Does FF make your photos pop?

[smirkypants]

Seriously guys, it's like tennis guys arguing over their gear. They hyperfocus on every little detail because those things are easily obsessed over. The truth is, I could play against Nadal, giving him just an old sneaker to hit the ball with and he'd still kick my ass. You can take fantastic pictures with a crop sensor camera and a little skill. Just don't tell Canon that, they want you to want 12 frames a second.

[briansquibb]

The 5d is also much better at the lower iso's compared to the 1d4. And, ahrg, pay attention so I don't have to write the same stuff all over, the difference in the overall IQ and "feel" of the image on the 5d2 compared to the mk4 is huge! If you don't see it, then fine, you saved a lot of money, but don't give me quotes from DxO marks telling me otherwise.

I think the 5DII has more contrast in very good light.

In poor light it seems to be the other way round

[elflord]

Compared to a body like the 7D, the 5D is about 1 stop better across the ISO range. So in practice, if you're shooting low ISOs, you won't see a huge difference. BTW, some of the new APS-C sensors from Sony do better in the dynamic range component of the DXO mark at low ISOs.

Have you even tried these cameras?

I have the 5D Mark II. Before that I had a Rebel XS. I also have a panasonic GF2.

At ISO 100, at screen resolutions, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the three. I certainly don't see an intangible "pop" in the 5D Mark II that I don't see in the others (besides the dof advantage). High ISOs are a different story -- the 5D is about 2 stops better than the rebel.

The lower iso's of the 5d is waaaaaay cleaner than the 7d, are you kidding me?

I don't think we disagree, we just put it differently. It's about 2 stops better. That means that if you shoot at ISO 100 on the 7D or ISO 400 on the 5D, you will really need to pixel peep to see flaws in the image (I doubt you'll  see it on uncropped screen resolution jpegs)

The 5d is also much better at the lower iso's compared to the 1d4. And, ahrg, pay attention so I don't have to write the same stuff all over, the difference in the overall IQ and "feel" of the image on the 5d2 compared to the mk4 is huge! If you don't see it, then fine, you saved a lot of money, but don't give me quotes from DxO marks telling me otherwise.

I don't see it but unfortunately I blew the money on the 5D2 anyway.

[briansquibb]

Seriously guys, it's like tennis guys arguing over their gear. They hyperfocus on every little detail because those things are easily obsessed over. The truth is, I could play against Nadal, giving him just an old sneaker to hit the ball with and he'd still kick my ass. You can take fantastic pictures with a crop sensor camera and a little skill. Just don't tell Canon that, they want you to want 12 frames a second.

+1 I get the comments about 'how can I get as good pictures as you when you have all that fancy gear?' I then get nearly the same from the 40D + 55-250. I can tell the difference but they struggle

[smirkypants]

+1 I get the comments about 'how can I get as good pictures as you when you have all that fancy gear?' I then get nearly the same from the 40D + 55-250. I can tell the difference but they struggle

Bum Phillips quote about Don Shula... He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n.

[pakosouthpark]

Ok some more detailed feedback.

1) Church tower.  Awkward composition.  No single focal point.  Flat light.  Simple travel snapshot.
2) Beach.  Really nice!  With the 10-22, get lower and get closer.  This'll get you awesome perspective.  Horizon is at 50% and is tilting.  Too much bland empty sky.  Light is not bad, but sunrise/sunset would take it to the next level.
3) Curly-hair dude.  I like this photo.  The black point is a bit heavy.  I think you could dodge the eyes a bit to bring out the catch-eyes.  Get rid of the intruding finger bottom-left.  Try B&W conversions.  All this photo needs is a bit of post-processing. 
4) Girl.  Awkward centered composition.  Other child in front.  Background too contrasty.  Light is not bad.
5) Baby.  Light is not bad.  Contrasty cluttered background.  Eye contact would be good.  Crop to portrait orientation.  Dodge the catch-eyes.

exactly what he said!
a lot of times people think cameras will take better shots for them - but its wrong to think like that - you can get amazing shots with an okay camera and lenses.. but obviously it helps having high end technology.. but do trust on your own skills and try to improve them. dont think a camera will do that for ya

[Kernuak]

Many of the examples just don't look natural, due to the processing. While in some cases that may be aesthetically pleasing, you need to take into account that many of the effects that you are looking for in your work have been achieved through post processing of already good photos. In some ways full frame will give you more flexibility and the different tonality will give a different look, but that doesn't mean it is impossible with a crop sensor. I tend to underprocess my images, as I send them to stock libraries who prefer minimal processing and a more natural look, which as it happens, coincides to some degree with my preferences.
I was going to post a link to Darwin Wiggett's galleries, as I know he uses a Rebel, but he also uses a 1D MkIII and I'm not sure which images are taken with the crop for sure. These two were taken in different lighting conditions from the reindeer shots, with more directional side lighting, so maybe they show more of what you want to see. They are both with the 7D. I posted the reindeer shots, because they were the most direct comparison between the two cameras, as they were both taken on the same afternoon, with broadly similar results.


Kingfisher on a Tree by Kernuak, on Flickr


Male Great Spotted Woodpecker Feeding. by Kernuak, on Flickr

[Hillsilly]

I'm a recent convert to FF.  After using a 30D for a while, I picked up a cheap, used 1Ds mkii late last year.  As mentioned by others, there's noticeably less Depth of Field when shooting with wide apertures and you are generally shooting with longer lenses.  Combined these help to give images more "pop".  Photo's from the new camera seem to have more of a realistic / "3D" look.  Colours seem "better".  The photos have more detail.  Of course, this could be due to a lot of things - my imagination and twice the megapixels being the main things that come to mind.  But overall, I definitely prefer the photos from the FF camera.  In my first week with it, all I can remember thinking was "Wow, I should have grabbed one of these earlier".  Even now that the initial excitement has worn off, I still think that there was a big quality gain by changing cameras.  And given that my camera is 7 - 8 years old, I'd have to assume that a newer FF camera would be even better.

Now, that was going from an 8.2mp crop camera to a 16.7mp camera.  I'd like to think that the sensor in a 7D would be significantly better than a 30D and the increase in megapixels to a FF camera isn't as big.  But there would be a slight difference.  Given that you'd have to change some lenses and buy a new body, you'll just have to decide if a minor gain is worth the price. 

A simple, cheap experiment - Pick up the cheapest working Canon film SLR you can find off ebay (maybe $15), a projector ($20) and a roll of Provia ($6).   Take some photos and project them onto the wall.  That's what FF versions of your photos would look like.  Do they look better?  If so, make the switch to FF (then sell the film camera and projector and get your money back).     

[stabmasterasron]

ok JT13.  You wanted a blind test, here is your blind test.  Is this image from a FF or crop camera?

[Mrs. Canon]

There has been a lot of talk about the "pop" coming from the camera, however there has been little said about the how much a lens can make a picture "pop". I wanted a macro lens for a long time simply because I like macro photography. But I really fell in love with my 100mm L when I did my first wedding with it. The color and contrast it produced was so pretty. I had another photographer borrow the lens because of the focal length (not because it was macro) and she really loved the color and contrast it produced also.

And if you are really wanting a "3D" look, check out the pics of the Zeiss 100mm- simply breath taking.

There are many more factors that go into a great photograph than just the sensor size.

[Hillsilly]

ok JT13.  You wanted a blind test, here is your blind test.  Is this image from a FF or crop camera?

iPhone?

As mentioned above, I like the photos from FF.  But I also like the photos from my old camera.  In a side by side comparison, you could probably identify which camera took which photo, but for 90% of my photos that doesn't necessarily make the FF photo "better".  Just different.  Unless you're shooting wide open and looking for more background blur, or want to shoot at high ISOs, the real world difference is immaterial. 

[stabmasterasron]

@Hillsilly: The OP asked for this.  I agree, I think the real world differences are probably slight. 

[Hillsilly]

I know, just having some fun.

[NotABunny]

I am not even sure if it is the FF or composition, light, post procession, primes etc.

It's everything, not one thing. There is no shortcut.

Still, none of the posted crop photos made a similar impression on me like the two shots in my last post.

Sharp edges, like in the shot of the woman that you've posted can be achived with a backlight, or like in this case with contrasty clothing and background (including the blur of the background). Look at how her right hand fades into the background, while her left is in sharp focus.

The effect from the image of the kid is given by the high background blur and by the small focal length used to amplify the ratio of distances.

Other than this, I personaly see no 3D effect in them that you say you see.

The reason why your shots look bland is not because of lacking a 3D effect, but that you have no subject that pops in front of the viewer.

[bycostello]

short answer, no
long answer, about a stop of difference in depth of field. (closer u are to something the shallower DOF u have, FF simply lets u stand closer [for the same crop]).