40D vs. 5Dc for Landscapes "Test"

tkbslc wrote in post #10721662
The best thing about these threads is watching FF evangelists trip all over themselves trying to justify why the APS-C shot looks just as good.

I agree and think FF is just a little over rated.

emitecaps wrote in post #10723306
Funny how people have to justify and rationalize their purchases.

I have all 3 formats.

Are you saying that the size of the sensor has no bearing on image quality?

Hopefully I'm not repeating what has already been stated but when shooting in RAW the 5D has a 12 bit vs 14 bit image processor of the 40D. Often times the Sky area in a photo will be what suffers from Posterization known as banding with loss of color depth or bit depth in the file.

Veemac wrote in post #10723156
QFT. I find it humorous how many people seem to think that an APS-C is basically incapable of being used to shoot landscapes or portraits (as evidenced by the number of such threads/posts in this forum).

it's especially funny if you drag Nikon into this fight... As a company and as a group of shooters they were on the crop only bandwagon for a long time and the pros locked into that system had no problem surviving. In-fact, SOME have even stayed with crop bodies because FF is too expensive for them... Much like some of us debating the two are feeling... Everything is cheaper with a crop and the cameras are so good, do you need to pay another $xyz for the tfn% improvement?

chauncey wrote in post #10724437
Are you saying that the size of the sensor has no bearing on image quality?

no, no one is saying it has NO bearing on anything. We're just SHOWING people how small the difference is in practical applications that don't lend themselves to NEEDING FF sensors. Anytime you're at base ISO part of FF's huge advantage is taken away. FF typically has better noise, DR and then colors IMHO. If noise isn't an issue (shouldn't be at base ISOs) and if you can handle the DR (with landscapes I'm either using filters anyway, or it's not an issue) then what's left? Details? 18mp -vs- 21mp is close enough for me. FF used to only be 11, then 12, 16 and now 21mp... Only ONE of those options has more than a 7D. Where FF really shines to me has nothing to do with the FF sensor itself and that's in the AA filter. Canon happens to put much weaker AA filters into it's FF bodies, but that's not a rule (look at a D700 image -vs- a 5D, same sensor size, same MP, the 5D wins every time in terms of sharpness). But that still takes away from the crop image, it IS slightly sharper. Plus with 18mp on crop, diffraction kicks in earlier and with only 100 ISO as the min you can't go as slow if that matters.

It's all trade offs. We all have to pick what's best for our personal needs/uses. But FF is on a VERY high pedestal. It's not always the best answer, and for those of us who want FPS we're stuck choosing Nikon of canon crops. And for BASE ISO SHOOTING, the FF advantage is very much minimized.

I've always said landscapes are 95% setting an alarm, getting up, and finding the right spot to shoot. only the last 5% is equipment, and that's as a whole. For landscaping that's broken down into filters, support, lenses THEN the camera. So at that point how much of the shot is FF -vs- crop again? My math gets a little shaky at that point, but you see what I mean. Sure FF might give me a 10% IQ boost -vs- my own shots taken on FF, but my shots -vs- your shots? It'll be 100% me capturing what I see -vs- you and what you see.

Agree with Ben. Although the 5D is a technically superior camera, look at the difference it made taking the shot 5 minutes later with the 40D. Any increases in IQ gained by the 5D are small in comparison to the differences due to the 5 minutes of light changing between the two shots.

so in the end...
Landscaping: 95% being in the right place at the right time....

Ben, did you use any filters on your landscape test images?

JoYork wrote in post #10730411
Ben, did you use any filters on your landscape test images?

I think Ben uses GND filters and CPL's. In the images in this thread, I blended two expsures with one metered for the sky and one metered for the ground. I also use CPL's, but didnt have one in 77mm for this test to use on my rented 17-40.

yes I use GNDs but this isn't my thread.

Oops sorry about that - all these threads, I got a bit confused as to who's posted what. Thanks for the info.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10730384
so in the end...
Landscaping: 95% being in the right place at the right time....

With the right equipment to produce the best photo possible. I spend a lot of time and money getting to my landscape locations and I bring along the camera that for me gives the best possible images. Why would anyone do otherwise?

tkbslc wrote in post #10721662
The best thing about these threads is watching FF evangelists trip all over themselves trying to justify why the APS-C shot looks just as good.

Personally I like to sit back and watch the crop guys always looking up to the FF cameras with envy and trying to continually show they can produce just as nice of an image.

Why don't people just go out and take photos and not worry so much about what everyone else is using for gear?

Hogloff wrote in post #10731377
Personally I like to sit back and watch the crop guys always looking up to the FF cameras with envy and trying to continually show they can produce just as nice of an image.

Why don't people just go out and take photos and not worry so much about what everyone else is using for gear?

I wish I would have instead of worrying about it, but I had to find out for myself or Id always have the question in my mind. Now that Ive seen for myself in which areas the 5Dc is better than my 40D, I can make an informed choice about which format to pursue.

When you buy a new car dont you test drive it first? When you buy a new TV dont you watch it in the store for a while first? I just had no personal point of reference with a full frame camera and wanted to see how it differed from mine with my own eyes.

This is a photography forum, so I posted my findings and a few words. Isnt that supposed to be what we do here - talk about photography...this is the equipment section afterall. There are plenty of other sections in this forum not dedicated to gear if you dont want to talk about gear.

Hogloff wrote in post #10731359
With the right equipment to produce the best photo possible. I spend a lot of time and money getting to my landscape locations and I bring along the camera that for me gives the best possible images. Why would anyone do otherwise?

wait, I thought you said you had a 5Dii? The best possible images would be from a 1DsIII (if you MUST shoot a canon) if not MF/LF backs.

but you want a pissing match and you want to gloat about how much better your FF camera is, that's very clear.

Hogloff wrote in post #10731377
Personally I like to sit back and watch the crop guys always looking up to the FF cameras with envy and trying to continually show they can produce just as nice of an image.

that's the thing, I'm not a crop guy. I'm not a FF guy. I'm a photographer. I happen to own BOTH formats though...

so in one post, you're adding fuel to the FF -vs- crop fire, then in the very next you're saying why don't we drop all the gear issues and just shoot?