"Full frame" versus APS-C for landscapes

Here are two images, one taken with my 7D2 and the other with my 6D of the same landscape using my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens. Both were taken at ISO 800, f/5.6; on the 7D2 the lens was set at 100 mm and on the 6D it was set at 160 mm, to make sure the field of view was similar. The only other thing I did was to try to adjust the exposures in post to match; for some reason, my 6D tends to underexpose slightly. I'm not sure I got it quite right, but I could have with a bit more patience. Tell me which one is better. (Don't cheat and look at the EXIF data, I can't figure out how to strip them out. Or do cheat and look, but be honest. ) I also am posting a similar comparison of the same scene with the 70-200 and the 100-400 on the lens forum.

FF


Manzano Mountains,New Mexico


Manzano Mountains, New Mexico

1st pic has cartoonish blue blurs in the mountains. Both shots focused to the same distance? Both processed the same?

Difference in exposure is just 1/3 stop: ISO 800 (why?), f/5.6, 1/4000 v. 1/3200.

Flying Fish said:

Here are two images, one taken with my 7D2 and the other with my 6D of the same landscape using my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens. Both were taken at ISO 800, f/5.6; on the 7D2 the lens was set at 100 mm and on the 6D it was set at 160 mm, to make sure the field of view was similar. The only other thing I did was to try to adjust the exposures in post to match; for some reason, my 6D tends to underexpose slightly. I'm not sure I got it quite right, but I could have with a bit more patience. Tell me which one is better. (Don't cheat and look at the EXIF data, I can't figure out how to strip them out. Or do cheat and look, but be honest. ) I also am posting a similar comparison of the same scene with the 70-200 and the 100-400 on the lens forum.

FF


Manzano Mountains,New Mexico


Manzano Mountains, New Mexico

Click to expand...

--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist

I liked the image from the 6D better. I looked at both at 1:1 and picked the 6D image because it looks to have better detail and color to me. I looked at the EXIF data after picking.

#2 better, ie your 6d

you need to set them equal though

multiply iso by 1.6 for the 6d and set to 1250

multiply f stop by 1.6 for the 6d and set to f9

on tripod - same focus point,

same fov that you did with same lens

shoot raw - looks like your colors need adjusted for the 7dii

btw - you can strip the exif when you export from LR

Flying Fish said:

Here are two images, one taken with my 7D2 and the other with my 6D of the same landscape using my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens. Both were taken at ISO 800, f/5.6; on the 7D2 the lens was set at 100 mm and on the 6D it was set at 160 mm, to make sure the field of view was similar. The only other thing I did was to try to adjust the exposures in post to match; for some reason, my 6D tends to underexpose slightly. I'm not sure I got it quite right, but I could have with a bit more patience. Tell me which one is better. (Don't cheat and look at the EXIF data, I can't figure out how to strip them out. Or do cheat and look, but be honest. ) I also am posting a similar comparison of the same scene with the 70-200 and the 100-400 on the lens forum.

FF


Manzano Mountains,New Mexico


Manzano Mountains, New Mexico

Click to expand...

Why in the hell would these pictures be shot at the settings they were? it makes no sense and puts the APSC at a huge disadvantage.

Flying Fish said:

Here are two images, one taken with my 7D2 and the other with my 6D of the same landscape using my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens.

Click to expand...

I don't know which of the two is less appalling - they both suffer from the "wrong time of day" and thus "why did you have to shoot that in that bad light" syndrome...

Thanks, Lemming51. Actually, the color rendition in the first image is more like what the scene looked like to my eye. I chose ISO 800 because it's well within the limits of both cameras and it's windy today and I wanted to reduce motion blur, despite the 4-stop IS. I don't know why the exposure was different. I also don't know why the 7D2 files are twice the size of the 6D files.

For what it's worth, I've always been impressed at the detail and quality of the 6D images of landscapes. They've always seemed better to me than most of the APS-C images I've made.

FF

I like it better as well, and have consistently found that I prefer the 6D's landscape images over any APS-C camera I've owned (XSi/540D, T2i/550D, 7D, 7D2).

FF

What settings would you recommend?

FF

I agree with Joe52985 - ISO 100 would be my first choice for a landscape, and would be a more interesting comparison. Also agree with BillsLIPhotos that the 6D has more detail and better color. Can you explain why the 7D2 saturation is so much higher? Is it the camera or your processing?

On the 70-200 vs 100-400 the 100-400 appears to have slightly higher contrast if processing was identical.

Thanks, MAC. Actually, the colors of the 7D2 shot were closer to reality as my own eye perceived them. Why should I multiply the f/stop denominator and ISO by 1.6 for the 6D?

FF

Thanks, Karl. I shot at that time of day and in that light because that's when the idea of doing the comparison occurred to me. As I said, I wasn't asking about artistic qualities or composition, just IQ.

FF

Thanks, Martincan. I usually shoot landscapes at ISO 200, but basically I agree with you. Yes, I prefer the images I get with the 6D for landscapes, and have ever since I got the 6D. My 6D tends to underexpose by half a stop or so--I don't know why--and it's possible that I affected the saturation and color when I adjusted for that. On the lens comparisons, the processing was identical.

FF

Flying Fish said:

Thanks, Karl. I shot at that time of day and in that light because that's when the idea of doing the comparison occurred to me. As I said, I wasn't asking about artistic qualities or composition, just IQ.

Click to expand...

Sorry, must have overread that passage - still I wouldn't be able to distinguish the two on any merit...

Flying Fish said:

Thanks, MAC. Actually, the colors of the 7D2 shot were closer to reality as my own eye perceived them. Why should I multiply the f/stop denominator and ISO by 1.6 for the 6D?

FF

Click to expand...

· ..f/1.4 1/200 ISO 100 on the mFT (4/3) camera,

· ...f/1.8, 1/200, ISO 160 on the 1.6x camera,

· ...f/1.9, 1/200, ISO 180 on the 1.5x camera,

· ...and f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400 on the FF camera...

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

MAC said:

· ..f/1.4 1/200 ISO 100 on the mFT (4/3) camera,
· ...f/1.8, 1/200, ISO 160 on the 1.6x camera,

· ...f/1.9, 1/200, ISO 180 on the 1.5x camera,

· ...and f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400 on the FF camera...

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Click to expand...

Nope - here the difference in terms of IQ is the question, not how to eradicate it through equivalence.

Hmmm, maybe I didn't write it but only thought it. I could have sworn that I did. My bad.

FF

Karl Gnter Wnsch said:

MAC said:

· ..f/1.4 1/200 ISO 100 on the mFT (4/3) camera,

· ...f/1.8, 1/200, ISO 160 on the 1.6x camera,

· ...f/1.9, 1/200, ISO 180 on the 1.5x camera,

· ...and f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400 on the FF camera...

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Click to expand...

Nope - here the difference in terms of IQ is the question, not how to eradicate it through equivalence.

Click to expand...

well, to do a comparison, FF should use equivalence

no need to shoot scapes iso800 high ss

set up tripod and shoot iso100 on the 7d2

use equivalence - mult by 1.6 the ff iso and f stop

the crop image will need sharpened though, to match full frame sharpness, but at iso 100, it is possible without creating too much noise

so my advice is use equivalence, but also optimize the processing, before comparison

then one will not see a big difference unless we're above 20x30

Karl Gnter Wnsch said:

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

Click to expand...

Well done. A real field test without pp/other tricks. Such a test shows in reality how camera's/lenscombinations work. I believe the less clear pictures of the 7D (in this test and your other test) are the result of the much smaller pixels of this camera. These shots use 160mm tele and objects that are far away are not produced as well as they are on the 6D. This can clearly can be seen. Its my believe the much smaller pixels can no longer put all the details together as well as the bigger pixels of the 6D because the light travels from a long distance and is therefore less 'pure' . The reason is very probably that the thicker layer of air is sort of filled with dustparticles and perhaps thermal waves. The bigger pixels of the 6D can handle this better, but i don't have the technical know-how to explain.

I was at first puzzled by your photo's (and thought you may had the 6D accidently sharpened), but by checking the bushes in the very front i noticed that the difference in quility between the camera's is getting much smaller the closer you get.

If my opinion is right, then an old camera like the 30D (same pixelsize as 6D) should produce identical quility as the 6D when it comes to long-distance-landscape-photography. Would be great if someone could try this.

Erwin

i had 7D for 5 years..sold mine recently and will by a canon 7D II

when i look at both photos--i like the one taken by Canon 7D II..looks a little sharper and the colors are more beautiful...i live in California and i know this type of lanscape from joshua tree area and the death valley..so i guess the Photos take by Canon 6D is more accurate..by this i mean the colors and the little haze is more accurate to the area at the tme the photo was take..so the photos is more realistic are more accurate to the real atmosphere of the area.