November 27, 2014, 11:17:31 AM

Author Topic: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers  (Read 8954 times)

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4279
    • View Profile
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2013, 10:05:39 PM »
+1...FF is the way to go.

Off optic: I tried X100S and I didn't like the look of 1600ISO in lower light. I took 20 shots at the parking lot. too grainny for my taste. I'm glad I got the RX1 as my P&S camera ;)
Bodies: 1DX -- 5D III
Zooms: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Primes: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2013, 10:05:39 PM »

rifz

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2013, 10:19:54 PM »
I upgraded from the 7D to 6D. The noise in low light on the 7D was ruining my portraits. I'm amazed at how nice the 6D high ISO noise looks, like film grain instead of a blotchy mess. I miss the 7D AF a little bit, but it's well worth giving up for much better images. love full frame.  :)

pj1974

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 384
    • View Profile
    • A selection of my photos (copyright)
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2013, 10:23:03 PM »

-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.

Glad that there is SOME sense in this thread... (eg the above 2 posts). And a few others that state that the 7D (and even other APS-C cameras) are really decent. If people have issues with the 7D's AF, they've probably not learned how to use it. I have used both FF and APS-C, and know the benefits of both, and when to use what. Just because a FF is generally superior for eg landscape, portrait, etc doesn't mean it's 'useless' or 'a toy'.

I'm glad the original poster (OP) humbly admitted that he's not the world's best photog. He's not. (And note, neither am I - though I have some photos that have won awards and been greatly appreciated)  Some of the OP's photos are quite good, and I'm sure various viewers genuinely appreciate them.

However to suggest that equipment is more important than skill isn't true. It seems that the OP has managed to compose with his new FF DSLR and 50mm f/1.4  Kudos, but very similar images could have been produced on an APS-C with eg a good 35mm lens. The difference isn't as great as some people think.

I've seen people take stunning photos with point and shoot (P&S) cameras. Knowing how to capture light AND how to use one's equipment to maximum benefit is very important. Of course having great equipment helps, and there are some types of photos one can't do with a P&S.

And then there was the person who wrote: "i could never get over the crop factor killing the wide angle end of my lenses and hated the idea of getting lenses that couldn't migrate to any body i would get in the future."
Well it's a shame that people get EF lenses and don't realise there are so many great, dedicated lenses for APS-C. I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.

And someone else wrote that they couldn't compose with a APS-C - but could with a FF. Hmmm... again it seems people don't understand that you NEED the right lens for the job. I have used eg a 24-105mm on a 5D, as well as a 15-85mm on a 7D. Get and use the lens you need, but don't complain if you are using the wrong lenses on a crop body.

I've been both impressed with the 5DmkIII and 6D as recent FF cameras, and I'm also certainly interested to see what Canon will release with a 7DmkII... Different cameras for different purposes.  As someone else had stated, it's also important to remember that building both APS-C bodies and lenses to match saves significant costs. So again, there is place for both FF and APS-C, in terms of the target market / budget, etc.

Cheers, all.

Paul
I'm not a brand-fanatic. What I do appreciate is using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2013, 10:58:03 PM »
I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.
At equivalent or equal apertures?

brad goda

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2013, 11:17:35 PM »
8X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
bigger is better... or used to be.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3526
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2013, 11:23:49 PM »
8X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
bigger is better... or used to be.

If they made an 4x5 sensor or 8x10 sensor that behaved just like film. We wouldn't even be talking about d800s.

pj1974

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 384
    • View Profile
    • A selection of my photos (copyright)
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2013, 08:32:10 AM »
I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.
At equivalent or equal apertures?

At equivalent apertures *1, and definitely at equal apertures *2.

1) eg Sigma 10-20mm @ f/5.6 vs Canon 17-40mm @ f/8 or f/9. I've seen so many shots of FF with good L glass zooms - even stopped down they don't match the crispness of APS-C. Not ALWAYS, but often!  These pages give you an indication / comparison (which is matched up by my real work usage):
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d?start=1

2) eg Canon 10-22mm at wide end at f/5.6, even with the Canon 16-35mm, I've seen an advantage to the APS-C 'cutting off' the corners of the lens....

Paul

I'm not a brand-fanatic. What I do appreciate is using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2013, 08:32:10 AM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2013, 08:49:30 AM »
I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.
At equivalent or equal apertures?

At equivalent apertures *1, and definitely at equal apertures *2.

1) eg Sigma 10-20mm @ f/5.6 vs Canon 17-40mm @ f/8 or f/9. I've seen so many shots of FF with good L glass zooms - even stopped down they don't match the crispness of APS-C. Not ALWAYS, but often!  These pages give you an indication / comparison (which is matched up by my real work usage):
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d?start=1
AT equal apertures, it is not even of academic interest. At equivalent, I can see only the 10-22 beating the 17-40 at the wide end. This is the only example I know when crop beats (somewhere across the frame) FF, and this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=271&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 actually contradicts PZ in that case.
Quote
2) eg Canon 10-22mm at wide end at f/5.6, even with the Canon 16-35mm, I've seen an advantage to the APS-C 'cutting off' the corners of the lens....

It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1326
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2013, 10:48:22 AM »
I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.
At equivalent or equal apertures?

At equivalent apertures *1, and definitely at equal apertures *2.

1) eg Sigma 10-20mm @ f/5.6 vs Canon 17-40mm @ f/8 or f/9. I've seen so many shots of FF with good L glass zooms - even stopped down they don't match the crispness of APS-C. Not ALWAYS, but often!  These pages give you an indication / comparison (which is matched up by my real work usage):
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d?start=1

2) eg Canon 10-22mm at wide end at f/5.6, even with the Canon 16-35mm, I've seen an advantage to the APS-C 'cutting off' the corners of the lens....

Paul
I loved the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 IS at 12mm on my 7d and at 16mm on my 5d3!  I couldn't believe I could use it on my 5d3 but at 16mm it's excellent!  Kind of a neat surprise since I was going to sell it since I bought the 5d3.  Using it at 16mm has worked out well for my Real Estate Photography work... still looking for a good uwa for my 5d3 in an L lens though...
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1326
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2013, 10:49:12 AM »
8X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
bigger is better... or used to be.

If they made an 4x5 sensor or 8x10 sensor that behaved just like film. We wouldn't even be talking about d800s.
+1
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1326
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2013, 10:54:15 AM »
I upgraded from the 7D to 6D. The noise in low light on the 7D was ruining my portraits. I'm amazed at how nice the 6D high ISO noise looks, like film grain instead of a blotchy mess. I miss the 7D AF a little bit, but it's well worth giving up for much better images. love full frame.  :)
I didn't get rid of my 7d when I made the jump to a 5d3, I did make the jump however due to the same issues.  Some portraiture was ruined with the 7d in low light, good off camera lighting always helped in those situations though.  My issue was that most of the noise issues in portraiture required much more processing time than those I'm now getting with my 5d3... It was a workflow issue for me.  I still use my 7d a fair amount for birding and sports, albeit not as much as I used too.. The 7d may still end up going sometime in the near future but not just yet, I still love it!
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2013, 12:25:10 PM »
It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.

Is there not something to be said for a more even resolution across the frame and less vignetting? The Canon 10-22 also has much better barrel distortion than the 17-40 used on crop or full frame for that matter. You might be able to use your 'garden variety' zoom on FF to do better, but that FF body you are using will have cost you more in the first place. Cost is not irrelevent. I would be using FF for landscape if I could afford it, but even the 6D is out of my reach at the moment. Couple that with the cost of a decent wideangle lens to use with it. I own the 17-40 but at it's wide end it's not a fantastic performer on FF unless stopped down a fair bit. So just looking at Canon glass, because I PERSONALLY don't want to use third party lenses, what are my options?

Canon 14 and 24 L primes. 24-70 f2.8/4 L Zooms, all way in excess of £1000. Same for the 16-35 L which isn't massively better than the 17-40 at equivalent apertures. The only other option is the 24-105 which is cheaper I grant you, but not ultrawide.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 12:27:08 PM by insanitybeard »
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

Wilmark

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
    • Wilmark Johnatty Photography
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #42 on: April 04, 2013, 02:09:30 PM »
Is there such a thing as FF nay-sayers? I really doubt it.  I think there are FF owners and those who would like to be be FF owners. And the 7D? I used to own one before - its low light performance was really discouraging. I hate to be blunt but the 7d (and the rest of canons line crop line up) sucks and any kind of low light. And those who say they like the 'reach' of the crop sensor cameras, reminds me of the day when people thought that Digital zoom was useful!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #42 on: April 04, 2013, 02:09:30 PM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2013, 07:31:29 PM »
It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.

Is there not something to be said for a more even resolution across the frame and less vignetting? The Canon 10-22 also has much better barrel distortion than the 17-40 used on crop or full frame for that matter. You might be able to use your 'garden variety' zoom on FF to do better, but that FF body you are using will have cost you more in the first place. Cost is not irrelevent. I would be using FF for landscape if I could afford it, but even the 6D is out of my reach at the moment. Couple that with the cost of a decent wideangle lens to use with it. I own the 17-40 but at it's wide end it's not a fantastic performer on FF unless stopped down a fair bit. So just looking at Canon glass, because I PERSONALLY don't want to use third party lenses, what are my options?

Canon 14 and 24 L primes. 24-70 f2.8/4 L Zooms, all way in excess of £1000. Same for the 16-35 L which isn't massively better than the 17-40 at equivalent apertures. The only other option is the 24-105 which is cheaper I grant you, but not ultrawide.

The 17-40 stopped down? You should consider the fact that in equivalent terms, the 10-22 is already stopped down quite a bit. It is an excellent lens, I owned it.

If you want to go to 16-17mm eq., then the 17-40 is not great in the borders but I doubt that it is really worse than the 10-22 both at equivalent settings. For anything else, it is no contest. Any reasonable recent lens on FF will beat by far the best L on crop, away from that UWA range maybe.

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1326
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2013, 07:44:37 PM »
Is there such a thing as FF nay-sayers? I really doubt it.  I think there are FF owners and those who would like to be be FF owners. And the 7D? I used to own one before - its low light performance was really discouraging. I hate to be blunt but the 7d (and the rest of canons line crop line up) sucks and any kind of low light. And those who say they like the 'reach' of the crop sensor cameras, reminds me of the day when people thought that Digital zoom was useful!
The 7D doesn't suck at all, it's been a very relevant camera in it's class and still is.  I have very usable images all the way up to ISO 3200 with my 7D and have posted some in this forum before.  The simple answer to any low light issues with a 7D is OCL, if you're doing portraiture.  My 5d3 is a great low light performer, interestingly enough, I use OCL with it for portraiture as well... Sometimes it's not neccesarily the gear... The 7d has served thousands of photographers quite well for the last several years, despite the yacking about low light issues...
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers
« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2013, 07:44:37 PM »