Does FF make your photos pop?

[DarStone]

I have both the 7D and 5D MkII to be honest I prefer my 7D in almost all shooting situations, but I always shoot raw but even Jpeg's can be tweaked. The shots you used as examples are all edited, while yours are straight out of camera, your shots are very good and would be even better with just a little editing. Here is an example using your own shots.

[tt]

JT13 - looking at another thread, gave a simple demo of how a change in aperture (a 70-200mm 2.8 at 2.8 vs a 85mm at 1.2) can help this. Yes lighting would enhance the pop - looking at the photos it also shows how compression of the background via focal length, positioning of a darker/less busy background, and lighting can all help.

.. Bokeh wise, someone mentioned the 85 1.2 and 70-200 @200 2.8 would give the same look.. NO. it's not. n I took couple shots to see how much differences (for my own references at well)
all shot handheld, lowlight, straight out from camera, used 1d2 (FF would give a better look, isnt it?)
85L @1.2



70-200 @ 85mm 2.8



70-200 @200 2.8



BONUS: 200mm F2.0 IS

[Viggo]

If you use 1,2's and 1,4 lenses on FF It can't be beat, it just makes the images look SO much better. I wil never consider a crop cam again, ever.... This image is shot a full stop down on the 50 L , and what sets the L's apart is the quality of the bokeh when stopping down, it stays supersmooth...



Cereals with Mickey on the box, oh, happiness

[HTCahHTC]

If you Google 'bokeh difference FF and crop sensor' you'll generate a few links which show the differences of bokeh effects on ff and crop sensors. The difference is what you're looking for. So, yes, ff do actually make a difference. I know what you're trying to say cos I am thinking exactly like you. My pictures from my 450D doesn't 'pop' as much but using the same setups but with a 5Dii, things turned out different.

[hoousi]

Thanks for the info!
There are so many steps I can improve on - especially PP.

I take photos mostly while traveling.
When I am back home I am too busy with work to do PP.
So, I've just shot in jpg but I want to change that.

Regarding the "poping"  I don't think it is so much about aperture and DOF.
In the portrait galary there is a great pic by JR:
5D mkII, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, taken at 200mm, f4.5, ISO 320


The sharp face contour gives the image a great three-dimensionality.
It is almost like looking through a window.

To the last comments:
I don't claim that I mastered APS-C and now need a FF to push the technical boundaries.
I have just noticed that some photos have a great three-dimensional impression and they were all taken by 5Ds.
The reason is not clear to me. It might be PP that most 5D owners use.
Many of the pictures I admire don't look like they took hours of waiting for the right light and it is also not about the largest aperture.
You also don't need a complex composition, as you can see in the picture above.

I think I understand what you are getting at, it sounds stupid but after changing to FF I prefer my photos, though I certainly did not improve my photographing skills from one day to the other, and my D90 and X100 certainly were/are great cameras, but there just is something to these FF pictures, the tonality of the x100 plus the DOF control plus some L-magic. I get way more compliments now than before just shooting the same... Everybody says it's more important to take courses and read books on getting a better photographer, which is absolutely true, but if you have the funds for FF and other goodies it makes your photos better in an instant and you still can go on improving your skills...

[Viggo]

Thanks for the info!
There are so many steps I can improve on - especially PP.

I take photos mostly while traveling.
When I am back home I am too busy with work to do PP.
So, I've just shot in jpg but I want to change that.

Regarding the "poping"  I don't think it is so much about aperture and DOF.
In the portrait galary there is a great pic by JR:
5D mkII, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, taken at 200mm, f4.5, ISO 320


The sharp face contour gives the image a great three-dimensionality.
It is almost like looking through a window.

To the last comments:
I don't claim that I mastered APS-C and now need a FF to push the technical boundaries.
I have just noticed that some photos have a great three-dimensional impression and they were all taken by 5Ds.
The reason is not clear to me. It might be PP that most 5D owners use.
Many of the pictures I admire don't look like they took hours of waiting for the right light and it is also not about the largest aperture.
You also don't need a complex composition, as you can see in the picture above.

I think I understand what you are getting at, it sounds stupid but after changing to FF I prefer my photos, though I certainly did not improve my photographing skills from one day to the other, and my D90 and X100 certainly were/are great cameras, but there just is something to these FF pictures, the tonality of the x100 plus the DOF control plus some L-magic. I get way more compliments now than before just shooting the same... Everybody says it's more important to take courses and read books on getting a better photographer, which is absolutely true, but if you have the funds for FF and other goodies it makes your photos better in an instant and you still can go on improving your skills...

I fully agree, now you can expect some rants from others for saying what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that you are right indeed.

Light is extremely important, but even with the same light, same lens same everything, one shot on a 450d at 100 iso and the 5d2 shot 100 iso, the 5d WILL look much more pleasing and it makes color-gradients, depth of color, punch of color, dynamic range, light to dark gradients, bokeh, everything is better.

[mws]

I've been watching this form, as I feel the same way about my photos from my 50D (I have good glass, 50 f1.4, 24-70L f 2.8, 70-200L 2.8 IS II). Although I do realize most of the poor results are just due to me not having anywhere enough time (One kid under two and another due in 3 weeks will do that to you...) to practice shooting to get it down to the level I want.

I've already decided my next cam will be FF, most likely be what ever the 5D mk III ends up to be. I've noticed that a lot of people talked about the effect that PP has on the photo. Anyone care to share some tips/pointers/links to some good PP resources? I feel that I know my way around Lightroom pretty well, but always struggle to get the results I want from it. Even starting PP with photos that I feel are pretty good, I tend to spend far time much time screwing around in LR with sub par results.

I'll put it this way, it usually takes me so much time to do PP that I'm several months behind in uploading pictures to my website.

I assume it all comes down to get it right in the camera, and then less is more in PP?

[dmills]

Sure, full frame will look better. But, that doesn't mean that you can't get images that pop from an aps-c either. I'm no pro photographer, but I feel like any of these images pop pretty well in their own right. All shot on a 60D.

- 10-22
100-400
85 1.2

[ghosh9691]

I fully agree, now you can expect some rants from others for saying what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that you are right indeed.

Light is extremely important, but even with the same light, same lens same everything, one shot on a 450d at 100 iso and the 5d2 shot 100 iso, the 5d WILL look much more pleasing and it makes color-gradients, depth of color, punch of color, dynamic range, light to dark gradients, bokeh, everything is better.

Bokeh is the quality of the background blur. It depends on the lens and the way a lens "draws". The amount of background blur is controlled by Depth of Field (DOF) and this is driven by subject distance, sensor size and lens aperture. You can get the same bokeh (amount and quality) with APS-C and FF if you use the same lens. The only thing different will be subject distance and framing that will account for the size difference between the two formats.

[Viggo]

I fully agree, now you can expect some rants from others for saying what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that you are right indeed.

Light is extremely important, but even with the same light, same lens same everything, one shot on a 450d at 100 iso and the 5d2 shot 100 iso, the 5d WILL look much more pleasing and it makes color-gradients, depth of color, punch of color, dynamic range, light to dark gradients, bokeh, everything is better.

Bokeh is the quality of the background blur. It depends on the lens and the way a lens "draws". The amount of background blur is controlled by Depth of Field (DOF) and this is driven by subject distance, sensor size and lens aperture. You can get the same bokeh (amount and quality) with APS-C and FF if you use the same lens. The only thing different will be subject distance and framing that will account for the size difference between the two formats.

All theory and what might not be, doesn't change the fact that my 24 LII, 50 L and 85 LII looks fantastically much better on the 5d than they did on my mk4. Muchmuch cleaner iso's below 800 also helps the 5d over the 7d and the mk4, and as the iso get's cleaner the dynamic range is also better. Simply saying the dof is the same with different framing doesn't make sense. It's the whole package of the fullframe 5d2 over the mk4 and the 7d/60d/550d that is the key here. And the fact it being full frame and improves every aspect of the image is waay different from depth of field alone. And all those things combined gives you at much better image overall.

[stabmasterasron]

I think there could be something else at work here.  I have thought about this same issue for quite some time.  When you troll the flickr groups for the full framers (like the 5D group or the 5Dmkii group) you will see some stunning photos.  Then you go to the crop group (maybe a rebel group) and the photos are still good, but maybe just a notch lower.  I think what could be happening here has less to do with camera and sensor and more to do with skill levels of photographers.  I think it is more likely that if a photog is shooting full frame, they probably have many years of expience with lighting, composition and all the little details that make a stunning photo.  Now I am not implying that there are not good rebel shooters, there certainly are.  But the overall skill level when looking at large groups of photos could be lower from a rebel group than from a FF group.
Do I think there is an advantage to FF camera?  I think there probably is.  But I think the skill of a photographer is many times more important than the equipment they are using.
By the way, I do believe that the photos you selected as examples of what a FF can do are very good compositionally and also most likely heavily post processed.  You are comparing them to your photos which are weaker in composition and jpg's straight from your camera.  I don't think this is a very good comparison.

[JerryBruck]

Agree with neuro but with viggo too -- in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing FF can help produce a very pleasing difference (at least on the evidence of looking at some other people's FFs). 

But then again how high should this concern rank, in the drive to make pictures that stun?  Is the following FF?   http://photomoment.bg/photo/82375  (Check the EXIF data.)

Professionals naturally concern themselves with efficiency and keeping up with those Joneses, but among serious amateurs, where most of the memorable work seems to come from, does an obsession with equipment do any good?  Or can less be more?

@stabmastereason:  I've had some opposite impressions looking at Flicker.  For example check the tag for Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4 -- heartbreaking.

[ghosh9691]

I guess there are people here who feel that their photographic talents are being constrained by anything other than a full-frame camera and they are trying to justify the cost of upgrading to a full-frame. Well, why do you need justification from others? It's really a simple matter: if you have the budget, then you should go ahead and get one.

Don't talk rot about FF having more "pop" than APS-C. There are umpteen number of photos (and photogs) out there shooting APS-C professionally and their photos have equal amount of pop as anyone else shooting FF.

Don't believe me? Here are some samples from Flickr (these aren't mine, but they illustrate the point - and they were shot with a Rebel T2i):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robbyryke/6846645823/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilovelotsofpizza/4675165898/#

And if these still do not have enough pop and don't jump out of the screen/print, then maybe ya'll should consider this camera: http://www.shopfujifilm.com/detail/FUJ+16082969

[JerryBruck]

@DarStone:  You made steel wool of that poor little girl's hair "with just a little editing"!  I'm calling Child Protective Services before you can get your hands on her raw.

[ejenner]

My photos from my 5DII suck just as bad as with my T1i, but I feel like a better photographer with the 5DII in my hands.  Maybe FF is enough for extra inspiration and thought?

Seriously though, choosing a 5DII over a 7D came down to addressing specific issues I had with the T1i and had nothing to do with going FF per-se.