Powder Portraits said:
? what do you mean? a pop up flash is fine for filling in some shadows. It doesn't need to be nearly as powerful if used as just a fill...
Upvote
0
70D or 6D
- Thread starter GaabNZ
- Start date
- Status
? what do you mean? a pop up flash is fine for filling in some shadows. It doesn't need to be nearly as powerful if used as just a fill...
sarakoth said:
You have to think in equivalent terms. Is the AF focus of the 70D at f/2.8 more accurate than the 6D at f/4.5? No way, unless you need tracking.
I have experience with the 5D2 and the 50D (supposedly better AF). For equivalent apertures, the outer AF points of the 5D2 (AI servo, back AF button) are similar, if not better than the center of the 50D. Once you start shooting moving objects not in the center, things change.
Upvote
0
weixing said:
Why would I want a flip screen? You cannot see the screen of your camera if you are 4-5 meters away from the camera anyway. it's landscape shots, not normal self portraits, so you are a bit further from the camera, to avoid covering the lanscape, and if doing panoramas, to avoid parallax issues.
With the 70D and 6D you can take a photo using your mobile phone and wifi, and see live view through it. There's no need for a flipping screen. But the AF on the 70D might work better, since it's not contrast based anymore.
Upvote
0
intxaurrek said:
Lenses with the same light gathering abilities for FF are not heavier. For example, the 24-105 is comparable in weight to the 17-55.
AF in LV? This is entirely different AF. The 6D would not behave any different. If anything, with the same lens, the 6D would gather more light and AF better in LV.
Upvote
0
Pi said:
The 17-55 is f2.8. The 24-105 is f4. An f2.8 for a full frame like the 6D would be much heavier.
The lenses needed to gather light for a full frame are larger and heavier, since they need much wider diameter lenses to cover such a sized sensor. It's not only about capturing the same light. It's about having the same light density on the sensor.
And about live view focusing, the 6D does contrast focusing, while the 70D does phase detect in live view. Thus my question. It actuallly DOES AF in a similar maner to normal AF....
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
intxaurrek said:
Actually, it is about the same total light. The exposure triangle has three sides - so, while f/4 is a stop slower than f/2.8 in terms of light per unit area (independent of sensor size), comparing an f/4 lens on a FF sensor to f/2.8 on APS-C, the latter gives you the DoF of f/4.5 on FF but a stop faster shutter speed, you can bump the ISO up a stop on the FF f/4, and still have less noise than f/2.8 on APS-C.
You're right about the Live View AF on the 70d being better than that on the 6D, at least by spec. But let's wait for the testing - CDAF on the 6D, 7D, and 5DII should be 'the same' but the 6D is both more accurate and more precise than the other two.
Upvote
0
I think it really depends on how much video that need auto tracking you will be doing. If this is video you do more, then 70D. If it is still then 6D
However you may need to get a bunch of EF new lens instead of the EF-s lens for 6D
However you may need to get a bunch of EF new lens instead of the EF-s lens for 6D
Upvote
0
intxaurrek said:
No, this is wrong. It is quite simple, really - same diameter (more precisely, entrance pupil), same light.
Yes, I forgot about that. Still - did you say that you will be shooting at f/10, or so? You might be overthinking it.
Upvote
0
Pi said:
You are mistaking light candelas/luxes with lumens. You get the same amount of light in lumens, but not the same light density (luxes/candelas), since the light is spread all over the sensor. The sensor will give you a charge depending on this density of light, and the lens will give you more or less *total* amount of light depending on the aperture (pupil) diameter. Then this light is spread over an area, but a crop lens is designed to focus it on 24mm area, while a full frame lens is designed to cover 35mm... then the 35mm one needs more light entering to yield the same exposure.
For an f2.8, no matter which lens, as far as it's appropriate for the given body, they all produce the same light density on the sensor. Otherwise the exposure settings would need to be different on each body, and you know that's not true. You just cannot compare an f.4 from full frame with an f2.8 on a crop. They do not yield the same photo on the same iso/Tv settings at maximum aperture.
The difference between an f2.8 on a FF and a f2.8 on a crop is that even if they show the same exposure, they are not equivalent in terms of DOF, frame, etc....
But anyway, there's no point discussing what's already discussed elsewhere, so please better read here:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#exposure
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Well, true, I was trying to compare the images at the same exposure settings (same iso/Av/Tv), and that may not be correct to get equivalent photos in terms of noise and DOF, right.
In your comparison terms, an f4 on a FF is the same as f2.8 on a crop sensor
if you alter exposure settings, that is
Upvote
0
intxaurrek said:
No, you are.
Right, but you are the only one insisting that intensity has anything to do with the discussion, so ... you get the idea.
Yes, good reading. I have been referring to it for years. Did you get to the "total light" part of it?
Upvote
0
Pi said:
Did you get the equivalence vs exposure part? I was comparing exposure, you were comparing equivalence. What's wrong with that?
1) respect is first
2) justifying your answers is second
3) You did none, so well, go on,...
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Pi said:
Apparently not. :
Please, if I said anything wrong in the answer to your explanation, whch I believe I agreed, do please correct me. I accept corrections, but silly "you're wrong" answers like those from "Pi" aren't reasonable. The only thing I said was that I was comparing same exposure value, although you proved total light is what matters for getting quality out. Is that wrong in any sense?
Upvote
0
Well, I've managed through a friend's wife who works for Canon to get hold of a brand new 6D and 24-105L lens for an amazing price and have ordered it today.
Hopefully I'll get it by Friday
Here in New Zealand we are paying a lot more for our gear than in the US.
I brought my EF70-200L from B and H photo earlier this year and even getting picked up at customs for tax I saved NZ$350 on the local retail price.
Looking forward to trying out my new toy
Hopefully I'll get it by Friday
Here in New Zealand we are paying a lot more for our gear than in the US.
I brought my EF70-200L from B and H photo earlier this year and even getting picked up at customs for tax I saved NZ$350 on the local retail price.
Looking forward to trying out my new toy
Upvote
0
intxaurrek said:
Exposure (to total light) is the same for equivalent images. This is what determines the photon noise. You are fixated on intensity per unit sensor area which is not directly related to IQ.
Then show some.
Upvote
0
Pi said:
You're completely right on that. I never before cared to compare lenses in terms final IQ, but it's actually the way to do so for photography at least.
About the term "exposure", just not to confuse, I prefer using it in the same definition that the website I linked does (he defines Exposure: The total light per area (photons / mm²)). Otherwise we may end up talking different things.
Pi said:
I thought I did, or tried to, but sorry if I didn't. And honestly, my intention wasn't bothering anyone. There's tons of incorrect things written about photography out there, and the learning path can be slow ...
Upvote
0
- Status
