October 30, 2014, 01:56:15 PM

Author Topic: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)  (Read 28603 times)

mreco99

  • Guest
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #75 on: November 01, 2011, 05:52:53 PM »
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 have tried and bought helicon focus a few months ago, whilst it is good, you do need to fix some mistakes, and a rack for the camera would help the little size diffrences caused by refocusing.
Auto bracketing? is that a camera option i missed?

and yes i am a ps5 fan :-)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #75 on: November 01, 2011, 05:52:53 PM »

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2193
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #76 on: November 01, 2011, 05:56:00 PM »
Quote
Here comes the correction...


Quote
Both aperture AND relation of the subject to camera will determine DOF.

I stand corrected. Always nice to learn something new.

So, back to the original question though. I gather that the reverse – shooting with a 50mm vs. a 100mm – isn't going to help with Depth of Field either?


pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

mreco99

  • Guest
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #77 on: November 01, 2011, 05:59:22 PM »
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.

Thats a big surprise! the effect on those five coins shots is shocking. I love learning new stuff! thanks
I also hate you, i now have yet another lens to consider!!

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2002
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #78 on: November 01, 2011, 06:18:25 PM »
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 have tried and bought helicon focus a few months ago, whilst it is good, you do need to fix some mistakes, and a rack for the camera would help the little size diffrences caused by refocusing.
Auto bracketing? is that a camera option i missed?

and yes i am a ps5 fan :-)

There's no auto focus bracketing... I do mine manually (usually around 2-8 shots depending on how macro I've got to get my lens, and how physically big it is... )  I do like in photoshop CS5 it keeps all the layers and keeps the layer masks so you can just use your white/black brushes in the layer masks to reveal and hide areas it may have missed... In the end it's a computer guessing what it thinks is sharp in relation to other files in the same area and if you have decent ram and processing power, doesn't take that long.  Quick hint, if you want to play with it, use photo merge... use auto... it usually does a good job... and unclick blend images... if you dont unclick it will think it's a panorama and royally screw things up, but once it aligns it, use autoblend and that will create the stacked image and masks...

Unfocused... in order to understand DOF better, there are tons of DOF calculators like neuro suggested... They also with any lens, a 50mm or 400mm, the closer your subjects are to your lens (minimum focus distance) the shallower your DOF will be and farther away in relation to what your lens focuses (wider lenses can reach infinity near 10-15 feet while tele's may go 40-50 meters if not more... ) Using that focus scale as a rough estimate, using your aperture to your advantage, and looking at DOF calculators if in doubt, keep in mind if you're using crop or FF, you will have greater control over bokeh and or large DOF. 
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 06:20:15 PM by awinphoto »
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

EYEONE

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #79 on: November 01, 2011, 06:33:45 PM »

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.

I agree. I'm not sure if I'm more tolerant of noise or not. I really don't like noise at all, it really annoys me in post. But I do what I must to get the shot. I won't put a limit on the ISO I will use. If I have to shoot the ceremony at 3200 on a 7D because flash isn't allowed then I will. If you expose correctly it really gives you a lot more to play with in post. I'd rather have a noisy shot over a blurry shot or no shot at all any day.
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14787
    • View Profile
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #80 on: November 01, 2011, 07:16:36 PM »
Both aperture AND relation of the subject to camera will determine DOF. 

...AND focal length. Also, for the sake of completeness and hopefully not to confuse the issue, the fourth factor is the circle of confusion (CoC, which is related to sensor size, and somewhat arbitrarily defined for various sensor formats based on a specific print size and viewing distance).

So...if you hold the other listed factors constant, you get shallower DoF with:

  • Wider aperture
  • Closer focus (subject) distance
  • Longer focal length
  • Smaller circle of confusion

The last one confuses many people (pun intended), because CoC decreases with decreasing sensor size, i.e. DoF is actually shallower with a smaller sensor. But remember - the above holds true when you change one factor only. So, if you keep everything but the body constant - same focal length, aperture, and distance, the 7D will give a shallower DoF than the 5DII (try it - plug any numbers you like into DoFMaster, and change only the camera popup menu). Of course, your framing will be quite different. It's not just esoteric, though - it has real-world implications when doing an AFMA with a commercial tool (e.g. LensAlign), where you shoot at the same distance relative to focal length, independent of sensor format. In that setting, you can easily see the shallower DoF with the 7D (compared to the 5DII), and while the standard ruler is fine for 400mm f/5.6 on APS-C, the same lens on FF is marginal, and easier to calibrate with the longer ruler.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

mreco99

  • Guest
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #81 on: November 01, 2011, 07:33:30 PM »
that reminds me (T n L) comment on dust... ive never cleaned my sensor, rarely cleans my lenses tbh, since purchase in 2008. Will i still go to heaven?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #81 on: November 01, 2011, 07:33:30 PM »

Meh

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #82 on: November 01, 2011, 07:50:50 PM »
Basically, aperture determines DoF.

Correct as usual but I'll add, just in case a few people don't know, it is the actual physical size (the diameter) of the aperture that affects DoF not the f-number (although the f-ratio typically falls out of optical formulae when you end up with an f/d).  If it wasn't for diffraction, a tiny aperture would render everything in focus with no need for a lens which is how a pinhole camera works.   Yes, in the DoF calculators you must plug in the f-ratio but that is just used (along with focal length) to calculate the diameter (in mm) of the aperture.  My turn to wait for a correction from neuro :)

Question to neuro (because I just tried but quickly gave up playing with the formulas):  changes in subject distance and focal have an opposite effect on DoF but is it equally offsetting for the same framing/subject size?  There is an article on Luminous Landscape that demonstrates that if camera position changed to keep subject size the same within the frame, DoF remained visually equal regardless of focal length.  This makes sense when one understands that the physical size of the aperture is smaller for shorter focal length lenses for the same f-number.  But is it mathematically equal at least first order?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 07:58:31 PM by Meh »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14787
    • View Profile
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #83 on: November 01, 2011, 09:07:29 PM »
@Meh - Exactly, it's the iris diaphragm that matters. Practically, since you have to actually do simple math (eek!) to determine that from the focal length and f/number, it's more practical to use those values to determine DoF.

LL's experiment with the gremlin is approximately correct. In fact, at the distances involved it's actually not the best approximation. I don't agree that the degree of unsharpness is identical - but it's close, good enough for approximation. I've tried an equivalent experiment, as a post hoc test, with my AFMA testing. Since I use 25x the focal length for all lenses, and the LensAlign fills the same proportion of the frame (i.e. distance and focal length are equal and opposite).  With an actual distance scale on the ruler, it's apparent that f/2.8 at 16mm (16-35/2.8L II) and at 200mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), the measured DoF is the same, when distance and focal length are reciprocal.

Actually, the reduction of DoF to dependence only on magnification holds at macro distances (and for microscopy, although we usually call it axial resolution not DoF, and use numerical apertures vs. f/numbers).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

mreco99

  • Guest
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #84 on: November 02, 2011, 03:50:20 AM »
Whoosh....

Hillsilly

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #85 on: November 02, 2011, 05:22:50 AM »
So, if you keep everything but the body constant - same focal length, aperture, and distance, the 7D will give a shallower DoF than the 5DII (try it - plug any numbers you like into DoFMaster, and change only the camera popup menu). Of course, your framing will be quite different.

I thought I was noticing shallower DOF and more background blur with an APS-C sensor (compared with film) and just assumed it was my imagination.  Instead, it is probably because I'm tending to using my lenses from a similar distance and changing the framing.

Therefore, if I make the switch to FF, I'm not going to get "more" background blur with the same lens at the same aperture unless I get in closer.  I'll mark this in favour of a 7D - I like my space.

But I also read the macro discussion earlier.  I actually thought I was getting more magnification.  But I'm not.  I'm just getting a cropped image.  So I'll mark this in favour of a 5D.

As far as image quality goes, at higher ISOs, it is generally agreed that the 5D is the clear winner.

For people with both cameras, comments seem to be equally divided about which camera they prefer if they're just going out to shoot general photos.  While there's a slight leaning towards the 5D, the 7D fans seem more vocally devoted.  From what I understand, the 7D is a better camera to use than a 5Dii, which is probably why its users are more loyal.  It will be interesting to see if the feature set of the 5Diii changes this.

Clearly, there's no definitive winner and probably never will be.  But leaning towards the 5Diii (if Canon ever release such a thing) as my next camera.  Thanks for your comments so far.
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

mreco99

  • Guest
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #86 on: November 02, 2011, 12:32:22 PM »
ok, as i was talking about my images earlier, ive included my store link in my signature, does it work?


thanks

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1525
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #87 on: November 02, 2011, 02:49:37 PM »
@Meh - Exactly, it's the iris diaphragm that matters. Practically, since you have to actually do simple math (eek!) to determine that from the focal length and f/number, it's more practical to use those values to determine DoF.

LL's experiment with the gremlin is approximately correct. In fact, at the distances involved it's actually not the best approximation. I don't agree that the degree of unsharpness is identical - but it's close, good enough for approximation. I've tried an equivalent experiment, as a post hoc test, with my AFMA testing. Since I use 25x the focal length for all lenses, and the LensAlign fills the same proportion of the frame (i.e. distance and focal length are equal and opposite).  With an actual distance scale on the ruler, it's apparent that f/2.8 at 16mm (16-35/2.8L II) and at 200mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), the measured DoF is the same, when distance and focal length are reciprocal.

Actually, the reduction of DoF to dependence only on magnification holds at macro distances (and for microscopy, although we usually call it axial resolution not DoF, and use numerical apertures vs. f/numbers).

I thought I had this figured out till I read HillSilly's post...

Neuro or any other Savior : Please dumb this down for me... (you have done this many times  :) ) : Bokeh notwithstanding.... do I get more or less OOF blur (Quantity) is APC-S or with FF.

Ok so let say i use a 50mm f1.8 on both a 5d and 7d, subject is 10 feet away from both cameras. After capture and 100% crop (lets say we frame 1 feet on all sides of the head of the subject (to get some background) in the crop )... basically like this frame for a  passport picture

With image will show more blurring of the background?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2011, 03:15:38 PM by K-amps »
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #87 on: November 02, 2011, 02:49:37 PM »

Meh

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #88 on: November 02, 2011, 03:16:16 PM »
@Meh - Exactly, it's the iris diaphragm that matters. Practically, since you have to actually do simple math (eek!) to determine that from the focal length and f/number, it's more practical to use those values to determine DoF.

LL's experiment with the gremlin is approximately correct. In fact, at the distances involved it's actually not the best approximation. I don't agree that the degree of unsharpness is identical - but it's close, good enough for approximation. I've tried an equivalent experiment, as a post hoc test, with my AFMA testing. Since I use 25x the focal length for all lenses, and the LensAlign fills the same proportion of the frame (i.e. distance and focal length are equal and opposite).  With an actual distance scale on the ruler, it's apparent that f/2.8 at 16mm (16-35/2.8L II) and at 200mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), the measured DoF is the same, when distance and focal length are reciprocal.

Actually, the reduction of DoF to dependence only on magnification holds at macro distances (and for microscopy, although we usually call it axial resolution not DoF, and use numerical apertures vs. f/numbers).

Neuro: Please dumb this down for me... (you have done this many times  :) ) : Bokeh notwithstanding.... do i get more or less OOF blur (Quantity) is APC-S or with FF. Give me some numbers in feet etc if you can... cause "framing and similar terms are relative  :-\

I'm no neuro but I can take a shot to rephrase it into less technical terms....  we'll see if I have this right!

If you use the same lens, set to the same aperture, and place the camera the same distance from the subject, you will get more OOF blur with an APS-C sensor compared to a FF sensor.

If you use the same lens, set to the same aperture, and place the APS-C camera 1.6X further away from the subject than the FF camera (to get the same framing) you will get more OOF blur with the FF camera.

If you use the same lens, set to the same aperture, and place the APS-C camera 1.26X further away from the subject than the FF camera you will get the same OOF blur. (1.26 is the square root of the ratio of CoC of FF and APS-C)

If you use different lenses (two different focal lengths) on the same camera but set to the same aperture, and place the camera at the same distance from the subject, the shorter focal length will give less OOF blur.

If you use different lenses (two different focal lengths) on the same camera but set to the same aperture, and place each camera at 25X (or any multiple) of the focal length, both lenses will give the same OOF blur.  (This is the gremlin example on LL that keeps the subject the same size)

« Last Edit: November 02, 2011, 03:40:13 PM by Meh »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14787
    • View Profile
Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #89 on: November 02, 2011, 03:52:55 PM »
Neuro: Please dumb this down for me... (you have done this many times  :) ) : Bokeh notwithstanding.... do i get more or less OOF blur (Quantity) is APC-S or with FF. Give me some numbers in feet etc if you can... cause "framing and similar terms are relative  :-\

Practically speaking, shallower DoF with FF.  Meh nailed it.  But to give an example:

Head/shoulders portrait shot with an EF 135m f/2L where I want a strong background blur.  With the 5DII, I'd stand about 8 feet from the subject, and since faces aren't completely flat, I stop down to f/3.2 to get a 2.3" thick DoF.  If I put the same lens on a 7D, to take that same shot of the subject's head and shoulders, I need to stand 13 feet away.  Now, with the 135L lens set to f/3.2 my DoF is close to 4" thick - deeper because of the greater distance, so I don't get as much OOF blur.  I'd need to set the aperture to f/2 to get the 2.3" DoF.

Now, if I just switched to the 7D, and stayed 8 feet from the subject at f/3.2, I'd actually get a thinner DoF than with FF - a little under 1.5" thick, and thus more OOF blur.  But then the image would cut off the subjects shoulders, hairline and possibly ears - not a very flattering portrait.  So, in a contrived situation (like that example, or like AFMA testing), the APS-C has shallower DoF.  But in a real-world application, DoF is shallower with FF (because you have to move further from the subject to compensate for the narrower angle of view with a crop sensor).

Hope that makes sense.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« Reply #89 on: November 02, 2011, 03:52:55 PM »