5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)

[neuroanatomist]

I know it wasnt my topic but thanks, that makes sence, and stupidly i never even considered stopping down a little bit more. I stop down as much as i dare with my 450D (up to f11) when doing small item studio stuff to get larger dof.
For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. Thats why i like lots of dof.

In that case, the best answer is not aperture, but tilt.  You usually hear about the TS-E lenses in the context of architectural photography - that's a primary use of the TS-E 17mm f/4L and the 24mm f/3.5L II (I have the latter).  But there are also 45mm f/2.8 and 90mm f/2.8 TS-E lenses (non-L, at least for now) - and a primary use for those lenses is product photography. 

The tilt feature allows you to increase your DoF without narrowing your aperture so much that diffraction and dust become serious issues.  Check out the TS-E 90mm info on Northlight, which shows some nice mouse-overs of product-type images comparing f/8 vs. f/8 with tilt, for example.

So...if product photography is key for you, consider a 45mm or 90mm TS-E lens.  Used copies show up on CL/FM for $800-900 (there was a TS-E 45mm f/2.8 on my local CL a couple of weeks ago for $650), and Keh has them for around $1K.

[sawsedge]

I hope neuroanatomist is wrong about the 5D mark III specs.    I do hope for a 7D body with a FF sensor.  The 1D X AF is supposed to be improved over the 7D system, plus it is capable of higher fps.   I think that and build quality should be enough to distinguish the lines.   I personally don't want a 1D-sized body in my bag.

Also, I hope the 7D mark II remains at 18 mpix and that Canon concentrates on improving ISO performance and DR.  From what I've seen of the Sony 24 mpix sensor, Sony went way too far.  The noise looks bad, the details severely lacking once NR is applied, and they have a strange cross pattern.

[awinphoto]

I know it wasnt my topic but thanks, that makes sence, and stupidly i never even considered stopping down a little bit more. I stop down as much as i dare with my 450D (up to f11) when doing small item studio stuff to get larger dof.
For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. Thats why i like lots of dof.

Is using the 50mm prime lens on a 5D2 a good idea for this scale, as DOF will be greater that say the 100mm macro

( i like the comment "Shoot at F2.8 instead of f2" lol, wrong end)

Cheers

Do you use photoshop CS5 or 5.5?  I shoot product photography a good chunk of my time (what pays most my bills)... I do focus bracketing... I need sets to be sharp whether I clip out the images and shove them on the web or whether they go on magazine spreads... I focus on varying parts of the scene and then in photoshop, I usually auto align the images, then after that, auto blend them with the stack images selected... It will take the sharpest parts of the images and blend them to look like one large DOF image... It usually does a good job and gets you in the ballpark... I use it from the smallest teenie tiny bottle cap where I'm basically shooting macro distances to fill the frame to a large group shot of product.  It allows me to use a small studio, optimum aperture for sharpest images, and I dont mind photoshop so it works out.  If you have a flat scene or keeping backgrounds in, it may do a better job than others, but something to consider.  I've gotten so used to my workflow it doesn't take me that much longer than regular 1 shot images... 

[neuroanatomist]

Do you use photoshop CS5 or 5.5?  I shoot product photography a good chunk of my time (what pays most my bills)... I do focus bracketing...

Not to muck with a successful workflow, but have you considered Helicon Focus?

[awinphoto]

Do you use photoshop CS5 or 5.5?  I shoot product photography a good chunk of my time (what pays most my bills)... I do focus bracketing...

Not to muck with a successful workflow, but have you considered Helicon Focus?

I looked into programs such as helicon a few years ago (before photoshop started supporting focus stacking)... At that time, I proposed this option to my client however they felt that the cost I would have passed onto them for that option wasn't worth it... then CS5 came out and supported it... Since they are a regular client they pay for my software upgrades as they see fit as per our contract and so to have that option built in was an easy sell.  Also I never have to leave photoshop whereas helicon i believe is a standalone program?  Photoshop saves the layers under layer masks so if I need to tweak anything, a few clicks and it's good to go..  The simpler I can keep my workflow the quicker I can get stuff done and it's a win win for me and my clients. 

[Doc]

Hey all, new user to the forum

I've been reading through this thread and there's a lot of interesting points raised, but for me, the one thing I'd like an honest opinion on would be how the 5dmk2 compares to my 550d in the area of AF and speed. I'd be happy if it was 'at least as good' in practice for the type of photography I do. I got the 550d as a first 'proper' camera and although I could have got the 7d at the time, the money I saved went towards decent glass.

Thanks, Mike.

[thepancakeman]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the differences between FF and crop, and that being the case this question may have been addressed indirectly and I just didn't get it. 

For the same framing, do you have the same field "compression" or "expansion" between the two?  What I mean is this--if you have a FF at 40mm and a crop at 24mm and you frame a portrait the same, would they have the same "make the nose bigger" effect?

[K-amps]

I agree. They do compliment each other.

I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.

Is this for RAW's or jpegs?

[neuroanatomist]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the differences between FF and crop, and that being the case this question may have been addressed indirectly and I just didn't get it. 

For the same framing, do you have the same field "compression" or "expansion" between the two?  What I mean is this--if you have a FF at 40mm and a crop at 24mm and you frame a portrait the same, would they have the same "make the nose bigger" effect?

Effectively, yes.  The truth is that perspective (and the resulting 'distortions' - compression and extension) is determined solely by distance at which the image is taken.  So, in your example, since you are using different focal lengths to compensate for the effect of sensor size on field of view, you'd be at the same distance from the subject for both shots, and thus the 'nose bigger' effect would be the same (although at 40mm on FF, it wouldn't be too bad unless you had the lens really close to the subject).

[unfocused]

For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. Thats why i like lots of dof.

Is using the 50mm prime lens on a 5D2 a good idea for this scale, as DOF will be greater that say the 100mm macro

I'll probably get this massively wrong and I'm sure the lens experts here will correct me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

In your example, I believe a lens with longer focal length could actually be better. Here is the way I understand it: there is a relationship between depth of field and the distance of the subject to the lens. The further you are from your subject the greater the depth of field in actual distance. To give you a gross example: when you are shooting with the lens on infinity, subjects that may be hundreds of feet apart will be in focus. On the other hand, if you are just a few inches from the subject, the depth of field is going to be very narrow.

Using your football example, a sort focal length lens that is close to the football may mean that only the stitching is in focus even with the lens stopped down because the relative distance between the front and back ends of the football are much greater. With a longer lens, (and presuming you have enough room to back up and still get the image framed) the relative distance between the front end of the football and the back end of the football is much less. So, it may be possible that by stopping the longer lens down you can get the whole subject in focus. 

To use another example, many photographers prefer a longer lens for portraits because the relative distance between, say, the subject's nose and ears is effectively compressed by the longer lens, making it easier to get the entire face in focus. With a wider lens, that relative distance increases. (There is, of course, another major advantage to the longer lens, because it flattens the facial features, making the nose less prominent, whereas the shorter lens places the nose in much closer relative proximity to the lens than the eyes, making the nose appear bigger. Since most people think small noses are more appealing, the longer lenses are preferred).

Now, as I understand it, if the camera were to remain fixed, and you switched lenses, the shorter lens would have the same depth of field as the longer lens. But, since you are unlikely to be doing that, getting further away from your subject increases the depth of field. (As I understand it, this is why a crop sensor has greater apparent depth of field, because the actual distance to the subject is greater than with a full frame camera).

Okay, that's an explanation from a guy who never took a physics course in his life. I'll let others give you a more precise or corrected explanation. (Or perhaps explain why I am completely wrong)

[Kernuak]

Bottom line of this rambling post: Do those who use both a 7D and a 5d II really see a difference in the final product? And if so, do you feel the differences are visible at say 8x10. Do you feel the differences are visible at ISO 100-400 or only at higher ISOs?

Now, I know that preferences are personal and can only be ultimately decided by the photographer after having used both cameras, but I do wonder if the 5DII/7D dual body owners would be willing to give an honest assessment of the differences they can actually see in image quality.

There is a marked difference at high ISO. You get at least one stop more on the 5dII - I dont even stop to think about shooting at 1600iso with the 5DII whereas I wonder at 800iso on the 7D. Lets face it, both cameras give really good IQ, but it seems easier to get on the 5DII as the images from the 7D are not so tolerant of pp work - such as cropping or exposure changes.

I believe I see more detail coming through on large prints with the 5DII, but that is not backed up with a scientific study. Again more so when cropping has happened.

I agree with melbournite - they compliment each other and fill in the gaps of limitations

I agree. They do compliment each other.

I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.

I think I must be more tolerant of noise than most people, as I am happy to go to ISO 1600 on the 7D and haven't had a problem with acceptance by stock agencies. That could be down to use of 400 ASA film years ago, where the grain was much more obvious. However, exposure has to be perfect and if there are a lot of blues or shadows, then noise can get too much. On the other hand, as I start to use the 5D MkII more in low light, I'm becoming happy to use it at ISO 3200, but I'm still exploring and I've even used it at ISO 6400, where noise also looks pretty low, although I may be losing detail due to the noise characteristics (or it could have been the relatively low shutterspeed). At all ISOs though, the 5D MkII is noticeably cleaner at 100%, but in prints, it isn't really obvious (or at 50%, which is often a better fit to prints). I also see significantly sharper images with the 5D, but some of that is also overcome with sharpening. Less definable, is the tonality of the 5D, there's just some indefinable quality and the dynamic range is certainly noticeable, which probably helps the tonality.

[neuroanatomist]

For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. I'll probably get this massively wrong and I'm sure the lens experts here will correct me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

In your example, I believe a lens with longer focal length could actually be better. Here is the way I understand it: there is a relationship between depth of field and the distance of the subject to the lens. The further you are from your subject the greater the depth of field in actual distance.

Okay, that's an explanation from a guy who never took a physics course in his life. I'll let others give you a more precise or corrected explanation. (Or perhaps explain why I am completely wrong)

Here comes the correction...

Basically, aperture determines DoF.  You're right that focus distance also affects DoF...and if you shoot from a longer distance, the DoF gets deeper.  But focal length also affects DoF...and if you shoot with a longer lens, the DoF gets shallower.  So, those two cancel each other out.  Try plugging some numbers into DoFMaster.  Let's use the example at hand - filling the frame (on APS-C) with a football.  Say you're using a 50mm lens, a football is 11.25" long, so you'd be at 25".  At 50mm f/11 and 25" distance on 1.6x, according to DoFMaster your DoF is 2.5" - clearly not enough for the diameter of the football, and thus the OP's problem.  So, you switch to a 200mm lens.  Now, to have an 11.25" wide frame at 200mm, you need to be 100" away from the football.  Plug 200mm f/11 and 100" distance on 1.6x into DoFMaster and...you get exactly the same 2.5" DoF.  So, as you can see increasing focal length and increasing distance have equal but opposite effect on DoF.  Put another way, for the same framing (with a given sensor size), it doesn't matter what the focal length or distance are - if the shots are framed identically, aperture will determine DoF.

What will differ in the above scenario is the perspective - that is determined solely by distance.  So, the shot with the 200mm lens would look more compressed, if there was more than one subject in the frame especially.  But the region of the subject that's in focus will not change.

[awinphoto]

Okay, that's an explanation from a guy who never took a physics course in his life. I'll let others give you a more precise or corrected explanation. (Or perhaps explain why I am completely wrong)

Both aperture AND relation of the subject to camera will determine DOF.  IF you are shooting infinity, as you mention, you can shoot at F4 and most items will be infocus (except perhaps foreground items)... Aperture will expand upon that but it is what it is.  The only downside to the infinity issue is size of objects... I do a lot of small object photography so even if I have a 200-400mm lens at infinity... Even if I put that puppy at F11-22, the item most likely due to the distance I would have to be away from the subject to achieve this, it would A be impractical in a studio setting and B, the items would be teenie tiny in the frame... Now you can use, and I do on occasion, tele's to compress or achieve even shallower DOF when I know my background can be distracting or if there is a visible seam in the background that I want to blur into oblivion, But then again I've got that lens near the "macro" end of the tele in which DOF becomes razor thin.  Diffraction usually isn't a problem for what I do however if I'm shooting for large output, I shoot anywhere from F8-11... Any more and I dont want to risk image degeneration, even if it's minimal.  In the film days and with medium format and large format I wouldn't think twice about going to F22 and way beyond but with digital, I do have to think about shooting at the optimum apertures for my lenses. 

[AprilForever]

I agree. They do compliment each other.

I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.

Is this for RAW's or jpegs?

For sports and wildlife, I regularly use 7D ISO 500-1000. Careful noise reduction and careful sharpening can help, but frankly, mostly the images are fine without a whole lot of trouble. This is with both RAW and JPG.

Usually, I shoot RAW, bit for BIFs, sometimes JPG makes life easier... And the noise still isn't that bad!

[awinphoto]

I agree. They do compliment each other.

I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.

Is this for RAW's or jpegs?

For sports and wildlife, I regularly use 7D ISO 500-1000. Careful noise reduction and careful sharpening can help, but frankly, mostly the images are fine without a whole lot of trouble. This is with both RAW and JPG.

Usually, I shoot RAW, bit for BIFs, sometimes JPG makes life easier... And the noise still isn't that bad!

ISO is a personal preference... I come from the film days where grain was fully dependent on the size of the film (35mm, MF, 4x5), the size of the output, and ISO... ISO 400 on a 35mm at 8x10 was very noticeable but you lived with it... Then digi came out and the Canon 10D and D60 and anything above ISO 800 looked like somone sneezed on the image.  Now I can go up to ISO 3200 on my 7D and get grain at 11x14's as I would expect in Film at the same size at ISO 400.  I am not as picky about it because If it comes down to it, I know i can always throw a filter in and wipe out most the noise.  Anyone, in my opinion, not shooting a modern camera because of grain, really has too much time on their hands... It's really not the issue that it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc...