First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers

[docsmith]

Of course, we are comparing older technology to the most recent technology.  I am very curious regarding the 7DII and what a crop sensor is capable of.  For example, can the accomplishments of the D800/Sony sensor be scaled up to the equivalent of 45 FF MPs and then cropped down and put into an 18 MP APS-C sensor?  How would that cropped sensor compare to the current canon FF sensors?

Not trying to bring up Nikon/Sony, etc....just pointing out that we've seen technology that with a few more advancements could make APS-C a lot closer to FF.

But....it may never come to fruition........

[Jay Khaos]

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people think they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them. .. Oh, those lost years.

I agree... I was one too lol.  I don't understand the "reach" arguement.  Your lens is what gives you reach.  A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops.  Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)

[Jackson_Bill]

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people think they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them. .. Oh, those lost years.

I agree... I was one too lol.  I don't understand the "reach" arguement.  Your lens is what gives you reach.  A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops.  Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)

Same supertele, same distance to the subject, decent light, crop the FF to the 1.6 dimensions and print it at 16 x 20.
The crop gives you  217 pixels per inch, the FF gives you 150, hence a better print. 
No appreciable difference in IQ IMO, and I don't care about the bokeh in that situation.

[emag]

I saw a Brownie Hawkeye at the flea market this weekend.  That was my first camera a 'few' years ago, takes me back to the 'darkroom' in a bathroom.  I wonder if there will be a similar degree of change in photography in the next 50 years - full sensory recording wired to the brain or some such. 

Okay - getting back to the FF/crop discussion.   Again?  Haven't we hashed this out enough?  You say tomayto I say tomahto.

[RS2021]

You are preaching to the Choir, bro.   I agree FF is the future. Crops were stop-gaps.

[RS2021]

As for reach, extenders are getting better and better. Yes, probably there is a smidge of IQ trade off, but I am sure that also happens when they squeeze 22 Kazillion pixels into an APS-C sensor.

[dlleno]

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people think they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them. .. Oh, those lost years.

I agree... I was one too lol.  I don't understand the "reach" arguement.  Your lens is what gives you reach.  A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops.  Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)

Same supertele, same distance to the subject, decent light, crop the FF to the 1.6 dimensions and print it at 16 x 20.
The crop gives you  217 pixels per inch, the FF gives you 150, hence a better print. 
No appreciable difference in IQ IMO, and I don't care about the bokeh in that situation.

when the crop and the FF sensor are both from the same technology cycle.

[PaperTiger]

I run a 5DII and a 7D, which works really well. Get different properties out of the same lenses based on the body used. For example, the 85L is a great portrait lens on the 5DII but the focus speed is horrendous. With it paired to the 7D it nails focus quickly at F1.2. I was shooting snowboarding all day yesterday with both bodies and got great shots with both.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I saw a Brownie Hawkeye at the flea market this weekend.  That was my first camera a 'few' years ago, takes me back to the 'darkroom' in a bathroom.  I wonder if there will be a similar degree of change in photography in the next 50 years - full sensory recording wired to the brain or some such. 

Okay - getting back to the FF/crop discussion.   Again?  Haven't we hashed this out enough?  You say tomayto I say tomahto.

I was started on the Brownie as well, it was the early 1950's, then a Yashica TLR, and then a Argus C3 before buying my First Canon FT-QL in the 1960's.  Just between 1998 and 2013, the camera world has been turned on its head, I expect that in the next 20 years, we will see big changes, and yes, there will be things that seem like crazy dreams now.  Quite a bit of work is being done to link up cameras to the brains of people who are blind, for example, and that research will start to pay off sooner than we think.

[Don Haines]

I shot my first wedding with the paring of a 5Diii and a 5Dii

The 5D2 was generally accepted as THE camera for wedding photographgers.... until the 5D3 came out and took the spot... One would hope that it worked better than a general purpose intermediate camera and a sports/birding camera......

[Don Haines]

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people think they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them. .. Oh, those lost years.

I agree... I was one too lol.  I don't understand the "reach" arguement.  Your lens is what gives you reach.  A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops.  Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)

The APS-C sensor is sampling the central part of the image with 1.6 times the pixel density of the FF sensor. If the glass is up to it and you are in the lower iso ranges you get better resolving power and equivalent noise out of APS-C (assuming same generation of sensors.... can't compare new to 4 year old...). Use poor glass and the FF outresolves... and at high ISO FF has less noise. Sampling the smaller area is problematic for wide angle shots but benificial to long shots... Lenses can be made smaller, cheaper, and lighter for APS-C, but at the cost of resolving power.... There is no easy answer, just a bunch of tradeoffs.

[dlleno]

+1 that is a real good summary.  not many appreciate that with the higher pixel density there are greater demands on the resolving power of the lens, which will also approach its diffraction-limit at a wider aperture. 

the interesting tests are yet to come, i.e. new generation APS-C sensor (presumedly) compared to cropped images from 5D3, for example.  and then the leap frog games begin, i.e. the 7D2 will live for another 4 years, during which time the 5D4 will emerge and make a new challenge to the high density sensors.

[Krob78]

  Still loving both!

[9VIII]

Practically it all comes down to whether your uses require more reach than your glass can give you. As soon as you're too far away to frame the subject properly crop sensors are superior (for now. Some day all sensors will at least be available in the same pixel density. At that point crop sensors will only be better at costing less).
Of course if you can get close enough we would be better off with even bigger sensors. At some point in the future medium format and 35mm users will be having the same conversation we're having now (if they aren't already).

[AdamJ]

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people think they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them. .. Oh, those lost years.

I agree... I was one too lol.  I don't understand the "reach" arguement.  Your lens is what gives you reach.  A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops.  Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)

The APS-C sensor is sampling the central part of the image with 1.6 times the pixel density of the FF sensor. If the glass is up to it and you are in the lower iso ranges you get better resolving power and equivalent noise out of APS-C (assuming same generation of sensors.... can't compare new to 4 year old...). Use poor glass and the FF outresolves... and at high ISO FF has less noise. Sampling the smaller area is problematic for wide angle shots but benificial to long shots... Lenses can be made smaller, cheaper, and lighter for APS-C, but at the cost of resolving power.... There is no easy answer, just a bunch of tradeoffs.

Clarification on the highlighted bits above:

APS-C pixel density relative to FF depends entirely on the number of pixels. A 7D has more than twice the pixel density of a 5D Mk III. A Nikon D800 (FF) has a higher pixel density than a Canon 40D (APS-C).

If an FF image is cropped to match an APS-C image (i.e. the same subject taken from the same distance with the same lens, focal length and aperture), the two images will have identical bokeh.