Why go full frame?

The OP is probably pretty confused at this point. I, for one, have no doubt that, if printing the image for display, a 5D Mark II will present better image quality than a 7D at larger print sizes, and will have more of an edge the larger the print size. It's not clear, however, whether the OP (who I don't think has made an appearance in this thread since the original post) is even following the thread at this point.

rhys216 wrote in post #13157375
Huh? I don't think you quite understand this. In either case FF allows for smoother bokeh (sorry, less DOF) at the same framing Vs crop, simple.

I might or might not quite understand this, but I am positive that you didn't even have a clue abut this issue, before I mentioned it.

Second, make up your mind whether you want to talk about DoF, or about bokeh.
Without that, any further discussion is meaningless.

stsva wrote in post #13157434
The OP is probably pretty confused at this point. I, for one, have no doubt that, if printing the image for display, a 5D Mark II will present better image quality than a 7D at larger print sizes, and will have more of an edge the larger the print size. It's not clear, however, whether the OP (who I don't think has made an appearance in this thread since the original post) is even following the thread at this point.

He probably went to a Nikon Forum.

Typical.

rhys216 wrote in post #13157412
Same story with just a 3mp gap.

But as you'll notice it's not such a huge difference, and that's also partly down to the weak AA filters that Canon seems to stick in the 5D's.

Hermeto wrote in post #13157454
I might or might not quite understand this, but I am positive that you didn't even have a clue abut this issue, before I mentioned it.

Right, like I haven't had this discussion before.

Hermeto wrote in post #13157454
Second, make up your mind whether you want to talk about DoF, or about bokeh.
Without that, any further discussion is meaningless.

They are both linked to each other.

stsva wrote in post #13157434
The OP is probably pretty confused at this point. I, for one, have no doubt that, if printing the image for display, a 5D Mark II will present better image quality than a 7D at larger print sizes, and will have more of an edge the larger the print size.

Agreed,

I freequently scan the 5D2 threads, and I'm not seeing anything significantly better about the I.Q. over other threads. Part of this might be because image size is limited to 1024X768, but larger image sizes may reveal more differences.

stsva wrote in post #13157434
It's not clear, however, whether the OP (who I don't think has made an appearance in this thread since the original post) is even following the thread at this point.

Yest, we have folks who love to split hairs, confuse themselves as well as the OP. Where would we be without POTN? Maybe a little more board (PUN) as this type of stuff is quite entertaining.

Cheers,

David

Sp1207 wrote in post #13157376
Sure, but it's always in advantage to the larger sensor format since they will either have a longer FL at the same camera-subject/subject-background distance, or the same lens at a shorter camera-subject/identical subject-background distance. Regardless of the setup they will have larger blur circles and a shallower DoF.

And while it can't be measured, it can be calculated (I don't know of any online calcs, but the math only takes a few minutes and a log table) given the FL, aperture, C-S and S-B distance. Did you know, for example, for S-B distances of more than 20 feet the 135/2 is 90% of the 200/2 in terms of bokeh? For distances of less than 10 feet the 200 is much superior.

Yeah, that's why I said "...but more importantly, sensor size..."

Now, we are at the same page, although I don't agree that sensor size alone influences either DoF, or bokeh.

Larger sensor size forces the photographer to use the lens with longer focal length (in order to preserve the same perspective for comparison purposes) and that (the longer focal length) is responsible for shallower DoF and arguably, better bokeh.
Not the sensor size - the focal length.

Sensor size by itself makes the DoF behave just the opposite: it gives shallower DoF for the smaller sensor, but the longer focal length influences DoF more, hence, the final result is less DoF for the FF camera.

davidc502 wrote in post #13157511
Agreed,

I freequently scan the 5D2 threads, and I'm not seeing anything significantly better about the I.Q. over other threads. Part of this might be because image size is limited to 1024X768, but larger image sizes may reveal more differences.


David

you will never see the difference looking at those tiny things, if you look at the full pics you will see a difference in noise and sharpness, and I agree with what was posted earlier that the 5DC has less noise than the 7D and that the images are sharper as well

Hermeto wrote in post #13157528
Now, we are at the same page, although I don't agree that sensor size alone influences either DoF, or bokeh.

Larger sensor size forces the photographer to use the lens with longer focal length (in order to preserve the same perspective for comparison purposes) and that (the longer focal length) is responsible for shallower DoF and arguably, better bokeh.
Not the sensor size - the focal length.

Sensor size by itself makes the DoF behave just the opposite: it gives shallower DoF for the smaller sensor, but the longer focal length influences DoF more, hence, the final result is less DoF for the FF camera.

Why would you (or anyone else?) discuss sensor size in isolation?

tekkie wrote in post #13157565
you will never see the difference looking at those tiny things, if you look at the full pics you will see a difference in noise and sharpness, and I agree with what was posted earlier that the 5DC has less noise than the 7D and that the images are sharper as well

This is exactly what plays in my mind before spending 2000-2500 USD for a 5Dmk2.. As a amatuer photographer who prints mainly 5x7, where am I going to get the gain? Yes, if I pixel peep at 100% crops, I'm going to see the difference, but where am I going to see it cutting all my RAW images to PNG, and saving them as 2048x1536 in size before I send them to the network drive storage (NAS)? To me it's a waste unless I sit around and pixel peep all day. For me to spend that kind of money, it better have a significant difference over the competition.

if your printing 5x7 any slr is a waste imo

are we talking facts or personal preference? the fact is its better if you need it or not is another story

tekkie wrote in post #13157672
if your printing 5x7 any slr is a waste imo

are we talking facts or personal preference? the fact is its better if you need it or not is another story

Disagreed. Even on internet 1/2 megapixel shots you see bokeh, color, and contrast, pattern noise (if you thought the 7D was bad, try any of the 2008-2010 compacts with 14+ MP), and blur (if any). Large aperture lenses (bokeh, fast speeds for noise and blur control), manual control, and RAW (for color and contrast) are all significant advantages of SLRs that show up even at the smallest image sizes.

Pink Avocado wrote in post #13156029
I tried out a couple of Sigma 30mm's in store once(ALL worked btw), it for me was THE one lens I've seen that can give you that special quality on canons 1.6x crop sensors.

If I had bought that lens I would have never looked at a 1Ds1(it was a deal I could NOT ignore)

Funny, the Sigma 30 1.4 is THE reason I am not dying to go to the 5D II. I just wish I could shoot at ISO 3200 with my 60D and life would be outstanding.

The Sigma 50 is almost the same thing on full-frame.

rhys216 wrote in post #13157229
Tbh, I would have thought the bold part went without saying

Most of these discussions spiral into meaningless arguments precisely because one person is making one assumption (that to them seems "reasonable") while the other person makes a different assumption (to them also "reasonable"). You would be surprised at how many people don't assume the same framing when they ask about X Y or Z comparisons.

rhys216 wrote in post #13157229
And no.2, yes the lens is responsible for the quality of bokeh, but FF allows for more bokeh, thus gives the ability to have creamier backgrounds with better subject separation, as well as different perspective...

By more bokeh, I think you have later described that as more OOF, which in turn is a re-statement of thinner DoF. This makes the assumption of equal print sizes in the comparison, although you may not have realised this to be the case. DoF is also directly dependent on print size for a given viewing distance. If I don't make such a big print from the crop (smaller by 1.6) and view the FF and crop prints from the same distance, the DoF will be the same. Any difference in perspective comes solely from moving the camera - format is not involved directly in that. The choice to move the camera comes from wanting to use a different lens (perhaps because of a difference in format) and this changes the framing too -leading to a different picture. I'm not at all clear on where your assertions are based in terms of all these "assumptions". Also note that the DPreview resolutions are line-widths per picture height - if you want to know the total amount of detail captured you need to multiply by the picture heights, which are of course different for FF and crop.

Not particularly arguing, mainly because I'm not sure exactly what you're saying - it's tough (and long-winded) to be precise in these discussions, that's why they don't usually get very far