a full frame vs. crop request...

a lot of people here have both a full frame camera and a crop and talk about the differences between the image quality. would anybody be so kind as to shoot the same scene with both and post the results here. maybe the actual photographs and then a crop of an area of the photos?

my 60d was stolen and I tried replacing it with a 7d. the 7d's high iso performance is not even close to that of the 60d, so I returned the 7d (yes, I know it has other advantages, but none of them made the decrease in low-light quality worth it for me personally). I've been having a hard time deciding whether to get a 5d mark ii or another 60d.

I know this is discussed at length on here, but I haven't seen much in the way of examples. I would really appreciate seeing a few.

thanks so much.

I'm not sure I have the same scene shot with a crop and FF, but I have two photos of similar activity. I feel your pain on the 7D. While I know there are some on here who can get it to work in high ISOs, I was never one of them. The definition of acceptable is different for everyone.

The generally accepted answer is that the 5DII has lower noise than the 60D at a comparable ISO. Here's a comparison from dpreview: link

It's interesting that you found the 7D to have higher noise. Reportedly, the 7D has a stronger AA filter, which could lead to less acuity/sharpness, but I wouldn't have expected more noise.

Sorry to hear about your stolen 60D, by the way.

There are plenty of threads with examples... Here is one after a quick forum search:

https://photography-on-the.net …light=7d+compar​ison+5d+ii

Understand that having the same scene shot with two different sized formats (APS-C and FF) will necessitate different focal lengths, and possibly different lenses being used. Depending on your purposes, that may be more relevant than the difference in format, for example, where differences in depth of field are concerned.

Also keep in mind that differences in sensor density may be significant for some comparisons, and these are sometimes (read "usually") confused with differences in sensor size.

Dof samples
http://www.seriouscomp​acts.com …s-full-frame-vs-crop-162/

I'm curious to know why some folks believe the 60D has better high ISO performance than the 7D. Based on the DXOmark scores, the 7D should be performing slightly better. Certainly, these scores are not necessarily the last word, but in any case here are the relevant scores for a range of canon cameras.


T3i
(Low-Light ISO) 793 ISO

60D
(Low-Light ISO) 813 ISO

7D
(Low-Light ISO) 854 ISO

5Dc
(Low-Light ISO) 1368 ISO

5DII
(Low-Light ISO) 1815 ISO

5DIII
(Low-Light ISO) 2293 ISO

feeda wrote in post #14461658
The generally accepted answer is that the 5DII has lower noise than the 60D at a comparable ISO. Here's a comparison from dpreview: link

It's interesting that you found the 7D to have higher noise. Reportedly, the 7D has a stronger AA filter, which could lead to less acuity/sharpness, but I wouldn't have expected more noise.

Sorry to hear about your stolen 60D, by the way.

thanks very much...wasn't a happy day.

vorlon1 wrote in post #14461842
I'm curious to know why some folks believe the 60D has better high ISO performance than the 7D. Based on the DXOmark scores, the 7D should be performing slightly better. Certainly, these scores are not necessarily the last word, but in any case here are the relevant scores for a range of canon cameras.

here's a comparison. these were shot with almost the exact same setting (both at 1600 iso)...

7d

swetsastonic wrote in post #14461607
a lot of people here have both a full frame camera and a crop and talk about the differences between the image quality. would anybody be so kind as to shoot the same scene with both and post the results here. maybe the actual photographs and then a crop of an area of the photos?

my 60d was stolen and I tried replacing it with a 7d. the 7d's high iso performance is not even close to that of the 60d, so I returned the 7d (yes, I know it has other advantages, but none of them made the decrease in low-light quality worth it for me personally). I've been having a hard time deciding whether to get a 5d mark ii or another 60d.

I know this is discussed at length on here, but I haven't seen much in the way of examples. I would really appreciate seeing a few.

thanks so much.

Without defining specific model cameras to compare, this comparison is a silly request. The differences you will see with random choices of camera models will really have little to do with the format of the cameras and more to do with the generation of the cameras.

I would suggest that you define the specific model cameras you want compared AND also define the lenses you would like to have used for the comparison. You should also, based on your comments, define the sort of scene that you want photographed (possibly something requiring a high ISO setting as an example). That's the only way you will have really useful information.

swetsastonic wrote in post #14461607
a lot of people here have both a full frame camera and a crop and talk about the differences between the image quality. would anybody be so kind as to shoot the same scene with both and post the results here. maybe the actual photographs and then a crop of an area of the photos?

my 60d was stolen and I tried replacing it with a 7d. the 7d's high iso performance is not even close to that of the 60d, so I returned the 7d (yes, I know it has other advantages, but none of them made the decrease in low-light quality worth it for me personally). I've been having a hard time deciding whether to get a 5d mark ii or another 60d.

I know this is discussed at length on here, but I haven't seen much in the way of examples. I would really appreciate seeing a few.

thanks so much.

For the past month I've owned both the 5dmk2 and 550D, and I believe they are both pretty close when it comes to Image Quality. When it comes to posting either format on the web I'm not sure you're going to notice any difference. Where the 5dmk2 seems to be a little better is with color tone (gradiant) through the entire frame. Color transitions seem a little smoother, giving the photo a over-all better look. 100% crops I'd say both formats are very similar as more pixels give the 550D a little bit better resolution, but getting a little closer to the subjects with the 5dmk2 seem to make up for having less pixel density.

As to ISO performance, the tests I've run show about 1 stop advantage to the 5dmk2. So if you're shooting 3200 ISO on the 550D then the noise would be about equal to 1600 on the 5dmk2. To me it seems that there is just as much noise in the 5dmk2 photos, but that the noise is spread across a larger frame giving the appearance of less noise, but that's just my opinion, and isn't scientific. I've read the scientific explanations about how a larger pixel will exibit less noise due to a greater range of photon capacity, but I'm not sure I buy into it. At least not in the way it's being explained, so I still have reservations. This is because photons don't have a specific "size", and this is because they are wave-lenghts. To think of a pixel as a "bucket" and a smaller pixel, like on APS-C, is going to collect less photons, compared to a larger pixel on Full Frame, may not be entirely accurate in my opinion.

What my main reason for going with the 5dmk2 is the 35mm frame. As I came from 35mm film, I've really missed the 35mm view-finder and frame. It kinda buged me that I wasn't getting a 35mm frame when using a 35mm lens. So I really got into the habbit of dividing by 1.6 to get a similar frame on the 550D, and I've been happy doing it.

As to the erganomics of the 550D compared to the 5dmk2, well, that makes absolutely no difference to me. It's all what you are used to using, so after using the 550D for over a year, it was really odd using the 5dmk2. Although, it didn't take me long to covert over because it was old hat as I've used 35mm film camera for years, and so it was like riding a bicycle. Once you have learned to ride you never really forget.

Hope these opinions help you to make a decision about which direction you want to go.

Best Regards,

David

swetsastonic wrote in post #14462374
here's a comparison. these were shot with almost the exact same setting (both at 1600 iso)...


I thought it might just be that I got a bad 7d, but I tried one of the models they had in the store and came up with the same results. I'm not an expert, so there may have been something else that I missed (maybe it's the software programs, maybe the noise reduction setting), but there was a huge difference.

Shot in raw, and same post processing/picture styles? There should be virtually no difference, so it will logically follow that it is definitely something else going on, either camera settings or user processing.

Regarding comparisons to a 5D2, here are 100% crops showing the difference in noise using the same exact settings across a 7D and 5D2. Also, I show OOC and raw processed differences.

http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …08741254&k=L5gG​e&lb=1&s=O

If you want to see how poorly full frame cameras can do, let me shoot with one.

Seriously, however, as someone who has never used a full frame, I am still of the belief that they are better in every way. That's just my amateur opinion, but I'm sticking with it.

I do a lot of HDR, and in the HDR section of POTN, the difference is unmistakeable. I can spot, with greater than 90% accuracy, the shots made with a full-frame camera.

HDR forces you to underexpose on purpose (and over expose). Full frame cameras handle this so much better than crops.

I want a full frame, but can't really justify the expense. I've gotten to the point that I'm getting requests for portrait sessions (mostly senior pictures, prom, kids in the park, etc.), but I don't know if I'd actually enjoy doing it for the money (which would be necessary if I spent three or four grand on the equipment I really want).

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #14462695
HDR forces you to underexpose on purpose (and over expose). Full frame cameras handle this so much better than crops.

Would you please explain this? It makes no sense at all unless you're referring to the controls on the Rebel series cameras.

The controls on my 20D (as well as the controls on my new 7D) - both "crop" cameras - make it extremely easy to change exposure levels - either in manual mode or by using Exposure Compensation (EC) when using Av or Tv.

SkipD wrote in post #14462421
Without defining specific model cameras to compare, this comparison is a silly request. The differences you will see with random choices of camera models will really have little to do with the format of the cameras and more to do with the generation of the cameras.

I would suggest that you define the specific model cameras you want compared AND also define the lenses you would like to have used for the comparison. You should also, based on your comments, define the sort of scene that you want photographed (possibly something requiring a high ISO setting as an example). That's the only way you will have really useful information.

you're silly!!

kidding...I'm interested in seeing a landscape, not necessarily low light. a lot of people have said that a full frame camera can capture more detail and the photos will be, in a sense, crisper. I don't quite understand why that would be, so I'm just hoping to see some evidence. I was extremely happy with the 60d, but if I can truly get better shots with a mark ii, then I'd prefer to get that.

and I can rationalize the extra cost since I would have to get one less lens (I wouldn't need the 10-22).

would be great to see the 5d mark ii and the 60d, but I know that's going to limit the number of people who can show examples.