How many of you would....

[wickidwombat]

for me its the form factor, 1D are nice dont get me wrong but if I could get all the 1D4 into a 7D body that would be awesome. and as to APS-C vs APS-H, I think any of the people that use 1D3 or 1D4 cameras will agree IQ of the APS-H sensors is in a different class to the current 18MP APS-C. I really like to use the 16-35 on an APS-H sensor as a walk around lens as its awesome quality and small and light, so a lighter body would be great to go with this.
I could then keep my 70-200 on the 5D2 most of the time and the 16-35 on the APS-H and have everything covered for weddings in a 2 camera setup

There is a market for smaller lighter PRO grade cameras not everyone wants the massive form factor of the 1D. Yes its impressive and everyone goes ooo ahh thats a big camera but the convenience of the smaller form is great, current battery tech means you get great life with the 5D2 and 7D batteries. I personally dont care that much for the vertical grip.

of course if a new APS-C sensor came out that was as good as the current 1D4 APS-H sensor (same performance from ISO 100 to ISO6400, in a new 7D2 i would snap that up.

 

[briansquibb]

of course if a new APS-C sensor came out that was as good as the current 1D4 APS-H sensor (same performance from ISO 100 to ISO6400, in a new 7D2 i would snap that up.

The bokeh from an APS-C is never going to be as good as the APS-H or full frame

 

[Loswr]

of course if a new APS-C sensor came out that was as good as the current 1D4 APS-H sensor (same performance from ISO 100 to ISO6400, in a new 7D2 i would snap that up.

The bokeh from an APS-C is never going to be as good as the APS-H or full frame

Question - how does sensor size affect the quality of the OOF blur?

 

[briansquibb]

Quality?

You can tell a crop by the blotchiness of the background

 

[briansquibb]

As I understand it:

From wickedwombat
"if you get a lens that works on both FF and crop let say a 17-40 f4L then fit it to each and frame the shot exactly the same so that both images filled each cameras view to the same extents. You would be standing closer to the subject using the FF and further away using the crop. Because you are closer to the subject you will have a shallower depth of field than the same lens taking the same shot on the crop since using the crop you are further away"

Therefore the background is more OOF.

In my experience the 5DII and 1D4 give a much smoother background than the 7D

 

[Meh]

As I understand it:

From wickedwombat
"if you get a lens that works on both FF and crop let say a 17-40 f4L then fit it to each and frame the shot exactly the same so that both images filled each cameras view to the same extents. You would be standing closer to the subject using the FF and further away using the crop. Because you are closer to the subject you will have a shallower depth of field than the same lens taking the same shot on the crop since using the crop you are further away"

Therefore the background is more OOF.

In my experience the 5DII and 1D4 give a much smoother background than the 7D

More OOF yes, but "quality" of the bokeh is mostly a property of the lens, correct? But then again there really isn't a formal definition of the quality of bokeh so to each his own I suppose.

 

[Loswr]

Wickedwombat's statement speaks to quantity, not quality. If I shoot a subject with the 5DII and 70-200 II at ~135mm f/4.5, then stand in the same place with the same lens on a 7D, set to ~85mm and f/2.8. The amount of OOF blur will be the same, as will the perspective.

Your statement is different, and suggests that despite the same quantity of blur, it will look 'better' on FF. am I correctly interpreting that?

We often hear that FF is better, but bokeh (which technically means quality, not quantity), isn't one of the ways I've previously heard discussed.

Thanks!

 

[Loswr]

More OOF yes, but "quality" of the bokeh is mostly a property of the lens, correct? But then again there really isn't a definition of the quality of bokeh so to each his own I suppose.

I have always thought of it as mostly a lens property, yes. That's why my example used the same lens, instead of for example the 135L at f/2 on FF vs. the 85L at f/1.2 on APS-C.

A crop sensor can improve bokeh in one definite way - OOF specular highlights are best if round, but with many lenses they have a cat's-eye shape at the edges of the frame when the lens is shot wide open. That's caused by vignetting, and an EF lens on APS-C has less vignetting due to the crop sensor, so the cat's-eye effect is reduced or eliminated with an APS-C sensor.

 

[Meh]

More OOF yes, but "quality" of the bokeh is mostly a property of the lens, correct? But then again there really isn't a definition of the quality of bokeh so to each his own I suppose.

I have always thought of it as mostly a lens property, yes. That's why my example used the same lens, instead of for example the 135L at f/2 on FF vs. the 85L at f/1.2 on APS-C.

A crop sensor can improve bokeh in one definite way - OOF specular highlights are best if round, but with many lenses they have a cat's-eye shape at the edges of the frame when the lens is shot wide open. That's caused by vignetting, and an EF lens on APS-C has less vignetting due to the crop sensor, so the cat's-eye effect is reduced or eliminated with an APS-C sensor.

Good call but then good call to Brian as well since we just concluded definitively that a crop sensor can improve the quality of the bokeh (in the specific manner and circumstance you just identified). Although, Brian stated the bokeh on an APS-C sensor would never be as good as FF which may be slightly overstated.

 

[BaconBets]

That's caused by vignetting, and an EF lens on APS-C has less vignetting due to the crop sensor, so the cat's-eye effect is reduced or eliminated with an APS-C sensor.

Is that another way of saying that APS-C only picks up the center of the image, where lens performance is always much better anyway? I wouldn't necessarily say that means APS-C is "improving" the image
That is one of the merits of APS-H...its picks up more of the image frame than APS-C, but versus full frame it is only missing the weakest technical portion where lens vignetting and fringe focus occurs

 

[briansquibb]

Wickedwombat's statement speaks to quantity, not quality. If I shoot a subject with the 5DII and 70-200 II at ~135mm f/4.5, then stand in the same place with the same lens on a 7D, set to ~85mm and f/2.8. The amount of OOF blur will be the same, as will the perspective.

Your statement is different, and suggests that despite the same quantity of blur, it will look 'better' on FF. am I correctly interpreting that?

We often hear that FF is better, but bokeh (which technically means quality, not quantity), isn't one of the ways I've previously heard discussed.

Thanks!

That is correct ;D

I think this is worthy of a set of pictures and a separate thread. As I said I can tell from an image whether the body was crop or FF - so there must be a difference.

I was thinking of two sets of comparisons

- same distance from object, different focal length (from zooming)
- same focal length, different distance

I would go for f/2.8 as that is a common apperture.

 

[briansquibb]

Good call but then good call to Brian as well since we just concluded definitively that a crop sensor can improve the quality of the bokeh (in the specific manner and circumstance you just identified). Although, Brian stated the bokeh on an APS-C sensor would never be as good as FF which may be slightly overstated.

I think the difference becomes visually less apparent the wider the apperture - for example 85mm at 1.2 both will have fine 'grained' bokeh

I have found that the difference is most marked at f/2.8 and f/4.

Good to see that the benefits of APS-H have been recognised - it is a compromise sensor size, with better lens performance from the crop and closer image performance to the FF.

 

[Viggo]

I'm not quite sure I'm getting this, but if the quality is better and the quantity is less, doesn't that make the background more in focus and more cluttered, therefore the image dosen't look as soft and smooth on crop as on FF? That is my experience, so I would always prefer the LESS dof and more blurred background to the quality of the bokeh, because imo, you can't have one without the other.

For example, I use the 70-200 mkII on both 5d2 and the mk4, and I like the less dof of the 5d2, it just looks better, can't say I have thought more of it than that, if the actual highlightspeckels are a different shape it doesn't come across as more intruding than more depth I get from the mk4..

Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[briansquibb]

I'm not quite sure I'm getting this, but if the quality is better and the quantity is less, doesn't that make the background more in focus and more cluttered, therefore the image dosen't look as soft and smooth on crop as on FF? That is my experience, so I would always prefer the LESS dof and more blurred background to the quality of the bokeh, because imo, you can't have one without the other.

For example, I use the 70-200 mkII on both 5d2 and the mk4, and I like the less dof of the 5d2, it just looks better, can't say I have thought more of it than that, if the actual highlightspeckels are a different shape it doesn't come across as more intruding than more depth I get from the mk4..

Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone!

That is what I am saying ;D

 

[Loswr]

I think this is worthy of a set of pictures and a separate thread. As I said I can tell from an image whether the body was crop or FF - so there must be a difference.

I was thinking of two sets of comparisons

- same distance from object, different focal length (from zooming)
- same focal length, different distance

I would go for f/2.8 as that is a common apperture.

Sounds like a great idea, except it should be f/2.8 on the APS-C and f/4.5 on the FF. If you use f/2.8 on both, you're going to be comparing amount of OOF blur and bokeh - two variables, with no way to isolate just the bokeh. It's well-established that for the same framing, the FF sensor will give shallower DoF and thus more OOF blur, so that factor should be taken out of the comparison, IMO.

 

[KeithR]

Yep, that looks fairly noisy

Oh, don't be silly - 12800 ISO that good from a cropper? I've had plenty of discerning photographers guess that this was around 1600 ISO.

shot in a reasonable amount of light (presumably as a test?), which also helps.

If 1/125 at ISO 12800 and F/3.5 (50mm f/1.8 lens, handheld), is "a reasonable amount of light" to you, you must live in a cave.

Looks like a fair bit of NR, too...

Nope - chroma at default (25), luma at 12 in Lr 3, resized and selectively sharpened in PS.

reducing it to 20% of original size provides substantial NR.

Yes it does - but my request for a "blow the doors off" alternative from the Mk IV stands.

Of course the Mk IV should be better, I'm just challenging him (or anyone else) to back up his hyperbole with evidence.

The 1D IV would look that "good" at ISO 25600.

Let's see this whole extra stop then...

No, it's not, but your comment is a bloody rude thing to say, IMO

You pander to ridiculous comments if you like - I stand by what I said.

Perhaps you just have a different (i.e. lower) definition of 'high image quality'.

Ah - I was waiting for that one. No, I've got pretty high standards, and all I'm seeing here to counter my opinion is lots and lots of talk: "you're wrong because I say you are. I can't back it up, but you're wrong..."

As usual.

 

[AprilForever]

Shallow depth of field can at times be problematic, though... Ever taken that epic picture, only to pind the bird's eyes in focus, but the tip of his bill awkwardly oof? Sure, you can stop down the FF camera, but then you end up losing the low light advantage. Are FF cameras reallt all that much better than ASP-C? Especially ASP-H... How much better is it really? For the loss of BOTH wide angle AND tele range, there must needs ne much improved image quality. And I am not convinced there is.

 

[briansquibb]

Shallow depth of field can at times be problematic, though... Ever taken that epic picture, only to pind the bird's eyes in focus, but the tip of his bill awkwardly oof? Sure, you can stop down the FF camera, but then you end up losing the low light advantage. Are FF cameras reallt all that much better than ASP-C? Especially ASP-H... How much better is it really? For the loss of BOTH wide angle AND tele range, there must needs ne much improved image quality. And I am not convinced there is.

Obviously you have never used a 1D4 or a 5DII.

Loss of WIDE? You are jesting then?

 

[AprilForever]

Mp, not jesting... loss of wide... EF-S doesn't work on ASP-H... Canon's widest for ASP-H is 14mm... the 10-22 beats this out... The point is not improved image quality, it is Vastly improved image quality...

 

[briansquibb]

Mp, not jesting... loss of wide... EF-S doesn't work on ASP-H... Canon's widest for ASP-H is 14mm... the 10-22 beats this out... The point is not improved image quality, it is Vastly improved image quality...

Have you fogotten the 8-15 then?

1D4 is top camera in all respects except maybe the 1Ds3