-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Am I the only one who doesnt care about FF?
- Thread starter russellhorn
- Start date
You apparently did not read the post I linked to. At least I think you understood what I said.
No. Not when you don't need to stop down as much as ff to get the same DOF. For example you need to stop down only to f8 on APS-C when you are trying to achieve the same DOF as f11 on ff.
It dose not matter wide of long. As long as you need to stop it down then all the noise advantage of ff is gone. Remember apple to apple APS-C only needs stop down one stop less to get the same DOF as ff. Like I said before the only low light advantage of full frame is when you shoot at close to wide open apertures and can accept the thin DOF comes with it.
Same as above. Not true DOF for DOF.
I don't know who is the stupid one but I'm sure not the one. You can be as stupid as the other poster who I don't even care to respond anymore or try to be smart like, say me.if you are going to call someone stupid at least have the brains to
do it to an actual stupid person like say you
Vibrio
Senior Member
some lenses have already started to go downhill by f8 on APS-C
iso 200 on a 5D/5D2 Vs iso 100 on a 50D is going to be better for the FF in terms of noise
DOF is not that thin, there is not a huge amount of difference between the two from my experience of using both 40D and 5D2. I've got over a stop better ISO performance on my 5D2 compared to my 40D in real situations
eh iso 100 F5.6 vs iso 200 f8 to get smae shutter speed still going to go in favor of the FF for less noise
sionce you don't know who is the stupid one let me remind you, its you!I don't know who is the stupid one but I'm sure not the one. You canif you are going to call someone stupid at least have the brains to
do it to an actual stupid person like say you
be as stupid as the other poster who I don't even care to respond
anymore or try to be smart like, say me.
40d and 5dmII
I purchased the 5dmII because I do make large prints - every time I turn around somebody wants a 40x60 or something. I do mostly landscapes, but also events. I was looking to the ff and high res of the 5dmII for large print quality for the scapes.
Ironically, I still go to my 10-22 on the 40d for very wide shots, because the widest I have for the 5dmII is 24 right now.
There is no doubt that the image quality and print quality are greatly improved with the 5dmII. If I could only take all my old images and magically turn them into 5dmII images! Of course resolution enters into the equation, not just a larger sensor. But what surprised me most, is how much I like it better for events (weddings). I used to think the ff wedding people were making much ado about nothing, but it really is a pleasure to have my 24-70 behave like it was designed to do. Far fewer lens changes and fantastic low light image quality that really is noticeably better (although at the small print sizes of wedding albums, I don't think the improved image quality is of particular importance here).
All that being said - your needs are different and buying great glass is never a bad idea. If you do start printing large, or shooting low-light events, you might consider trying a ff out.
******************************************
http://www.pbase.com/cindyd
I purchased the 5dmII because I do make large prints - every time I turn around somebody wants a 40x60 or something. I do mostly landscapes, but also events. I was looking to the ff and high res of the 5dmII for large print quality for the scapes.
Ironically, I still go to my 10-22 on the 40d for very wide shots, because the widest I have for the 5dmII is 24 right now.
There is no doubt that the image quality and print quality are greatly improved with the 5dmII. If I could only take all my old images and magically turn them into 5dmII images! Of course resolution enters into the equation, not just a larger sensor. But what surprised me most, is how much I like it better for events (weddings). I used to think the ff wedding people were making much ado about nothing, but it really is a pleasure to have my 24-70 behave like it was designed to do. Far fewer lens changes and fantastic low light image quality that really is noticeably better (although at the small print sizes of wedding albums, I don't think the improved image quality is of particular importance here).
All that being said - your needs are different and buying great glass is never a bad idea. If you do start printing large, or shooting low-light events, you might consider trying a ff out.
--
******************************************
http://www.pbase.com/cindyd
I thought you finally undertood but it seems I overestimated you. You can keep on making this kind of stupid argument to convince me that you are still stupid after all.
some lenses have already started to go downhill by f8 on APS-C
iso 200 on a 5D/5D2 Vs iso 100 on a 50D is going to be better for the
FF in terms of noise
DOF is not that thin, there is not a huge amount of difference
between the two from my experience of using both 40D and 5D2. I've
got over a stop better ISO performance on my 5D2 compared to my 40D
in real situations
eh iso 100 F5.6 vs iso 200 f8 to get smae shutter speed still going
to go in favor of the FF for less noise
sionce you don't know who is the stupid one let me remind you, its you!I don't know who is the stupid one but I'm sure not the one. You canif you are going to call someone stupid at least have the brains to
do it to an actual stupid person like say you
be as stupid as the other poster who I don't even care to respond
anymore or try to be smart like, say me.
--
Thank you for sharing your experiences. I think it’s a fair assessment. Just like to add I think 70-200 is also better suited for full frame than on 1.6x for wedding/event. I’ve seen wedding photographers using 70-200 instead of a standard zoom as the main shooting lens.
Also I agree with your observation the IQ advantage of full frame for large prints came more from MP than sensor size, other than the fact that a large sensor allows more pixels without ill effect.
Also I agree with your observation the IQ advantage of full frame for large prints came more from MP than sensor size, other than the fact that a large sensor allows more pixels without ill effect.
You are totally correct APS-C has significant benefit when you use macro lenses or telephoto lenses and needing the extra enlargement/reach. The argument you made about ff needs to stop down more to get the same DOF as APS-C is the same as I made above in this thread. It will not only equalize the diffraction effects of the two but will also negate the low light advantage of large sensors under this situation. Somehow many people just failed to realize this and still don’t want to understand it. It’s so much against the common wisdom people just feel comfortable thinking inside the box.
strawman_John
Leading Member
Carl
Put your intellect where your mouth is and use your camera on fixed ISO and fixed exposure compensation on a fixed scene and take a photo at F4 and then again at F8.
Now demonstrate to us that stopping down the lens results in more noise.
Lets have facts not emotions. It is a quantifiable item.
Go on take the test..
Put your intellect where your mouth is and use your camera on fixed ISO and fixed exposure compensation on a fixed scene and take a photo at F4 and then again at F8.
Now demonstrate to us that stopping down the lens results in more noise.
Lets have facts not emotions. It is a quantifiable item.
Go on take the test..
strawman_John
Leading Member
I agree with his assesment and think it fair. But carl you need to work on your verbal reasoning skills a bit
He wrote.
He wrote.
Now you managed to pump a lot into what was not said and ignored.
It explains your arguments.
I'm only reporting on practical, real-world experience based on a limited time with the 5dmII. If you put both cameras on a tripod and manipulated the settings per your discussion above, would it prove either viewpoint? maybe . . . but my post wasn't meant to be a scientific definitive conclusion - it is what I feel after playing with the mII for ONE low-light wedding and one extensive week long landscape shoot, with some smaller shoots in-between. I've had xxd cameras since 2003 (10d,20d,30d,40d).
fwiw - The 40d was shot during the same wedding by a second shooter with the 70-200 2.8 IS attached. Without looking at apertures and ISOs for each shot (although in general the 40d images were ISO 800 and the 5dmII shots ISO 1600), I can say the 5dmII images in general were noticeably less noisy. Now, that being said, the 40d images tended to come into post slightly underexposed in comparison, and that alone could account for the difference. I would not call this a scientific comparison by any means - same event, but different lenses, different photographers, different settings.
One point I'll put in the 40d's favor was it handled the white balance in the reception room better, and oddly, I've noticed in the past the 20d and 30d handled the whitebalance better than the 40d in extremely tricky (translate horrid) lighting. Maybe Canon is devolving in white balance. But that is a whole other discussion and probably has nothing to do with sensor size.
I like both cameras and really, the most important elements are what's attached to the camera (the glass) and who is standing behind it. I think both FORMATS are capable tools and minutia in performance fades in comparison to other factors, particularly for smaller print sizes.
Cheers, Cindy (a female btw
******************************************
http://www.pbase.com/cindyd
fwiw - The 40d was shot during the same wedding by a second shooter with the 70-200 2.8 IS attached. Without looking at apertures and ISOs for each shot (although in general the 40d images were ISO 800 and the 5dmII shots ISO 1600), I can say the 5dmII images in general were noticeably less noisy. Now, that being said, the 40d images tended to come into post slightly underexposed in comparison, and that alone could account for the difference. I would not call this a scientific comparison by any means - same event, but different lenses, different photographers, different settings.
One point I'll put in the 40d's favor was it handled the white balance in the reception room better, and oddly, I've noticed in the past the 20d and 30d handled the whitebalance better than the 40d in extremely tricky (translate horrid) lighting. Maybe Canon is devolving in white balance
. But that is a whole other discussion and probably has nothing to do with sensor size.I like both cameras and really, the most important elements are what's attached to the camera (the glass) and who is standing behind it. I think both FORMATS are capable tools and minutia in performance fades in comparison to other factors, particularly for smaller print sizes.
Cheers, Cindy (a female btw
--
******************************************
http://www.pbase.com/cindyd
strawman_John
Leading Member
No problem there, I currently use a 40D and have concentrated on lenses over camera upgrades as I can see me taking them forwards and whatever camera you use a decent lens helps.
I like the 40D, its a reasonable compromise camera for most things. I had a chance to try a 5D MKII with my 17-40 and its a good combination so if you ever get round to a full frame wide angle I can recommend it.
I am surprised about the WB, my 40D tends to be a bit hit and miss indoors, also as you alter the exposure it alters the WB. But as I shoot RAW its easy to fix. And as I mainly shoot up to 12"x18" the 40D does a decent job if I keep it below ISO800.
I thought as a print from a noise perspective ISO1600 on 5D MKII equals ISO400 on 40D.
One day I would like to add a full frame camera to the crop one and have the best of both.
But that is my view.
Regards John
I like the 40D, its a reasonable compromise camera for most things. I had a chance to try a 5D MKII with my 17-40 and its a good combination so if you ever get round to a full frame wide angle I can recommend it.
I am surprised about the WB, my 40D tends to be a bit hit and miss indoors, also as you alter the exposure it alters the WB. But as I shoot RAW its easy to fix. And as I mainly shoot up to 12"x18" the 40D does a decent job if I keep it below ISO800.
I thought as a print from a noise perspective ISO1600 on 5D MKII equals ISO400 on 40D.
One day I would like to add a full frame camera to the crop one and have the best of both.
But that is my view.
Regards John
Good glass is ALWAYS the way to go me thinks. I'm just glad I only had one efs lens, that is why I didn't consider the 17-55 2.8 IS despite its stellar reputation. It is bad enough now having to add another wide angle it would have killed me to have to get a mid-range zoom too. As convenient as the 17-40 would be, I'm leaning towards a wide prime since it will mostly be used for scapes. But heck, I would love to have both. lol
I'm not sure I can equate 1600 on the 5dmII to only 400 on the 40d . . . but there is no doubt it performs admirably at low light. It really is a wonderful camera.
Whatever you've got - just keep clicking clicking clicking
C
******************************************
http://www.pbase.com/cindyd
I'm not sure I can equate 1600 on the 5dmII to only 400 on the 40d . . . but there is no doubt it performs admirably at low light. It really is a wonderful camera.
Whatever you've got - just keep clicking clicking clicking
C
--
******************************************
http://www.pbase.com/cindyd
Vibrio
Senior Member
good to see you finally admit you are talking rubbish and that you are stupid
--some lenses have already started to go downhill by f8 on APS-C
iso 200 on a 5D/5D2 Vs iso 100 on a 50D is going to be better for the
FF in terms of noise
DOF is not that thin, there is not a huge amount of difference
between the two from my experience of using both 40D and 5D2. I've
got over a stop better ISO performance on my 5D2 compared to my 40D
in real situations
eh iso 100 F5.6 vs iso 200 f8 to get smae shutter speed still going
to go in favor of the FF for less noise
sionce you don't know who is the stupid one let me remind you, its you!I don't know who is the stupid one but I'm sure not the one. You canif you are going to call someone stupid at least have the brains to
do it to an actual stupid person like say you
be as stupid as the other poster who I don't even care to respond
anymore or try to be smart like, say me.
--
sparkling elk
Leading Member
crop FF:
why not a universal 1.3 ?
imagine the markIII without grip with the speed of the 50D.
-> and of course 12mp !
i would find it much better than the 5DII.
why not a universal 1.3 ?
imagine the markIII without grip with the speed of the 50D.
-> and of course 12mp !
i would find it much better than the 5DII.
Chikubi
Senior Member
As someone who went from a 40D to a D3, I just have to laugh at this. Even if I have to stop down 1 1/3 to get the same DOF and bump up the ISO to keep the same shutter speed, so what? I've still got close to a 2/3 stop advantage left noise-wise over the 40D I had. And it's not even a Canon/Nikon thing; 5D2 shows similar results to the D3. It's such an advantage in fact, I had to really force myself to completely rethink how I apply ISO when I shoot.
I also guarantee you Carl that for any given ISO, I can pull shots from my catalog shot @ f2.8 and others at f8 or even f22, and there is no, none, I mean zilch, increase in noise at the smaller apertures. Diffraction effects yes perhaps, but not sensor-related noise.
Now I can spend a little more time to answer you. First congratulations to you for you nice camera. I never used D3 and don’t know if it has 2 stops noise advantage over 40D. I’ll take your words for it since you have both. However my intention was to compare only cameras from the same mfg (Canon) with the same generation sensors, i.e. 5D vs. 30D or 5DII vs. 50D. The 1 1/3 stop noise advantage of the ff versions disappear when you need to stop them down for the comparable DOF.
Second I like to congratulate you that you seem to understand the loss of one top of light when you need to stop down for the DOF. It’s a very straightforward concept but seems so hard for a few to understand. Or it’s just that people are in denial and don’t want to believe something goes against their full frame fantasy.
The last comment is no single camera can do everything better than all other cameras. Again D3 is probably a great camera but ny 50D certainly can do many things D3 cannot do or cannot do as well. Will I buy the D3 if I can start over again? The answer is probably still no.
Second I like to congratulate you that you seem to understand the loss of one top of light when you need to stop down for the DOF. It’s a very straightforward concept but seems so hard for a few to understand. Or it’s just that people are in denial and don’t want to believe something goes against their full frame fantasy.
The last comment is no single camera can do everything better than all other cameras. Again D3 is probably a great camera but ny 50D certainly can do many things D3 cannot do or cannot do as well. Will I buy the D3 if I can start over again? The answer is probably still no.
Vibrio
Senior Member
with hyperfocal distances and wide angle lenses its not going to make a huge amount of difference anyway.
strawman_John
Leading Member
Sorry Carl you are still wrong.
1 the pixel size
2 The amount of light the lens transmits, aperture
3 Time, the length of time the shutter is open.
4 The effective light gathering ability of the micro lenses and sensor
So for the same ISO and subject being photographed and a given sensor technology step, if you stop down the full frame camera lens more, you increase the time the shutter is open. So the full frame camera still has the advantage as due to its larger pixel area it is capturing more photon's of light. i.e .it has a bigger signal.
Now if you kept the exposure time the same for both camera, then yes the number of photon's per mm the lens is allowing through falls if you stop the lens down, and so you have to trade off the lower number of photons per unit time and the different pixel areas.
So yes if you keep the shutter speed equal you pump up the ISO so the noise measured will rise. But remember keep the ISO the same and you get the lower noise and equal depth of field with the full frame camera.
I will now try and explain what you are forgetting. There is another variable when collecting light, and one that is very important on a camera, time. The sensor capture photon's and the number each pixels captures from a given light source depends on
1 the pixel size
2 The amount of light the lens transmits, aperture
3 Time, the length of time the shutter is open.
4 The effective light gathering ability of the micro lenses and sensor
So for the same ISO and subject being photographed and a given sensor technology step, if you stop down the full frame camera lens more, you increase the time the shutter is open. So the full frame camera still has the advantage as due to its larger pixel area it is capturing more photon's of light. i.e .it has a bigger signal.
Now if you kept the exposure time the same for both camera, then yes the number of photon's per mm the lens is allowing through falls if you stop the lens down, and so you have to trade off the lower number of photons per unit time and the different pixel areas.
So yes if you keep the shutter speed equal you pump up the ISO so the noise measured will rise. But remember keep the ISO the same and you get the lower noise and equal depth of field with the full frame camera.
True, but are we talking of all other cameras.
Care to give some examples, I cannot think of any except the D3 does not drive Canon lenses as well. Apart from that the D3 has better AF, at worst equal real world resolution, lower high ISO noise, greater dynamic range. Now of course the D3 costs a lot more and then buying lenses to match its capability will not be low cost.....
The above looks like the point you keep on refusing to accept.
Read that bit again Carl.
Your summary is correct imo
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum