Difference in image from APS-C to FF

[DJD]

The OP specifically asked for some photographic examples so here are mine with some explanation.

I've had a 7D for several years now and have been very happy with it's performance and image quality. But I have to admit, after reading a lot of the discussions on this board, I've wondered if a 5DMkIII would help me take better bird pictures. Is the noise performance that much better, etc.

After the announcement of the 7D MkII, I decided to rent a 5DMkIII for the weekend and see difference for myself. I was expecting to be blown away by the incredible performance difference in high ISO performance. I was expecting to be left wanting to get a 5D after my testing. But that was not the case.

It just so happened that I found two shots taken from the same spot of a similar bird with the same exposure and processed in Lightroom with the same setting. I've had to crop the 5D image to account for the 1.6 crop factor and below are the shots. These were take with ISO 2500 so if the 7D is so much poorer at high ISO you'd expect to see a difference. I know this test wasn't done in a controlled environment with test charts. And the lighting is different because they were taken on different days. But these two images look pretty much the same, don't you think.

So my advice to you is to rent a FF camera, take the kind of pictures you are interested in, and see the difference for yourself.

Cheers

Model: Canon EOS 7D
ISO: 2500
Exposure: 1/250 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 400mm

Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark III
ISO: 2500
Exposure: 1/250 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 400mm

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Yeah, but all the cool kids shoot FF.

No, can't back that up. Glass before bodies.

;D

 

[jefflinde]

The OP specifically asked for some photographic examples so here are mine with some explanation.

I've had a 7D for several years now and have been very happy with it's performance and image quality. But I have to admit, after reading a lot of the discussions on this board, I've wondered if a 5DMkIII would help me take better bird pictures. Is the noise performance that much better, etc.

After the announcement of the 7D MkII, I decided to rent a 5DMkIII for the weekend and see difference for myself. I was expecting to be blown away by the incredible performance difference in high ISO performance. I was expecting to be left wanting to get a 5D after my testing. But that was not the case.

It just so happened that I found two shots taken from the same spot of a similar bird with the same exposure and processed in Lightroom with the same setting. I've had to crop the 5D image to account for the 1.6 crop factor and below are the shots. These were take with ISO 2500 so if the 7D is so much poorer at high ISO you'd expect to see a difference. I know this test wasn't done in a controlled environment with test charts. And the lighting is different because they were taken on different days. But these two images look pretty much the same, don't you think.

So my advice to you is to rent a FF camera, take the kind of pictures you are interested in, and see the difference for yourself.

Cheers

Model: Canon EOS 7D
ISO: 2500
Exposure: 1/250 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 400mm

Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark III
ISO: 2500
Exposure: 1/250 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 400mm

thank you very much for this post. this is what i was looking for. i have though about renting lenses but never bodies. I will have to check that out at my local shop.

thanks again.

 

[DJD]

thank you very much for this post. this is what i was looking for. i have though about renting lenses but never bodies. I will have to check that out at my local shop.

thanks again.

FYI - I used LensRentals.com and was really happy with the cost and the service. Good luck.

 

[Cory]

Just completed my 8th paid shoot - 23 portraits and a group shot for a law practice with my 70D and Sigma 50mm Art (although I returned the Art because my Canon 35 2.0 IS is too similar and a bit more versatile even though the Sigma rendered slightly nicer pictures and bought a Canon 85 1.8 for outdoor portraits).
Not to brag (and I was told to be eternally humble allowing clients to do my bragging for me), but the results are in the upper levels of goodness on a par with some of the more accomplished professionals who are likely using full frame cameras.
The only advantages, then, might be greater depth of field opportunity and better high ISO performance. From my experience (which is pretty limited compared to many) that might be it.

 

[Buzr]

Not to highjack, but I'm in a fairly close situation myself. I bought a T2i kit as a noob and thought I'd have to buy a "big shot" camera someday if I wanted better pictures than I was taking. Naturally, the more I shot- the better my pictures got. To the point that through these years, I've come to love that cheap little plasticky thing, and really have a hard time selling myself on the thought that a new body is going to make my captures that much better for the investment. I've sold some pictures, and even have a full covershot of a local paper to my credit, but I'm ultimately just a ham and egger. The only reason I'm considering changing bodies is I've finally felt a little hindered by the T2i's light sensitivity and hunt and peck focusing, and I've got a couple trips this year that I really want to make the most of from a landscape wide angle perspective.

My gear is the aforementioned T2i
EFS kit lens I never use
EF 70-200 2.8L II
EF 16-35 2.8L II

I'm really torn between a)getting a 6d, simply because it's "FF", my two good lenses are made for it, etc. or b)upgrading to a 70d with better focusing a feature laden by caparison, getting an efs 10-18 for landscape, and waiting for the trickle down when Canon finally competes with Nikon in MP

I guess even at it's current $1500 pricetag, I just doubt a 6D will have been worth it. Thoughts?

 

[candc]

Not to highjack, but I'm in a fairly close situation myself. I bought a T2i kit as a noob and thought I'd have to buy a "big shot" camera someday if I wanted better pictures than I was taking. Naturally, the more I shot- the better my pictures got. To the point that through these years, I've come to love that cheap little plasticky thing, and really have a hard time selling myself on the thought that a new body is going to make my captures that much better for the investment. I've sold some pictures, and even have a full covershot of a local paper to my credit, but I'm ultimately just a ham and egger. The only reason I'm considering changing bodies is I've finally felt a little hindered by the T2i's light sensitivity and hunt and peck focusing, and I've got a couple trips this year that I really want to make the most of from a landscape wide angle perspective.

My gear is the aforementioned T2i
EFS kit lens I never use
EF 70-200 2.8L II
EF 16-35 2.8L II

I'm really torn between a)getting a 6d, simply because it's "FF", my two good lenses are made for it, etc. or b)upgrading to a 70d with better focusing a feature laden by caparison, getting an efs 10-18 for landscape, and waiting for the trickle down when Canon finally competes with Nikon in MP

I guess even at it's current $1500 pricetag, I just doubt a 6D will have been worth it. Thoughts?

Get a 6d, you already have 2 of the best lenses for it. Maybe get a fast 50 and you are all set. If you can do with the limited number of AF points then there is nothing better.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Not to highjack, but I'm in a fairly close situation myself. I bought a T2i kit as a noob and thought I'd have to buy a "big shot" camera someday if I wanted better pictures than I was taking. Naturally, the more I shot- the better my pictures got. To the point that through these years, I've come to love that cheap little plasticky thing, and really have a hard time selling myself on the thought that a new body is going to make my captures that much better for the investment. I've sold some pictures, and even have a full covershot of a local paper to my credit, but I'm ultimately just a ham and egger. The only reason I'm considering changing bodies is I've finally felt a little hindered by the T2i's light sensitivity and hunt and peck focusing, and I've got a couple trips this year that I really want to make the most of from a landscape wide angle perspective.

My gear is the aforementioned T2i
EFS kit lens I never use
EF 70-200 2.8L II
EF 16-35 2.8L II

I'm really torn between a)getting a 6d, simply because it's "FF", my two good lenses are made for it, etc. or b)upgrading to a 70d with better focusing a feature laden by caparison, getting an efs 10-18 for landscape, and waiting for the trickle down when Canon finally competes with Nikon in MP

I guess even at it's current $1500 pricetag, I just doubt a 6D will have been worth it. Thoughts?

That's a tough question Buzr. The way I see it, you are more in touch and honest with yourself and your gear than most. And obviously you don't buy a lot of gear just for sake of merely owning it. You have a lot of confidence and experience with that T2i crop camera. You're used to it. You like it. And you don't feel limited by it. So with that in mind and your apparently frugal nature, the 70D seems like a good idea and a great value.

But let's push your boundaries a bit with the 6D FF question: While you own two amazing fabulous lenses that would benefit in a big way from the FF aspect ratio, you don't seem that interested in FF. But then you mention buying a somewhat inferior and dedicated EF-S lens to gain better wide angle FL. Buying the EF-S 10-18 with the 70D will also increase your investment to essentially what you would pay for the 6D. So that is a contradiction. You already own a MUCH better wide angle zoom lens (EF 16-35L) than the EF-S 10-18. The 16-35 would give you everything you could ever dream of with the 6D. And I promise you that you haven't lived until you use that 70-200 lens on a FF camera.

Lastly, you also have a bit of a gap in your lens collection between the 16-35 and the 70-200. Why not 'go for it' and buy a 6D + 24-105-F/4L Kit and fill that gap with a great walk around L lens in the bargain?

I think that based on what you say you shoot and the skill level you are probably at, it is probably a perfect time for you to embrace full frame and see what it can do for your creativity. Great low light, remote shooting and expanded FL options all are waiting with a FF body. And currently, the 6D is about as cheap as it may ever be new. (OR, buy a used 5D Classic FF and see what it's all about for less $$.)

Look, it's a given that you'll love the 70D. That's a no brainer. What I think I am reading between the lines in your post is that you might secretly be pining for a FF 6D. That EF-S 10-18 lens is a bit of a tell and possibly a step backward with the lenses you already own. You are already in a higher class of gear with those and you may likely be disappointed with a variable aperture EF-S lens that can only be used on crop cameras. Thoughts?

 

[nc0b]

Randy is right on the money. Get the 6D and the 24-105 L. If I am not shooting something specialized, that is my go to combination. If I am indoors, it's the 6D and the 70-200mm f/2.8 II. Portraits, the same. BIF the 6D and 400mm f/5.6. If I need more reach, a crop and a 300mm f/4 IS for larger animals. Before I had the 300mm and 400mm, I used a Canon TC with the 70-200mm f/2.8 II. Except for BIF it was fine. I sold the 2X TC III, but kept the 1.4X TC III. I only have one EF-S lens, the fine 15-85mm, but I rarely use it since I now have the 6D and 5D classic.

 

[Buzr]

Hmm. You guys are awfully persuasive. I appreciate the thoughts and have chewed on them a couple days. I think my hesitance to take the leap is mostly rooted in the lenses I've bought. The 70-200 blew me away when I got it, I couldn't believe how much better my shots got- instantly. Obviously this was after developing just enough skill for that to take place, but it was amazing. Then I bought the 16-35. Honestly, I was underwhelmed. You all probably recognize instantly that it stands to reason and was predictable given the body I'm shooting with. I think that started a faulty subconscious line of thinking that FF wasn't going to wow me either, that it's all about the glass, good or bad (thus the efs 10-18 that I haven't read a bad word about). I've known for a while I would eventually need to upgrade the T2i, and it kind of stuck in my head to do that now and wait to see what happens with FF as Canon (maybe?) actually enters the war. I was actually leaning 70D and figured I'd get input that it would be an appropriate next step. In the end you guys are right, if I'm reading you correctly: My lenses certainly, and possibly me as a developing photographer, will not come into their own unless I stop being cheap already and just get the 6D )

My only follow-up question is, do I wait to see what Canon's rebates will be in Feb?

 

[Sporgon]

Hmm. You guys are awfully persuasive. I appreciate the thoughts and have chewed on them a couple days. I think my hesitance to take the leap is mostly rooted in the lenses I've bought. The 70-200 blew me away when I got it, I couldn't believe how much better my shots got- instantly. Obviously this was after developing just enough skill for that to take place, but it was amazing. Then I bought the 16-35. Honestly, I was underwhelmed. You all probably recognize instantly that it stands to reason and was predictable given the body I'm shooting with. I think that started a faulty subconscious line of thinking that FF wasn't going to wow me either, that it's all about the glass, good or bad (thus the efs 10-18 that I haven't read a bad word about). I've known for a while I would eventually need to upgrade the T2i, and it kind of stuck in my head to do that now and wait to see what happens with FF as Canon (maybe?) actually enters the war. I was actually leaning 70D and figured I'd get input that it would be an appropriate next step. In the end you guys are right, if I'm reading you correctly: My lenses certainly, and possibly me as a developing photographer, will not come into their own unless I stop being cheap already and just get the 6D )

My only follow-up question is, do I wait to see what Canon's rebates will be in Feb?

You're very observant, because what you have seen is the difference in the volume of light that a longer lens passes and the lower volume that a short focal length passes.

Half the problem with the so called IQ difference between aps-c and FF is the fact that, pro rata, you're using a shorter focal length on a smaller format, and gathering less light. So using a lens such as the 70-200 on a crop camera, especially an f2.8 one, is going to give that smaller sensor the best chance. The 16 to 35 on the other hand is going the other way and reducing the volume of light available to the sensor. For example a 200 mil lens at f8 has an aperture diameter of 25 mm. A 16 mil lens at f4 ( you can get away with wider aperture on wider lens for dof etc) has an aperture diametre of only 4 mm ! If you could use a 200 mil lens at f2.8 on a crop sensor all the time no one would have any complaints about smaller sensor noise etc, but unfortunately that is hopelessly impractical. This is why bigger formats are better for using with wider angle ( shorter focal length ) lenses. How often do you hear how people like APS camera for birding ? What length of lens do they use for birding ? The longer the lens you stick on a crop camera the better it's going to be.

So you are spot on when you say the 70-200 f2.8 is fantastic on APS, but no the 16-35 f2.8.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The only difference you will see with FF is better IQ at high ISO's, and the possibility of wider angles and shallow depth of field.

As far as viewing photos, there are literally billions available online. Do a little searching at places like flickr to start.

Many users prefer the additional depth of field and looks of a small sensor, so it is not really a concept of better IQ but of ability to expand capabilities. Going to medium format can further expand capabilities.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

My only follow-up question is, do I wait to see what Canon's rebates will be in Feb?

I'm no expert on rebates. However, others will probably correct me but rebates are usually over after New Years. This year, they extended them through January. Who knows what Canon will do after that but I suspect the rebates will be over. I think that this year there is enough stuff coming in 2015 that Canon is trying to help the various authorized dealers clear some inventory for another month past the normal Nov-Dec rebate/sales time window.

If you aren't already looking at canonpricewatch.com, I would give that a shot. Gordon does a great job of doing deal alerts, and wrangling a few deals for his subscribers. If anyone can predict rebate stuff, it might be him.

 

[Buzr]

Thank you all for the nudge/encouragement/education. Owe you all a pint. Hitting up Breckenridge this month and Antelope Canyon/Buckskin Gulch in the spring- I feel confident now this is the right camera to arm myself with, and I can't wait.

And good looking out on canonpricewatch, I was not plugged in enough to be aware of their site, and found only praise for Gordon looking through various forums. Sent an email and was immediately responded to, now dealing with a very reputable authorized seller, full US warranty, free ship, no tax, still get the rebate- great way to save a couple Benji's over buying from Amazon. jefflinde, if you haven't bought yet, I can let you know how satisfied I am when Santa brings a late delivery. )

 

[bdunbar79]

<You're very observant, because what you have seen is the difference in the volume of light that a longer lens passes and the lower volume that a short focal length passes.>

 

[Loswr]

<You're very observant, because what you have seen is the difference in the volume of light that a longer lens passes and the lower volume that a short focal length passes.>

Think about it...my 600/4 gathers light from a 150mm diameter front element and passes it through an aperture that's 150mm in diameter. At the wide end, the 16-35/4 lens is gathering light from a 46mm front element and passing it through an aperture that's 4mm in diameter. A much greater volume of light passes through the supertelephoto than the UWA lens, since the area of the aperture is 1400x larger. That's why when you shoot both lenses wide open at the same shutter speed and ISO, the shot with the 600/4 is >10 stops brighter than the 16/4, exactly as the math predicts.

No, wait...the front element is the limiting factor, that's a 10x larger area on the 600/4, meaning images with that lens are >3-stops brighter, exactly as the math predicts.

No, wait...

 

[bdunbar79]

YOU STOLE THE PICTURE I STOLE FROM JRISTA!!!

 

[bdunbar79]

I get that, I was more or less thinking in terms of absolute area of the lens diameter and not the focal length. Because in theory in Bizzaro World I could create a 16mm lens with a gigantic diameter or a super long and narrow 600mm lens. I didn't do the math on any of it so the 600 might very well always beat the 16mm...

...Ooo time for more Guiness Extra Stout...

 

[Loswr]

....Ooo time for more Guiness Extra Stout...

Since the FF vs. APS-C thing has been done beyond death, I have an important question. Have you ever tried Guinness Foreign Extra Stout? If not, I highly recommend it!

 

[Loswr]

Ps. After that, if you like dark beers try a Sam Smith's Imperial Stout. In the bottle, which has gold foil over the top, it looks a bit darker than a Guinness ES. But after you remove the foil, you see that unlike the brown Guinness bottle, the Sam Smith's is clear glass.