First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers

[dlleno]

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people think they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them. .. Oh, those lost years.

I agree... I was one too lol. I don't understand the "reach" arguement. Your lens is what gives you reach. A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops. Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)

Same supertele, same distance to the subject, decent light, crop the FF to the 1.6 dimensions and print it at 16 x 20.
The crop gives you 217 pixels per inch, the FF gives you 150, hence a better print.
No appreciable difference in IQ IMO, and I don't care about the bokeh in that situation.

when the crop and the FF sensor are both from the same technology cycle.

 

[PaperTiger]

I run a 5DII and a 7D, which works really well. Get different properties out of the same lenses based on the body used. For example, the 85L is a great portrait lens on the 5DII but the focus speed is horrendous. With it paired to the 7D it nails focus quickly at F1.2. I was shooting snowboarding all day yesterday with both bodies and got great shots with both.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I saw a Brownie Hawkeye at the flea market this weekend. That was my first camera a 'few' years ago, takes me back to the 'darkroom' in a bathroom. I wonder if there will be a similar degree of change in photography in the next 50 years - full sensory recording wired to the brain or some such.

Okay - getting back to the FF/crop discussion. Again? Haven't we hashed this out enough? You say tomayto I say tomahto.

I was started on the Brownie as well, it was the early 1950's, then a Yashica TLR, and then a Argus C3 before buying my First Canon FT-QL in the 1960's. Just between 1998 and 2013, the camera world has been turned on its head, I expect that in the next 20 years, we will see big changes, and yes, there will be things that seem like crazy dreams now. Quite a bit of work is being done to link up cameras to the brains of people who are blind, for example, and that research will start to pay off sooner than we think.

 

[Don Haines]

I shot my first wedding with the paring of a 5Diii and a 5Dii

The 5D2 was generally accepted as THE camera for wedding photographgers.... until the 5D3 came out and took the spot... One would hope that it worked better than a general purpose intermediate camera and a sports/birding camera......

 

[Don Haines]

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people think they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them. .. Oh, those lost years.

I agree... I was one too lol. I don't understand the "reach" arguement. Your lens is what gives you reach. A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops. Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)

The APS-C sensor is sampling the central part of the image with 1.6 times the pixel density of the FF sensor. If the glass is up to it and you are in the lower iso ranges you get better resolving power and equivalent noise out of APS-C (assuming same generation of sensors.... can't compare new to 4 year old...). Use poor glass and the FF outresolves... and at high ISO FF has less noise. Sampling the smaller area is problematic for wide angle shots but benificial to long shots... Lenses can be made smaller, cheaper, and lighter for APS-C, but at the cost of resolving power.... There is no easy answer, just a bunch of tradeoffs.

 

[dlleno]

+1 that is a real good summary. not many appreciate that with the higher pixel density there are greater demands on the resolving power of the lens, which will also approach its diffraction-limit at a wider aperture.

the interesting tests are yet to come, i.e. new generation APS-C sensor (presumedly) compared to cropped images from 5D3, for example. and then the leap frog games begin, i.e. the 7D2 will live for another 4 years, during which time the 5D4 will emerge and make a new challenge to the high density sensors.

 

[Krob78]

;D Still loving both!

 

[9VIII]

Practically it all comes down to whether your uses require more reach than your glass can give you. As soon as you're too far away to frame the subject properly crop sensors are superior (for now. Some day all sensors will at least be available in the same pixel density. At that point crop sensors will only be better at costing less).
Of course if you can get close enough we would be better off with even bigger sensors. At some point in the future medium format and 35mm users will be having the same conversation we're having now (if they aren't already).

 

[AdamJ]

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people think they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them. .. Oh, those lost years.

I agree... I was one too lol. I don't understand the "reach" arguement. Your lens is what gives you reach. A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops. Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)

The APS-C sensor is sampling the central part of the image with 1.6 times the pixel density of the FF sensor. If the glass is up to it and you are in the lower iso ranges you get better resolving power and equivalent noise out of APS-C (assuming same generation of sensors.... can't compare new to 4 year old...). Use poor glass and the FF outresolves... and at high ISO FF has less noise. Sampling the smaller area is problematic for wide angle shots but benificial to long shots... Lenses can be made smaller, cheaper, and lighter for APS-C, but at the cost of resolving power.... There is no easy answer, just a bunch of tradeoffs.

Clarification on the highlighted bits above:

APS-C pixel density relative to FF depends entirely on the number of pixels. A 7D has more than twice the pixel density of a 5D Mk III. A Nikon D800 (FF) has a higher pixel density than a Canon 40D (APS-C).

If an FF image is cropped to match an APS-C image (i.e. the same subject taken from the same distance with the same lens, focal length and aperture), the two images will have identical bokeh.

 

[Dylan777]

+1...FF is the way to go.

Off optic: I tried X100S and I didn't like the look of 1600ISO in lower light. I took 20 shots at the parking lot. too grainny for my taste. I'm glad I got the RX1 as my P&S camera

 

[rifz]

I upgraded from the 7D to 6D. The noise in low light on the 7D was ruining my portraits. I'm amazed at how nice the 6D high ISO noise looks, like film grain instead of a blotchy mess. I miss the 7D AF a little bit, but it's well worth giving up for much better images. love full frame.

 

[pj1974]

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people think they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them. .. Oh, those lost years.

I agree... I was one too lol. I don't understand the "reach" arguement. Your lens is what gives you reach. A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops. Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)

The APS-C sensor is sampling the central part of the image with 1.6 times the pixel density of the FF sensor. If the glass is up to it and you are in the lower iso ranges you get better resolving power and equivalent noise out of APS-C (assuming same generation of sensors.... can't compare new to 4 year old...). Use poor glass and the FF outresolves... and at high ISO FF has less noise. Sampling the smaller area is problematic for wide angle shots but benificial to long shots... Lenses can be made smaller, cheaper, and lighter for APS-C, but at the cost of resolving power.... There is no easy answer, just a bunch of tradeoffs.

Clarification on the highlighted bits above:

APS-C pixel density relative to FF depends entirely on the number of pixels. A 7D has more than twice the pixel density of a 5D Mk III. A Nikon D800 (FF) has a higher pixel density than a Canon 40D (APS-C).

If an FF image is cropped to match an APS-C image (i.e. the same subject taken from the same distance with the same lens, focal length and aperture), the two images will have identical bokeh.

Glad that there is SOME sense in this thread... (eg the above 2 posts). And a few others that state that the 7D (and even other APS-C cameras) are really decent. If people have issues with the 7D's AF, they've probably not learned how to use it. I have used both FF and APS-C, and know the benefits of both, and when to use what. Just because a FF is generally superior for eg landscape, portrait, etc doesn't mean it's 'useless' or 'a toy'.

I'm glad the original poster (OP) humbly admitted that he's not the world's best photog. He's not. (And note, neither am I - though I have some photos that have won awards and been greatly appreciated) Some of the OP's photos are quite good, and I'm sure various viewers genuinely appreciate them.

However to suggest that equipment is more important than skill isn't true. It seems that the OP has managed to compose with his new FF DSLR and 50mm f/1.4 Kudos, but very similar images could have been produced on an APS-C with eg a good 35mm lens. The difference isn't as great as some people think.

I've seen people take stunning photos with point and shoot (P&S) cameras. Knowing how to capture light AND how to use one's equipment to maximum benefit is very important. Of course having great equipment helps, and there are some types of photos one can't do with a P&S.

And then there was the person who wrote: "i could never get over the crop factor killing the wide angle end of my lenses and hated the idea of getting lenses that couldn't migrate to any body i would get in the future."
Well it's a shame that people get EF lenses and don't realise there are so many great, dedicated lenses for APS-C. I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.

And someone else wrote that they couldn't compose with a APS-C - but could with a FF. Hmmm... again it seems people don't understand that you NEED the right lens for the job. I have used eg a 24-105mm on a 5D, as well as a 15-85mm on a 7D. Get and use the lens you need, but don't complain if you are using the wrong lenses on a crop body.

I've been both impressed with the 5DmkIII and 6D as recent FF cameras, and I'm also certainly interested to see what Canon will release with a 7DmkII... Different cameras for different purposes. As someone else had stated, it's also important to remember that building both APS-C bodies and lenses to match saves significant costs. So again, there is place for both FF and APS-C, in terms of the target market / budget, etc.

Cheers, all.

Paul

 

[Pi]

I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.

At equivalent or equal apertures?

 

[brad goda]

8X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
bigger is better... or used to be.

 

[RLPhoto]

8X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
bigger is better... or used to be.

If they made an 4x5 sensor or 8x10 sensor that behaved just like film. We wouldn't even be talking about d800s.

 

[pj1974]

I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.

At equivalent or equal apertures?

At equivalent apertures *1, and definitely at equal apertures *2.

1) eg Sigma 10-20mm @ f/5.6 vs Canon 17-40mm @ f/8 or f/9. I've seen so many shots of FF with good L glass zooms - even stopped down they don't match the crispness of APS-C. Not ALWAYS, but often! These pages give you an indication / comparison (which is matched up by my real work usage):
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d?start=1

2) eg Canon 10-22mm at wide end at f/5.6, even with the Canon 16-35mm, I've seen an advantage to the APS-C 'cutting off' the corners of the lens....

Paul

 

[Pi]

I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.

At equivalent or equal apertures?

At equivalent apertures *1, and definitely at equal apertures *2.

1) eg Sigma 10-20mm @ f/5.6 vs Canon 17-40mm @ f/8 or f/9. I've seen so many shots of FF with good L glass zooms - even stopped down they don't match the crispness of APS-C. Not ALWAYS, but often! These pages give you an indication / comparison (which is matched up by my real work usage):
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d?start=1

AT equal apertures, it is not even of academic interest. At equivalent, I can see only the 10-22 beating the 17-40 at the wide end. This is the only example I know when crop beats (somewhere across the frame) FF, and this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=271&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 actually contradicts PZ in that case.

2) eg Canon 10-22mm at wide end at f/5.6, even with the Canon 16-35mm, I've seen an advantage to the APS-C 'cutting off' the corners of the lens....

It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.

 

[Krob78]

I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.

At equivalent or equal apertures?

At equivalent apertures *1, and definitely at equal apertures *2.

1) eg Sigma 10-20mm @ f/5.6 vs Canon 17-40mm @ f/8 or f/9. I've seen so many shots of FF with good L glass zooms - even stopped down they don't match the crispness of APS-C. Not ALWAYS, but often! These pages give you an indication / comparison (which is matched up by my real work usage):
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d?start=1

2) eg Canon 10-22mm at wide end at f/5.6, even with the Canon 16-35mm, I've seen an advantage to the APS-C 'cutting off' the corners of the lens....

Paul

I loved the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 IS at 12mm on my 7d and at 16mm on my 5d3! I couldn't believe I could use it on my 5d3 but at 16mm it's excellent! Kind of a neat surprise since I was going to sell it since I bought the 5d3. Using it at 16mm has worked out well for my Real Estate Photography work... still looking for a good uwa for my 5d3 in an L lens though...

 

[Krob78]

8X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
bigger is better... or used to be.

If they made an 4x5 sensor or 8x10 sensor that behaved just like film. We wouldn't even be talking about d800s.

+1

 

[Krob78]

I upgraded from the 7D to 6D. The noise in low light on the 7D was ruining my portraits. I'm amazed at how nice the 6D high ISO noise looks, like film grain instead of a blotchy mess. I miss the 7D AF a little bit, but it's well worth giving up for much better images. love full frame.

I didn't get rid of my 7d when I made the jump to a 5d3, I did make the jump however due to the same issues. Some portraiture was ruined with the 7d in low light, good off camera lighting always helped in those situations though. My issue was that most of the noise issues in portraiture required much more processing time than those I'm now getting with my 5d3... It was a workflow issue for me. I still use my 7d a fair amount for birding and sports, albeit not as much as I used too.. The 7d may still end up going sometime in the near future but not just yet, I still love it!