Welcome to South Africa's Audio Visual community!
Welcome to the home for South African audio and visual equipment owners and enthusiasts. Whether you are an audiophile or a hobbyist, feel welcome to join us in the exciting discussions about amplifiers, turntables, receivers, speakers, projectors, screens, restoration and new projects, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and so much more!
Testing the Fuji 33mm
- Thread starter David Morris
- Start date
David Morris
Active member
Yep 33 x 1.5 = 49.5mm full frame equivalent 56 x 1.5 = 84mm full frame equivalent
The sad part is the apertures use the same formula
F1.4 x 1.5 = F2.1 F1.2 x 1.5 = F1.8
Don't get me started on the idiocy of "equivalence" when it comes to comparing focal lengths between image recording formats. I still refuse to use the term "full frame" to describe the 35mm format. "Fool frame" is more appropriate in my opinion. 
Aperture values are mathematically derived for calculating exposure, so these plonkers (read Tony Northrup) who go on Youtube proclaiming such nonsense as "equivalent apertures" between systems are the densest of the dense. f/1.8 is going to give you the same exposure time on any camera system operating under the same lighting conditions. If this wasn't so then calculating exposure would be nearly impossible. The only thing it does affect is the depth of field change between systems. The larger the format the shallower the depth of field will be. That's all. If you want shallower depth of field on the smaller formats you will need to use a faster aperture lens. That's it.
I shot with Nikon FX systems for many years and made the move to MFT in 2014 because those camera systems were by far much more advanced than anything being made by the traditional big names, such as Canon and Nikon. And much, much cheaper. Apart from the massive improvement in image quality I was seeing by using the Olympus and Panasonic lenses, the biggest win for me was the reduced payload on my shoulders. My gear weighed barely anything, yet I was able to do everything I needed to (and more). What was the point of having a larger format camera system? Shallower depth of field? Not really a thing I needed to pursue, to be honest.
There has been a concerted effort by the big names to corral the photography world into believing that bigger is better, but then if they are going to use that as their marketing USP, they really ought to build medium format cameras. At least Fujifilm does that.
Aperture values are mathematically derived for calculating exposure, so these plonkers (read Tony Northrup) who go on Youtube proclaiming such nonsense as "equivalent apertures" between systems are the densest of the dense. f/1.8 is going to give you the same exposure time on any camera system operating under the same lighting conditions. If this wasn't so then calculating exposure would be nearly impossible. The only thing it does affect is the depth of field change between systems. The larger the format the shallower the depth of field will be. That's all. If you want shallower depth of field on the smaller formats you will need to use a faster aperture lens. That's it.
I shot with Nikon FX systems for many years and made the move to MFT in 2014 because those camera systems were by far much more advanced than anything being made by the traditional big names, such as Canon and Nikon. And much, much cheaper. Apart from the massive improvement in image quality I was seeing by using the Olympus and Panasonic lenses, the biggest win for me was the reduced payload on my shoulders. My gear weighed barely anything, yet I was able to do everything I needed to (and more). What was the point of having a larger format camera system? Shallower depth of field? Not really a thing I needed to pursue, to be honest.
There has been a concerted effort by the big names to corral the photography world into believing that bigger is better, but then if they are going to use that as their marketing USP, they really ought to build medium format cameras. At least Fujifilm does that.
David Morris
Active member
It is very rare I watch Tony & Chelsea and while still learning the only thing I really adjust is aperture. I enjoy it when in my opinion, I have got it right and my subject looks like it is a 3D subject that has been super imposed into the photograph using depth of field
Yes, shorter depth of field is useful in some situations, such as environmental portraiture, or wildlife photography, but... it is not the exclusive domain of the larger format cameras. The way some people go on you would swear that a smaller format, like APS-C or MFT are incapable of the same effect.
The lens aperture is only one of the variables that will affect the d.o.f. The more important one is camera to subject and subject to background distance, plus lens magnification (i.e. telephoto focal lengths). In macro photography short depth of field is usually the enemy, so you will want to use smaller apertures and get closer to the subject if that is possible. Some newer mirrorless cameras offer what is called automatic focus stacking to help increase the d.o.f. by shooting multiple frames, each at a different focus point and then combining them in camera (or if you prefer in post production). They do a fairly good job of this. In fact, many macro photography enthusiasts have switched to the Olympus system because of this function, as well as the fact that the best macro lenses currently being made are from that marque. The 60mm f/2.8 being one of them.
There is a new feature in Lightroom that allows you to decrease the depth of field and apply a few different types of bokeh (which in itself is a commonly misused term). It works pretty well. Here is an example from a recent shoot using an Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens.
The lens aperture is only one of the variables that will affect the d.o.f. The more important one is camera to subject and subject to background distance, plus lens magnification (i.e. telephoto focal lengths). In macro photography short depth of field is usually the enemy, so you will want to use smaller apertures and get closer to the subject if that is possible. Some newer mirrorless cameras offer what is called automatic focus stacking to help increase the d.o.f. by shooting multiple frames, each at a different focus point and then combining them in camera (or if you prefer in post production). They do a fairly good job of this. In fact, many macro photography enthusiasts have switched to the Olympus system because of this function, as well as the fact that the best macro lenses currently being made are from that marque. The 60mm f/2.8 being one of them.
There is a new feature in Lightroom that allows you to decrease the depth of field and apply a few different types of bokeh (which in itself is a commonly misused term). It works pretty well. Here is an example from a recent shoot using an Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens.
Mr_B
Administrator
Guys, a little off topic, but as an ex-pro photographer that's been out of the game for very many years, which Canon format should I be considering and which models are good for pro-sumer use?
I'm a Canon fan boy, who unfortunately own a Nikon, which has just solidify my love for Canon.
I'm a Canon fan boy, who unfortunately own a Nikon, which has just solidify my love for Canon.
David Morris
Active member
If I personally was going to Canon now I would go full frame and get the 5DSR which is an amazing camera that can be had for R22k and build my lenses from there. Unless you are loaded with cash and can go to the new R series.
The downside with the 5DSR, it is not good for fast moving action, landscapes and still-life it is brilliant for.
The downside with the 5DSR, it is not good for fast moving action, landscapes and still-life it is brilliant for.
I really don't like Canon camera equipment. I used it for a few years and never got along with it. But each to his own.
One thing I won't ever buy again is a DSLR. They are just so far behind the tech that it doesn't make any sense to spend any money at all on them.
The first thing to ask if you're looking for a new camera is what you want to use it for. If you just want a casual snapshot camera then any decent smart phone will be the best, most convenient option. If you want to learn about photography and do more, then I'd look at the lens first and once you find the best lens for your application you should buy the cheapest body in that system. That will get you going. When you need more advanced camera features you can upgrade the body.
Right now nobody makes a bad camera.
One thing I won't ever buy again is a DSLR. They are just so far behind the tech that it doesn't make any sense to spend any money at all on them.
The first thing to ask if you're looking for a new camera is what you want to use it for. If you just want a casual snapshot camera then any decent smart phone will be the best, most convenient option. If you want to learn about photography and do more, then I'd look at the lens first and once you find the best lens for your application you should buy the cheapest body in that system. That will get you going. When you need more advanced camera features you can upgrade the body.
Right now nobody makes a bad camera.
David Morris
Active member
Feeling boxed in - It is not as sharp as I would have liked but I like it nonetheless, taken with the 33mm
Hi David, I have quite a collection of Fuji camera equipment.
It could be interesting to meet up for a little chat about photography and possibly a photo session. Let me know if you would be keen
It could be interesting to meet up for a little chat about photography and possibly a photo session. Let me know if you would be keen
David Morris
Active member
Would love to, I will DM you
David Morris
Active member
South African designed motor home for tough African conditions
EddieB
Active member
Those safety bars on the door and window say it all.
David Morris
Active member
Sunday walk - oops this was the 90mm
Last edited:
