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

 
Byzan ­ pix
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined Jul 2010
     
May 02, 2012 06:30 |  #121

Having just purchased a 5d2 i can say it has a better initial quality out of the camera, and feels nice to hold compared to my 60d

I am aiming to ust the 5d2 for static/portrait shots and the 60d for motorosport and moving subjects because of it's crop and faster shutter speed.

The noise on higher iso is less on the 5d2 also.

Worth the money? Yes
Upgrade to the 60 D? Yes
Would i replace my 60d with it? No, horses for courses




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,809 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 438
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 02, 2012 07:23 as a reply to  @ post 14364627 |  #122

IF, and i emphasize the IF, I shoot from the same position with the same lens and shooting the same subject with the same camera to subject distance wouldnt the DOF be the same?

Why would you ever want to do that in real picture taking?

For decades I shot with multiple formats, moving as necessary between 35mm, 6x6cm or 6x7cm, and 4x5-in. There was never, ever, ever a time I switched formats and shot from the same position with the same lens and shooting the same subject with the same camera to subject distance. Never. Ever.

Nobody does that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,809 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 438
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 02, 2012 07:26 |  #123

Hogloff wrote in post #14364627 (external link)
Well my wife can see the difference in photos from my 5d2 and 7d. Really not hard to see in photos 16x20. More detail, better tonal values and just overall smoother colors out of the 5d2.

Have you shot both and compared for yourself?

When both images are displayed below the maximum dimensions of the smaller format, it's difficult to see the difference.

When you start to interpolate the smaller format, you begin to see the difference. The more you interpolate, the greater the difference becomes, even when you start to interpolate the larger image.

This isn't a difference circumstance from film. All contact prints looked equally fine, whether 35mm or 4x5. As soon as you started to enlarge a 35mm to match the same display size as the 4x5 image, you began to see the difference.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,809 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 438
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 02, 2012 07:33 as a reply to  @ RDKirk's post |  #124

I think its moot to say that there is a difference when printing 16x20 landscapes, the OP does not do landscapes...we arent arguing the point of croppers versus FFs in the general photographic sense, we are trying to give the OP advice whether moving up to a 5d versus his 60d is beneficial for him and why or why not....

That's why the professional did not say there was no difference...he said that the OP would not see a difference.

Now we're talking about circumstances in which the difference can be seen. If the OP sees a shoe that fits him, he can put it on.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 414
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
May 02, 2012 07:44 |  #125
bannedPermanent ban

RDKirk wrote in post #14365555 (external link)
When both images are displayed below the maximum dimensions of the smaller format, it's difficult to see the difference.

When you start to interpolate the smaller format, you begin to see the difference. The more you interpolate, the greater the difference becomes, even when you start to interpolate the larger image.

This isn't a difference circumstance from film. All contact prints looked equally fine, whether 35mm or 4x5. As soon as you started to enlarge a 35mm to match the same display size as the 4x5 image, you began to see the difference.

It's not just the number of native pixels that infuences the image quality. The 5d2 is much sharper right out of the camera so the resulting prints are sharper. The smooth tones are just nicer on the 5d2...then7d having quite harsh tones in things like blue skies. The noise, even at low iso is much less on the 5d2.

So, it is not just the number of pixels, but also the quality of these pixels.

Sure, you can apply noise reduction and sharpening, but these never improve the original pixels...just push them around. Starting from a high quality pixel will always get you a better final result.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,809 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 438
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 02, 2012 07:49 |  #126

Hogloff wrote in post #14365610 (external link)
It's not just the number of native pixels that infuences the image quality. The 5d2 is much sharper right out of the camera so the resulting prints are sharper. The smooth tones are just nicer on the 5d2...then7d having quite harsh tones in things like blue skies. The noise, even at low iso is much less on the 5d2.

So, it is not just the number of pixels, but also the quality of these pixels.

Sure, you can apply noise reduction and sharpening, but these never improve the original pixels...just push them around. Starting from a high quality pixel will always get you a better final result.

Well, no, it's not just the number of pixels. Not the point I was making.

There are always more things different from camera to camera than just the number of pixels.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stsva
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,360 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 284
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
     
May 02, 2012 08:04 |  #127

davidc502 wrote in post #14359699 (external link)
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:

8X10 large format and be there. ;)


Some Canon stuff and a little bit of Yongnuo.
http://www.pbase.com/s​tsva/profile (external link)
Member of the GIYF
Club and
HAMSTTR
٩ Breeders Club https://photography-on-the.net …=744235&highlig​ht=hamsttr Join today!
Image Editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ccp900
Goldmember
1,537 posts
Likes: 137
Joined Jun 2006
     
May 02, 2012 08:12 |  #128

RDKirk wrote in post #14365539 (external link)
Why would you ever want to do that in real picture taking?

For decades I shot with multiple formats, moving as necessary between 35mm, 6x6cm or 6x7cm, and 4x5-in. There was never, ever, ever a time I switched formats and shot from the same position with the same lens and shooting the same subject with the same camera to subject distance. Never. Ever.

Nobody does that.

oh, im just saying that im a bit confused when people say that the 5d2 has shallower depth of field when you do a comparison, just wanted to stress that it is true that the depth of field is different BUT it isnt because of the camera but rather because of the distance to subject or focal length change....people might think simply changing cameras will give them shallower depth of field.


[Sony A7R Mark 3 | Sony A7S | Sony Zeiss 16-35m f/4.0 | Sony FE 28m f2 | Sony Zeiss 55m f1.8 | Sony FE 28-70m f/3.5-5.6 | Helios 44-2 | Helios 44-3 | Nikon 105m f/2.5 AIS | Contax Zeiss Planar 50m f1.7 | Contax Zeiss Planar 100m f2 | Voigtlander Nokton 40m f/1.4 | Canon 24-105m f/4.0L | Canon 85m f/1.8 | Sigma 30m f/1.4 | Canon 10-22m f/3.5-4.5 | Canon 100m f/2.8 Macro USM | Canon 580 EX Ver 1.0]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,475 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
May 02, 2012 08:18 |  #129

ccp900 wrote in post #14365715 (external link)
oh, im just saying that im a bit confused when people say that the 5d2 has shallower depth of field when you do a comparison, just wanted to stress that it is true that the depth of field is different BUT it isnt because of the camera but rather because of the distance to subject or focal length change....people might think simply changing cameras will give them shallower depth of field.

Actually, if you use two different format cameras, both with the same focal length and both cameras in the same position, and both cameras focused on the same point/plane, prints from the larger format camera will have a deeper depth of field than the same-size prints from the smaller format camera.

Of course, the images from the larger format camera will have more of the scene captured than the images from the smaller format camera will have.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jahled
Goldmember
Avatar
1,498 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2008
Location: North London
     
May 02, 2012 08:25 |  #130

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

Hahaha! :lol:


James
Snow Leopards of Leafy London- The magic begins 5th November 20:00 hours on Animal Planet :) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ccp900
Goldmember
1,537 posts
Likes: 137
Joined Jun 2006
     
May 02, 2012 08:27 |  #131

Hi Skip!! To tell you the truth i think it was one of your posts where i started learning about this exact same point and yeah i read that somewhere like i said in my other post i just didnt read the whole article through when the math started to fly, im not really afraid of math but when i saw it i knew it was gonna be a long night if i tried to make sense of it.


[Sony A7R Mark 3 | Sony A7S | Sony Zeiss 16-35m f/4.0 | Sony FE 28m f2 | Sony Zeiss 55m f1.8 | Sony FE 28-70m f/3.5-5.6 | Helios 44-2 | Helios 44-3 | Nikon 105m f/2.5 AIS | Contax Zeiss Planar 50m f1.7 | Contax Zeiss Planar 100m f2 | Voigtlander Nokton 40m f/1.4 | Canon 24-105m f/4.0L | Canon 85m f/1.8 | Sigma 30m f/1.4 | Canon 10-22m f/3.5-4.5 | Canon 100m f/2.8 Macro USM | Canon 580 EX Ver 1.0]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,924 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1580
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
May 02, 2012 08:27 |  #132

RDKirk wrote in post #14365539 (external link)
For decades I shot with multiple formats, moving as necessary between 35mm, 6x6cm or 6x7cm, and 4x5-in. There was never, ever, ever a time I switched formats and shot from the same position with the same lens and shooting the same subject with the same camera to subject distance. Never. Ever.

Nobody does that.

I think the big problem we have now that we did not have back in the film days is that back then you would not have a common lens mount between the different formats, well certainly not 35mm, MF and LF. I guess some of the MF systems could allow different format backs to be fitted, but usually the system was designed for one of the formats available on roll film, not all of them.
The desire to produce a digital SLR camera that could leverage the existing lens line-up's used by the 35mm cameras is responsible for all of this really unnecessary confusion. If the camera manufacturers had gone with a completely new mount with the advent of the DSLR when a 24×36mm sensor was not really practicable, as did Olympus with 4/3rds then we would not have this issue as we would all have bought new glass for our new cameras, and in the case of APS-C format would all just now consider a 30mm lens to be "NORMAL".
Back in the film days I did not worry about "crop factor" all I really wanted to know was what was the normal FL and then could see that on a 6×6 MF (80mm giving normal AoV) camera then a 40mm would be a very wide angle, well at least by the standards of the day.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 414
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
May 02, 2012 08:29 |  #133
bannedPermanent ban

RDKirk wrote in post #14365631 (external link)
Well, no, it's not just the number of pixels. Not the point I was making.

There are always more things different from camera to camera than just the number of pixels.

Yes, but your post just talked about the number of pixels. I wanted to clear this up as the quality of pixels counts just as much as the number of pixels. After all, there are P&S cameras out there with a lot of lousy pixels that would create a ugly printed photo.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnB57
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Holmfirth, Yorkshire, England
     
May 02, 2012 08:56 |  #134

ccp900 wrote in post #14365715 (external link)
oh, im just saying that im a bit confused when people say that the 5d2 has shallower depth of field when you do a comparison, just wanted to stress that it is true that the depth of field is different BUT it isnt because of the camera but rather because of the distance to subject or focal length change....people might think simply changing cameras will give them shallower depth of field.

If they thought that, they would be correct. DoF is determined by factors that include the size of the image medium or sensor.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WRXTACY
Senior Member
Avatar
763 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Fredericksburg , VA, USA
     
May 02, 2012 09:05 |  #135

friz wrote in post #14363975 (external link)
For me 70-200 does not make sense on a crop. On a ff 70 is wide enough to get a group without being in the next county an 200 is long enough to get some action with out being in the middle of it. Also like the drama of a shallow DOF at 2.8. Then again I am used to film and getting my first ff put everything back into the perspective I was used to.

So basically to you, anyone with a crop shouldn't own a 70-200?

Pretty silly if you ask me. 70-200 is still an incredibly useful focal length on a crop sensor.


-Brandon-
Canon 5D Mark 2 | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L | Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L | Canon EF 24-105 f/4 IS L
Full Gear List | My flickr (external link)

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

32,344 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 danson1
808 guests, 383 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.