May 26, 2018, 08:16:41 AM

Author Topic: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]  (Read 132038 times)

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4082
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #450 on: June 08, 2017, 05:39:20 PM »
...
Doesn't matter what you say. I'm sorry, I can't help you. You just don't want to learn or understand anything. You only accept what's easy, even if it's an absolute BS.
Thinking is hard. Good luck.

Oh God, I should have checked your profile. I forgot you were the "buying lenses for the camera bag" guy. I should never have tried to engage you in a rational discussion. I apologize to the other forum members for what has been a colossal waste of effort.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #450 on: June 08, 2017, 05:39:20 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6783
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #451 on: June 08, 2017, 06:53:21 PM »
"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at  the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?
If you are focal length limited, it becomes a question of pixels on the target, and the quality of those pixels....

Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better. Change to a FF camera like the 5D4 ad the quality of the pixels goes up considerably, but the number of pixels on target drops.... Interestingly enough, if you resemble the crop image to the same number of pixels on target as the FF camera, the pixel quality improves to about the same....... in other words, it becomes a wash as to if FF or crop is better....

Remember, this is only when you are focal length limited..... if you are not, then the FF camera and the top camera will both have approximately the same number of pixels on target and the FF pixels are of better quality.

So yes, crop is cheaper, Under really good lighting can be better, but most of the time is not.....

An interesting variation comes when you are severely focal length limited and you have good lighting conditions. In that situation an SX60 can put  12 times as many pixels on target as a 5DX and a 100-400 II and assuming it can AF and stabilize properly, can return a better picture!

« Last Edit: June 08, 2017, 06:56:22 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

ecka

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 965
  • Size Matters!
    • flickr
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #452 on: June 08, 2017, 08:19:04 PM »
"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at  the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?
If you are focal length limited, it becomes a question of pixels on the target, and the quality of those pixels....

Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better. Change to a FF camera like the 5D4 ad the quality of the pixels goes up considerably, but the number of pixels on target drops.... Interestingly enough, if you resemble the crop image to the same number of pixels on target as the FF camera, the pixel quality improves to about the same....... in other words, it becomes a wash as to if FF or crop is better....

Remember, this is only when you are focal length limited..... if you are not, then the FF camera and the top camera will both have approximately the same number of pixels on target and the FF pixels are of better quality.

So yes, crop is cheaper, Under really good lighting can be better, but most of the time is not.....

An interesting variation comes when you are severely focal length limited and you have good lighting conditions. In that situation an SX60 can put  12 times as many pixels on target as a 5DX and a 100-400 II and assuming it can AF and stabilize properly, can return a better picture!

Why not 5DsR + 500/4 vs 7DII + 400/2.8? Should be enough pixels on target for the same price :)
6D + EF28/1.8USM + EF40/2.8STM + EF50/1.8STM + EF100/2USM + Σ150/2.8'APO'Macro + Σ'APO'2x'TC + 430EXII

ecka

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 965
  • Size Matters!
    • flickr
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #453 on: June 08, 2017, 08:43:18 PM »
...
Doesn't matter what you say. I'm sorry, I can't help you. You just don't want to learn or understand anything. You only accept what's easy, even if it's an absolute BS.
Thinking is hard. Good luck.

Oh God, I should have checked your profile. I forgot you were the "buying lenses for the camera bag" guy. I should never have tried to engage you in a rational discussion. I apologize to the other forum members for what has been a colossal waste of effort.

No, I'm the opposite guy, who buys bags for the lenses :)
"I should never have tried to engage you in a rational discussion" - And you didn't, unfortunately. I tried to pull you towards the rational side of things, but you resisted strongly, so I've failed :(. This is sad and hopeless, because there are millions of others like you. The world is doomed! :P
6D + EF28/1.8USM + EF40/2.8STM + EF50/1.8STM + EF100/2USM + Σ150/2.8'APO'Macro + Σ'APO'2x'TC + 430EXII

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4082
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #454 on: June 08, 2017, 10:12:07 PM »
Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better...

Don, not sure I understand your reasoning. Why do you feel the quality of the pixels would be a bit better with the 100-400 II vs. the 400 f5.6.? Is that because you feel the new zoom is sharper at 400 than the prime? I'm not disagreeing, I just am not sure I'm following the reasoning.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6783
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #455 on: June 09, 2017, 04:19:34 AM »
Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better...

Don, not sure I understand your reasoning. Why do you feel the quality of the pixels would be a bit better with the 100-400 II vs. the 400 f5.6.? Is that because you feel the new zoom is sharper at 400 than the prime? I'm not disagreeing, I just am not sure I'm following the reasoning.
In general, a prime beats a zoom, but  the 100-400 II is a whole lot newer than the  400F5.6 with better glass and more precise manufacture.  The prime has a lot of copy variation (got a bad one at work).... an updated 400F5.6 would be a completely different story.....
The best camera is the one in your hands

Ian_of_glos

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #456 on: June 09, 2017, 08:08:54 AM »
"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at  the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?

It is always difficult to compare like with like in these situations, but I suggest we take one of the better Canon APS-C cameras with a magnesium alloy body (such as the 7D mark 2) with one of the best Canon EF-S lenses  (the 17-55 F2.8) and compare it with a similar full frame set up - such as a Canon 5D mark 4 with a 24-70 F2.8L ii then there is actually not much difference in the size/weight.
7D mk 2 weight 910g
5D mk 4 weight 890g
EF-S 17-55 F2.8 645g
EF 24-70 F2.8L ii 805g
So overall the full frame setup is around 150g heavier - I would not even notice that in my kit bag.
However the difference in price is colossal:
7D mk 2 + 17-55 F2.8 in the UK is £2,198
5D mk 4 + 24-70 F2.8 ii is £5,248
a difference of over £3,000
Yes I know that the 24-70 F2.8L ii is a more recent lens and the 5D mk 4 is probably a better camera than the 7D mk 2 but even so the difference in price is huge. You could buy the APS-C setup twice and still save £800 on the price of the full frame system.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #456 on: June 09, 2017, 08:08:54 AM »

ecka

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 965
  • Size Matters!
    • flickr
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #457 on: June 09, 2017, 10:39:09 AM »
"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at  the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?

It is always difficult to compare like with like in these situations, but I suggest we take one of the better Canon APS-C cameras with a magnesium alloy body (such as the 7D mark 2) with one of the best Canon EF-S lenses  (the 17-55 F2.8) and compare it with a similar full frame set up - such as a Canon 5D mark 4 with a 24-70 F2.8L ii then there is actually not much difference in the size/weight.
7D mk 2 weight 910g
5D mk 4 weight 890g
EF-S 17-55 F2.8 645g
EF 24-70 F2.8L ii 805g
So overall the full frame setup is around 150g heavier - I would not even notice that in my kit bag.
However the difference in price is colossal:
7D mk 2 + 17-55 F2.8 in the UK is £2,198
5D mk 4 + 24-70 F2.8 ii is £5,248
a difference of over £3,000
Yes I know that the 24-70 F2.8L ii is a more recent lens and the 5D mk 4 is probably a better camera than the 7D mk 2 but even so the difference in price is huge. You could buy the APS-C setup twice and still save £800 on the price of the full frame system.

The truth is they are not similar.
Maybe close to similar are:
70D/7D/7D2 + 17-55/2.8 ~ 6D/5D2/5D3 + 24-105/4L
But, honestly, I would prefer 70D over the 7D2 and 6D over any crop. There is no APS-C version of 5D4 and there is no EF-S version of EF 24-70/2.8L II. What you are trying to compare is just wrong.
6D + EF28/1.8USM + EF40/2.8STM + EF50/1.8STM + EF100/2USM + Σ150/2.8'APO'Macro + Σ'APO'2x'TC + 430EXII

jeffa4444

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #458 on: June 09, 2017, 12:11:08 PM »
All
Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.
Canon 5DS, Canon 6D, Canon 6D MKII,16-35 f4L IS USM, 17-40 f4L USM, 28 f2.8, 24-70mm f4L IS USM, 24-105 f4L IS USM, 100mm f2.8L IS USM, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM II, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM, 50 f1.8 STM, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II, 1.4EX III, EOS 760D, EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM & others.

rrcphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2284
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #459 on: June 09, 2017, 12:34:32 PM »
All
Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.

best comment in 5+ pages.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6783
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #460 on: June 09, 2017, 01:20:21 PM »
All
Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.

But I don't have a FF mirrorless camera! I am doomed!
The best camera is the one in your hands

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3578
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #461 on: June 09, 2017, 02:13:09 PM »
All
Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.

But I don't have a FF mirrorless camera! I am doomed!

You can compromise by using your 7DII in Live-view mode.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]
« Reply #461 on: June 09, 2017, 02:13:09 PM »