Can someone post 800, 1600 and 3200 ISO photos from 7D.......

Started Nov 25, 2009 | Discussions thread
Phil Hill Senior Member • Posts: 2,757
Where to begin?

Eugene Powers wrote:

Sorry, but this a total nonsense. 7D does not reduce lens resolution. In fact 7D uses the center part of the lens so you don't see everything from the edge where the resolution is lower. Resolution of the lens is measured by lines per mm
so no matter where you are n the lens surface it is still measured per mm.

Think of it as the rain measurement. No matter how big of the area volume per inch stays the same.

You’re mistaken about this. Yes, at 100% the resolution is exactly the same, and that's what you're probably thinking of. But all APS-C images require more magnification for a given print size, due to the smaller sensor. Just like film. The ratio of print size to sensor size determines the magnification, not the number of pixels. Remember, an optical image is projected on the sensor, and APS images require greater magnification for a given print size because the image projected onto the sensor is smaller. It would be the same if we were using APS film versus 35mm.

And yes, a growing number of APS lenses do have higher resolution, just as the lenses on some PS cameras are higher still. The 17 – 55 EF-S is an example that performs better on APS cameras than similar L lenses.

And then there are the lenses designed for Olympus 4/3 cameras that are known for higher resolution than traditional FF 35mm lenses. The greater magnification of the smaller 4/3 sensor demands it.

Also, the new APS-only Tamron 60mm outperforms any FF lens of similar focal length at f:2.0 that I've owned, including some of the best.

On top of that, the 5D2 has more than double the surface area to collect light. Again, physics come into play, giving an advantage to the full-frame sensor in terms of DR and reduced noise. More light = less noise, better color and cleaner images, all other things being equal.

Really, so by your statement 1Ds2 (FF 16mp) should be much better than 5D2 (FF 21mp) or 1DS (FF 11mp) should be much better than 1Ds2?

I'm at a loss here. Nowhere did I imply that. In the first place, all of those sensors have the same surface area. Second, I said all other things being equal, meaning similar technology.

Given similar technology, a larger sensor will definitely outperform a smaller one. Naturally, if you compare sensors from different generations (as in your examples), this might not always hold. But we were only discussing current models. And all of those sensors are the same size anyway.

Just because the benefits of full-frame sensors aren’t often realized in your photography (or mine), that doesn’t mean there are no benefits. In the film days (going back to the sixties) I had MF (2 1/4) gear, but I rarely used it, even though images were technically of higher quality. The reason was that for most of what I was shooting, the differences were not significant. But I also knew when a job did call for the big guns.

To see an example of where FF tends to beat APS-C, just find a local landscape photographer and ask him to show you some 20 x 24 (or larger) prints. It's easy to miss the subtleties when looking at 8-bit compressed JPEG images on the web, but you'll tend to notice it in the prints. This is why working landscape photographers typically prefer full-frame DSLRs.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow