Full Frame the proof is in the details:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

Here are four crops. The left two are from DPR's 1Ds mkII review. The right two are from DPR's 7D review. I didn't do anything to them. All I did was scale the 1Ds mkII test image up slightly to match the 7D test image using bicubic sharper.

Tell me again how FF captures more detail and how lenses on FF are always sharper, and of course how contrast and color and blacks and whites are always better on FF.

ROTFLMAO!

Click to expand...

Nice try. I guess you found out how stupid this is and deleted the file. You took JPEG images, and n 2005, Canon had very soft default processing.

Here is what more scientific minded people found out:

IR about the 5DII:

The uncorrected resolution figures are 1938 line widths per picture height in the horizontal direction (corresponding to the vertically-oriented edge), and 1630 along the vertical axis (corresponding to the horizontally-oriented edge), for a combined average of 1784 LW/PH. Correcting to a "standardized" sharpening with a one-pixel radius increases this number a lot, to an average of 2997 LW/PH. The relatively low (for the camera's megapixel count) uncorrected numbers and the large jump when corrected for standard sharpening point to very conservative in-camera sharpening, a characteristic of Canon SLRs.

IR about the 7D:

The uncorrected resolution figures are 2,208 line widths per picture height in the horizontal direction (corresponding to the vertically-oriented edge), and 2,142 lines along the vertical axis (corresponding to the horizontally-oriented edge), for a combined average of 2,175 LW/PH. Correcting to a "standardized" sharpening with a one-pixel radius reduced the resolution score by only a bit, for an average of 2,134 LW/PH. The numbers are somewhat lower than we'd expect for an 18-megapixel APS-C SLR, but still good.

Get it? FF: 2997. 7D: 2134.

I asked you to post some of your own images up on the forum, but all you can do is find someone elses images to post, and then claim that crop sensors are as good as FF, post something real not something taken by some one else that you manipulated, you live in a fantasy land, crop sensor as good as FF, I could post a thousand images with My 1ds Mark III that will smoke any crap image from your 7d, The problem here is that you aren't able to produce any of your own images as proof of IQ!!!

again post something or blow off!!

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep. And if you post something different but comparable or better, one or both of the following will occur:

A) They will say it's not as good even if it's obviously better. If you don't nail them down with shots from the same exact scene so there's no wiggle room, they will never admit the obvious.

B) They will say the comparison is not fair for some stupid reason or another. It's not "an equivalent image" because you shot at f/2 instead of f/2.37456. Or maybe you were too close or too far away or their shot, which was proof positive of FF superiority before you posted yours, all of a sudden isn't their best and was compromised some how.

You can't win against the bias we see from some members in this forum. Nothing short of meeting them in person, sitting them down in front of large prints and monitors, forcing them to label the images, and then showing them how wrong they were will put even the slightest dent into their bias. And even if you did all of that they would likely come up with some excuse to believe what they want.

There are some people who are scientifically minded and who follow the evidence to the truth. And there are some who don't. Guess who we're dealing with.

photog7320 said:

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...

No real difference. But notice someone claimed the FF side was vastly better. Next time swap the labels, let them go on and on about how much better the FF side is, then reveal the truth just to shake them up a bit.

The placebo effect is a powerful thing my friend.

Click to expand...

--
ershotz

Peter 13 said:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

Here are four crops. The left two are from DPR's 1Ds mkII review. The right two are from DPR's 7D review. I didn't do anything to them. All I did was scale the 1Ds mkII test image up slightly to match the 7D test image using bicubic sharper.

Tell me again how FF captures more detail and how lenses on FF are always sharper, and of course how contrast and color and blacks and whites are always better on FF.

ROTFLMAO!

Click to expand...

Nice try. I guess you found out how stupid this is and deleted the file.

Click to expand...

The link got messed up while I was editing. That's why there's a "link corrected" post.

Peter 13 said:

You took JPEG images, and n 2005, Canon had very soft default processing.

Click to expand...

There's detail in the 7D shot that's not in the 1Ds mkII shot. Sorry, but the difference is due to more than sharpening. Now I'll be the first to point out that there could be another factor at play, even in a studio test executed by someone as careful as DPR. In fact I would look for that given how close these sensors are in MP and in resolution results in DPR's tests.

But that just goes to show that anything, even the smallest variation in shooting technique, is a larger factor in IQ than a choice between these two sensors.

Peter 13 said:

Get it? FF: 2997. 7D: 2134.

Click to expand...

LOL! You're quoting MTF50 numbers generated using Imatest. By just sharpening either file before feeding it to Imatest I could double those values. Don't quote tests you have no experience with and therefore do not understand.

Ershotz - said:

I asked you to post some of your own images up on the forum, but all you can do is find someone elses images to post, and then claim that crop sensors are as good as FF, post something real not something taken by some one else that you manipulated, you live in a fantasy land, crop sensor as good as FF, I could post a thousand images with My 1ds Mark III that will smoke any crap image from your 7d, The problem here is that you aren't able to produce any of your own images as proof of IQ!!!

again post something or blow off!!

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep. And if you post something different but comparable or better, one or both of the following will occur:

A) They will say it's not as good even if it's obviously better. If you don't nail them down with shots from the same exact scene so there's no wiggle room, they will never admit the obvious.

B) They will say the comparison is not fair for some stupid reason or another. It's not "an equivalent image" because you shot at f/2 instead of f/2.37456. Or maybe you were too close or too far away or their shot, which was proof positive of FF superiority before you posted yours, all of a sudden isn't their best and was compromised some how.

You can't win against the bias we see from some members in this forum. Nothing short of meeting them in person, sitting them down in front of large prints and monitors, forcing them to label the images, and then showing them how wrong they were will put even the slightest dent into their bias. And even if you did all of that they would likely come up with some excuse to believe what they want.

There are some people who are scientifically minded and who follow the evidence to the truth. And there are some who don't. Guess who we're dealing with.

Ershotz - said:

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...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

the images of the rocks is horrible to begin with there is no detail in either of them, it is probable that you took them with a digi camera, I have an old Brownie camera on my shelf that I bought for 2 bucks that could out perform either of those two images.

Ershotz - said:

Ershotz - said:

No real difference. But notice someone claimed the FF side was vastly better. Next time swap the labels, let them go on and on about how much better the FF side is, then reveal the truth just to shake them up a bit.

The placebo effect is a powerful thing my friend.

Click to expand...

--
ershotz

Click to expand...

--
ershotz

Ershotz - said:

I asked you to post some of your own images up on the forum,

Click to expand...

And I posted side by side samples from a carefully controlled studio test. That tells us a lot more than one off samples with no comparison.

Ershotz - said:

post something real not something taken by some one else that you manipulated,

Click to expand...

The crops are not manipulated. Download the full files yourself.

Ershotz - said:

I could post a thousand images with My 1ds Mark III that will smoke any crap image from your 7d,

Click to expand...

And here's why I refuse to post personal work in crap threads like this: even if I posted an image that had far better IQ, you would deny it and verbally tear it apart. I know this game. The only way to put you in your place is to post carefully controlled, side by side tests.

The fact that you are flipping out about the side by side comparison, rather than discussing it like an adult, shows that you know the truth even though you stubbornly refuse to admit it.

Ershotz - said:

again post something or blow off!!

Click to expand...

I did post something. You just can't handle it because it shatters your tiny, ignorant world view.

again you have no faith in your own work, or you would be able to post something, afraid of rejection, look I get it you are all talk and no Images.

again so you posted something that you shot? where is it?
--
ershotz

ARShutterbug said:

The larger the canvas, the further people stand from it.

Click to expand...

Denizens of this forum have a habit of saying that, and it leads me to wonder how often they actually attend gallery shows and really observe how people interact with photographic art. It would appear that you'd be surprised just how often I watch visitors to a gallery stand mere inches away from one of my pieces that's been printed at 36"x24" (or larger), but it's absolutely a common occurrence. People like to get close to see fine detail as long as that detail exists .

--
'Passion will make you crazy, but is there any other way to live?' —Kara Saun

http://www.oqlus.com/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DIMAGING.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2IMAGING.HTM

7D: Though we normally judge prints from JPEG for this section, we were curious how RAW images would look, and since the Canon 7D is a professional camera, we first took a brief look at ISO 100 RAW. We found the best results through DPP at low ISOs with noise reduction turned off, sharpening set to zero, and then using unsharp masking after the fact in Photoshop, with a radius of 0.3 pixels and strength of 400%. The results were pretty phenomenal when printed at 20x30 inches. Crisp is indeed the correct word.

Getting back to the JPEGs, the Canon 7D at ISO 100 can produce a very good 20x30-inch print. It's a little softer than the tack-sharp image we got from RAW, but it can also be sharpened for better results.

The same is true from ISO 200, 400, and 800, each setting outputting a good quality 20x30-inch print suitable for wall display. Incredible!

5D2: We kept running out of superlatives to describe the Canon 5D Mark II's printed output: These are some of the cleanest, highest-quality images we've seen yet from a digital camera. In-camera JPEGs are a little soft looking, due in part to conservative in-camera sharpening, but likely also in part to noise-reduction processing, even at low ISO settings. Adobe Camera Raw (our default RAW converter, due to its wide availability and very broad support for different camera models) reveals significantly more fine detail, particularly in areas of subtle subject contrast. Sharpening the in-camera JPEGs helps a little, but for best results doing that, you'd need to first dial down the sharpening that the Canon 5D Mark II applies to its JPEG files: At the default setting, it tends to leave slight halos around contrasting objects, coarsening the detail somewhat and making it difficult for post-processing to extract any more.

Working from RAW files, we thought that 24x36 inch prints would be very acceptable for viewing at any sort of normal distance: We could see softness in them when we looked at them really closely, but at normal viewing distances of anything greater than a foot or so, they looked crisp and highly detailed. The in-camera JPEGs looked OK printed at 24x36, but were a little soft: Fine for wall display if people wouldn't view them too closely, but soft-looking at close viewing distances.

In both case, stopped down Sigma 70mm Macro lens was used.

Please, if you discovered why FF is so much better than APS-C just keep it to yourself and shoot great IQ pics (like i do).

You should have known that these kind of threads will start a riot like they always do on forums. These findings are better to be shared with close friends / photog buddies.

If you are so convinced that black is black there's always someone that thinks it is white. Cheer up, take pics cuz life's short.

Marcus

--
Making a moment last forever

battle royale brewing over here...

I better stay out...

my opinion on FF vs crop?

What is FF? What is crop?

I know nothing...I only shoot pictures.

Differences in IQ?

What is IQ?

As far as I am concerned the best image I got from my recent Euro vacation was from a point and shoot...does that prove the G10 is better than the 7D in IQ? Hmmm!...so I shouldn't be concerned with FF vs crop whatever that may be...

from my G10...



sensor size of the G10? so small...I need a microscope...

Cheers!

Danny Tuason

--



http://www.pbase.com/dtuason

When people lose everything and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it.

~ Gerald Celente

It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

~ Henry Ford

ARShutterbug said:

The larger the canvas, the further people stand from it. It's not normal to put one's face up to the screen and count pixels. At a normal viewing distance, high resolution becomes less important, regardless of the size of the canvas.

Click to expand...

This is a widespread misunderstanding.

In the days of 35mm film, quality did not permit close viewing. But the photographic world has moved, and what was good enough before has been surpassed by now.

A picture that contains enough details to enable the viewer to get close and scrutinize detail that is not visible when viewed from a distance, contains another dimension. And what is wrong with walking up to an image in order to enjoy the minutest detail?

Conclusion: There is no such thing as a "normal" viewing distance.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Osiris Ani said:

People like to get close to see fine detail as long as that detail exists .

Click to expand...

Yes, precisely .

A picture that carries such detail is a better picture than one that does not carry it, provided that the content itself is of a similar standard.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Faintandfuzzy said:

The FF zealots won't like the outcome. Of couse, non of the FF zealots in this thread sell any work anyway.

Click to expand...

I guess that most of the real FF zealots do not read this forum. Instead they are busy taking pictures with their FF cameras and selling them.

Per Inge Oestmoen

7DVancouverite said:

You mean the WAY too warm consumer Television screens...that for the most part cannot be colour corrected, and are a maximum 1920 pixels on the long end???

Click to expand...

I mean every screen that is capable of showing the difference. On my 27" color corrected screen here, the difference is magnificent.

It will not take long before 4000-pixel screens hanging on the wall become the norm, and these screens are goint to show the differences mercilessly. I am looking forward to that.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

Faintandfuzzy said:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=913638

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

photog7320 said:

No real difference. But notice someone claimed the FF side was vastly better. Next time swap the labels, let them go on and on about how much better the FF side is, then reveal the truth just to shake them up a bit.

Click to expand...

The level of denial seen in this discussion is simply astonishing.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Peter 13 said:

Ph.D. in math here, research mathematician. Who I am dealing with?

Click to expand...

I think it is symptomatic that those who possess the best understanding of modern digital photography, are people who understand the physics behind the new imaging processes.

You are talking to an audience which contains people for whom a picture is nothing but the content, these are completely uninterested in the scientific principles behind and do not appreciate differences because they do not know why these differences are there.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Peter 13 said:

Per Inge Oestmoen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter 13 said:

No, they are not (not all of them). Even the newest 1D body (1D4) has more noise and pretty much the same DR up to ISO 1600 as the older and much cheaper 5D2. How they compare pixel per pixel is irrelevant (they are about the same) but on image level, the 5D2 wins overall. The 1D series have some improvements around the sensor, etc. but the 1D4 is a crop body still, and those improvements cannot compensate for that. On the top of that, the 5DII has more resolution. Of course, there is the problem with banding when needed to lift shadows, etc.

Click to expand...

Peter 13 said:

The 1DIII falls far behind the 5DII in IQ.

Click to expand...

The banding in the shadows that shows up when a 5D II file is pressed, indicates precisely the shortcomings of "prosumer" grade Full Frame. That phenomenon is absent in the 1D-series cameras, you have more leeway before such ugly artifacts appear.

As to the image quality of the 1D III versus the 5D, there are several things to consider. The very amount of information in the 5D file means that you can make far bigger enlargements from it as compared to a file from the 1D III where the frame is filled to the same extent. Were it not so, the 5D II would be truly bad, and we all know that it is absolutely not - in the Canon line up it is second only to the 1Ds III. However, that does not mean that the sensor or pixel quality as such is higher in the 5D II. I still maintain that the 1D-series' output offers a relatively better quality.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

You're running a strawman argument. The problem is related to when you said something about "any crap image from your 7d" when asking for an example. This indicates that any example from a 7D is "crap" to you, which is also how you seem to have treated me. Oddly enough, if you'd just said that bigger was better and shut up about the rest, we'd probably be talking about why we want a new camera. Instead, you're trying to say that anything that's not full-frame is no good, while also seemingly ignoring the fact that 35-mm is the one of the smaller camera formats. I noticed that you didn't provide examples of where a large-sensor dSLR is better than a camera with a smaller APS-C sensor or something bigger. Where are your high-sensitivity examples?

The APS-C advantage, as you put it, is related to cost, size, and the field-of-view crop factor when using telephoto focal lengths. The biggest issue is cost, meaning that it has been cheaper to provide APS-C sensors than to make full-frame sensors for everybody. Until that changes, APS-C will have an advantage because it's cheaper and does just as well for most things as more expensive sensors. When somebody can make a £1,000 full-frame dSLR, there won't be much argument because cost generally takes priority over FOVCF and an increase in camera body size. APS-C production will stop, and all dSLRs will go full-frame. I'm not going to be too hopeful about that happening any time soon, but in the meantime, the improved APS-C sensors offer image quality that should remain more than acceptable for many buyers.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug

Faintandfuzzy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ugly place Dpreview...personal attacks, self proclaimed experts...on and on...This is just another example. Whatever happened to the place we used to know? Handful of people ruining the experience....shame

Grant said:

Faintandfuzzy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ugly place Dpreview...personal attacks, self proclaimed experts...on and on...This is just another example. Whatever happened to the place we used to know? Handful of people ruining the experience....shame

Click to expand...

More like a handful of people who have become sick and tired of those whose who make claims, but can't back it up. Then when some of us question them, and provided photographic evidence they are wrong.....they launch into an offensive instead of showing us the evidence they have. It quickly becomes clear they have none. Instead of providing it, they criticize the work of others in an attempt to change the topic.

Some of them even go as far as sending threatening emails to us when we post a photographic test that disagrees with their opinions. Truly bizarre behavior