Time to go FF?

rhys216 wrote in post #13050234
Maybe others that are not biased can comment on this type of work in post, is it really a viable option in terms of time spent in PP and also a believable option for the DOF provided by FF + Fast glass, or am I talking rubbish?

Below is a FF example by m.shalaby

FF + fast glass.

Okay, let's look at this image and compare against the image you took.

Notice how much of this subject is in focus? Even more, as a fraction of the total depth of the subject, than your subject was. Your subject was a bit closer than this one.

That suggests to me that had the photographer shot this person at the same distance and angle of view you did, they'd get roughly the same amount of the person in focus as you did, and therefore the amount of background blur would also be about the same, assuming the distance to the background is the same. But the shot above was taken outdoors with a narrower angle of view than yours, so the background was probably more distant for him than it was for you. That works to his advantage, if the goal is to get a nice, blurry background.


Now, the shot quoted above was taken with a 135 f/2 lens, wide open. But guess what? You'll be able to get very nearly the same shot under identical conditions on your D7000 with an 85 f/1.4 lens, again wide open.


Full frame is not magical.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13050491
Then if you want mush with a subject like that, you need a longer fast lens, wouldn't you think, with more distance between them and everything around them? Also, if you don't want anything distracting the shot, then time the shot better so that a lady in an colored outfit isn't in the frame, especially one wearing the same colors as the subject.

It's not always possible to have such control of your environment, for instance the examples I posted here in this thread were all strangers in the street, also I don't like to be too far away from my subject as I like to be able to interact with them.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13050491
For example, putting an 85 1.2 on a crop body yields some really great shots, with the background disappearing into nothingness.

How much does an 85 1.2L cost? and how slow is the focusing?
And what's the point in getting an 85 1.2L for a crop, when an 85 1.8 has the same DOF on an FF?
Also you could just get an 85 1.4 for FF which would be like shooting an 85 F0.9 on a crop.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13050491
Finally if you still don't have the equipment needed, or the settings needed, or the desired surroundings, then photoshop them out. I daresay that more than 50% of images you see ANYWHERE have been doctored one way or another.

This for me is a last resort, where I either have no other option, or if it'l be easier for me to correct in post rather than camera, or I just made a mistake in my composition.
Getting it right in camera, promotes a higher standard of photography imo.

rhys216 wrote in post #13050555
It's not always possible to have such control of your environment, for instance the examples I posted here in this thread were all strangers in the street, also I don't like to be too far away from my subject as I like to be able to interact with them.


How much does an 85 1.2L cost? and how slow is the focusing?
And what's the point in getting an 85 1.2L for a crop, when an 85 1.8 has the same DOF on an FF?

You'd be talking about a 50 f/1.2L on crop versus an 85 f/1.8 on full frame.

Yes, there comes a point where it is more economical to get full frame for shallow depth of field work than to get suitable crop lenses.


But isn't that really what we've been saying all along, that the only major advantage that full frame has over crop is the shallow depth of field it's capable of?

No, it would be like shooting a 50 f/0.9 on a crop.

Canon used to make a 50 f/1.0L.

No doubt, and I fully agree. The use of film in basic photography courses promotes exactly that kind of discipline.

But Teamspeed's real point, and mine too, is that there is relatively little that full frame cameras can do that crop cameras cannot also do, because there are relatively few situations where the depth of field you need is so shallow that only a full frame camera with a prime faster than f/2 will do the job.

But such situations do exist, and it is in those situations that there is no substitute for full frame.

kcbrown wrote in post #13050621
But isn't that really what we've been saying all along, that the only major advantage that full frame has over crop is the shallow depth of field it's capable of?

This and IQ if we're talking 40D - 50D - 60D - 7D compared to 5DII.

But if you factor in the price then the crop bodies leave you with more money for better lenses which will impact the image quality, probably more so than the body.

The Ran wrote in post #13050865
But if you factor in the price then the crop bodies leave you with more money for better lenses which will impact the image quality, probably more so than the body.

No, because the money saved on the body doesn't spread very far if your buying multiple lenses, and also, you don't have to spend more on FF if you get something like a 5D classic.
Also lenses are generally sharper on FF anyway, and let's not forget the difference in ISO...

IQ of the 12mp 5D classic, blows away the IQ of the 18mp 7D.

The difference between the 5DII and the 50D is about £1000, you could definitely get a few quality lenses for that. And if you spend a little more than the 50D for the 5D classic you're losing even more features, it's no surprise the noise performance is better when you've get about 4 times less pixel density, but that's not the be all and end all when it comes to image quality which in turn isn't the only thing to consider when getting a body.

rhys216 wrote in post #13050876
No, because the money saved on the body doesn't spread very far if your buying multiple lenses, and also, you don't have to spend more on FF if you get something like a 5D classic.
Also lenses are generally sharper on FF anyway, and let's not forget the difference in ISO...

IQ of the 12mp 5D classic, blows away the IQ of the 18mp 7D.

Those are fightin' words LOL!!!!!!!!

Rhys quit arguing. Your not gonna convince a crop advocate the benefits of a full frame sensor. On the other hand both formats have pros and cons.

So far my style I see no benefits of using a crop body. Tried to love the 7d raw files but no love was found in anyway and not even close. My oldie 5dc still amazes me in the brutally basic body creating killer IQ.

All this "tension" will stop when the 5dmk3 gets introduced with hopefully at least 6fps with a better AF configuration. The only ones complaining will be the sports/bird shooters wanting a 1.6 crop factor. Canon has to get rid of the mirror movement and then a full frame sensor can rattle off more fps like the newer sony bodies.

Lower IQ crop bodies can hide behind the crappy 300dpi resolution when printing. My panasonic lx5 point and shoot looks pretty darn good We all benefit from the 300dpi prints.

I cant wait for the 5dmk3. When that hits the market this will disrupt some of the crop/full frame debate because it will hopefully be like a 7D body with a full frame sensor. I wonder how the 1dsmk4 sales will be like when this happens. Canon's bean counters must be talking alot about their $$$$ strategy. The 1dsmk4 might be like a flop like the 60D sales.

If a crop user loves the IQ then let them be. They may or may not see the benefits of a full frame sensor. I dont care what people use....... personal choice is something you shouldn't worry about. Let people love what they love

AlanU wrote in post #13051673
Those are fightin' words LOL!!!!!!!!

Rhys quit arguing. Your not gonna convince a crop advocate the benefits of a full frame sensor. On the other hand both formats have pros and cons.

Yep.

Here's the thing: I used to think that full frame was surely going to blow me away in terms of its image quality, and that I'd think that crop camera images were junk after seeing what full frame was capable of.

But when I finally got to shoot full frame, that didn't happen.

It's not like there aren't RAW samples taken with the 5D2 out there, either, if one hasn't been able to take shots with a 5D2 himself or wants to see a wider range of samples.


Are the tones creamier at low ISO? Yep. Are the unprocessed shots sharper? Yep.

Is it a night and day difference? Nope. Most especially since I had to pixel peep to see the difference.

What was the biggest difference I saw? That the wide-open depth of field from the full frame camera was shallower. The better sharpness was visible only when I pixel peeped. And, frankly, that didn't impress me, because I can get equivalent sharpness and almost the same amount of detail retention from my 7D shots just by using very sharp glass and turning up the sharpness dial appropriately.

The 5Dc's low ISO tones are creamy smooth, no question about it. In fact, from what I've seen, I actually like the low ISO shots from the 5Dc better than from the 5D2. For one thing, there's more detail in the shadows to be had. I've never tried shooting the 5D (classic or otherwise) at ISO 50. Perhaps I should try that, just to see how creamy smooth the tones wind up being.

But I can overexpose my low ISO 7D shots and pull them back in postprocessing, as well. I wind up getting something better than what the 7D produces by default at ISO 100. Are they as good as what a 5D or 5D2 can produce? Nope. But they're remarkably good anyway.

Nope, Canon doesn't even have to do that. The EOS 3 was perfectly capable of rattling off 10 frames per second when it had an auxiliary film drive (a.k.a. battery grip) attached to it. So Canon is perfectly capable of building a 10 FPS full frame body. Nikon certainly is, as that's what they've built in the D3s (9 FPS for full-frame mode, 11 for crop mode, but the mirror movement is the same for both).

I really hope you're right about what the 5D3 will bring, but I'm mighty skeptical that they'll do much more than slap a higher resolution full frame sensor into a 5D2 body. Why should they do any more when so many people (as seen here) say that the 5D2's autofocus is perfectly fine? Canon quite obviously has a captive market of people who are chomping at the bit for more of the same.

If a crop user loves the IQ then let them be. They may or may not see the benefits of a full frame sensor. I dont care what people use....... personal choice is something you shouldn't worry about. Let people love what they love

Yep, exactly. I'll not dispute that the IQ from a full frame camera is superior to what is produced by an equivalent-generation crop body. It's just that I don't see the night and day difference that others see, and I know exactly where the differences I do see come from.

bahnhof wrote in post #13040883
I live in Shanghai and a couple of major online shopping centers are starting to discount the 5D mkII (both body only and body+24-105 kit). Kind of wondering if it's time to go full FF. Or wait until the 5D mkIII is announced, see what it will affect the mkII price, and make a choice between the two. Any thoughts?

Just gone FF myself, and it's definitely worth it, I already know I can't go back to a crop.
I can't answer your question about whether it's better for you to wait or not, but when you do go FF you will have a smile on your face (if you don't care about losing reach of course).
If you don't want to lose much money, maybe consider a 5D classic to go along with your 7D, maybe use them side by side and see which sensor size your prefer, then if you prefer the files you get from the 5DC, you can always sell up when the MKiii hit's, and who knows that camera may solve the 5D's only Achilles heal.

D700 SOOC with LR3 defaults.
Lens: 50mm 1.8G
Aperture: F1.8
SS: 1/160
ISO 2000

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script