October 23, 2014, 01:32:24 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 172
16
To the 5D-III punters... I can understand how the 5D-III can replace the 6D, but how exactly does the 5D-III replace a 7D-II?

Apart from fps what doesn't the 5D MkIII do that the 7D MkII can?

That fluttering light thing?

Is that it?

I wouldn't know, I don't have either but both of them would be important things to me.

I don't have either, either, and won't be getting either. But I am surprised that those two things are the only things that anyone can think of.

Whilst I won't belittle those two features for those that do need them, I can't help but feel most of us don't!

17
To the 5D-III punters... I can understand how the 5D-III can replace the 6D, but how exactly does the 5D-III replace a 7D-II?

Apart from fps what doesn't the 5D MkIII do that the 7D MkII can?

That fluttering light thing?

Is that it?

18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 12:54:53 PM »
And yet, you are "not seeing that much difference." 
The discussions in many of the FF vs APS-C threads could lead one to believe that the FF is always superior so I'm thinking "not much difference" is pretty good.

The general response is that in focal length-limited scenarios, the crop sensor is better.  It can be, if you're FL-limited and at low ISO and printing larger than 16x24"/A2. 

Or cropping heavily.  Some of my final shots were shot on crop bodies with 400mm lenses and are cropped to 1:1 in the final.  I often find that I don't have enough pixels left after cropping my 20D.  That's why the full-frame options don't interest me for this - none of them would give me more pixels left on the target than my 20D does, and some like the 1Dx would give me fewer pixels.  The 7D II will give me 2.5 times more pixels left than my 20D does for the same cropping.

agreed!

Using the same lens, an individual FF pixel is of better quality than an individual crop pixel, but in focal length limited scenarios there are more crop pixels on target. The quality difference between the two sizes also depends heavily on the lens used. On a very sharp lens, the difference is lower, but on a poor lens the difference per pixel can be striking...

My tests earlier between a 60D and a 5D2 showed that with a poor lens (Sigma 120-400) that there was no reach advantage for crop, yet when used with a 70-200 or a 100L there was definitely an improvement in reach.

Which one is better depends on your needs and your glass.... there is no universal answer.

My crops are upressed to the same size and shot with one of the sharpest lenses Canon make at an optimal aperture. Over 50% of the pixels in the FF crop are 'made up', yet they still give very little away to the crop cameras native pixels.

Hey, at least we are talking about the sales pitch now rather than just buying into it............

19
To the 5D-III punters... I can understand how the 5D-III can replace the 6D, but how exactly does the 5D-III replace a 7D-II?

Apart from fps what doesn't the 5D MkIII do that the 7D MkII can?

20
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Hello FF!
« on: October 17, 2014, 10:42:00 AM »
6D is a much better buy than a secondhand 5D MkII.

Does that make me a 'looser' too?

21
6D.

You will then realise the 'limitations' of crop cameras (for pixel peepers and big printers) and realise you need a 6D and 5D MkIII, mind you, by the time you have the 5D MkIII money saved you will be in used 1DX territory money wise.........

GAS is a rarely tamed affliction.

22
Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.

The word equivalent is pretty much universally used to compare focal length, I don't see an issue with that. DPR, LL and a host of other review sites use it.

Er, no it isn't. It is used regularly by bad photography journalists who are too damn lazy to be accurate and are looking for any excuse to get a job in auto journalism, and by marketing departments who know very well how misleading it is and don't care to be honest with their consumers.

Take a look here for the true meaning of equivalent with regards photography http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

23
Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.

24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 05:23:20 PM »
"You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing."


If you think you are giving up nothing go take both cameras, put on an identical lens and take a picture of an object that is far away, proceed to crop the shot from the 5DMIII to match the shot from the 7D, and then print them both at 30"x40"...

You need your empirical evidence, go do that.

I did, and I am showing you a crop of over 100% magnification of that print file.

I used the same 300mm f2.8 IS on both cameras (actually I left the lens on the tripod and just changed bodies where it was), manual focus via live view, f5.6, iso200 (which favours the crop camera), wireless flash for maximum contrast, massive tripod, cable release etc etc.

25
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:54:23 PM »
this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?
Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.

That is what we are doing, I am just trying to make people actually look.

As for your image, so what? Explain my crops.
Nobody is saying your crops don't look good. I'm sure your cropped images look wonderful. Nobody is challenging that.  You are being so matter of fact and it does feel argumentative. 8mp images can look great of course, but we don't need to point out that 18mp has certain advantages over 8mp given certain circumstances. If we are just generating web content then the 8mp is more than enough... I happen to think that what you see, the images you love, are far more important than the math. So I applaud you for standing ground on empirical - what you see - evidence. That's what matters. The graphic I made was just to show what you are giving up.  Again, there is no -one size fits all tool.

You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing.

26
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:04:07 PM »
this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?
Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.

That is what we are doing, I am just trying to make people actually look.

As for your image, so what? Explain my crops.

27
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:01:48 PM »
Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.

Got any comparison images to back that up Bob?

Interesting debate. I go back and forth on this.

Since buying a 5DIII about a year ago, I admit my 7D has pretty much been sitting, gathering dust (although I keep it as a back up). But, in the past year, I've had very little time to shoot distance-limited subjects as demand for portraits seems to take up most of my spare time these days.

But, I can't quite understand how a crop sensor would never provide an advantage in distance-limited situations. I'm certainly willing to agree that if you crop the full frame down to the same framing as a uncropped APS-C image, you won't lose much, if anything. But, intellectually, I can't get my head around the idea that if I need to crop the image much more significantly, having the extra pixels of a crop would not be an advantage.

Being math-challenged doesn't  help, but it certainly seems from a logical point-of-view that eventually, as you slice and dice away pixels, you'll reach a point where the full frame image loses too much resolution and you'll be better off with the crop sensor's greater pixel density.

It might require some pretty radical cropping, but then again, I've been in situations that require radical cropping (A California Condor perched on the top of an outcrop at the Grand Canyon – absent the ability to fly, you can't get any closer than the edge of the Canyon.)

There are several points to make, first is I am a little maths challenged too and agree, it doesn't make sense, but my empirical results illustrate my point.

Secondly, I never said it will never make a difference, but in my empirical testing (on older generation bodies but same theory) I found it didn't make enough of a difference to be noticeable in big prints even in optimal conditions set up to favour the crop camera. I would love Bob or Lee Jay to actually come along with some decent examples illustrating their beliefs, I have done so for mine. I am not saying 'I am right you are all wrong', I am saying 'I found this to be true, has anybody doing the same comparison found the same?' and several, like Neuro, have. I have never seen anybody post direct comparison images that illustrate a very different result, certainly after optimal processing at any kind of actual reproduction size there never seems to be a difference.

Third, as I have always said, the feature set of a crop camera might well make it a better camera anyway, things like AF, fps, cost etc can't be ignored.

Fourth, my crops are actually set up to favour the crop camera in iso and aperture etc, but also I upsized the ff file to match the crop file pixel for pixel to 'level the playing field' for comparison purposes, this should favour the crop camera even more.

But in the end I base my buying decisions on empirical results, I can't see $1,800 worth of difference in those >100% crops to warrant the expense, and I was happy to pay $3,750 for a 300 f2.8 over a $1,455 300 f4.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 03:36:40 PM »
Saying smaller pixels don't help with "reach" (resolving power) is the same as saying a longer focal length doesn't help with reach, and it's just as wrong.

No it isn't.

You are obfuscating the very limited criteria I laid down by attempting to introduce spurious comparisons and strawman arguments.

Stick to the point, show me 5D MkIII vs 70D (or 6D and 7D MkII) focal length limited crops that demonstrate the crop cameras resolution advantage, if they demonstrate a clear winner I will show you where either your testing technique or post processing is failing you.

29
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 16, 2014, 01:55:46 PM »
Eldar, since you use FoCal and claim this lens has inconsistency issues, perhaps you'd care to share some focus consistency test results from FoCal on this lens with us.  Multiple copies, multiple bodies would be indicative.  At least post the charts showing the 10 or 20 shot tests, with the final percentage.

There are few people I trust implicitly on this forum, Eldar is one.

30
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 01:43:22 PM »
Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.

Got any comparison images to back that up Bob?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 172