Why go full frame?

Invertalon wrote in post #13208896
I used a "crop" for well over two years... Xsi to T1i to 7D and finally the 5D2.

To be blunt, sure the IQ is better. But as far as the DOF, bokeh, etc... It is all so negligible if you have the proper lenses for that system... 10-22 for crop, for example. Wide angle users may be better off with some lens choices on FF, but really IMO, is not all that drastic.

You buy the proper lenses for the system you use. The "crops" make excellent images just like my 5D2 does. Sure the 5D2 is better if you look at 100%, but otherwise, it’s not that big of a deal. People like to justify why they spend so much more with FF, so they will defend like crazy.

In my honest opinion, FF is great. Sure. The detail is excellent and love the clarity at 100%. But other than that, it’s like any other camera I had before. My lenses change based on the format to work best with that body. Depending what you need and your expectations, you can decide from there. If you want ultimate IQ while you pixel peep, go FF. It was not as “night/day” as I expected when I changed. I love the IQ, sure… But all the hype you read about FF vs. Crop really makes it seem much more drastic. Some lenses have nicer, more versatile focal lengths on FF cameras, such as the 70-200. So that could be a factor. Again, it really just depends what you need/shoot/expect.

I honestly don't think one is much more better then the other. Just another option to chose from!

I don't agree with you. For my landscape prints, the 5D2 produced much better final results than the 7D. It can be seen in the sharpness, tonal grades and colours. Sure...if you only shoot to post onto the internet, then the difference is very hard to see, but if you print big, the difference becomes very apparent.

rhys216 wrote in post #13208861
But it's enough to attract me to a FF body over a crop.

Can anyone tell which is which?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

What's weird is that the top line looks a little softer in the upper image, the second line mostly looks about the same sharpness for both, but "can" looks a little soft on both. It's almost like a very, very subtle Lensbaby effect.

Invertalon wrote in post #13208896
...I honestly don't think one is much more better then the other. Just another option to chose from!

This is why FF is more expensive option. Better quality is always more expensive.

kf095 wrote in post #13209061
This is why FF is more expensive option. Better quality is always more expensive.

That seems rather questionable. FF is mostly more expensive due to more costly manufacturing processes and components, combined with the manufacturer's business model and assessment of the market. Whether a product actually has "better quality" is not necessarily directly related to cost. I hope I'm getting better quality when I pay more, but that's not a given; in some instances, higher quality is available at a lower price (especially when comparing products across generations).

^^^
Manufactures spend more on silicon because of the better quality. Those costs are then passed on to customers who want better quality.

Below is my 85 @ 1.8
DX 100% Crop, FF was resized using the corner drag boxes in PS (I know from experience that this actually softens images).

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

It would be interesting to see how they'd look if the bottom image had the same brightness and contrast as the top image.

stsva wrote in post #13209184
Another questionable assumption; perhaps they spend more because they know they can charge more because of "perception".

It would be interesting to see how they'd look if the bottom image had the same brightness and contrast as the top image.

What perception? The IQ is better.

stsva wrote in post #13209046
What's weird is that the top line looks a little softer in the upper image, the second line mostly looks about the same sharpness for both, but "can" looks a little soft on both. It's almost like a very, very subtle Lensbaby effect.

From what I can see, the bottom line isn't about the same sharpness at all, it's clearly sharper.
Also note, the DVD is on a very slight angle, 'can' is just beginning to go soft.

stsva wrote in post #13209184
It would be interesting to see how they'd look if the bottom image had the same brightness and contrast as the top image.

Not sure why contrast is different (apart from the image being softer of course), both images have had zero PP except +0.05 exposure in lightroom, everything else remained the same.
However I was using off camera flash exposed via TTL, so maybe I could lower the exposure a little on the bottom one.

stsva wrote in post #13209087
That seems rather questionable. FF is mostly more expensive due to more costly manufacturing processes and components, combined with the manufacturer's business model and assessment of the market. Whether a product actually has "better quality" is not necessarily directly related to cost. I hope I'm getting better quality when I pay more, but that's not a given; in some instances, higher quality is available at a lower price (especially when comparing products across generations).

A FF sensor offers better Image quality and ISO performance over crop and that's a fact. You say, "In some instances" higher quality is available at a lower price? please give me some examples in camera bodies where I can find this, and I don't mean comparing new tech prices to old tech release prices either. The old saying "You get what you pay for" is absolutely true, and with full frame sensors you are getting the best possible IQ that Canon has to offer.

Los Pollos Hermanos wrote in post #13209246
A FF sensor offers better Image quality and ISO performance over crop and that's a fact. You say, "In some instances" higher quality is available at a lower price? please give me some examples in camera bodies where I can find this, and I don't mean comparing new tech prices to old tech release prices either. The old saying "You get what you pay for" is absolutely true, and with full frame sensors you are getting the best possible IQ that Canon has to offer.

The only time is isn't (although I know of one other very rare occurrence), is when another company is undercutting said company in a bid to gain market share.

eskimochaos wrote in post #13209211
What perception? The IQ is better.

That wasn't the assumption I was questioning; the assumption in question was that camera manufacturers intentionally spend more to produce better IQ.

rhys216 wrote in post #13209216
From what I can see, the bottom line isn't about the same sharpness at all, it's clearly sharper.
Also note, the DVD is on a very slight angle, 'can' is just beginning to go soft.

I just noted what I saw.

stsva wrote in post #13209294
That wasn't the assumption I was questioning; the assumption in question was that camera manufacturers intentionally spend more to produce better IQ.

Why else would they spend more?

Los Pollos Hermanos wrote in post #13209246
A FF sensor offers better Image quality and ISO performance over crop and that's a fact. You say, "In some instances" higher quality is available at a lower price? please give me some examples in camera bodies where I can find this, and I don't mean comparing new tech prices to old tech release prices either. The old saying "You get what you pay for" is absolutely true, and with full frame sensors you are getting the best possible IQ that Canon has to offer.

In current generation Canon cameras you may be correct. The initial statement I commented on was that "better quality is always more expensive," which was not stated to be specific to cameras, much less current generation Canon cameras. My post was mainly intended to highlight the questionable logic behind that very general statement.