Is full-frame really that dramaticly better?

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

S2000 for the win! I'll take mine over any non-AMG mercedes as well, or my TSX CU2 over a base C class.

I like FF but that analogy is a bad one. A low end merc is hardly luxury! Maybe its because i spent 6 months in germany and saw e-class' used as taxis and 3-C-A4's everywhere. Hell, they don't even come with leather standard!

Nice to know there are a few S2000 owners in this thread.

crobs808 wrote in post #11023989
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.

No thanks. I prefer to use analogies that are less arguable.

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 agree with everything in your list except the added details and sharper images. If you had picked up a 5Dc, that would be a different story. I have very detailed/sharp images with the 7D and don't notice any difference in detail/sharpness really on the 5DII. YMMV

Also, if you try to emulate the same exact image on a crop and the 5DII (including the same DOF, FOV, and exposure), your 1 stop ISO improvement is no longer on the list either or at least much lessor of an improvement.

I tried and tried and tried to love the 7D. I carried it as often as I could in place of the 5D Mk II for all sorts of photography. The AF is awesome, but in the end, I couldn't get past the difference in image quality. I sold the 7D, and I really don't miss it.

5DMk II + 7D autofocus system would be a phenomenal combo.

FF = the best
1.6 or 1.3 = the ****.

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

Sadly, I agree with you.

I'm fortunate to be at a point where I can afford to own and use both formats, but if I could only afford 1.6X crop I would be completely fine with that. Many of my favorite photos have been taken with 1.6X crop.

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

Yes, there is 'snobbery', but it is not unsubstantiated. In photography, it has always been that (all else being equal) SIZE MATTERS. Large format has higher resolution on print than medium format which has higher resolution on print than FF which has higher resolution on print than 4/3 formet.

For practical purposes, most of the 'lust for FF' by most amateurs is simply that...lust. They don't ever print larger than 13x19, so any resolution advantage of a FF body over APS-C (all else being equal) is never taken advantage of.

Yes, larger pixel sites in FF provide noise advantages at high ISO, so a 5DII has better s/n characteristics than the 7D by about 2-3 dB per DXO Mark tests (I chose these two because the pixels on print are very comparable (at 232 vs. 156 *1.6 lower magnification for same print size). But 2-3 dB is about the limit of detectability except by test instrumentation.

I maintain that for most folks, APS-C is plenty good enough, and that larger is better but is it worth the greater expense and depreciation?! It is much like 135 vs. medium format film...135 was good enough for most, and for pros or amateurs seeking perfection the medium format was one step closer to nirvahna; the same applies for APS-C vs. FF digital.

Nevertheless, the advantage of larger format is a real one.

Buy used. Trying to buy a 7D or 5D2 new would break the bank by the way you're talking and there's no possibility of finding a 5Dc new. There are *PLENTY* of 5Dc used up for sale and lots of 7D and 5D2s too. Nothing wrong with buying used.

As for usefulness...you have to make that decision on your own. If you're talking about the 7D vs the 5Dc then absolutely go with the 7D. The *only* advantage the 5Dc has over the 7D is full-frame...but everything else is lacking. If it's between the 7D and 5D2 it's a little closer...but then you still have to decide what you really want.

Better high ISO noise handling and, from my brief playing with a 7D (just got it), better mid ISO handlng on the 5DII. Noticeable difference in DOF control at the extremes (wide open). The 7D images seem to be noisy at ISO400/800.

And the intagible.... the FF images just look better which might be due to the above noise differences but I also had the same reaction when I went from a 40D to a 5D. The 5D images just looked better.

Thanks for the last couple of hours interesting reading and amusement, having just read every post in this thread. I am looking to upgrade also, from a 500d.

From what I've gathered, my skill level will be the larger deciding factor than any of the differences - both would be a step up, and I probably wouldn't notice the difference. I would however notice the difference of about £500, which pushes me closer to the 7D.

More importantly, something that hasn't been mentioned yet, the shutter sounds different. I prefer the 7D shutter sound over the 'springy' sounding 5dii. There you go, scientific decision maker.

lol..... my first reaction to the 7D shutter sound was .... is this a toy.

bohdank wrote in post #11026002
Better high ISO noise handling and, from my brief playing with a 7D (just got it), better mid ISO handlng on the 5DII. Noticeable difference in DOF control at the extremes (wide open). The 7D images seem to be noisy at ISO400/800.

And the intagible.... the FF images just look better which might be due to the above noise differences but I also had the same reaction when I went from a 40D to a 5D. The 5D images just looked better.

Have you converted these to JPG and print sizes? I think maybe you have a dud 7D if you are seeing objectionable noise at ISO 800. Here is a sample I took of my daughter at ISO 800, RAW->JPG conversion, no noise removal at all, just auto-leveled. Below that are subsections of 100% crops. I usually shoot at +2/3 though, maybe that is the difference? Sure the 5DII is cleaner, but really, it is so minuscule that it would not be noticeable in prints or really anything, would it?

And before anybody says anything about the sharpness, this was at 1/10th handheld at 55mm while my daughter tried to sit still, so I was surprised it was this sharp in fact.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Like other said it is up to you application. I was thinking 5D2 has the best IQ but when I use it for action and/or sport the 5D2 is not fast enough than 7D. However, my opinion is the lenses you own are most important for the matched bodies you choose after having and trying both bodies with different lenses.

bohdank wrote in post #11026457
lol..... my first reaction to the 7D shutter sound was .... is this a toy.

Funny - that's how I first reacted too. But a damn fast toy heh!