Is full-frame really that dramaticly better?

bobbyz wrote in post #11022688
Funny thing is even with the all those AF points most sports photograpghers (including me) use center AF point on our 1 series.

Heh! I use my 1D3 a lot with my 100-400 and a 1.4 TC attached, meaning I only have Center Point AF! In fact, sometimes it throws me off when I think about using an off-center point, like I do all the time with my 5DC!

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....
http://brownphotograph​y.smugmug.com …s/1030933653_fB​UQD-XL.jpg

The woman on the left is far more beautiful than the woman on the right.

RWatkins wrote in post #11022737
The woman on the left is far more beautiful than the woman on the right.

they're more similar than I expected.... Maybe a comparison between the 85 and 135...

Here’s my 2 cents. I own an MkII and now a 7D “yay”. I not sure the FF lives up to all the hype. You can get wide on cropped cameras now so I would say a cropped camera has more advantages than disadvantages. What I noticed most of all is the L lenses I have work better on the cropped camera, using the sweet spot of the lenses. I like the extra reach it gives me. I like the crop better for Landscape and Macro. This is where the shallower DOF works against the FF. I get great portraits on a crop with shallow DOF. There is a difference in the DOF with the FF but I would not say its better or worse. I would open the lens up a stop or two more on a cropped (if possible). As far as I can tell the only real advantage the FF on the MkII over the 7D is the better noise performance. The auto focus and speed of the 7D kills the MkII. I expect there will be cropped camera soon with the same or better performance than the MkII in terms of noise, so even that seems like a moot point.
Save the money get better glass and go cropped. If I only had the choice of one. I would choose cropped now. Even after being somewhat romanced by the notion of FF in reality unless you’re really in the sweet spot of the Lens I find cropped works better.

fatrat wrote in post #11023243
What I noticed most of all is the L lenses I have work better on the cropped camera, using the sweet spot of the lenses.

Let's address this commonly misunderstood topic.

Assuming a really good lens for FF, that has image resolution of 80 ll/mm in the center and 60 ll/mm at the edges, and assuming an equivalent FL lens used on APS which also has 80 ll/mm in center and 60 ll/mm at edges...

• An image shot on FF is magnified by 8x to make an 8x10 print. So the on-print resolution is 10 ll/mm (80 / 8 = 10) at the center and 7.5 ll/mm (60 / 8 = 7.5) at the edges.
  
  
• An image shot on APS-C is magnified by 12.8x to make the same 8x10 print. Using the center area of the lens (intended for FF coverage) results in 6.25 ll/mm of resolution on the final print (80 / 12.8 = 6.25)
  

Luminodio wrote in post #11023329

I hit the Send button too soon. Go back and read it now.

Wilt wrote in post #11023349
I hit the Send button too soon. Go back and read it now.

Oh, I totally thought it was intentional and that you cut yourself off before sounding like a broken record.

No offense, of course.

fatrat wrote in post #11023243
As far as I can tell the only real advantage the FF on the MkII over the 7D is the better noise performance. The auto focus and speed of the 7D kills the MkII. I expect there will be cropped camera soon with the same or better performance than the MkII in terms of noise, so even that seems like a moot point

Its not a moot point. Depending on who you ask, the 'current' full frame camera has a 1 to 2 stop advantage over the current crop camera. Hard to say this is a rule, since we have such a limited history to go on. Assuming it holds , then the Canon 5D mark III will perform better than the 7D mark II in ISO, a few years after that the 5D mark IV will preform better than the 7D mark III.

The point is that the full frame will likely continue to have the ISO advantage.

Wilt wrote in post #11023316
Let's address this commonly misunderstood topic.

Assuming a really good lens for FF, that has image resolution of 80 ll/mm in the center and 60 ll/mm at the edges, and assuming an equivalent FL lens used on APS which also has 80 ll/mm in center and 60 ll/mm at edges...

• An image shot on FF is magnified by 8x to make an 8x10 print. So the on-print resolution is 10 ll/mm (80 / 8 = 10) at the center and 7.5 ll/mm (60 / 8 = 7.5) at the edges.
  
• An image shot on APS-C is magnified by 12.8x to make the same 8x10 print. Using the center area of the lens (intended for FF coverage) results in 6.25 ll/mm of resolution on the final print (80 / 12.8 = 6.25)

For an 8x10 the edge for FF resolution on print might not make a difference discernable sufficiently to the eye. But up that resolution to 16x and the end FF resolution of 5 ll/mm vs. the APS-C resolution of 3.125 ll/mm is sufficient for the eye to perceive the FF image as 'sharp' but the APS-C image is not perceived as sharp. (A very long standing 'standard' of a sharp print is a minimum of 5 ll/mm at the viewing distance.)

And here are some examples of delivered lens resolution, as reported by Modern Photography decades ago...

Ken Rockwell shows a great example of this here: http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
He basically says the larger the sensor/film the less you have to magnify your prints. That is why Ansel Adams used large format film and was able to take amazingly sharp photos with old glass. The larger your sensor is the sharper your photos, it's the laws of physics.

LeftSide wrote in post #11023534
Ken Rockwell shows a great example of this here: http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
He basically says the larger the sensor/film the less you have to magnify your prints. That is why Ansel Adams used large format film and was able to take amazingly sharp photos with old glass. The larger your sensor is the sharper your photos, it's the laws of physics.

Yup, SIZE matters (in photography). My wallet simply cannot support a 50Mpixel Hasselblad, or I'd have one! Easier to simply rent one if a client's needs truly require one to shoot an assignment.

WTB: winning Lottery ticket
WTT: losing Lottery ticket in exchange for winning Lottery ticket

LeftSide wrote in post #11023534
Ken Rockwell shows a great example of this here: http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
He basically says the larger the sensor/film the less you have to magnify your prints. That is why Ansel Adams used large format film and was able to take amazingly sharp photos with old glass. The larger your sensor is the sharper your photos, it's the laws of physics.

If Ken Rockwell said the sky was blue, I would go outside to double check.

Wilt wrote in post #11023570
Yup, SIZE matters (in photography). My wallet simply cannot support a 50Mpixel Hasselblad, or I'd have one! Easier to simply rent one if a client's needs truly require one to shoot an assignment.

Heh! It's funny how people will proudly upgrade from a point and shoot tiny sensor to a DSLR, but won't accept that my large format 8"x10" sensor has some significant advantages...

tonylong wrote in post #11023578
Heh! It's funny how people will proudly upgrade from a point and shoot tiny sensor to a DSLR, but won't accept that my large format 8"x10" sensor has some significant advantages...

Oh, c'mon now, Tony...you're simply trying to get me jealous! (It's working)

BTW, this is borderline braggadocio.

Wilt wrote in post #11023590
Oh, c'mon now, Tony...you're simply trying to get me jealous! (It's working)

BTW, this is borderline braggadocio.

Hah! Just kidding -- I wouldn't want to brag about the 16"x20" sensor I have tucked away! And just ask me about resolving the tiniest nits off of someone's zits!