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 General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 13 Jul 2018 (Friday) 06:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Current 7D MII user - wanting full frame...?

 
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jul 19, 2018 08:33 |  #61

griesmonkey wrote in post #18665856 (external link)
I guess part of my research, before diving to full frame, would be to get a good handle on how the 6D II operates on native glass in low light or againts bright light background scenarios. This is where I find the Sigma's lose me in ability to nail the focus accurately. Even with them calibrated properly (which did help a ton in all other situations) I find I have trouble of them hitting focus on bright backgrounds and low light situations like wedding receptions. Native glass will require me to either use just primes or lose some bokeh ability which isn't ideal for me.

I like the flexibility of a short zoom and the only way to maintain the DoF i'm looking for is full frame and native glass. But it's also an overhaul on my gear which concluded me to ask the question if the 6D II was logical or going to a different setup all together.

I appreciate some of the conversation on ISO and what does what at what ISO...ect... But that conversation seemed to stray from what I was really trying to get some opinions on.

These ART lenses are also super heavy which I have found very fatigueing as long day shoots go on. Also with no IS, it can be hard to lower my shutter speed enough to counteract the balance of the lens on the body. I don't know if I'm talking myself into something else already, but I'm just typing out my general thoughts on what I have.


I use a variety of lenses from Canon L, Canon consumer, Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma. All of them struggle with strong back-light; some more than others. The struggles is not only auto-focus, but also 'washing-out' of the subject.

From FF to APS-c, there just isn't a ton of DOF difference. The exact same framing, with the exact same focal length, at the same aperture will yield almost identical amounts of BG blur on FF and APS-c. Variability comes in when you try to 1.6x crop factor by comparing 24mm on FF to 15mm on crop, changing framing, focal length, or aperture, and so forth. There just isn't a ton of difference to be had.

Lots of folks will debate my second point until the cows come home, all of them, even the dead ones. I have to go to a job interview now, but will try to get some comparison shots up this afternoon.

When all is said, and done, and you've weighed all the options, you will still want a full frame camera. Go buy the best one you can afford. Then you too can expound ad infinitum about the wonders of a 36mm wide sensor.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,888 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 5429
Joined Mar 2014
     
Jul 19, 2018 08:54 |  #62

griesmonkey wrote in post #18665856 (external link)
I guess part of my research, before diving to full frame, would be to get a good handle on how the 6D II operates on native glass in low light or againts bright light background scenarios. This is where I find the Sigma's lose me in ability to nail the focus accurately. Even with them calibrated properly (which did help a ton in all other situations) I find I have trouble of them hitting focus on bright backgrounds and low light situations like wedding receptions. Native glass will require me to either use just primes or lose some bokeh ability which isn't ideal for me.

I like the flexibility of a short zoom and the only way to maintain the DoF i'm looking for is full frame and native glass. But it's also an overhaul on my gear which concluded me to ask the question if the 6D II was logical or going to a different setup all together.

I appreciate some of the conversation on ISO and what does what at what ISO...ect... But that conversation seemed to stray from what I was really trying to get some opinions on.

These ART lenses are also super heavy which I have found very fatigueing as long day shoots go on. Also with no IS, it can be hard to lower my shutter speed enough to counteract the balance of the lens on the body. I don't know if I'm talking myself into something else already, but I'm just typing out my general thoughts on what I have.


I believe 6d2 is going for about $1500 reburbished.. I think its an appropriate price for the camera..
nothing is going to work as well as native, problem with native of course is you spend more

I will have to agree with Charlie.. you will have to try it or most likely that itch will never go away.


I got a couple of Cameras and lenses ...Canon, Sony, Fuji, Pansonic, pentax
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MY flickr (external link)
My latest YT video -->https://youtu.be/YzJ1o​eiHm7Y (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,573 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4991
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
Post edited 8 months ago by TeamSpeed. (5 edits in all)
     
Jul 19, 2018 09:06 as a reply to  @ Bassat's post |  #63

Example: Crop vs FF framed identically...

When you make the FF frame up identically to the crop view by changing only the focal length (because changing distance changes the image itself due to perspective), then you have to use a longer focal length, which reduces the DOF by just over a stop.

EX: Shoot a 50mm at f1.8 on a canon crop, then 80mm at f2.8 on the FF, you will have the same look.

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Electronics/5DII-vs-7D-High-ISO/i-8k57Nv2/0/d35196cc/O/7D_vs_5D_iqa.gif

I believe though if you shoot the FF with the same focal length and distance to subject as you did with the crop body, but then crop the image later to match the crop view, you will get a similar DOF because that is all the crop sensor is doing for you in the first place. However in this situation you enter the discussion zone of pixel density and final resolution of those results.

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,584 posts
Likes: 325
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jul 19, 2018 09:52 |  #64

Bassat wrote in post #18665877 (external link)
I use a variety of lenses from Canon L, Canon consumer, Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma. All of them struggle with strong back-light; some more than others. The struggles is not only auto-focus, but also 'washing-out' of the subject.

From FF to APS-c, there just isn't a ton of DOF difference. The exact same framing, with the exact same focal length, at the same aperture will yield almost identical amounts of BG blur on FF and APS-c. Variability comes in when you try to 1.6x crop factor by comparing 24mm on FF to 15mm on crop, changing framing, focal length, or aperture, and so forth. There just isn't a ton of difference to be had.

Lots of folks will debate my second point until the cows come home, all of them, even the dead ones. I have to go to a job interview now, but will try to get some comparison shots up this afternoon.

A factor of 1.6 is not negligible, and there is is sometimes more at work than this. The fact is, the microlenses in higher-density DSLR pixels fail to capture some of the added light when the f-ratio drops below 2.8 with front-side-illuminated sensors, AFAIK, this does not just reduce the amount of expected light captured like a t-factor, but actually selectively loses the oblique light on the sensor that makes the DOF shallower. So, besides having more shallow-DOF lens availability at a given angle of view, the FF also gets a higher percentage of the light that makes DOF shallower, when it has larger pixels. Allegedly, newer BSI APS-C and FF sensors do not or will not suffer this, at least to the same degree.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kermit4u
Senior Member
Avatar
793 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 110
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Hartsville, SC
     
Jul 19, 2018 09:56 |  #65

rantercsr wrote in post #18665886 (external link)
I believe 6d2 is going for about $1500 reburbished.. I think its an appropriate price for the camera..
nothing is going to work as well as native, problem with native of course is you spend more

I will have to agree with Charlie.. you will have to try it or most likely that itch will never go away.


New with battery grip at BHPhoto $1599 https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …canon_eos_6d_ma​rk_ii.html (external link)

maybe it has been covered but if not. Why not just rent the ff camera you want to try and see how you like it. If it doesn't blow you away and improve your photography, save the money and invest in glass

Just my 2 cent


7Dmkii gripped|5DC gripped|7Dmkii gripped|Canonet QL17 Giii|too many yet not enough lenses https://www.jeffowenph​otography.com/ (external link)
https://www.instagram.​com/jeffowenphotograph​y/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,457 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 3445
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
Post edited 8 months ago by EverydayGetaway.
     
Jul 19, 2018 11:54 |  #66

John Sheehy wrote in post #18665923 (external link)
A factor of 1.6 is not negligible, and there is is sometimes more at work than this. The fact is, the microlenses in higher-density DSLR pixels fail to capture some of the added light when the f-ratio drops below 2.8 with front-side-illuminated sensors, AFAIK, this does not just reduce the amount of expected light captured like a t-factor, but actually selectively loses the oblique light on the sensor that makes the DOF shallower. So, besides having more shallow-DOF lens availability at a given angle of view, the FF also gets a higher percentage of the light that makes DOF shallower, when it has larger pixels. Allegedly, newer BSI APS-C and FF sensors do not or will not suffer this, at least to the same degree.

Whether or not it's "negligible" depends on who you ask. To me the difference is absolutely negligible after a few years of shooting both formats interchangeably. If you can only tell the difference between the results by examining closely side by side, then it's not worth fretting over, this has certainly been my experience and many others have noticed the same.

If someone wants to show me some examples of shots they think they flat out couldn't have gotten or would have been noticeably "worse" without a FF camera and why, I think that'd be a better place to start a conversation from. When you bring up minute details about the differences that aren't really perceivable unless you're doing lab testing I don't feel like that really adds much to prove a point for why FF is significantly better.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,533 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5570
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 19, 2018 13:14 |  #67

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18665983 (external link)
Whether or not it's "negligible" depends on who you ask. To me the difference is absolutely negligible after a few years of shooting both formats interchangeably. If you can only tell the difference between the results by examining closely side by side, then it's not worth fretting over, this has certainly been my experience and many others have noticed the same.

If someone wants to show me some examples of shots they think they flat out couldn't have gotten or would have been noticeably "worse" without a FF camera and why, I think that'd be a better place to start a conversation from. When you bring up minute details about the differences that aren't really perceivable unless you're doing lab testing I don't feel like that really adds much to prove a point for why FF is significantly better.

In the game of photography, we pay for stops of light, and in general, FF will give a stop more DOF, stop more light, ECT. TS is in a scenario where ignorance is bliss. Experiencing contrasting sensor sizes is the only way to tell if the move is for you or not. Shooting with a cell phone then 1"sensor, m43 then aps-c... You will get a feel for the images. People will have arbitrary limits that can change over time. A stop may seem little or a lot, and we pay big bucks for stops of light. Whether it's from a lens or a sensor, we pay for it. The advantage of the larger sensor cannot be easily replicated with bigger glass, the bucket for light is higher capacity. This can give higher resolution and better color tonality aside from the usual conversations of low light and DOF. In the perfect world, I would love to shoot with a sensor size as big as my camera!


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited 8 months ago by Bassat.
     
Jul 19, 2018 14:34 |  #68

John Sheehy wrote in post #18665923 (external link)
A factor of 1.6 is not negligible, and there is is sometimes more at work than this. The fact is, the microlenses in higher-density DSLR pixels fail to capture some of the added light when the f-ratio drops below 2.8 with front-side-illuminated sensors, AFAIK, this does not just reduce the amount of expected light captured like a t-factor, but actually selectively loses the oblique light on the sensor that makes the DOF shallower. So, besides having more shallow-DOF lens availability at a given angle of view, the FF also gets a higher percentage of the light that makes DOF shallower, when it has larger pixels. Allegedly, newer BSI APS-C and FF sensors do not or will not suffer this, at least to the same degree.

Agreed. The 1.6x factor is not negotiable. Not my point. I only claim that it CAN make next to no difference at all wrt to DOF and BG blur. It all depends on how you handle the framing/aperture/focal length switch. It is quite possible to get REALLY thin DOF on aps-c. It is equally possible to get incredibly deep DOF on FF. DOF is a pretty thin reason to opt for FF over APS-C. (That's a YOKE, son!)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jul 19, 2018 15:22 |  #69

Get your popcorn, folks. This is gonna open a RFH Can O' Worms. Sensor size is irrelevant to DOF (for the most part). If you can do it with FF, you can do it with APS-c.

Some preliminaries. I measured nothing here. The object is to show that sensor size, and focal length have very little (if any!?!) effect on DOF. The OP stated he needs FF to obtain his DOF goals. Not true.

Background. All images focused on Taco Sauce bottle. Size varies a bit because my goal was to FRAME the same. I used the 1' ruler in the foreground for a framing guide. Please forgive my sloppiness and slight inaccuracies. The setup (bottles/cans/chairs/b​g) remained the same for all shots.

The first pair are 80D 50 STM and Σ24A, both lenses at f/1.8. Notice the catfood cans, and the proximal chairs. Blur and bokeh nearly identical. I have no problem attributing the differences to imperfect framing. The background is about 12' from the camera. It looks different because the 50mm spreads a smaller area over the same size image. That is perspective distortion, not blur/bokeh. If focal length made a difference, you'd see it in these photos. You do not, because it does not.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jul 19, 2018 15:29 |  #70

The second set. Shot on 6D, with 24A and 50 STM. Take particular note of (agian) the cat food cans and chairs in the proximal background. How odd that they are strangely similar each other, AND to the shots from the 80D. The only thing that changed, was the BODY/SENSOR, and it had next to no effect on DOF. Different focal length, different sensor size, different focus distance: same DOF. Lawdy, lawdy! Someone get the preacher. It's a miracle! I suspect that if I'd measured and framed precisely, you could not tell which camera was used. Again, for the more distant bg, perspective plays a larger role than DOF.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jul 19, 2018 15:42 |  #71

and finally (I was not expecting this!), a completely off the wall comparison.

Same framing (OK, close). Different sensor size, and different focal length. Very similar amount of blur on the lens cap, cat food cans, and proximal chairs. Again, perspective hugely affects the distant background.

The point of all this?
It is quite possible, and very easy to get similar amounts of bg blur from a full frame camera and a crop frame camera. If you start throwing things like 'same perspective', '1.6x focal length', '1-stop aperture difference' (not true, I compared that, too), and the like, you certainly complicate the issue.

The bottom line is: aperture and distance (camera/subject & subject/bg) determine background blur. Focal length does not (but it does change with focal length). Sensor size does not (but framing and distance can/must change when you change sensor size.

OP, spending money to get a full frame camera because you are chasing thin DOF is a unicorn hunt. At the end of your hunt there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Buy a full frame body just because you want one, or because you intend to shoot a lot of high ISO, or because you frequently print larger than 20"x30". You'll get a positive ROI there. For DOF? Not so much.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,573 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4991
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
Post edited 8 months ago by TeamSpeed. (3 edits in all)
     
Jul 19, 2018 16:52 as a reply to  @ Bassat's post |  #72

Said a bit differently, as in other posts, FRAMING and aperture controls DOF.

Framing can either be a result of changing distance and/or focal length... I don't know if this is clearer or not but it made sense to me when others talked about it.

Now, you say there is no reason to choose FF over APSC due to DOF. However there is if you have lenses that you want to use and don't want to change lenses. Also, there is no crop equivalent to the image you get on a FF if you use the 35 1.4 for example. There are a few other cases like this too. There are indeed reasons to get FF over APS-C, due to better noise management, or this more creative availability of DOF, etc. I have both and use both differently depending on what effect I am trying to get.

A FF and a crop will vary by a stop in one way or another in these factors, whether DOF, noise performance, etc. If you are a stop away from getting what you really want with your gear, you will likely decide on a FF, especially if that is cheaper than swapping out lenses for faster primes.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jul 19, 2018 17:07 as a reply to  @ TeamSpeed's post |  #73

I agree with TS, above. It seems to come down to 'different ways to skin a cat'. If what you have is 35mm f/1.4 on full frame, there no substitute for that. Likewise, if what I like is my 24A on a crop sensor there also no substitute. And granted, in order to make my above-stated philosophy work, one would need access to a slew of lenses, and both format bodies. I am fortunate enough (or G.A.S.'d enough) to have all the gear I want/need. If you are gear-limited, and unhappy with what you've got, you will need to add gear, but that is always true.

With all that out there, I still believe that buying a full frame body, just to get thin DOF, is a unicorn hunt. As mentioned, there are lots of other, good, valid reasons to buy a full frame body.

Maybe two years ago, I posted a question about upgrading my then aps-c, aps-h, and full frame (60D?, 1D4, 6D?) bodies. TeamSpeed suggested I sell them all and buy a 5D3. I passed, judging the camera too expensive. As it happens, I have spent way more than the cost of a 5D3 buying gear that wasn't a 5D3, and actually buying some of it twice. If the OP even thinks he needs a full frame body, he should buy one. Nuffsedd.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,335 posts
Likes: 1386
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jul 19, 2018 22:03 |  #74

Like others said, best option is to try yourself. I started with 1.6x crop canon bodies. Moved to 1.3x crop for sports, then FF with 5dc. Ever since stayed with FF. Then went back to 1.5x crop with Fuji. Didn't notice that big of issues with DoF as with mirrorless I could nail focus at f1.2 almost all the time which was a struggle with my 5dmk3/85L. Then itch came to try MF and I got GFX. Lenses are not as fast as FF but the look from 4 yr old sensor is amazing. Sold my FF but still keeping 1.5x Fuji XT1.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Avatar
949 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 1251
Joined Apr 2016
     
Jul 19, 2018 22:41 |  #75

A full frame (or larger format) would be required if you need very shallow depth.
For example, an 85mm f/1,4 on a say Canon Full Frame, you would need a effectively ~53mm f/0,8 lens which is not available.... :cry:


Canon 7D2+grip | 18-35mm ART | EF-S 10-18mm | EF 70-200mm f/2,8L IS II | ZE 2/100mm | ZE 2/35mm | ZE 1,4/85mm | CV 3,5/20mm | Nikkor 60mm f/2,8D |
Olympus E-PL3 | 7-14mm f/2,8 |
Speedlite 430EX III-RT | 600EX-RT | YN 600EX-RT |
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |

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

5,531 views & 87 likes for this thread
Current 7D MII user - wanting full frame...?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
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 DrBarun
928 guests, 351 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.