Am I the only one who feels like Canon is hindering the practicality of upgrading?

anytime you "upgrade" it'll cost you more. if you're happy with the 7d don't upgrade.

ed

Wilt wrote in post #14913125
Oy, the thread drift, now we're debating IQ of FF vs. APS-C as the justification to give up certain features?! If IQ is the driving force, then I'll opt for a digital Hasselblad (Unfortunately I need to rob a bank first, in order to own one!)

The OP started out lamenting something COMPARABLE to having APS-C camera with an f/2.8 IS lens that provides AOV range of 27.6 - 77 degrees. I agree with him!

In FF, Canon has an IS lens that goes from 23 - 84 degrees, but which is only f/4 not f/2.8.
And Canon also has an f/2.8 lens which goes from 34 - 84 degrees, but without IS.

The characteristics of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the single thing that I regret not having for my 5D! I bought the 5D primarily to get full utility out of my 24mm Perspective Control lens.

I dont see how the 24-105 + FF is not comparable. they both bring in the same amount of light despite one being F4 and one being F2.8. That's pretty much why you get fast lenses right? The amount of light that hits the sensor. The 2.8 gives twice the intensity on the crop, but the full frame is more than twice the size sensor of the crop. The full frame also has a more favorable FOV.

In this sense of comparison, they are very close to equals for this certain lens. With other lenses such as primes, FF will excel.

I changed from a 7d to a 5d mk 111 a couple of months ago alongside a completely different lens set up.
Went for a 17-40 f4, 50 f1.4. 70-200 f4, all lenses non IS because the ISO performance on the 5D is great, so now I have a range from 17 to 200 with quality glass and tack sharp images.

Charlie wrote in post #14913289
I dont see how the 24-105 + FF is not comparable. they both bring in the same amount of light despite one being F4 and one being F2.8. That's pretty much why you get fast lenses right? The amount of light that hits the sensor. The 2.8 gives twice the intensity on the crop, but the full frame is more than twice the size sensor of the crop. The full frame also has a more favorable FOV.

In this sense of comparison, they are very close to equals for this certain lens. With other lenses such as primes, FF will excel.

I don't know if that comparison works when you're talking about an EF-S lens compared to an EF lens. EF-S are designed to provide coverage for APS-C, there's technically no wasted space when compared to putting an EF lens on a crop camera. And anyway, in terms of luminosity an f-stop value should be pretty universal regardless of the sensor size. Sunny 16 applies no matter whether you're talking about a point and shoot nor a Hasselblad, no?

ceremus wrote in post #14913377
I don't know if that comparison works when you're talking about an EF-S lens compared to an EF lens. EF-S are designed to provide coverage for APS-C, there's technically no wasted space when compared to putting an EF lens on a crop camera. And anyway, in terms of luminosity an f-stop value should be pretty universal regardless of the sensor size. Sunny 16 applies no matter whether you're talking about a point and shoot nor a Hasselblad, no?

fstop is fstop sure, but it's not that simple. A sensor twice the size will absorb twice the amount of light at the same fstop.

I wont put hasselblad or MF in this discussion because their high ISO abilities are generally poor comparatively. IMO, MF doesnt have as many advantages over FF 35mm as FF has over crop.

Wilt wrote in post #14913125
Oy, the thread drift, now we're debating IQ of FF vs. APS-C as the justification to give up certain features?! If IQ is the driving force, then I'll opt for a digital Hasselblad (Unfortunately I need to rob a bank first, in order to own one!)

The OP started out lamenting something COMPARABLE to having APS-C camera with an f/2.8 IS lens that provides AOV range of 27.6 - 77 degrees. I agree with him!

In FF, Canon has an IS lens that goes from 23 - 84 degrees, but which is only f/4 not f/2.8.
And Canon also has an f/2.8 lens which goes from 34 - 84 degrees, but without IS.

The characteristics of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the single thing that I regret not having for my 5D! I bought the 5D primarily to get full utility out of my 24mm Perspective Control lens.

Thanks for bringing things back on topic lol...I was also beginning to get misdirected. I think a lot of people are saying that a newer/better camera body can compensate for not having the 17-55 with IS and 2.8. However, the idea of upgrading and having an added compensation is less appealing, hence the title of this thread.

Charlie wrote in post #14913289
I dont see how the 24-105 + FF is not comparable. they both bring in the same amount of light despite one being F4 and one being F2.8. That's pretty much why you get fast lenses right? The amount of light that hits the sensor. The 2.8 gives twice the intensity on the crop, but the full frame is more than twice the size sensor of the crop. The full frame also has a more favorable FOV.

In this sense of comparison, they are very close to equals for this certain lens. With other lenses such as primes, FF will excel.

But they do NOT bring in the same amount of light! The f/2.8 aperture brings in 2x as much light as f/4 per sq mm at the sensor plane. I dunno where you're coming from, to claim 'same amount of light'?! Your entire post does not make sense, as the frame size has nothing to do with the brightness at the focal plane...which is why I could shoot with 25mm on 4/3 format or 31mm on APS-C or 50mm on FF or 80mm on 6x6 or 150mm on 4x5 sheet film, all from the same camera position, and use the identical shutter speed and aperture with any of them!!!

Wilt wrote in post #14913663
But they do NOT bring in the same amount of light! The f/2.8 aperture brings in 2x as much light as f/4 per sq mm at the sensor plane. I dunno where you're coming from, to claim 'same amount of light'?!

LOL, I keep biting my tongue when people make this claim in an attempt to avoid arguing a cut and dry fact.

Charlie wrote in post #14913402
fstop is fstop sure, but it's not that simple. A sensor twice the size will absorb twice the amount of light at the same fstop..

That statement is true only in a single context...the number of photons which are collected by the AREA of the sensor, so the FF sensor captures 2.6x as many photons because it has 2.6x the number of sq.millimeters of area.

If we assume that a 5' x 7.5' target at a shooting distance of 21',

• with a FF camera and 50mm lens at f/4...the target fills 1/2 of the 24x36mm frame (which sees an area 10'x15') in both height and width
  
• with APS-C camera and 31mm lens at f/4...the target still fills 1/2 of the 14.9x22.5mm frame (which also sees and area 10'x15') in both height and width.

If we have black square measuring 24x36mm that contains a grey square in the center that measures 14.9x22.5mm....then again, the full frame sensor absorbs the same intensity of light over any given period of exposure in which shutter, aperture, and ISO are maintained constant.

as with all things, it depends on HOW you measure.

For those claiming sensor size matters on 'how much light' you collect, you would seem to be suggesting that identical exposure settings (shutter speed/ aperture / ISO) would result in different results, depending on how big or small a sensor is, yes?

If you bought a full frame sensor because 'it collects more light' I can see where you might think that. Lets quiz... if I have an 18MP APS-C sensor and a 8MP FF sensor, which one 'collects more light'?
Even if you want to 'count photons' clearly, the higher the MP, the more light your collecting, regardless of the size of the sensor.

But again, that doesn't change the camera settings for exposure.

So, realistically, I think we can conclude, the _image size_ and the _quality_ of the image projected from the lens onto the sensor is what really matters. and the larger that image size is, the finer a result you will get, regardless of your megapickles, your exposure setting, or the size of your lens.

in this case, size matters, because the resolution of the lenses can only create so fine of a small image before you run into scale issues. ...

Wilt wrote in post #14913740
That statement is true only in a single context...the number of photons which are collected by the AREA of the sensor, so the FF sensor captures 2.6x as many photons because it has 2.6x the number of sq.millimeters of area.

If we assume that a 5' x 7.5' target at a shooting distance of 21',

• with a FF camera and 50mm lens at f/4...the target fills 1/2 of the 24x36mm frame (which sees an area 10'x15') in both height and width
  
• with APS-C camera and 31mm lens at f/4...the target still fills 1/2 of the 14.9x22.5mm frame (which also sees and area 10'x15') in both height and width.

So the target fills 216 sq.mm. of the FF sensor, while it fills about 83.8 sq.mm of the APS-C sensor. But the INTENSITY of light is identical...f/4! I can shoot at f/4 with something as small as a P&S or as big as 8x10 film, and the exposure is identical simply because the intensity of light has absolutely no relationship to area of the frame.

the intensity of light is the same in your scenario, but the larger sensor will collect more light and produce the better image.

reference: http://www.dxomark.com …d-image-quality-evolution

So we take an APS-C sensor and put it in a room, then dim the lights until the sensor image being produced shows true black. Then we take a FF sensor, put it in the same room without adjusting the lights...what you seem to be saying is that the FF sensor is going to show some shade of grey rather than true black.

Charlie wrote in post #14913888
the intensity of light is the same in your scenario, but the larger sensor will collect more light and produce the better image.

reference: http://www.dxomark.com …d-image-quality-evolution

Yes, a single large pixel collecting 4 photons will have a better signal-to-noise than a single small pixel which is 1/4 the size and collecting 1 photon. But the pixel's response in both cases would be identical...a digital value like '001' (where 255 is the max)

I went from a 50D and the 17-55mm, to a 5D Mark II and a 24-105. Its really close to being the same. Now if your happy with 7D keep it, if your landscapes FF is better IMHO. A camera is just a tool somebody people like to eat with a fork, some people can use chopsticks it dont' mean one is "better" than the other.