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 23 Oct 2014 (Thursday) 09:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Buy 5D III or Wait?

 
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Oct 23, 2014 16:54 |  #16

sandpiper wrote in post #17229666 (external link)
Keep in mind that crop factor does NOT give you more reach in itself, your 400mm lens will project exactly the same size image on the sensor regardless of whether that sensor is a FF or crop. The 1.6x comparison is simply to compare the focal length difference required to frame the subject the same way between different formats. The projected image is the same size, but the crop sensor doesn't record as much of it, if you take a shot from a FF sensor and crop it to the same field of view you would have recorded on a crop sensor they will have the same image. So you can get the same "640mm" lens on the FF by simply cropping the image.

As you are generally going to be cropping most bird shots anyway, regardless of FF or crop sensor, then the "1.6x" figure is useless. If you crop the image (from a crop sensor) to the framing you want of the bird, it is exactly the same as cropping from a FF sensor except you throw less away. The sensor area used for your final image is the same, whatever the size of the actual sensor. So, the images have an identical crop factor of maybe 2x or 2.5x compared to a whole FF sensor. This makes your lens an "800mm" or a "1,000mm", except of course, it doesn't change the lens any more than using a smaller sensor. The lens is always 400mm and whether you crop by using a smaller sensor, or cropping the image from a larger sensor, there is no more "reach".

Where you CAN get more "reach" is with pixel density, and crop cameras typically have more pixel density than FF ones. The 7D mkII has almost as many pixels as the 5D mkIII, but in a much smaller area. This gives a lot more "pixels on target" and, when you take your cropped image from each camera (using the same amount of sensor area) the file from the 7DII may be 2500 pixels wide but the file from the 5DIII may only be 2000 pixels wide (I haven't done the math, so nobody jump on me for not being exact here, I am just pointing out the principle). Hence the 7DII image will be bigger, therefore has "more reach". That difference though is not related to the crop factor of 1.6x, it will probably be less but depends very much on which cameras you compare. A high megapixel FF camera, such as the Nikon D810, could have higher pixel density (more reach) than an older, lower megapixel, crop camera.

So, yes, you are going to get more reach from a modern crop body than a FF one (if you are sticking to Canon) but from pixel density, not crop factor, and forget the 1.6x figure as that means nothing where "reach" is concerned.

I always used to use my crop bodies (20D then 40D) for bird photography in preference to my FF (original 5D) however since I bought the 5D mkIII that has become my primary bird camera, and it does a damn good job at it too. However, if birds are your main subject, I would suggest the 7DmkII as you will get significantly more pixels on target. The 7DII is on my shopping list for next year, to replace the 40D, and I will then use that for bird photography in preference to the 5D mkIII.

+ 1 + 1 ... this is probably one of the best descriptions of FF vs CF in non-technical statements that I've ever read on here. Take a good look at this, and try to understand it in terms of what it does to the image as it relates to the distance from target.

Only thing I'd add, newer cameras have better technology, therefore, using a 7D will give you "more data" per mm of sensor than older FF cameras. So, it's not always a direct comparison in the sense of that 1.6 CF multiplier -- that really relates more to what you see in the viewfinder than it does actual "magnification" of the target ... the target "appears" closer because the lens makes the frame smaller -- sorta :) :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,008 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5842
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 23, 2014 17:02 |  #17

monkey44 wrote in post #17229024 (external link)
Yes, but there's a lot more that comes into play between a FF and CF camera than that illusion of magnification ... including a smaller sensor.

Owning both, I'd feel pretty comfortable stating that you can crop a full frame image out of the 5DM3 to equal the CF size image, and get similar image quality in a comparable size image -- all other things being equal.

Of course, not all things are equal - so, it becomes a matter of choice and skills - and depends on if you want to crop your images a lot. The other issue sometimes, and might be equally as important, when you look thru the viewfinder (and not live-view) the image appears much more distant, so sometimes creates an issue with composition in the FF camera ...

I don't want to start a debate about CF and FF and IQ resolution and all that -- we have enough of those threads to fill a barn -- just want to let the OP know there are issues7 to understand between CF and FF cameras in order to make an informed decision about which camera to choose based on what OP wants to accomplish artistically or practically.

No you won't get a similar quality image if you do that. However if you add a 1.4x to the lens with the 5d3, you will get a similar or better image. Click my mini review link in my signature for that exact comparison between the 7 and 5d3.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Oct 23, 2014 17:18 |  #18

TS- yes, I should have said as good a quality print of the same size, not the image size itself. If we take a FF shot, and crop it, we "CAN" get the same size target (say, a bird or buck?) in the same size crop frame -- we just eliminate the "surrounding fluff" and the FF can crop to a CF size digital image and print equally as well. The technical data range might be different, but the resulting print will have the same size target in the same size frame -- I still think in terms of film and not "data pack" when I envision a target in a print. (Think of MONKEY on terms of "techni-capped" ... :)

And I suspect we can only describe this in a "subject shot", not a "landscape shot", as that's a whole different ball game. As when that happens, the CF simply shrinks the frame dimensions - sorta.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Geordie ­ Amanda
Senior Member
Avatar
366 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 85
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Manchester UK
     
Oct 23, 2014 17:24 |  #19

I've been wondering about this possibility as I have a 7D and although I will wait until the 7DII comes out to make any decision, I still wonder if a move to FF would be a good one for me. Shooting in the North of England, I find many days are overcast and gloomy, so I am always struggling with light. I can't afford any mega fast Primes (400, 500, 600mm ) and find that my Tammy 150-600mm on the 7D isn't a great combination in the gloom if you are shooting sport.

I have reasoned that about 450mm (720mm equivalent) with the added crop factor is about as much as I can comfortably use in my regular shooting conditions and having read that the 5DIII works a lot better with the Tammy than the 7D it has made me wonder if I could go to 600mm and get a little more IQ. It's AF looks better than the 7D and it's max FPS is enough for the sports that I shoot. With at least a stop improvement in noise I can get a touch of shutter speed back too. Decisions, decisions. I also wonder if I should perhaps try a 6D (I use mainly centre AF points anyway) and if it doesn't work out, I'll have a nice FF for indoor stuff and perhaps a bit of portraiture etc :)


Call me Amanda please :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pitter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,602 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 1060
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Yumbo, Colombia
     
Oct 23, 2014 19:39 |  #20

Thank you Sandpiper that was very, very insightful. Excellent information! I shall revisit the 7D II!

That Sigma DC lens was just to have something cheap to slap on the camera on rare occasions for scenery or such. I won't miss it at all.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,008 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5842
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 23, 2014 20:08 |  #21

monkey44 wrote in post #17229753 (external link)
TS- yes, I should have said as good a quality print of the same size, not the image size itself. If we take a FF shot, and crop it, we "CAN" get the same size target (say, a bird or buck?) in the same size crop frame -- we just eliminate the "surrounding fluff" and the FF can crop to a CF size digital image and print equally as well. The technical data range might be different, but the resulting print will have the same size target in the same size frame -- I still think in terms of film and not "data pack" when I envision a target in a print. (Think of MONKEY on terms of "techni-capped" ... :)

And I suspect we can only describe this in a "subject shot", not a "landscape shot", as that's a whole different ball game. As when that happens, the CF simply shrinks the frame dimensions - sorta.

It ultimately depends on how much you are cropping from the 5D3 vs 7D, and how much resolution you ultimately have left. If what you have left has to be resized up to fit the print in question at 300dpi, the FF image will look worse than the cropped crop equivalent. As long as you have enough resulting material left for the print size in question so that the printer doesn't have to space out dots more, resize the image up to have more pixels per inch, etc, then we can agree.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Oct 23, 2014 20:46 |  #22

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17229934 (external link)
It ultimately depends on how much you are cropping from the 5D3 vs 7D, and how much resolution you ultimately have left. If what you have left has to be resized up to fit the print in question at 300dpi, the FF image will look worse than the cropped crop equivalent. As long as you have enough resulting material left for the print size in question so that the printer doesn't have to space out dots more, resize the image up to have more pixels per inch, etc, then we can agree.

Yes, in my imagination for this post, I was assuming the CF more or less fills the frame, as we normally try to do, and then the FF would crop to that size image and "cut away the fluff" -- which would leave you with two images that would appear the same visually on the screen with similar surrounding dimensions and subject in the middle, say. So, both images would then convert to a photo print and appear the same ...

So, basically the print you produce out of a FF or a CF in that case, could be very similar and good IQ with both "root shots" ... Now, with a landscape, the FF would win that one as the CF can't "up-size to meet the "wider" landscape -- No matter what you do with a CF, it cannot provide the same width of subject like the FF can ... I'm probably stating something very obvious here --

But that's what I mean earlier when saying a person needs to do homework to understand the properties of each camera and what it can produce in the field - and then decide what your goals are before you choose equipment -- otherwise, mistakes get very expensive. SO borrowing or renting is a good option if one is not familiar with the difference in FF and CF.




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

2,929 views & 0 likes for this thread
Buy 5D III or Wait?
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 quadrentau
2119 guests, 298 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.