1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography
« on: December 14, 2012, 11:27:35 PM »
Apart from the heated scientific debate based around personal selection of images collected under controversial but plausible methodology, let me give you my personal experience:
I had a 40D since 2008. In 2010 I borrowed a 5D2 and went for several days of parallel test shooting with my 70-200/4 in pursuit of the same answer you are chasing.
I uploaded the images from both cameras on my NEC PA 27" with Aperture. Well, I did not find much of IQ difference at standard ISOs (100-400) ie my preferred range for tripod based landscape photography. Sure, the FF has a lot more functions, better high ISO etc, but I was not convinced and returned it waiting for the 5D3 while gearing up with some Zeiss. Well, in retrospect the IQ of the 5D3 at lowish ISO is not dramatically different to the oldish 40D. Of course, it is a different style camera, we all know it, but if you are strictly shooting landscapes, lenses and right technique (PP, stitching etc) make more difference than anything. Sorry, Neuro, I did ask my wife to differentiate as well. Hmm, she couldn't and after that she asked unfortunately about the price of the FF... So, I needed a reason to justify the purchase and this was mainly videography of our second son, but not the IQ.
But who does ONLY landscaping with a DSLR. The FF excels in so much else that the discussion shifts always towards them. In your place I'd wait for the full frame megapixel something coming next year or change the company for a completely different sensor.
I had a 40D since 2008. In 2010 I borrowed a 5D2 and went for several days of parallel test shooting with my 70-200/4 in pursuit of the same answer you are chasing.
I uploaded the images from both cameras on my NEC PA 27" with Aperture. Well, I did not find much of IQ difference at standard ISOs (100-400) ie my preferred range for tripod based landscape photography. Sure, the FF has a lot more functions, better high ISO etc, but I was not convinced and returned it waiting for the 5D3 while gearing up with some Zeiss. Well, in retrospect the IQ of the 5D3 at lowish ISO is not dramatically different to the oldish 40D. Of course, it is a different style camera, we all know it, but if you are strictly shooting landscapes, lenses and right technique (PP, stitching etc) make more difference than anything. Sorry, Neuro, I did ask my wife to differentiate as well. Hmm, she couldn't and after that she asked unfortunately about the price of the FF... So, I needed a reason to justify the purchase and this was mainly videography of our second son, but not the IQ.
But who does ONLY landscaping with a DSLR. The FF excels in so much else that the discussion shifts always towards them. In your place I'd wait for the full frame megapixel something coming next year or change the company for a completely different sensor.
as we are all going to end up with a Sony FF in the long term
it is better to start getting used to their interface sooner than later - it gives an evolutionary advantage...

