Reading mode: Light Dark

Why is full-frame so important ? / 40D isn't but it's a great camera

Go to last post
I guess you could call it bad grammar - what I meant to convey > > > >

for example > > >

A 35mm prime lens on a 5D remains a 35mm prime lens but on a 40D the 35mm prime lens becomes a 56mm lens (it is no longer a constant 35mm lens) thanks to the 1.6x senor crop!

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.
 
Aurance said:
I guess you could call it bad grammar - what I meant to convey > > > >

for example > > >

A 35mm prime lens on a 5D remains a 35mm prime lens but on a 40D the
35mm prime lens becomes a 56mm lens (it is no longer a constant 35mm
lens) thanks to the 1.6x senor crop!
Click to expand...
No, it stays a 35mm prime lens, it just has the same FOV on the crop camera as a hypothetical 56mm lens would on a full-frame camera.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Keith Reeder said:
Yeah, no pop from my 40D...
Click to expand...
Your pictures are great with a 40D. However, try taking a picture of person (5 foot tall subjects) in a typical home or room size and you will quickly see that with the 1.6 crop you will need 35mm. You will also quickly see that 35mm and f2.8 has too much of the background in focus...
 
Totally agree.

Other examples: 60mm macro, 10-22 for EF-s and 85/1.8. 100/2.8, 100mm macro for EF.
Jerry-astro said:
Jerry
PH-Digi said:
...and better color, less aberration and way sharper.

Of course everything can be corrected in PP, but I prefer to have
more time to actually take photos.

--
Paul Hakimata
Web: http://www.hakimata.com
Stock portfolio: http://www.dreamstime.com/resp288114

Photography: The Art of Converting a 'split second' into 'eternity'.



Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
No need to keep beat on this. By now we all know op meant EF-S lenses.
vinkeatkel said:
Daniella said:
that is if you do understand it.
vinkeatkel said:
rezSjen said:
when i purchased the 40D 2 weeks ago, i had the same concerns. some
of the things i've noticed are

pros with 5D:
far better high iso
more resolution
better dynamic range
better use of L lenses (vs L lenses on 40D)

cons with 5D:
no pop flash(i think)
can only use L lenses
cost

--
thanks,
-rez
Click to expand...
--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and
beat you with experience'
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
LOL! You're speaking a language Joe is not able to understand. ;)
Steen Bay said:
joe mama said:
Whassup?! Just thought I'd say "hi".
Click to expand...
I've been busy shooting deep-DOF pics with 40D/10-22mm, but just
considered to take the 85/1,8 for a walk, just to try something
different. I'm glad that you came back so soon after the little
'episode' three weeks ago :)
Click to expand...
 
Daniella68313 said:
ok. I thougth that the shot from the 5D would have less DOF due to
the larger sensor but I was wrong. Probably because people keep
comapring similar focal equivalent then or taking into account that
they will frame the subject the as much as possible with either
camera, so getting closer with the FF camera is needed.
Click to expand...
It's kinda like the "chicken and the egg" scenario. A larger sensor means that you need to use a longer focal length for the same framing. So, on the one hand, it's the longer focal length that gives the more shallow DOF for the same perspective, framing, and f-ratio, that gives the more shallow DOF. On the other hand, the whole reason you're using the longer focal length is because you are using a larger sensor, so you can say the more shallow DOF is because of the larger sensor.

There are two easy ways to state the problem so that there is no confusion:

1) For the same perspective, framing, f-ratio, and output size, larger sensors yield a more shallow DOF than smaller sensors.

2) For the same perspective, framing, aperture, and output size, all systems have the same DOF.

Of course, so many people confuse "aperture" with "f-ratio" and also don't understand that perspective is the subject-camera distance (technically, subject-aperture distance, but that's only an issue for close framing), that even the above simplifications cause confusion.

The reason that DOF is so important is that it is intimitely connected with corner sharpness, diffraction softening, and vignetting. For case #1 above, larger sensors will have softer corners, less diffraction softening, and more vignetting. For case #2, the differences between systems will be negligible, assuming the same quality of glass is used. This may be of interest:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction

It's akin to "exposure" and "total light" -- people think they are the same, but they are not. This is also an important distinction to make when discussing noise, and is, like DOF, intimitely connected with aperture. If you're still interested, please take a read:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#exposure
Daniella68313 said:
thanks for the explanation.
Click to expand...
No worries -- I like to type. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
I can’t wait to own one of each. I want to keep a second body regardless, and having the flexibility of a FF and a crop body would be nice. The crop body would most likely keep the 70-200 on it the majority of the time. The FF would be mostly used for under 70. The flexibility of the two bodies would be nice because you could switch back and forth depending on the situation.

Ideally, the crop body would have higher end features, like the D300 segment, as that would normally be used for the longer reach, which for me demands better/fast focusing faster frame rates, etc. The FF body would be fine with features down like the D80 segment or even the features of the current 5D (except a larger viewfinder) as that one would most likely be used in much more controlled/indoor shooting and doesn’t need as advanced focusing, etc.

Anyway, with luck this will be a reality in another 1 or 2 release cycles.

-Suntan
 
pcunite said:
Your pictures are great with a 40D. However, try taking a picture of person (5 foot tall subjects) in a typical home or room size and you will quickly see that with the 1.6 crop you will need 35mm. You will also quickly see that 35mm and f2.8 has too much of the background in focus...
Click to expand...
Well I'm really just a humble bird snapper with an inclination towards longer focal lengths - and I don't run to f/2.8 long lenses! - so your suggested shooting test is really on my agenda, but my point is simply that "pop" isn't the sole domain of the FF camera.

In any event, I think that pop is a function of much more than just separation from the background.

It's not too hard to create a more OOF BG very easily with PP anyway - I use Neat Image (the NR program) for an instant "shallow DOF"effect all the time.

Plenty of separation from BG here (real DOF - I deliberately shot it for a very OOF BG) that wouldn't make it pop on its own, and I could make it pop a lot more by playing with the levels, for example (and indeed I would, if I specifically wanted it to pop, but here I want a more gentle, natural look):



Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that FF will give great separation and - if I was more interested in (say) portraiture - I'd be all over FF: but I still maintain that pop isn't only for the FF/short, fast lens guys..!

;0
 
Keith Reeder said:
pcunite said:
Your pictures are great with a 40D. However, try taking a picture of person (5 foot tall subjects) in a typical home or room size and you will quickly see that with the 1.6 crop you will need 35mm. You will also quickly see that 35mm and f2.8 has too much of the background in focus...
Click to expand...
Well I'm really just a humble bird snapper with an inclination
towards longer focal lengths - and I don't run to f/2.8 long lenses!
  • so your suggested shooting test is really on my agenda, but my
point is simply that "pop" isn't the sole domain of the FF camera.

In any event, I think that pop is a function of much more than just
separation from the background.

It's not too hard to create a more OOF BG very easily with PP anyway
  • I use Neat Image (the NR program) for an instant "shallow
DOF"effect all the time.

Plenty of separation from BG here (real DOF - I deliberately shot it
for a very OOF BG) that wouldn't make it pop on its own, and I could
make it pop a lot more by playing with the levels, for example (and
indeed I would, if I specifically wanted it to pop, but here I want a
more gentle, natural look):



Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that FF will give great separation
and - if I was more interested in (say) portraiture - I'd be all over
FF: but I still maintain that pop isn't only for the FF/short, fast
lens guys..!

;0
Click to expand...
You'd have much more "Pop" if you shot with a 1.3 or FF body..

JP
--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer
 
Why would you want to only take only pictures of a 5 foot tall subject in a room, Just because a camera is good for "One" type of shooting doesn't mean it's the best for all. Personally I'm still trying to figure out what I would use a 5D for, It's too slow for sports, it's not rugged enough for my use, it's too wide for telephoto and It lacks Pro AF other than that it's a fine camera for someone who needs that sort of thing. Remember the worlds longer than a 1/4 mile even though a dragster would be a great ride it's not always needed nor practical....
pcunite said:
Keith Reeder said:
Yeah, no pop from my 40D...
Click to expand...
Your pictures are great with a 40D. However, try taking a picture of
person (5 foot tall subjects) in a typical home or room size and you
will quickly see that with the 1.6 crop you will need 35mm. You will
also quickly see that 35mm and f2.8 has too much of the background in
focus...
Click to expand...
--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/
 
Jeremy said:
Do you have any new pics worth posting?

I haven't used my 10-22 that much since I got the 17-55... and I've
only used the 85 1.8 for headshots.
Click to expand...
Lots of pics yes, old and new, and hopefully a few worth posting, but I have no hosting site and the pics aren't ready to post anyway, since I like the shooting much more than the post-processing part :)
 
Time to sign up for a Zenfolio account!

I recently got the Nexto Extreme with a 160gb hard drive for my two week trip (honeymoon) to Hawaii. I took a third week off from work so I can relax and PP all my pictures! lol

--
Jeremy
 
JimH said:
This always confuses people
Click to expand...
I'm glad your post is to educate people, not to confuse them :)
JimH said:
When FF advocates speak about having better control of DOF, what they
mean is that they can get shallower DOF for the same shot than what
they could get with a 1.6X body.
Click to expand...
and FF still able to achieve pcture with the same DOF as they get with 1.6x body
JimH said:
Of course, another factor here is that if you were shooting with the
5D and the 320mm lens, you would arguably get better noise
performance using an even smaller f/stop setting but maintaining the
same shutter speed. This is because the full frame sensor captures
somewhere around 2.56 times as much light (because it's got that much
more surface area).
Click to expand...
Longer exposure (if possible) in smaller sensor will equalize light gathering.
Am I correct ?
JimH said:
And as for macro work, I'd expect the same things to hold fairly
true. You'd need to stop down to a smaller f/stop for the full-frame
body to get the same DOF as you'd enjoy with the 1.6X body.
(Comparing a shot with the 100mm macro on the 5D versus the 60 on the
1.6X body). And then you could argue that needing to stop down more
would cause more problems with diffraction for the 5D, but even
that's not so simple because for the same "relative" circle of
confusion size, the 5D will be more forgiving of small apertures. So
even that may all equal out in the end!
Click to expand...
I bet it's about equal.
but I am curious to know the exact comparison.
If it's equal, I guess we are lucky to have same result without paying more :)
JimH said:
So this isn't such an easy thing to really get a handle on.

Anyone want to buy me a 5D and a 100mm macro so I can do further
testing? I've already got the 40D and the EF-S 60. Oh, and toss in
a 300mm tele for me too. I just want to make sure of this all ;-)
Click to expand...
LOL
I really wish you have what you need to do the test, Jim.
Cause I really want to know the result from you.
I have 30D & 60mm macro which I really love,
planning to go FF soon.

Brian
JimH said:
--
Jim H.
Click to expand...
 
joe mama said:
It's akin to "exposure" and "total light" -- people think they are
the same, but they are not. This is also an important distinction to
make when discussing noise, and is, like DOF, intimitely connected
with aperture. If you're still interested, please take a read:
Click to expand...
Joe, I read from Juza Nature Photography,
they comparing 20D & 40D.
And they discover that ...
40D is slightly less sensitive (about 0.5 stop) compared to 20D
This I quote from their article :
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
What about noise? You might be surprised to discover that 40D is about

0.5-0.7 stops noisier than the 20D - an unexpected step back, but it is the > > price to pay for more megapixels in the same sensor size. That said, I doubt > > that the Nikon D300, the Sony A700 or the Olympus E-3 offer a better image > > quality; the small APS-C sensor can not compete with larger sensors in terms of > > noise, in particular with high resolution and small pixel, as in these cameras.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What cause this according to you ?
They capture different "total light" ?
Or sensor efficiency ?

Is the result will be the same for comparing 400D with 350D too ?

Because I found my video camcorders,
Canon XL1s & XL2 have different sensitivity too.
If I use the same setting, say f/1.6 1/200 sec gain 0 db,
then XL1s picture look brighter than XL2.
And I compare them in the same monitor.
Their sensors size are the same, but XL2 has more resolution.
joe mama said:
No worries -- I like to type. : )
Click to expand...
Glad you like to type Joe :)
joe mama said:
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Click to expand...
Thanks

Brian
 
Silverback1988 said:
Silverback1988 said:
It's akin to "exposure" and "total light" -- people think they are
the same, but they are not. This is also an important distinction to
make when discussing noise, and is, like DOF, intimitely connected
with aperture.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Silverback1988 said:
Joe, I read from Juza Nature Photography,
they comparing 20D & 40D.
And they discover that ...
40D is slightly less sensitive (about 0.5 stop) compared to 20D
This I quote from their article :

"What about noise? You might be surprised to discover that 40D is about
0.5-0.7 stops noisier than the 20D - an unexpected step back, but it is the
price to pay for more megapixels in the same sensor size. That said, I doubt
that the Nikon D300, the Sony A700 or the Olympus E-3 offer a better image
quality; the small APS-C sensor can not compete with larger sensors in terms

of noise, in particular with high resolution and small pixel, as in these cameras."

What cause this according to you?
Click to expand...
Usually, the simple answer is because they compare per-pixel noise rather than total image noise. The 40D has 23% more pixels than the 20D. With the same sensor size and efficiency, this would represent 1/3 of a stop more per-pixel noise. So, how they got 1/2 - 2/3 stops, I can't comment. I suspect it's because they're wrong, as I've not heard that claim anywhere else.
Silverback1988 said:
They capture different "total light" ?
Or sensor efficiency ?
Click to expand...
Both are possible, but, if anything, it "should" be in the other direction.
Silverback1988 said:
Is the result will be the same for comparing 400D with 350D too ?
Click to expand...
Cannot say.
Silverback1988 said:
Because I found my video camcorders,
Canon XL1s & XL2 have different sensitivity too.
If I use the same setting, say f/1.6 1/200 sec gain 0 db,
then XL1s picture look brighter than XL2.
And I compare them in the same monitor.
Their sensors size are the same, but XL2 has more resolution.
Click to expand...
Same lenses, too? Dunno -- that's a conundrum, to be sure.
Silverback1988 said:
Silverback1988 said:
No worries -- I like to type. : )
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Silverback1988 said:
Glad you like to type Joe :)
Click to expand...
Carpal-Tunnel Syndrome will get me eventually. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top