Kudos to the 6D, but the review also mentions 7D as having an excellent sensor for low-light work, so I don't know what to say...
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.
@sagittariansrock: There is a difference in your explanation than the standard one: Your explanation does not utilize the full sensor area of larger sensors. Your explanation is based on the subject filling the same absolute area of the sensor, regardless of the total sensor area. That is the reach-limited argument. That is the ONE AND ONLY case where smaller sensors can achieve the same image quality as a larger sensor.
The fair comparison is when your subject is framed the same, which means that for progressively larger sensors, a greater absolute area of sensor covers the subject. In that case, everything Orangutang, Lee Jay, and myself have stated is true. There is no circumstance where smaller sensors, regardless of their pixel size, can ever outperform a larger sensor.
The specular highlights produced by the 85 1.8 look angular, not circular. That's part of my consideration when I sold it. Also maximum usable aperture is probably about 2.5 which is too close to my 100L's 2.8. Bokeh is not 135L quality. Nobody should expect that. But it's far better than 50 1.4. Personally like 100mm blur better though. Also it has no weather sealing.
On the good side the 85 focuses faster than the 100L. The focus seems more consistent and reliable. This is only based on my personal experience.
The 85 is a great value lens. You should definitely try it. Nothing to lose.
Don't agree with you on the usable aperture of 2.5. It's the best lens I own and virtually never take it off 1.8 for professional portrait work - it's a belter of lens, I reckon by far the best bang for buck in the Canon line up.
85 f/1.8 is great value but I agree with the previous poster that if you need to stop it down to f/4 for a group shot the angular bokeh is ugly. I wish Canon would update this with a 85mm f/1.8 IS design similar to the 35mm f/2 IS.
I personally would rather have the 100L of the two for its dual purpose macro/general as well as more pleasing bokeh stopped down.
Here are the problems: as I said above, the comparison is irrelevant and misleading unless it's the same framing. I will clarify that to say that it must be photographed initially at the same framing, without any cropping. If you don't start with the same framing you are not comparing the IQ of the sensors, and the comparison is invalid.
You must start with the same frame from on each sensor, or you have no valid data on which perform comparisons.
There are certain reach-limited circumstances (which jrista has illustrated) where a high-density crop sensor can demonstrate superior IQ for a heavily cropped image. However, that's not a comparison of the sensors themselves.
You say "with identical technology, size of sensor is all that matters". I disagree. If you simply made a bigger 7D sensor, with the same technology and same pixel density, then it will have the same noise characteristics as the 7D sensor.
This is totally false. If you make the 7D sensor bigger, you'll have more of the same pixels AND about a stop and a third better noise performance, assuming constant f-stop and constant framing. That means, for the same image, you're going to have to either get closer or use a longer focal length.
Scenario 1: Normalize for pixel size
We have a camera that we can swap sensors on. We mount a 100mm lens to that camera.
The balance you select between the three is what determines the performance of your camera.
The only thing I would dispute is the regular use of "each sensor will have the exact same IQ". Hate to say it, but that is wrong...at least, so long as another required factor is not specified. Sensor size is the primary factor that controls "image quality", not pixel count, not pixel size. You could have twice the Q.E. on a smaller sensor, and the only one that would then only EQUAL the IQ of the larger sensor is the one that is exactly half it's size. A 4/3rds or 1/2.3 could never compare to the IQ of a FF sensor, not even with double the Q.E.
Now, the statement about equal IQ would be true...IF the aperture was specified. The 100mm lens on a FF sensor has to be using a smaller aperture than the 61.7mm lens, by a factor of the differences of the sensor diagonals. If the 61.7mm lens is f/2.8, then the 100mm lens should be f/4.5. THEN, and ONLY THEN, would "each sensor have the exact same IQ." You have to use a smaller aperture to normalize the amount of light reaching the sensor. Otherwise, one has to assume the same aperture. A 100mm lens on FF produces the same FoV as a 61.7mm lens on APS-C, however if they are both f/2.8, the FF sensor is without question gathering more light.
Equivalence. Aperture matters here.
I've said this so man times...but, I think Orangutan is the only one who actually heard it. So I'll just quote his answer:
This is EXACTLY CORRECT. The only thing that really matters in the end, assuming all the sensors use the same technology, is TOTAL light gathered. More light, less noise. It's as simple as that. Pixel size doesn't really matter from a noise standpoint. Smaller pixels in the SAME sensor size mean you get more resolution, that does increase IQ...but smaller pixels in a smaller sensor DO NOT mean better IQ....they just mean more resolution, but with worse IQ.
This is equivalence. This scientific concept is documented very, very, very thouroughly here:
If you still doubt, please, read the article on equivalence linked above. It's really not that complicated of a concept.
Obviously, the FF sensor takes in more light, but it is spread over a wider field of view and the light per pixel is the same.
But the output image (print, projected image, etc) is the same size, so the light gathered by the FF sensor requires less enlargement (attenuation) to achieve that output size, and this negates your argument.
So I believe you're mistaken: with identical technology, the size of the sensor is all that matters for low-light properties. For ample-light IQ, total MP, AA filter, etc are definitely important for resolution.
I'm sure jrista will jump in here any minute to correct us all. :-)
I think most everything that has needed to be said has been said... now there IS a way to diffuse the light more all things being equal, but it is also a sacrifice in essence... One person said it wouldn't diffuse any more than shooting through diffusion material... Well yes and no... And here's the whole crux... not all diffusion material is created equal... You can utilize thicker diffusion material which will disperse the light even more making it appear softer, or double/triple/quadruple the diffusion to make it softer and softer... BUT, as we all know it means we lose more light power and affect, meaning the light would have to be closer to the subject to get the same amount of light. Now here's also another tactic, the closer the light, the softer the light... The farther the light, the harder the light... so this may very well have really thick diffusion on the "softbox" softening the light, requiring you to shoot closer, more power, and thus softening the light even more. NOW, dont get me wrong, i'm not saying it will be an attractive light. As professional and amateur photographers, we are conditioned that bigger the light source, in relation to the subject, the better, whereas this MAY be a small soft light-sourse close to the subject... So it just wont have the same effect that a 16x20 or bigger softbox can produce... it physically cant. For run and gun, grip and grins event style photographers, i can see how this MAY grab someones attention... So i wont say this is a complete design fail... I wont even say that this is a flawed product... but if they can improve upon this in future releases (and hopefully bring down costs to a more palatable level, then maybe the inventor may be on to something)...
Don't agree, just like sensors size trumps all. Look at some of the pro modifiers now, they are 7' and bigger, why? Because size invariably trumps being closer.
A good rule of thumb with modifiers is to take their size as the optimal distance from the subject, 20" modifier 20" from the subject, 50" modifier 50" from the subject, scale that down to this useless snake oil and you need to be 3" or 4" from the subject, and if the subject is more than 3" or 4" wide you are going to get big falloff issues.
I think your confusion the quality of the light vs the softness/effect of the light... I'm not arguing that a bigger modifier will give a better quality of light and better affect... I am just saying it's possible with heavy diffusion to soften the light, although the quality and usefulness of the light will be in question.
Well, he's defending a relative. And maybe he's a backer...
Now, to those who say pop-up flashes are terrible, there is a nice solution called the Lightscoop (you can Google it).
I think a key point can be drawn here. You have a solution, but having a solution by definition means having a problem (unless you're in government). The pop up flash is inherently a problem.
I'm sorry to hear you had that experience. And I don't want to sound like I'm criticising you - but I do wonder if there's a logical link between the technology and practitioners' professionalism.
I have no experience of film photography beyond point-and-shoot family/holiday snapshots from my younger days, so maybe I'm missing a lot. But I don't think good quality digital photography is easy, nor can it be mastered (especially with a DSLR) in minutes. There are cowboys in every field - and I suspect there always have been. And it seems that most of what makes wedding photography challenging is beyond the camera - it's about scouting the location, talking to the clients and understanding their needs, getting to the venue on time, having backup equipment/assistants, and producing a package (nowadays likely in book form) that merits the occasion (thinking about it, I suppose most types of photography rely on a lot more than the camera and strict photographic technique, but anyway). Given how much people spend on weddings, and wedding photographers these days, surely (at the better end) things have improved? Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but my grandparents' expectations were very limited (they were only allowed 6 shots due to rationing, and they were just snaps, nothing fancy) - whereas a recent friend's wedding involved (after much research on the best photographer for their needs) a separate shoot on location, video, a glossy hardback book, etc.
Why would shooting on film make someone more professional? Were film cameras much more expensive? I suppose proper photographers would have a darkroom, but if you were slapdash in those days, maybe you'd get someone else to do it?
Just lots of questions arise when people compare the pre-digital era with today, I hope you don't mind
Thanks for the information. BTW, the Clutch looks awesome. I am getting it when it's out.There still may be time to get the discounted price as it's in the last couple of days of the Kickstarter process.
If you miss that, 1KindPhoto http://www.1kindphotography.com/2014/01/deal-peak-design-bundles-save-up-to-15-plus-additional-10-off.html has a discount code for Peak Design.
coupon code: 1kindphoto