The jump from the 1.5x crop factor of APS-C to FF may not look like much on paper but in reality it is quite a jump.

The 50mm f1.4 may not look like much to you now but on a FF the 50mm becomes almost an all-in-one lens. It replaces your kitlens quite capably. You lose a bit on the wide end but hey, it can literally live on a FF. Great for casual snaps and street and small groups and the large aperture it affords you means that you can go a full day with just that lens and no flash with little problem.

Going FF means that suddenly most of the focal ranges of lenses begins to make sense. 28-75mm or 24-70mm lens now makes perfect sense. Ultra wide now does not need to go below 16mm. Only problem is that telephoto now seems short!

In short going FF means that you now shoot the way film shooters used to shoot. This also means that it can open up an avenue for you to get cheaper second hand lenses that actually work the way they are supposed to work.

E.g.:

Normal zoom lenses are now around the 24 to 105mm range. Older Minolta lenses like the 24-85mm or 28-85mm now fits like a 'T' whereas on an APS-C they are not really appealing. Primes like 35mm and 50mm becomes much more usable.

DOF also becomes much narrower with a FF. You'll be seeing bokeh at settings that don't bring any on APS-C.

Since you don't have many lenses yet, make the jump now. It's quite an experience!

moo : Of course! Going FF is not just about pricey Zeiss lenses. It's about the different angle of view that you get. Can't afford the 24-70mm Zeiss? No problem. Just get a 24-85mm f3.5-f4.5 and you're good to go and it costs only RM6xx second hand. You lose about a stop and a half in aperture - nothing a flash cannot solve.

You can go travel with that lens and come back with pics that you can never hope to get with a 18-55mm or 18-70mm lens on an APS-C.

To shoot landscape F8 on an APS-C body is good enough to get clear sharp pictures. You may want to get a tripod. Use the lowest ISO setting and F8 should be able to get you what you need.

As for food, I don't know coz I seldom snap pics of food.

If you set the aperture to too high a number, diffraction will set in and it will cause your pic to lose details. Pumping up the aperture will not give you increasingly sharp pictures. Any aperture above F11 tend to give very minimal improvement unless you're doing macro photography where the DOF is razor thin.

Use the lowest ISO possible so that your image will be as noise free as possible, especially in the shadow areas.

You're at a beach. The sun's plenty strong enough to get decent pix even at ISO 50. You do not need to use ISO 400.

Here are a couple of examples (old pics):

1. Taken using f4.5 ISO 100 with CPL filter



2. Taken using f8 ISO 100 with CPL filter

wonka : Can't remember... it's been some time but I know it's taken at a restaurant in Bali.

ahpingko : I dun think any Alpha here can go down to ISO 50. Just using that as an example. Hahaha...

But the idea is to use the lowest ISO setting. I've heard of people afraid to use high ISO but I think you're the first for me for being afraid to use low ISO.

Wonka : Happens to all of us! But then it's a good lesson to learn and I bet after that you've never made the same mistake again right?

albnok : Yup! That's how a 95% viewfinder can sometimes ruin your shot! I honestly did not see the wire there when I pressed the shutter. I remember because I was careful to lean out the window some distance to get the railings out of the frame.

Didn't feel like cropping afterwards and too lazy to clone it away.

Again, the plead for EXIF data. Please let it be known that EXIF data is TOTALLY useless for anyone else and for any other moment except for the exact moment that the original picture was taken.

All you need to understand about ISO, shutter speed and aperture is how they work together to get you a picture with an exposure level and DOF that you would like without introducing handshake into the image.

EXIF is totally useless because:

1. You will NEVER, EVER be in the same situation like when the original picture was taken.

2. It will be totally inaccurate if the picture has been post edited in ANY way.

3. You will probably be using a different lens or a different focal length which will give you a different DOF.


So instead of clamoring for EXIF data, it would do you more good if you spent the time learning about composition, lighting and developing your eye to 'see' images around you.

But the point is that it is a bad starting point. Knowing that a certain image was taken with a certain ISO, shutter speed and aperture tells you next to nothing useful if you are not there when the picture is taken.

You cannot see how the light was at the time. You cannot see how close or far away the camera was to the subject.

How on earth would you know if you should replicate the settings if you were not there to see the situation in the first place?

Beginners need to understand that ISO, aperture and shutter speed functions as one combination to get you your exposure level and DOF.

If you want more DOF then stop down the aperture but they should understand that stopping down the aperture will result in the shutter speed becoming longer to achieve the same level of exposure. If they want the shutter speed to remain unchanged, then they will have to bump up their ISO.

How in the world would numbers in the EXIF data teach anyone that?

MechaHerc : I understand that different people learn in different ways but I just want to shake the misconception that EXIF data is some kind of holy grail to getting good pics.

How many times have you seen people asking for the EXIF when they see a good pic posted? Too many times to keep count, right? It's unbelievable how easily the misconception gets perpetuated. LOL

For starters, beginners should read their cam's manual. Then they should go do some research into terms like aperture, shutter speed and ISO. Then they should go out there and experiment for themselves.

Do you know how I learnt about those 3 settings? I tried to freeze the water movements of a fountain. So there I was out there in the sun, camera set to M mode and shooting repeatedly at this fountain spraying water out like there's no tomorrow.

I knew the theory behind the 3 settings but until I saw with my own eyes how increasing the shutter speed gradually produced more and more underexposed pictures with the other 2 settings remaining constant, the theory did not really set in.

I never did get the result I wanted that day. Never did freeze the water into perfect droplets but I walked away so much clearer on the concept of how shutter speed, aperture and ISO worked together and I didn't even know what EXIF data was at that point.

ahpingko : Don't worry so much lar... just go out and shoot. It's not THAT easy to get flare, even with lenses that are prone to getting flares. You may get one or two pics with flares out of hundreds. So why worry so much?

You would still get a focal length of 11-18mm BUT you will see vignette in the viewfinder as the lens will not be able to project an image circle to fully cover the FF sensor.

The output however will be automatically cropped to APS-C size thus the A900 will give the same output as any APS-C camera.

If the A850 can recognise the Tammy lens as an APS-C lens then you can use it. The image will be cropped automatically.

mastering89 : Rm1.1k for the F58 IS the best price already. You can stop searching now and buy!