1.6 crop IQ tests don't look as sharp compared to full frame, why?

Hi Guys

I recently purchased a 200-400 2nd hand and was toying with the idea of getting a 7D mark ii as a trial to see if I achieved better results with crop camera and no extender as opposed to full frame 1Dx with extender. Also extra reach of 1.6 would be handy. 560mm FOV. v 640mm FOV. I would struggled on low light days I am sure with regard to noise. Shooting AFL Football mainly.

the 7Dii looks so bad here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

It does seem like the 7Dii is sharper than the extender enguaged on full frame

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Anyone have experience they arte willing to share? Thanks in advance!

The crop can deliver great images with very good light, but I will always select the full frame when the light is low to achieve faster shutter speed for action shots with higher ISOs.  Of course, without a fast lens,  extenders just add to the low light problem... and  crops are noisy.

With good light And a good lens I get excellent results with a crop and 1.4 lll extender.

I am a newcomer here, but based on my reading:

1) generally speaking not all FF lenses permorm well on a crop sensor. the crop sensor uses only the central part of the lens, so the FF lens must have a very good center resolution to perform well on a crop. On the other side corner to corner the performance tends to be consistent. A good example is my 40mm STM (i know, not in the focal range we are speaking), not extremely sharp but very consistent across the frame already at f2.8

2) after we pass 250mm and a certain distance, we do not have only the sensor noise, but also light noise become evident (there is a dpreview article that talks about that kind of noise)

So i think that the performance of a lens on different sensor size should not be compared at the same focal lenght but at the same equivalent focal lenght.

We should compare the performance of 300mm in FF with 187mm on crop (same distance etc) or compare the long end 300mm of the lens on a crop with a 480mm on a FF (again, a more similar effort) and there evaluate if the difference of performance (i'd expect that the crop to be less good) and price (i expect the 480mm FF lens to be a lot more pricy) and make your mind if can live with the cropped result or you need the better solution.

This is how understand this matter so far...

mordor_74 wrote:

I am a newcomer here, but based on my reading:

1) generally speaking not all FF lenses permorm well on a crop sensor. the crop sensor uses only the central part of the lens, so the FF lens must have a very good center resolution to perform well on a crop. On the other side corner to corner the performance tends to be consistent. A good example is my 40mm STM (i know, not in the focal range we are speaking), not extremely sharp but very consistent across the frame already at f2.8

Only part I disagree with in 1 is the sharpness of the 40mm, it's pretty sharp, unless you meant just not sharp in the company of lenses like the 300 f/2.8 and 85 Zeiss Otus, etc... It beats most other lenses at its price point by miles.

2) after we pass 250mm and a certain distance, we do not have only the sensor noise, but also light noise become evident (there is a dpreview article that talks about that kind of noise)

I think you're mixed up here.  That isn't because of the focal length at all.  You always have photon shot noise.  A smaller sensor for the same exposure receives less total light and so has more photon shot noise.  This shouldn't hurt the sharpness per se though, but I guess it does as higher ISO noise reduction turns things to mush.  You may be thinking of degradations from the atmosphere when shooting at very long distances, which can be made even worse by anything else in the air, smog, pollen, high humidity, haze, rising heat causing shimmer.  Even though these long focal lengths may be used under these conditions in practice, the testing is all conducted at very modest distances where these don't really come into play, so they aren't paying any additional penalty in testing for that.

So i think that the performance of a lens on different sensor size should not be compared at the same focal lenght but at the same equivalent focal lenght.

In terms of framing?  In that sense I believe they already are.

We should compare the performance of 300mm in FF with 187mm on crop (same distance etc) or compare the long end 300mm of the lens on a crop with a 480mm on a FF (again, a more similar effort) and there evaluate if the difference of performance (i'd expect that the crop to be less good) and price (i expect the 480mm FF lens to be a lot more pricy) and make your mind if can live with the cropped result or you need the better solution.

.... to what end?  We already have compensated for focal length by changing our shooting distance to frame the shot the same way.

This is how understand this matter so far...

ttbek wrote:

mordor_74 wrote:

I am a newcomer here, but based on my reading:

1) generally speaking not all FF lenses permorm well on a crop sensor. the crop sensor uses only the central part of the lens, so the FF lens must have a very good center resolution to perform well on a crop. On the other side corner to corner the performance tends to be consistent. A good example is my 40mm STM (i know, not in the focal range we are speaking), not extremely sharp but very consistent across the frame already at f2.8

Only part I disagree with in 1 is the sharpness of the 40mm, it's pretty sharp, unless you meant just not sharp in the company of lenses like the 300 f/2.8 and 85 Zeiss Otus, etc... It beats most other lenses at its price point by miles.

I'm ok with the sharpness of the 40mm, it is good to me, but not as sharp as my NX 30mm and i guess i know what i am talking about

2) after we pass 250mm and a certain distance, we do not have only the sensor noise, but also light noise become evident (there is a dpreview article that talks about that kind of noise)

I think you're mixed up here. That isn't because of the focal length at all. You always have photon shot noise. A smaller sensor for the same exposure receives less total light and so has more photon shot noise. This shouldn't hurt the sharpness per se though, but I guess it does as higher ISO noise reduction turns things to mush. You may be thinking of degradations from the atmosphere when shooting at very long distances, which can be made even worse by anything else in the air, smog, pollen, high humidity, haze, rising heat causing shimmer. Even though these long focal lengths may be used under these conditions in practice, the testing is all conducted at very modest distances where these don't really come into play, so they aren't paying any additional penalty in testing for that.

I assumed that when you shot at 250mm your target is farer than when you shoot 18mm, i'm not thinking only at the resolution chart, but real usage

So i think that the performance of a lens on different sensor size should not be compared at the same focal lenght but at the same equivalent focal lenght.

In terms of framing? In that sense I believe they already are.

We should compare the performance of 300mm in FF with 187mm on crop (same distance etc) or compare the long end 300mm of the lens on a crop with a 480mm on a FF (again, a more similar effort) and there evaluate if the difference of performance (i'd expect that the crop to be less good) and price (i expect the 480mm FF lens to be a lot more pricy) and make your mind if can live with the cropped result or you need the better solution.

.... to what end? We already have compensated for focal length by changing our shooting distance to frame the shot the same way.

This is how understand this matter so far...

mordor_74 wrote:

ttbek wrote:

mordor_74 wrote:

I am a newcomer here, but based on my reading:

1) generally speaking not all FF lenses permorm well on a crop sensor. the crop sensor uses only the central part of the lens, so the FF lens must have a very good center resolution to perform well on a crop. On the other side corner to corner the performance tends to be consistent. A good example is my 40mm STM (i know, not in the focal range we are speaking), not extremely sharp but very consistent across the frame already at f2.8

Only part I disagree with in 1 is the sharpness of the 40mm, it's pretty sharp, unless you meant just not sharp in the company of lenses like the 300 f/2.8 and 85 Zeiss Otus, etc... It beats most other lenses at its price point by miles.

I'm ok with the sharpness of the 40mm, it is good to me, but not as sharp as my NX 30mm and i guess i know what i am talking about

Ah, well the 30 is exceptional as well ^_^

2) after we pass 250mm and a certain distance, we do not have only the sensor noise, but also light noise become evident (there is a dpreview article that talks about that kind of noise)

I think you're mixed up here. That isn't because of the focal length at all. You always have photon shot noise. A smaller sensor for the same exposure receives less total light and so has more photon shot noise. This shouldn't hurt the sharpness per se though, but I guess it does as higher ISO noise reduction turns things to mush. You may be thinking of degradations from the atmosphere when shooting at very long distances, which can be made even worse by anything else in the air, smog, pollen, high humidity, haze, rising heat causing shimmer. Even though these long focal lengths may be used under these conditions in practice, the testing is all conducted at very modest distances where these don't really come into play, so they aren't paying any additional penalty in testing for that.

I assumed that when you shot at 250mm your target is farer than when you shoot 18mm, i'm not thinking only at the resolution chart, but real usage

Well, sort of.  If you are doing something like portraits then you will.  At these distances it usually doesn't matter though, though there are certainly some exceptions.  If you are shooting a distant mountain landscape and don't have the opportunity to get close (miles of travel) though they will obscure details of the mountain in the same way for both a long or short focal length.  They may be more apparent in a shot with the long focal length though because they will be more magnified just as the subject is.  Actually, this will matter much more in underwater photography, where the smaller distance differences have a much greater impact.  If I recall correctly there was an underwater photographer giving a talk and he liked ultra wide lenses because you could fit sharks in the frame while not being so far that the water makes it all murky.  .... of course you need to be comfortable getting close to sharks for that to be an advantage

So i think that the performance of a lens on different sensor size should not be compared at the same focal lenght but at the same equivalent focal lenght.

In terms of framing? In that sense I believe they already are.

We should compare the performance of 300mm in FF with 187mm on crop (same distance etc) or compare the long end 300mm of the lens on a crop with a 480mm on a FF (again, a more similar effort) and there evaluate if the difference of performance (i'd expect that the crop to be less good) and price (i expect the 480mm FF lens to be a lot more pricy) and make your mind if can live with the cropped result or you need the better solution.

.... to what end? We already have compensated for focal length by changing our shooting distance to frame the shot the same way.

This is how understand this matter so far...

-- hide signature --

http://samsungnxtips.blogspot.com

We have a 6D and a 700D between which we often switch lenses, I’d say sharpness isn’t an issue. But lots of other things are when cropping, in particular noise.

As soon as the lights less than perfect, there will be more grain and noise, and then the 700D just looks less sharp. In good light theres nothing in it, but as soon as theres a bit of cloud the 6D wins.

The extender just makes matters worse.

/Neil

Spad16 wrote:

We have a 6D and a 700D between which we often switch lenses, I’d say sharpness isn’t an issue. But lots of other things are when cropping, in particular noise.

As soon as the lights less than perfect, there will be more grain and noise, and then the 700D just looks less sharp. In good light theres nothing in it, but as soon as theres a bit of cloud the 6D wins.

The extender just makes matters worse.

/Neil

Yes... it's all about the available light. My crops perform very well in good light with long glass. And I only use long glass on my crops.

Pones wrote:

Hi Guys

I recently purchased a 200-400 2nd hand and was toying with the idea of getting a 7D mark ii as a trial to see if I achieved better results with crop camera and no extender as opposed to full frame 1Dx with extender. Also extra reach of 1.6 would be handy. 560mm FOV. v 640mm FOV. I would struggled on low light days I am sure with regard to noise. Shooting AFL Football mainly.

the 7Dii looks so bad here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

It does seem like the 7Dii is sharper than the extender enguaged on full frame

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Anyone have experience they arte willing to share? Thanks in advance!

The build-in x1.4 in the 200-400 is very good so I prefer 200-400 @400 + built-in x1.4 + 1DX mk ii over the 200-400 + 7D mk ii. Adding an external canon x1.4 mk iii takes an IQ hit so I prefer 200-400 @400 + build-in x1.4 + 7D mk ii over the 200-400 @ 400 + built-in x1.4 + external x1.4 mk ii + 1 DX mk ii.

I haven't done any scientific tests though, just informal experience.

If I can't bring both the 1DX mk ii and the 7D mk ii with the 200-400 I bring the 7D mk ii for birding in good light and the 1DX mk ii for all other situations. I have got many good shots with the 7D mk ii but the 1DX mk ii is better: better IQ, faster AF, more reliable AF. And faster. I am not much into sports so I can't comment on football.

Myrgjorf wrote:

Pones wrote:

Hi Guys

I recently purchased a 200-400 2nd hand and was toying with the idea of getting a 7D mark ii as a trial to see if I achieved better results with crop camera and no extender as opposed to full frame 1Dx with extender. Also extra reach of 1.6 would be handy. 560mm FOV. v 640mm FOV. I would struggled on low light days I am sure with regard to noise. Shooting AFL Football mainly.

the 7Dii looks so bad here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

It does seem like the 7Dii is sharper than the extender enguaged on full frame

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Anyone have experience they arte willing to share? Thanks in advance!

The build-in x1.4 in the 200-400 is very good so I prefer 200-400 @400 + built-in x1.4 + 1DX mk ii over the 200-400 + 7D mk ii. Adding an external canon x1.4 mk iii takes an IQ hit so I prefer 200-400 @400 + build-in x1.4 + 7D mk ii over the 200-400 @ 400 + built-in x1.4 + external x1.4 mk ii + 1 DX mk ii.

I haven't done any scientific tests though, just informal experience.

Well... DXO does, don't know why no one wants to accept it even though it almost always lines up with real world results as well, which this is yet another case of.

They measure the PMP of the 200-400 with 1.4x on the 1DX II at 13 PMP, and of the 200-400 without the 1.4x engaged at 11 PMP on the 7DII.

Your second scenario they have not measured, but I'm not sure that the external one is that different of a hit than the internal one (e.g. the internal one brings the PMP down from 18 to 13 on the 1DX II).

Of course the adapters can impact other aberrations in different ways, whereas using the smaller sensor will do so as a predictable magnification.

If I can't bring both the 1DX mk ii and the 7D mk ii with the 200-400 I bring the 7D mk ii for birding in good light and the 1DX mk ii for all other situations. I have got many good shots with the 7D mk ii but the 1DX mk ii is better: better IQ, faster AF, more reliable AF. And faster. I am not much into sports so I can't comment on football.

Thanks for all your input guys, sorry I put the wrong link in which confused things a little

Cheers Pones

ttbek wrote:

Myrgjorf wrote:

Pones wrote:

Hi Guys

I recently purchased a 200-400 2nd hand and was toying with the idea of getting a 7D mark ii as a trial to see if I achieved better results with crop camera and no extender as opposed to full frame 1Dx with extender. Also extra reach of 1.6 would be handy. 560mm FOV. v 640mm FOV. I would struggled on low light days I am sure with regard to noise. Shooting AFL Football mainly.

the 7Dii looks so bad here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

It does seem like the 7Dii is sharper than the extender enguaged on full frame

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Anyone have experience they arte willing to share? Thanks in advance!

The build-in x1.4 in the 200-400 is very good so I prefer 200-400 @400 + built-in x1.4 + 1DX mk ii over the 200-400 + 7D mk ii. Adding an external canon x1.4 mk iii takes an IQ hit so I prefer 200-400 @400 + build-in x1.4 + 7D mk ii over the 200-400 @ 400 + built-in x1.4 + external x1.4 mk ii + 1 DX mk ii.

I haven't done any scientific tests though, just informal experience.

Well... DXO does, don't know why no one wants to accept it even though it almost always lines up with real world results as well, which this is yet another case of.

They measure the PMP of the 200-400 with 1.4x on the 1DX II at 13 PMP, and of the 200-400 without the 1.4x engaged at 11 PMP on the 7DII.

Your second scenario they have not measured, but I'm not sure that the external one is that different of a hit than the internal one (e.g. the internal one brings the PMP down from 18 to 13 on the 1DX II).

Of course the adapters can impact other aberrations in different ways, whereas using the smaller sensor will do so as a predictable magnification.

If I can't bring both the 1DX mk ii and the 7D mk ii with the 200-400 I bring the 7D mk ii for birding in good light and the 1DX mk ii for all other situations. I have got many good shots with the 7D mk ii but the 1DX mk ii is better: better IQ, faster AF, more reliable AF. And faster. I am not much into sports so I can't comment on football.

For my usage colors and contrast are often more important than resolution. And I find that the external x1.4 impacts colors and contrast negatively. Thanks for the numbers though.