April 19, 2014, 06:18:02 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 - ecka

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 35
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 03, 2014, 10:35:44 AM »
16-35mm f/2.8 L II on a 5D3 Vs 10-22mm on a 70D, which theoretically would give the better image?


The often criticized "problem" of current Canon ff lenses is the lack of corner performance esp. wide open (if you care about that). Ignoring that, the ff sensor can always generate higher res yadayadayada (see posts above), this is visible in the iso crop.

Another potential fact to keep in mind is that you can buy nearly 3x 70d+10-22 for 1x 5d3+16-35 :->

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=271&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


For fair comparison it should be 16-35L@16/5.6 vs 10-22@10/3.5, or at least choose the best performing aperture number from each lens. "Wide open" vs "wide open" is pointless.

32
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 07:17:06 PM »
I think that "excellent detail and sharpness" is a matter of opinion. I thought my 7D+Sigma 50/1.4 was excellent, until I tried 5D2+50/1.8'II (I hated the build, pentagon aperture and AF noise, but it was SHARP!). FF wins thanks to either bigger pixels or more of them.

I'm going to be blunt because I've shot both combinations (owned both lenses at one time, now just the Sigma): at low ISO and wide apertures, if your final 7D+Sigma file doesn't look better then your final 5D2+NiftyFifty file something is wrong.

By SHARP! I mean f/2.8+ sharp :). Sigma 50/1.4 produces much nicer bokeh (I think it is one of the best 50s), but I don't think it is sharper wide open on crop, than 50/1.8'II on FF. However, sometimes wide open images from 50/1.8'II are a bit dreamy with glowing high contrast edges.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:25:58 PM »
Ecka you are right. In the real world with good light I would not hesitate to use a crop sensor camera with a good lens. The problem is noise at high ISO when light levels drop. This is where a full frame body comes into its own. The maximum ISO I use on my 7D is 800 whereas on my 5Dmk111 I will go to 4000 ISO. I do not rely on test charts to tell me what the best images are from a camera, I rely on experience and the final image displayed on my computer.

Actually, I was talking about low ISO :), but yes, FF wins the high ISO battle by 2 stops.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 02:00:27 PM »
Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
The Full Frame Myth


Interesting musings.  His viewpoint seems to be that current APS-C sensors can deliver IQ on par with FF sensors in many situations - and that's true.  But the converse is that FF at it's worst is equivalent to APS-C, and in many situations, it's better. 

Also, aside from the IQ considerations, can I get DoF from an APS-C sensor equivalent to f/1.2 on a FF sensor with the same framing and perspective?  No.  Likewise, a significant portion of my shots are at ISO 3200 or higher, and APS-C is significantly inferior to FF in terms of noise at those high ISO settings. 

From a practical level, we buy cameras and not sensors.  There is not an APS-C dSLR that can deliver 12 fps or has the most advanced AF and metering systems that Canon has to offer.

So I keep coming back to my earlier point:  the primary advantage of APS-C sensors, and the cameras in which they are used, is that they cost less.


+1

Smaller pixels tend to produce more false color (noise, grain, bayer demosaicking errors, rough color gradation patterns). Therefore, APS-C requires better lighting conditions to achieve the IQ level similar to same resolution FF sensor ... and perhaps a better lens, which would make the price close to FF combo (it is sad to watch m4/3 users being robbed by Pana, Oly and Leica). In perfect lighting conditions, the difference may be negligible.

35
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 11:05:04 AM »
This is why I have said (and got pounced on for it), that a future 50+ MP full frame camera, is rarely if ever going to fully resolve detail on all of its pixels on most every lens there is...

I wouldn't "pounce" on you for this, but I would disagree. If we were to scale up current APS-C densities they would equal 45 MP or more on FF. The number of lenses and aperture combinations that yield excellent detail and sharpness on my 7D and M are quite large actually. Granted it's more challenging to hold that across the frame on 35mm, but I don't doubt that a 50 MP FF body would prove excellent with good glass and a tripod or IS. I think we would be looking at 75-100 MP before there would be hardly any lenses or apertures that benefit.

I think that "excellent detail and sharpness" is a matter of opinion. I thought my 7D+Sigma 50/1.4 was excellent, until I tried 5D2+50/1.8'II (I hated the build, pentagon aperture and AF noise, but it was SHARP!). FF wins thanks to either bigger pixels or more of them.

36
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:05:26 AM »
There is very little to gain by sticking an L lens on a crop body.


So what ef-s tele lenses do you use (hint: there are none), or what non-L tele lenses do you recommend at a lower price than for example the 70-300L with the same sturdiness and weather sealing?


Actually, there is one pretty decent EF-S tele lens EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens.

37
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:26:20 AM »
Quote
FF Sharper than crop?

Yes, it is, because crop is cropped :).

38
When I was using 7D for macro (mostly hand held) it was very difficult to get the right framing and the subject in perfect focus at the same time. Now, with 6D I don't worry about the framing so much (or at all), because FF is much more crop-friendly, so I can focus on timing and DoF positioning.
Another FF advantage is MP-E 65/2.8 1-5x Macro, which is somewhat limited by it's lowest magnification of 1:1 macro and not every insect is small enough to fit inside APSC framing without cropping something off (long legs, whiskers, etc). You can always crop, so FF gives more flexibility.
TBH, when talking about size, I think that crop sensor has no advantages other than price.

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 10:54:02 AM »
I'm stool a little confused... but I'm glad the topic of conversation has gone back to full v crop and how we measure the difference... having said that... I'm still just as confused as when I first posed the question...

Maybe you are asking the wrong question?

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:39:09 AM »

The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.
That's a leftover from the film era, when the body was mostly a light-tight box for your lenses and for your sensor (film), and no one caring about quality were shooting APS.

Now, an FF body will make your L lenses work better.


I still agree with the sentiment... for 2 reasons... Lenses don't depreciate quickly... so you are better off running your body into the ground (150K of actuations) because it won't really be worth that much after a few years when you try and sell it.  Point in case... the 1d iii which sold for $6K and is now selling for $1k.  Whereas... if you bought a few nice lenses, you can still get well more than 16% of their original value.

And you can put an L lens on an older body and still get fantastic results... depending on what you are shooting.  If it is landscape or portraiture, the advances in high iso performance and AF performance are minimized and you can still get some amazing images using an older XTi.  Heck... if you are still rocking the t2i, there haven't really been that many advances along the lines of the crop sensors that would warrant buying a t5i. 

When I sold my XS... it was a wash... when I sold my 60D, I lost $200 in depreciation... and when I sell my 5D mkiii, I will lose around $1000 in depreciation... which kills me.  But maybe I avoid that by just using the mkiii until it dies in 10 years.

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

"marriage without sex"...isn't that just "marriage"?  :P

Maybe, can't confirm yet :D.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:12:49 AM »
Dear Larry,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

The web is loaded with very skilled photographers pictures - in which we can easily identify that the "picture" we are viewing - is NOT a photograph of something real - but a photograph that was taken "to the next level" and changed into something I would call "digital art".

I am not discussing the what label I would use for the person who created this picture. He or She may well be a world class photographer. I am saying, that to my mind, the result is not a photograph but a picture, and reflects PP skills more then VISION.

Look any pro photographer selling his work, is coerced to doctor up his photos- so the client will be impressed.

PP is so advanced, easily obtained, and easy to use - that we are all tempted to use it!

The results are stunning. The client does not care about how we did it.

However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design.

Is there any camera that can capture a real photograph by your standards? I don't think so. Human vision has much wider dynamic range than any photographic system these days, including film. You can fake it in PP (that's what I'm trying to do most of the time). For me, photography is about capturing information about the real world. Then by manipulating it in PP I can either purify the true data (make it look like I saw it with my own eyes), or add some false information (which would make it a "digital art"). So let's be honest, there is always some amount of false information in all photographs. There is no such thing as a real photograph. You can only decide for yourself if the image contains enough information to call it a photograph.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 10:55:37 PM »
And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?


DoF is dependant on the 'circle of confusion' (CoC) of the sensor, which is determined by the pixel size.
Smaller pixels have smaller CoC so the DoF will be narrower - all else being equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Phil.


That's not it. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from the same distance, you get the same DoF, but 2.5 times smaller FoV on APSC camera. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from different distances to achieve the same framing, then you get different DoF. So, when you are using 35/1.4 on APSC the FL doesn't change, it's still 35mm, but you are using it at a longer distance than on FF, but now it is cropped, so the FoV is 56mm equivalent and that's why you are getting deeper DoF. In other words, you are cropping 56mm FoV out of 35mm FoV shot at a longer distance.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 06:36:42 PM »
I love my primes... and I shot with a 50mm f1.8 for a year or two as my primary lens... but I'm not sure on what planet someone buys a 24 mm lens as their primary do it all lens alone.  No zooms... no other primes... no flashes.

And I realize what sites through the view finder is comparable... but if you give me as a beginner a pile of cash... I don't think I will go out and buy a 24mm prime.

There are many. X100 has 35mm equivalent lens and people love it :). EOS-M has 22mm prime lens which is 35mm equivalent too. I'm using 40STM pancake a lot and it is very close to 35mm. It is a very popular standard focal length. I agree that 24L is not the lens to begin with on crop (huge, heavy, expensive), but for "glass before body" kind of thinking it may be an option.

Quote
With that 1700 I can get a combination of the following depending on what I want to shoot:

Tokina 11-16
Canon 24-70 f2.8L
Sigma 35 art
Canon 50mm f1.4
A 100mm f2.8L is
A 135 f2L
A 70-200 f4L IS
A 430 or 580 ex speedlite...

Mix and match as much as you like... and you will have greater flexibility in your photographic efforts.  True the images will not be quite as nice as a full frame alternative.

Ok, but I choose quality over quantity. I don't need to "cover the range" and it is only one L lens less for FF, really. What you'd get from your list on APSC is:
Tokina 18-26/4.5
Canon 38-112/4.5
Sigma 56/2.2
Canon 80/2.2
A 160/4.5 IS
A 216/3.5
A 112-320/6.3 IS
Nothing impressive for the price :). I have a friend who decided to add a FF camera, so he would have twice more camera/lens combinations with his current lens collection (L zooms mostly), but now I see that he is not using his 550D anymore. 5D3 is so much better, he says :). Now I have to convince him to shoot RAW :D.

Quote
I might be doing a disservice to the 24mm, but it isn't about the individual maximization of the images as much add having the tools to get the images... and a crop will get you there until you have the coin for full frame. 

I feel as though I missing something that needs to be said...

Also... I don't like the math of your example.

That's just one of many possible examples, like FF+85/1.8USM vs Crop+50L, or FF+135L vs Crop+85L

Quote
2650 for the 6d and the 35...
2150ish for the t2i and the 24mm...

Well, you can get a used 5D2 for as low as 1k these days. My point is that you can get a much better combo for just a few hundred $ extra.

Quote
Let's knock off 500 from the full frame option and we are looking at a 35 f2 is.. and suddenly image quality starts to even out...


44
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 10:29:11 AM »

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

I don't think I was saying you should never upgrade your body... but with limited funds and the presumption of good light, you will be better off with a crop sensor plus s good L lenses versus a full frame and a 28-135.

Not to long ago a guy was asking if he should get a5d mkiii to pair with his 70-300... and everyone but me said Heck yes... I don't know if I'm clairvoyant, but I eventually got it out of him that his lens was a 75- 300, which is one of the worst lenses canon makes. 

So with the money, I'd rather spend 3000 on a 24-105, a t3i, a 70-200 f4L IS, and a 580 ex ii over the full frame alternative.  And with my math... I still have enough for a tokina wide angle or some nice primes...

Full frame is great... but you really should have some lenses to complement it.

As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.

If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort.  But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me  $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition.  And I'm happy to oblige.

Somehow most people think that FF is only better for low light and that it is the only advantage over APSC (or maybe they don't care about the rest), while there is actually much more than that (at least 2.5x more). Same people are most likely to support the in-camera JPG propaganda, because they don't care about the difference. If you take 5 different cameras (different brands) and get it all right in camera for shooting the same scene, you'll still get 5 different photographs. Then what? Choose the one you like best and declare all the rest a blasphemy? But do you remember that you did everything right in each camera? That makes no sense. Let's do science, not religion. 24-105L on 6D won't scream "you need something wider!".

Boil it down.  I think I understand what you are saying and then just as quickly I don't have a clue.

I'm saying that 6D+Sigma 35/1.4 (or even 35/2 IS USM) is much better than T2i+24L'II.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 09:59:20 AM »

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

I don't think I was saying you should never upgrade your body... but with limited funds and the presumption of good light, you will be better off with a crop sensor plus s good L lenses versus a full frame and a 28-135.

Not to long ago a guy was asking if he should get a5d mkiii to pair with his 70-300... and everyone but me said Heck yes... I don't know if I'm clairvoyant, but I eventually got it out of him that his lens was a 75- 300, which is one of the worst lenses canon makes. 

So with the money, I'd rather spend 3000 on a 24-105, a t3i, a 70-200 f4L IS, and a 580 ex ii over the full frame alternative.  And with my math... I still have enough for a tokina wide angle or some nice primes...

Full frame is great... but you really should have some lenses to complement it.

As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.

If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort.  But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me  $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition.  And I'm happy to oblige.

Somehow most people think that FF is only better for low light and that it is the only advantage over APSC (or maybe they don't care about the rest), while there is actually much more than that (at least 2.5x more). Same people are most likely to support the in-camera JPG propaganda, because they don't care about the difference. If you take 5 different cameras (different brands) and get it all right in camera for shooting the same scene, you'll still get 5 different photographs. Then what? Choose the one you like best and declare all the rest a blasphemy? But do you remember that you did everything right in each camera? That makes no sense. Let's do science, not religion. 24-105L on 6D won't scream "you need something wider!".

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 35