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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 01 May 2012 (Tuesday) 06:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Pro says I won't see any difference in FF to crop

 
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,131 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 334
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
May 02, 2012 00:48 |  #106

^Kiwi can get away easily with beautiful landscape shoot with even 5MB P&S ;)


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,600 posts
Gallery: 1637 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 4437
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
     
May 02, 2012 00:50 |  #107

x_tan wrote in post #14364700 (external link)
^Kiwi can get away easily with beautiful landscape shoot with even 5MB P&S ;)

Now that's just jealousy talk from you Australians. ;) :lol:


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Reviews | "The Mighty One" (external link) | "EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS Review" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,131 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 334
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
May 02, 2012 00:57 |  #108

jwcdds wrote in post #14364705 (external link)
Now that's just jealousy talk from you Australians. ;) :lol:

Australia is somewhat overrated after been to NZ :D

Anyway just for the records for OP, 5D2 / 5D3 has much better IQ than 60D from ISO3200 up, full stop.

But even 5MB P&S can do lots beautiful / creative shoots, so 60D :cool:


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iLvision
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,766 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Western pot hole city, Massachusetts
     
May 02, 2012 01:03 |  #109
bannedPermanent ban

To OP, it’s not always about ISO performance and IQ comparisons. A lot of times (for me, at least) it’s about getting the most use out of my lenses. You’ll also get better DOF with FF


Ilya | Gear | flickr (external link) D800| 14-300mm f/1.4GL ED VR III USWM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ccp900
Goldmember
1,525 posts
Likes: 133
Joined Jun 2006
     
May 02, 2012 01:43 |  #110

more expensive cameras are more expensive for several reasons so there are differences otherwise why the heck will we pay more to get the exact same thing?

everyone seems to be chiming in from the perspective of LIKING a camera due to its "photographer" understood differences. now if youre taking photos for yourself and you can definitely see the step up in quality and you wont be happy with any less, then buying the more expensive camera makes sense.

Now, if you're taking photos because you run a business that provides facebook profile pictures or do brochures with pictures that cannot be larger than 4 inches on the long side would you still say the more expensive camera is a more logical business investment?

i guess people have already said it countless times in the thread just in very different ways, you have to look at what youre doing this for and cater for that specific need....that being said, if youre the type of person that wants the best rather than the best fit then it does not matter what we say or argue in the end youll be satisfying your own psychological want.

I think its moot to say that there is a difference when printing 16x20 landscapes, the OP does not do landscapes...we arent arguing the point of croppers versus FFs in the general photographic sense, we are trying to give the OP advice whether moving up to a 5d versus his 60d is beneficial for him and why or why not....

i think we need to ask him several questions apart from the photography he does. How much of your business is events? How much of it is portraits? What is the usual output from both lines? If he says that he makes 90% of his business from events and he usually gives out jpegs that are good for websites maybe around 800pixels long and for portraits they are usually used for facebook then pushing him towards making a big 3500 dollar purchase to buy the 5d3 might be a lil too much dont you think?


[Sony A7R Mark 3 | Sony A7S | Sony Zeiss 16-35m f/4.0 | Sony FE 28m f2 | Sony Zeiss 55m f1.8 | Sony FE 28-70m f/3.5-5.6 | Helios 44-2 | Helios 44-3 | Nikon 105m f/2.5 AIS | Contax Zeiss Planar 50m f1.7 | Contax Zeiss Planar 100m f2 | Voigtlander Nokton 40m f/1.4 | Canon 24-105m f/4.0L | Canon 85m f/1.8 | Sigma 30m f/1.4 | Canon 10-22m f/3.5-4.5 | Canon 100m f/2.8 Macro USM | Canon 580 EX Ver 1.0]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnB57
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Holmfirth, Yorkshire, England
     
May 02, 2012 03:33 |  #111

ccp900 wrote in post #14364458 (external link)
Now, i have a question people keep saying that the DOF would be different between the 2 cameras, isnt that false? IF, and i emphasize the IF, I shoot from the same position with the same lens and shooting the same subject with the same camera to subject distance wouldnt the DOF be the same? It only changes when I have to compose the picture exactly the same (meaning, i have to change focal lengths to mimic the 1.6 AoV or move position closer to match AoV) but if i take the picture and simply crop the FF version to match the 1.6 version then the DoF should be the same...actually....i even read that the cropper version should be just a tad shallower. theres some math behind that but i didnt delve into the whole article when the equations started....

This is an academic comparison. Yes, the portion of the FF frame that corresponds to the crop sensor will have identical DoF when both are enlarged to equal size. But this is not real world photography as you're throwing away the advantage of the larger sensor.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sebr
Goldmember
Avatar
4,628 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Sweden/France
     
May 02, 2012 03:37 |  #112

The difference will be more significant for certain types of photography. I think that for portraits for instance, FF will give you more depth of field control and more details in your shots. If you shoot events and have to face low light situation, FF photos will have less noise or will allow you to use higher ISO.
It is also important that you pair your camera with good lenses if you want to get the best out of it...

If the other photographer is really being honest, it should be possible to ask him to try his camera (assuming that he is using FF).


Sebastien
5D mkIII ; 17-40L ; 24-105L ; 70-200L II ; 70-300L ; 35L ; Σ85/1.4 ; 135L ; 100macro ; Kenko 1.4x ; 2x mkIII ; 580EXII
M5 ; M1 ; 11-22 ; 18-150 ; 22/2.0 ; EF adapter; Manfrotto LED
Benron Tripod; ThinkTank, Lowepro and Crumpler bags; Fjällräven backpack

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
modchild
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Lincoln, Uk
     
May 02, 2012 03:37 |  #113

I had a 7D and 550D when I decided I wanted to go FF. I gave the 550D to my wife and got a 5D2 and 24-105 f4 L. I could notice the difference straight away and I ended up using the 5D2 about 90% of the time and had to keep making myself use the 7D to give me a reason to keep it. Then the 5D3 was released and I sold both bodies and bought the 5D3. The 5D3 gives me everything the 5D2 and 7D combo gave me (apart from percieved reach) and a lot more.
I certainly don't regret going FF at all, I've now got a 60D as backup to the 5D3 but it'll hardly ever get used for anything other than a walkabout, definitely not for anything super critical even though the 60D is a great camera in itself. It's just not a 5D3 though and until I can afford another 5D3 as backup the 60D will do.


EOS 5D MkIII, EOS 70D, EOS 650D, EOS M, Canon 24-70 f2.8L MkII, Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII, Canon 100 f2.8L Macro, Canon 17-40 f4L IS, Canon 24-105 f4L IS, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 85 f1.8, Canon 50 f1.4, Canon 40 f2.8 STM, Canon 35 f2, Sigma 150-500 OS, Tamron 18-270 PZD, Tamron 28-300 VC, 580EX II Flash, Nissin Di866 MkII Flash, Sigma EM 140 Macro Flash and other bits.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
3,994 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1033
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
May 02, 2012 03:59 |  #114

I do have to say I shoot most of mine on my old nokia anyhow.


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
3,994 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1033
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
May 02, 2012 04:02 |  #115

jwcdds wrote in post #14364691 (external link)
Yeah, but I still wouldn't disregard what Rob says when it comes to landscape photography. If you're familiar with his work... I'd venture you'd agree with me as well.

I've seen him capture countless jaw-dropping images. I'd like to think it's because he's in New Zealand where everything seems beautiful and otherworldly... But that couldn't be further from the truth because I know that *I* could not capture and process the shots to the level he does even if I was personally there, regardless of what camera I would be using.

Thanks!

But we are talking about small differences that would only be apparent on large prints.
And assuming you have the same high standards of technique and lenses etc.

I have a 5d2 now, so I guess I will find out for myself...


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
0.24L
Member
226 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
May 02, 2012 04:21 |  #116

LMAO, for every thread relating to FF and cropped cams, everyone give their own definition. Happens everytime and in future as well..

IMHO, if you didnt know why how getting a FF camera benefit you compared to your 60d, I seriously doubt you will pose any threat or competition to your friend.

The reason why I dont upgrade to FF from my 60d is because I dont see the need to.


VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE CANON LENSE, CLICK HERE >>> (external link).
TO VIEW RESULT, CLICK HERE >>> (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,475 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
May 02, 2012 05:47 |  #117

ccp900 wrote in post #14364458 (external link)
Now, i have a question people keep saying that the DOF would be different between the 2 cameras, isnt that false? IF, and i emphasize the IF, I shoot from the same position with the same lens and shooting the same subject with the same camera to subject distance wouldnt the DOF be the same? It only changes when I have to compose the picture exactly the same (meaning, i have to change focal lengths to mimic the 1.6 AoV or move position closer to match AoV) but if i take the picture and simply crop the FF version to match the 1.6 version then the DoF should be the same...actually....i even read that the cropper version should be just a tad shallower. theres some math behind that but i didnt delve into the whole article when the equations started....

No, the depth of field (DOF) would be a little bit different. I will try to be brief in explaining why.

There is a factor in all DOF calculators called the "circle of confusion". This is all about defining how big a theoretical point of light can be in the "in-camera" image (the light image falling on the film or sensor inside the camera) and still be observed on a specific sized print which is to be viewed from a specific distance by a person with a specific visual acuity as an "in-focus point". In other words, all depth of field caclulations assume that whole images from ALL cameras are to be printed to the same size print and those prints are to be viewed from the same distance.

The difference in the scenario outlined in the quote is that the "full-frame" and "APS-C" images must be enlarged different amounts to fill the specific sized print (typically 8x10 inches or so). You must remember that the in-camera images are different sizes - the sizes of the film frame or sensor in the camera. Thus, a blur of an identical size in both in-camera images will be more blurry in the print made from the smaller format camera because the smaller format camera's image has to be enlarged more to fit the standard print size.

Does this make sense? If not, I can continue.

PS - After reading the next post and re-reading the quote above, IF THE "FULL FRAME" IMAGE IS CROPPED TO MATCH THE "APS-C" IMAGE, then the DOF would be the same for both images. Sorry for not reading the quote well enough very early in the morning. :p


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnB57
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Holmfirth, Yorkshire, England
     
May 02, 2012 06:06 |  #118

SkipD wrote in post #14365312 (external link)
No, the depth of field (DOF) would be a little bit different. I will try to be brief in explaining why.

There is a factor in all DOF calculators called the "circle of confusion". This is all about defining how big a theoretical point of light can be in the "in-camera" image (the light image falling on the film or sensor inside the camera) and still be observed on a specific sized print which is to be viewed from a specific distance by a person with a specific visual acuity as an "in-focus point". In other words, all depth of field caclulations assume that whole images from ALL cameras are to be printed to the same size print and those prints are to be viewed from the same distance.

The difference in the scenario outlined in the quote is that the "full-frame" and "APS-C" images must be enlarged different amounts to fill the specific sized print (typically 8x10 inches or so). You must remember that the in-camera images are different sizes - the sizes of the film frame or sensor in the camera. Thus, a blur of an identical size in both in-camera images will be more blurry in the print made from the smaller format camera because the smaller format camera's image has to be enlarged more to fit the standard print size.

Does this make sense? If not, I can continue.

He's not saying that. He's simply comparing the two by cropping the outer part of the FF sensor image (effectively converting it into a crop sensor), then enlarging the remaining images by the same multiple, which results in the same CoC/DoF. An argument that repeats on a weekly basis but has little relevance in the real world.

Edit... This is how the Wikipedia article puts it: "If the larger format is cropped to the captured area of the smaller format, the final images will have the same angle of view, have been given the same enlargement, and have the same DOF."




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,475 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
May 02, 2012 06:16 |  #119

JohnB57 wrote in post #14365336 (external link)
He's not saying that. He's simply comparing the two by cropping the outer part of the FF sensor image (effectively converting it into a crop sensor), then enlarging the remaining images by the same multiple, which results in the same CoC/DoF. An argument that repeats on a weekly basis but has little relevance in the real world.

Edit... This is how the Wikipedia article puts it: "If the larger format is cropped to the captured area of the smaller format, the final images will have the same angle of view, have been given the same enlargement, and have the same DOF."

You're absolutely right and I edited my post #117 above. However, newbies can learn from what I first posted above so I'll leave that intact.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnB57
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Holmfirth, Yorkshire, England
     
May 02, 2012 06:21 |  #120

SkipD wrote in post #14365351 (external link)
You're absolutely right and I edited my post #117 above. However, newbies can learn from what I first posted above so I'll leave that intact.

As you've said on many occasions Skip, those who cut their teeth on film seem to find this much more intuitive, as a neg/pos is a physical entity on which you can actually see the original image.




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

32,110 views & 0 likes for this thread
Pro says I won't see any difference in FF to crop
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
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 ryanthai
681 guests, 310 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.