Hi Guest!
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Share this page
Offline
Nice shot! The 50mm 1.4 is one of the EF mounts I kept when I moved to mirrorless (RF mount). I use in with an Ef-RF adaptor. Oddly enough, Canon has yet to come out with a 50mm f/1.4 in an RF mount. The only options for 50mm in RF mount is either the f/1.8 ($159) or the monster f/1.2 ($2099) (you really pay for that extra stop of light!). The f/1.4 is a nice compromise for a little more than the f/1.8 (I think I paid $300 used) but a LOT less than the f/1.2.
OP
Offline
This 50mm on our APS-C sensors makes it about a 75mm equivalent on a 24x36mm frame, so a nice "portrait" focal length to boot. I did find a 35mm ∱1.8 prime on flea bay for skinny money, but the DoF with it is somewhat deeper than a fifty on a full-frame when wide open (at head-n-shoulders/portrait distance). I will keep sniffing for a bargain 35mm ∱1.4 AF prime. Not in a particular hurry, just a whim to satisfy. Luckily, too, the wide range of Nikon's F-Mount lenses. No adaptor needed from late sixties manual focus/aperture to recent AF FX and DX options.
OP
Offline
Finding with these half-frame sensors, there's data that seems to point to the ISO "upper limit" (so-to-speak), for any acceptable noise level, is about 4000. So I've set that as the upper limit for my "AUTO ISO" setting to experiment with. Trying out low-light scenes where the 4000 limit is "pegged," I've found you can "cheat" somewhat by setting the ± setting to "over-expose" the shot by a stop or two and get an image that looks fine and seems to keep noise from being obnoxious. YMMV, but it seems like a fair cop to me!
Offline
In normal to good lighting conditions, there isn't going to be a lot of difference, if any, in image quality between any given crop frame camera and it's full frame counterpart. But, generally speaking, the dynamic range vs ISO of a full frame sensor is going to be a bit better than a full crop frame equivalent. Having owned a Canon EF-mount crop frame, the 7D Mark II, as well as the full frame EF mount, 5D Mark IV, I can attest that, in any given lighting conditions with the same high ISO settings, the full frame 5D IV images would consistently have less noticeable noise than the 7D II. At lower ISOs (say up to about 800-1200) I really could not see any difference in noise, but the difference gets more noticeable as ISO goes higher, especially above about ISO 3200. As an example, I took two images, one shot with the crop sensor 7DII (the church scene) and another shot with the 5D IV (The Canon rep next to the Canon balloon). Both were shot in relatively low light (one inside and one outside at dawn). Both images were shot at ISO 8000 at similar focal lengths, and both at f/4.0 with similar slow shutter speeds. These are not the full images as I have cropped both of these images to 100% so the noise will be more noticeable. I think if you look at the two, you will see considerably more noise apparent in the church image (crop sensor). In the 5DIV image, black is where you will see the most obvious signs of noise and if you look at the black parts of the balloon, the noise is barely noticeable. (Click the images to make them bigger in screen)
7D Mark II - ISO 8000 f/4 1/60s
5D Mark IV - ISO 8000 f/4.0 1/80s
By the way, there is a great resource for technical specs of different sensors that is the brain child of William Claff: www.photonstophotos.net Just for grins I took the liberty of comparing the dynamic range vs ISO for the Nikon D7200 (DX) and the D750 (FX). As you can see from the chart, the dynamic range is better across the board for the FX sensor. So, generally speaking, a full frame camera, all else being equal, will generally yield better low light performance than a crop sensor, but that is not to say that you can't get great images in low light with a crop sensor. Especially now days with the amazing noise reduction software available, such minor differences in noise are no longer as much of an issue. On the flip side, a good crop sensor camera will allow for much better "apparent" reach in the field, which is great when shooting birds, wildlife, etc.
Blue= Nikon D750, Black= Nikon D7200
Offline
For what you shoot most I’d say crop sensor is probably the better option anyway. In fact, one of these days, I may get a used crop sensor body as a second body specifically for birds.
GregW
Yoda
Offline
The same day you get an infra-red camera too.
Offline
I still think about that! Never say never!
GregW
Yoda
Offline
Fluorescent and now LED tubes have been used in the film industry for decades. They have a nice wrap-around lighting compared to incandescent. They just don't have the throw for distance lighting. The technology these days is really mind boggling. You can control an entire sound stage of lights (color temperature, intensity) from a cell phone.
One of the big players is KINO Flo.
One of the big players is KINO Flo.
Offline
That's the stuff for professionals who make money doing that stuff.Gels on demand. Daylight to tungsten, anything between and beyond, too. Had no idea it had come that far, but shouldn't have surprised me. I couldn't force myself to look at cost tho...
OP
Offline
Still an' yet, one of the longer (wider?) ones would be a really "Nice-to-Have"!!
But I s'pose that'd be a slippery financial slope.