Messages

16

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finally moving to full frame, maybe. Help/advice/criticism needed

« on: February 04, 2013, 06:22:37 PM »

Since we're going to argue this...

DPReview Noise Test Results at ISO 3200:

7D Chroma: 3.3
5D Chroma: 4

7D Luminance Black: 2.7
5D Luminance Black: 3.1

7D Luminance Gray: 3
5D Luminance Gray: 3.4

I don't like the IR comparometer for high ISO because those particular studio tests are not as carefully controlled in regard to lighting. The "Dave Box" test is carefully controlled, and the 7D clearly edges out the 5Dc.

These results apply to any of the 18 MP APS-C bodies.

17

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finally moving to full frame, maybe. Help/advice/criticism needed

« on: February 04, 2013, 06:03:37 PM »

As for its High ISO IQ, Its better than any crop camera canon makes. DXO even confirms this and my own usage agrees also.

Imaging Resource and DPReview confirm the opposite and publish the test photos and all test details for review (reproducibility, something DxO lacks). Should someone believe DxO or their lying eyes?

If we're going to talk experience, my experience, the experience of members at my photo club, and the experience of a friend with a rather successful wedding photography business all concur. Nobody who has ever claimed the opposite has ever been able to provide images to prove it. If you can you'll be the first.

18

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finally moving to full frame, maybe. Help/advice/criticism needed

« on: February 04, 2013, 04:53:47 PM »

Points to consider...

* The shutter counts provided by Canon are estimates of average lifespans. A 1DX might lose a shutter at 10,000 images, while your T1i still clicks at 250,000. That wouldn't be the average, but it certainly can happen and will happen to someone. Don't assume your camera is about to die based on shutter count.

* The 5Dc is definitely better at high ISO then the T1i.

* The T2i / 60D / 7D out perform the 5Dc in all respects, including high ISO / noise. This is a tested, measured, and proven fact for those who want to argue that "FF must always be better!" (See the reproducible tests at DPReview and Imaging Resource.) The differences are small, but in the crop sensor's favor.

* A used 5Dc will have a shutter count equal to or worse than your T1i.

* The 5D2 / 6D has clearly superior noise, sharpness, and fine detail at ISO 1600 and above over the 18 MP APS-C bodies. Add to that superior fine detail at any ISO over the 5Dc. How important this is depends on what you do. 8x10's at 1600 and 3200? It's a non-issue. ISO 6400, 12800, and/or 16x20 high ISO prints? You will definitely appreciate the 5D2 or 6D.

My recommendation:

* If you absolutely need the high ISO performance (i.e. >3200 and/or lots of 16x20 prints at ISO 1600 and above), your budget only allows for a used 5D2.

* If you are leaning towards the 5Dc because you also want a new lens, you should be looking at Canon's 18 MP APS-C bodies. (What crop glass do you have btw?)

* Unless you get one really cheap, it's hard to recommend a 5Dc that will have just as much wear and tear as your Rebel, and fewer features. It is better at high ISO then your Rebel. At the right price it could be a good move with your budget and a lens. But every time I check the 5Dc's they are overpriced because people think FF is "magic" when it's not. At any price I've seen them, the 60D is a far better option.

19

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 07:39:44 PM »

This thread seems surreal.  Unless shooting in the studio under carefully conceived lighting, good post production and printing small, how can so many people say the iq difference between a rebel and a mkiii is similar, not to mention indiscernible?

Because we've taken a wide range of shots under a wide range of lighting conditions, and printed them to large sizes. And at ISO 100-800 the differences just aren't there.

Above 800? Absolutely. Though I would say the 18 MP sensor is good through 3200, the FF sensor shows a greater and greater advantage with each stop past 800. I consider the 5D3 probably the best low light DSLR made. (Haven't tried a 6D.) But if you're not shooting at those ISOs, it just doesn't show an IQ advantage over the many other sensors out there. (Canon's 18 MP APS-C; 5D2 sensor; several Nikon / Sony sensors).

I don't think that once you shoot the mkiii in the real world, you would ever choose to shoot the rebel.

He just told you he observed the opposite. Should he believe you, or his lying eyes?

Again I'll say that, given the trip, he should keep the 5D3 unless he is short a critical lens and trading the 5D3 for a 7D gets him the lens. It sounds like that's probably not the case, though his kit is weak on the telephoto end. At the bare minimum he's going to need a 1.4x for the 70-200. And I lean towards the comment that even that won't be enough, and a 100-400 will be the bare minimum for wildlife in this scenario.

20

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 07:26:12 PM »

1. A stop better ISO performance is DESTROYED in my book. The 5D3 is atleast 2 stops better.

Most people would not agree with your definition of "destroyed." But exaggerate away if you must.

2. haha, Thats a joke right? @ 100 ISO my 7D is like Iso 400-800 on my 5D3.

Which is why OP found such a huge difference in his tests at low ISO.

Oh wait...he found none 

21

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 10:44:26 AM »

The 5D3 will destroy the rebels IQ at higher ISOs,

"Destroy" is an exaggeration, but it will certainly be better.

larger prints, and in sharpness from FF.

At low to mid ISO there won't be an observable difference, as our friend discovered.

In camera performance, the 5d3 can handle tricky AF situations that would make the rebel sweat. It's also sealed.

Agreed.

I wouldn't keep the rebel and you'll never need to buy another camera with the 5D3. You'll never outgrow it.

Given his trip, the Rebel makes a fine backup body on a budget.

22

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 10:41:37 AM »

i bought a 5D Mark3 and a 650D at amazon.
now i have 24 days left to decide if i keep the 5D Mark3 or the 650D

what puzzles me is that the image quality is, as far as i can tell, exactly the same.
i bought a epson R3000 printer and when i print the files i can hardly see any difference.

It's hard to express the joy I get out of a post like this

The reason you can hardly see a difference is because contrary to the exaggerated claims of some FF fans, there is hardly a difference at low to mid ISO. Properly processed and printed, a shot from Canon's 18 MP crop sensor in that ISO range will be indistinguishable from a shot from any of Canon's FF sensors. This is true at 13x19, 16x24, 20x30...any size actually.

At high ISO Canon's FF sensors start to show their edge. If you're shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 and making larger prints, you will observe improved IQ with the FF sensor. At 6400 and above the difference will be large. That said, Canon's 18 MP crop sensor makes very good prints through ISO 3200 with a little NR.

As to what you should do: I'm leaning towards the recommendation that you keep the 5D3 because of your trip. That's a once in a lifetime experience and the 5D3's AF, high ISO, and weather sealing will not let you down. I would maybe suggest returning it for a 7D if you need additional lenses for that trip and if you can use the money saved for that purpose. I don't know your budget so I can't make that call.

You mention wanting to buy a 24-70 zoom and a wider prime. What is your longest lens? If you are going to do any wildlife shooting on that trip, I would suggest budgeting for an additional telephoto. Canon's 300 f/4L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter (which could also be used with your 70-200), or a 100-400L.

If you can get the lenses you need and keep the 5D3, I would go that route. If you are going to be without a critical lens for the trip, consider the 7D plus the lens you need. Either way, try to keep the 650D for a backup. If you can't, take something as a backup, a P&S super zoom maybe. Again, it's a once in a lifetime event so make sure you're prepared.

23

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 29, 2013, 11:13:44 AM »

Then there's the Sigma 50/1.4. I've heard it might be the sharpest of all at f/1.4, but it's extremely prone to AF problems (which I'm not willing to deal with).

Not any more than other fast primes. When I tested mine against a stationary target it was more consistent in AF then Canon's 50 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4, and just slightly less consistent then Canon's 85 f/1.8. It is on par with the L in terms of IQ and offers amazing bokeh, but is cheaper and lighter. I would recommend the Sigma out of all of them.

24

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]

« on: January 27, 2013, 05:11:24 PM »

It would be nice to have an update on the 50mm f/1.4 - at least I am curious about it.

That lens was updated. Strange though, Canon is stamping "Sigma" on the side 

25

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 24, 2013, 05:37:10 PM »

I would expect the original 5D to be somewhat but not hugely better than a latest-generation Rebel. I'm sure you couldn't tell the difference on an 8" x 10" print, and it'd be hard to tell the difference on anything you could print with a printer that would fit on your desktop. By 24" x 36", though, I'd expect the 5D classic to be better, but not earth-shatteringly so.

Canon's 18 MP APS-C sensor matches or exceeds their old 12 MP FF sensor in every respect. They're close, but the nod goes to the APS-C sensor.

The 5DII will be significantly better at 24" x 36", but the Rebel is still going to make outstanding 24" x 36" prints. The bigger you go past 24" x 36", the farther the 5DIII is going to pull away from the Rebel...but both will make superlative billboards, of course.

I've made large prints from the sensors in question. The 21 MP FF sensor is not significantly better than the 18 MP one at 24x36 at low to mid ISO. It doesn't get better as you go larger because it wasn't really better to begin with. Both sensors are good for roughly 24-30" when printing landscapes for critical review. Less demanding subjects and viewing conditions of course mean you can go larger with either. At high ISO the 21 MP FF sensor gains a very significant lead.

26

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 24, 2013, 05:31:56 PM »

The full-frame image was scaled down, not up. The small format image was a 100% crop.

My mistake when I typed that post.

You really are that ignorant of the subject, no?

I can't help but laugh at your asinine behavior. You really do believe that you know more then all the people pointing out the flaws, don't you?

Scaling down is throwing away information. It's as if the information never existed, and the end result is the same as if you had never started with it in the first place.

No, it's not. Scaling in either direction introduces a variable you can't compensate for. And in either direction final quality and sharpness depends on the algorithm and settings used. Go ahead and try scaling in PS with all the various choices. One of the things clearly affected by your choices is sharpness, the very thing you claim to be trying to isolate and test for.

Use the same lens on different formats and you get a different field of view. Change position and you get a different perspective in addition to a different field of view. Keep the aperture the same between different formats and you get different depth of field.

Perspective has nothing to do with sharpness at the plane of focus. DoF has nothing to do with sharpness at the plane of focus, and you want lens performance (related to aperture) to be identical. The test I described isolates one thing and one thing only: detail contrast related to format.

Your test isolated nothing. You've got different lenses, radically different apertures, radically different pixel-on-target counts, and an unknown scaling variable. Way to prove...absolutely nothing.

I was very specific in what I did and didn't change, and I did it for a reason.

And in doing so demonstrated your ignorance about how to isolate and test for a single variable.

27

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 24, 2013, 04:25:49 PM »

There is only one way to test such a question: make two images using sensors of different sizes and the same number of megapickles. Which is exactly what I did.

Last I checked you used one sensor, two lenses, cropped one image resulting in fewer MP, then scaled up thinking that interpolated pixels = true MP.

28

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 24, 2013, 04:22:32 PM »

So, dtaylor, we have a test in which we have two images with the exact same number of megapickles,

False. From your test post:
Crop the wide image to the same field of view as the telephoto image, and scale the two to the same pixel dimensions.

You had two files with very different dimensions and then let a computer scale them. Computer generated pixels are not equal to directly sampled pixels. If they were, we could all shoot 1 MP sensors and scale to any print size we wanted.

I'm tired of debating your test. Your variables were all over the place, and it was basically a test of pixels on target and computer scaling, not of comparable FF/crop sensors. Yet you defend it like it was your child. Catching up on this thread I find you are actually being insulting to those who point out the test flaws. Grow up and try listening to them instead.

Just out of idle curiosity, had I performed the test with film -- you know, that plastic stuff with the smelly chemicals? -- would you still be maintaining that the test was somehow invalid because the enlarger has some sort of magic faery dust rendering the comparison simply invalid and horribly flawed?

It would be invalid for the same reason it's invalid now: fewer sampling points on target. It would just be grains instead of pixels.

You're such an expert at this. How would you go about performing a comparison between two sensors with the same number of megapickles and the same sensor technology but different format sizes?

Gee...I don't know...how about getting the actual cameras and putting the same lens on each; changing position to achieve the same FoV; and making sure that all other factors (scene; lighting; aperture; shutter; settings) are equal, thereby isolating the difference you want to measure (sharpness)? 

On second thought...nah...that's just crazy talk 

29

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 24, 2013, 03:59:58 PM »

Alan, I was being gracious in ignoring your complaint, as it indicates that you really don't understand even the simplest fact about what a crop sensor camera actually is. Specifically:

Alan's complaint was spot on. He very clearly understands what's going on.

30

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 24, 2013, 03:36:56 PM »

OK - here's a simple question. Has anyone got a Pentax Q (12MP, small sensor) and a 5Dc (12MP, FF sensor) - if we look at a comparison of the two, it should solve this issue once and for all, even though the 5Dc is using much older tech.

Why don't you just head over to DPReview or Imaging Resource and download studio files for the cameras you wish to compare? I would be careful with compact cameras because they will probably have sharpening even at 'neutral' settings.

As to crop vs FF: You will find FF a bit sharper. Until you run a sharpening pass on crop. The difference is there, but it doesn't amount to all that much at low to mid ISO. At high ISO crop cameras start to apply more NR, causing more blur, and post sharpening to compensate starts emphasizing noise.

The point of TrumpetPower's test is both of them are adjusted to a very low number of MP, therefore they're both on an equal footing (downsampling a high MP image to low MP is very similar to starting with low MP in the first place).

That's not even close to an equal footing. As good as our scaling algorithms are, scaling up is destructive while scaling down can actually yield more final detail then direct sampling at the lower resolution.