Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]

[ecka]

Are we going to have to discuss equivalence yet again? :...

I'd rather not. This topic has been beat to death and I would be more than happy if people would just stay away from simplistic claims.

To be accurate, the quote said "Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 f5.6-10 FF?"

Sensor noise was never part of the discussion.

But, if we must talk about sensor noise, I will once again, use the 5D S vs. 70D example, since they have very similar pixel size and density. Are you saying that the pixels of a 5DS have more light gathering ability than the pixels on a 70D, if we assume that the 5D S is simply an upsized 70D sensor (I know that the jury is still out on whether that is truly the case, but for purposes of this example, let's assume it is)?

It is all about the amount of light. Not light intensity, which is what the F-number represents.
More light = more information = better image quality.
Different DoF and ISO noise are just the obvious consequences of comparing different amounts of light gathered by different sensors. Equivalence makes everything equal for different format systems - similar DoF, similar noise, similar size, similar weight, etc. Except the price and those exposure numbers you get on your crop toys. FF ISO400 = crop ISO160. Same settings on both FF and crop do not produce similar images.
FF 200mm F8 ISO400 ~ crop 135mm F5 ISO160. If you crop FF 200mm F8, you get 320mm F12 equivalent image and FF 320mm F12 is equivalent to crop 200mm F8. Capeesh? You need faster and shorter lens for crop to produce the same image and that's where the rip-off begins. Because m4/3 12-35/2.8 ~ FF 24-70/5.6 in everything - similar FL, similar DoF, similar noise, similar size, similar weight. People are buying expensive F2.8 m4/3 zooms just to resemble small and cheap FF zooms. Isn't that silly? (OK, maybe for videos it's not, I'll give you that, Panasonic, but only because we have no choice.)

 

[unfocused]

I get so tired of this deliberate obfuscation.

Once again, here is the challenge:

Take two cameras, one with a 20 mp. crop sensor, and one with an identical 51 mp full frame sensor (20 x 1.6 x 1.6). Mount them side by side and place a 200mm lens on each one. Shoot the same subject at the same shutter speed and fstop and the same ISO.

Crop the full frame image to be identical to the crop-sensor image.

Post them side by side and show the difference.

 

[rrcphoto]

I really hope Canon goes with a larger body for mirrorless. The benefit of mirrorless is NOT space or size savings within the pro realm. The benefits are the possibilities that a live view finder gives, higher FPS and much more....

To me and many others [e.g. all Sony and Fuji customers], SIZE and WEIGHT and UNOBTRUSIVENESS of gear is a major benefit, which can only be gained by dumping the mirror. SIZE is the main rreason, my 5D3 + assorted L glass are sitting back at home in a cupboard, whereas my EOS M + EF-M lenses are with me most of the time. Roughly 6x more clicks on the M than on the 5D 3.

And as I said before, Canon could and should make both LARGE and SMALL mirrorless FF bodies. It would be quite easy to satisfy both camps.

they should do so now. agreed. especially if they end up going mirrorless, a EF body the size of the T6 and the rest of the normal ergonomic lineup.

 

[unfocused]

I really hope Canon goes with a larger body for mirrorless....

To me and many others [e.g. all Sony and Fuji customers], SIZE and WEIGHT and UNOBTRUSIVENESS of gear is a major benefit...

This perfectly illustrates at least one reason why Canon (or Nikon) has not jumped into full-frame mirrorless. Niche market where the customer base has conflicting priorities.

Add to that the fact that there remain serious technical challenges. Then throw in the whole debate about the EF Lens mount. Finally, add to the mix that APS-C sensors are improving with each subsequent generation.

It's not that Canon is "stupid." It is that what looks easy on the surface is in fact very hard.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Most crop optics are overpriced because there are millions of ignorant people, who were fooled into thinking that sensor size doesn't matter.

More utter crap right here.

Careful who you call ignorant, princess - I'm a wildlife/sport photographer who uses crop cameras because of the sensor size difference, and I'm by no means alone there.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Most crop optics are overpriced because there are millions of ignorant people, who were fooled into thinking that sensor size doesn't matter.

More utter crap right here.

Careful who you call ignorant, princess - I'm a wildlife/sport photographer who uses crop cameras because of the sensor size difference, and I'm by no means alone there.

I think what Ecka is trying to say is that it is possible to mimic the effect of a crop sensor camera by cropping a full frame image but it is not possible to mimic the effect of a full frame camera by expanding a file from a crop sensor camera.
At the end of the day they are just tools that we use to do a specific job. I happen to use a full frame camera because I want the additional control over depth of field and because I find they perform slightly better when the light is very poor. For me it is worth the additional size weight and cost of full frame equipment to achieve these benefits. However I know plenty of excellent photographers for whom the size and weight of their equipment is particularly important and so they tend to choose APS-C cameras and lenses. It does not make them a better or worse photographer. They have just chosen the equipment that best meets their particular needs.
On the point about cost - I have never thought that crop sensor equipment was over priced. In fact it is almost always a lot less expensive than similar full frame equipment.

 

[BillB]

I really hope Canon goes with a larger body for mirrorless. The benefit of mirrorless is NOT space or size savings within the pro realm. The benefits are the possibilities that a live view finder gives, higher FPS and much more....

To me and many others [e.g. all Sony and Fuji customers], SIZE and WEIGHT and UNOBTRUSIVENESS of gear is a major benefit, which can only be gained by dumping the mirror. SIZE is the main rreason, my 5D3 + assorted L glass are sitting back at home in a cupboard, whereas my EOS M + EF-M lenses are with me most of the time. Roughly 6x more clicks on the M than on the 5D 3.

And as I said before, Canon could and should make both LARGE and SMALL mirrorless FF bodies. It would be quite easy to satisfy both camps.

At this point Canon seems to have defined a couple of mirrorless design concepts at the APS-C level. One concept is minimum size (M10), The other trades off size and functionality (M5 and M6).

What next? There seem to be several choices. One choice might be a "FF M5", with a trade off between size and functionality. Another could be a "mirrorless 6D, 5D, or 1D" emphazing functionality using a FF sensor and EVF. A third choice might be a "mirrorless 7DII" which would emphasize functionality while continuing to use an APS-C sensor.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

You don't think he's condescendingly suggesting that people who choose crop cameras do so because they don't know any better?

And that by extension, 'togs who choose full frame sensors are "obviously" more knowledgable and worth listening to?

He's clearly trying to say that camera makers are able to milk crop gear prices because crop buyers are too stupid, as a breed, to know better than to suck up whatever price they're presented with, Ian.

 

[ecka]

I get so tired of this deliberate obfuscation.

Once again, here is the challenge:

Take two cameras, one with a 20 mp. crop sensor, and one with an identical 51 mp full frame sensor (20 x 1.6 x 1.6). Mount them side by side and place a 200mm lens on each one. Shoot the same subject at the same shutter speed and fstop and the same ISO.

Crop the full frame image to be identical to the crop-sensor image.

Post them side by side and show the difference.

Exactly. APS-C is just a piece of FF and everything about it should be 60% cheaper. I don't see how this "challenge" is supporting your idea. This is exactly how the equivalence works.

You don't think he's condescendingly suggesting that people who choose crop cameras do so because they don't know any better?

And that by extension, 'togs who choose full frame sensors are "obviously" more knowledgable and worth listening to?

He's clearly trying to say that camera makers are able to milk crop gear prices because crop buyers are too stupid, as a breed, to know better than to suck up whatever price they're presented with, Ian.

No. I'm saying you are not willing to learn how it works and instead you accept whatever salesman's story tales and delusions, because it seems easier that way.

 

[ecka]

Most crop optics are overpriced because there are millions of ignorant people, who were fooled into thinking that sensor size doesn't matter.

More utter crap right here.

Careful who you call ignorant, princess - I'm a wildlife/sport photographer who uses crop cameras because of the sensor size difference, and I'm by no means alone there.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I get so tired of this deliberate obfuscation.

Then please, stop doing it.

Once again, here is the challenge:
...
Crop the full frame image to be identical to the crop-sensor image.

In that case you are, in effect, comparing sensors of identical size, rendering the debate moot. There are two situations where that scenario is relevant: 1) when you're 'reach limited' – your subject is too far away and you can't get closer or use a longer lens, and 2) when you're deliberately obfuscating by using an artificial argument for an internet debate. In most real world use, you choose a focal length and subject distance to fill the frame with your desired composition, the larger sensor gathers more total light and the resulting image will have ~1.3-stops less noise for a given exposure at the same ISO.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Careful who you call ignorant, princess - I'm a wildlife/sport photographer who uses crop cameras because of the sensor size difference, and I'm by no means alone there.

So, you're saying a 7D is better for wildlife/sport photography than a 5Ds because of the sensor size difference? By that logic, m4/3 is even better...but the real winner would be an SX-series superzoom, because that 2/3" sensor offers great 'reach'.

No, you're not alone – there are lots of people who don't fully understand the relevant concepts.

 

[ecka]

Careful who you call ignorant, princess - I'm a wildlife/sport photographer who uses crop cameras because of the sensor size difference, and I'm by no means alone there.

So, you're saying a 7D is better for wildlife/sport photography than a 5Ds because of the sensor size difference? By that logic, m4/3 is even better...but the real winner would be an SX-series superzoom, because that 2/3" sensor offers great 'reach'.

No, you're not alone – there are lots of people who don't fully understand the relevant concepts.

Thank you Neuro

 

[ecka]

Most crop optics are overpriced because there are millions of ignorant people, who were fooled into thinking that sensor size doesn't matter.

More utter crap right here.

Careful who you call ignorant, princess - I'm a wildlife/sport photographer who uses crop cameras because of the sensor size difference, and I'm by no means alone there.

I think what Ecka is trying to say is that it is possible to mimic the effect of a crop sensor camera by cropping a full frame image but it is not possible to mimic the effect of a full frame camera by expanding a file from a crop sensor camera.
At the end of the day they are just tools that we use to do a specific job. I happen to use a full frame camera because I want the additional control over depth of field and because I find they perform slightly better when the light is very poor. For me it is worth the additional size weight and cost of full frame equipment to achieve these benefits. However I know plenty of excellent photographers for whom the size and weight of their equipment is particularly important and so they tend to choose APS-C cameras and lenses. It does not make them a better or worse photographer. They have just chosen the equipment that best meets their particular needs.
On the point about cost - I have never thought that crop sensor equipment was over priced. In fact it is almost always a lot less expensive than similar full frame equipment.

Honestly, for me, DoF difference is just a side effect of the amount of light being gathered. In theory you can get the same thing on both systems, only the crop is unreasonably priced to go there. Low light or good light, FF is superior in most situations, except when there is not enough resolution to crop efficiently. I rarely use my flash, I don't even put it in my small bag, but I couldn't do without it when I used my 7D indoors or outdoors (like macro). FF gives me the image quality, the details, the information, more contrast, less aberrations, etc. while crops quality in many situations is just sad without artificial lighting. Just think about the size/weight/cost savings . There is no huge size difference, it's a myth. Sony A7 with cheap, small and slow(ish) primes is just as fine as some Fuji with fast and expensive ones.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Regarding the cost difference, I'd say generally APS-C is the cheaper option. For example, landscapes: 6D + 16-35/4L vs. 80D + 10-18mm; at f/8 and ISO 100, the IQ differences will be minimal. For birds/wildlife: 7DII + 100-400 II vs. 5Ds + 600/4; the FF option will yield better IQ, but at a significant cost premium. OTOH, for outdoor portraits: 6D + 135/2L vs. 80D + 85/1.2L II; the FF option is actually cheaper.

 

[unfocused]

I get so tired of this deliberate obfuscation.

Once again, here is the challenge:

Take two cameras, one with a 20 mp. crop sensor, and one with an identical 51 mp full frame sensor (20 x 1.6 x 1.6). Mount them side by side and place a 200mm lens on each one. Shoot the same subject at the same shutter speed and fstop and the same ISO.

Crop the full frame image to be identical to the crop-sensor image.

Post them side by side and show the difference.

Exactly. APS-C is just a piece of FF and everything about it should be 60% cheaper. I don't see how this "challenge" is supporting your idea. This is exactly how the equivalence works.

Because statements like the following are misleading:

Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 F5.6-10 FF?

The clear implication (and when placed in context with your other statements, it affirms this) is that placing a lens on a crop sensor camera will somehow magically reduce its effective aperture. And that is simply not true and misleading.

If you wish to say that an identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera will result in differences in depth of field because you have to shoot from a different position and that changes the relationship between the foreground and background, thus changing the depth of field – that would be a true statement. It has nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with where the photographer is standing.

Or, if you wanted to say that, in terms of noise, sensor size matters and you need to use either a faster lens or a lower shutter speed coupled with a lower ISO to achieve the same level of noise, I would accept that as a generally true statement. (Although there are several caveats. In practical terms, is is often irrelevant at low to mid-range ISOs and is heavily dependent on the final size of the image and how that image was post-processed. It is also true, only if the pixel density of the two sensors is different. But this has more to do with pixel density, not the size of the sensor).

But, a broad-brushed statement that a lens on crop sensor camera is "equivalent" to a smaller f number is too easily read as meaning it somehow loses its light gathering abilities when mounted on a crop sensor camera.

Every time someone makes that kind of broad-brushed statement, it results in page-after-page of irrelevant and psuedo-technical debates that mislead and confuse people. That is why I insist on trying to stomp out this sort of sloppy and fuzzy writing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Because statements like the following are misleading:

Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 F5.6-10 FF?

The clear implication (and when placed in context with your other statements, it affirms this) is that placing a lens on a crop sensor camera will somehow magically reduce its effective aperture. And that is simply not true and misleading.

The point is that there is no free lunch. Regarding depth of field, when discussing the effect of sensor size, the most logical and relevant comparison is 'the same picture', which of course means that with a smaller sensor you must either use a shorter focal length or move further away. Similarly for aperture - the smaller sensor gathers less total light, meaning if you keep aperture and shutter speed the same, the ISO (the 3rd leg of the exposure triangle) is effectively higher on the smaller sensor.

Your contrived, artificial scenario of cropping the FF image to APS-C size is technically true but practically misleading. For generally applicable real world comparisons, switching a lens from FF to APS-C means a longer effective focal length and a narrower effective aperture.

You seem to think comparing the two pictures below is the most applicable and logical way to compare FF to APS-C. I suspect most people would disagree.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you wish to say that an identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera will result in differences in depth of field because you have to shoot from a different position and that changes the relationship between the foreground and background, thus changing the depth of field – that would be a true statement. It has nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with where the photographer is standing.

By the way, since you seem to enjoy overinterpreting things, I should point out that highlighted portion of your statement above is misleading and not true. If I change sensor sizes, and simply use a different focal length to acheive identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera (which could be as simple as moving the zoom ring on my 70-200 from 135mm to 85mm, for example), I have not changed where I am standing, nor have I changed the relationship between the foreground and background (i.e., the perspective). But the DoF is still different.

 

[okaro]

Because statements like the following are misleading:

Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 F5.6-10 FF?

The clear implication (and when placed in context with your other statements, it affirms this) is that placing a lens on a crop sensor camera will somehow magically reduce its effective aperture. And that is simply not true and misleading.

It is just as misleading as to say that it changes the focal length. Yet the equivalent focal lengths are widely used especially in relation to fixed lens cameras. The equivalent aperture is no different. Many people do no seem to get the term "equivalent".

If you wish to say that an identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera will result in differences in depth of field because you have to shoot from a different position and that changes the relationship between the foreground and background, thus changing the depth of field – that would be a true statement. It has nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with where the photographer is standing.

You cannot get similar framing if you shoot at a different position. The background will be different. You need to reduce the focal length. This increases the depth of field. To compensate this you need to open up the aperture. This increases the light so to compensate you need to drop the ISO. The factor for the two first is 1.6 and for the ISO 1.6^2 i.e 2.56. You can get relatively close if you just open up one fstop and cut ISO by half (makes more intuitive).

A 50 mm f/1.8 on a crop behaves like 80 mm f/2.8 on FF. You can do exactly same as long as you do not go below ISO 250 on the FF.

Your problem seems that you cannot think these in an abstract way. You have an idea that you want to shoot something an you have a lens and then you think different bodies. This is a pretty natural for a photographer to think so. Yet the formulas used to calculate the depth of field do not care of what you intend to shoot. They object just is not in them.

 

[AvTvM]

I really hope Canon goes with a larger body for mirrorless....

To me and many others [e.g. all Sony and Fuji customers], SIZE and WEIGHT and UNOBTRUSIVENESS of gear is a major benefit...

This perfectly illustrates at least one reason why Canon (or Nikon) has not jumped into full-frame mirrorless. Niche market where the customer base has conflicting priorities.

have to disagree here. mirrorless is no niche market. and if canon and nikon are able and willing to make and sell FF-sensored DSLRs in 3 (nikon: 4) different current models ranging in size and price from 6D/D610 to 1DX II/D5, then they outta be able to make at least 1 chunky and 1 skinny mirrorless cam. the chunky one with native EF (F) mount and the skinny one with new short ffd mount for new lenses or use of existing lenses with EF (F) adaptor.

given Canon' innovation and engineering prowess, i see no major technical difficulties in this. given their marketing genius and financial strength i can see no commercial obstacles either.

further delaying the conversion from current "semi-analog/mechanical" photo gear technology to fully electronic digital imaging devices is ... counterproductive ... and plain stupid.