Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 01 May 2012 (Tuesday) 06:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Pro says I won't see any difference in FF to crop

 
harcosparky
Goldmember
2,431 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 57
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Harford County - ( Bel Air ) Maryland
     
May 01, 2012 07:48 |  #31

Who are your clients?

What will your clients see?

Is there a difference between FF and crop? Yeah but the difference is not like " night and day ", the difference is more like a " sunny day and a mostly sunny day " .




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
5Dmaniac
Goldmember
Avatar
1,303 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
     
May 01, 2012 07:51 |  #32

I own crop and FF bodies, incl. the 5DII, 7D and MKIV. When I set out for landscape photography I ALWAYS pick up the 5DII and yes, there is a difference in Image Quality over crop. You should at least rent the 5DII and see for yourself.

Th 5DII will also give you increased high ISO capabilities over any crop body (maybe with the exception of the MKIV)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macca45
Member
40 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Brisbane Australia
     
May 01, 2012 07:58 |  #33

RDKirk wrote in post #14359246 (external link)
He wasn't talking about the camera, he was talking about you.

:lol::lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Karver
Member
50 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
May 01, 2012 08:05 |  #34

Yes, FF will give you better image quality without doubt. I've used 400D, 40D, 7D before. Now I use 1DIV and 5DII. Despite better resolution of 7D compared to 1DIV, 1DIV image looks much sharper and cleaner.
The diference is less obvious with motley images like landscapes. It is much more obvious in sports and portrets.
If you feel like you need more quality, then FF is what you need. People just do not realize FF quality until they try it out. I was quite happy with 7D until I noticed that IV images on my 27" screen looked much crispier at the same sharpening setting. So everything in this world is quite relative.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/karte_foto/sets​/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
qbfx
Senior Member
Avatar
456 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
     
May 01, 2012 08:07 |  #35

Personally, I saw an IQ difference between my rebel XS and my 5Dc. I also notice a difference in IQ between the 5Dc and the 7D and T2i, both of which I've used quite a bit.

The images from my 5Dc seem to pack more detail (mostly due to the weak AA filter, I guess), especially midtone contrast. The files are cleaner at low iso's and high-ish iso's (up to 1600, 3200 I think, is slightly better with the 7D and the T2i), and generally easier in post. Now all of the above is kind of subtle, it's there, you'll notice it, but your clients may not. Glass, your photography and PP skills, will make more difference.

The biggest advantage for me though, was the DOF control and the ergonomics. I love the FF viewfinder, it's big, bright and allows for an easier use of MF glass, which to me is a big plus. I also like the top LCD, overall handling and back control wheel.


╔═══════╗
:::::::::::::::::::╔════╗
::::::::5D:::::':::::::::''XS::::
╚═══════╝::::╚════╝

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swinette
Member
173 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Between Harrisburg & Mechanicsburg, PA
     
May 01, 2012 08:13 |  #36

PandaSPUR wrote in post #14359122 (external link)
Also consider the ease of use factor, its not always only about the image quality.

FF cameras have a bigger, brighter viewfinder. And I think the 5DII has dual card slots but the 60D doesnt (right?).
FF also allows you to use L lenses at their intended focal lengths. 24-70mm will actually have a field of view of 24-70mm, etc.

Its just a nicer tool, but if you dont need great control over DOF, the quality of your images probably wont be noticeably different compared to 60D.

5Dii does not have dual card slots.


April

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
May 01, 2012 08:30 |  #37
bannedPermanent ban

hollis_f wrote in post #14358972 (external link)
Or you could stick a 10mm lens on your crop camera. The resulting 16mm equivalent would, using this argument, make it better than the FF for landscapes.

Yep, but it will suck compared to the 21mm Zeiss lens. For me, FF gives me way more lens choices at the wide end. That, and the image quality from the 5d2 IS better than the image quality from a cropper. There is no disputing this.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lacks_focus
Goldmember
Avatar
1,025 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Coventry, CT
     
May 01, 2012 09:03 |  #38

PandaSPUR wrote in post #14359169 (external link)
I meant when you combine a FF and a L lens, the resultant field of view is what the lens was designed for.
When you combine a crop camera and a L lens, the resultant field of view is narrower than what the lens was designed for.

What? SLR (and DSLR) lenses are marked in the actual focal length of the lens with no consideration given to a camera body's film or sensor size. An EF-S lens FL markings do not take into consideration the fact it will only fit canon cameras with the APS-C sized sensor. Even they are marked in the lenses actual focal length, not the perceived length or FOV or whatever. It's not a mater of differing terminology, it is a matter of misunderstanding and getting caught up in worrying about crop factor which was only a transitional crutch for those making the switch to digital YEARS ago. If you have little experience with 35MM format film, or 35MM format digital it means absolutely ZERO to you.


1D MKIII | FujiFilm X10 | 24-70 f/2.8 | 70-200 f/2.8 | 135 f/2 | 85 f/1.8 | 580EX |
lacks-focus.smugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,236 posts
Likes: 2932
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
May 01, 2012 09:08 |  #39

Hogloff wrote in post #14359420 (external link)
...the image quality from the 5d2 IS better than the image quality from a cropper. There is no disputing this.

I'm not sure that this is universally true. The IQ between the two are for the most part indistinguishable unless you shoot in specific scenarios or at the fringes. ISO 400 on both cameras is going to be so close that even viewing the image at 100% it's going to be difficult to tell the difference say between a 5DMkII and a 7D. Shoot at ISO6400 and the difference becomes much more clear but then if your shooting portraits or landscapes how often do you shoot ISO6400?

I was experimenting over the weekend because of the claim in another thread and took these pics. They are not great pics and the shooting conditions were not optimal. (pretty crappy actually) One image is taken with the MkII at 400mm ISO 400 and the other with the 7D 400mm and ISO 400. Both were shot raw with very slightly post processed via DPP and done the same. These are 100% crops. I really can't see one image undisputedly better than the other.

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7207/7127083737_b2339e897d_c.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7231/6980996858_eab4bbb06b_c.jpg

Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 162
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
May 01, 2012 09:08 |  #40

Christina wrote in post #14359160 (external link)
I understand this - certainly there's physical no magic lens transformation that happens depending on the sensor size, but I think your explanation is harder to grasp, especially for a newbie.

In short form, I agree. However, there are so many blatant un-truths that folks (including some of those behind camera store counters) tell others about the "crop factor" issues that many newbies haven't got a clue about the truths.

Thus, I'll re-post something here that I've done several times.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The "crop factor" is a reference number that relates to the difference in film or sensor size (known as the camera's "format") between two cameras like the Canon 7D and a 35mm film (or a so-called "full-frame" digital) camera. Let me list the facts:

35mm film cameras and so-called "full frame" DSLRs have a film frame or sensor size of approximately 24mm X 36mm, while the Canon 7D has an APS-C sized sensor, measuring approximately 14.9mm X 22.3mm. The whole line of Canon APS-C format cameras - starting with the D30 in the year 2000 and progressing through all of the "digital Rebel" xxxD series, the xxD series, and today's 7D - all have sensors that are approximately the same size (± 0.2mm).

When camera manufacturers started designing digital SLRs (DSLRs), they decided that the DSLR bodies should be about the same physical size and configuration as their 35mm film SLRs. For that reason, they concluded that they could use the line of lenses they already had for their 35mm SLRs on the new DSLRs.

All lenses designed for 35mm film cameras project an image circle onto the film that covers a 24mm X 36mm rectangle. The 35mm camera records the portion of that image circle that is defined by the opening behind the shutter for the film (24mm X 36mm in size). A digital SLR with an APS-C sized sensor only records the smaller area (approximately 14.9mm X 22.3mm) of the image circle projected by the same lens.

When you put a 100mm lens on a 35mm film camera and make a photograph, then put the same lens on a DSLR such as the Canon 7D and make a similar photograph - same subject, same position for the camera, and same focal length - and then enlarge both photographs to the same size print (4 X 6 inches, for example), it will appear as though the photo from the Canon 7D was taken with a longer lens. That is because the image recorded by the Canon 7D was of a SMALLER PORTION of the image circle projected by the lens - cropped, if you will - compared to the image recorded by the 35mm camera.

The special lenses made by Canon for the 7D (and other Canon APS-C cameras starting with the 300D - the first Digital Rebel) are called the EF-S series. These project a smaller image circle, making the lenses less expensive to design and produce in wide-angle and extreme wide-angle formats. The EF-S lenses also project deeper into the camera than the EF specification allows (the "S" referring to "Short back focus), allowing for less expensive wide-angle lens designs. However, an EF-S lens set to 40mm will produce the exact same image as an EF lens set to 40mm if both lenses are used on the same APS-C format body and both lenses are focused at "infinity". Focal length is focal length, period. In addition, all lenses designed for SLR cameras (and most other "real" cameras) are marked with their actual focal length. No lenses for SLRs are marked with a "35mm Equivalent Focal Length" value, though you may find this on some point-n-shoot camera lenses.

Now to the primary point that I want to make: NOTHING about lens EVER CHANGES when you put it on different format cameras. Focal length never changes. Aperture range never changes. The only thing that would change is the apparent field of view, and that change is not a function of the lens but it is a function of the size of the sensor or film that will record the image.

The "crop factor" is NOTHING MORE than a REFERENCE between two camera formats that lets you compare the field of view of particular focal lengths between the two formats. For the photographer who started with an APS-C format DSLR and has never used a 35mm format camera (at least enough to have developed a feel for what certain focal lengths provide him/her), the "crop factor" calculations can be completely forgotten for day-to-day lens selections. Only when comparing two camera formats is the "crop factor" useful.

The "crop factor" calculation for "35mm equivalent focal length" has only one valid use. That is for comparing the field of view of lenses used on two different format cameras.

Here's one common example: Joe took a photo of Mount Rushmore with a 35mm camera from a particular place using a 200mm lens. You want to replicate that photo with your Canon 7D. What focal length do you need to do that from the same location that he took his photo? Divide the 200mm by 1.6 and you get the answer - 125mm.

Here's another popular example: Mary Sue has been using a Canon SX120 IS point-n-shoot camera and is wanting to use a Canon 50D DSLR. She is, of course, interested in what focal lengths she would need to keep the versatility of the SX120 camera's 10X super-zoom lens. The SX120 lens is actually a 6.0mm to 60.0mm lens, but the advertising also shows the "35mm equivalent" focal length range as 36mm to 360mm. To know the focal lengths needed for the 50D, merely divide the "35mm equivalent" values by 1.6. In other words, Mary Sue would need 22.5mm on the short end and 225mm on the long end for the 50D to have the same field (angle) of view coverage as her SX120 IS camera.

The "crop factor" (as related to using lenses essentially designed for 35mm SLR cameras) is always given assuming that the 35mm film format (24mm X 36mm) is the reference master. Something to realize, though, is that the 35mm film format is not, never has been, and never will be the "master" format against which all other camera formats are referenced. It is simply the format of the cameras that have also evolved into today's commonly used digital SLRs.

Beginning photographers are often first confronted with the crop factor puzzle when choosing their first DSLR camera. Intuitively, "Full Frame" sounds better than "Cropped", as if one is getting a complete camera instead of a partial camera. There are very few really significant differences (other than features) between similar-generation cameras of different formats. The fact is that both format cameras can be used to make essentially identical images, though different focal lengths will be needed on them to keep the framing the same.

Beginning photographers are also confronted with "crop factor" issues when buying lenses. Focal length (translated to how big or small of a field of view you want) is the first factor to consider when asking the “which lens?” question. The beginner doesn't have to convert every focal length to its "35mm equivalent focal length" value but they should know that, on their APS-C camera, a 28mm lens isn't going to be wide angle but instead is a "normal" focal length and that a 250mm lens is going to be a rather long telephoto.

Many photographers who are new to DSLRs have acquired some very wrong ideas about "crop factor" issues. For example, they sometimes expect the focal lengths of EF-S lenses to be different (as in the focal lengths being pre-converted for the "crop factor") than the focal lengths of EF lens. This is completely false, as all SLR lenses are marked with their actual focal lengths. In addition, many new photographers who use APS-C format DSLRs seem to have been fed with the idea that they need to employ the "crop factor" calculations whenever thinking about using lenses on their cameras. This is generally not necessary at all as I have outlined above.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreamMaker23
Senior Member
Avatar
604 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 11
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Florida
     
May 01, 2012 09:16 |  #41

snapshot2011 wrote in post #14358893 (external link)
In that case why bother with 5dmk2 ff camera?

I am under the impression I am getting a much better quality image as opposed to crop sensor?

I should be asking then, judging from your reply,

Give me reasons why I should go with a full frame camera. Why did you? Why didn't you just use a crop if there won't be a noticeable difference?

Forget why others have FF Camera. And go for it Buddy!
You will love the feel of things when you first shoot it. Everything will become easier when getting a Frame you want. Personally, the Image Quality let alone on the 5Dmk2 is Superb to it's little cousin the 7D and it's Superior to his Big Bro Mk3.

I suggest stop listening to people "Professionals" who thinks they know it all.

Well, let's just say. Any Negative feedback!
If this is stopping/making you feel like not purchasing what you want. What you like, what you been thinking of for some time now then you as an Artist, an Hobbyist, an Human being won't progress to what you want if you let others talk you down from what you want my dude.

You gotz to just do your thing & stick to it.

This remind's me when I was on the Hunt for my first DSLR!

I wanted the 7D, because thats what I wanted all along. I knew it was for me because I know what I like and what I can learn from it. So many people told me different, leading me to think that I'm a beginner and I need to start with something that I can relate to.
They wanted me to go down my standards and get something simple. And I almost did, until I got my head back on and told myself. What am I doing? These people don't know me, well some of them do but either way. I like what I like and I'm not settling for something they think is right for me. I wasn't happy with getting something else. I felt right getting the 7D. It's like you know is for you when you done all the research of different ones and this one stood out. I could of easily gotten a "better" camera. Like the 5D Mark II. But it wasn't about that, it was about what you like. And how you truly feel about it. Not someones else's feelings..

Have Fun and Enjoy the FF Mark 2 Bro! :cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
May 01, 2012 09:20 |  #42
bannedPermanent ban

gjl711 wrote in post #14359620 (external link)
I'm not sure that this is universally true. The IQ between the two are for the most part indistinguishable unless you shoot in specific scenarios or at the fringes. ISO 400 on both cameras is going to be so close that even viewing the image at 100% it's going to be difficult to tell the difference say between a 5DMkII and a 7D. Shoot at ISO6400 and the difference becomes much more clear but then if your shooting portraits or landscapes how often do you shoot ISO6400?

I was experimenting over the weekend because of the claim in another thread and took these pics. They are not great pics and the shooting conditions were not optimal. (pretty crappy actually) One image is taken with the MkII at 400mm ISO 400 and the other with the 7D 400mm and ISO 400. Both were shot raw with very slightly post processed via DPP and done the same. These are 100% crops. I really can't see one image undisputedly better than the other.
QUOTED IMAGE
QUOTED IMAGE

I use both a 5d2 and 7d and yes there is a difference in the quality of photos I make from each. The 5d2 photos contain more detail, have less noise, can be massaged more in post processing and gave better tonal gradations than what I get out of the 7d. These factors all add up to a noticeable better printed photo. The only use I get from the 7d is for sports and wildlife where I'll sacrifice some image quality to get the shot. Everything else is shot with my 5d2 due to it's better image quality.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,459 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 38
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
May 01, 2012 09:22 |  #43

SkipD wrote in post #14359622 (external link)
In short form, I agree. However, there are so many blatant un-truths that folks (including some of those behind camera store counters) tell others about the "crop factor" issues that many newbies haven't got a clue about the truths.

Thus, I'll re-post something here that I've done several times.

Appreciate you taking the time to help explain the differences. I still don't want part of a camera. I want a "full" camera..... :lol:


_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MaDProFF
Goldmember
Avatar
4,366 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
Location: East Sussex, UK
     
May 01, 2012 09:25 |  #44

I am always amused by these threads, and most of the answers.

5D MK2 is by Canons mouth (Up to the MK3) best IQ canon body on the market, sure 1d MK4 dam close or same as in different situations.

I agree in the perfect Light still condition the difference between all DSLR's IQ is hard to spot, unless printing big, but as those conditions get worse and harder that is why we pay a lot more for bodies.

If you can afford it and a decent lens go for it, it is better than, I wished I had gone straight to what I have now instead of a few bodies in between.


Photographic Images on Brett Butler (external link) px500 (external link) & Flickr (external link) Some Canon Bodies , few blackish lenses, A dam heavy black one, couple dirty white ones, a 3 legged walking stick, a mono walking stick, and a bag full of rubbish :oops:
And Still Learning all walks of life, & most of all Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
harcosparky
Goldmember
2,431 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 57
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Harford County - ( Bel Air ) Maryland
     
May 01, 2012 09:33 |  #45

If you have lenses that are ' not so sharp in the corners ' or exhibit some other anomaly 'in the corners ' those problems will not manifest themselves on a crop camera because the crop sensor crops out those bad/fringe areas of the lens. A full frame camera will however see those areas as it uses all of the lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

36,471 views & 0 likes for this thread
Pro says I won't see any difference in FF to crop
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is BirdDog80
829 guests, 211 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.