Major IQ advantage of FF?

[Cory]

OK, I think I have it figured out. I would like a 6D without wifi or GPS, but with the focusing-system of the 70D.
Thanks, Canon, in advance of bringing this to the market. Will it be this month?

 

[J.R.]

OK, I think I have it figured out. I would like a 6D without wifi or GPS, but with the focusing-system of the 70D.
Thanks, Canon, in advance of bringing this to the market. Will it be this month?

Good luck!

 

[Zlyden]

I would like a 6D without wifi or GPS, but with the focusing-system of the 70D.

Do you mean 'Dual Pixel CMOS AF' or 70D viewfinder's 19 points AF (that is supposed to be the same as 7D's)?

The second one makes little sense (just like 'outer points' of current 6D AF system, that have placement more appropriate for APS-C camera): all of them points are cluttered to the center to make the camera body cheaper and smaller -- so, you can just use the center point and forget about the rest.

The first one will benefit more future Canon's 'mirrorless FF camera'.

I do hope that we will see 'mirrorless FF' from both Canon and Nikon on next year's Photokina. It will be called 'EOS L', 'EOS XL' or "EOS XXL", depending on the sensor MPs and price... ;D

 

[Cory]

Damn it. 70D it is then.
Very much appreciated the insight. Every bit of it was exceptional.
Thanks again.

 

[AprilForever]

Yes. The Hi ISO advantage disappears.

I wouldn't know about you guys with the big lenses, but I know this is true for macro - shooting near 1:1 with a ff has a so much thinner dof that a crop is at least equivalent in terms of required iso, plus the crop has got the longer working distance.

Edit: One more note: High iso on ff is *NOT* equivalent to low iso on crop because the higher iso always has less dynamic range - so the advantage not only disappears, but a disadvantage appears :-o

Well said, sir! I had not thought of that!

 

[Zlyden]

Damn it. 70D it is then.

Here is another 'nonsense comment' that may or may not help to those who decide on crop-to-FF switch:

It was easier for me to buy 6D as 400D replacement =

1) I thought about replacing 400D for last 5 years with a camera that either has better ISO/indor-focusing or a camera that is smaller and lighter than 400D. So, during this year I kept 3 cameras in my list of possible candidates: 6D, 100D, EOS M, Powershot G1 X.

I shoot mostly two types of pictures: printing equipment (like Heidelberg or Xerox presses) in printing factories or at exhibitions (for my magazine review job) and architecture/landscapes (while traveling/vacations). I do not shoot birds, football players, other types of animals, planes, fast moving cars, moon, etc. unless I have no other choice. (Maybe some fish and turtles with G7 in water-box...)

2) About two months ago my wife complained that our small G7 'is not wide enough' for her to shoot European cathedrals (while she travels by herself with our small camera). I was overjoyed by such a comment and used it as excuse to buy EOS M two-lens-kit+11-22 as G7 replacement.

3) EOS M is a great camera! Cheap, small and light (both body and lenses). Arguably: "the best amateur camera Canon ever made".

It has cool touch screen: you can compose a picture, than tap a finger in the area you want it to focus and press down the shutter button. Done! No more usual "zoom-focus-recompose-then-zoom-focus-recompose-again".

4) But EOS M's APS-C sensor has the same limitation as other cropped-sensor cameras: pictures at ISO 1600 (and above) are close to unusable because of too high noise level (and not very high dynamic range).

5) After getting EOS M as a replacement for G7, to replace 400D with any other Canon's cropped camera made no sense. 6D was the next logical choice of 'equivalent type of replacement'. And, yes, I'm happy that I made it. Now I can be busy to relearn how to use the lenses I already have, what settings to use now and then. Great!

6) We also plan to spend next New Year's vacation in Iceland (with 4 hours of dim light at day and possible northern lights at night). 6D looks much more like a capable camera for such conditions than 400D, EOS M and the rest of the cropped crowd...

Edit: changed the first sentence wording to make the rest of the post more relevant

 

[Cory]

Damn it. 70D it is then.

Another 'nonsense comment' that may or may not help to those who decide on crop-to-FF switch

Nothing personal. Ultimately, I realized the "focal length" issue of my current lenses with the 1.6x effect and how perfect the rented 100-400 (x1.6) was on a recent vacation.
Clearly, then, the only real answer is the 70D now without adding any new lenses (except for maybe my very own 100-400) and then a full-frame and the appropriate "non-sports" lens when finances aren't an issue (which I'm hard at work on).
Just occured to me that the 7DII is on the horizon. Oh cr*p.

:-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

 

[Pi]

I wouldn't know about you guys with the big lenses, but I know this is true for macro - shooting near 1:1 with a ff has a so much thinner dof that a crop is at least equivalent in terms of required iso, plus the crop has got the longer working distance.

At 1:1, FF has greater DOF (but the enlargement is less, of course).

Edit: One more note: High iso on ff is *NOT* equivalent to low iso on crop because the higher iso always has less dynamic range - so the advantage not only disappears, but a disadvantage appears :-o

Not true when comparing different formats and largely dependent on the sensor manufacturer.

 

[Pi]

Nothing personal. Ultimately, I realized the "focal length" issue of my current lenses with the 1.6x effect and how perfect the rented 100-400 (x1.6) was on a recent vacation.
Clearly, then, the only real answer is the 70D now without adding any new lenses (except for maybe my very own 100-400) and then a full-frame and the appropriate "non-sports" lens when finances aren't an issue (which I'm hard at work on).

The 100-400 is not a terribly sharp lens, and the increased pixel density of the crop camera does not help so much. See this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

If you enlarge the FF image by 60%, it is not going to look so much worse than the 60D one. In other words, you can just shoot with FF and crop when needed with little loss of IQ. But when you do not crop, you get much better IQ.

 

[AlanF]

A FF camera has a larger area, BUT...
[...]
Has shallower depth of field (NOT always a good thing, ESPECIALLY with long lenses)

This is a misconception. FF does not have shallower DOF. It only has the option for less DOF when needed.

Sure it has shallower depth of field 50mm at f4 on a 7D is roughly equivalent to 30mm f2.5 on a 5D. Same framing, shallower depth of field. When shooting birds in flight, I need usually f8 on a 7D to get the bird at least mostly in focus. On full frame? That's f13. To maintain shutter speed, that means ever rising ISO's.

Yes. The Hi ISO advantage disappears.

And that is just plain BS you are talking. Assuming that you are taking a photograph of a bird with a 400mm lens 50 feet away. Let's see how the DOF works out at f/8 with the 5D3 and the 7D -

7D: Total DOF is 1.41 feet
5D3: Total DOF is 2.23 feet

I think that there are circles of confusion here! It seems pretty obvious that if you have the same lens it gives the same size image on crop and FF sensors, and if the two images are viewed at the same size on a screen or print they will have exactly the same depth of field. If they are not enlarged, but the FF is viewed at a smaller size, it will only appear to have a greater depth of field.

The arithmetic from the DOF calculator proves that the images have the same depth of field when viewed at the same size. The depth of field is calculated from the size of the circle of confusion. For the 5DIII it is 0.03 mm, for the 1.6x crop 7D it is 0.019. And 0.03/0.019 = 1.6. So, when you enlarge the FF image 1.6x to get the same size image as the crop, you exactly compensate for the difference in circles of confusion.

Similarly, look at the ratios of total DOF of the 5D3 to 7D. It equals 2.23/1.41 = 1.6. The image from FF has to be enlarged 1.6x to give the same size print as the crop, and in doing so you multiply the out of focus regions 1.6x and so reduce the depth of field 1.6x.

If talking in terms of equivalence, yes.

I am not sure that he is talking "plain BS". If you obtain the same field of view on the FF as on the 1.6x crop by either standing 1.6x closer with the FF or use a 1.6x longer lens, the crop has 1.6x greater DOF (calculated on the DOF calculator you used). If, as we have agreed, you crop the FF from the same distance with the same lens, 1.6x, then the cropped FF has the same DOF as the crop sensor.

Sure you can crop your picture and get the same DOF. But then you have turned your FF camera in to a crop body. The amount of sensor you use is the same on both. The difference then is that you have a FF body that you are using fewer pixels on the subject.

But who does this? The whole point is silly because who buys a FF camera with the intention of cropping the pictures down to crop body size.

You have entirely missed the point - it was an explanation of an aspect of depth of field that had arisen earlier. If you had read the earlier posts instead of jumping to (wrong) conclusions by reading just the last lines, you would have realised that. J.R., to whom I was writing, graciously accepted the argument. There is nothing "silly" about the point. The words "crap", "silly" and "BS" are bandied around too frequently, and often as a substitute for reasoned argument.

 

[takesome1]

A FF camera has a larger area, BUT...
[...]
Has shallower depth of field (NOT always a good thing, ESPECIALLY with long lenses)

This is a misconception. FF does not have shallower DOF. It only has the option for less DOF when needed.

Sure it has shallower depth of field 50mm at f4 on a 7D is roughly equivalent to 30mm f2.5 on a 5D. Same framing, shallower depth of field. When shooting birds in flight, I need usually f8 on a 7D to get the bird at least mostly in focus. On full frame? That's f13. To maintain shutter speed, that means ever rising ISO's.

Yes. The Hi ISO advantage disappears.

And that is just plain BS you are talking. Assuming that you are taking a photograph of a bird with a 400mm lens 50 feet away. Let's see how the DOF works out at f/8 with the 5D3 and the 7D -

7D: Total DOF is 1.41 feet
5D3: Total DOF is 2.23 feet

I think that there are circles of confusion here! It seems pretty obvious that if you have the same lens it gives the same size image on crop and FF sensors, and if the two images are viewed at the same size on a screen or print they will have exactly the same depth of field. If they are not enlarged, but the FF is viewed at a smaller size, it will only appear to have a greater depth of field.

The arithmetic from the DOF calculator proves that the images have the same depth of field when viewed at the same size. The depth of field is calculated from the size of the circle of confusion. For the 5DIII it is 0.03 mm, for the 1.6x crop 7D it is 0.019. And 0.03/0.019 = 1.6. So, when you enlarge the FF image 1.6x to get the same size image as the crop, you exactly compensate for the difference in circles of confusion.

Similarly, look at the ratios of total DOF of the 5D3 to 7D. It equals 2.23/1.41 = 1.6. The image from FF has to be enlarged 1.6x to give the same size print as the crop, and in doing so you multiply the out of focus regions 1.6x and so reduce the depth of field 1.6x.

If talking in terms of equivalence, yes.

I am not sure that he is talking "plain BS". If you obtain the same field of view on the FF as on the 1.6x crop by either standing 1.6x closer with the FF or use a 1.6x longer lens, the crop has 1.6x greater DOF (calculated on the DOF calculator you used). If, as we have agreed, you crop the FF from the same distance with the same lens, 1.6x, then the cropped FF has the same DOF as the crop sensor.

Sure you can crop your picture and get the same DOF. But then you have turned your FF camera in to a crop body. The amount of sensor you use is the same on both. The difference then is that you have a FF body that you are using fewer pixels on the subject.

But who does this? The whole point is silly because who buys a FF camera with the intention of cropping the pictures down to crop body size.

You have entirely missed the point - it was an explanation of an aspect of depth of field that had arisen earlier. If you had read the earlier posts instead of jumping to (wrong) conclusions by reading just the last lines, you would have realised that. J.R., to whom I was writing, graciously accepted the argument. There is nothing "silly" about the point. The words "crap", "silly" and "BS" are bandied around too frequently, and often as a substitute for reasoned argument.

I did read the earlier posts, and the comment is more to JR than anyone. You jumped to (wrong) conclusions yourself.
It is pointless to the OP's comments and this thread to say that you can use the portion of your sensor that is the same size as a crop sensor and you get the same DOF. In general people use all of the crop sensor when the are using crop bodies and they use all of the FF sensor when they are using FF cameras. In some situations they have to crop and this is true with both bodies.

And yes it is "silly" to provide an explanation of how your FF body would perform if you only used a crop sized sensor inside of it. Basically that was the description.