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: My perspective...

larryis1 wrote:

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

That's what we heard overwhelmingly that FF improves IQ noticeably or even significantly.

If APS-C or even smaller crop format is good enough to specific person is subjective.

But FF is absolutely better than APS-C or smaller crop in IQ with respective lenses.  As if worth or significantly or not is subjective.

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

larryis1 wrote:

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.

Well we have heard many said 24-105L on 6D/5D2/5D3 is noticeably sharper than EF-S 17-55/2.8 on 60D/70D/7D, and wider and longer.  Creditable tests such as DXO and TDP support that.

I used to own 60D with Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS (that pretty matches to EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS) but I know 24-105L on 5D2 is definitely sharper.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,567
true

qianp2k wrote:

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.

Not really the case...In general. Too many really good FF lens out there (and expensive ones) so you can almost always find a FF lens (at a given focal length) that will out perform a dedicated APS-C lens (at a given focal length) across the frame.

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.

True, that is a problem...and mostly a result of a business choice.

-- 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: true

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

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.

Not really the case...In general. Too many really good FF lens out there (and expensive ones) so you can almost always find a FF lens (at a given focal length) that will out perform a dedicated APS-C lens (at a given focal length) across the frame.

Canon and Nikon APS-C/DX formats are not really are good examples as Canon and Nikon don't put much resources on their APS-C formats but in their FF formats. I have no doubt provided Canon and Nikon seriously designed and optimized APS-C lenses and don't mind to sell as high as their FF counterparts by using the same quality materials, such APS-C lenses will beat FF counterpart lenses on APS-C cameras.

One of reasons they don't do that APS-C shooters unlike FF photog in general are unwilling to spend premium cost on such pro-graded lenses, and still turn out not as good as FF counterpart lenses on FF cameras. Just imagine how much cost will be if Canon or Nikon ever designed a zoom as good as or even better than Sigma 18-35/1.8 (that already beats EF 24-70L II on APS-C although not covers the same AOV)? How many APS-C shooters will buy such super-expensive premium APS-C lenses? It is not worth as they will rather move to FF with similar costed FF lens and still performs better on FF.

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.

True, that is a problem...and mostly a result of a business choice.

Unlike APS-C platform that Canon and Nikon don't commit all resources in and not the only choice in their lineup, Panasonic and Olympus commit 100% of their resources into this mFT platform and design and optimize with the best effort on mFT lenses that work better than lenses designed for larger-format and used thru adapters.

-- 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: 25,567
Re: true

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

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.

Not really the case...In general. Too many really good FF lens out there (and expensive ones) so you can almost always find a FF lens (at a given focal length) that will out perform a dedicated APS-C lens (at a given focal length) across the frame.

Canon and Nikon APS-C/DX formats are not really are good examples as Canon and Nikon don't put much resources on their APS-C formats but in their FF formats.

Kind of a strange way to say you "understand", but at least you can see the difference. Good luck going forward.

-- 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)

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 21,860
Re: true

I wont wade into the "designed for" conversation as you pointed out, it isnt true.  My point was simple...you have more lens choices with aps-c.  Case in point, I can mount ef and efs lenses on an aps-c body.  Efs won't work on the ff. Thus, less choice.

Minor issue really as there are more than sufficient lrnses for mist brands to satisfy any of my professional needs.  Unfortunately, many hobbyists think they need 500 different lenses to get a snapshot of their cat   

 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: true

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

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.

Not really the case...In general. Too many really good FF lens out there (and expensive ones) so you can almost always find a FF lens (at a given focal length) that will out perform a dedicated APS-C lens (at a given focal length) across the frame.

Canon and Nikon APS-C/DX formats are not really are good examples as Canon and Nikon don't put much resources on their APS-C formats but in their FF formats.

Kind of a strange way to say you "understand",

Not sure what's your understanding that seems different from my understanding.

but at least you can see the difference. Good luck going forward.

Absolutely difference between crop and FF.  FF system (lens + sensor) is much better than APS-C or smaller crop system in IQ.

My point is that,

if APS-C lens is equally well designed and optimized on APS-C, then it will perform better than a FF lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera with the same or similar FL on the same FF eq spec such as a F1.8 lens on APS-C vs a F2.8 lens on FF;

However the same APS-C lens on APS-C camera is still not as good as the FF lens on a FF camera.

Sigma 18-35/1.8 is such a good sample.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

In terms of DOF, yes, and you have to pay for it, in terms of size, weight, and cost. That said, if you are trying to match the DOF/noise performance of FF with crop, then you're better off, in terms of size, weight, and cost, with just going FF.

Let's not forget low and base ISOs. Most just emphasize high ISO as this is the only area FF has advantage. Not true. FF has advantages crossing entire ISO range including at base ISO. FF with respective lenses has less noises in shadow (pretty obvious if we view 6D and 70D photos at full size), better color tonality and noticeably sharper with comparable lenses. All these are well discussed, debated and confirmed by creditable test sites such as DXO. In short FF has significant advantage in IQ with comparable lenses. Every EF lens performs (much) better on FF than on APS-C.

Yeah, but many APS-C lenses help close that gap considerably.

If FF only had advantage in high ISO then it would much less appealing to professionals as they usually shoot at base ISO for landscape on tripod or in well-lit studio for portrait. Why those pros and enthusiasts like you and me would buy expensive and bulky FF cameras?

I think a lot of pros are at high ISO (wedding and sports photographers, for example).  But, indeed, FF has the IQ advantage at base ISO.  The question is if FF has enough of an advantage at base ISO to make a noticeable difference in the IQ at the size people display their photos.  For some, absolutely it does.  For others, not so much.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

In terms of DOF, yes, and you have to pay for it, in terms of size, weight, and cost. That said, if you are trying to match the DOF/noise performance of FF with crop, then you're better off, in terms of size, weight, and cost, with just going FF.

Let's not forget low and base ISOs. Most just emphasize high ISO as this is the only area FF has advantage. Not true. FF has advantages crossing entire ISO range including at base ISO. FF with respective lenses has less noises in shadow (pretty obvious if we view 6D and 70D photos at full size), better color tonality and noticeably sharper with comparable lenses. All these are well discussed, debated and confirmed by creditable test sites such as DXO. In short FF has significant advantage in IQ with comparable lenses. Every EF lens performs (much) better on FF than on APS-C.

Yeah, but many APS-C lenses help close that gap considerably.

First of all, there are not many APS-C lenses in Canon and Nikon. And same some best quality FF lenses help FF cameras maintain the lead.

If FF only had advantage in high ISO then it would much less appealing to professionals as they usually shoot at base ISO for landscape on tripod or in well-lit studio for portrait. Why those pros and enthusiasts like you and me would buy expensive and bulky FF cameras?

I think a lot of pros are at high ISO (wedding and sports photographers, for example). But, indeed, FF has the IQ advantage at base ISO.

Also lots of landscape pros who only shoot at base ISO.

The question is if FF has enough of an advantage at base ISO to make a noticeable difference in the IQ at the size people display their photos.

Absolutely especially in large size.  Most top landscape photographers are using FF or even MF cameras.

For some, absolutely it does.

For most pros and many enthusiasts.

For others, not so much.

For many others even cellphone cameras are good enough that is purely subjective.  But the potential IQ difference is also substantial.  The only difference is if someone cares, someone could produce to see, someone ever needs it?

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
FF vs crop

qianp2k wrote:

Absolutely difference between crop and FF. FF system (lens + sensor) is much better than APS-C or smaller crop system in IQ.

My point is that,

if APS-C lens is equally well designed and optimized on APS-C, then it will perform better than a FF lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera with the same or similar FL on the same FF eq spec such as a F1.8 lens on APS-C vs a F2.8 lens on FF;

However the same APS-C lens on APS-C camera is still not as good as the FF lens on a FF camera.

Sigma 18-35/1.8 is such a good sample.

FF most certainly comes out on top over crop (Canon vs Canon -- other APS-C, or mFT, has various advantages over Canon FF due to the superior Sony sensors).

However, there are three situations where the IQ advantages of FF are severely limited:

  • Equivalent Photos (same DOF and shutter speed)
  • Deep DOF Photos (due to diffraction)
  • Small Display Size (display on a computer monitor and/or prints at, say, 8x12 inches or smaller)

In these situations, the IQ advantage of FF over crop are greatly diminished, and one might well find the operational advantages of crop, not to mention the lower cost, to make crop the better system.  In my opinion, more, by far, are better served with crop than with FF.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,567
If

qianp2k wrote:

My point is that,

if APS-C lens is equally well designed and optimized on APS-C, then it will perform better than a FF lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera with the same or similar FL on the same FF eq spec such as a F1.8 lens on APS-C vs a F2.8 lens on FF;

If a FF lens is, as you say, also a lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera, then likely it will perform better than a APS-C only lens on APS-C. The things that make any FF lens great...often carry over when same lens is mounted on APS-C. Great FF lens, with rare exceptions, don't often become "poor" when mounted on APS-C. That's part of the reason you don't see many truly great APS-C only lenses.

-- 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)

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

In terms of DOF, yes, and you have to pay for it, in terms of size, weight, and cost. That said, if you are trying to match the DOF/noise performance of FF with crop, then you're better off, in terms of size, weight, and cost, with just going FF.

Let's not forget low and base ISOs. Most just emphasize high ISO as this is the only area FF has advantage. Not true. FF has advantages crossing entire ISO range including at base ISO. FF with respective lenses has less noises in shadow (pretty obvious if we view 6D and 70D photos at full size), better color tonality and noticeably sharper with comparable lenses. All these are well discussed, debated and confirmed by creditable test sites such as DXO. In short FF has significant advantage in IQ with comparable lenses. Every EF lens performs (much) better on FF than on APS-C.

Yeah, but many APS-C lenses help close that gap considerably.

First of all, there are not many APS-C lenses in Canon and Nikon. And same some best quality FF lenses help FF cameras maintain the lead.

Not as many as their should be, but there are some pretty good ones.

If FF only had advantage in high ISO then it would much less appealing to professionals as they usually shoot at base ISO for landscape on tripod or in well-lit studio for portrait. Why those pros and enthusiasts like you and me would buy expensive and bulky FF cameras?

I think a lot of pros are at high ISO (wedding and sports photographers, for example). But, indeed, FF has the IQ advantage at base ISO.

Also lots of landscape pros who only shoot at base ISO.

Sure.  I'm just saying that many pros don't.

The question is if FF has enough of an advantage at base ISO to make a noticeable difference in the IQ at the size people display their photos.

Absolutely especially in large size. Most top landscape photographers are using FF or even MF cameras.

Then again, all FF really offers over crop is convenience.  For static scenes, it's a simple matter to merge and stitch photos -- there's even automated software for it.  So, you just take a few more photos with crop than you would have taken with FF.

For some, absolutely it does.

For most pros and many enthusiasts.

For others, not so much.

For many others even cellphone cameras are good enough that is purely subjective.

Yes.

But the potential IQ difference is also substantial. The only difference is if someone cares, someone could produce to see, someone ever needs it?

I don't disagree.  Then again, if the size of the FF system is off-putting to the extent that they would not use it much of the time, there is that to consider.

That is, if FF and crop were the same size, weight, and cost, the matter would never be debated -- everyone would just shoot FF and crop wouldn't even exist.  So, the question is if the IQ advantages of FF over crop are worth the operational and price differences.  My opinion on the matter is that, no, no they don't, for the vast majority.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
Re: If

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

My point is that,

if APS-C lens is equally well designed and optimized on APS-C, then it will perform better than a FF lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera with the same or similar FL on the same FF eq spec such as a F1.8 lens on APS-C vs a F2.8 lens on FF;

If a FF lens is, as you say, also a lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera, then likely it will perform better than a APS-C only lens on APS-C. The things that make any FF lens great...often carry over when same lens is mounted on APS-C. Great FF lens, with rare exceptions, don't often become "poor" when mounted on APS-C. That's part of the reason you don't see many truly great APS-C only lenses.

Hmm.  I think it might be a lot easier to design a sharper lens for a smaller image circle.  The longer the lens, the less the image circle matters, however.  So, for example, a 70-200 / 2.8 specifically designed for APS-C would probably be no better, or even less expensive, than the 70-200 / 2.8s that exist for FF.

However, if a 24 / 1.4 were designed specifically for APS-C, I think it would be sharper than the 24/1.4L II, for example, be smaller, and cost less.  That said, it still wouldn't outperform the 35 / 2 IS on FF, methinks.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,567
Maybe

Great Bustard wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

My point is that,

if APS-C lens is equally well designed and optimized on APS-C, then it will perform better than a FF lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera with the same or similar FL on the same FF eq spec such as a F1.8 lens on APS-C vs a F2.8 lens on FF;

If a FF lens is, as you say, also a lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera, then likely it will perform better than a APS-C only lens on APS-C. The things that make any FF lens great...often carry over when same lens is mounted on APS-C. Great FF lens, with rare exceptions, don't often become "poor" when mounted on APS-C. That's part of the reason you don't see many truly great APS-C only lenses.

Hmm. I think it might be a lot easier to design a sharper lens for a smaller image circle.

I thought about that. But might actually be easier (from manufacturing standpoint) to start with a FF lens and insure the area projecting on to the smaller APS-c image circle is sharp and free of aberrations across the APS-C frame than manufacture a smaller lens that is as good center to edge.

The longer the lens, the less the image circle matters, however. So, for example, a 70-200 / 2.8 specifically designed for APS-C would probably be no better, or even less expensive, than the 70-200 / 2.8s that exist for FF.

Agreed. Why I think (part of the reason) there are fewer outstanding APS-C only lenses

However, if a 24 / 1.4 were designed specifically for APS-C, I think it would be sharper than the 24/1.4L II, for example, be smaller, and cost less. That said, it still wouldn't outperform the 35 / 2 IS on FF, methinks.

I think your on the right track there.

-- 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)

MayaTlab0
MayaTlab0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,736
Re: true

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

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.

True, that is a problem...and mostly a result of a business choice.

Unlike APS-C platform that Canon and Nikon don't commit all resources in and not the only choice in their lineup, Panasonic and Olympus commit 100% of their resources into this mFT platform and design and optimize with the best effort on mFT lenses that work better than lenses designed for larger-format and used thru adapters.

Indeed. And that's why, as far as I'm concerned, the choice is either Canon / Nikon FF or other brands. Which is a shame, as I could very well be interested in Canon or Nikon APSC cameras if they had the primes lineup to back them up.

It possibly is a business decision. But one that makes me look with strong interest at other brands.

Or it could simply be that they aren't particularly clever decisions-makers. Sony's lens lineup is a pretty telling example of that.

In any case I don't think it's a question of resources. Nikon has been releasing a new 18-xxxxxxxx super mega giga zoom every year while they could have easily released a few fast higher-end zooms or primes instead.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
Re: Maybe

Mako2011 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

My point is that,

if APS-C lens is equally well designed and optimized on APS-C, then it will perform better than a FF lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera with the same or similar FL on the same FF eq spec such as a F1.8 lens on APS-C vs a F2.8 lens on FF;

If a FF lens is, as you say, also a lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera, then likely it will perform better than a APS-C only lens on APS-C. The things that make any FF lens great...often carry over when same lens is mounted on APS-C. Great FF lens, with rare exceptions, don't often become "poor" when mounted on APS-C. That's part of the reason you don't see many truly great APS-C only lenses.

Hmm. I think it might be a lot easier to design a sharper lens for a smaller image circle.

I thought about that. But might actually be easier (from manufacturing standpoint) to start with a FF lens and insure the area projecting on to the smaller APS-c image circle is sharp and free of aberrations across the APS-C frame than manufacture a smaller lens that is as good center to edge.

I'm thinking the Sigma 18-35 / 1.8 is a 27-63 / 2.8 FF lens with a 0.67x FR (focal reducer).  Not unlike how Olympus made their 14-35 / 2 and 35-100 / 2.

The longer the lens, the less the image circle matters, however. So, for example, a 70-200 / 2.8 specifically designed for APS-C would probably be no better, or even less expensive, than the 70-200 / 2.8s that exist for FF.

Agreed. Why I think (part of the reason) there are fewer outstanding APS-C only lenses

Lot's of APS-C users are screaming for fast APS-C wide primes, though.

However, if a 24 / 1.4 were designed specifically for APS-C, I think it would be sharper than the 24/1.4L II, for example, be smaller, and cost less. That said, it still wouldn't outperform the 35 / 2 IS on FF, methinks.

I think your on the right track there.

If you want the advantages of FF, best to just go FF rather than try to get FF performance in a smaller format.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: FF vs crop

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Absolutely difference between crop and FF. FF system (lens + sensor) is much better than APS-C or smaller crop system in IQ.

My point is that,

if APS-C lens is equally well designed and optimized on APS-C, then it will perform better than a FF lens designed and optimized on an APS-C camera with the same or similar FL on the same FF eq spec such as a F1.8 lens on APS-C vs a F2.8 lens on FF;

However the same APS-C lens on APS-C camera is still not as good as the FF lens on a FF camera.

Sigma 18-35/1.8 is such a good sample.

FF most certainly comes out on top over crop (Canon vs Canon -- other APS-C, or mFT, has various advantages over Canon FF due to the superior Sony sensors).

Mainly DR. Canon FF IQ is still better than Sony sensor-based crop in IQ overall.

However, there are three situations where the IQ advantages of FF are severely limited:

  • Equivalent Photos (same DOF and shutter speed)

You seem never can get out of the loop of 'equivalency". Why you'd need to shoot on such equivalency with a FF camera?

  • Deep DOF Photos (due to diffraction)

Not again please, otherwise why not on 1" sensor, why not on 1/1.7" or 1/2.3" sensor? Shallow DOF with FF is only in two scenarios - a) artistic presentation such as in portrait or shallow DOF look photos; b) in low light to keep ISO low with a fast lens. Either darker edges are not important or you just need to stop down one-stop to get sharper but a bit of out of focus plane FF edge photo compared to softer but more-in-focus-plane APS-C edge photos while vast center and mid-frame from FF is much sharper, cleaner with better color tonality. I'd pickup such FF photo any day. APS-C photo doesn't have an advantage even at edges. As said out-focus-plane blur <> softness.

In daylight or good light then FF can stop down to have the same DOF as crop, and suffers less in diffraction actually. Did you see Pentax 645Z samples taken at F16?

In my experiences, I have not found FF has an issue in DOF in low light photos that is overexaggerated by you. Otherwise you really should use a 1/2.3" sensor compact camera.

  • Small Display Size (display on a computer monitor and/or prints at, say, 8x12 inches or smaller)

I can see difference clearly even at 2000-pixel wide between 60D and 5D2 or even 5D1 that latter two are noticeably sharper, cleaner and better color toanlity. But as I said the potential of difference is quite substantial if you can leverage it.

In these situations, the IQ advantage of FF over crop are greatly diminished, and one might well find the operational advantages of crop, not to mention the lower cost, to make crop the better system. In my opinion, more, by far, are better served with crop than with FF.

I am sure to most people a P&S or a cellphone camera is good enough. But the IQ advantage of FF over crop is substantial there that you can leverage it.

By that sense, I believe that is the reason you picked up FF camera 5D and now 6D for yourself rather a crop camera, rather a mFT or a compact. The only puzzle is that you are trying to persuade others FF is not really much better than crop and crop is enough for them, that sounds pretty strange that what you said is not what you actually did, hum.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

In terms of DOF, yes, and you have to pay for it, in terms of size, weight, and cost. That said, if you are trying to match the DOF/noise performance of FF with crop, then you're better off, in terms of size, weight, and cost, with just going FF.

Let's not forget low and base ISOs. Most just emphasize high ISO as this is the only area FF has advantage. Not true. FF has advantages crossing entire ISO range including at base ISO. FF with respective lenses has less noises in shadow (pretty obvious if we view 6D and 70D photos at full size), better color tonality and noticeably sharper with comparable lenses. All these are well discussed, debated and confirmed by creditable test sites such as DXO. In short FF has significant advantage in IQ with comparable lenses. Every EF lens performs (much) better on FF than on APS-C.

Yeah, but many APS-C lenses help close that gap considerably.

First of all, there are not many APS-C lenses in Canon and Nikon. And same some best quality FF lenses help FF cameras maintain the lead.

Not as many as their should be, but there are some pretty good ones.

But then FF has also excellent lenses and have more.

If FF only had advantage in high ISO then it would much less appealing to professionals as they usually shoot at base ISO for landscape on tripod or in well-lit studio for portrait. Why those pros and enthusiasts like you and me would buy expensive and bulky FF cameras?

I think a lot of pros are at high ISO (wedding and sports photographers, for example). But, indeed, FF has the IQ advantage at base ISO.

Also lots of landscape pros who only shoot at base ISO.

Sure. I'm just saying that many pros don't.

Pros shoot in all ISO range.

The question is if FF has enough of an advantage at base ISO to make a noticeable difference in the IQ at the size people display their photos.

Absolutely especially in large size. Most top landscape photographers are using FF or even MF cameras.

Then again, all FF really offers over crop is convenience.

Absolutely not, is absolute better IQ.

For static scenes, it's a simple matter to merge and stitch photos -- there's even automated software for it. So, you just take a few more photos with crop than you would have taken with FF.

I don't think you understand. You just think resolution. But then FF cameras also can stitch photos to create even higher resolution photos. Also FF is better in other areas - sharpness, cleanness, color tonality and perspective. Otherwise you'd think 41mp Nokia photo camera is the same as 36mp D800E/A7R or even 22mp 5D3.

For some, absolutely it does.

For most pros and many enthusiasts.

For others, not so much.

For many others even cellphone cameras are good enough that is purely subjective.

Yes.

Sure

But the potential IQ difference is also substantial. The only difference is if someone cares, someone could produce to see, someone ever needs it?

I don't disagree. Then again, if the size of the FF system is off-putting to the extent that they would not use it much of the time, there is that to consider.

Sure. That's why compact cameras are still useful such as I got a RX100 that likes my old S95 fully pocketable and still can generate pretty nice photos (much better than S95's IQ although I prefer latter's colors). But FF cameras today not necessary big/heavy. Sony did ML A7-series, with FE 35 is not really much bigger than mFT cameras with similar lens. Hope Canon and Nikon will do the same, or at least a FF SL1 or smaller 6D2.

That is, if FF and crop were the same size, weight, and cost, the matter would never be debated -- everyone would just shoot FF and crop wouldn't even exist.

Sure I'd pickup RX1 if it equals to RX100 in all aspects you mentioned above.

So, the question is if the IQ advantages of FF over crop are worth the operational and price differences. My opinion on the matter is that, no, no they don't, for the vast majority.

I don't judge vast majority. But it seems worth to me and you at least, LOL.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,567
no absolutes

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

In terms of DOF, yes, and you have to pay for it, in terms of size, weight, and cost. That said, if you are trying to match the DOF/noise performance of FF with crop, then you're better off, in terms of size, weight, and cost, with just going FF.

Let's not forget low and base ISOs. Most just emphasize high ISO as this is the only area FF has advantage. Not true. FF has advantages crossing entire ISO range including at base ISO. FF with respective lenses has less noises in shadow (pretty obvious if we view 6D and 70D photos at full size), better color tonality and noticeably sharper with comparable lenses. All these are well discussed, debated and confirmed by creditable test sites such as DXO. In short FF has significant advantage in IQ with comparable lenses. Every EF lens performs (much) better on FF than on APS-C.

Yeah, but many APS-C lenses help close that gap considerably.

First of all, there are not many APS-C lenses in Canon and Nikon. And same some best quality FF lenses help FF cameras maintain the lead.

Not as many as their should be, but there are some pretty good ones.

But then FF has also excellent lenses and have more.

If FF only had advantage in high ISO then it would much less appealing to professionals as they usually shoot at base ISO for landscape on tripod or in well-lit studio for portrait. Why those pros and enthusiasts like you and me would buy expensive and bulky FF cameras?

I think a lot of pros are at high ISO (wedding and sports photographers, for example). But, indeed, FF has the IQ advantage at base ISO.

Also lots of landscape pros who only shoot at base ISO.

Sure. I'm just saying that many pros don't.

Pros shoot in all ISO range.

Not all. Some never even go above 3200

The question is if FF has enough of an advantage at base ISO to make a noticeable difference in the IQ at the size people display their photos.

Absolutely especially in large size. Most top landscape photographers are using FF or even MF cameras.

Then again, all FF really offers over crop is convenience.

Absolutely not, is absolute better IQ.

Really not the case unless you are speaking in terms of hypotheticals where the two formats are using the exact same top of the bar sensor tech. For example, certain aspects of IQ, like DR or resolution, might be better served with a current gen APS-C sensor vs the current gen FF sensor of a specific manufacture.Sometimes it takes FF time to catch back up in some areas of IQ

-- 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)

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
Not cool, Peter.

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

The question is if FF has enough of an advantage at base ISO to make a noticeable difference in the IQ at the size people display their photos.

Absolutely especially in large size. Most top landscape photographers are using FF or even MF cameras.

Then again, all FF really offers over crop is convenience.

Absolutely not, is absolute better IQ.

What you did above is called a "quote mine", and it's a very dishonest thing to do. What I said was:

Then again, all FF really offers over crop is convenience. For static scenes, it's a simple matter to merge and stitch photos -- there's even automated software for it. So, you just take a few more photos with crop than you would have taken with FF.

Please, don't misrepresent what I've said in such a manner again.  I mean, it's one thing to honestly misinterpret, or disagree with, what I've said, but intentional misrepresentation, especially with such a blatant quote mine, is another thing all together.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads