Comparing sensors of different sizes is plain stupid.
People use cameras to produce photographs. It is perfectly valid to see how cameras compare in the production of specific photographs (i.e. subject matter, print size).
Is the 5D2 sensor better than the G12 one? Per unit area, it is much worse. Still, the 5D2 will produce much better images. I wonder why.
For certain subject matter up to a certain print size it will not necessarily produce much better images.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
Look at you try to make his specific problem into a general conclusion about an entire format. Sorry to break it to you, but his results are not typical for a fast prime on crop. I know. I get sharper photos from my Sigma 50 f/1.4 @ f/1.4 all the time.
You should. He would get sharper images at f/1.4 as well. Still a waste of a lens though because on FF, you can get much better results with a lesser lens.
LOL! There is no significant difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2, and I would get sharper images with the L as well. He can to once he identifies and fixes the problem.
LOL to your second statement as well. While I agree that certain focal length / aperture combinations will favor one format or another, the differences are simply not that dramatic, except at the telephoto end where there is a huge price difference in favor of crop.
I grow tired of the desperate attempts by FF fans to paint thinner DoF as a major advantage. In reality I'm often shooting 50mm or 85mm at f/2-f/2.8 on crop. It's difficult to make good use of f/1.4 and I really can't imagine needing or benefiting from even less DoF. I want more than one eyelash in focus.
And DoF cuts both ways. If you need more DoF in a low light situation, you lose the light gathering advantage of FF when you are forced to stop down. Thinking about the street and concert shooting I've done, I realize I often could not have taken advantage of the 5D2's light gathering ability. If I had to stop down on crop for more DoF, I would have been stopping down even further on FF, and pushing ISO as a result.
And when sensors have comparable technology levels this translates into a high ISO advantage for FF. It's also not the dramatic advantage it is sometimes made out to be considering crop cameras can make absolutely clean 8x10 and 11x14 prints from ISO 3200 shots. Even if you have to go larger the noise is less then what one would have expected from low ISO films before digital spoiled us.
It is 1.3 stop, not only theoretically, but this is what DXO measured. I can see in it as well on my photos.
I would agree that at high ISO the 5D2 is 1-1.5 stops better. (Not because of DxO, which is the joke of the testing world.) Now re-read what I wrote above and try to understand it. Most people most of the time do not shoot at high ISOs and then make large prints. Crop is more than up to the task of > 95% of low light shooting.
This is complete nonsense. There's no discernible difference in tonality, color, or gradation in professional test shots by DP Review, Imaging Resource, etc, until high ISO.
There is but you do not want to see it.
No, there isn't. I have posted 100% test crops from both cameras multiple times and asked people to tell me which came from which. They always fail. More to the point, they always try to guess based on small sharpness or detail differences, never tonality or color. Why? Because there are no human discernible tonality or color differences.
I would also note that tonality and color are open to heavy modification in post and printing. And as good as modern printers are, there is an order of magnitude larger difference between printers and even papers than there is between sensors. I think about the color rendering of different papers, but never about sensors because one is detectable and the other is not. Even if there was a subtle difference between sensors, it would not survive to print. For this reason I cannot help but laugh when people argue sensor color differences, whether between formats or brands. Color is entirely up to the photographer in the digital age.
It is worth mentioning also that some people actually use those bodies and do not rely on those test shots only.
I have tested them side by side to 30" print size. Have you?
DXO measures very clear differences but of course, you prefer to ignore that.
Of course I ignore them. Their results are consistently at odds with the results of other professional testing sites, and I can replicate the results of the other sites, but not theirs. I often find DxO's results to be laughable they are so wrong.
No, you will never get it. There's a great deal of equipment snobbery in the world of photography and I enjoy cutting through that crap. In over a year of arguing this stupid point I have yet to have one person tell me which crop or which large print came from which body. If FF zealots can't pass that test, then there is nothing more to discuss.
When I get home I'll be happy to post a few comparisons for you. I doubt you'll do any better.
EF lenses work great on crop. So well in fact that I could produce the same image using the same lens on both a FF and a crop body (just changing position), print to 30", and you couldn't tell the difference if your life depended on it.
Sure. Print an image from your 7D and the Sigma wide open and an image from the 5D2 and the 85/1.8 at 1/2.3. Your image will look like $hit next to the FF one.
No, it will not. The FF might look better in this very narrow and specific situation, but the crop version will still look fine. But since I never face this choice in real life, I couldn't give a $hit either way. When crop shooters talk about telephoto reach it at least has some relevance to the real world.
