer), and farther away from the football players on the field playing the game (even safer).  But, if you like landscapes and want to include as much in your shot as possible (this is me), shorter focal lengths are king.  But, instead of being able to do that with a 20mm regular focal length, you need an even shorter focal length.  Both the big DSLR makers offer zooms that go down to 16mm, so your focal length at 16mm on a crop frame will be 24mm.  

Ironically, if you shot with regular ol’ 35mm film, a 24mm prime lens used will run you about $200.  Canon’s 16-35mm zoom lens (which will give you almost 24mm on the short end) costs upwards of $800 used.  New they’re a lot more.  

This is why I think coming out with crop sensors first was an economical decision.  Firstly, it costs money to make a big sensor - just like having more RAM in your computer costs more money.  So the manufacturers couldn’t very well sell everybody a $9000 DSLR body, they wouldn’t sell enough to stay in business.  Now, make the sensor smaller, and it opens up a whole new world of new lenses to develop and sell!  Canon and Nikon both have probably made quite a bit of bank on people clamoring for that 16-35mm or 17-35mm zoom lenses.  

So think about that.





Now, onto what to get that budding photographer in your life for Christmas…..

A lot of people ask me for advice on this subject, and you can go online or in magazines and read all kinds of reviews and be blown away by all the features available to you in all the new cameras.  And frankly, everybody makes a good DSLR that even shoots video these days.  They will all be in that 16-24MP range too.  

I try not to be flippant about making recommendation.  It’s a big deal, and if you’ve never spent money on a camera before, everything is expensive.  I get it.  

But in the real world, besides the ability to shoot video, a camera has to be able to do these  three basic things:  

1)  Focus (either manually or automatically)
2)  Adjust shutter speed
3)  Adjust aperture

What you decide to point the camera at is totally your business.  A camera to me, is like a musical instrument.  You can own a beautiful 9-foot Steinway piano, but if all you know how to play is Chopsticks, then that’s all it’s ever going to do for you.  BUT - you definitely do not have an excuse not to get better, and the piano is definitely not going to be at fault if you can’t get better.

Cameras are just like this.  In fact, ALL DSLRs are like this.  If you’ve never shot a camera before in your life, getting hung up on megapixel count, frames you can shoot per second, face recognition, WiFi capability,…..etc.,….then you’ve definitely put the cart before the horse and you might as well get a baseball hat that declares “I have no friends”, and go buy a metal detector and spend endless hours alone on the beach using it.

Features in a DSLR are nice.  They’re like the whipped cream you add to a pumpkin pie - it makes the experience nice, but the pie has to be solid.  This is why I’ve been recommending people go find an old 35mm film SLR from the 80s, and give that a shot first where you have to adjust everything, and even manually focus.  Then at least you understand what your new-fangled DSLR is doing for you when you do use it.  But I digress - that’s a whole ‘nother topic we can jump on later.

So what do I recommend for first-time camera buyers?  Or even people looking for another camera?  Going to my local Sam’s Club today gave me the seeds for today’s topic.  I walked into the photo area, and they literally have all these cool, yet cheap(er) DSLR camera kits, all boxed and ready to go.  Just grab any one of those, go to the cashier and buy it!  Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Sony….they all make them.  They’re all good.  They all pass my minimum requirements as to what a camera should do.  And they’re cheap!

But wait, what about features?  Megapixels?  Video?  Do you not remember what I said about putting the cart before horse?  Have you ever seen a pro shooters camera?  Even though they might have these bitchin’ features, you’ll see that they may have programmed their camera to use only a certain set of things they need.  Back in the 80s and early 90s, there probably were NO features anyway.  A little further back in the film days, anything that needed power was suspect to the professional photographer - he didn’t want to be out in the field and suddenly have batteries die and he couldn’t shoot.  That would mean an entire wasted day.  

So Canon Rebel T5?  Nikon D3200?  Does it matter?  No.  One thing I will recommend with whatever camera kit you buy, is get an extra battery.  You’re gonna need that.  Buy more memory cards, you’re gonna need that.  Maybe even get your standard 50mm prime lens too, because the lenses that come with these kits, will be more aggravating in the short term to you.  So if you got the standard 50mm f/1.8 lens with it, then you’ll have a lens that will help you learn more about photography than you’ll ever want to know.  In fact, my 50mm is mainly glued to one of my cameras, it’s my go-to lens for everything to this day.

Make sure you can plug your camera into your computer and download your images, and maybe make sure you have a computer editing program to play around with your images, like Adobe PhotoShop Elements.  That’s a good starter software program.  Well, not really a starter, I use that after downgrading from the full-blown Adobe PhotoShop CS (from ten years ago).  

But make sure the desire is there to go out and shoot.  You have to get up off your arse and go outside to make photographs.  One real cool anecdote I got from a photo lecture once was “Now that you have the camera, make sure you go to cool places with cool things to photograph”.  


Best. Advice. Ever.





Thursday, December 10, 2015

Some film shots!




So I got my first test roll back from the lab!  These were taken on the EOS-1v machine with a 50mm f/1.4 lens and I loaded it with some cheap Fuji Superia 400 film.  The lab sent the negatives back and scanned the images to a CD.  Even seeing the images on the screen alone in color, they had this creamy quality to them that I missed shooting digital.  The colors originally were a little muted, but then I realized, I had been shooting digital for the last seven years (at least), and I think we've all gotten used to seeing over-saturated colors, and super-sharp details.  To make sure I wasn't crazy, I pulled out some of my favorites photographs I had taken with film over a decade ago and discovered, yes, film colors are a little muted.  In fact, colors in real life are a little more muted than what we see on the internet or in magazine ads anyway.

How am I liking it?  I think I love it.  I'm shooting so much slower now.  It could take days of concentrated shooting to get through a roll of 36 exposures.  I'm thinking more in terms that I want every one of them to be a keeper, which means I'm not spraying an area and hoping for the best to edit out at the computer later.    I want them all to be good, which raises my ratio of good photographs - just thinking before I shoot has made a huge difference!

I will still keep my "digital" chops up, though.       

On another news front, somewhat depressing, is that as I pledge my allegiance to film, Canon announces (or at least gets the first ones to market)  the new EOS 5Ds and EOS 5Dsr.  Yeah, it handles just like my ancient   EOS 5D, but now it's a 50MP sensor!  It has a hefty price tagged but to see something like this getting close to the low-end medium format digital backs out there, all for only $3600 for the body, I feel like the quality is going to eventually get there.

For now, I will repeat my daily mantra:  "film is good....film is good......"  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



Saturday, November 28, 2015

OK - we're back and it's another year - and we've gone back to shooting FILM! (gasp!)

I know, these year-to-year postings are really few and far between. But you know how it is, you get busy, have a lot of changes go on, work your regular job.....all of sudden a year has gone by and you feel like you're still in the same spot.

Well, that's not necessarily true - just been really busy and if I'm not moving upward and onward, at least you can say it's "lateral". But the big news for the new coming year is - I'm shooting film again! Why? Read on....



It seems if you look hard enough on the world wide web, you’ll come across a number of photographers who are declaring a return to film. What’s even cooler, is that there’s an entire generation of young kids now who have never shot film, interested in trying it out, too. So rather than this post be about why I did and why you should too, I’ll just post some thoughts, probably economic in nature, that nobody has really talked about yet.

When I started my photographic path some 20 years ago (wow), I cut my teeth on an old beat-up Nikon FM and three prime lenses. Of course, at the dawn of digital, I had to go that way, and I did. I discovered over time that, like computers, I was upgrading the cameras all the time because they’re basically light-gathering computers, and your photographic image files are only going to be as good as the computer that captures them. Heaven forbid you shot RAW, and then some years later that RAW file format is not supported. If you didn’t save it as some kind of generalized file format, like TIFF or (gasp) JPEG, that image was lost.



I also discovered that even moreso, I was upgrading computers, because massaging pixels is big business. And as the cameras cranked out more megapixels, the computers and software had to be able to keep up with the new demand. I’ve run into some friends who are shooting 4K video now, and they’re finding they need to upgrade to the latest and greatest computers to keep up with the input, or else the system just chokes and dies. Do not get me wrong - I like digital. I continue to use it for things like event photos, group photos, buddy portraits, when I have to turn around the product quickly. This is even more true for the people who work in the media, like news people. They definitely need to be able to get their stuff to the TV and papers in record time, so it’s good. But for me, I doubt I’ll ever need to work that fast, so this last year I’ve contemplated using film more, and I just took the leap and went back for all my project stuff and the keep me happy stuff. If someone requests film, I’ll do it, but I won’t push it on them. My two little DSLRs can handle whatever people want quickly.




I did some math, and when I added up upgrading cameras (always in pairs so I had a spare), and computers and software every two years or so (always sooner than planned) I was spending way more than had I shot projects on film, which could have been done with a camera bought and paid for ten years ago (at least), including film and developing. This was a bit depressing. And realizing the old argument about analog vs digital, from a quality standpoint, shooting digital was a compromise so I could get the pictures done rather quickly. But digital photographs are akin to .mp3’s in the sound world. They’re not the best you could get. But they are good enough for adverts and TV, and web blogs. Just like I don’t mind listening to some musical artists on my iPod in .mp3 form. But give me the Boston Philharmonic playing Holst’s The Planets, and I’m sorry, I have to pull the actual vinyl LP out for that to play on a turntable.

But I digress. Remember when I said the image file is only as good as the camera that took it? That’s really true. On the other hand, if you shot it on film, you have a permanent negative that you can scan over and over. Imagine having that negative and in ten years, you scanned it again with scanning technology of the day. Heck, today a really high-resolution scan at 4800 dpi renders a file in the hundreds of MEGABYTES. This trounces ALL digital cameras on the planet. What’s cooler, is many of the remaining labs throw in scanning to CD as part of the fee you pay for development, so you don’t even need to own your own scanner! Who knew? Of course, we pay more now for film developing (I use TheDarkroom.com mail-order services, which ends up being about $12 a roll). But it still ends up being cheaper in the long run.


And the other things that occur when I shoot film are so important: slowing down, thinking about what you want, making it happen, all before you bring the camera up to shoot the picture. With digital, I tended to spray and pray, meaning I’d over shoot and during the editing process keep the good ones (praying that I got good ones). But with digital, I was having to do that with hundreds of files!  I think I sat more at the computer than I was actually out shooting. That had to stop too. If I’m really thinking, it could take me a day to shoot 36 photographs, and editing is easy when you’re trying to make all 36 of them keepers in the first place. So I like that.

So to start, since I had Canon lenses, I acquired an EOS-1v body, and then an EOS-1n body. Both were in mint condition, tested and spec’d up by a qualified technician (Canon still works on the 1v, too) in Japan. Both were $1700 (up to $2000 if outfitted with add-ons) new when they were released (The 1n in the early 90s, and the 1v in 2000). This month, I got the 1n for $100, and the 1v for $250. Incredible. I’ll bet the original owners would cry if they saw how little their old cameras are selling for. The ones I got must’ve been owned by amateurs because they still look new - there are a lot of those cameras out there still working that just look like they been around the world in the back of a pickup truck, but they’re still shooting!



I always wanted to try medium format too, and I am this time around. I just picked up a Bronica SQ system, with two film backs, and two lenses - all for under $400! When that stuff was new just recently in 2007, you could spend $3000 for the camera, one film back, and one normal lens! I think if anyone wants to get in to using film, now is the time to get in. If more and more people use it, the used camera market may just dry up, and prices will go up because of the demand. But that would be a good thing.   Film costs would come down, and maybe more labs would open up (alot of them closed - heck, Sams Club and Costco no longer deal wit film at all, and they were the cheapest by far). With the resurgence continuing, I can only hope more and more people try analog photography. Then maybe there’d be less and less people on the internet talking about it and actually out and about in the sun, shooting!

There’s something to be said about the complete digital lifestyle, and it’s not all good. Thanks for reading!