Legitimately Torn Between APS-C and Full Frame Options

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17612584
Wilt, a follow-up, if you please. I reshot my outside/inside frame just now. Lighting is a bit different, as the other was shot yesterday. But...

I am a bit amazed. I compared my Evaluative shots (using different AF points) to metering using SPOT and recomposing. Spot wins, quite handily. As in the post I made above (and Wilts example shows), the Evaluative trick still left me 2/3 to 1 stop underexposed on the 'inside' shot, and about 1/2 over exposed on the 'outside' portion of the frame. By spot metering the inside, using *, then taking the shot, I got a much better exposure than I did with Evaluative. Ditto Spot metering and * for the outside.

I have to rethink this metering business. And now I need a camera where I can put Spot-metering on the AF point of my choice.

George, congratulations on the journey into the achievement of photographic nirhvana!
The solution to the lack of AF zone = Metering zone capability, in anything but the 1D body, is to do your metering in Manual mode, so reframing changes nothing regarding exposure settings.

that's why canon makes you pay big bucks for the 1Dx, however, with enough experience, you should be able to figure out this metering business. Point AF will do a mini spot, but not like the real thing, which is 100% no guesswork.

Wilt wrote in post #17612871
George, congratulations on the journey into the achievement of photographic nirhvana!
The solution to the lack of AF zone = Metering zone capability, in anything but the 1D body, is to do your metering in Manual mode, so reframing changes nothing regarding exposure settings.

Should I start a new thread to continue this? We seem to be way OT.

Interested ... will follow.

I have started a new thread wrt SPOT metering: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1433153

The thing about photographing children and then children in sports later on is it is impossible to always predict what will happen next. The best IQ on the market won't help much if you are OOF. If you end up with kids in any sport then you will want reach and effective AF. Also the crop factor will mean you wont be shopping for very expensive longer lenses. Next thing to ask yourself and be honest about is how large will you be printing? For most people 8x10 is about the limit. In fact nowadays less and less people even print images. If 70% of your output gets emailed and never printed then the IQ may not be as critical as the internet likes to preach. I wentt from a 1DsII to a 7d and actually found my keeper rate increased due more useful lenses and great AF. Not sure I could live with the limited AF effectiveness of a 6D? And never discount what that "machine gun 10fps" can surprise you with.

Bradfordguy wrote in post #17613701
In fact nowadays less and less people even print images. If 70% of your output gets emailed and never printed then the IQ may not be as critical as the internet likes to preach. I wentt from a 1DsII to a 7d and actually found my keeper rate increased due more useful lenses and great AF. Not sure I could live with the limited AF effectiveness of a 6D? And never discount what that "machine gun 10fps" can surprise you with.

Yeah, if most images are shared via email, and they are viewed on monitors having no more than 2560 x 1080 pixels on a 34" dual HDMI (and only the bleeding edge folks own 4k monitors on their home computer) we can get along just great with 10MPixel Canon 40D's to use (or equivalent sensors with lower noise at high ISO).

Having shot family events and weddings of family friends, everyone seems fine getting 2k pixel images on CD to look at, and never even asking for full res 10 MPixel Canon 40D images, much less asking for 22 Mpixel FF images!

Last night I was surrounded by full frame cameras, and then there's me with my crappy 70D. ISO 1600, no noise reduction. I routinely print at 24x36" with good sharpness. I know that FF is better, but I don't think you'll see it often. Those that say they can pick out a FF image from a crop at 4x6" prints are probably full of it.

RebelSimon, I couldn't agree more. ISO is not much of a differentiator among modern cameras until you get into the 6400 range. At 6400 with my 60D, I have to get exposure right, ETTL w/o blowing highlights, process heavily and individually. I can shoot the 6D JPG at 6400, if I am sure of the WB. Below 3200, there isn't enough difference to make a fuss about.

rebelsimon wrote in post #17613804
Last night I was surrounded by full frame cameras, and then there's me with my crappy 70D. ISO 1600, no noise reduction. I routinely print at 24x36" with good sharpness. I know that FF is better, but I don't think you'll see it often. Those that say they can pick out a FF image from a crop at 4x6" prints are probably full of it.

This is incredible.. Insane! Nice job.

rebelsimon wrote in post #17613804
Last night I was surrounded by full frame cameras, and then there's me with my crappy 70D. ISO 1600, no noise reduction. I routinely print at 24x36" with good sharpness. I know that FF is better, but I don't think you'll see it often. Those that say they can pick out a FF image from a crop at 4x6" prints are probably full of it.

See that's the thing, the 70D is not crappy and is pretty amazing - with the right lighting and situation, But I also owned one and I know first hand that once it became dark it struggled, ISO past 6400 is sketchy and not as maleable. That said in good light or proper lighting I know that many shots are hard to distinguish from full frame. But my full frame can see in much lower light and the files up to 12800 are good BEFORE processing. And that is me comparing to what I used to get out of my 70D (granted I have slowly been improving my post processing over time).

The 70D and the 7Dii are amazing cameras, but for each advantage they have over equivalent full frames (and yes they do have advantages) full frame has situations were it is the more logical choice. I moved to Full frame after realizing I wanted those benefits more and would never bash crop sensors, but I think it comes down to preference and need.

For most people a recent crop sensor while provide most or all of what one wants with some great IQ that is on par or in the same ballpark as most full frames, but in some or most low light situations or post processing the full frame cameras provide advantages that you have to decide if the price premium is worth the usage and actual need.

PS - great shot!

I won't disagree with you, I don't like shooting mine past 3200. But in this situation, I would have to be at ISO 4000 (instead of 1600) to obtain the same shutter speed and DOF that I needed with a full frame (I had my 18-35 f1.8 stopped down to 2.8). If you're shooting often enough past 1600-3200, FF is definitely your better option. If you shoot wide open consistently and wish you could open up more, FF is definitely your better option. In the OP's situation, I think he'd be better served with a flash, but to each his own.

werds wrote in post #17614768
The 70D and the 7Dii are amazing cameras, but for each advantage they have over equivalent full frames (and yes they do have advantages) full frame has situations were it is the more logical choice. I moved to Full frame after realizing I wanted those benefits more and would never bash crop sensors, but I think it comes down to preference and need.

For most people a recent crop sensor while provide most or all of what one wants with some great IQ that is on par or in the same ballpark as most full frames, but in some or most low light situations or post processing the full frame cameras provide advantages that you have to decide if the price premium is worth the usage and actual need.

PS - great shot!

And then you run into comparative results of images at very high magnification and see where one of the most recent APS-C cameras outperforms one of the most recent FF cameras in terms of freedom from bands of noise, proving that generalizations (about FF better than APS-C noise) always seem to have their exceptions...

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17545932

rebelsimon wrote in post #17614787
I won't disagree with you, I don't like shooting mine past 3200. But in this situation, I would have to be at ISO 4000 to obtain the same shutter speed and DOF that I needed with a full frame (I had my 18-35 f1.8 stopped down to 2.8). If you're shooting often enough past 1600-3200, FF is definitely your better option. If you shoot wide open consistently and wish you could open up more, FF is definitely your better option. In the OP's situation, I think he'd be better served with a flash, but to each his own.

Agree as well - flash is awesome when used right and I loved the 18-35 1.8 when I had it...

Wilt wrote in post #17614789
And then you run into comparative results of images at very high magnification and see where one of the most recent APS-C cameras outperforms one of the most recent FF cameras in terms of freedom from bands of noise, proving that generalizations (about FF better than APS-C noise) always seem to have their exceptions...

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17545932

Reason I qualified it with a some or most and not the definitive all situations lol