IQ of 7d w 15-85mm Vs 6d w 24-105mm?

Started Mar 8, 2013 | Questions thread
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,022Gear list
Like?
Re: Correct
In reply to schmegg, Mar 12, 2013

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

technic wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Here is some conjecture on my part. I would think that an a asp-c camera with an asp-c lens gets more magnification from the lens and imprecisions in the less would be more conspicuous under the scrutiny of the magnification. However, I'm confesson that I never took a lesson.

Yes, an APS-C lens needs to be more precise for the same IQ. But reality is that it is often easier to make small lenses to better perfection, for a reasonable price. Look at the tiny lenses from e.g. some Panasonic/Leica lenses on the Panny TZ, they often have very high optical quality. But it is impossible to say such a thing in general, because there are lots of factors involved (e.g. homogeneity of the glass and surface finish, precision of the internal lens threads and mounts, etc.). Most of that is related to the lens design / the type of lens.

Actually it's more challenge to design native lenses for smaller sensors. For example to design a similar zoom as good as Canon new 24-70L/2.8 II, you'd need a 15-44/F1.75 zoom on 1.6x crop, and a 12-35/F1.4 zoom on mFT.

Not really relevant though. There is no need to create an equivalent lens - just one delivers similar IQ. For many uses, that should be possible. It's only shallow DOF, which might not be important if the photographer knows what he's doing, and low light, which is due to the sensor, not the lens, that present difficulties for equivalence.

What similar IQ crop can match with 24-70L II and Sigma 35/1.4 or even EF 24-105L with comparable crop lenses? Please point us how to achieve more with less?

Such zooms either impossible to be manufactured or actually even bigger/heavier as we saw in Olympus 35-100/F2.0 zoom that is only eq to FF 70-200/F4.0 zoom, and even bigger/heavier than Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS II zoom. What are the counterparts of Sigma 35/1.4 on APS-C and mFT? I believe you build up wrong perception.

There may not be equivalents, but that may not matter either. There are not equivalents to a 300/2.8 II L on an 18MP crop either.

It's matter. That's why Canon moved to FF sport cameras. How many in NFL and Olympics sideline now to shoot with 7D that is pretty noisy in low light and not excellent either in good light (sharpness, clarity and shadow noises)? They use 400L/2.8 IS II and 500L/4.0 IS II on 1DX and 5DIII now that delivers much better photos than 7D. That's reality. I am sure you are now using 5DIII not 7D in your motorsport photos, lol.

FF will have higher image quality if you use a good prime, especially those in the normal to tele range and possibly zooms like the 70-200L, as those are relatively close to perfection (but often you can't make a valid comparison, because there are no L APS-C tele primes/zooms). A 4x standard zoom with midrange price is a different story. Quite often such an FF zoom will be a bit better in the image center, but worse in the corners compared to a similar APS-C zoom. Same applies for SWA range, e.g. 17-40 against 10-22.

FF is better with any lenses that also can be used on crop in the same generation of cameras. For example with ANY EF lenses 5D2 outresolves 7D, not only sharper but resolve more details. Again your perception is very wrong regarding FF lenses on corners. ultimitsu points you the equivalence if you really want to compare.

ultimitsu is another full frame zealot. And the 5D2 does NOT out-resolve the 7D!

You cannot call someone zealot if someone just tell fact. I know you can call me FF zealot but I do own and use 60D. I just dare to tell truth that FF has better IQ than APS-C so what ‘fanboyism' involved if I simply indicate a fact? May someone suggesting you are 7D zealot? At least you don't have a gut to admit truth as you involved in old debates too much in the past.



Sure EF-S 10-22 is the best EF-S zoom but EF 17-40L/4.0 is not a slouch either. Let me tell you when I need to shoot wide-open a) in low light then I don't worry about corners too much as those areas in low light are very dim and you hardly can see much anyway; b) in portraiture for better background rendering, then again I don't worry about soft borders as actually what I wanted.

Exactly. Corners may not be important - just as narrow DOF may not be important. It just depends.

See, you intentionally cut my words out of context. I said it's not important in corners in dim light as you cannot see details in darkness anyway, or in wide-open portraiture photo. That's my point.  Narrower DOF is subjective as someone prefers narrow DOF when shoot at wide open.



Here are two samples of 17-40L (that I just sold recently as I now own 17mm TS-E) at 17mm and 40mm respectively. At eq F stop, 17-40L is not worse than EF-S 10-22.



17-40L at 17mm



17-40L at 40mm, a 3000-pixel photo

Nice.

Thx, that proves 17-40L is not a slouch.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
SFRNew
TrueNew
DogsNew
LMAONew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow