Is full-frame really that dramaticly better?

RWatkins wrote in post #11023573
If Ken Rockwell said the sky was blue, I would go outside to double check.

i'm with you

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...

do you have a zoom lens and pop up flash, no advantage ,joking

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.

good write up Wilt, thanks

FJ LOVE wrote in post #11023618
do you have a zoom lens and pop up flash, no advantage ,joking

Hey now, just because I don't have a pop up flash, what, do you want me to feel sad?

good write up Wilt, thanks

Hey now, just because Wilt said "size matters" what, you're gonna like compliment him?

tonylong wrote in post #11023643
Hey now, just because I don't have a pop up flash, what, do you want me to feel sad?



Hey now, just because Wilt said "size matters" what, you're gonna like compliment him?

i felt sad the other day with my mk3, when some teens said "hey look that guys got a really old camera, look at the size of it"

don't feel too bad

RWatkins wrote in post #11023573
If Ken Rockwell said the sky was blue, I would go outside to double check.

This place is priceless for some of the one liners...

.

FJ LOVE wrote in post #11023670
i felt sad the other day with my mk3, when some teens said "hey look that guys got a really old camera, look at the size of it"

don't feel too bad

I heard the same thing said about my 1Ds II and well, that is indeed an "old" camera whereas I wouldn't even fit the Mark III series with that label yet.

The mounted 135mm 2L didn't really help my situation much either, but it could've been worse.

It could've been my 70-200mm 2.8L IS II.

Good times with Canon.

So, did I just waste my money by buying a 5D II to replace my 7D for portraits and other shallow DoF photos? I expect:

1 stop improvement in ISO performance
shallower DoF
true FL
noticeably sharper images
greater facial detail, especially eyes.
more accurate colors
more dynamic range


What I don't expect

Wizardry and magic.

Are my expectations realistic?

Yup and all! Yeah, you'll get good stuff, magic, well, no...so, go out and take pictures and have fun!!!

I think there is a bit of snobbery that surrounds FF.

Erik_L wrote in post #11023848
So, did I just waste my money by buying a 5D II to replace my 7D for portraits and other shallow DoF photos? I expect:

1 stop improvement in ISO performance
shallower DoF
true FL
noticeably sharper images
greater facial detail, especially eyes.
more accurate colors
more dynamic range


What I don't expect

Wizardry and magic.

Are my expectations realistic?

You're in a much better position to answer the question, than ask, how big the difference is between crop and FF, compared to us crop shooters.

What are your pictures telling you?

.

It's all about the photographer's eye than the gear itself.

fotoworx wrote in post #11023884
I think there is a bit of snobbery that surrounds FF.

Hmm. If this is coming from someone who uses both FF and crop, then I can accept that statement. If this is coming from someone who primarily or only uses crop, then let me say this - I thought the same thing until I move to FF. Even the feel of my 5D(classic) shots were far better than my 50D ones, but don't ask me to tell you exactly why; I can't.

FJ LOVE wrote in post #11023670
i felt sad the other day with my mk3, when some teens said "hey look that guys got a really old camera, look at the size of it"

don't feel too bad

Well, as you know "teens" know everything

Erik_L wrote in post #11023848
So, did I just waste my money by buying a 5D II to replace my 7D for portraits and other shallow DoF photos? I expect:

1 stop improvement in ISO performance
shallower DoF
true FL
noticeably sharper images
greater facial detail, especially eyes.
more accurate colors
more dynamic range


What I don't expect

Wizardry and magic.

Are my expectations realistic?

I have used both crop bodies and FF bodies over the past 10 years...I cannot put my finger on exactly what makes a FF better - it just is in my opinion. In the same way, I cannot answer your specific questions, since it is nothing I can put my finger on. It is just a more "desirable" look, and that's the best word/description I can come up with for FF's advantage over crop.

Think of it this way. The crop camera obviously better than a point-and-shoot camera of course. Even an old 20D smokes any P+S on the market in my opinion. But in the same right, any crop SLR is like a luxury Honda. It is a luxury car compared to regular Hondas, but it is still a Honda. The FF camera is like a luxury Mercedes. So, if even a low end Mercedes is already nicer than a luxury Honda, imagine what the luxury Mercedes feels like. Like that, there is nothing specific I can tell you, other than maybe you should try renting a 5D(I or II) for a day and testing it against the same identical shots from your crop body, side by side shooting on tripods or whatever (same lenses, same manual settings); then compare them in a dark room on a big monitor.

-edit-
Oh! I did think of one thing that makes FF much better than crop. Ideally we all want to shoot our photos with the right settings on site, and edit as little as possible - well, in the real world, esepcially in event photography, the need arises to edit photos in post more than we might want to at times. When editing sliders on different effects and filters on a crop body image, I can only move the sliders about 10-20% of the way left/right before I have to stop and it begins making the photo look bad. When editing FF images, I get much more leeway with the filters, effects and plugins in Photoshop. I can bump the brightness up two or three times what I can on a similarly shot crop image, without making it look bad. That is probably what stands out the most when in post...I do not have to take weird steps to get my photo to look good - I can just do what I want without adding damaging side effects to the image.

crobs808 wrote in post #11023989
But in the same right, any crop SLR is like a luxury Honda. It is a luxury car compared to regular Hondas, but it is still a Honda. The FF camera is like a luxury Mercedes. So, if even a low end Mercedes is already nicer than a luxury Honda, imagine what the luxury Mercedes feels like.

lol really? I'd take an S2000 over any non-AMG mercedes.

stickshift wrote in post #11024022
lol really? I'd take an S2000 over any non-AMG mercedes.

Had you said an Acura NSX, I was there with you all the way...

.

crobs808 wrote in post #11023989
Oh! I did think of one thing that makes FF much better than crop. Ideally we all want to shoot our photos with the right settings on site, and edit as little as possible - well, in the real world, esepcially in event photography, the need arises to edit photos in post more than we might want to at times. When editing sliders on different effects and filters on a crop body image, I can only move the sliders about 10-20% of the way left/right before I have to stop and it begins making the photo look bad. When editing FF images, I get much more leeway with the filters, effects and plugins in Photoshop. I can bump the brightness up two or three times what I can on a similarly shot crop image, without making it look bad. That is probably what stands out the most when in post...I do not have to take weird steps to get my photo to look good - I can just do what I want without adding damaging side effects to the image.

More PP leway sounds appealing to me - I use "creative processing" a lot and I do sometimes get "dirty" images when trying to get a particular look. I guess this has to do with the increased dynamic range.