Reading mode: Light Dark

Full Frame the proof is in the details:

Go to last post
I am a BIG fan of FF,however the glass in front of the sensor makes more difference.
Or better put,the gLass in front.
--
The manual is there to be read,not for toilet paper.
 
Someone said squirrels?

Camera Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture f/11.0
Focal Length 840 mm
ISO Speed 2000



Batter UP!
 
All these silly comparisons do is open the same can of worms again, and when the thread hits 150 posts nobody's opinion has changed. Both will still defend their stance till the cows come home.

I'm one of the FF advocates but I can also be objective about this.

Fact: At low ISO with a world class lens at optimum apertures on a sturdy tripod the 7D can "for all practical purposes" match a 5D2 for pure captured detail. When MP counts are similar, sensor size doesn't matter as much as it used to assuming the lens is capable of delivering detail to both. So if neither format is lens limited both will deliver similar detail levels. If you can afford the best glass, both are so close the difference is trivial.

Fact: From the statement above, the 5D2 is lens limited alot less often than the 7D is. This means the 5D2 is potentially able to capture more detail with a wider range of optics. This includes prime lenses at large apertures, probably 95% of the zoom lenses out there, and adapted 3rd party optics for specialty use. Simply put, there are alot more lenses that will be 'sharp' on the FF sensor than on the pixel-dense APS-C sensor. The 7D needs better glass than the 5D2 for similar results...can you afford this glass? That's a real world circumstance often not mentioned.

Fact: If you are focal length limited, the 7D is capable of capturing more detail than the 5D2 with the same lens. The 7D can deliver better IQ in this scenario.

Fact: Because of FF's inherent thin DOF advantage, it can deliver images the 7D cannot, especially at wider angles. Both cameras can be stopped down for more DOF, but you can't get less. Physics can't be overcome here. In this scenario, the FF sensor can deliver better IQ.

Fact: Because of APS-C's inherent greater DOF advantage, it can deliver more DOF than FF if you need it. For macro work this can be desired. If you need more DOF for macro, the 7D can potentially deliver better IQ.

Fact: FF sensors have better high ISO performance for a given generation. If you frequently work at ISO 1600 and above, there is an advantage to working with the larger sensor. If you need high ISO, the 5D2 can potentially deliver better IQ.

Fact: Because FF sensors have lower noise and better dynamic range their images can often be manipulated more without degrading image quality. If you frequently stretch your files to the max when processing, the 5D2 can potentially deliver better IQ.

Fact: Neither format is the best tool for all types of photography.

--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
 
LOL There's lots more squirrels here if you want them! :)

I for one would like to see a 2000 ISO photo of a similar subject as mine. Doesn't have to be with a 600mm either. Reason I ask is I own a 1D IV (a great camera) but I would like to invest in another fast action camera without investing in a 1D series again. I'm not sure if the D7 would cut it at 2000 ISO so if anyone has 7D photos in the ISO 2000 range, I'd like to view them.

Regards
 
I can't ever remember anyone saying APS-C had an IQ advantage, other than those who are focal length limited (on the tele end), and need to crop. Oh, and those who need higher fps for telephoto work. Oh, and those who can't (or don't want) to spend FF money.

You talk a good fight, but it take two to tango, and I don't see anyone arguing with you. What's the point?

SB
 
Calm down!!! I support all sensor formats, here is one from my old d300





--
ershotz
 
As i said above,i am a big fan for FF,my 5DII is stunning in landscapes,low-light,indoor,events,etc.....but i am seriously considering getting a 7D to accompany my 5DII for birding and some macros.

My 200 2.8L prime would be a 320mm 2.8L.My 400 5.6 would be 1 640 5.6.And a lens like that costs some serious cash.Also in macro situations i often use the extreme f/45 on my Sigma macro to get the desired DOF,an APS-C sensor would help.

So there is no clear answer to FF or APS-C.It depends on the type of shooting.But if you are going to invest some money into photography,first get some gLass,then worry about the camera.
--
The manual is there to be read,not for toilet paper.
 
Ershotz - said:
apparently Faintandfuzzy's is not sure about it he claims that APS-C is better?, this is only a format that the camera makers can make more Money from us, and we continue to let them.
Click to expand...
It's thanks to the bread-and-butter APS-C market that the camera manufacturers can pursue FF. FF sensors are still a lot more expensive to make, and they sell at a fraction of the rate that APS-C cameras do. If camera makers didn't have APS-C cameras to make money from us, they'd have even less R&D money to put into FF. Camera manufacturers can survive with just APS-C cameras. But they probably couldn't survive on just FF cameras. So before you knock the camera makers for making money from APS-C format, consider the ramifications of not making that money.
 
Nice photos with fine details from one of the best FF cameras 1Ds2 that still dwarfs today's Canon APS-C as old 5D1 still beats Canon APS-C in portraiture and I can say also landscapes.

Here is the famous landscape photog Hans Kruse said and he compared 7D against 1Ds3,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=37904249

I never use the 7D for landscapes since the details are not there as on the 1Ds mkIII. The 1Ds mkIII simply renders a nicer picture. You may not need it, but when I have both cameras I used the one best suited for the given task.

7D zealots used to argue 7D can match to FF 5D2. Then retreat to only in print by arguing they cannot see difference. Most people only print a very small portion of photos while leave vast majority in hard drives. We can see obvious difference between 7D and 5D2 at pixel 3000 wide and above. Many today have at least 21" or even 30" monitor. In my own experience I can see noticeable difference when print to 30x20" prints between my 60D and 5D1 no mention 5D2. Moreover their experiences and satisfaction levels are not necessary mine and others. It means something when so many people who own and experience both FF and APS-C say FF is obvious better in IQ. It means something when overwhelming professionals use FF rather APS-C in their landscape and portraiture work.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Ershotz - said:
Larger Sensors produce more detail, the proof is in the captures.
Click to expand...
A larger sensor, in and of itself, does not produce more detail. And the only real proof is controlled lab tests.

1Ds MKIII:



5D:



7D:



1Ds MKIII:



5D:



7D:



As you can see, the level of detail has more to do with megapixels than the size of the sensor. The 5D, which has only 12mp, doesn't resolve as much detail as the 7D which has 18mp, even though the 5D has a larger sensor. Therefore, just having a larger sensor does not produce more detail. And the APS-C 7D is neck and neck with the FF 1Ds MKIII. In real world viewing, you'd never be able to discern any difference in how much detail is produced.

I shoot with a 5D and a 60D, and the 60D wins for detail simply because its 18mp sensor out-muscles the 5D's 12mp sensor. You have more pixels per unit of space, therefore you can record more detail for that given space. There's no hocus-pocus here.
 
I have the MKIII and I invested in the 7D. You will be better off buying a used MKIII than a new 7D. You will be very dissapointed if low noise at high ISO is what you want from the 7D. I don't do ISO 2000 on the 7D any more.

Of course it's much better than the 40D when it comes to noise ( I upgraded for second / back body), but not near the 1D MKIII / MKIV.

Canon simply cramped too many MPX in an APS-C sensor.

Samples below at ISO 1,600




Apewithacamera said:
LOL There's lots more squirrels here if you want them! :)

I for one would like to see a 2000 ISO photo of a similar subject as mine. Doesn't have to be with a 600mm either. Reason I ask is I own a 1D IV (a great camera) but I would like to invest in another fast action camera without investing in a 1D series again. I'm not sure if the D7 would cut it at 2000 ISO so if anyone has 7D photos in the ISO 2000 range, I'd like to view them.

Regards
Click to expand...
 
Oh, one with the MKIII @ ISO 2000


jhal said:
I have the MKIII and I invested in the 7D. You will be better off buying a used MKIII than a new 7D. You will be very dissapointed if low noise at high ISO is what you want from the 7D. I don't do ISO 2000 on the 7D any more.

Of course it's much better than the 40D when it comes to noise ( I upgraded for second / back body), but not near the 1D MKIII / MKIV.

Canon simply cramped too many MPX in an APS-C sensor.

Samples below at ISO 1,600




Apewithacamera said:
LOL There's lots more squirrels here if you want them! :)

I for one would like to see a 2000 ISO photo of a similar subject as mine. Doesn't have to be with a 600mm either. Reason I ask is I own a 1D IV (a great camera) but I would like to invest in another fast action camera without investing in a 1D series again. I'm not sure if the D7 would cut it at 2000 ISO so if anyone has 7D photos in the ISO 2000 range, I'd like to view them.

Regards
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
T3 said:
Ershotz - said:
Larger Sensors produce more detail, the proof is in the captures.
Click to expand...
A larger sensor, in and of itself, does not produce more detail. And the only real proof is controlled lab tests.
Click to expand...
Funny enough, your own links prove you wrong, look at the numbers:
T3 said:
1Ds MKIII:



7D:

Click to expand...
T3 said:
As you can see, the level of detail has more to do with megapixels than the size of the sensor.
Click to expand...
We see the opposite. Look at the contrast, as well, near the 24 marking, for example.
T3 said:
The 5D, which has only 12mp, doesn't resolve as much detail as the 7D which has 18mp, even though the 5D has a larger sensor. Therefore, just having a larger sensor does not produce more detail. And the APS-C 7D is neck and neck with the FF 1Ds MKIII. In real world viewing, you'd never be able to discern any difference in how much detail is produced.

I shoot with a 5D and a 60D, and the 60D wins for detail simply because its 18mp sensor out-muscles the 5D's 12mp sensor.
Click to expand...
Actually, your link proves that wrong. The 5D/7D comparison is a more complex question that you think. With wide open primes, the 5D will win. With very sharp lenses stopped down, the 7D will win.
T3 said:
You have more pixels per unit of space, therefore you can record more detail for that given space. There's no hocus-pocus here.
Click to expand...
Only if there is more detail . There are several factors: the enlargement 1.6x, the lens resolution, and the pixel density. You are forgetting two out of three.
 
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