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

sonofjesse wrote in post #14915691
... A camera is just a tool somebody people like to eat with a fork ..

I can't say I've ever seen one on a menu anywhere

Kai probably has tried ...

RobDickinson wrote in post #14915786
Kai probably has tried ...

Yes..he roasted a 7D one time!

RobDickinson wrote in post #14910133
Hmm non of the lenses I own now have IS lol. They dont even all have autofocus.

LOL. Yeah I don't own a single IS lens either.

I went from a 7D + EFS 17-55 f/.8 lens for my standard "walk around" to a 5D3 + 24-105L a few months ago. Honestly, I do not miss the 17-55 lens at all, even though it was a stellar piece of glass on a crop body. I had begun to supplement the 17-55 with smaller, faster prime lenses anyway, so I do not need f/2.8 in a walk around lens. The 5D3's superior high ISO capability makes up for the one stop of light loss for me, and I prefer the 24-105L over the 24-70L for its greater focal range, lighter weight, image stabilization, and lower cost.

So, while you can argue the technical differences between f/2.8 on a crop versus f/4 on a full frame, from a purely practical, field use standpoint I doubt you will miss the 17-55 if you go with the 5D3's kit lens.

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

I agree with his conclusions, but I have to say, I believe his explanation is 'off'.

The article is trying to atribute the better S/N ratio of full frame vs APS-C to the 'amount of light collected by the sensor' (bigger sensor collects 'more' light), then jumps the track to talk about exposure stop equivalencies.

Thats where it gets confusing, because S/N ratio in a digital sensor is a function of the quality of the sensor, as well as the software that processes the raw 1s and 0s, not a function of 'how much light the sensor collects' (exposure). If that were true, in order to get a correct exposure, you would have to stop down to get the same exposure on a full frame vs an APS-C body for a given scene. And you don't.

So, it's not 'how much light' the sensor collects, it's the fact that a lens can only create so much detail on a certain sized sensor. The larger the sensor, the better job a lens can do in resolving fine details, as it spreads the image over a larger area. Things like dust, scuffs, and the curve of the glass are less painful to a larger image than a smaller one.

Of course, a consequence of a higher quality sensor, with a lower S/N ratio means you can process lower and lower amounts of light, and still resolve a relatively noise free image (higher ISO performance). But THAT feature is independent of sensor size. If you have a large, low quality sensor, you still have the same exposure thresholds, regardless of the size. (for example, a 4x5 sized camera back with a max ISO equivalency of 100 is not going to produce better images in darker conditions than my cell phone shooting at ISO 200, even though, by the math of this article, the 4x5 sensor is collecting "more light".)

Bottom line, you get better images out of a larger sensor, because you don't lose image details from such a tiny image through the lens. You can call that 'collecting more light' if you like, but lets try not to confuse that with exposure. The higher quality sensor may be able to take a higher ISO without as much sensor noise, meaning you can 'get away' with just an F4 lens, in your focal length of choice, but it's NOT because 'the larger sensor collects more light'.

Thank you, have a nice day