Reading mode: Light Dark

Full Frame the proof is in the details:

Go to last post
You're wasting time here rather directly dispute on OP's topic or answer my challenge. Check in the reality that why FF overwhelmingly used in studios, top magazines, fashion salons, landscapes... to get a better idea. If you naively believe your 60D photos can challenge to those real professionals' work from FF bodies, I honestly advice you to think twice.

No need to continue as you are not debating on the OP topic. You should start a new thread to sell your points why gear is not matter, LOL.
T3 said:
LOL. You are one crazy, obsessed manchild!!!

Sadly, I think you're a perfect example of what's wrong with photography these days.
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Ershotz - said:
MAC said:
you don't have portrait primes for half body shots

100L and 50 f1.4 siggy - then you would notice people shots

btw - the afgan shot was shot with a Full Frame Camera LOL
Click to expand...
Shot in 1984 and I think it out performs most of the crop sensors out there!
--
ershotz
Click to expand...
agree, film at base iso is very good - and the 35 mm framers built the focal lengths and the BEST lprime lenses for FF cameras.

the L prime lenses on crop -- are 1.6 times deeper dof and longer and less sharp so those eyes of the afgan girl would not be sharp at hi iso and closeup on a crop camera-- crop is not a good focal length, dof, sharpness, low noise at hi iso formula for shooting people with great portrait primes
 
T3 said:
T3 said:
How the images look on good monitors is as important, maybe even more. Less than 0.1% of my images get printed. Do not tell me that you print more. The differences are very real on a 24" monitor.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
T3 said:
On a downsized image, you can see a difference? I can't.
Click to expand...
Of course, I can.
T3 said:
T3 said:
With what would you interchange a 5D image taken at 50mm, f/1.4?
Click to expand...
I use a 35/1.4L on the 1.6x bodies. Love it. Gives me a 56/1.4 equivalence.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. It gives you a very soft 56/2.2 lens. Considering microlens vignetting on both bodies, it is even worse.

But this thread is about images. Let us respect the OP. 5D2+135/2, wide open, default sharpening in LR, cropped:



And this is what human skin looks like, 100% crop:

 
great detail and shot btw
Ershotz - said:
here is another shot with the old 1DS Mark II -- Still out performs any crop sensor! just my point that image quality matters to the size of the larger photosites.





--
ershotz
Click to expand...
 
amobi said:
To the OP while I totally agreed with you on FF having advantage over crop camera but Faintandfuzzy and Carl are not the best candidates to argue in favor of crop cameras because they both are very bad photographers and they have no clue on how to process 7D file. You need to look at the images they constantly post to argue their point. It is just terrible.

They both are empty barrels. Like they said empty barrels make the most noise.
Click to expand...
LOL. Ya, I post samples...How horrible of me to back up my opinion with photos that prove my point. And oh, I'm so horrible....nearly booked solid for 2012 and half of 2013....yup, everyone must hate my work....LOL.

You're the one shooting blanks. You're just an ignorant blowhard....like always.

Oh, and while you're lying up a storm....feel free to post a link to my 7D comparison I made....ya know...the ones that equaled the 5D2. Man, if my 7D processing is so bad....then why do my processed 7D images equal the 5D2?

Man....you are truly a ****** aren't you.
 
now your cookin! That is a portrait L prime on FF! Well done!
 
....post the same image taken with the 7D so we can compare? This is normally what happens....a single photo from the FF, with no comparison shot.

Here's a direct comparison. No difference other than a slight difference at 100% on screen....that vanishes in print. Try, making a large print....16x24, or 20x30....and look at the print. I did....and exactly as I said.....where's the huge difference.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=913638
 
n/t
 
jhal said:
Look at APS-C camera prices and features today and compare that with 7-8 years ago. I think we get great value for money with the likes of the xxxD and xxD cameras.
Click to expand...
Well, the 1D IV performs far better in all respects than a 7D - which is not bad either. It is only that the larger sensor prevails when it comes to true and real life performance.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
T3 said:
I think that's the problem. People spend too much time pixel peeping images on their monitor. I guess it serves a purpose: to prove a point that there is a difference, if you view them under those conditions. But is that what photography is really about? Is anyone ever going to see the difference outside of those conditions?
Click to expand...
But increasingly these conditions are the typical ones in which images will be presented.

In a not-too-distant future we will have 80 inch screens on our walls. Then these differences will become even more striking.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
qianp2k said:
I actually can see noticeable difference between my 60D and 5D1 photos when view more than 2000 pixel wide on my 24" monitor. Everyone has different expectation and satisfaction level.
Click to expand...
I see clear difference between the 7D on one hand, and the 1D III and the 1D IV on the other. Both beat the 7D by a visible margin - unless there is a shortage of pixels due to the focal length being shorter than desirable.

If you fill the frame with the subject, the pro grade cameras win hands down. The 5D-series has too light build and no water sealing, and has not impressed me that much.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
T3 said:
qianp2k said:
They are not 100% size, can you post single one 100% 60D close-up portrait?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
T3 said:
LOLOLOL. You still don't get it, do you? You're stuck on 100% close-ups. No client has ever asked me, "Can I see a 100% close-up of my left cheek?" So even if there is a difference visible at 100% close-up, if that's the only place I can see the difference, then it doesn't hold much practical value in the real world. It's only something for photography equipment forum fans to obsess over.
Click to expand...
In the real world, more and more people are going to have 40" screens or larger hanging on their walls. These screens will show the differences mercilessly.

In the same way, in the days of film and slide projectors quality levels unacceptable today were great.

The world does not stand still, and tomorrow's presentation media like larger screens will make higher quality a requirement. People will want to see photos at 4000 pixels or more on very large monitors.

This is the real world!

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
T3 said:
Annie Leibovitz did a shoot of David Beckham for (I think it was) Vogue or Vanity Fair using just a Nikon D5000. It's typically the talent behind the camera that counts more than the actual camera used.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is however a completely moot point!

A highly talented photographer with a Full Frame EOS 1Ds III will make technically superior pictures as compared to a 7D (or 5D II) used by the same photographer.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
qianp2k said:
fantastic details and clarity.
Click to expand...
qianp2k said:
This is the reason why real landscape photog such as Stefan Foster and Hans Kruse, both members of this forum, use 1Ds3 rather 7D/60D in their professional work. That's reason why overwhelming top-tier portrait professionals use FF or even MF in their studios.
Click to expand...
Significantly, they also use the 1Ds III in preference to the 5D II. There is a reason for that.

If one does not want, or is unable to, shell out for a 1Ds III, then a 1D IV is a very good and mysteriously overlooked alternative.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
Canon made special efforts in its flagship professional lines. I actually see even better creamy look from 1D3 than 5D1 in portraits. RG photos vividly demo that.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068

I have seen many 7D airshow photos. Once I can fit airplanes into certain portion of frames, 10mp 1D3 wins hands down in clarity and natural sharpness over 18mp 7D, and 1D3 actually withstands cropping better. 7D only wins if planes are too far away then 1.6x crop will show its advantage.

This is from 60D with 400L/5.6 despite I applied NR you still see some grains



This is from 1D3 with 100-400L against similar background that clearly shows 1D3 creamier and smoother IQ.


Per Inge Oestmoen said:
qianp2k said:
I actually can see noticeable difference between my 60D and 5D1 photos when view more than 2000 pixel wide on my 24" monitor. Everyone has different expectation and satisfaction level.
Click to expand...
I see clear difference between the 7D on one hand, and the 1D III and the 1D IV on the other. Both beat the 7D by a visible margin - unless there is a shortage of pixels due to the focal length being shorter than desirable.

If you fill the frame with the subject, the pro grade cameras win hands down. The 5D-series has too light build and no water sealing, and has not impressed me that much.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
T3 said:
LOL. You are one crazy, obsessed manchild!!!

Sadly, I think you're a perfect example of what's wrong with photography these days.
Click to expand...
Your reasoning makes no sense, unless a high end camera like the 1Ds III in the hands of a very skilled photographer mysteriously leads to pictures worse in quality than a 60D or 7D in the hands of the same phtotographer!

We all agree that it takes very considerable skills in making pictures with great content . However, with a high-end camera and lenses of similar quality the pictures will also be techically superior.

So, what is better, pictures with great content and good technical quality or pictures with great content and superior technical quality?
  • I would like that question to be answered without cliches like "it is the picture that matters." That is true enough, but it is beside the point - which is that a very high technical level adds to the experience in all circumstances.
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
qianp2k said:
Canon made special efforts in its flagship professional lines. I actually see even better creamy look from 1D3 than 5D1 in portraits. RG photos vividly demo that.
Click to expand...
I know, and pixel for pixel the pro grade cameras in the 1D and 1Ds series are far superior to the XXXD and XXD cameras, and they are superior to the 5D-series. That will show up unless you are focal length limited.

But the manufacturer and the shop assistants will not tell the average customer about that, for fear that the customer will go to another shop instead. Also, there is far more profit involved in selling consumer grade cameras and lenses.

Of course, we would all like the 7D to be of the same quality as the 1Ds III, and the 5D to be as good as the 1Ds II also, but in the real world things are different.

But 7D is so far the best APS-C model ever made by Canon.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
....post the same image taken with the 7D so we can compare? This is normally what happens....a single photo from the FF, with no comparison shot.

Here's a direct comparison. No difference other than a slight difference at 100% on screen....that vanishes in print. Try, making a large print....16x24, or 20x30....and look at the print. I did....and exactly as I said.....where's the huge difference.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=913638
Click to expand...
Even at such a small size, the photo to the left is vastly superior, with better tonality and detail both in the rocks in the foreground and in the forest in the background.

This difference is truly striking! Huge indeed.

Imagine what the difference would be like when shown at a great size from a 40" monitor on the wall!

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norwayt
 
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