Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons? Locked

Started May 21, 2014 | Discussions
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.

RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 29,090
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

70Der wrote:

I asked WHAT? Some VERY basic photography questions? Where?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53705783

I practically have very very little left to learn.

Really? Then you must be the most knowledge person in the world! ....yet you didn't understand why the mirror moves on your SLR.  Yeah, you have very little left to learn.

I don't just have slow kit lenses though.

Damián B Regular Member • Posts: 174
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

70Der wrote:

I don't honestly see the difference when looking at pics between FF and APS-C. Not sharper for example. But if

1) I could get more depth of field control (my F4 lens becomes one stop shallower for example)

2) I get an extra stop of noise free light.

3) Maybe better dynamic range and shadow detail

I would consider getting one in the future.

If you honestly don't see the difference then don't really bother and spend more money on body and FF lenses. As simple as that.

Some people I know are not pro but like to have the best and can afford it so they shoot with a Canon 1D.

I do notice the difference and I don't think I'm ever going back to APS-C. Only maybe for portability but not for quality.

 Damián B's gear list:Damián B's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM +6 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 22,071
Re: the lenses...

vin 13 wrote:

... are what they were designed to be, for example on FF a 70-200 is a 70-200, an 85 f1.2 is an 85 f1.2 etc. etc. I know there are EFS lenses, but in comparison not that many.

You have more lens options with the aps-c

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 +17 more
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: the lenses...

Dave Luttmann wrote:

vin 13 wrote:

... are what they were designed to be, for example on FF a 70-200 is a 70-200, an 85 f1.2 is an 85 f1.2 etc. etc. I know there are EFS lenses, but in comparison not that many.

You have more lens options with the aps-c

1) But those EF lenses are not designed and optimized for APS-C. They all work much better on FF than on APS-C.

2) They work in different AOV. 50mm FL on FF becomes 80mm FF eq on the same AOV.

3) Lenses must natively designed and optimized on a specific crop format to work at best potential as Sigma 18-35, EF-M 22/2.0, EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS... There are not many choices.  And still not work as good as FF counterpart lenses on FF bodies.

So actually there are much less choices of lenses that are natively designed and optimized, and can be fully leveraged on APS-C than on FF.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,671
Not the case

qianp2k wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

vin 13 wrote:

... are what they were designed to be, for example on FF a 70-200 is a 70-200, an 85 f1.2 is an 85 f1.2 etc. etc. I know there are EFS lenses, but in comparison not that many.

You have more lens options with the aps-c

1) But those EF lenses are not designed and optimized for APS-C. They all work much better on FF than on APS-C.

Not necessarily. In some cases, they can actully be better across the frame (on APS-C) than than the non-EF counterpart. In many cases they are actully designed to be optimized on both formats.

2) They work in different AOV. 50mm FL on FF becomes 80mm FF eq on the same AOV.

3) Lenses must natively designed and optimized on a specific crop format

No, they do not.

So actually there are much less choices of lenses that are natively designed and optimized, and can be fully leveraged on APS-C than on FF.

Again, just not the case...with very very few exceptions.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Not the case

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

vin 13 wrote:

... are what they were designed to be, for example on FF a 70-200 is a 70-200, an 85 f1.2 is an 85 f1.2 etc. etc. I know there are EFS lenses, but in comparison not that many.

You have more lens options with the aps-c

1) But those EF lenses are not designed and optimized for APS-C. They all work much better on FF than on APS-C.

Not necessarily. In some cases, they can actully be better across the frame (on APS-C) than than the non-EF counterpart. In many cases they are actully designed to be optimized on both formats.

Not. As I said in those rare cases, you only need to stop down one aperture on FF and you even don't need to stop down to theoretical FF eq aperture stop of APS-C. Otherwise quote me a sample that an EF lens performs better on Canon APS-C than on Canon FF?

I am sure you can find a FF lens @F2.0 is sharper on APS-C at edges than on FF. But you only need to stop down to F2.8 then the lens is sharper on FF from edge to edge than APS-C, and you even don't need to stop down to theoretical FF eq aperture stop F3.2.

2) They work in different AOV. 50mm FL on FF becomes 80mm FF eq on the same AOV.

3) Lenses must natively designed and optimized on a specific crop format

No, they do not.

Yes they must. All best performed lenses on APS-C are natively designed on the format such as Sigma 18-35 as example of zoom and EF-M 22/2.0 as an example of prime.

So actually there are much less choices of lenses that are natively designed and optimized, and can be fully leveraged on APS-C than on FF.

Again, just not the case...with very very few exceptions.

Yes this is the case. Not many native APS-C lenses designed on Canon and Nikon APS-C/DX cameras. All best performed lenses on mFT are all natively designed on mFT platform.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,671
Not reading

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

vin 13 wrote:

... are what they were designed to be, for example on FF a 70-200 is a 70-200, an 85 f1.2 is an 85 f1.2 etc. etc. I know there are EFS lenses, but in comparison not that many.

You have more lens options with the aps-c

1) But those EF lenses are not designed and optimized for APS-C. They all work much better on FF than on APS-C.

Not necessarily. In some cases, they can actually be better across the frame (on APS-C) than than the non-EF counterpart. In many cases they are actully designed to be optimized on both formats.

Otherwise quote me a sample that an EF lens performs better on Canon APS-C than on Canon FF?

Never said it did. I said the EF lens ".. can actually be better across the frame (on APS-C) than than the non-EF counterpart" (mounted on APS-C only)  That's counter to your suggestion of the opposite.

2) They work in different AOV. 50mm FL on FF becomes 80mm FF eq on the same AOV.

3) Lenses must natively designed and optimized on a specific crop format

No, they do not.

Yes they must. All best performed lenses on APS-C are natively designed on the format such as Sigma 18-35 as example of zoom and EF-M 22/2.0 as an example of prime.

Again, the sweeping generality is simply not true. There are many examples where a EF lens outperforms a similar non-EF lens. (both mounted on the same APS-C body and compared). You made an honest mistake in misunderstanding the text

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

OP 70Der Regular Member • Posts: 344
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Not surprising for you also think the 18-135 is the optical equal of much better lenses.

It is. It's just said you'd have an insecurity over it.

OP 70Der Regular Member • Posts: 344
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

Damián B wrote:

70Der wrote:

I don't honestly see the difference when looking at pics between FF and APS-C. Not sharper for example. But if

1) I could get more depth of field control (my F4 lens becomes one stop shallower for example)

2) I get an extra stop of noise free light.

3) Maybe better dynamic range and shadow detail

I would consider getting one in the future.

If you honestly don't see the difference then don't really bother and spend more money on body and FF lenses. As simple as that.

Some people I know are not pro but like to have the best and can afford it so they shoot with a Canon 1D.

I do notice the difference and I don't think I'm ever going back to APS-C. Only maybe for portability but not for quality.

The difference  in sharpness? Noise level? What are you seeing

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,671
not really

70Der wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Not surprising for you also think the 18-135 is the optical equal of much better lenses.

It is.

That really is not the case. There are indeed many lens that are better than the 18-135, in many ways. I assume you're speaking to the D80 kit lens (AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED DX)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Not reading

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

vin 13 wrote:

... are what they were designed to be, for example on FF a 70-200 is a 70-200, an 85 f1.2 is an 85 f1.2 etc. etc. I know there are EFS lenses, but in comparison not that many.

You have more lens options with the aps-c

1) But those EF lenses are not designed and optimized for APS-C. They all work much better on FF than on APS-C.

Not necessarily. In some cases, they can actually be better across the frame (on APS-C) than than the non-EF counterpart. In many cases they are actully designed to be optimized on both formats.

Otherwise quote me a sample that an EF lens performs better on Canon APS-C than on Canon FF?

Never said it did. I said the EF lens ".. can actually be better across the frame (on APS-C) than than the non-EF counterpart" (mounted on APS-C only) That's counter to your suggestion of the opposite.

So you're not talking on the difference on the same lens between FF and APS-C. You're talking a good APS-C lens could be better than a poor FF lens on APS-C camera, or a good EF lens can be better on a poor APS-C lens on APS-C, that is very different from what I said above. It's Orange vs Apple.

I said in order to get best performance, a lens MUST designed and optimized on that specific crop format. You see even such good zoom 24-70L/2.8 II performs far less on 70D than on 5D3/6D while Sigma (EF-S) 18-35/1.8 performs even better on 70D than Canon copy because Sigma natively designed and optimized on APS-C format.

2) They work in different AOV. 50mm FL on FF becomes 80mm FF eq on the same AOV.

3) Lenses must natively designed and optimized on a specific crop format

No, they do not.

Yes they must. All best performed lenses on APS-C are natively designed on the format such as Sigma 18-35 as example of zoom and EF-M 22/2.0 as an example of prime.

Again, the sweeping generality is simply not true. There are many examples where a EF lens outperforms a similar non-EF lens. (both mounted on the same APS-C body and compared). You made an honest mistake in misunderstanding the text

Obviously you didn't read what I said. I said a given EF lens always performs better on a Canon FF camera than a Canon APS-C camera in the same generation of Canon sensors.  A well-designed APS-C lens works best on APS-C than FF counterpart with the same or close FL.

So it has more choices of lenses on FF cameras to fully leverage lenses that natively designed and optimized on FF format than those natively designed and optimized on APS-C formats.

OP 70Der Regular Member • Posts: 344
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

RedFox88 wrote:

70Der wrote:

I asked WHAT? Some VERY basic photography questions? Where?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53705783

I practically have very very little left to learn.

Really? Then you must be the most knowledge person in the world! ....yet you didn't understand why the mirror moves on your SLR. Yeah, you have very little left to learn.

I don't just have slow kit lenses though.

So apparently you didn't read past the topic title or at least understand the question, your fault not mine.

OP 70Der Regular Member • Posts: 344
Re: not really

Mako2011 wrote:

70Der wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Not surprising for you also think the 18-135 is the optical equal of much better lenses.

It is.

That really is not the case. There are indeed many lens that are better than the 18-135, in many ways. I assume you're speaking to the D80 kit lens (AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED DX)

No not at all, the Canon 18-135 STM which most people haven't even tried apparently.

RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 29,090
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

RedFox88 wrote:

70Der wrote:

I asked WHAT? Some VERY basic photography questions? Where?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53705783

I practically have very very little left to learn.

Really? Then you must be the most knowledge person in the world! ....yet you didn't understand why the mirror moves on your SLR. Yeah, you have very little left to learn.

I don't just have slow kit lenses though.

So apparently you didn't read past the topic title or at least understand the question, your fault not mine.

Now you're grasping at straws here.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,671
generalities

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Never said it did. I said the EF lens ".. can actually be better across the frame (on APS-C) than than the non-EF counterpart" (mounted on APS-C only) That's counter to your suggestion of the opposite.

So you're not talking on the difference on the same lens between FF and APS-C.

No your reading it better. True.

You're talking a good APS-C lens could be better than a poor FF lens on APS-C camera, or a good EF lens can be better on a poor APS-C lens on APS-C, that is very different from what I said above.

Correct, you were missreading, and the generalities you stated here were not correct.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53726295

You may have simply worded it a bit off regards what you meant. Understandable. Not an easy read sometimes.

I said in order to get best performance, a lens MUST designed and optimized on that specific crop format.

That is actually not true as a well designed/optimized FF lens may also be outstanding on APS-C as well. On does not necessarily preclude the other. Many cases of that.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,671
My bad

70Der wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

70Der wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Not surprising for you also think the 18-135 is the optical equal of much better lenses.

It is.

That really is not the case. There are indeed many lens that are better than the 18-135, in many ways. I assume you're speaking to the D80 kit lens (AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED DX)

No not at all, the Canon 18-135 STM which most people haven't even tried apparently.

Oops, my bad. The Canon 18-135 STM is a very fine lens, that said, there are better lenses.

SLRGear: The previous version of the 18-135mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS is very similar to the new STM version: optically, they provide nearly identical test results. The only real differences are the new STM motor and an additional diaphragm blade to make up the aperture.

Canon EF-S 18-200mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS
For a few dollars more you can get 65mm more "reach" to your telephoto end: optically, it's about the same quality, but you don't get the new STM focusing motor.

The latest version of the Sigma 18-125 also has some advantages over the 18-135 in a few areas.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

larryis1 Contributing Member • Posts: 692
My perspective...

Having matriculated from the crop world of the 20D, 40D, and 60D, to the FF world of the 6D, I see dramatic improvements in my output as a result of shooting with the 6D.  In one word, my photos are RICHER...   with the 6D than they were with my predecessor crop bodies.

My two cents for what it is worth.

Larry

 larryis1's gear list:larryis1's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 6D Olympus E-M5 II Olympus E-M1 II Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +16 more
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: generalities

Mako2011 wrote:

I said in order to get best performance, a lens MUST designed and optimized on that specific crop format.

That is actually not true as a well designed/optimized FF lens may also be outstanding on APS-C as well. On does not necessarily preclude the other. Many cases of that.

Still try if there is a well designed APS-C lens and optimized on APS-C sensor will still beat that FF lens on the same APS-C sensor. The problem is that most outstanding EF lenses that designed and optimized on FF sensors have no APS-C counterparts that cover the same or close FL.

Just use mFT platform for example (as there are only few native APS-C lenses in Canon and Nikon), all the best performed lenses are natively designed and optimized on mFT format.

larryis1 Contributing Member • Posts: 692
Re: generalities

When I was shooting on my 60D, my favorite on camera lens most of the time was the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS.  This lens produced some very nice photos.  I preferred this one on the 60D vs. some of the other FF designed Canon lens I had in my kit. Had to sell it when I went FF, but fortunately got a very good price for it.

 larryis1's gear list:larryis1's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 6D Olympus E-M5 II Olympus E-M1 II Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads