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

 
JohnB57
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Holmfirth, Yorkshire, England
     
May 02, 2012 09:10 |  #136

WRXTACY wrote in post #14365970 (external link)
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.

Agreed 100%.

Also, my 70-200mm has focal lengths between 70 and 200. 130mm on my 7D is very similar to 200mm on a full frame...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
5DmkX
Senior Member
446 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined May 2012
Location: SE Wisconsin
     
May 02, 2012 09:29 |  #137

Interestingly enough, I just bought a 5DmkII yesterday and still have my 7D. I love the IQ of the MkII and like many of you have suggested, in some cases, the IQ between the two is negligible and in some cases the MkII is superior and in some cases the 7D is better. I just look at having two great tools now instead of one.


5DMkIV, 7DMkII, Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,804 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 436
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 02, 2012 09:32 |  #138

BigAl007 wrote in post #14365767 (external link)
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".

Another problem is that kit zooms have extinguished the concept of "nornal lens," but there is quite a bit to understand about the effects of interchangeable lenses that depends on an understanding of "normal focal length."

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.

Very true. The thinking pattern was to match the "difference from normal" when moving from one format to another. So if the subject would have called for a 100mm lens in 35mm (2x normal), when I moved to 6x7cm I put on the 180mm, also approxmately 2x normal.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,804 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 436
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 02, 2012 09:34 |  #139

JohnB57 wrote in post #14365910 (external link)
If they thought that, they would be correct. DoF is determined by factors that include the size of the image medium or sensor.

As well as the degree of enlargement to the final display dimensions and the viewing distance from the final display.




  
  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 09:52 |  #140

JohnB57 wrote in post #14365910 (external link)
If they thought that, they would be correct. DoF is determined by factors that include the size of the image medium or sensor.

RDKirk wrote in post #14366130 (external link)
As well as the degree of enlargement to the final display dimensions and the viewing distance from the final display.

Very true.

What many folks don't realize is that the numbers delivered by the many available depth of field calculators are wrong more often than they are correct because the typical photographer using a DOF calculator seldom prints images to the same size as used in the development of the calculator's formula.

In fact, we may not even be able to find out what the standard print size and viewing distance values are for any given DOF calculator. Thus, I typically recommend the calculators for training purposes only rather than expecting the output values to be gospel truth.


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

  
  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 10:22 |  #141

SkipD wrote in post #14366231 (external link)
Very true.

What many folks don't realize is that the numbers delivered by the many available depth of field calculators are wrong more often than they are correct because the typical photographer using a DOF calculator seldom prints images to the same size as used in the development of the calculator's formula.

In fact, we may not even be able to find out what the standard print size and viewing distance values are for any given DOF calculator. Thus, I typically recommend the calculators for training purposes only rather than expecting the output values to be gospel truth.

Which goes back to the fundamental that DOF is a construct based on certain assumptions. There is no "absolute" DOF, there is just an estimate, based on application of those assumptions to specified shooting settings, of how much of an image will appear to be "acceptably sharp." I think many people are confused about DOF because they believe it's an absolute physical/optical characteristic of images, similar to diffraction.


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
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,804 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 436
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 02, 2012 11:42 |  #142

stsva wrote in post #14366390 (external link)
Which goes back to the fundamental that DOF is a construct based on certain assumptions. There is no "absolute" DOF, there is just an estimate, based on application of those assumptions to specified shooting settings, of how much of an image will appear to be "acceptably sharp." I think many people are confused about DOF because they believe it's an absolute physical/optical characteristic of images, similar to diffraction.

Some people will say (I've seen it in these threads) that there was an absolute "Depth of field" fixed in the original image when it was taken.

However, that's even less of a viable concept with digital than it was with film. With film we did have the ability to view that "absolute" depth of field in a contact print (kinda, sorta, if you really want to argue it that way).

With digital, however, that idea just completely falls off the plate. There is no "original image" to look at--the factors that change the apparent depth of field are always applied any way we view the image.

But you're right, it's really just an assumption-based construct.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Al ­ Rohrer
Member
85 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Farmington, MO
     
May 02, 2012 13:37 |  #143

I have a 5D MkII. It's a wonderful camera, suitable for all of my purposes.
My daughter has a 7D. It's a wonderful camera, suitable for all of her purposes.
Her images are consistently superior to mine, regardless of lens used.
We can switch cameras and her images are still superior to mine.
Unless you are shooting mostly panoramas and landscape type images, you'll never notice the difference. It's the software behind the camera that creates the images. Full frame does not magically make your images better.


Canon Shooter and PSCS5 on a PC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OnTheMend
Member
Avatar
72 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
May 02, 2012 13:47 |  #144

They both have there advantages. The only place where I would see it an advantage is going into wide landscapes where it was already said that the 10mm on a crop is equivalent to a 16 on a FF. This would give slightly less distortion on the wide angle but other than that there are supple differences in the camera. It in the end comes down to composition. Its really preference. Even the 1D's are a crop sensor and those are, well lets just say you could buy about 6 60D bodies or about 14 50D bodies. which the latter of those turns out some top quality images.


20D Gripped, 50D Gripped, Elan 7E Gripped, Nifty Fifty, Tamron 28-105, 18-55 Kit, Canon 75-300 4-5.6 III USM.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Higgs ­ Boson
Goldmember
1,953 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Texas Hill Country
     
May 02, 2012 15:19 |  #145

Al Rohrer wrote in post #14367498 (external link)
Full frame does not magically make your images better.

you're right that it isn't magic. FF scientifically makes your images better. did you ever consider your daughter is simply a better photographer than you? ;)

i have both and i can easily see a difference in print and editing at 100%. posting to facebook.....not so much.


A9 | A7R3 | 25 | 55 | 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cacawcacaw
Goldmember
Avatar
2,862 posts
Likes: 18
Joined May 2010
Location: Ventura, California
     
May 02, 2012 16:15 |  #146

ccp900 wrote in post #14364458 (external link)
...
Now, i have a question people keep saying that the DOF would be different between the 2 cameras, isnt that false? ....

Yes, that's false.

The primary difference is that a full-frame camera captures a wider image. (You can achieve exactly equal depth of field with a crop sensor camera by by stitching together a couple of images. Or, you can greatly surpass the full-frame's depth of field advantage by using the Brenizer method and creating a virtual ultra-full-frame sensor.)

As I see it, if you already have a newer crop sensor camera, the decision comes down to two questions: "Would the benefit of taking wider images be worth the time required to become familiar with a new camera body?" and "Do my personal finances make the added expense a factor to consider?"

(Sure, there are dynamic-range and noise advantages to having larger sensor pixels but the differences are insignificant to the point that they are almost impossible to demonstrate. And, if top image quality is your goal, you need to also consider the new Nikons. From what I've read, there is absolutely no demonstrable depth of field difference that can be attributed to sensor pixel size.)


Replacing my Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 17-55mm, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, and 150-500mm with a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. I still have the 17-55 and the 30 available for sale.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnB57
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Holmfirth, Yorkshire, England
     
May 02, 2012 16:30 |  #147

cacawcacaw wrote in post #14368319 (external link)
From what I've read, there is absolutely no demonstrable depth of field difference that can be attributed to sensor pixel size.)

And from what I've read, there is no demonstrable evidence that anyone has ever suggested that pixel size does affect depth of field.

Sensor size? Yes. Definitely.

Pixel size? No.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Higgs ­ Boson
Goldmember
1,953 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Texas Hill Country
     
May 02, 2012 16:43 |  #148

JohnB57 wrote in post #14368378 (external link)
And from what I've read, there is no demonstrable evidence that anyone has ever suggested that pixel size does affect depth of field.

Sensor size? Yes. Definitely.

Pixel size? No.

I think he forgot to delete the word pixel. Sensor pixel size doesn't sound right as it is, even though it's a real thing, no one says "sensor pixel."


A9 | A7R3 | 25 | 55 | 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnB57
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Holmfirth, Yorkshire, England
     
May 02, 2012 16:45 |  #149

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14368452 (external link)
I think he forgot to delete the word pixel. Sensor pixel size doesn't sound right as it is, even though it's a real thing, no one says "sensor pixel."

Only in Caffilornia maybe?

What he says makes even less sense without "pixel".




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
anscochrome
Senior Member
Avatar
443 posts
Likes: 36
Joined Jan 2010
     
May 02, 2012 17:51 |  #150

I just pray for the day Canon decides ALL their dslr cameras are unified to 24x36mm sensor size, and we may end ALL these discussions once and for all:)


http://anscochrome.zen​folio.com (external link)

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

32,113 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 creditosonline
812 guests, 406 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.