Full Frame advantage real?

[jackkurtz]

For me the full frame thing is important because I am a photojournalist and shoot about 75 percent of my work with wide angles. With 1.6 crops (before the ef-s lenses) there weren't wide angle choices, and if you prefer prime, as I do, there weren't any. So with the 5D and my prime lenses, a 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 100 f2 and 200mm f2.8 I have a great reportage kit that is smaller, cheaper and much lighter than the same kit would be with the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS. Plus, when you working around folks who aren't used to being photographed, the smaller lenses are less intimidating.

So for me, the full frame advantage is quite real. If I shot a lot of sports or wildlife (and used telephotos more often) I would prefer the cropped sensors and higher faster frames per second they offer.

jack

--
A few of my photos:
http://web.mac.com/kurtzjack/ or
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4177

 

[joe mama]

If Nikon would hurry up and make a competitor to the 5D! While I'm
considering getting a 5D, making a switch seems more and more
impractical the more I think about it...and that is because I'm fully
invested in Nikon gear right now. Switching seems illogical. Isn't
that recommended against?

Switching isn't necessarily illogical...

But then the 5D has been around since 2005 so it isn't exactly the
latest technology. By that, I mean that I'm not jumping into
something new because it just seems like its the best new thing on
the block.

...for the reasons you list above. But it is illogical if the advantages of the switch do not outweigh the disadvantages of switching. I'm a firm believer that the differences in operation between cameras matters far more for most people than the differences in IQ. It's said by many that Nikon has many advantages over Canon in that regard.

Speaking for myself, I'm a minimalist, I guess, in search of maximum IQ for the money I can afford to spend. From all I've read about Nikon, the only operational advantages that system has that would serve me better than Canon are on-demand grid lines and Auto ISO (I really, really, really want Auto-ISO). And those two operational advantages of Nikon mean all of squat to me compared to what the 5D offers me in terms of shallow DOF and high ISO performance. In addition to that, Canon has three indispensible lenses to me: 24 / 1.4L, 50 / 1.2L, and 100 / 2 (the 100 / 2 has USM, which makes it far more useful to me than Nikon's counterpart).

That said, if you could spring for a D3, I'd really push that option. Seems like a killer camera. And, to counter my indispensible Canon lenses, Nikon has a 14-24 / 2.8, which, by all accounts sets a new standard in wide lenses by a large margin, a new 24-70 / 2.8 which may lay waste to Canon's 24-70 / 2.8L in the same manner, and a 100 / 2.8 VR macro that is, from what I've heard, a killer lens.

Would I switch over to Nikon for all those plusses, even if it were free? No. Why not? For now, it's the lenses. But, if Nikon came out with some fast mid to wide primes that performed like the 14-24 / 2.8, I'd make the switch if I could afford it. Then again, there's the upcoming Sony FF DSLR. If its sensor performs as well as the Nion D3's (and there's no reason to think it won't), and has in-camera IS, then I would even more strongly consider that system instead. They already have a 35 / 1.4 and 135 / 1.8, so just a few more wide to mid fast primes and I get IS on them to boot. Neither Canon nor Nikon seem to think that fast primes need IS unless you're at or above 200mm (200 / 2 IS and 200 / 2 VR).

The price of the 5D kit is also attractive. $2799 at Amazon.com with
the 24-105!

That's a deal, to be sure! It's that which sets Canon apart -- uber IQ at much less cost than Nikon. But now that Nikon's gone FF, it seems you'll be able to get the same IQ (or perhaps better, if future new lenses are as standard setting as the 14-24 / 2.8), but you'll have to pay more for it.

The question is, of course, are you so good a photographer, or do you shoot in situations so challenging, that these IQ differences will make a difference at the size you print? Only you (or your customers) can answer that question. And then there's the operational side of the coin. What if Nikon releases a 5D counterpart but has much better AF and weather-sealing, even if it's at a higher price point? And then there's Sony. Their compact digicams are tops; might they not be able to do the same in the DSLR realm as well, with the added trick of in-camera IS that will give all your primes below 200mm a susbstantial edge for static subjects?

Would most recommend staying with Nikon for now?

As I hope I've clearly detailed above, there's no freakin' way anyone but you can answer that question. In my case, the 5D and Canon's wide to mid fast primes has no equal. But that could easily change within a year, or two. Easily. There are just so many gambles being made by either switching or staying -- if Nikon releases a 5D competitor and fast wide to mid primes, if Sony's FF DSLR has in-camera IS and releases fast wide to mid primes, if the Canon 5D II once again sets the standard for FF noise performance, if Canon splits the 5D line into a budget 7D and the begged-for 3D, etc.

I can't answer your dilemma for you. I've no crystal ball. I just know that for me, and for my style of shooting, the Canon 5D and Canon glass has no equal. But I can't say that won't change even six months from now. Your needs seem to be similar to mine, and you would benefit from what I have. But you could make the switch and in less than a year regret the move, as the competition continues to step up in the arena of FF and fast primes.

To quote Rush, "If you decide not to choose, you still have made a choice." There's no way out of this. Go get them dice, and roll'em. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

Nothing remotely as fast and wide available for a crop sensor, it'd
need to be a 16/1.0 to be equivalent. By far my favorite lens for
shooting bands up close in small, dark clubs.

If there was such a lens as a 16mm F1.4, would it work in this
situation assuming optical quality was not an issue?

...and it's not going to happen, anyway. The cost of a 16 / 1.4, even for 1.6x, would most likely be high enough that it would be cheaper to go FF regardless. In any event, while a 16 / 1.4 on crop would force a deeper DOF (which may or may not be desirable for those types of pics), it would also have more noise than a 24 / 1.4L at f / 1.4 on FF.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

Tell me if I can think of it this way. That site tests all their
lenses on the same body (a 350D). So if the 24-105 rates 1660 at
105mm and F4, what might it rate at if it were tested on a 5D? [I
just realized that you answered that already and your answer was that
it would be higher, but you're not sure by how much]

Read my mind. : )

Is it correct to assume that the sharpness at 105 relative to 24 will
still remain the same? Like, all the resolution numbers will just be
shifted.

Near the center, yes. But the edges may tell a different story.

But then how come the D2x rates higher than the 5D in resolving power?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page31.asp

Answered at the bottom of the page:

"As expected the EOS 5Ds resolution performance slots in somewhere between the EOS 20D and EOS-1Ds Mark II, an owner of the 20D upgrading to the 5D would certainly see a pretty significant jump in resolved detail. Compared to the D2X there is much less in it, the primary difference is in the way each camera handles information beyond absolute resolution, Canon choosing to blur it, Nikon attempting to return some detail (although in this case in the form of moire)."

Of course, those are jpg comparisons, too, not RAW. But, if anything, that should work even more in Nikon's favor since Canon, from what I have seen, has the better in-camera jpg engine. Maybe not so with the D2X, however.

In any case, the superior sharpness of FF will not be apparent if the glass is sharp enough to resolve the pixels of the higher density sensor. In other words, at the f/9 those test pics were taken at, you will see no sharpness advantage for FF. But at and near wide open, a different story will likely be told.

If you're always shooting wide open, then you're either looking for shallow
DOF, the fastest shutter, or the least noise in low light. You can't have
sharpness across the frame and shoot wide open. If you're composing at,
or near, the center, FF will still have an advantage. But, if you're composing
far off-center, it will be at a disadvantage. Where the break-even point
is, I simply do not know.

Lets say there are two people chatting with each other in a dimly lit
room. The camera says it wants to use a shutter speed of 1/8th of a
second and I'm already at ISO3200 and the maximum f-ratio of 1.4 with
a 50mm or 85mm lens.

In this case, can simple ISO comparison tests tell me which camera is
the best to use?

For the central portion of the image, pretty much yes. However, in such shooting conditions, simple variations from shot to shot in terms of motion blur, and, more importantly, camera shake, will likely be the dominant factor for unsupported, or poorly supported, shots.

Like, I don't know which crop is FF and which is APS, but what I do
know is that some of the crops look better than others (ie. less
objectionable noise with more detail).

Seems like it would then be just a comparison of sensor performance.
If the FF crop clearly benefited from capturing more light, then it
would show up as a cleaner image right?

Again, for the central portion of the image, yes.

So just switching to FF will allow me to use higher ISO's than I
would be able to on a crop camera (if the sensor technologies are the
same)?

No. The ISOs will be the same, but the noise for a given ISO will be
less for FF than for crop.

But what if in the future, they're able to make compact camera
sensors that go up to ISO6400 produce images that look like those
from the 5D at ISO100...would the only difference there be DOF?
Like, if a crop from the super future camera were to be compared to
crops from current APS and FF cameras, it would show all the detail
and be low noise just like the current best, but the only difference
would be DOF?

Physically, that's an impossibility. However, smart NR routines may be eventually be able to reconstruct what the scene "should have" looked like well enough to make any differences moot at the size people print. For example, if a RAW converter can automatically recognize portions of the image as "sky", other portions as "shadow", etc., it might be able to intelligently filter those portions of the image very effectively. Of course, they'll probably also be able to intelligently blur the background to give the compact digicam a very real appearance of shallow DOF as well. Hell, maybe they'll even be able to recongize moire and create a "believable" reconstruction of that portion of the image as well.

The thing is, larger sensors will always have an advantage in terms of noise and detail. But the sizes we print remains basically the same. At some point, the higher IQ from the larger sensor is wasted. This is already pretty much the case for deep DOF low ISO pics at 8x12.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

For the same f-ratio, FF will have a sharper center and less noise, if
that's what you mean. How much sharper, I just don't know, and,
perhaps, depending on the FL, maybe not be sharper at the longer FLs
where the 24-105 / 4L IS fares pooly.

How large of a print would I have to make for these differences to
matter?

Again, that's subjective. In fact, let me recount a story about this. One of my wife's friends badly wanted a 5D. Badly. But she had never owned a DSLR -- just was so in awe over the pics of her daughter that she got as occasional presents from me that she had to have one. No matter how I tried to dissuade her from a 5D as her first DSLR (she's not rich), she didn't want to listen.

So, one day she pops over while I'm about to frame a bunch of 8x12s I had printed. I decided to challenge her: "You want a 5D so bad? Tell me which of these pics are from the 5D."

She looked them over for about a minute. Then she held up one. "Only this one," she said. I was shocked. Of the eight prints I had on the table, that was the only one from the 5D (the others were all from the 20D). All were my finest pics (else I'd not have printed them!) and taken with the finest lenses (35 / 1.4L, 85 / 1.8, 135 / 2L, 200 / 2.8L, and the 5D pic was from the 150 / 2.8 macro, but it was not a macro pic).

Now, at 8x12, even the 8.2 MP 20D can deliver 300 PPI. And while one might argue that the DOF of FF is more shallow and that gave it away, the fact is that the DOF on a 5D at 150mm, f/2.8 is no more shallow than 85mm, f/1.8 on a 20D. DOF was not the reason.

Could it have been luck? Yeah, it sure could have been. But she was really sure of her choice. There was no hesitation. Could I tell the difference? Impossible to say as I knew not only which camera, but which lens was used for each pic. I was far from unbiased. : )

So, what's my point? Maybe the 5D was that much better, maybe she just got lucky. What do I think? I think the 5D was better, but that only someone really attuned to scrutinize an image could tell. I don't think most people could've told the difference, or even cared about the difference if they could.

But noise I can be a bit more specific about: for the same f-ratio, the 5D
will have about 1 1/3 stops less noise.

But if the next generation of crop sensors improve upon noise by 1
1/3 stops, would the noise advantage of FF be gone then?

Why would you think that crop sensors would improve but FF sensors would not improve by the same amount? If anything, as FF sensors are in Canon and Nikon's flagship DSLRs, the exact opposite, if anything, would be true.

I was looking at the 5D review and in this comparison, it is shown
that the 5D doesn't capture an image much differently than the D2x.
Where is the FF advantage here?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page29.asp

Oh man, I'm so glad you brought that up! It's DOF in action. Click on the links to the fullsize images and go back and forth between them. Note how the numbers on the bar at the top of the page are sharper with the D2X shot, but softer on the 5D shot. Also, look how blurred the bottom of the 5D pic is compared to the D2X pic. Now look at the subjects of the photos -- all sharper with the 5D pic.

I don't know what distance the pic was taken from, but I'm guessing something like 5 ft. The 5D pic was at 85mm, f / 9 and the D2X pic was at 50mm, f/9. That makes the DOF of the 5D pic 3 inches in front and back of the subject. The D2X pic, at 50mm, f/9 has a DOF of 6 inches in front and behind the subject -- a difference of three inches between the two systems. What's the diameter of a bottle of wine?

Do you now see why I say DOF is important?

Now, on the other hand, just how big would you have to print for anyone to care about this difference in sharpness?

Dude, it is so tiring responding to you with these long detailed responses, but you are asking such freakin' good questions that it's a real pleasure. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[Rick Knepper]

Joe Mama oand others use the equivalency method to prove the point,
and is quite valid. Requires one to think in 1 1/3 stop conversions.

Technically, it's 1.6x that "requires" one to think in 1 1/3 stop
conversions, as lenses are labelled in terms of 35mm FF terms. : )

For me, I found it quite useful to compare both formats on the same
FL. Think of this as the unequivalent method. Anyway, at the
following link are RAWs, a single scene, shot with various apertures
on a 300D and 5D with the 35L.

http://www.box.net/shared/ct24xpam2x

Get this -- there are times such a comparison is indeed "equivalent".
The max f-ratio of many Canon lenses is f/22. However, at f/22, a
1.6x DSLR can achieve the same DOF as f/32 on 35mm FF, but only a few
lenses stop down that deep, so some argue that crop has an advantage
for ultra deep DOF, just as FF has an advantage for ultra shallow DOF.

However, if we use the same lens on FF and crop out the 1.6x portion
from the center, then we'll have the same image. "But," you say,
"then the FF image uses only 40% of its pixels." Quite right! But
here's the beauty of it: the effects of diffraction softening cancel
out the advantage of the extra pixels, so you get an image with the
same amount of detail regardless (assuming the cameras began with the
same pixel count). Just how cool is that? : )

Very cool.

 

[Amin Sabet]

Anyway, an outstanding comparison in the regard is linked in the
essay's "Evidence" section:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=25380951&changemode=1

Thanks for the kind words Joe. One of several points to consider when looking at that test is that the E-410 sensor has been shown to have less per-pixel sharpness than some other Four Thirds sensors. See here -> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcl10/page25.asp .

--
http://aminphoto.blogspot.com
http://aminsabet.tumblr.com

 

[dmanthree]

He shot JPG, using "default" settings to perform the comparison. This tells us NOTHING. Rockwell isn't a photographer, has no clue how to perform a proper test, and should not be trusted to clean a filter, let alone perform valid comparisons.
--
------------------------------------------------------
five dee, Yashica Mat 124, and Panny eff zee feefty.

 

[gdanmitchell]

Regarding all of the "factual" comparisons of lenses and bodies seen in the portion of this thread that I've read, many of them fall far short of being useful and/or objective.

For example, if we look at samples of photographs from two different lenses on two different manufacturers' bodies that are supposedly "unprocessed" you might think you are looking at some sort of objective comparison that would play out in the real world.

Not necessarily.

Even in RAW mode, there are differences in the quality of the capture that are the result of things like the camera's software. Besides, very few actually print images from "unprocessed" RAW files. In other words, a comparison of "camera files" or "RAW images" really tells us far less than you might presume.

A more meaningful test - though one that admittedly introduces lots of variables, just like in the real world - might be to have an excellent photographer and printer photograph the same subjects with the different types of gear, and then go through a normal workflow process through which he/she typically optimizes the RAW file for printing, and then make the best print possible.

You must understand that in the normal workflow process, the photographer/printer does not follow the same rote process for every shot. It varies depending upon a lot of factors, including what lens/settings were used, the particular subject, etc.

What you would find it quite a few (almost all?) cases is that the differences often cited as being substantial turn out to be quite insignificant in terms of the photographic result.

I'm not claiming that ALL differences are insignificant. Just that MANY (and on occasion, MOST) of the differences cited in discussions like this one are really quite unimportant in the end.

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell
SF Bay Area
http://www.gdanmitchell.com/

 

[fastglass]

Full Frame advantage real?

Yes.

All other things being equal (or there-abouts) . . . . larger capture results in better images.

But if you shoot action - a med-format (much less a 4x5 or 8 x 10) isn't to likely to result in the "capture."

"The best camera is the one that you have with you."

Best.

imo
--
'Let go of old wrongs & start anew.'

 

[joe mama]

For example, if we look at samples of photographs from two different
lenses on two different manufacturers' bodies that are supposedly
"unprocessed" you might think you are looking at some sort of
objective comparison that would play out in the real world.

Not necessarily.
.
.
.
A more meaningful test - though one that admittedly introduces lots
of variables, just like in the real world - might be to have an
excellent photographer and printer photograph the same subjects with
the different types of gear, and then go through a normal workflow
process through which he/she typically optimizes the RAW file for
printing, and then make the best print possible.
.
.
.
What you would find it quite a few (almost all?) cases is that the
differences often cited as being substantial turn out to be quite
insignificant in terms of the photographic result.

Take a read of my comments here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=26113848

Beginiing in the bottom third of the post beginning with my response to:

"> So for those that have FF, have you noticed a new level of quality in

your images?"

I'm not claiming that ALL differences are insignificant. Just that
MANY (and on occasion, MOST) of the differences cited in discussions
like this one are really quite unimportant in the end.

Exactly correct. However, often these differences become important in an economic fashion. For example, for shallow DOF, FF is actually lighter and less expensive than crop, and for deeper DOF, the exact opposite is true.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

Anyway, an outstanding comparison in the regard is linked in the
essay's "Evidence" section:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=25380951&changemode=1

Thanks for the kind words Joe.

Thanks for the excellent test! : )

One of several points to consider when looking at that test is that the E-410
sensor has been shown to have less per-pixel sharpness than some other Four
Thirds sensors. See here ->
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcl10/page25.asp .

Terribly curious, but I'm a bit surprised. While I knew the E410 and E510 used the same sensor, but the L10 and the E3 use the same sensor? I thought only Olympus was making 4/3 DSLRs!

Anyway, I don't get it. Given the same quality of glass, I thought detail was a function only of the number of pixels and sharpness was a function of their size if the glass could not resolve each individual pixel.

Any ideas as to what could be going on here?

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[PhotogTom]

I really don't think it's worth the trouble to even provide hits to his web site.

I have a full frame camera and an APS-C camera - guess which one I reach for when I care the most about the quality of the final image??

--
Tom

 

[Amin Sabet]

Terribly curious, but I'm a bit surprised. While I knew the E410 and
E510 used the same sensor, but the L10 and the E3 use the same
sensor? I thought only Olympus was making 4/3 DSLRs!

Panasonic DSLRs are also Four Thirds, and Panasonic makes the sensors for the E-410/510 and DMC-L10. Kodak has also made some sensors for Olympus. I'm not sure if it has been confirmed that the L10 and E3 have the same sensor, though Olympus has confirmed that the E-3 sensor is different (and better) than the E-510 sensor.

Anyway, I don't get it. Given the same quality of glass, I thought
detail was a function only of the number of pixels and sharpness was
a function of their size if the glass could not resolve each
individual pixel.

Any ideas as to what could be going on here?

My conclusion was that the 50 macro is outresolving both sensors and that something is preventing the E-510 sensor from capturing resolution per pixel. AA filter perhaps?? It certainly is curious.

 

[Phil Flash]

It's hard for me to tell because I upgraded from a 6mp Nikon D100 to a Canon 5D with 12mp.

I'm amazed at the silky smoothness and detail the 5D captures. Maybe it's the double resolution, but there's also magic in the way it goes up to ISO 800 before I feel there is significant noise (which I begin to notice in images at ISO 1600, but still miraculous).

I'm also amazed at the ability to manipulate 5D raw files when I mess up and forget I've left exposure compensation on and over/under exposed. I pulled down the highlights of 1 stop over exposure and they were fully recovered. I've ratcheted up high ISO exposures without much if any noticeable loss in print quality.

The real FF advantage comes if you shoot wide angle to moderate telephoto (say, up to the classic portrait lengths of 85, 105, and 135mm). The ability to more easily use selective depth of field really can bring magic to the most mundane photos. It's that added three-dimensionality.

But Joe Mama is ultimately correct. In the real world. if you actually are out there shooting, printing, framing, and hanging photos frequently instead of wondering if your manhood or equipment is good enough, the FF/crop difference is not a massive chasm. The important thing is to use a camera to capture compelling scenes and to either create those scenes or constantly be on the lookout for them.

That said, I went FF because Nikon didn't announce they were going to ever make FF and I didn't want to invest in DX lenses like the 17-55DX when I could easily buy a Canon 24-70 2.8L (the Nikon 24-70 was a year away from being announced) and be much more future proof in the Canon FF system.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.

 

[Dan62326]

I really don't think it's worth the trouble to even provide hits to
his web site.

He runs tests that people want to see. Plain as that. If people have questions, then they can ask them in a forum such as this one =)

I have a full frame camera and an APS-C camera - guess which one I
reach for when I care the most about the quality of the final image??

I don't know. You tell us.

 

[Dan62326]

Regarding all of the "factual" comparisons of lenses and bodies seen
in the portion of this thread that I've read, many of them fall far
short of being useful and/or objective.

For example, if we look at samples of photographs from two different
lenses on two different manufacturers' bodies that are supposedly
"unprocessed" you might think you are looking at some sort of
objective comparison that would play out in the real world.

The RAW comparisons are of RAW files that are processed by the same person using what he thinks is best. So it's not really RAW files being compared.

Even in RAW mode, there are differences in the quality of the capture
that are the result of things like the camera's software.

Aren't we testing cameras here? If the camera's software affects the RAW files (Sony A700 comes to mind) then it's part of the equation. For some, it would mean that particular camera model has been eliminated from their list of potentials.

Besides,
very few actually print images from "unprocessed" RAW files. In other
words, a comparison of "camera files" or "RAW images" really tells us
far less than you might presume.

The comparisons discussed here have been about processed files.

A more meaningful test - though one that admittedly introduces lots
of variables, just like in the real world - might be to have an
excellent photographer and printer photograph the same subjects with
the different types of gear, and then go through a normal workflow
process through which he/she typically optimizes the RAW file for
printing, and then make the best print possible.

I think that photographing a bunch of random stuff like paper clips, wine bottles and such is a reasonable way to compare cameras. You need some tests that involve shooting the same subject right? It would be similar to how the imaging resource reviews cameras. Oh, and they comment on printed output as well.

You must understand that in the normal workflow process, the
photographer/printer does not follow the same rote process for every
shot. It varies depending upon a lot of factors, including what
lens/settings were used, the particular subject, etc.

I just shoot the event, sort the pics, make some minor adjustments, and then print. What camera the files come from don't matter. What matters is how good the pictures look to my eye. This is why I need to see what's out there before making a decision. The only way to make this decision is to incorporate these reviews into the process.

What you would find it quite a few (almost all?) cases is that the
differences often cited as being substantial turn out to be quite
insignificant in terms of the photographic result.

It depends on what you're looking for. For me, I might want usable pictures at a high ISO without messing with another step in the workflow. I would then take this and see how different cameras perform in this regard.

I'm not claiming that ALL differences are insignificant. Just that
MANY (and on occasion, MOST) of the differences cited in discussions
like this one are really quite unimportant in the end.

What's important is that the purchaser has come to an understanding that he/she is comfortable with.

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

a 35L is a 35mm lens. Not a 50mm something.
a 135L remains a great portrait lens.

same is true for the 17-40, 24-105L ( there is mo such lens for cropped sensors now and this lens alone is worth FF )

And that´s all without taking shallow DOF, noise or per pixel sharpness into account.

--
Joachim
http://www.joachimgerstl.com

 

[dmanthree]

I really don't think it's worth the trouble to even provide hits to
his web site.

He runs tests that people want to see. Plain as that. If people have
questions, then they can ask them in a forum such as this one =)

That's fine, as long as whoever is reading those "tests" realize that the person conducting them has no clue how to test a camera or lens properly, and simply doesn't even know how to use the gear. His tests are hysterically bad!

I have a full frame camera and an APS-C camera - guess which one I
reach for when I care the most about the quality of the final image??

I don't know. You tell us.

--
------------------------------------------------------
five dee, Yashica Mat 124, and Panny eff zee feefty.

 

[gdanmitchell]

On the other hand you won't have to enlarge the original image as much to get a print of the same size.

...and not the other way around. With full frame you get a much
narrower depth of field so focusing accuracy is much more important
(the biggest change for me when switchingb to FF). Slight misfocus on
an image is way more noticable on FF than on APS-C.

--
Picture agency

• http://danieljansson.se

Web portfolio

• http://danieljansson.com

--
---
G Dan Mitchell
SF Bay Area
http://www.gdanmitchell.com/