The path of the full frame

palad1n wrote in post #17123418
Oh, thanks god we got dxomark super-precise graphs and numbers reflecting ultra-real results, otherwise i wouldn´t be sure if i shoot with compact camera, DSLR or automatic shotgun.... but i rather re-check it on snapsort.com to be absolutely sure.

you can dig through photozone or tdp, if the results dont satisfy you. They wont have nearly as comprehensive of a list as dxo, but the conclusion is the same. In canonland, it's rare if a crop combo outresolves a FF combo. Once you have a high megapixel body, no way in hell does an APS camera keep up.

kenrockwell does a good comparison here:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

i would go with what most have all ready said above,invest in better L-glass start there and you will be on your way to taking better photos,you can invest in the FF camera at a latter date,your T3 should do for now.

Archibald wrote in post #17123377
Can you substantiate your statement?

I have to agree with Charlie's statement but that is only because I have been there, got the Tee Shirt etc, etc.
Unfortunately I find it difficult to prove this. This is not because I am not willing to it is simply that I and all my friends no longer use APSC cameras for bird photography as they have all moved to either APSH or full frame for the better images that they produce with our existing lenses from 300 to 800mm.
I don't get to Calgary often, quite a big trip for me to visit my niece, but if I am coming over I will let you know and you are more than welcome to try out any gear I bring and, perhaps, change your mind?
In the meantime I am happy to send a random unedited file or two for you to have a play with. They will NOT be perfect - just what the camera and lens did. PM me your E Mail address if interested.

Charlie wrote in post #17123458
you can dig through photozone or tdp, if the results dont satisfy you. They wont have nearly as comprehensive of a list as dxo, but the conclusion is the same. In canonland, it's rare if a crop combo outresolves a FF combo. Once you have a high megapixel body, no way in hell does an APS camera keep up.

kenrockwell does a good comparison here:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

Ha ha, Ken Rockwell. He proves that full frame is better than crop.

But in a more recent article, he proves that the Rebel SL1, the cheapest and smallest crop camera, is equal to the full frame 5D Mark III, which he says is the world's best DSLR.

http://kenrockwell.com …arisons/sl1-vs-5d-mk-iii/

johnf3f wrote in post #17123506
I have to agree with Charlie's statement but that is only because I have been there, got the Tee Shirt etc, etc.
Unfortunately I find it difficult to prove this. This is not because I am not willing to it is simply that I and all my friends no longer use APSC cameras for bird photography as they have all moved to either APSH or full frame for the better images that they produce with our existing lenses from 300 to 800mm.
I don't get to Calgary often, quite a big trip for me to visit my niece, but if I am coming over I will let you know and you are more than welcome to try out any gear I bring and, perhaps, change your mind?
In the meantime I am happy to send a random unedited file or two for you to have a play with. They will NOT be perfect - just what the camera and lens did. PM me your E Mail address if interested.

Well, thank you for the invitation.

I have tried to do some camera and lens comparisons, and find they are very hard to do properly. There are organizations out there who do this professionally, and they also find them hard to do. Sometimes after all the tests are done, they won't even agree with each other. So I no longer take my tests that seriously. I am just not qualified to do a good job.

But doing a few shoots with you when you are in Calgary sounds like terrific fun. We can certainly do the tests, and do informal comparisons. I doubt we will see a discernible difference in the results, but who knows.

So by all means let me know when you are coming!

(Don't come in the winter! And winter runs from the beginning of November to early or mid May.)

Charlie wrote in post #17123399
http://www.dxomark.com …__164_176_164_8​71_164_753

5D + 24-105
100D + 24-105
1Dx + 24-105

http://www.dxomark.com …__270_753_270_8​71_270_176

5D + 85L
100D + 85L
1Dx + 85L

Hey Charlie,

Thanks for those links. They are very interesting. I'm trying to understand the results. There is more to this than meets the eye.

Can you explain how the sharpness comparisons of the APS-C and FF pics were done and why the FF bodies won?

It's also possible to do a comparison of cameras directly on DxO. One such comparison is here. http://www.dxomark.com …non-EOS-1Dx___871_795_753. The results show a decided advantage for the FF cameras. But note that the biggest performance difference is low light ISO. The difference reported between the 100D/SL1 (834 ISO) and the 5DIII (2293 ISO) is 1.5 stop. That is a predictable difference, since the sensor areas differ by a factor of 2.6, which corresponds to about 1.5 stop.

Yes, APS-C sensors are known to have more noise at high ISOs. The recourse is to lower the ISO by a stop on the APS-C camera. The noise will now be about the same. Then open the aperture by one stop. That equalizes the exposure and also the DOF for the two formats.

But with APS-C, you might not be able to open up a stop. Currently, the APS-C format does not have the very fast lenses that are available for the FF format. I mean, for example, for FF we have the EF 50/1.4. The corresponding APS-C lens would be EF-S 30/1.0, which does not exist.

So if you need those fast lenses, or some of the specialty lenses like tilt-shift or fish-eye, then you need FF.

There is nothing wrong with the APS-C format. It's just that the range of lenses available is less for this relatively new format.

If you are limited on budget, stay on a crop body and invest in better glass first be4 leaping to FF. FF against crop will only `cash´ mentionned advantages when in the same or newer generation of sensor.
On the other hand switching from 1100D to 1 series will mean a switch from entry level to pro level ergonomics, AF system, size and build quality wich might be tempting, but do not expect considerable increase in IQ.

Strahinja wrote in post #17123015
Regarding the colors as melcat mentioned, well, a larger sensor does indeed interpret the colors more vividly, doesn't it?

No.

The dynamic range is. Because there are fewer photons falling on the smaller sensor (because it's smaller...) there will be more noise in the dark areas. So the noise remains acceptable deeper into the shadows with a full frame sensor of the same era.

With most lenses, yes, because the APS-C camera is blowing up the aberrations by 1.6. (The exceptions being lenses that are really bad in the corners.) This is why it's best to use a lens designed for the format.

When I bought my 1" camera, it came with a lens designed for it.

Your lenses were designed for 35mm film, which was the same size as "full frame", 24mm x 36mm. So yes, you might well see an image quality improvement.

However, it sounds to me more like you have a confidence issue with your equipment. If it makes you feel better to believe that full frame is better, go for it and get on with your photography.

I would suggest the OP go down the lens route first and pick up some mint condition cheaper L lenses in the 17-40 and 70-200 for instance. The OP already has the 50mm which he is happy with.
We are well down the track technology wise with respect to the 5Dc and 1D mk11, Its a big jump to Full Frame with the latest Canon pricing, the 6D looks out of reach and wouldn,t do it justice with the OP,s lenses he has at the moment.

Obviously a larger sensor is going to give you higher IQ. High ISO, as well as ability to enlarge see significant gains. I started with a T4i, and once I got into some paid work (weddings and family portraits) I started planning my own route to full frame. BUT…

The more I shot with the equipment I had, I realized that the areas that my equipment were letting me down were not necessarily in the areas that would see improvement with a switch to full frame. For me, keeper rates turned out to be more important than image quality. Even (read especially) shooting weddings. Frame rate and good auto-focus turned out to be much more important for my needs than high ISO or the ability to enlarge images (I still turned out plenty of 20"x30" prints that I was happy with).

I decided to hold off on the jump to full frame and picked up a 70d. I've got all the focal lengths covered in a way that I could not afford in a 35mm format. My keeper rate continues to get better, and I've never had anyone complain about noise in my shots, even at 1600 ISO. The shallower depth of field would be nice, but I can get about as shallow as I need it shooting at f1.4 on a crop, or at 150mm @ f2.8.

Objectively look at what's holding you back, then pick the equipment within your budget that addresses those needs.

If you leave out the age of the sensor from the equation you are fooling yourself.
In that stupid reasoning my old 350D would give better IQ than my 5DIII because it has a lower pixel density. If you cannot switch to a recent FF Body you'd better stay on your 1100D (T3) and invest in good glass.

rebelsimon wrote in post #17124098
Obviously a larger sensor is going to give you higher IQ. High ISO, as well as ability to enlarge see significant gains. I started with a T4i, and once I got into some paid work (weddings and family portraits) I started planning my own route to full frame. BUT…

The more I shot with the equipment I had, I realized that the areas that my equipment were letting me down were not necessarily in the areas that would see improvement with a switch to full frame. For me, keeper rates turned out to be more important than image quality. Even (read especially) shooting weddings. Frame rate and good auto-focus turned out to be much more important for my needs than high ISO or the ability to enlarge images (I still turned out plenty of 20"x30" prints that I was happy with).

I decided to hold off on the jump to full frame and picked up a 70d. I've got all the focal lengths covered in a way that I could not afford in a 35mm format. My keeper rate continues to get better, and I've never had anyone complain about noise in my shots, even at 1600 ISO. The shallower depth of field would be nice, but I can get about as shallow as I need it shooting at f1.4 on a crop, or at 150mm @ f2.8.

Objectively look at what's holding you back, then pick the equipment within your budget that addresses those needs.

exactly, keeper rate is more important than slightly better IQ, especially in super high ISO. That´s why i picked 70D over 6D. Any person who were shoting some weddings must know that it could be really intense and struggling with AF system during this hectic event can cause lot of headaches, not just to photographer. 5DmkIII really excels in this and 70D is better as second body than 6D to me.

Without having very fast lenses with really thin DOF, there is no reason to switch to FF.

The 6d AF would most likely be better for a wedding than the 70d, especially for low light locks at the altar, or couples at the reception table. Would you be willing to show some of your weddings shots where you feel your 70d AF was a better choice than the 6d? I need a 2nd body due to be becoming a 2nd shooter, and haven't decided what to pair with the 5d3.

Focusing in really low light, the 6d will definitely come out on top with it's centre-point. If I owned the glass you did, I would go 6d over the 70d. I've only had the 70d for one wedding so far, second one tomorrow night. I can show you lots of examples where my t4i failed me, haha.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17124159
The 6d AF would most likely be better for a wedding than the 70d, especially for low light locks at the altar, or couples at the reception table. Would you be willing to show some of your weddings shots where you feel your 70d AF was a better choice than the 6d? I need a 2nd body due to be becoming a 2nd shooter, and haven't decided what to pair with the 5d3.

Facts you mentioned(-3ev sensitivity) are based on lab test from Canon, but in real world usage, i haven´t found any issues focusing with my 70D till my 5DmkIII couldn´t focus either, so 6D would struggle certainly too, even with that advantage.

AF point density of 7D/70D on other hand is something really usable and make life a lot easier not just for tracking moving subjects, but with no time to spare, you don´t need to recompose the scene everytime using center point only, people are impatient most of the time.

I would love to have one FF camera with dreamy 17-200mm f/1.4 lens attached, which would have all these features, i hate the fact i need to have two cameras to have everything covered.

But i like combo 5DmkIII with 70-200L f/2.8 and 70D with sigma 18-35 ART or 24-70L f/2.8 for weddings.

70-200 f/2.8 is certainly better on FF camera.