Talk to me about Patience, 1Div's and 7Ds

elrey2375 wrote in post #13618830
This hits the nail on the head. You are never going to get that full frame look from ANY crop sensor camera, it's just not capable of it. I bought both a 7D and D7000 to test out and see which I would keep because I may be one of the strange ones, but I mix and match because I want what I like and it doesn't happen to always be the same brand. I sold the Canon and I still have the d7000. D7000 wiped the floor with the Canon IMO and to be fair, the 7D is a bit longer in the tooth than the Nikon but at high ISO especially, it wasn't even close, Nikon was the winner. The 7d might have acquired focus a bit faster but it's my belief the Nikon held it better once it got it, so depends on what you're using it for. Sports is 75% of what I do, so while acquiring focus is important, it doesn't matter if it can't hold it.

What specifically is that "full frame look" that a crop can never touch? This gets spewed out all the time, yet those that say it invariably eat crow later.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13619612
What specifically is that "full frame look" that a crop can never touch? This gets spewed out all the time, yet those that say it invariably eat crow later.

This is really hard to answer. Its a little like asking what the inherent difference is between a nice, handmade $4000 acoustic guitar and a little $300 factory made laminated wood acoustic guitar. Well, you know, its pretty hard to articulate but I can usually hear it. There's a depth, a clarity, a sustaining ring that some people might not pick up on, but a lot of others can.

With images taken on full frame sensor cameras, like the 5Dm2 for example, there's a richness, a certain depth in the images. There's a clean aspect to the files that I love - maybe its more the total lack of noise that really does it. Maybe its the greater depth of field inherent in full frame cameras. I don't know. More often than not, and especially in photos not taken under studio conditions, I can immediately tell that, yeah, that's a 5Dm2 file. Certainly when looking back over the photos that I've taken in the last year. (Fuji X100, 7D and 5Dm2, over a 1000 easily with all three).

One of those things that is pretty easy to see and hard to explain I guess.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13619612
What specifically is that "full frame look" that a crop can never touch? This gets spewed out all the time, yet those that say it invariably eat crow later.

I agree. The 5DII owners on this forum taking every opportunity to trash the 7D (some of which are present in this thread), seeking out threads specifically that have "7D" in the thread title, is one of the main reasons I am spending less time in these forums.

dvdpfstr wrote in post #13619679
I agree. The 5DII owners on this forum taking every opportunity to trash the 7D (some of which are present in this thread), seeking out threads specifically that have "7D" in the thread title, is one of the main reasons I am spending less time in these forums.

So where is the 7D bashing in this thread again?

Seventeen Nineteen wrote in post #13619650
This is really hard to answer. Its a little like asking what the inherent difference is between a nice, handmade $4000 acoustic guitar and a little $300 factory made laminated wood acoustic guitar. Well, you know, its pretty hard to articulate but I can usually hear it. There's a depth, a clarity, a sustaining ring that some people might not pick up on, but a lot of others can.

With images taken on full frame sensor cameras, like the 5Dm2 for example, there's a richness, a certain depth in the images. There's a clean aspect to the files that I love - maybe its more the total lack of noise that really does it. Maybe its the greater depth of field inherent in full frame cameras. I don't know. More often than not, and especially in photos not taken under studio conditions, I can immediately tell that, yeah, that's a 5Dm2 file. Certainly when looking back over the photos that I've taken in the last year. (Fuji X100, 7D and 5Dm2, over a 1000 easily with all three).

One of those things that is pretty easy to see and hard to explain I guess.

1) Color rendering on the 5D2 is slightly better and DR is better than on the 7D.
2) The noise levels on the 5D2 is about 1 stop better than the 7D.
3) Use faster lenses on an APS-C to get that "depth" feeling back.
4) USM your APS-C images a bit more to get that sharpness back.

So if you put the appropriate sharp glass on something like the 7D vs something something a bit slower on the 5D2, and shoot 1 stop ISO lower, and post process accordingly, you can indeed achieve a "full-frame" look.

I have shot with all of these multiple times, different glass on each, and cannot always tell which took which picture.

To say that a crop can never achieve a look of full-frame is quite honestly a very ignorant comment. To say that a FF can achieve something a current gen APS-C cannot where if you use appropriate glass in certain shooting conditions, that would be a more responsible answer.

Let's approach this a different way, what would a FF have brought to these images that would have made it so obviously clear to the viewers that it would have been FF?

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

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

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13619756
1) Color rendering on the 5D2 is slightly better and DR is better than on the 7D.
2) The noise levels on the 5D2 is about 1 stop better than the 7D.
3) Use faster lenses on an APS-C to get that "depth" feeling back.
4) USM your APS-C images a bit more to get that sharpness back.

So if you put the appropriate sharp glass on something like the 7D vs something something a bit slower on the 5D2, and shoot 1 stop ISO lower, and post process accordingly, you can indeed achieve a "full-frame" look.

I have shot with all of these multiple times, different glass on each, and cannot always tell which took which picture.

To say that a crop can never achieve a look of full-frame is quite honestly a very ignorant comment. To say that a FF can achieve something a current gen APS-C cannot where if you use appropriate glass in certain shooting conditions, that would be a more responsible answer.

I certainly didn't say that its impossible to achieve good results with an APS-C sensor. Especially with studio or exceptional light. I do think the ISO difference is more than 1 stop. I routinely shoot at 3200-6400 where I would have felt uncomfortable at 800-1600 with the 7D that I had. Maybe that's just my personal preference for acceptable noise levels though.

Are you saying you'd have to give the 7D the best possible glass and then put the 5D at a disadvantage to match a 'full frame look' or did I just misread it? I'm not sure what you meant.

Let's approach this a different way, what would a FF have brought to this image that would have made it so obviously clear to the viewers that it would have been FF?

I don't have an image that is really all that close to yours. I really like that picture - its really well done. I think, very personally, that it doesn't quite display the nearly 3D quality, that rich look that I obviously can't describe but that I get with the 5Dm2.

Obviously this is nothing special. Your picture is really great. Mine was the first shot through a new lens, nothing more. Here's my example. It's entirely different than yours, which is unfortunate, but its a portrait, taken inside my tiny, dark little office in terrible overhead light at high ISO (1250) with very little NR applied, which allowed me to push the sharpness a bit without losing any detail.

This isn't some photography contest. I'm just trying to illustrate a point. I could be wrong.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Seventeen Nineteen wrote in post #13619798
I certainly didn't say that its impossible to achieve good results with an APS-C sensor. Especially with studio or exceptional light. I do think the ISO difference is more than 1 stop. I routinely shoot at 3200-6400 where I would have felt uncomfortable at 800-1600 with the 7D that I had. Maybe that's just my personal preference for acceptable noise levels though.

Are you saying you'd have to give the 7D the best possible glass and then put the 5D at a disadvantage to match a 'full frame look' or did I just misread it? I'm not sure what you meant.

You didn't say it, but you replied to my reply that was to Elrey's. Elrey stated that crops could never take an image that would have any kind of FF look.

What I am saying is there are too many people that take a crop body and the lenses, use them for a while, flip over to a FF with the same glass, and then draw these types of conclusions. However, if you go out and get different glass for the crop, in many cases, you can indeed get a FF look, especially with post processing. DOF is not magic, it is a factor of FL, distance, and aperture. Therefore it is mathematical, and you can create the same DOF recipe on a crop for many situations people shoot with FF.

In regards to color and sharpness, post processing reduces that gap immensely.

In regards to noise, that is a bit tougher yes, but at lower ISOs, that is not an issue, and again software continually improves, and again reduces that gap.

What about this from the 7D at ISO 3200? Does it have that depth feel to you?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13619838
You didn't say it, but you replied to my reply that was to Elrey's. Elrey stated that crops could never take an image that would have any kind of FF look.

What I am saying is there are too many people that take a crop body and the lenses, use them for a while, flip over to a FF with the same glass, and then draw these types of conclusions. However, if you go out and get different glass for the crop, in many cases, you can indeed get a FF look, especially with post processing. DOF is not magic, it is a factor of FL, distance, and aperture. Therefore it is mathematical, and you can create the same DOF recipe on a crop for many situations people shoot with FF.

In regards to color and sharpness, post processing reduces that gap immensely.

In regards to noise, that is a bit tougher yes, but at lower ISOs, that is not an issue.

Well that's not quite what I meant. I guess the 'full frame look' would be great depth, amazing clarity, and a complete lack of noise. Something like that. That can be achieved, in part, by smaller sensored cameras. My point is that it requires exceptional light - like a studio setting, for example.

The noise/sharpness thing is the hard part. I understand where depth of field comes from. The problem with the 7D, perhaps in particular as I've never shot with a D7000, is the noise levels and slight softness right out of the camera. Even at ISO 800 a fair amount of noise, particularly color noise, is evident. So if you really want sharp images, bump up the sharpness - which amplifies noise. So bring the NR slider up, which sacrifices detail. There are a lot of compromises involved. That's why I say that it really depends on the light available. Studio light or strobes outdoors? Yes, you can achieve some really great results with an APS-C sensor.

Everyone should realize that this is somewhat subjective.

Seventeen Nineteen wrote in post #13619852
Well that's not quite what I meant. I guess the 'full frame look' would be great depth, amazing clarity, and a complete lack of noise. Something like that. That can be achieved, in part, by smaller sensored cameras. My point is that it requires exceptional light - like a studio setting, for example.

The noise/sharpness thing is the hard part. I understand where depth of field comes from. The problem with the 7D, perhaps in particular as I've never shot with a D7000, is the noise levels and slight softness right out of the camera. Even at ISO 800 a fair amount of noise, particularly color noise, is evident. So if you really want sharp images, bump up the sharpness - which amplifies noise. So bring the NR slider up, which sacrifices detail. There are a lot of compromises involved. That's why I say that it really depends on the light available. Studio light or strobes outdoors? Yes, you can achieve some really great results with an APS-C sensor.

Everyone should realize that this is somewhat subjective.

Then you had a duff 7D, because I have had 2, and neither exhibited any kind of noise that posed any problems at ISO 800. In any case you are certainly more objective to this than Elrey. I only aggressively argue these things with people that go to such extremes. Just like all the discussions that a 1D4 kills a 1D3, or a 5D2 kills the 5D, etc. Quite honestly, there is at most a 1-2 stop difference between all the bodies in the last couple of generations, Canon hasn't improved the hardware enough for there to be. Most of the improvements are at the processor level (ie. software).

Also, no, you don't need studio lighting to achieve these looks.

Many of the people that have gone through different bodies for extended periods of time, and have run different glass through them all invariably come to the same basic conclusion.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13619890
Then you had a duff 7D, because I have had 2, and neither exhibited any kind of noise that posed any problems at ISO 800. In any case you are certainly more objective to this than Elrey. I only aggressively argue these things with people that go to such extremes. Just like all the discussions that a 1D4 kills a 1D3, or a 5D2 kills the 5D, etc. Quite honestly, there is at most a 1-2 stop difference between all the bodies in the last couple of generations, Canon hasn't improved the hardware enough for there to be. Most of the improvements are at the processor level (ie. software).

People that have gone through different bodies for extended periods of time, and have run different glass through them all invariably come to the same basic conclusion.

Maybe I did have a bad example. That's entirely possible. That being said, I'm really happy with the decision that I made. I wanted to be sort of free about worrying about my ISO levels and noise and sharpness and all the rest - and just have fun taking pictures. Even stupid pictures. Basically, I'm just trying to help some guy make a choice. And maybe help a few people reading these things in the next 6 months. This is just my experience with both cameras. One made me frustrated and disappointed. The other makes me very, very happy.

I took this one late at night. No light at all. And it came out pretty clean - I used it in a book. ISO 6400 at f/4. Who cares?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

As long as you are happy, like I said, my comment was to Elrey, but you kinda got into the middle of that.

Nice pic, and that is a better example actually. What that shows is the DR of the FF, and a crop might have a little bit of a problem with bright lights and darkness. You would have to pull the shadows up a bit, and that would accentuate the 1 stop ISO noise difference rather dramatically. Now DOF and color, etc would not really be all that different.

FF is certainly more "forgiving", that is a fact. If you just want to go out and shoot and not mess with files very much, get FF. However if you have the software, and you spend the time to build up an action you can run on your images later, and you buy more expensive glass, you can get almost the same look in many, many situations. It is a juggling act, do you want to buy fast primes for a crop body, or do you want to spend that money on a FF? I would prefer to have fast primes with a crop, then later in life, when the 5D2 hits the $1K mark, I can pick up one again, and use those fast primes on it.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13619944
As long as you are happy, like I said, my comment was to Elrey, but you kinda got into the middle of that.

FF is certainly more "forgiving", that is a fact. If you just want to go out and shoot and not mess with files very much, get FF. However if you have the software, and you spend the time to build up an action you can run on your images later, and you buy more expensive glass, you can get almost the same look in many, many situations. It is a juggling act, do you want to buy fast primes for a crop body, or do you want to spend that money on a FF? I would prefer to have fast primes with a crop, then later in life, when the 5D2 hits the $1K mark, I can pick up one again, and use those fast primes on it.

Just buy that 1D X man.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13619944
As long as you are happy, like I said, my comment was to Elrey, but you kinda got into the middle of that.

Nice pic, and that is a better example actually. What that shows is the DR of the FF, and a crop might have a little bit of a problem with bright lights and darkness. You would have to pull the shadows up a bit, and that would accentuate the 1 stop ISO noise difference rather dramatically.

FF is certainly more "forgiving", that is a fact. If you just want to go out and shoot and not mess with files very much, get FF. However if you have the software, and you spend the time to build up an action you can run on your images later, and you buy more expensive glass, you can get almost the same look in many, many situations. It is a juggling act, do you want to buy fast primes for a crop body, or do you want to spend that money on a FF? I would prefer to have fast primes with a crop, then later in life, when the 5D2 hits the $1K mark, I can pick up one again, and use those fast primes on it.

I don't really want to argue too much. But I think you could replace the word 'forgiving' with 'better'. I think that any tool that gives you results where another tool would require more energy to reach similar, or nearly as good results, or even the same results in some situations just isn't as good as the other. And with prices falling on the 5Dm2, its about a $700 difference at this point, give or take. One nice L zoom, or half of a nice, fast L prime. The decision is personal from there. It just made more sense to me. Maybe not to someone else. I just like to understand their reasons because other people can be quite impressionable. People need to understand the work that goes into creating files that come close to the SOOC results from a full frame camera.

jdizzle wrote in post #13619954
Just buy that 1D X man.

Stop it man....

Actually I love the 1.3 crop factor, it gives me the FF performance (ISO-wise), with a bit of "reach", and all the other goodies.

The resolution on the 1DX is fine, and all, but I would have been a bit happier to see something closer to the 23-24MPX range. Then I would have FF and have room to crop extensively if I needed to.

That and 2 other factors concern me most about the 1DX for what I shoot (price and lack of f8 AF being the other 2).

I think I can shake the itch for a while.