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 04 Mar 2013 (Monday) 16:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Convince me (or talk me out of) going FF

 
FredM
Member
113 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2005
     
Mar 04, 2013 19:38 |  #16

Sirrith wrote in post #15677171 (external link)
To take great photos for online and pc viewing.

I guess that depends on your definition of great, which seems pointless to discuss.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 04, 2013 19:56 |  #17

FredM wrote in post #15677194 (external link)
I guess that depends on your definition of great, which seems pointless to discuss.

I guess it does. Mine doesn't centre on technical perfection. But have you even used a modern P&S, or are your views based on P&S cameras from years ago?


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FredM
Member
113 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2005
     
Mar 04, 2013 20:05 |  #18

Sirrith wrote in post #15677245 (external link)
I guess it does. Mine doesn't centre on technical perfection. But have you even used a modern P&S, or are your views based on P&S cameras from years ago?

I have done a few identical test shots with an ELPH 300 and my DSLR. Not sure if that meets your minimum of quality or fits your definition of P&S. I like compact cameras.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 04, 2013 20:50 |  #19

FredM wrote in post #15677279 (external link)
I have done a few identical test shots with an ELPH 300 and my DSLR. Not sure if that meets your minimum of quality or fits your definition of P&S. I like compact cameras.

That is a pretty decent P&S from what I hear, but I have never used it. My experience is based on my s95. It produces shots which at web resolutions are difficult to tell apart from my DSLR (aside from DOF).
For example:

IMAGE: http://thomasrey.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v23/p355488950-4.jpg

IMAGE: http://thomasrey.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v20/p438653183-4.jpg

-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FredM
Member
113 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2005
     
Mar 04, 2013 21:28 |  #20

Sirrith wrote in post #15677418 (external link)
That is a pretty decent P&S from what I hear, but I have never used it. My experience is based on my s95. It produces shots which at web resolutions are difficult to tell apart from my DSLR (aside from DOF).

I looked at your Flickr. The S95 set shows a substantial step down in image quality and none of the Landscapes set used a compact camera. I have so few posts here in 8 years by avoiding pedantic discussions which is a perfect way to describe auto-clicker suggesting a P&S to a person looking at buying a full frame DSLR for landscape and portraits. A person who already owns a 40d. I think such suggestions are useless and borderline demeaning. I realize you didn't make the original comment, and probably just want to say compact cameras are great. ;)

Overall though, anyone saying they are "good enough" for someone looking hard at upgrading from a 40D to a 5Dii must be dim.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 04, 2013 21:37 |  #21
bannedPermanent ban

2 EF-S lenses and you are a scaper...

Sell the lot and go D600....


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 04, 2013 21:54 |  #22

FredM wrote in post #15677572 (external link)
I looked at your Flickr. The S95 set shows a substantial step down in image quality and none of the Landscapes set used a compact camera.

Indeed, I don't use my P&S when going out specifically to take photos because I don't just view them at web resolution :)
The only ones I think are available on my flickr that were taken with the s95 were underwater, which is not really comparable.

I realize you didn't make the original comment, and probably just want to say compact cameras are great. ;)

What I'm really trying to say is that the difference isn't that huge, again I must emphasize this point, when viewing web-sized (in other words 1024x1024 or smaller) photos. The vast majority of people and non-photographers will not notice any difference at all in quality. Even when I'm actively looking for a difference it is not easy for me at those resolutions. I'm also saying that what makes a photo "great" isn't sharpness, resolution, etc... which I'm sure you agree with!


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WT21
Goldmember
1,319 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Mar 04, 2013 22:11 |  #23

If you nail the pic, IMO, APS-C can't compare.

maybe tone down your expectations? Get a siggy 24-70 instead of Canon? Get a Tokina UWA instead of Canon (though the 17-40 is pretty affordable for it's quality).


6D: 50, 85, 28-75, 70-210USM, 430EXii.
EOS-M: 22, 18-55

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FredM
Member
113 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2005
     
Mar 04, 2013 22:17 |  #24

Sirrith wrote in post #15677672 (external link)
What I'm really trying to say is that the difference isn't that huge, again I must emphasize this point, when viewing web-sized (in other words 1024x1024 or smaller) photos.

I would disagree, but it depends on the subjective definition of huge.

Sirrith wrote in post #15677672 (external link)
The vast majority of people and non-photographers will not notice any difference at all in quality.

Unless shown side by side test shots of the same subject under the same light. Even then they won't be able to point to factors such as detail on individual hairs, or dynamic range of a portrait in sunlight, but they will instantly see the better photograph. Almost as fast as they will say they will still buy a $220 camera instead of a $2200 one. That is the difference between us and them.

Sirrith wrote in post #15677672 (external link)
Even when I'm actively looking for a difference it is not easy for me at those resolutions. I'm also saying that what makes a photo "great" isn't sharpness, resolution, etc... which I'm sure you agree with!

It might be harder in some conditions, but I have shown more than a few people some shots and they could easily tell even on a tablet.

Now I find myself having done more damage to OP's thread than the one comment. :cry:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
Mar 05, 2013 02:51 |  #25

Go FF and never look back. It is easier to change when you have less equipment so sell.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 239
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Mar 05, 2013 03:01 |  #26

GoneMissed wrote in post #15676588 (external link)
And what makes you say I'll miss the 10-20? Doesn't the 17-40 provide the equivalent (and superior IQ I'd hope), albeit with a 1mm difference in coverage?

If that 1mm was on 40mm end of 17-40, I would say No. That won't make a difference. But because you are talking of "Ultra Wide" lens, a 1mm difference from the Wide side of focal length is a Significant one.
When crop factor is x1.6, your 10-20mm would be a (1.6x10 and 1.6x20) with effective range: 16-32mm. So if you had 16-35mm I would say "A Match" or better due to wider F number.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

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

3,039 views & 0 likes for this thread
Convince me (or talk me out of) going FF
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 miltiades
1779 guests, 316 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.