Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons? Locked

Started May 21, 2014 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Elaboration on sharpness difference (its mostly lens related)

Timbukto wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

The FF advantage is *mostly* in the normal range to short tele portrait range of lenses. Once you go tele to super tele, the size/weight/cost savings of shooting crop is compelling *especially* when you factor in that shooting a wider f2.8 with crop may have autofocus benefits over shooting a more tele f4 on FF!

Disagreed. Canon and Nikon super-tele lenses are best used on their respective FF cameras as we see in sport venues and wildlife. Crop cameras only advantage (except operation advantage in size/weight/cost) is pixel density (so-called more 'reach') when you don't have a longer enough lens or unable to move closer.

The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens is *amazing* from the 100% crops I've seen, however its also a big/heavy lens. However it is one zoom lens that somehow *seriously* enables a lot of the 'fast' quality normal focal ranges on APS-C.

So now let's check closely on the two best APS-C lenses. I also own one of them as you, EF-M 22/2.0 STM that is excellent.

DPR 24-70L/2.8 II on 5D2 vs Sigma 18-35/1.8 on 7D

24-70L/2.8 II is still (noticeably) better on 5D2 (or 6D/5D3) than Sigma 18-35/1.8 on 7D (or 60D/70D), and wider and longer in rage 24-70mm vs FF eq 29-56mm from sigma lens at similar FF eq max aperture F2.8.

DXO 40/2.8 on 6D vs 35/2.0 IS on 6D vs 22/2.0 on EOS-M

16 vs 18 vs 13 mpix. Or check Measurement | Sharpness | FieldMap, as I said earlier you even don't need to stop down to FF eq aperture but just one stop F2.8 in this case, both 40/2.8 STM and 35/2.0 IS @F2.8 on 6D is already sharper than EF-M 22/2.0 @F2.0 on EF-M from edge to edge and maintain the lead from there.

It's really an upperhill battle for a crop camera to match or even better than a FF camera - must with a way better lens (most times it's virtually impossible to design such lens) and much more amount of pixels (a lesser factor than former). Sigma 18-35/1.8 is still inferior to Canon 24-70L/2.8 II and I can say not even better than Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. The same true EF-M 22/2.0 is not better than 40/2.8 STM and 35/2.0 IS. There are simply impossible to design such FF eq lenses against Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Otus 55/1.4 or two Canon F2.8 zoom with the same FL range and FF eq max aperture.

Take a look at the 40mm f2.8 vs 22mm f2 with the sharpness profile graphs. Realize that for the most part the 6D has a pretty weak AA filter (DxoMark measurements change A LOT over AA filter differences, something that to the human eye amounts to very little except +/- 5 in USM sharpening in LR btw).

Here is the sharpness profile graphs. 40/2.8 on 6D is still sharper despite 22/2.0 STM is better designed than 40/2.8 - Number of lenses: 7 vs 6, Number of groups: 6 vs 4 and Diaphragm blades: 7 vs 7.

Compare for example the 5DMKII with a stronger AA filter yet slightly more MP...the performance inches even closer! Think about how *close* the performance is for almost equivalent DOF and low light capability for a lens that is on the *old* generation of Canon APS-C! Think about the size/cost/weight differences. Instead of PMP score open up the profiles for the two...for one orientation the 22mm f2 on the same old 18MP APS-C sensor actually beats it in the center, but granted *overall* the 6D + 40mm f2.8 is the overall winner for respective apertures (f2 vs f2.8 or f2.8 vs f4, etc).

Both Canon FF and APS-C sensors are old designed. I used to own 40/2.8 STM and still own M 22/2.0 STM and EOS-M. Although latter is higher in lens spec (as said above), 40/2.8 on 5D2/5D3 still beats 22/2.0 on EOS-M in sharpness, no question about. 22/2.0 is a better designed lens but not better enough to beat 40/2.8 on FF.

However ask yourself this...how do you think the 22mm f2 on a 24MP APS-C AAless sensor would do? Based on what I've seen of DxOMark measurements it would heavily rule in favor of the 24MP APS-C.

Then we should compare 24mp APS-C vs 24mp FF sensor, both without AA filter.

Now all of that really doesn't matter as I just judge lenses at being 'good' enough and the 22mm f2 to me is certainly good enough where as the 18MP APS-C sensor to me is not. But it is easy to see that a lens so capable as the 22mm f2 is absolutely perfect on APS-C sized sensor, is capable of being extremely small...and if it had a 24MP Exmor would be just about one of the *best* 35mm f3.2 capable systems there is.

Sure I am sure 22/2.0 is good enough and APS-C or even mFT is good enough for many if not most people. Nevertheless FF with respective lenses are just better but you might not need.

Also I still see plenty of wildlife photogs shooting APS-C with tele's due to huge considerations in weight, size, and cost.

Sure as some mFT owners arguing their Panny 100-300/4.0-5.6 zoom is good enough why someone needs to purchase super expensive and heavy EF 200-400L/4.0 1.4x TC or 600L? But then ask how many PJs use APS-C at Sochi winter Olympic game, and how many will be at next month's FIFA WorldCup? I see serious wildlife photog such as Andy Rouse still use FF (D4 -> 1DX).  Everyone has different expectation and sense of satisfaction.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow