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 03 Sep 2013 (Tuesday) 19:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

How does FF improve image quality?

 
YashicaFX2
Goldmember
1,003 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
Location: A quiet place in the country.
     
Sep 04, 2013 22:25 |  #106
bannedPermanent ban

iamascientist wrote in post #16268939 (external link)
NONE OF IT ****ING MATTERS!!!

These threads are the reason that this forum is a cesspool, all this gear blabber... its like guys fighting over whos japanese economy car is faster, shut up, IT DOESN'T MATTER!

You are the one and only person I have ever had the pleasure of communicating with who would voluntarily jump into a cesspool. What possesses you to become involved in something you apparently loathe? My guess is you will stay in the cesspool and respond to this. Either way, the cesspool wins.


Dedicated APS-c shooter. Gripped 60D, 60 2.8, 10-22, 15-85, Σ70-200 OS and a big white something or other! Plus a 5D w/28-75.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,180 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5379
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Sep 04, 2013 22:27 |  #107

iamascientist wrote in post #16269003 (external link)
Quite honestly the consumer market wants your money and nothing more, so they offer everything imaginable, so you think you need more and more and more.

We are the consumer market, I am not talking about sales and marketing. There are indeed differences between APS-C and FF results, and one format works for a various set of reasons vs the other format, depending on the photographer, their budget and what they shoot. To dismiss that is quite, well, others can fill in the blank.

If you don't like these threads, why come into them and vomit all over them? Save yourself the time and grief.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock
For Sale: Ladies Thirty-One Camera Sling

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Sep 04, 2013 22:47 |  #108
bannedPermanent ban

iamascientist wrote in post #16268939 (external link)
NONE OF IT ****ING MATTERS!!!

These threads are the reason that this forum is a cesspool, all this gear blabber... its like guys fighting over whos japanese economy car is faster, shut up, IT DOESN'T MATTER!

lol you DO realise that this is a gear forum right?

If none of that matters to you, why don't you just step away from the keyboard, go out and take some photos?

Trust me, no one's stopping you buddy ;)


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
iamascientist
Senior Member
Avatar
680 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Mass
     
Sep 04, 2013 22:47 |  #109

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16269031 (external link)
We are the consumer market, I am not talking about sales and marketing. There are indeed differences between APS-C and FF results, and one format works for a various set of reasons vs the other format, depending on the photographer, their budget and what they shoot. To dismiss that is quite, well, others can fill in the blank.

If you don't like these threads, why come into them and vomit all over them? Save yourself the time and grief.

I meant corporations obviously. What I'm saying is a good image is a good image regardless. This whole thinking of "photog a is better then photog b, but if photog b is given a better camera then photog a, then photog b technically has the better pictures" is a joke, as if that **** even remotely matters, that way of thinking is the path to mediocrity.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Sep 04, 2013 23:29 |  #110
bannedPermanent ban

iamascientist wrote in post #16269080 (external link)
This whole thinking of "photog a is better then photog b, but if photog b is given a better camera then photog a, then photog b technically has the better pictures" is a joke

fyi no one here has ever said or hinted that.

What I think is regardless of the photog with whatever skill level, better camera yields better IQ/sharper results. Simple as that.

Yes it's pure gear and technical talk which has nothing to do with who's behind it.


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
tekdekk
Junior Member
29 posts
Joined May 2013
     
Sep 04, 2013 23:37 |  #111

This thread was a setup.


5DC | 50mm 1.4 | PrimeTime | 85mm 1.8 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JoYork
Goldmember
Avatar
3,079 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2007
Location: York, England
     
Sep 05, 2013 05:24 |  #112

What I haven't seen in this thread are any comparison images.

Let me just say that the following is NOT a scientific test. Last year I was out shooting and happened to have 2 cameras with me so decided to take a photograph of the same scene with each camera and compare them when I got home.

One photo was taken with the 550D and 17-40mm lens @ 32mm. ISO 100, f/4 1/250

The other was taken with the 5Dc and 24-70mm lens @ 55mm, ISO 100, f/4.5 1/200

Both were shot in Raw mode then imported into Photoshop. There are some differences in colour - some of which may be to do with the white balance (I can't remember if I left it as Auto or if I made them identical in ACR) and exposure (I should have shot manual), but even putting those to one side, it's interesting how different each image looks.

The 550D has 50% more pixels than the 5Dc yet the 5D image looks sharper. Presumably this is down to the weaker AA filter?

Anyhow, here are the images. The first 2 are as they were with no adjustments, the second are after an exposure correction in post.

https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/41858/IM​G_0140.jpg (external link)
https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/41858/IM​G_0244.jpg (external link)
https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/41858/IM​G_0140b.jpg (external link)
https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/41858/IM​G_0244b.jpg (external link)


I prefer the look of the 5D images over the 550D when it comes to landscapes and portraits, but if I need to do macro shots or long lens shots of birds I always reach for the 550D because of the much higher pixel density.


Jo
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YashicaFX2
Goldmember
1,003 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
Location: A quiet place in the country.
     
Sep 05, 2013 05:48 |  #113
bannedPermanent ban

Eight pages and still going. Can't we all just get along. RIP, RK.


Dedicated APS-c shooter. Gripped 60D, 60 2.8, 10-22, 15-85, Σ70-200 OS and a big white something or other! Plus a 5D w/28-75.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,553 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 336
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 05, 2013 07:12 |  #114

Jo, this is one of the few times (in my memory) that somebody put side-by-side photos of the 5D Classic with those of a crop sensor.

The significant difference I see is the saturation maybe with a slight tint correction. I had a custom profile in my 60D where I had saturation/sharpness/c​ontrast cranked up a bit which I jokingly called the 5DII mode, until I got a bit tired of it, and replaced it with something in between. Anyway...

I think that the images from any full frame sensor will be sharper than a crop because there are more lines of resolution on the frame. This is how much detail the lens puts on the sensor.

The caveat is that the sensor should be able to resolve that much detail, but I think that the 5D sensor is adequate.

There is no magic bullet, nothing comes for free... The crop gives you 'reach' (for similar Mp sensors) the FF gives you sharpness, better ISO performance (at least until the 70D, this one promises less noisy performance, it has not been around enough for people to develop noise handling techniques).


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Sep 05, 2013 07:20 |  #115
bannedPermanent ban

tekdekk wrote in post #16269164 (external link)
This thread was a setup.

Ya think? NAW!


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2ndviolinman
Senior Member
345 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2011
     
Sep 05, 2013 07:30 |  #116

I think the OP is too naïve to know what he/she was starting.


David
5Dc, 5Dii, Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 40/2.8 Pancake, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.0L, 200/2.8L, converted 35mm TS, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, 70/2.8 Macro, Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 50/1.7 & 85/2.8, Jena 135/3.5, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO, Canon 28-135.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gobeatty
Senior Member
513 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2013
     
Sep 05, 2013 07:45 as a reply to  @ 2ndviolinman's post |  #117

"When I move to ff I'm looking forward to: more latitude in my raw files, smoother tonal transitions, better high ISO performance and thinner dof."

Yes, yes you will.

Regarding sharpness, KR says it well. If you are shooting crop and you find yourself pixel peeping and fretting over sharpness and noise, save your pennies and get a full frame camera. You will get an across the board improvement in these areas allowing cheaper glass on the FF to be sharper than most any glass on the crop. I also find the images crop cleaner. I'm not sure why, but I see it.


6D | 35 f2 | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 28 - 135 f3.5 - 5.6 | 70-210 f4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Azathoth
" ...whose name no lips dare speak aloud"
Avatar
1,492 posts
Gallery: 650 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4390
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Funchal
     
Sep 05, 2013 07:46 |  #118

Breaking news: Sharpness and (lack of) noise aren't really that important in a photo. ;)


500px (external link) | flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,222 posts
Likes: 179
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Sep 05, 2013 07:47 |  #119

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16269599 (external link)
Eight pages and still going. Can't we all just get along. RIP, RK.

Eight pages? I remember a similar thread on crop and full frame (or one of those 'this' vs. 'that' topics) that generated more than 600 replies.

So then one has to wonder, if the answer is so definitively simple as "better camera yields better IQ/sharper results," then why all the interminable fuss?

Should not the OP's question been conclusively answered within the first few responses?

After all, we're talking technical, not art, creativity, or even skill.

Well, for one thing, as I pointed out in my last post, how viewers perceive and value sharpness and other measurable factors can differ.

And the differences might not just be subjectively perceived. High-end lenses from different manufacturers might all exhibit exceptional MTF charts, for example, but nevertheless produce images with different characteristics. Which characteristic is better is a matter of subjective preference.

And then there is the oft-discussed bokeh, the aesthetic quality of the photograph's out-of-focus area, which is 100 percent subjective. Yet, it's often treated like a 'technical' issue.

As iamascientist noted, "This whole thinking of 'photog a is better then photog b, but if photog b is given a better camera then photog a, then photog b technically has the better pictures'"

No one has even hinted at this? Are we sure about that?

Well, what has definitely been hinted at is that the same photographer (thus obviously maintaining the same creative level and skill set) will always benefit from using more expensive gear, because more expensive gear guarantees better image quality, and image quality (with all else the same) is always a decisive factor.

But yes, this is all just 'technical talk' in a gear-oriented forum, so let it run wild without interruption.

Here's the problem. Unless someone is seeking a specific answer to a problem that might require a technically based solution, then the value of these discussions (not just this thread specifically!) becomes a bit suspect. This is not to say, by any means, that such topics should be avoided or worse yet, censored.

But having someone, such as iamascientist, come in for a second to provide some much needed perspective should not be discouraged either. And while his remark might have been a bit aggressive for some (not me), there have been other members on this thread who have in fact noted that any differences in quality, should they even exists without benefit of 100 percent crop, would be negligible at best.

Yes, it's a deliberately compartmentalized discussion, and yes, there are a number of folks who can talk the technical with the best, yet still have great appreciation for the larger picture, so to speak.

However, discussions like this can potentially also become a monster, ones that effectively rape the soul and spirit of photography by placing disproportionate value on the technical in relation to overall photography. Interjecting a little restraint, a little refocusing on what actually matters, is thus to be encouraged, not dissuaded.

Really, a novice buying an entry level DSLR has somehow been mislead? Can they not take excellent photos with these? And why should they go mirrorless? Maybe they checked out both offerings, but preferred the feel or ergonomics of the DSLR.

That's the problem; if you set up a discussion that intentionally renounces the holistic, then important factors get marginalized or ignored altogether, rendering the overall discussion incomplete.

To be sure, for folks in the know, much of this indulgence and imbalance might matter little---they get it---they don't need to be subjected to an "it's the photographer" riot act---and hey, for some folks, these types of discussions are just fun, and that's absolutely fine. Plus, if you dig through them, you can certainly glean some instructive technical information.

But for newcomers, these discussions can be a disastrous source of disinformation and grossly skewed priority.

Whenever an OP ask a question about sharpness or image quality in general (raw, jpeg, crop, full frame, etc.), one of the first things that should be asked, especially if the OP is a novice, is what they hope to obtain through such information; what's their goal, their preferences, and so on.

Otherwise, there should be only one simple answer: The more expensive, the better the image quality. But of course, as these repeated threads constantly prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that even when confined to the gear-centric technical, it's never that simple.

Personally, I don't venture much up in the gear side of POTN, or at least, don't comment much, but sometimes, out of respect for photography, it's difficult to ignore the ludicrous without reaction.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread, but PM's always welcome.


Sept 2017-July 2018 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,459 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 38
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
Sep 05, 2013 10:11 |  #120

tekdekk wrote in post #16269164 (external link)
This thread was a setup.

Of course it was..... You'll notice this from time to time.....


_
My Gear is ---> Here

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

34,945 views & 0 likes for this thread
How does FF improve image quality?
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 lbeck80
946 guests, 360 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.