IQ of 7d w 15-85mm Vs 6d w 24-105mm?

Started Mar 8, 2013 | Questions
DugT
OP DugT Senior Member • Posts: 1,154
Re: Would you accept 550d / 15-85 to 6D 24-105 review? (Same sensors / lenses)...

Adza wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

I'm surprised that no one has said, "I went from a 7d with the 15-85 to a full frame with a 24-105 and ....." becauseI thought there would be lots of people with experience with both combos.

I can come close. I've gone from a 550d with a 15-85 to a 6D with the 24-105. (Effectively the same sensor, so should be pretty similar results).

While I'm no expert, it definitely appears as though the photo's from the 6D's combination are much sharper. With the 7d - if I viewed at full resolution / full crop - the picture was a little soft. This never worried me, as I knew I was "pixel peeping" and the final image was always fine when printed.

However, what I have noticed is that if I do the same thing with the 6D's photos with the 24-105 - the images look much sharper at 100% resolution than I ever expected, or could get from the 550D / 15-85.

Not being an expert - but I still figure, if they're sharper at 100% resolution, then they're sharper all round. It's really blown me away. Not that I was ever disappointing with the 15-85 on the 550D - but I didn't expect that much jump in IQ when upgrading. (I was more just expecting less noise at higher ISO's) - so it was a pleasant surprise.

I'm pretty confident you'll love your 6D combination. The high ISO / low noise is out of this world!

Hope this helps...

Thank you, Adza. That is very helpful and encouraging. At least with the 6d I'll be able to crop more. That will make it more versatile which will come in handy even though I plan to keep my 7d. Today, for example, I was taking some landscape shots but geese kept fly low over a nearby frozen pond and shots of them are probably my best shots of the day.

-- hide signature --

Some of my pics are in my DPReview Gallery
dt

 DugT's gear list:DugT's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +5 more
technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: What about The Digital Picture.com tests?

qianp2k wrote:

24-105L on Canon FF is better than 15-85 on APS-C in general as confirmed by all creditable lab tests.

I was not talking about 'in general', you are cornered and change subject. 'In general' is totally subjective, no need to argue about that.

It's a F/4 constant L zoom with weather sealed and you can get a new copy around $800 that most owners don't have much complains about.

for me constant aperture, weather sealing and price don't influence image quality, but for you they do apparently?

technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: What about The Digital Picture.com tests?

ultimitsu wrote:

technic wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Their tests confirm to me that the 24-104 on a FF is substantially better than the 15-85 on a crop.

people believe what they want to believe. I don't shoot testcharts indoors all day, but some people do apparently ...

Testcharts simply reduces possible test procedure errors. People who have beef with them are the ones believe what they want to believe.

6D + 24-105 ought to perform substantially better than 7D + 15-85, it is a mathematically certainty.

again, believe what you want to believe. This type of test images are only a weak indication of actual image quality, they don't mirror real shots (with subjects at much larger distance, higher contrast/different lighting etc.). Real life images show that you are wrong, at least regarding corner performance (I'm not interested in slightly better center performance if the corners are blurred, but YMMV).

P.S.: I'm a scientist, I have my own thoughts about 'mathematical certainties'

technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: you agreed

ultimitsu wrote:

nothing on this essay sayings anything that contradict with the view 6D + 24-105 outresolves 7D + 15-85

not contradicting is totally different from proving.

technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: Correct

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Here is some conjecture on my part. I would think that an a asp-c camera with an asp-c lens gets more magnification from the lens and imprecisions in the less would be more conspicuous under the scrutiny of the magnification. However, I'm confesson that I never took a lesson.

Yes, an APS-C lens needs to be more precise for the same IQ. But reality is that it is often easier to make small lenses to better perfection, for a reasonable price. Look at the tiny lenses from e.g. some Panasonic/Leica lenses on the Panny TZ, they often have very high optical quality. But it is impossible to say such a thing in general, because there are lots of factors involved (e.g. homogeneity of the glass and surface finish, precision of the internal lens threads and mounts, etc.). Most of that is related to the lens design / the type of lens.

FF will have higher image quality if you use a good prime, especially those in the normal to tele range and possibly zooms like the 70-200L, as those are relatively close to perfection (but often you can't make a valid comparison, because there are no L APS-C tele primes/zooms). A 4x standard zoom with midrange price is a different story. Quite often such an FF zoom will be a bit better in the image center, but worse in the corners compared to a similar APS-C zoom. Same applies for SWA range, e.g. 17-40 against 10-22.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: What about The Digital Picture.com tests?

technic wrote:

Testcharts simply reduces possible test procedure errors. People who have beef with them are the ones believe what they want to believe.

6D + 24-105 ought to perform substantially better than 7D + 15-85, it is a mathematically certainty.

again, believe what you want to believe.

again,  believe what you want to believe.

This type of test images are only a weak indication of actual image quality, they don't mirror real shots (with subjects at much larger distance, higher contrast/different lighting etc.).

distance, contrast or different lighting should have minimal impact to IQ comparison. the only noticeable comparison would be where lighting is lacking, 6D + 4-105 would then trump 7D + 15-85 by a huge margin.

Real life images show that you are wrong,

Real life images show I am right. I own 17-55 which is better than 15-85, I also own Nikon 24-85, which is on par with 24-85. I have shot thousands photos using both, difference is very visible.

Do you own them both?

By the way, I have also shot extensively using 24-105 which I do not own, while I do not normally advocate for this lens, when mounted on FF it is indeed superior than aps-c with any similar zoom.

at least regarding corner performance (I'm not interested in slightly better center performance if the corners are blurred, but YMMV).

Corrner performance is very close, neither is great. But since 15mmm F3.5 is more or less close to  24mm F5.6 on FF, 6D at 24mm f5.6 is indeed a lot better than 7D on 15mm F3.5.

P.S.: I'm a scientist, I have my own thoughts about 'mathematical certainties'

For someone who does not understand such basic principle, you must be a scientist of scientology.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Correct

technic wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Here is some conjecture on my part. I would think that an a asp-c camera with an asp-c lens gets more magnification from the lens and imprecisions in the less would be more conspicuous under the scrutiny of the magnification. However, I'm confesson that I never took a lesson.

Yes, an APS-C lens needs to be more precise for the same IQ. But reality is that it is often easier to make small lenses to better perfection, for a reasonable price. Look at the tiny lenses from e.g. some Panasonic/Leica lenses on the Panny TZ, they often have very high optical quality.

Panasonics/ leica are not quite comparable because these lenses are designed differently from ground up. and often use fairly expensive coating. on the other hand Canon EF-S lenses generally follow more or less the same basic designs as their EF lenses. the difference in size isnot much. For example, 10-22 isnt much smaller than 17-40, 15-85 isnt much smaller than 24-105.

But the main point would be, yes generally lenses of the same class is slightly cheaper on EFS than EF, they are definitely not closer to perfection.

A 4x standard zoom with midrange price is a different story.

24-85 on D600 produces better IQ than 17-55 on 60D, despite it has more zoom ratio and cost about half the price. I have them both.

Quite often such an FF zoom will be a bit better in the image center, but worse in the corners compared to a similar APS-C zoom. Same applies for SWA range, e.g. 17-40 against 10-22.

17-40 is simply a not so well designed lens. corner performance difference between 24-105 and 15-85 isnt much, that is when 24-105 isnt a particularly good lens either.

technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: What about The Digital Picture.com tests?

ultimitsu wrote:

Corrner performance is very close, neither is great. But since 15mmm F3.5 is more or less close to 24mm F5.6 on FF, 6D at 24mm f5.6 is indeed a lot better than 7D on 15mm F3.5.

P.S.: I'm a scientist, I have my own thoughts about 'mathematical certainties'

For someone who does not understand such basic principle, you must be a scientist of scientology.

mathematical certainties like yours only exist outside the real world, indeed like in scientology.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Well then

Mako2011 wrote:

Well then, since we are on a roll...lets try another example photo that totally proves my point

something pretty wrong in this photo, oversaturated that looks surreal, soft and mushy. I don't know how you shoot the picture as 5D2 should be able to deliver much sharper and detailed photo.

I really don't know what's your point?  Your 7D has more resolution?  That must be a joke from that large size 7D photo from you that is so noisy and mushy what fine details resolved?





-- hide signature --
technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: Correct

ultimitsu wrote:

24-85 on D600 produces better IQ than 17-55 on 60D, despite it has more zoom ratio and cost about half the price. I have them both.

I guess so, but I'm surprised someone dares to say this on this forum Many posters here claim that the 24-85VR is a cokebottle, a joke compared to the 24-105. From what I have seen on the web, images from the 24-85 on Nikon D600 indeed look very good, not clearly worse than the 6D with 24-105 (despite much higher price for the 24-105).

Quite often such an FF zoom will be a bit better in the image center, but worse in the corners compared to a similar APS-C zoom. Same applies for SWA range, e.g. 17-40 against 10-22.

17-40 is simply a not so well designed lens. corner performance difference between 24-105 and 15-85 isnt much, that is when 24-105 isnt a particularly good lens either.

I can kind of agree with that. I guess that if you don't look too much at the corners of the 24-105 on FF, in the WA range and near wide open, the 24-105 is a nice lens. But corners do matter to me, especially in the WA range and near wide open because that is where I take many of my images. For people/event shots, I would have no problem recommending that lens. But for landscape ... not really.

Just to be clear: I don't have a 24-105, but I have looked at many images from it because I considered buying it. If I had to chose a Canon FF standard zoom now, I would take the 24-105 at current prices (below EUR 700 as kit with the 6D). The 4/24-70 does not seem worth the far higher price, and the 2.8/24-70II is clearly great but way too expensive for the limited use I would have for such a lens; I'd rather buy two nice primes.

schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: Well then
1

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Well then, since we are on a roll...lets try another example photo that totally proves my point

something pretty wrong in this photo, oversaturated that looks surreal, soft and mushy. I don't know how you shoot the picture as 5D2 should be able to deliver much sharper and detailed photo.

Still not getting it then? LOL!

I really don't know what's your point? Your 7D has more resolution? That must be a joke from that large size 7D photo from you that is so noisy and mushy what fine details resolved?

Syntax! Please! Those sentences are very poorly constructed.

Seems to me that every time you start losing control of the situation, you also lose the ability to properly construct your sentences.

BTW - is it your contention that everyone who disagrees with you must own a 7D? Hehe.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Correct

technic wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Here is some conjecture on my part. I would think that an a asp-c camera with an asp-c lens gets more magnification from the lens and imprecisions in the less would be more conspicuous under the scrutiny of the magnification. However, I'm confesson that I never took a lesson.

Yes, an APS-C lens needs to be more precise for the same IQ. But reality is that it is often easier to make small lenses to better perfection, for a reasonable price. Look at the tiny lenses from e.g. some Panasonic/Leica lenses on the Panny TZ, they often have very high optical quality. But it is impossible to say such a thing in general, because there are lots of factors involved (e.g. homogeneity of the glass and surface finish, precision of the internal lens threads and mounts, etc.). Most of that is related to the lens design / the type of lens.

Actually it's more challenge to design native lenses for smaller sensors.  For example to design a similar zoom as good as Canon new 24-70L/2.8 II, you'd need a 15-44/F1.75 zoom on 1.6x crop, and a 12-35/F1.4 zoom on mFT.  Such zooms either impossible to be manufactured or actually even  bigger/heavier as we saw in Olympus 35-100/F2.0 zoom that is only eq to FF 70-200/F4.0 zoom, and even bigger/heavier than Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS II zoom.  What are the counterparts of Sigma 35/1.4 on APS-C and mFT?  I believe you build up wrong perception.

FF will have higher image quality if you use a good prime, especially those in the normal to tele range and possibly zooms like the 70-200L, as those are relatively close to perfection (but often you can't make a valid comparison, because there are no L APS-C tele primes/zooms). A 4x standard zoom with midrange price is a different story. Quite often such an FF zoom will be a bit better in the image center, but worse in the corners compared to a similar APS-C zoom. Same applies for SWA range, e.g. 17-40 against 10-22.

FF is better with any lenses that also can be used on crop in the same generation of cameras. For example with ANY EF lenses 5D2 outresolves 7D, not only sharper but resolve more details. Again your perception is very wrong regarding FF lenses on corners. ultimitsu points you the equivalence if you really want to compare.

Sure EF-S 10-22 is the best EF-S zoom but EF 17-40L/4.0 is not a slouch either. Let me tell you when I need to shoot wide-open a) in low light then I don't worry about corners too much as those areas in low light are very dim and you hardly can see much anyway; b) in portraiture for better background rendering, then again I don't worry about soft borders as actually what I wanted.

Here are two samples of 17-40L (that I just sold recently as I now own 17mm TS-E) at 17mm and 40mm respectively. At eq F stop, 17-40L is not worse than EF-S 10-22.



17-40L at 17mm



17-40L at 40mm, a 3000-pixel photo

-- hide signature --
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Well then

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Well then, since we are on a roll...lets try another example photo that totally proves my point

something pretty wrong in this photo, oversaturated that looks surreal, soft and mushy. I don't know how you shoot the picture as 5D2 should be able to deliver much sharper and detailed photo.

Still not getting it then? LOL!

No, please explain to me. If he is trying to demo 7D resolution, it's a complete joke from that large size 7D photo. His 5D2 photo was not taken well either from all aspects.

I really don't know what's your point? Your 7D has more resolution? That must be a joke from that large size 7D photo from you that is so noisy and mushy what fine details resolved?

Syntax! Please! Those sentences are very poorly constructed.

Yes. I didn't check and forgot separate sentences.

Seems to me that every time you start losing control of the situation, you also lose the ability to properly construct your sentences.

haha, for another excuse that I heard before when someone start losing and shifting topic.

BTW - is it your contention that everyone who disagrees with you must own a 7D? Hehe.

Not at all. I am talking APS-C in general and often I used my 60D as an example. However for some reasons, only a few 7D shooters are extremely sensitive as their holygrails are beaten even by a 8-yr-old 5Dc. Only they are so arguing, wondering why?

-- hide signature --
schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: Correct
1

qianp2k wrote:

technic wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Here is some conjecture on my part. I would think that an a asp-c camera with an asp-c lens gets more magnification from the lens and imprecisions in the less would be more conspicuous under the scrutiny of the magnification. However, I'm confesson that I never took a lesson.

Yes, an APS-C lens needs to be more precise for the same IQ. But reality is that it is often easier to make small lenses to better perfection, for a reasonable price. Look at the tiny lenses from e.g. some Panasonic/Leica lenses on the Panny TZ, they often have very high optical quality. But it is impossible to say such a thing in general, because there are lots of factors involved (e.g. homogeneity of the glass and surface finish, precision of the internal lens threads and mounts, etc.). Most of that is related to the lens design / the type of lens.

Actually it's more challenge to design native lenses for smaller sensors. For example to design a similar zoom as good as Canon new 24-70L/2.8 II, you'd need a 15-44/F1.75 zoom on 1.6x crop, and a 12-35/F1.4 zoom on mFT.

Not really relevant though. There is no need to create an equivalent lens - just one delivers similar IQ. For many uses, that should be possible. It's only shallow DOF, which might not be important if the photographer knows what he's doing, and low light, which is due to the sensor, not the lens, that present difficulties for equivalence.

Such zooms either impossible to be manufactured or actually even bigger/heavier as we saw in Olympus 35-100/F2.0 zoom that is only eq to FF 70-200/F4.0 zoom, and even bigger/heavier than Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS II zoom. What are the counterparts of Sigma 35/1.4 on APS-C and mFT? I believe you build up wrong perception.

There may not be equivalents, but that may not matter either. There are not equivalents to a 300/2.8 II L on an 18MP crop either.

FF will have higher image quality if you use a good prime, especially those in the normal to tele range and possibly zooms like the 70-200L, as those are relatively close to perfection (but often you can't make a valid comparison, because there are no L APS-C tele primes/zooms). A 4x standard zoom with midrange price is a different story. Quite often such an FF zoom will be a bit better in the image center, but worse in the corners compared to a similar APS-C zoom. Same applies for SWA range, e.g. 17-40 against 10-22.

FF is better with any lenses that also can be used on crop in the same generation of cameras. For example with ANY EF lenses 5D2 outresolves 7D, not only sharper but resolve more details. Again your perception is very wrong regarding FF lenses on corners. ultimitsu points you the equivalence if you really want to compare.

ultimitsu is another full frame zealot. And the 5D2 does NOT out-resolve the 7D!

Sure EF-S 10-22 is the best EF-S zoom but EF 17-40L/4.0 is not a slouch either. Let me tell you when I need to shoot wide-open a) in low light then I don't worry about corners too much as those areas in low light are very dim and you hardly can see much anyway; b) in portraiture for better background rendering, then again I don't worry about soft borders as actually what I wanted.

Exactly. Corners may not be important - just as narrow DOF may not be important. It just depends.

Here are two samples of 17-40L (that I just sold recently as I now own 17mm TS-E) at 17mm and 40mm respectively. At eq F stop, 17-40L is not worse than EF-S 10-22.



17-40L at 17mm



17-40L at 40mm, a 3000-pixel photo

Nice.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: What about The Digital Picture.com tests?

technic wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Corrner performance is very close, neither is great. But since 15mmm F3.5 is more or less close to 24mm F5.6 on FF, 6D at 24mm f5.6 is indeed a lot better than 7D on 15mm F3.5.

P.S.: I'm a scientist, I have my own thoughts about 'mathematical certainties'

For someone who does not understand such basic principle, you must be a scientist of scientology.

mathematical certainties like yours only exist outside the real world, indeed like in scientology.

I have demo a real world 5000-pixel size photo that shows what amazing resolution a FF 5D2 with 24-105L can resolve. Can you please post a 5000-pixel size APS-C (7D or whatever) + 15-85 photo? Let's compare fine details/resolution please.

-- hide signature --
schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: Well then
1

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Well then, since we are on a roll...lets try another example photo that totally proves my point

something pretty wrong in this photo, oversaturated that looks surreal, soft and mushy. I don't know how you shoot the picture as 5D2 should be able to deliver much sharper and detailed photo.

Still not getting it then? LOL!

No, please explain to me. If he is trying to demo 7D resolution, it's a complete joke from that large size 7D photo. His 5D2 photo was not taken well either from all aspects.

I agree. But that should be telling you something about his meaning perhaps.

I really don't know what's your point? Your 7D has more resolution? That must be a joke from that large size 7D photo from you that is so noisy and mushy what fine details resolved?

Syntax! Please! Those sentences are very poorly constructed.

Yes. I didn't check and forgot separate sentences.

No worries. It does happen a bit with your good self though - and it detracts from the point you are trying to make.

Seems to me that every time you start losing control of the situation, you also lose the ability to properly construct your sentences.

haha, for another excuse that I heard before when someone start losing and shifting topic.

No - not trying to "shift the topic" - just saying.

BTW - is it your contention that everyone who disagrees with you must own a 7D? Hehe.

Not at all. I am talking APS-C in general and often I used my 60D as an example. However for some reasons, only a few 7D shooters are extremely sensitive as their holygrails are beaten even by a 8-yr-old 5Dc. Only they are so arguing, wondering why?

That's just rubbish and I'll treat it accordingly.

schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: What about The Digital Picture.com tests?

qianp2k wrote:

technic wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Corrner performance is very close, neither is great. But since 15mmm F3.5 is more or less close to 24mm F5.6 on FF, 6D at 24mm f5.6 is indeed a lot better than 7D on 15mm F3.5.

P.S.: I'm a scientist, I have my own thoughts about 'mathematical certainties'

For someone who does not understand such basic principle, you must be a scientist of scientology.

mathematical certainties like yours only exist outside the real world, indeed like in scientology.

I have demo a real world 5000-pixel size photo that shows what amazing resolution a FF 5D2 with 24-105L can resolve. Can you please post a 5000-pixel size APS-C (7D or whatever) + 15-85 photo? Let's compare fine details/resolution please.

I'd personally like to see the same 5000-pixel size photo from the 5D (classic) for comparison. I think that might be particularly illuminating.

In fact, what don't you take my macro challenge. Shoot the same highly detailed subject with your 5D, 5D3 and 60D at maximum magnification?

I'd like to see you post the results.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: What about The Digital Picture.com tests?

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

technic wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Corrner performance is very close, neither is great. But since 15mmm F3.5 is more or less close to 24mm F5.6 on FF, 6D at 24mm f5.6 is indeed a lot better than 7D on 15mm F3.5.

P.S.: I'm a scientist, I have my own thoughts about 'mathematical certainties'

For someone who does not understand such basic principle, you must be a scientist of scientology.

mathematical certainties like yours only exist outside the real world, indeed like in scientology.

I have demo a real world 5000-pixel size photo that shows what amazing resolution a FF 5D2 with 24-105L can resolve. Can you please post a 5000-pixel size APS-C (7D or whatever) + 15-85 photo? Let's compare fine details/resolution please.

I'd personally like to see the same 5000-pixel size photo from the 5D (classic) for comparison. I think that might be particularly illuminating.

5D only takes 4368-pixel and delivers amazing 100% cropped.  I am still waiting 7D 100% cropped face snapshot or you can downsampling to the same 4368 pixel.  If 7D looks so mushy and noisy at 100% cropped, what's the point of 18mp?  Therefore I usually never crop my 60D photos more than 50% as they are simply not good.



5D 100% cropped



In fact, what don't you take my macro challenge. Shoot the same highly detailed subject with your 5D, 5D3 and 60D at maximum magnification?

I have 5D macro shots took years ago. And I can show you later that they are very sharp. I have not imported them into LR yet. Nevertheless on DXOMark test, 100L or 100/2.8 macro (that I just sold) still have more resolution on 5D than on 7D no mention 5D3. Macro lenses are still 1:1 magnification ratio on whatever cameras, right?

I'd like to see you post the results.

Sure I will.  And you will see lots of my macro photos soon with Sigma 150/2.8 OS on 5D3.  I sold old 100/2.8 macro.  I have not taken macro photos for years.

-- hide signature --
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Correct

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

technic wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Here is some conjecture on my part. I would think that an a asp-c camera with an asp-c lens gets more magnification from the lens and imprecisions in the less would be more conspicuous under the scrutiny of the magnification. However, I'm confesson that I never took a lesson.

Yes, an APS-C lens needs to be more precise for the same IQ. But reality is that it is often easier to make small lenses to better perfection, for a reasonable price. Look at the tiny lenses from e.g. some Panasonic/Leica lenses on the Panny TZ, they often have very high optical quality. But it is impossible to say such a thing in general, because there are lots of factors involved (e.g. homogeneity of the glass and surface finish, precision of the internal lens threads and mounts, etc.). Most of that is related to the lens design / the type of lens.

Actually it's more challenge to design native lenses for smaller sensors. For example to design a similar zoom as good as Canon new 24-70L/2.8 II, you'd need a 15-44/F1.75 zoom on 1.6x crop, and a 12-35/F1.4 zoom on mFT.

Not really relevant though. There is no need to create an equivalent lens - just one delivers similar IQ. For many uses, that should be possible. It's only shallow DOF, which might not be important if the photographer knows what he's doing, and low light, which is due to the sensor, not the lens, that present difficulties for equivalence.

What similar IQ crop can match with 24-70L II and Sigma 35/1.4 or even EF 24-105L with comparable crop lenses? Please point us how to achieve more with less?

Such zooms either impossible to be manufactured or actually even bigger/heavier as we saw in Olympus 35-100/F2.0 zoom that is only eq to FF 70-200/F4.0 zoom, and even bigger/heavier than Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS II zoom. What are the counterparts of Sigma 35/1.4 on APS-C and mFT? I believe you build up wrong perception.

There may not be equivalents, but that may not matter either. There are not equivalents to a 300/2.8 II L on an 18MP crop either.

It's matter. That's why Canon moved to FF sport cameras. How many in NFL and Olympics sideline now to shoot with 7D that is pretty noisy in low light and not excellent either in good light (sharpness, clarity and shadow noises)? They use 400L/2.8 IS II and 500L/4.0 IS II on 1DX and 5DIII now that delivers much better photos than 7D. That's reality. I am sure you are now using 5DIII not 7D in your motorsport photos, lol.

FF will have higher image quality if you use a good prime, especially those in the normal to tele range and possibly zooms like the 70-200L, as those are relatively close to perfection (but often you can't make a valid comparison, because there are no L APS-C tele primes/zooms). A 4x standard zoom with midrange price is a different story. Quite often such an FF zoom will be a bit better in the image center, but worse in the corners compared to a similar APS-C zoom. Same applies for SWA range, e.g. 17-40 against 10-22.

FF is better with any lenses that also can be used on crop in the same generation of cameras. For example with ANY EF lenses 5D2 outresolves 7D, not only sharper but resolve more details. Again your perception is very wrong regarding FF lenses on corners. ultimitsu points you the equivalence if you really want to compare.

ultimitsu is another full frame zealot. And the 5D2 does NOT out-resolve the 7D!

You cannot call someone zealot if someone just tell fact. I know you can call me FF zealot but I do own and use 60D. I just dare to tell truth that FF has better IQ than APS-C so what ‘fanboyism' involved if I simply indicate a fact? May someone suggesting you are 7D zealot? At least you don't have a gut to admit truth as you involved in old debates too much in the past.



Sure EF-S 10-22 is the best EF-S zoom but EF 17-40L/4.0 is not a slouch either. Let me tell you when I need to shoot wide-open a) in low light then I don't worry about corners too much as those areas in low light are very dim and you hardly can see much anyway; b) in portraiture for better background rendering, then again I don't worry about soft borders as actually what I wanted.

Exactly. Corners may not be important - just as narrow DOF may not be important. It just depends.

See, you intentionally cut my words out of context. I said it's not important in corners in dim light as you cannot see details in darkness anyway, or in wide-open portraiture photo. That's my point.  Narrower DOF is subjective as someone prefers narrow DOF when shoot at wide open.



Here are two samples of 17-40L (that I just sold recently as I now own 17mm TS-E) at 17mm and 40mm respectively. At eq F stop, 17-40L is not worse than EF-S 10-22.



17-40L at 17mm



17-40L at 40mm, a 3000-pixel photo

Nice.

Thx, that proves 17-40L is not a slouch.

-- hide signature --
schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: What about The Digital Picture.com tests?

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

technic wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Corrner performance is very close, neither is great. But since 15mmm F3.5 is more or less close to 24mm F5.6 on FF, 6D at 24mm f5.6 is indeed a lot better than 7D on 15mm F3.5.

P.S.: I'm a scientist, I have my own thoughts about 'mathematical certainties'

For someone who does not understand such basic principle, you must be a scientist of scientology.

mathematical certainties like yours only exist outside the real world, indeed like in scientology.

I have demo a real world 5000-pixel size photo that shows what amazing resolution a FF 5D2 with 24-105L can resolve. Can you please post a 5000-pixel size APS-C (7D or whatever) + 15-85 photo? Let's compare fine details/resolution please.

I'd personally like to see the same 5000-pixel size photo from the 5D (classic) for comparison. I think that might be particularly illuminating.

5D only takes 4368-pixel and delivers amazing 100% cropped. I am still waiting 7D 100% cropped face snapshot or you can downsampling to the same 4368 pixel. If 7D looks so mushy and noisy at 100% cropped, what's the point of 18mp? Therefore I usually never crop my 60D photos more than 50% as they are simply not good.

You are, of course, speaking about your 60D when you talk about the 7D. I think that's valid enough - but it is noted that you choose to speak about the 7D when you have something negative to say, rather than the camera you personally own.

If an 18MP crop looks "mushy and noisy" at 100%, then that's likely due to the fact that you are looking at a more magnified image.

Don't peep and you wont have the problem.

BTW - that test between the 5D3 and 7D that I've posted a few times shows the 7D at 200% vs the 5D3 at 300%. It's the ultimate in peeping! But it also clearly shows the 7D out-resolving the 5D3. And that's precisely why I don't believe all of what you claim.



In fact, what don't you take my macro challenge. Shoot the same highly detailed subject with your 5D, 5D3 and 60D at maximum magnification?

I have 5D macro shots took years ago. And I can show you later that they are very sharp.

Of course they are sharp.

A camera with just 16 pixels would be even sharper! It wouldn't capture more detail though.

I have not imported them into LR yet. Nevertheless on DXOMark test, 100L or 100/2.8 macro (that I just sold) still have more resolution on 5D than on 7D no mention 5D3. Macro lenses are still 1:1 magnification ratio on whatever cameras, right?

Yep. At max magnification, a macro lens is 1:1, regardless of the size of the sensor. That's why it makes such a good benchmark for comparing resolution.

You'll find that DxO don't test resolution in a way that allows one to sensibly compare sensors of different sizes (as far as I can tell from their limited information on their testing methodology)

I've asked you before if you understand their testing methodologies, but you have simply pointed me to their pages which clearly show them testing sharpness (not resolution).

It seems to me that, rather than arguing the point continually, you have the resources so you should do the test.

I'd like to see you post the results.

Sure I will. And you will see lots of my macro photos soon with Sigma 150/2.8 OS on 5D3. I sold old 100/2.8 macro. I have not taken macro photos for years.

That would be great. Make sure you include the 5D classic too. I'd genuinely like to see how it does in terms of pure resolution. And I promise I wont have bad things to say when the results come in!

BTW - how do you find the 150? Is the OS useful at all for macro work? (I guess you don't know as you say you haven't done any, but I would be interested to know if you try it out)

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads