Current 7D MII user - wanting full frame...?

Here is what happens when I run my FF vs APSC at the same framing at the same aperture (because I am aperture-limited with my zoom) at high ISO.

First you can see the differences in DOF, and with portraiture, that can be important. Not so much with product shots...
Also, you can see the differences in ISO and detail rendering. Two of Canon's most recent APS-C and FF offerings, shows the differences.

These differences can mean a difference in an okay deliverable to a client vs a very nice attention-grabbing result depending on the content in the image around the subject, plus how you crop, post process, and use the results. Are these differences noticeable as a web print or even a magazine print (which doesn't mean high quality or high resolution)? Most of the time.... most likely no. These images below are resolutions of a 5x7, maybe, and they are noticeable to me at that size. Also some of us want to make sure we use the best tools we can reasonably apply to what we shoot. That is the same no matter what topic you discuss. Tools, cars, appliances, restaurants, etc. you name it, and these same discussions occur.

People that discuss this and get all up in everyone's faces about the lack of differences seem, to me anyways, like those that go to the street scene and discuss how their turbo'd 4 cylinder is only about .6 second behind somebody else's V8 in the quarter mile. They don't understand that a) that is well over 6 car lengths and is huge in a race and b) it takes ever-increasingly amounts of money to drop just tenths in the quarter mile, the closer to 10 sec you get. There are those that say "bah, he is only about .5 second behind that guy there", and others that will just roll their eyes because they have experience with how large a difference that really is.

I don't miss having to dial out Canon colour noise at a high ISO like 12800 - pass me the V key, I need to push it.

Photo from Two Hot Shoes's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (914171)

It has been a while since I used this tool, but it shows what it takes to get 'equal FF blur' ('equal DOF') from FF and APS-C, when the lens FL is apropos to the format size (e.g. 100mm on APS-C vs. 160mm on FF) to have same position camera relative to subject, which yields identical 'perspective' (relationship of surroundings to subject) in both shots.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18669012
Here is what happens when I run my FF vs APSC at the same framing at the same aperture (because I am aperture-limited with my zoom) at high ISO.

First you can see the differences in DOF, and with portraiture, that can be important. Not so much with product shots...
Also, you can see the differences in ISO and detail rendering. Two of Canon's most recent APS-C and FF offerings, shows the differences.

These differences can mean a difference in an okay deliverable to a client vs a very nice attention-grabbing result depending on the content in the image around the subject, plus how you crop, post process, and use the results. Are these differences noticeable as a web print or even a magazine print (which doesn't mean high quality or high resolution)? Most of the time.... most likely no. These images below are resolutions of a 5x7, maybe, and they are noticeable to me at that size. Also some of us want to make sure we use the best tools we can reasonably apply to what we shoot. That is the same no matter what topic you discuss. Tools, cars, appliances, restaurants, etc. you name it, and these same discussions occur.

People that discuss this and get all up in everyone's faces about the lack of differences seem, to me anyways, like those that go to the street scene and discuss how their turbo'd 4 cylinder is only about .6 second behind somebody else's V8 in the quarter mile. They don't understand that a) that is well over 6 car lengths and is huge in a race and b) it takes ever-increasingly amounts of money to drop just tenths in the quarter mile, the closer to 10 sec you get. There are those that say "bah, he is only about .5 second behind that guy there", and others that will just roll their eyes because they have experience with how large a difference that really is.

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=186​69012&i=i246943238
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=186​69012&i=i85288557
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Thanks but everyone knows a FF is going to be less noisy at very high ISOs but a pro photographer (or anyone who knows what they are doing) isn't shooting in poorly lit rooms with zero lighting. Neither of those images would be acceptable to a client. I shoot outdoors at the "golden hour" often and I use fast prime lenses, never had issues with noise on a crop sensor camera, even up around 3200 ISO which is the most Ive ever had to go with F/1.2 to f/1.8 primes. I'll drop my shutter speed before I start increasing ISO too high. I can even shoot my 70-200 f/4 in pretty low light with a crop sensor camera with no issues. Knowing your lighting is kinda important

I have no issues either with crop bodies, in fact I have posted many a tutorial on how to process them to get at least a stop of noise out of the images without loss of detail. I routinely shot the 7D and now the 7D2 at ISO 6400 and 12800.

But time is time, and with my FF, I spend 1/2 the time processing 300-400 images each shoot, and that gets pretty important, especially the older I get.

Also, no need to be condescending on the "only an idiot would shoot in low light without extra lighting". There are many, many situations where you cannot add any more light, and you have to shoot with what is available. A pro knows how to use the right tools and process accordingly for the light they have available, and sometimes those tools don't include strobes, flashes, or an extra light switch or two.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18669038
I have no issues either with crop bodies, in fact I have posted many a tutorial on how to process them to get at least a stop of noise out of the images without loss of detail. I routinely shot the 7D and now the 7D2 at ISO 6400 and 12800.

But time is time, and with my FF, I spend 1/2 the time processing 300-400 images each shoot, and that gets pretty important, especially the older I get.

Which FF camera is that by the way?

griesmonkey wrote in post #18665856
Even with them calibrated properly (which did help a ton in all other situations) I find I have trouble of them hitting focus on bright backgrounds and low light situations like wedding receptions. Native glass will require me to either use just primes or lose some bokeh ability which isn't ideal for me.

Have no trouble with the body and Sigma lenses in low light

ISO16000 1/60 2.8

Like I stated, I shoot the 7D2 at 12800 right alongside the 5D4, and my developed noise actions will clean up the file well, but the 5D4 is a full stop better right out of camera via JPG, and my file submission takes 1/2 the time as usual.

Of course we can always zoom in a bit more too to show the file at the pixel level... The 7D2 still maintains a bit of detail, much better than its predecessor, but the 5D4, between its resolution and ISO performance, takes this easily 1 stop cleaner and seemingly more detail. This is one of the reasons I would only suggest the 5D4 or 1DX2 as a upgrade to the 7D2.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18669038
I have no issues either with crop bodies, in fact I have posted many a tutorial on how to process them to get at least a stop of noise out of the images without loss of detail. I routinely shot the 7D and now the 7D2 at ISO 6400 and 12800.

But time is time, and with my FF, I spend 1/2 the time processing 300-400 images each shoot, and that gets pretty important, especially the older I get.

Also, no need to be condescending on the "only an idiot would shoot in low light without extra lighting". There are many, many situations where you cannot add any more light, and you have to shoot with what is available. A pro knows how to use the right tools and process accordingly for the light they have available, and sometimes those tools don't include strobes, flashes, or an extra light switch or two.

Teamspeed you own both APS-C and FF. Good to see that you put them all to good use.

I'm beyond busy with work and family. Work balance is extremely important to me even more now. Photographer's widow was a term that I was told before. After shooting for hours a photog will spend hours upon hours editing post shoot. Anything that reduces post processing is a good thing.

I'll have to say using a Sony A7iii even with alot of Xrite passport profiles sometimes the Sony files still take longer to edit for me compared to Canon. I'll admit Fuji is childs play and I can get my 11yrs old now to batch edit photos with little effort LOL!!!! Fuji is ridiculously similar to a microwave......simple application and it works!!! zinger is the 5dmk4 and A7iii still is a different level to many crop sensors as far as retaining a RAW file that doesn't fall apart in low light.

I shoot my 7DII and 5DIII side by side, I use which ever one is best for the type of photos Im taking. The 5DIII shines with my 135L for portraits, and also good for landscape, The 7DII is my all rounder, I use it for a lot of different things, I find the speed awesome, to be honest I prefer the shooting experience more with the 7DII. Also strangely the 7DII recovered dark areas better than the 5DIII. I find it definitely is more about the lens

Yes, you can pull 2 or more stops out of the shadows on the 7D2 and be able to clean it up while maintaining much of the detail, a big improvement over all prior APS-Cs. The 80D only has one stop extra DR at ISO 100, and after that they get close and become very nearly equal by ISO 400. Not bad for the older sensor design and it was a surprise when I first bought my 7D2.

The 6D and 6D2 (lower than the 6D) sit right between the 7D2 and 80D below ISO 400 (as does the 5D3). Not that huge of a improvement in DR. The 6D however, is quite good at high ISO beating out the 6D2, the 5D3 and very nearly matching the 5D4. You just have to gauge what is most important in what you shoot.

Absolutely true for detail rendering, but blur factor and noise also feed into the IQ equation, as you briefly mentioned, and these differences are available even on a small web-sized image, as evidenced in my prior post. Both noise characteristics and blur of OOF areas are noticeably different. Also, it is only in the last 6 years or so that the gap between APS-C and FF seems to have diminished, before this the differences were more noticeable in more aggressive AA filters on some of the APS-C, worse noise, etc. It is good to have such great APSC and FF options these days at prices that are close to what they were years prior.

Bassat wrote in post #18667398
Just for giggles, I did some more of my DOF comparisons. This time I compared 35mm, and 200mm, both shot at f/2.8. Short story: sensor size and focal length still don't matter. The bigger story (to me, anyway) was the the perspective differences are so huge the DOF more than 'just outside' the in-focus area simply does not matter. As you've probably already surmised, focus distance between 35mm and 200mm, in order to get the same framing, is huge. As you'd expect, about 6X.

Focal length does have an impact. You don't change your distance usually because of the perspective changes as you call out, unless that is part of your creative result you are going for. The test above shows that just changing the focal length and nothing else changes the blur amount around the subject. Also with your tests, a shot with a 35mm would have much more DOF than a shot from the 200mm, aimed at the same subject. You most likely negated much of the focal length differences by changing your distance. The shorter the distance, the smaller the DOF, however, the wider the focal length, the greater the DOF.... etc. One can offset the other in such tests.

In the example above, the absolute only thing that was different between the two was focal length and sensor (exposure the same, the lens was the same, the distance was the same). I changed focal lengths to "frame" the subject as nearly identically as I could. If focal length didn't matter, then it would not be part of the equation. If sensor size wasn't a factor, it too wouldn't be part of the equation. Both play a part in the final DOF, focal length is extensively used and has a big part, sensor size by proxy of circle of confusion plays a minor part. The only argument one can make really here is how important is that difference in blur. That is purely subjective however, and isn't mathematical in nature.

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/equations.html

Basically, I agree with your points. The DOF difference between 24mm and 35mm, framed the same, at the same aperture is visually irrelevant. Compare 35mm to 200mm in the same circumstances, and you are dealing with two completely different photos. DOF will be different, but the other differences over-power the photo to the point that the DOF difference does not matter. To be certain, it is a complicated topic that is made even more so by the variety of ways we deploy our gear, and the differences in our tastes and in our perception. I know I can get the same DOF with my 24mm the 80D as I can get with the 35mm on FF. That said, if I am chasing BG blur, low light shooting, or silly-thin DOF, I am mounting whichever lens I choose to use on the 6D.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18669407
Yes, you can pull 2 or more stops out of the shadows on the 7D2 and be able to clean it up while maintaining much of the detail, a big improvement over all prior APS-Cs. The 80D only has one stop extra DR at ISO 100, and after that they get close and become very nearly equal by ISO 400. Not bad for the older sensor design and it was a surprise when I first bought my 7D2.

The 6D and 6D2 (lower than the 6D) sit right between the 7D2 and 80D below ISO 400 (as does the 5D3). Not that huge of a improvement in DR. The 6D however, is quite good at high ISO beating out the 6D2, the 5D3 and very nearly matching the 5D4. You just have to gauge what is most important in what you shoot.

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=186​69407&i=i131680532
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

PDR is not "high ISO performance", nor is total DR. Both make no distinction between how much of that DR is headroom and how much is noise footroom. The fact is, Canon has more headroom in more recent cameras, so their DR measurements suggest high ISO noise performance that is better than it is. PDR does not actually measure RAW clipping points and assumes the highest number possible in the bit depth used for the RAW, so ISO 160, 320, 640, etc are overrated by up to 1/3 stop in PDR, by its own implied intention. "Footroom" is consistent across the ISOs for a given camera, relative to itself in PDR, but headroom is a wildcard across ISOs, and so is footroom between different cameras. PDR is used to prove things that it can not prove.

The only reference I trust for taking this into account is DXO's DR trend lines (but not the dots themselves), because DxO actually measures the exact exposure level at which an ISO setting clips the RAW highlights, and that is why they shift the data points horizontally as they do, so that the trend lines themselves are good approximations for (an inverse of) read noise vs true ISO exposure index. Unfortunately, they do not measure 1/3-stop ISOs at all; not even as an option (they can be both interesting and a distraction). Unfortunately, DxO's web code is much less flexible and much slower than Photons2Photos in many ways.