Why go full frame?

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13181831
No, I will not re-think my position because I am different than you, I have a different perspective than you. My whole problem with these threads is that you feel the need to change what people want by altering the information they want to know by dragging topics out of bounds and onto different fairways.

My camera purchase criteria starts with sensor type. I'm not alone in that. Yours does not. Leave it alone!! I'm not missing your point at all. I just strongly disagree with your point and your point's motivation.

I never said my personal camera purchase criteria don't start with sensor type, that's an assumption on your part. For all you know, I might personally believe that a full frame sensor is exactly what I want, but too expensive (especially taken in context of need for longer lenses, etc., which equals more expense). Please don't read more into what I say than is there. If you look back through this thread you'll see that I'm perfectly willing to concede advantages to a full frame sensor/camera - I just try to place those advantages in an overall context rather than "absolutizing" them. I tend to think that we owe that to thread readers who aren't sure whether full frame or crop is right for them. Making blanket assertions that one or the other is "always" superior does them a disservice.

stsva wrote in post #13181840
I never said my personal camera purchase criteria don't start with sensor type, that's an assumption on your part. For all you know, I might personally believe that a full frame sensor is exactly what I need, but too expensive (especially taken in context of need for longer lenses, etc., which equals more expense). Please don't read more into what I say than is there.

I've already made the argument that the only reason to choose crop is cost......so maybe I am RIGHT.

And I only said that your criteria does not start with sensor type because ALL of your arguments lead AWAY from the importance of sensor type.

Lets stop the nonsense. No one in their right mind is reading all this anyways.

I just read quoted in one of the previous comments where it was quoted first.

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177912
Have you read the Camera forum lately for the last 5 years? It's full of some of the most biased, unscientific blanket statements of how inferior crop is to FF, or how your problems would disappear if you upgrade to FF, or how you should upgrade to FF and never look back. And many of these people are taking pictures of their cat, and their kids at the park. I'm sorry, FF doesn't help these people, but they buy 'em because people are constantly saying, "it's the best" without really knowing if or why it is, FOR THEIR PURPOSES.

I don't know why people are so sensitive to having a two sided discussion instead of an all-agreeing circle jerk. It's like having a different viewpoint and healthy debate automatically makes me a hater.

I would like to response as well. Most of it is kind of overstatement:
People never say here - you should upgrade to FF and never look back at crop. They say - I went from 1.6 crop camera to FF and never look back in terms of IQ. Or they say it is nice to have 1.6 crop camera with fast AF for moving fast things and FF for better IQ for still objects. But I never seen here people saying - you should and never look back.

And now who has jerk style and single vision sided opinion here, IMO.

I'm not making money for living by taking bedroom and weddings events, which are going to be printed at small size and dusted somewhere at the wall or at office desk.
If you taking pictures for regular private customers, who cares if it is FF or 1.6 crop?
Focus in the right part, framing and light is good - done. Makes absolutely no difference with pictures of cats and kids. The only difference - you have to spend a lot for marketing, to be able to take pictures at someone else boudoir and get lai.., sorry, paid for it.

I work in broadcast and production business for last twenty years. So, I know about IQ difference in pictures at different formats of media. Yes, with my old FF camera it is much more easy to take pictures of cat and kids in the park and IQ is better compare to my newer 1.6 crop camera. It is just more forgiving compare to crop. But if I want or asked to take some fast action photos - it is no brainier which camera to take with me.
Yes, I recommend to get FF camera for those who cherish every moment with their loved ones. If they could afford new or don't mind old FF camera, it is worth of every penny and makes valuable difference in IQ.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13181850
I've already made the argument that the only reason to choose crop is cost......so maybe I am RIGHT.

And I only said that your criteria does not start with sensor type because ALL of your arguments lead AWAY from the importance of sensor type.

Lets stop the nonsense. No one in their right mind is reading all this anyways.

I liked the point stsva made yesterday... paraphrasing --- If excellent image quality is what you want then why not spend the money on medum or large format? Well appartenly the only reason to choose 35mm is cost too?

David

davidc502 wrote in post #13181886
I liked the point stsva made yesterday... paraphrasing --- If excellent image quality is what you want then why not spend the money on medum or large format? Well appartenly the only reason to choose 35mm is cost too?

David

That wasn't me, but I agree with the point that was being made. As I've said throughout this thread, everything in these matters is relative.

ktownhero wrote in post #13181742
I don't see how we agree? To me, that's a completely invalid and vapid statement. It's not about "focusing on a single criteria", it's about focusing on the backbone of what makes a great camera a great camera (or a great car a great car). I don't understand why there's such a huge argument about this all of the time. It seems to me that people can't avoid taking it personally that there might be something better about something they don't own. Who cares? I shoot with an XSi, but I'm not going around hating on everybody that tells me a 7D or a 5DII is a better camera. I aspire to own one of those one day, but in the meantime I am in no way threatened by their opinion and continue to take fantastic pictures with the body I currently own.
These "discussions" seem to have far less to do with actual facts and more to do with psychology. It's really tiring.

Best post in this thread. The mere fact that people could have such of an opinion on a camera they never used...I'd even say never touched is just rediculus. Insecurity comes to mind.

davidc502 wrote in post #13181886
I liked the point stsva made yesterday... paraphrasing --- If excellent image quality is what you want then why not spend the money on medum or large format? Well appartenly the only reason to choose 35mm is cost too?

David

Cost is one, but also with medium format you have the limited array of lens, poor high iso, bulkiness and weight. Not as straight forward as only cost.

Hogloff wrote in post #13181913
Best post in this thread. The mere fact that people could have such of an opinion on a camera they never used...I'd even say never touched is just rediculus. Insecurity comes to mind.

The endless comparisons between the 7D and 5Dmk2, and the hundreds of 100% crops and other comparisons come to mind.

Though I haven't held a 7D in my hands I've got a pretty good idea of what it brings to the table when it comes to image quality.

davidc502 wrote in post #13181957
The endless comparisons between the 7D and 5Dmk2, and the hundreds of 100% crops and other comparisons come to mind.

Though I haven't held a 7D in my hands I've got a pretty good idea of what it brings to the table when it comes to image quality.

I own both a 5d2 and a 7d and have used both extensively and know what both can do and I'll tell you right now 99% of what you see and read on the net about these cameras ain't worth ****.

davidc502 wrote in post #13181886
I liked the point stsva made yesterday... paraphrasing --- If excellent image quality is what you want then why not spend the money on medum or large format? Well appartenly the only reason to choose 35mm is cost too?

David

Yes, it all comes down to money. I made the analogy already to the Chevy to Porsche to Bugatti....The difference is I don't expect a Chevy owner to tell me I'm wrong to prefer a 100K dollar car to a 30K dollar car when the next jump is 1 million plus. And I will not tell the Bugatti owner he is wrong just the same.

Discussing the merits of technology is much different than criticizing someone's personal choices and when it comes to the monetary decisions, it is much more personal and in my opinion, off limits. It's not your job to decide what value is to anyone but yourself.

Fixed

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13181850
I've already made the argument that the only reason to choose crop is cost......so maybe I am RIGHT.

And I only said that your criteria does not start with sensor type because ALL of your arguments lead AWAY from the importance of sensor type.

Lets stop the nonsense. No one in their right mind is reading all this anyways.

Well.... let me help those that are wandering that cost is not the only reason to choose a crop camera.
Actually there is not that much difference between crop and FF in the end product.

I keep forgetting we all print 5 feet tall images. (being very sarcastic) .... Not!

The vast majority of shooters could not pick out what camera 16x20-images, hanging on a wall, where shot on.

There are many shooters making money with crop cameras. Would they make more with a FF? No. This has more to do with there particular business practices.

Are there places having FF will make a difference ..... sure. Somebody shooting for fashion or ad work where a client wants to make a large in store spread and needs a particular landscape image.

There is no law stating you can only do fashion work on FF or medium format.

Why go full frame? depending on what each of us want to shoot will determine if we need to go full frame.

I have FF. I have shot several weddings in the last 2 months .... i am just not seeing a wide gap in quality. is there a difference. yes. it is the subtleties.

Can you create compelling images on a cropper? Very much so Yes!


There are many reasons to choose a full frame camera and they are all valid.
What is very miss leading is to say FF blows crop cameras away in the IQ.

I will lean on a little trend that happens here on POTN and other forums.....
Shooters do not ask what camera body was used when reviewing an image.

it is all about the user, their setting and lenses.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13182105
Yes, it all comes down to money. I made the analogy already to the Chevy to Porsche to Bugatti....The difference is I don't expect a Chevy owner to tell me I'm wrong to prefer a 100K dollar car to a 30K dollar car when the next jump is 1 million plus. And I will not tell the Bugatti owner he is wrong just the same.

Discussing the merits of technology is much different than criticizing someone's personal choices and when it comes to the monetary decisions, it is much more personal and in my opinion, off limits. It's not your job to decide what value is to anyone but yourself.

Is that what you think is happening here; a criticization for the choices you make in camera equipment. Sorry, but it's no all about you. It wasn't directed to you at all or in the slightest.

My original post, which got everyone worked up, was that I pointed out users and new users in photography that may not know what they want or need, read slanted views, and end up buying stuff they ulimately may not be happy with and then sell on Ebay.

It's not my resposibility to look after the folks, I'm just saying this board gets a little out of whack when it comes to FF discussions. Sorry you took it wrong.

kcbrown wrote in post #13180895
No, the 7D resolution is considerably higher than 100 LW/mm. Its absolute resolution is 2500 LPH, which over 14.9mm is 168 LW/mm. The 5D2's absolute resolution is 2800 LPH (that's giving it the benefit of the doubt, as dpreview shows its vertical resolution as 2700 LPH), which over 24mm is 117 LW/mm.


Sizing the 5D2's image to 16x24 gets you 6.9 LW/mm, while sizing the 7D's image to 16x24 gets you 6.2 LW/mm.

Now, the linear resolution ratio (ratio of linear pixels) of the 5D2 to the 7D is 1.0833, while the ratio of the actual measured resolutions is 1.12. So the larger photosites of the 5D2 in reality buys you only a 3.3% advantage in detail retention linearly, if the lens on the 7D is up to the task. Which is to say, that's the amount of advantage that having the larger photosites themselves buys you. You still gain the 8.3% linear advantage of greater sensor resolution (i.e., number of pixels).


Still think the difference would be easily visible if you use a good lens on the 7D (like they did when performing these tests), if the 5D2 didn't have a pixel resolution advantage?

You must have missed the clearly stated MTF 50% condition for that statement.
Also, the data are a real-world comparison situation, using the same lens at the same aperture, just the distance changed (no effect on perspective since the chart is flat, so same framing/perspective etc).

You have studiously avoided any comment on my examples where MTF is the key measure for quantifying visible detail. You also have not addressed the comments about x lp/mm at the sensor being printed at a larger size (enlargement being the ratio of print size to sensor size) becoming x/E lp/mm at the reference MTF when enlarged by E fold.

Do you disagree with the example: if the sensor's data file shows that, using 50 % MTF as the evaluation measure, the lp/mm were recorded at a spacing/resolution of 100 lp/mm*, when you print them (assume perfect printer for this exercise) at 20x sensor size, that you will have a print displaying 5 lp/mm with 50% MTF? (Then if you print at 32x sensor size, what lp/mm would you expect at 50% MTF?)

If you disagree with this, I can understand why you see the current issue differently. If you won't answer this, I'll have to assume you're hiding something

*It's hard to know what MTF is at the "limit" when eyeballing DPR's resolution charts - aren't they sharpened anyway, so it's even harder to discuss quantitative effects!