How many of you would....

[briansquibb]

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.

The whole point of ff is that for a given lens then ff will give the best OOF blur - as you are not saddled with DOF that you can't use and OOF blur you can't achieve

So that is three sets of pictures then ;D

With the 5D2, 1D4 and the 7D

 

[Meh]

The whole point of ff is that for a given lens then ff will give the best OOF blur - as you are not saddled with DOF that you can't use and OOF blur you can't achieve

So that is three sets of pictures then ;D

With the 5D2, 1D4 and the 7D

The whole point of FF is for it's OOF blur? I think there just might be some other reasons. You're overstating your position again which unfortunately, IMO, detracts from the valid part of what you're trying to say.

The point that neuro was making is that the amount of blur and the quality of blur are two different things. Yet you continue to reiterate that a FF sensor will give the best OOF blur when what you seem to really mean is more OOF blur.

Where you are right, as neuro pointed out, is that all other things being equal, there is less vignetting when using a crop sensor therefore there is less cats-eye effect and therefore better bokeh. Not more, but better (subjective as that may be).

The continued debate seems to me to be one of semantics and maybe a hint of defensiveness?

 

[Loswr]

Have you fogotten the 8-15 then?

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

Since when is a fisheye a substitute for a rectilinear lens? Plus, if I wanted the fisheye look, I'd want the capability for circular fisheye. Can I get that with the 8-15mm on APS-H.

The 1DIV is a compromise camera, because the APS-H is a compromise sensor. Canon has admitted that in two ways. First, by acknowledging that APS-H was needed for higher frame rates not achievable with FF, and stating that APS-H was the largest sensor that could be produced by a single stamping pass (at the time) for cost effectiveness. Second, by releasing the 1D X - FF with 12 fps - merging the lines and abandoning APS-H in the flagship clearly says they've engineered beyond the need for compromise.

The whole point of ff is that for a given lens then ff will give the best OOF blur - as you are not saddled with DOF that you can't use and OOF blur you can't achieve

FF will give the most OOF blur, but that's not bokeh. Bokeh is quality, not quantity. Nothing so far, here or elsewhere, has demonstrated that the bokeh is better with FF. If you're going to shoot all bodies at the same aperture, that's meaningless for comparing bokeh, and we already know that the larger the sensor the more OOF blur, so what would a bunch of f/2.8 shots prove?

An example - say you've got an 85mm f/1.8 and are shooting a family of four in an outdoor setting. You have a 5DII and a 7D, and plenty of room. You need a DoF of ~0.3 m to get all four subjects in focus. To frame the family with the FF camera, you need to be about 4 m away. That means f/2.8 will give you the DoF you need. Or, you could use the 7D, back up to 6.4 m for the same framing, and set the aperture to f/1.8 for the same DoF (granted, a different perspective). Now, you've got the same framing, same DoF, same amount of OOF blur - so, which camera gives the better bokeh?

It might be the 7D...on the 7D the lens is wide open, so OOF highlights will be round, whereas on the 5DII you'd be at f/2.8 and seeing octagonal highlights from the aperture blades. But then again, the 85/1.8 will have less longitudinal CA at f/2.8 than wide open, so FF is better there.

 

[briansquibb]

The 1D4 may be a compromise camera - but so is every other camera on the market today.

I would put the 1D4 as the best compromise currently available. Just ask the wildlifers about the 1DX and you will find they dont like ff - and want the APS-H. We all have different preferences, there is no absolutes here.

Personally I am not too interested in the semantics and theory of these terms - all that counts for me is the finished image and whether it meets the criteria. Bokeh to most means the OOF blur - if the visual effect is better with ff rather than crop - then most would go for ff, regardless of each individual pixel. Crop, IMO, turn good blur into bad blur.

I think you find that most people want the most pleasing looking image which I think you will find will be the creamy blur of the ff. If you are shooting wide open with a ff then a crop will mess the OOF blur because it cant shoot any mode wide open

 

[Meh]

The 1D4 may be a compromise camera - but so is every other camera on the market today.

Possibly true, but not relevant to the to your argument that the bokeh is better the larger the sensor. The sky is also blue and water is wet but neither of those things affect the quality of bokeh either.

I would put the 1D4 as the best compromise currently available. Just ask the wildlifers about the 1DX and you will find they dont like ff - and want the APS-H. We all have different preferences, there is no absolutes here.

Possibly true (although there are no absolutes as you state in the same breath), but not because of better bokeh rather because of the higher spatial resolution of the sensor which provides more pixels on subject in focal length limited circumstances such as wildlife photography.

Personally I am not too interested in the semantics and theory of these terms - all that counts for me is the finished image and whether it meets the criteria. Bokeh to most means the OOF blur - if the visual effect is better with ff rather than crop - then most would go for ff, regardless of each individual pixel. Crop, IMO, turn good blur into bad blur.

Sorry but you are insisting on sticking to your questionable choice of words in defining more blur as better blur which is clearly not the same thing. Do you really not see the point that there is a difference? Defending your point by essentially stating "yeah, but it's my opinion" is not really useful.

 

[briansquibb]

Defending your point by essentially stating "yeah, but it's my opinion" is not really useful.

It is my opinion that this thread is going nowhere. In an artistic world, opinion counts more than science as it sells more pictures.

 

[BaconBets]

The 1DIV is a compromise camera, because the APS-H is a compromise sensor. Second, by releasing the 1D X - FF with 12 fps - merging the lines and abandoning APS-H in the flagship clearly says they've engineered beyond the need for compromise.

I agree with you 100%.
But that is for the flagship. Many of us simply do not want a flagship body build and military FPS. Since they will probably not put a 1dx sensor in a regular body until 2016, putting the APS-H in a reg body is something that would compromise my wallet for $3K. Or a 5d2 sensor with good handling. Or anything that does not force us to ask ourselves, "would I rather have solid imaging or solid handling?"
A 5d2 can take an awesome picture of a mountain. Thank God mountains don't ride bicycles in the evening.

 

[Meh]

Defending your point by essentially stating "yeah, but it's my opinion" is not really useful.

It is my opinion that this thread is going nowhere. In an artistic world, opinion counts more than science as it sells more pictures.

And you are certainly welcome to your opinion. Thanks for confirming my point. Edit... I just gave you a +1 for being a good photographer... kudos.

 

[Loswr]

Makes sense, and I do understand your viewpoint, Brian.

I somewhat disagree about the bokeh definition. Put another way, I agree that many people use the term that way, but many people use the word 'irregardless' or spell 'a lot' as one word...being common doesn't make it correct.

I still don't understand 'bad blur' in the context of sensor size - the 85L at f/1.2 on my 7D seems to produce good blur, both in quantity and quality. On FF, f/1.2 is often too thin a DoF anyway. As you said, for a given lens and aperture, you get more blur with FF, and that is 'pleasing'. Personally, I do care about quality/bokeh. For example, the 100-400mm at f/5.6 with a small, close subject (e.g. a songbird) can produce lots of OOF blur, but frankly, it doesn't look that good, highlights are jittery and 'nervous-looking' (subjective terms, I know - but then bokeh is subjective).

For the same shot, whether on FF or crop, the 70-200 II + 2x II TC (at 400mm f/5.6) produces a much nicer bokeh than the 100-400mm (at 400mm f/5.6). Come to think of it, that's a great illustration of my point - same DoF, same amount of OOF blur, but quality/bokeh is dependent on the lens.

In a perfect world, you'd want both a lot of OOF blur, and excellent bokeh. But it's a fact that at some apertures (i.e. f/2 and narrower on FF), you can get the same amount of OOF blur on APS-C. If that gives you DoF that's thin enough for your needs, then ideally you'd want that amount of blur to have the best quality possible - and that just might be on APS-C.

But hey - FF makes it easy, just open it right up and shoot away.

I certainly agree that the 1DIV is a great compromise. But it's still a compromise - for example, the contention that FF gives the 'best blur' and 1.6x gives 'bad blur'. The difference going from FF to APS-H is actually greater than the difference going from APS-H to APS-C. The DoF change is effectively linear, so if FF is good and 1.6x is bad, 1.3x is closer to bad than to good... Nevertheless, I agree that we won't get any further discussing it. At some point, I'll try to post a couple of test shots (different bodies, same lens, same framing and DoF, and see if there's a detectable difference in bokeh.

I do hear you on the loss of crop with the 1D X - that's why it's replacing my 5DII but I'm keeping my 7D.

 

[smirkypants]

I shot this with a 7D and a 400 f2.8 at 200 ISO and a shutter speed of around 400. I defy any one to describe the bokeh as messy or bad in any way. It was even drizzly out. The FF may provide more separation and a little more blur, but I don't think the quality is really much different.

 

[Loswr]

Wow, ok, I was clearly wrong. The bokeh in that shot is clearly crap. It must be because of the APS-C sensor, and it would have been much cleaner and smoother on FF. </sarcasm> :

@smirkypants - nice shot! +1

 

[smirkypants]

Thanks Neuro. Seriously, it's 90% lens quality when it comes to bokeh. The 400/2.8 7D combination can get me killer shots, I just hate hate hate the size. Sometimes when I shoot with the 1D4 I wish I had used the 7D.

Consider:
7D + 300/2.8 = 480mm equivalent.
1D4 + 400/2.8 = 520mm equivalent.

I don't know about any of you, but I can hand-hold a 300/2.8 for quite a long time and there's no way on God's green earth that I'm doing that with the 400.

Tell me that 40 extra mms are worth about $5000 and about 3 pounds. No way!

There have been a few years of technological improvements since the 1D4's sensor. I'm pretty sure they can build a 1D4 with a APS-C and maintain the same level of quality.

 

[AprilForever]

I shot this with a 7D and a 400 f2.8 at 200 ISO and a shutter speed of around 400. I defy any one to describe the bokeh as messy or bad in any way. It was even drizzly out. The FF may provide more separation and a little more blur, but I don't think the quality is really much different.

Love the picture!!!

 

[Loswr]

I'm pretty sure they can build a 1D4 with a APS-C and maintain the same level of quality.

Agreed - that exactly what I mentioned earlier in this thread (and strongly hope for!).

 

[dr croubie]

This is the worst bokeh I've ever seen from a shot I've taken.
7D and 70-300L @ 277mm, f/5.6, iso160, 1/400s Tv.
If only I'd had a Full Frame or Medium Format, That distracting background would have just melted away instead of being so in-your-face like it is here.
[/sarcasm]

Uncropped (except a slice off the top to make it a 14x9 ratio), from about a meter away.
The key to taking good shots is not your equipment, it's in knowing how to use it.

 

[handsomerob]

very nice shots, congrats to both of you.

 

[briansquibb]

Here is one from a compromise camera - if only I had used the 5DII I would have got a better background [/sacasm off]

 

[briansquibb]

I don't know about any of you, but I can hand-hold a 300/2.8 for quite a long time and there's no way on God's green earth that I'm doing that with the 400.

I walk around with the 400 f/2.8 on the 1d4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II on the 5DII. I use a Black Rapid double strap to help.

 

[BaconBets]

"I see no reason Canon should produce a compromise camera. What is the point? When I want to do this, I use the 5d. When I want to do that, I use the 7d."

"Why do you do that?"

"Because one camera does this well, and one camera does that well."

"So you had to buy 2 different cameras that are the same size and use the same lenses?"

"Yes...I compromised"

-irony

 

[briansquibb]

"I see no reason Canon should produce a compromise camera. What is the point? When I want to do this, I use the 5d. When I want to do that, I use the 7d."

"Why do you do that?"

"Because one camera does this well, and one camera does that well."

"So you had to buy 2 different cameras that are the same size and use the same lenses?"

"Yes...I compromised"

-irony

When a lens costs over $7500 it is cheaper to buy a ff and a crop instead of a second lens - no compromise just sound economics

When I want to do this, I use the 5d. When I want to do that, I use the 1d4. Simple logic of buying the right tool for the job. I dont consider the 1D4 as a compromise camera.

Here is another pretty picture for you on Christmas eve - or in the UK, Christmas day