December 21, 2014, 03:59:29 PM

Author Topic: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF  (Read 13287 times)

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #90 on: August 05, 2014, 06:07:21 AM »
+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?

It's a good guess your opinion was formed by zooming straight to 100% which means 18 MP magnified > 15 MP magnified > 12 MP.

Another good guess is that if you had to pick from unlabeled screen or print views...equal in size...you would pick the 5Dc image as the noisy one that "must be the 7D."

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #90 on: August 05, 2014, 06:07:21 AM »

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #91 on: August 05, 2014, 02:03:25 PM »
You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.


Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

 

Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)?  dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....   

tayassu

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
    • 500px
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #92 on: August 05, 2014, 02:51:36 PM »
I just wanted to say that I found the video awesome and I found it to be the first of all those claiming to use a real-world approach to that discussion that lived up to its title. I really enjoyed watching it and I'm going to enjoy even more not reading the 7 pages discussion before this post, which was surely not intended by Mr. Arias, who has my greatest respects!  :D
I wish everyone happy shooting with his or her camera, whether it is an iPhone, a 70D or a Linhof Master Technika! And Mr. Arias is right, it is about light, composition, emotion and moments, it is about the moron behind the camera! And sadly, there are enough morons behind cameras that only care for gear... Try shooting a week without thinking about your camera specs and you'll appreciate the work of art coming out much more!  :D
A happy week to you all!  :D
Camera: Canon 7D
Lenses: Tokina 4/12-24mm II, Tamron 2.8/24-70mm VC, Canon 4-5.6/70-300 L, Tamron 2.8/90mm VC

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #93 on: August 05, 2014, 05:01:12 PM »
+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?

It's a good guess your opinion was formed by zooming straight to 100% which means 18 MP magnified > 15 MP magnified > 12 MP.

Another good guess is that if you had to pick from unlabeled screen or print views...equal in size...you would pick the 5Dc image as the noisy one that "must be the 7D."


First of all, read my post first- I said both 5D (FF) and 50D (APS-C) that I have used appeared less noisy than my 7D. So it has nothing to do with confirmation bias. Also I say 'my 7D' which was noisy. I loved it for everything else, but I have complained about the noise several times on these forums before I switched to the 5D III. Was my 7D out of spec? I think not- I have heard of similar noise issues from many people.

Secondly, your first guess is wrong- I don't pixel peep when looking for noise. When I say, ISO xxx was unacceptable it means I looked at it full screen on my 24" monitor and it looked bad. That's a pretty low bar, wouldn't you say?

Thirdly, your second guess is irrelevant- what matters is data. I am pretty confident I will do far better than chance in picking out my 7D images at high ISO (large size jpegs, at least). If I care enough, I can post some of them from my 7D and I think you might agree.

Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them. As it is, comparing high ISO images from single copies of two cameras side by side don't comprise scientific tests as far as I am concerned. Show me something like what Roger Cicala does, and I will hear you.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

Meh

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #94 on: August 05, 2014, 05:05:42 PM »
Over the past week or so as I've watched this video being posted and shared with comments like "Zack nails it" or "Zack finally settles the crop debate"... etc. etc.  I've been very tempted to post a rant here and there... not because the overriding message that APS-C sensors are very good or that the Fuji cameras are very good... the fact is they are very good and produce exceptional image quality.  Part of what bothers me is the factually incorrect analysis and his generalized statement that the difference between APS-C and FF is "negligible" when the fact is that there is a measurable difference between the two.  For a well lit scene with only a few stops of dynamic range an iPhone has excellent image quality, otherwise it kinda sucks.  Zack's video is way oversimplified... it's a sliver of a conditionally true statement and therefore pretty much useless.  The other part that bother's me is his use of extended comparison... by putting even larger and even smaller objects beside the two you are actually comparing makes them look relatively similar in size and we humans are generally bad at absolute comparisons... we are much better at relative comparisons so what we "see" is that the APS-C and FF look about the same when compared to the really big and the really small.  But that is scientifically invalid method of analysis.  The visual distortion does not change the fact that the FF sensor is 2.5X larger than the APS-C and has significant and measurable differences in a number of performance parameters.  Sure, under certain conditions the differences may not be within the ability of a human being to see it or any particular person may not care...  but so what, not seeing or not caring does not change the physics and the facts.  But taking those specific cases and uses that as evidence to make a general conclusion is faulty logic.  That might not be Zack's fault per se... he is not a physicist or sensor technology expert.  On the other hand, the guy is making money off blogging, teaching, writing, and possibly from sponsorship by Fuji.  He is purposely entering the "sensor size debate" with a "humorous and endearing sensor size doesn't matter" video in order to get people to watch his video... it's a tried and true trick of marketing... tell people what they want to hear and in a way they can relate to it and they will buy what you be selling... in droves.  And what is Zack selling... video views, blog posts, teaching, and Fuji cameras.  I'm not buying.  Except that I did because I watched the video and wrote this post.  Arghhhhh.

Skirball

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #95 on: August 05, 2014, 05:54:31 PM »
And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?
Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them. As it is, comparing high ISO images from single copies of two cameras side by side don't comprise scientific tests as far as I am concerned. Show me something like what Roger Cicala does, and I will hear you.


Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1320
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #96 on: August 06, 2014, 02:57:58 AM »
You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.


Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

 

Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)?  dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....

He implied the difference is not noticeable to which we responded (based on actually having owned a 7D and 5D) that we disagree. That is all we are stating. Neither person is wrong as we are simply stating opinions. What others choose to do with that info is their business.

Note this is based on the 7D. Modern day APS-C cameras with Sonikon sensors is a different debate. Perhaps in those cases the difference is less. I'm sure someone with both could comment.
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #96 on: August 06, 2014, 02:57:58 AM »

Valvebounce

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #97 on: August 06, 2014, 04:04:03 AM »
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

MichaelHodges

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #98 on: August 07, 2014, 03:52:30 AM »
+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

Yeah it's perplexing. The 50D may be as noisy as the 7D, but it lacks the waxy AA filter that just smears details on the 7D. It's the combination of inconsistent focus (burst mode in AI Servo and/or AF single point even on static subjects), drab colors, low ISO blue channel noise, and thick AA filter that made the 7D the worst IQ of any Canon DSLR I've owned.

I've never had a complaint or trouble with any of them until that body. Too bad, because it feels great in the hand and sports an amazing build.

Even the 70D I own is a considerable upgrade in IQ, especially in color and sharpness with the same set of lenses.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1320
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #99 on: August 07, 2014, 11:05:13 AM »
+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

Yeah it's perplexing. The 50D may be as noisy as the 7D, but it lacks the waxy AA filter that just smears details on the 7D. It's the combination of inconsistent focus (burst mode in AI Servo and/or AF single point even on static subjects), drab colors, low ISO blue channel noise, and thick AA filter that made the 7D the worst IQ of any Canon DSLR I've owned.

I've never had a complaint or trouble with any of them until that body. Too bad, because it feels great in the hand and sports an amazing build.

Even the 70D I own is a considerable upgrade in IQ, especially in color and sharpness with the same set of lenses.

Yup, sounds about right.
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #100 on: August 08, 2014, 03:47:17 PM »

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)?  dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....

He implied the difference is not noticeable to which we responded (based on actually having owned a 7D and 5D) that we disagree. That is all we are stating. Neither person is wrong as we are simply stating opinions. What others choose to do with that info is their business.

Note this is based on the 7D. Modern day APS-C cameras with Sonikon sensors is a different debate. Perhaps in those cases the difference is less. I'm sure someone with both could comment.

Well, I have both (Canon 5DIII, 6D & SL1, and Sony a7r & a6000) and can certainly see differences between FF and APSC (and between the 5DIII and 6D, for that matter), both within and between camps.  I've not done anything resembling scientific testing, but I get the impression that the differences are similar (though at least for low ISO noise the Sony camp wins because their APS-C and FF sensors both have less noise at low ISOs and better DR). 

I've never used a 7D, though that doesn't really affect the point I was trying to make with my comment above, which is merely that whether something is noticeable, whether a difference is negligible, depends on who's looking, how and why, so that some of this evident disagreement may be in some sense spurious.  You could sit two people, A and B, side-by-side in front of the same photograph and A could say to B "they look the same to me", B could respond "but what about (say) this patch of noise here?" and A could in turn respond "Oh, OK, I see that now that you point it out, but it's not the sort of thing I notice because for me it's an unimportant element in how a photo looks".  (I've actually done something like this myself.)  But if A were instead to respond to B "no, I don't see it at all," that could mean that A or B needs new glasses....

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #101 on: August 09, 2014, 05:45:15 AM »
First of all, read my post first- I said both 5D (FF) and 50D (APS-C) that I have used appeared less noisy than my 7D. So it has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

First of all, read my post first - I did not say your opinion was from confirmation bias. My suggested theory is that you don't know how to size/compare properly. (And having three cameras in the mix would not preclude confirmation bias.)

Quote
Was my 7D out of spec? I think not- I have heard of similar noise issues from many people.

Noise issues which don't show up in scientific tests? I guess Canon sent the special noise free 7D's to the reviewers.

Quote
Secondly, your first guess is wrong- I don't pixel peep when looking for noise. When I say, ISO xxx was unacceptable it means I looked at it full screen on my 24" monitor and it looked bad. That's a pretty low bar, wouldn't you say?

As a testing methodology yes, that is very low bar. Your software, scaling algorithm, monitor, monitor settings, all affect the final result. For example: at the right scaling in Apple Preview on a MacBook (non-Retina) you can make a FF 5D3 or D600 look noisy at base ISO because the scaling mechanism screws up.

Quote
Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them.

Pretty much every review on Earth noted that the 7D was cleaner then the 50D, and at 3200 the 5D has visibly more chroma noise (though I think it's visibly even and tests a bit better on luminance). Go review the Dave Box tests at Imaging Resource.

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #102 on: August 09, 2014, 06:08:36 AM »
Yeah it's perplexing. The 50D may be as noisy as the 7D, but it lacks the waxy AA filter that just smears details on the 7D.

LOL! Google "Comparometer." Pick the 50D and 7D. Click the ISO 100 test scene with the fabric and the bottles, etc. Pay careful attention to which one looks "waxy."

In fairness this is about the JPEG engines. The 7D has the better JPEG engine, and both cameras are capable of higher IQ in ACR. But it's the 50D that was "waxy" in JPEG. The AA filter isn't an issue with either body.

Quote
It's the combination of inconsistent focus (burst mode in AI Servo and/or AF single point even on static subjects),

http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/03/autofocus-torture-test-updated-canon-1d-mkiv-nikon-d3s-added/?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pph%20newsletter%20autofocus%20mkiv%20robg

If you experienced poor AF you should have returned the body for repair work/calibration.

Quote
drab colors

It's digital. You decide the colors.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #102 on: August 09, 2014, 06:08:36 AM »

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #103 on: August 09, 2014, 07:34:27 AM »
First of all, read my post first- I said both 5D (FF) and 50D (APS-C) that I have used appeared less noisy than my 7D. So it has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

First of all, read my post first - I did not say your opinion was from confirmation bias. My suggested theory is that you don't know how to size/compare properly. (And having three cameras in the mix would not preclude confirmation bias.)

Quote
Was my 7D out of spec? I think not- I have heard of similar noise issues from many people.

Noise issues which don't show up in scientific tests? I guess Canon sent the special noise free 7D's to the reviewers.

Quote
Secondly, your first guess is wrong- I don't pixel peep when looking for noise. When I say, ISO xxx was unacceptable it means I looked at it full screen on my 24" monitor and it looked bad. That's a pretty low bar, wouldn't you say?

As a testing methodology yes, that is very low bar. Your software, scaling algorithm, monitor, monitor settings, all affect the final result. For example: at the right scaling in Apple Preview on a MacBook (non-Retina) you can make a FF 5D3 or D600 look noisy at base ISO because the scaling mechanism screws up.

Quote
Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them.

Pretty much every review on Earth noted that the 7D was cleaner then the 50D, and at 3200 the 5D has visibly more chroma noise (though I think it's visibly even and tests a bit better on luminance). Go review the Dave Box tests at Imaging Resource.




You mentioned that I shall attribute the noisier image to 7D. How does that relate to my inability to size images? Of course, it will be affected by my alleged inability to compare images, but then that is just your guess, isn't it? Do note that the 50D was mentioned anecdotally, I did say that I have NOT done ANY comparisons. So yes, there could be bias, and my statement implicitly expressed that possibility. Although it is cognitive bias, not confirmation bias.

A low bar for performance is not the same as low bar for technique.
I am not a professional pixel-peeper or someone with lots of free time in hand. I don't objectively test cameras or formats so all the parameters you mentioned are moot. My finding was, at the same monitor settings and when displayed full screen, the 7D images looked noisy. Yes, I know it isn't the same ratio of enlargement. Who cares? All that matters to me is whether or not an image looks good at the size I will use it. If the one from 5Dc looks better, I will keep that camera. And I did.

So what are you trying to prove through your offensive statements, unsupported information and uneducated "guesses"? If I read some 10 reviews saying 7D is supposed to be better, the images that looked noisy before will now appear clean?

Put less stock in theories and calculations, and rely on your eyes. If you feel 7D is better, good for you. Don't come trying to tell me what I should feel.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2014, 07:40:14 AM by sagittariansrock »
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

MichaelHodges

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #104 on: August 09, 2014, 10:31:43 AM »
In fairness this is about the JPEG engines. The 7D has the better JPEG engine, and both cameras are capable of higher IQ in ACR. But it's the 50D that was "waxy" in JPEG. The AA filter isn't an issue with either body.

I don't shoot in jpeg, so I really can't comment in this context.


Quote
If you experienced poor AF you should have returned the body for repair work/calibration.

I did. Five times.


Quote

It's digital. You decide the colors.

Feel free to enjoy a Rebel XTi with the 18-55 non-IS wide open.  After all, you choose the colors.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #104 on: August 09, 2014, 10:31:43 AM »