Help me decide on my next camera purchase - full frame high end

[privatebydesign]

Asking for clarification - so pixels on target does not have an effect when shooting birds etc?

The crop sensor will make a better enlargement than the cropped full frame, correct?

On this point, why was a 70D used with a tele for the new Panorama record? Serious question, not being sarcastic.

Can you see a meaningful difference?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25321.msg502225#msg502225

 

[RChauhan]

On this point, why was a 70D used with a tele for the new Panorama record? Serious question, not being sarcastic.

If I could answer that, being something of a panoramic specialist; they used a combination of 400mm focal length and crop sensor due to the size of the format that they were creating. Remember that on a 10 x 8 camera the "standard lens" focal length is 300mm ( that is equivalently to 50mm on FF).

In order to get the field of view that they wanted for the (ridiculous) file size that they wanted to create if they had used a FF camera they would have needed to use a 640mm lens. Also they specifically wanted the 'biggest' file size, so more smaller crop frames at 20mp does it for them. It has nothing to do with resolution. In fact it would have been better on a 5D with 600mm lens, but the overall file size would not have been as big.

So the challenge was about the biggest file size - most giga pixels and not so much the subject, etc?

 

[Sporgon]

On this point, why was a 70D used with a tele for the new Panorama record? Serious question, not being sarcastic.

If I could answer that, being something of a panoramic specialist; they used a combination of 400mm focal length and crop sensor due to the size of the format that they were creating. Remember that on a 10 x 8 camera the "standard lens" focal length is 300mm ( that is equivalently to 50mm on FF).

In order to get the field of view that they wanted for the (ridiculous) file size that they wanted to create if they had used a FF camera they would have needed to use a 640mm lens. Also they specifically wanted the 'biggest' file size, so more smaller crop frames at 20mp does it for them. It has nothing to do with resolution. In fact it would have been better on a 5D with 600mm lens, but the overall file size would not have been as big.

So the challenge was about the biggest file size - most giga pixels and not so much the subject, etc?

I think the intention was to create a larger picture than the one done over London in 2013. Did the subject matter ? They bothered to take a 400 / 2.8 up into the mountains ! If you have a look at the full picture you may agree with me that it's too wide an angle, and that there is too much foreground and the main subject is too far away and small in the whole picture, but they broke the record and I guess they were happy about it.

When it comes to landscape you can't beat greater magnification. This is why larger formats are better in this field; larger format needs a longer lens, pro rata.

 

[RChauhan]

Can you see a meaningful difference?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25321.msg502225#msg502225

Thanks for those images! It's a good visualization.

I think we are talking about slightly different things or my understanding of the concepts is wrong. I'm not expecting major differences between the cameras. Its more about putting each camera where its greatest strength is - FF for landscapes, crop for tele. I am NOT saying one is better than the other, just how I would use them as per my understanding.

Let me put it this way:

I'm out with a friend and we are carrying a 70D and a 5D3, both with the 100-400. We see a bird in good light and both zoom out to 400mm. As I am using the 70D, i get the whole bird wingtip to wingtip. He gets the bird a little smaller in the frame due to the longer effective reach.

Wouldn't the 70D image require less enlargement to print at a large size with the same composition?

More to the point - this is about planning out my purchases. To put it into context, here's my roadmap:
I have: T2i & 70D, 24-105/f4, 11-16/f2.8, 100-400v1.
Purchases planned over the next few years:
-FF camera (since I have 2 crop sensors)
-24-70/2.8ii - will replace the 24-105
-11-24 or 16-35/4 landscapes and night skies
-a Tele for wildlife, probably 300/2.8 & extenders.

 

[privatebydesign]

Can you see a meaningful difference?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25321.msg502225#msg502225

Thanks for those images! It's a good visualization.

I think we are talking about slightly different things or my understanding of the concepts is wrong. I'm not expecting major differences between the cameras. Its more about putting each camera where its greatest strength is - FF for landscapes, crop for tele. I am NOT saying one is better than the other, just how I would use them as per my understanding.

Let me put it this way:

I'm out with a friend and we are carrying a 70D and a 5D3, both with the 100-400. We see a bird in good light and both zoom out to 400mm. As I am using the 70D, i get the whole bird wingtip to wingtip. He gets the bird a little smaller in the frame due to the longer effective reach.

Wouldn't the 70D image require less enlargement to print at a large size with the same composition?

More to the point - this is about planning out my purchases. To put it into context, here's my roadmap:
I have: T2i & 70D, 24-105/f4, 11-16/f2.8, 100-400v1.
Purchases planned over the next few years:
-FF camera (since I have 2 crop sensors)
-24-70/2.8ii - will replace the 24-105
-11-24 or 16-35/4 landscapes and night skies
-a Tele for wildlife, probably 300/2.8 & extenders.

No. The bird is reproduced on both sensors the same size (the fact that it covers a larger percentage of the smaller sensor is irrelevant) therefore to get two pictures with the bird the same size and composition the enlargement is the same from the different sensors.

Look at it like this, the lens projects an image onto the sensor, the lens doesn't care or know if it is front of a crop sensor or a ff sensor, the image is projected the same size. Ergo, to get the subject printed the same size (and composition) from different sensors the enlargement ratio is the same, the fact that the ff image gets cropped is again irrelevant.

 

[danski0224]

Maybe a better way to think about it is the size of the "full frame" sensor is 1.6x larger in area than an APS-C sensor.

You do not get 1.6x the mm's of the lens out of APS-C. Your field of view (framing) changes.

Whatever "reach" or "teleconverter" you get is dependent on the pixel size between the two cameras.

When the 5D3 came out, there were many comparisons to the 7D, and essentially the 5D3 cropped to the FOV of the 7D was better in most real world shooting conditions. In the same way, the 1dx loses nothing to the 5D3.

A full frame camera gathers much more light than an APS-C camera and will provide higher useable ISO than the same generation APS-C sensor.

In order to get sharp output from APS-C or even a 22mp+ FF sensor, you need to be at least 1.5x(focal length) for a minimum shutter speed- which runs up ISO quickly. Those that do that get sharp images.

 

[RChauhan]

Thanks to everyone who is taking the time to explain this to me. It's a huge help.

So, in any given generation of sensors, the FF beats the crop, generally speaking. There's no teleconvertor effect (I had that totally wrong) - the crop sensor is like a forced crop on every image.

So here is my thinking right now:
-There is no urgency, I can wait. The 70D is a very good camera especially with Magic Lantern.
-Wait for specs on the 5D4. If it has a killer feature I want (wifi), get that.
-6D2 with a better AF might also do the trick but wait for the 5D4.
-otherwise get a 5D3 which will only get cheaper.

What do you guys think?

 

[Busted Knuckles]

It comes down to the best camera available at the time.

I have found that the few hundreds of dollars between the price of the bodies you referenced (there is a couple of thousand between them and the 1DxI/II) and the differences become more function than IQ. So get the most functional camera you can afford. It is unlikely you will regret the extra cost a year later, but you may regret not having functionality.

As to reach of FF to Crop, I have seen pretty exhaustive analysis which puts the reach factor at 1.2 vs 1.6 from an overall IQ stand point. Which to me really draws in the 5Ds resolution gain question as alluded to earlier

 

[RChauhan]

As to reach of FF to Crop, I have seen pretty exhaustive analysis which puts the reach factor at 1.2 vs 1.6 from an overall IQ stand point. Which to me really draws in the 5Ds resolution gain question as alluded to earlier

Could you explain that part? The effective reach is 1.2 if IQ is considered - so usable IQ on the 5Ds would be lower?

 

[danski0224]

Thanks to everyone who is taking the time to explain this to me. It's a huge help.

So, in any given generation of sensors, the FF beats the crop, generally speaking. There's no teleconvertor effect (I had that totally wrong) - the crop sensor is like a forced crop on every image.

So here is my thinking right now:
-There is no urgency, I can wait. The 70D is a very good camera especially with Magic Lantern.
-Wait for specs on the 5D4. If it has a killer feature I want (wifi), get that.
-otherwise get a 5D3 which will only get cheaper.

What do you guys think?

How many pictures will you miss by waiting?

There is ML for the 5D3.

Who knows when the 5D4 specs will be outed, and then when will it be available to the general public right away?

Look how great built-in WiFi works in current Canon cameras... drains the battery right quick.

 

[danski0224]

Could you explain that part? The effective reach is 1.2 if IQ is considered - so usable IQ on the 5Ds would be lower?

Way too soon to tell because no production cameras are out yet. So many think that the 5Ds/r are simply scaled-up 7D2 sensors, but what if they aren't? We already know that the CFA's are different.

 

[kaswindell]

I upgraded from a 50D to a 5DIII earlier this year - sooo much nicer images from the 5DIII and it focuses much better than the xxD cameras too - I wish I had switched sooner so I recommend that you don't wait.

 

[FTb-n]

When the 5D3 came out, there were many comparisons to the 7D, and essentially the 5D3 cropped to the FOV of the 7D was better in most real world shooting conditions. In the same way, the 1dx loses nothing to the 5D3.

+1.

I have all three bodies and did the same comparison -- especially when migrating from the 7D to the 5D3. I had to know if and when it was advantages to bring the 7D.

During indoor situations, cropping a 5D3 image is definitely better than a full 7D image. Outside, with lots of light, the differences fade some -- especially when pixel-peeping. However, last fall I shot a kids soccer game with the 70-200 2.8L II as my primary lens and used both the 7D and the 5D3. I was expecting some "reach benefits" of the 7D. But, after culling the best shots of the day, the vast majority were from the 5D3. Other factors, including small DOF and greater color depth gave these images more pop. I see no real benefit with the so-called extra reach factor of crop bodies.