Is full-frame really that dramaticly better?

kcbrown wrote in post #11017282
And, really, I can't say enough good things about the 7D. It's what a camera should be. Its only real "flaw" is that it lacks a full-frame sensor.

That "flaw" is exactly the one that Canon must address if they are to get any more of my money for a camera body.

IMO, this. 7D with the 5D2 sensor, wow.

HighSnobility wrote in post #11019371
IMO, this. 7D with the 5D2 sensor, wow.

I concur. I think if the 5D had the 7D AF or if the 7D were FF there would be a lot fewer topics comparing the two. Maybe a 6D is in order ;-P

OneFastt996 wrote in post #11019453
I concur. I think if the 5D had the 7D AF or if the 7D were FF there would be a lot fewer topics comparing the two. Maybe a 6D is in order ;-P

a 3D would make more sense

This is why i have both the 5d Mark 1 and the 7d ^^

betebete wrote in post #11019475
a 3D would make more sense

This is why i have both the 5d Mark 1 and the 7d ^^

A 6D would cost less

oh.. i guess :P.. I want something in between 5d and 1d ^^

Figured I'd beat this dead horse just a little bit more, especially since I am the self-proclaimed master of silly FF and 1.6X crop comparisons.

....and because there are very few actual photos in this thread.

5d2, 50 1.8 @ f/2, ISO 800............... vs............... 40D, 35 f/2 @ f/2, ISO800....

versedmb wrote in post #11021406
....and because there are very few actual photos in this thread.

5d2, 50 1.8 @ f/2, ISO 800............... vs............... 40D, 35 f/2 @ f/2, ISO800....

Cool, how did you get her to stand nearly identical between the two? I guess you have trained her!!

pcunite wrote in post #11021569
Cool, how did you get her to stand nearly identical between the two? I guess you have trained her!!

They don't call me quick draw Mcgraw for nothing.

(and yea, she's trained).

versedmb wrote in post #11021406
Figured I'd beat this dead horse just a little bit more, especially since I am the self-proclaimed master of silly FF and 1.6X crop comparisons.

....and because there are very few actual photos in this thread.

5d2, 50 1.8 @ f/2, ISO 800............... vs............... 40D, 35 f/2 @ f/2, ISO800....

Well there you go!

I definitely need to go drop 7k+ and get a 1DS mkIII to get that lil' bit shallower DOF, because I just gotta have it....


Of course I'm exaggerating for effect. But I think, more than anything, it demonstrates just how good we can have it with sub 1k DSLR's nowadays, if we're thoughful of our lens selections, and how to set up our shots.
And just how difficult it would be to tell FF from crop if there was no EXIF data, and the print was small.

I guess ultimately, the answer to the OP, is both yes, and no.

Thanks for the side by side, versedmb. That was stellar!

.

here's a great video I have found which shows the differences...

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=d4aZ-2cOB2s

for me both got pro and cons...

They look pretty much the same to me, little shallower DOF on the 5D2 shot, but that is expected.

So is this why I'm not getting the "popout" effect from my 135L using my 1000d?

kcbrown wrote in post #11017282
Seriously, though, the ability to accurately track the subject throughout the frame and to select which set of focus points to use for focusing and tracking is exactly what makes the 1D series so useful for sports and is why sports photographers buy the camera at all. The 1D series autofocus system and drive mechanism installed into the 5Dmk3 would suddenly turn the 5Dmk3 into a true general-purpose camera, just like the 7D already is (and, surprise surprise, just like the 1D cameras are).

Funny thing is even with the all those AF points most sports photograpghers (including me) use center AF point on our 1 series. I only got old 1dmk2 but even though my 5d has this nice picture quality, it seems like dog when I am shooting some thing which is not posed and I pick 1d everytime. Same pixel density and hard to tell them apart in real life prints unless I enlarge to 20x30 or more.