Full frame

[allstar7610]

Is it seriously worth purchasing a 6d or a 5d mk2 or mk3 if you want full frame on a budget. I have a 77d and a g85

 

[Bob A L]

Maybe and maybe not. I still have a 12x16 print hanging on the wall made from my 2.7mp D1h that gets good comments still today.

 

[MCLV]

Maybe and maybe not. I still have a 12x16 print hanging on the wall made from my 2.7mp D1h that gets good comments still today.

Honestly, what else would you expect from your guests? Do you provide negative comments when you visit somebody else's place?

Receiving a positive comment about your work from common person is very different than succeeding in a competition judged by your peers or a panel of experts or professionals serving as judges.

 

[EOS GUY]

But then you can just get the 400/2.8 on FF; crop when needed and not when it is not needed. You’d have a zoom, effectively. Also, with a crop body, you are using the transition zone too much. When I was shooting crop wit the 135L, I could not understand what that fuss was all about. The bokeh was not great even though it was strong. Now, I know what makes the 135L great. Same with the 70-200/4. Harsh bokeh, not that you cannot blur the BG enough but it did not look great. On FF, no problems. Not to mention the better resolution.

Discussion of performance of lenses adapted to a different format is irrelevant to a question if equivalent lenses can provide the same IQ or not.

It is relevant. Actually, you were the one who brought it in, in the now removed quotes.

By the way, doesn't the fact that you had to adapt FF lenses to APS-C support my point that the format is somewhat neglected by manufacturers?

Did you ever wonder why? BTW, I agreed that it is neglected by Canon (and Nikon) but not by Fuji, obviously.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60622406 There are some differences in the distance to the subject, the model position, but in general, you can see that in the center, the Fuji is just slightly behind in blur; but away from it, it is even more. There must be a price to pay for squeezing the same image onto a smaller area.

That comparison is far from well controlled enough to allow making general conclusions about FF vs APS-C performance.

It does not need to be. They have small differences, as I mentioned but there are several of them, enough for a trend to emmerge.

Shots in the interior from Canon seem focused more to the front

Not for all of them if any.

and that would produce more blur in the background. But that is impossible to tell with certainty since we don't see any blurred foreground.

We do not? It is very clear that the Fuji 23mm is too sharp on the left of the picture, and more or less similar to the Canon in the center. This cannot be explained by diferent positions. There is a much simpler explanation - the Fuji vignettes a lot wide open (so does the Canon) but the Canon is stopped down.

Shots at the brick wall were clearly taken at different distance from the wall which significantly influences resulting blur.

The lenses my not be exactly FL equivalent, etc. Still three lenses, several shots - and Fuji always loses, and in this case - it loses by a mile?

Thank you for the response but it's clear that we won't agree so I don't see any point in continuing the discussion further.

BTW, here is one more comparison:

More Fuji vs Canon Lenses - 85mm F1.2 vs 56mm F1.2 - Ottawa Wedding & Portrait Photography (andrewvanbeek.com)

Canon8518.jpg (940×627) (andrewvanbeek.com)

Fuji5612.jpg (940×627) (andrewvanbeek.com)

Best viewed in two tabs, switching quickly between them.

In the past, I have posted comparisons between my 22/2 on the EOS M and the 35L on FF stopped down at f/2.8. The crop condo has similar blur in the center and it was maybe 2 stops sharper near the border. I do not keep those shots anymore.

Don't know what your trying to show with the 85 vs fuji 56. That actually makes the fuji look very good imo. I'm surprised there is not more of a difference at 1.2 with the canon 85mm. I would probably go fuji based on that comparison.

The Canon is actually at f/1.8...

Nope, first shot says 85 at f1.2. the canon is an excellent piece of kit.

The first one I posted is at f/1.8. It is even in the name of the file.

I'm talking about the one you linked to, 85 f1.2 vs 56 f1.2. the difference is not quite as large even at f1.2 for the canon 85mm. I can see the difference, but I wouldn't say it's impressive.

What you find impressive or not is a different story. My point was that in those comparisons, equivalence kinda fails.

The ef version is twice the price and the rf version is even bigger and more expensive.

Of course, there is also the old Canon 85/1.8 at 40% of the price and the RF 85/2 IS (!) at 60% of the price...

Fuji is the better option of the two if you're on a budget imo.

Worse than the 85/2 IS. The old Canon 100/2 is a good competitor as well at less than half of the price. And the 135L would beat all of those any day for the same price.

Worse how? Less range of DoF? Doesn't make it worse unless you only measure a lens by how shallow you can go.

The Fuji is not really f/1.8 eq., at least next to the old 85L. Worse option because the 85/2 IS is 60% of the price, and has IS, not to mention the macro. Remember, you said "on a budget".

If you open the three photos in different tabs, they seem a stop apart from each other. The Fuji looks like the Canon further stopped down to f/2.4 or so. It is supposed to be f/1.8 eq. but it does not look that way. It has the bragging rights of f/1.8 if you accept equivalence and f/1.2 of you deny it though.

I will look at the photos more closely.

Save them on your computer and display them one after the other, not next to each other.

The Canon shot of course has a creamier background but the Fuji shot is not at all bad or unpleasing. No clients bar a big fashion mag would likely even notice.... Of course the photographer's own tastes are important

 

[Phil A Martin]

Maybe and maybe not. I still have a 12x16 print hanging on the wall made from my 2.7mp D1h that gets good comments still today.

Honestly, what else would you expect from your guests? Do you provide negative comments when you visit somebody else's place?

I must admit, that occurred to me as well.

Receiving a positive comment about your work from common person is very different than succeeding in a competition judged by your peers or a panel of experts or professionals serving as judges.

 

[MCLV]

Maybe and maybe not. I still have a 12x16 print hanging on the wall made from my 2.7mp D1h that gets good comments still today.

Honestly, what else would you expect from your guests? Do you provide negative comments when you visit somebody else's place?

I must admit, that occurred to me as well.

A family relative of mine has made a 50x75 cm (20x30 inch) print from Nikon D200 shot. That's roughly similar pixel density to your print. It looks pretty good from distance larger than roughly 1 meter / 3 feet if I remember correctly. When examined closely, you can clearly see that it's not perfect. So I have an idea how your print can look like.

The print is clearly interesting and catches attention of your guests if they decide to comment positively. They probably don't notice anything unusual from larger distance and if they examine it more closely they might still think that it's kind of normal for a decently sized print since non-photographers might be less picky about such technical aspects. Or the ones that eventually notice it might decide not to comment this aspect negatively so they don't sound impolite.

 

[J A C S]

But then you can just get the 400/2.8 on FF; crop when needed and not when it is not needed. You’d have a zoom, effectively. Also, with a crop body, you are using the transition zone too much. When I was shooting crop wit the 135L, I could not understand what that fuss was all about. The bokeh was not great even though it was strong. Now, I know what makes the 135L great. Same with the 70-200/4. Harsh bokeh, not that you cannot blur the BG enough but it did not look great. On FF, no problems. Not to mention the better resolution.

Discussion of performance of lenses adapted to a different format is irrelevant to a question if equivalent lenses can provide the same IQ or not.

It is relevant. Actually, you were the one who brought it in, in the now removed quotes.

By the way, doesn't the fact that you had to adapt FF lenses to APS-C support my point that the format is somewhat neglected by manufacturers?

Did you ever wonder why? BTW, I agreed that it is neglected by Canon (and Nikon) but not by Fuji, obviously.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60622406 There are some differences in the distance to the subject, the model position, but in general, you can see that in the center, the Fuji is just slightly behind in blur; but away from it, it is even more. There must be a price to pay for squeezing the same image onto a smaller area.

That comparison is far from well controlled enough to allow making general conclusions about FF vs APS-C performance.

It does not need to be. They have small differences, as I mentioned but there are several of them, enough for a trend to emmerge.

Shots in the interior from Canon seem focused more to the front

Not for all of them if any.

and that would produce more blur in the background. But that is impossible to tell with certainty since we don't see any blurred foreground.

We do not? It is very clear that the Fuji 23mm is too sharp on the left of the picture, and more or less similar to the Canon in the center. This cannot be explained by diferent positions. There is a much simpler explanation - the Fuji vignettes a lot wide open (so does the Canon) but the Canon is stopped down.

Shots at the brick wall were clearly taken at different distance from the wall which significantly influences resulting blur.

The lenses my not be exactly FL equivalent, etc. Still three lenses, several shots - and Fuji always loses, and in this case - it loses by a mile?

Thank you for the response but it's clear that we won't agree so I don't see any point in continuing the discussion further.

BTW, here is one more comparison:

More Fuji vs Canon Lenses - 85mm F1.2 vs 56mm F1.2 - Ottawa Wedding & Portrait Photography (andrewvanbeek.com)

Canon8518.jpg (940×627) (andrewvanbeek.com)

Fuji5612.jpg (940×627) (andrewvanbeek.com)

Best viewed in two tabs, switching quickly between them.

In the past, I have posted comparisons between my 22/2 on the EOS M and the 35L on FF stopped down at f/2.8. The crop condo has similar blur in the center and it was maybe 2 stops sharper near the border. I do not keep those shots anymore.

Don't know what your trying to show with the 85 vs fuji 56. That actually makes the fuji look very good imo. I'm surprised there is not more of a difference at 1.2 with the canon 85mm. I would probably go fuji based on that comparison.

The Canon is actually at f/1.8...

Nope, first shot says 85 at f1.2. the canon is an excellent piece of kit.

The first one I posted is at f/1.8. It is even in the name of the file.

I'm talking about the one you linked to, 85 f1.2 vs 56 f1.2. the difference is not quite as large even at f1.2 for the canon 85mm. I can see the difference, but I wouldn't say it's impressive.

What you find impressive or not is a different story. My point was that in those comparisons, equivalence kinda fails.

The ef version is twice the price and the rf version is even bigger and more expensive.

Of course, there is also the old Canon 85/1.8 at 40% of the price and the RF 85/2 IS (!) at 60% of the price...

Fuji is the better option of the two if you're on a budget imo.

Worse than the 85/2 IS. The old Canon 100/2 is a good competitor as well at less than half of the price. And the 135L would beat all of those any day for the same price.

Worse how? Less range of DoF? Doesn't make it worse unless you only measure a lens by how shallow you can go.

The Fuji is not really f/1.8 eq., at least next to the old 85L. Worse option because the 85/2 IS is 60% of the price, and has IS, not to mention the macro. Remember, you said "on a budget".

If you open the three photos in different tabs, they seem a stop apart from each other. The Fuji looks like the Canon further stopped down to f/2.4 or so. It is supposed to be f/1.8 eq. but it does not look that way. It has the bragging rights of f/1.8 if you accept equivalence and f/1.2 of you deny it though.

I will look at the photos more closely.

Save them on your computer and display them one after the other, not next to each other.

The Canon shot of course has a creamier background but the Fuji shot is not at all bad or unpleasing. No clients bar a big fashion mag would likely even notice.... Of course the photographer's own tastes are important

Of course, there is no law that you have to shoot at this distance with this background only...

 

[FrancoD]

Maybe and maybe not. I still have a 12x16 print hanging on the wall made from my 2.7mp D1h that gets good comments still today.

Honestly, what else would you expect from your guests? Do you provide negative comments when you visit somebody else's place?

I must admit, that occurred to me as well.

Receiving a positive comment about your work from common person is very different than succeeding in a competition judged by your peers or a panel of experts or professionals serving as judges.

I would think that most people either make a positive comment or don't say anything.

I don't remember many people commeenting "oh , BTW, your dog is really ugly..."

 

[Phil A Martin]

Maybe and maybe not. I still have a 12x16 print hanging on the wall made from my 2.7mp D1h that gets good comments still today.

Honestly, what else would you expect from your guests? Do you provide negative comments when you visit somebody else's place?

I must admit, that occurred to me as well.

A family relative of mine has made a 50x75 cm (20x30 inch) print from Nikon D200 shot. That's roughly similar pixel density to your print. It looks pretty good from distance larger than roughly 1 meter / 3 feet if I remember correctly. When examined closely, you can clearly see that it's not perfect. So I have an idea how your print can look like.

The print is clearly interesting and catches attention of your guests if they decide to comment positively. They probably don't notice anything unusual from larger distance and if they examine it more closely they might still think that it's kind of normal for a decently sized print since non-photographers might be less picky about such technical aspects.

Less picky or lower standards of satisfaction? I once saw someone who had their wedding photographs poorly colour photocopied and plastic laminated yet thought they were wonderful. Would she be the sort of person you'd want to judge your prints?

Or the ones that eventually notice it might decide not to comment this aspect negatively so they don't sound impolite.

 

[MCLV]

A family relative of mine has made a 50x75 cm (20x30 inch) print from Nikon D200 shot. That's roughly similar pixel density to your print. It looks pretty good from distance larger than roughly 1 meter / 3 feet if I remember correctly. When examined closely, you can clearly see that it's not perfect. So I have an idea how your print can look like.

The print is clearly interesting and catches attention of your guests if they decide to comment positively. They probably don't notice anything unusual from larger distance and if they examine it more closely they might still think that it's kind of normal for a decently sized print since non-photographers might be less picky about such technical aspects.

Less picky or lower standards of satisfaction? I once saw someone who had their wedding photographs poorly colour photocopied and plastic laminated yet thought they were wonderful. Would she be the sort of person you'd want to judge your prints?

If we are talking about judging in a role like a photography competition judge then surely not.

However, why couldn't such person provide an opinion about your photos? She would probably like them, wouldn't she? However, we get to the point which I mentioned before. Not all opinions have the same relevance. Ordinary non-photographers usually will like your work since the photos which you show to them are very likely better than they are able to get. But positive feedback from such people doesn't mean that you are a photography superstar, does it?

And even if a person with clearly different taste (or no taste at all) says that she doesn't like your work, would you really be bothered or concerned by that?

 

[Phil A Martin]

Maybe and maybe not. I still have a 12x16 print hanging on the wall made from my 2.7mp D1h that gets good comments still today.

Honestly, what else would you expect from your guests? Do you provide negative comments when you visit somebody else's place?

I must admit, that occurred to me as well.

Receiving a positive comment about your work from common person is very different than succeeding in a competition judged by your peers or a panel of experts or professionals serving as judges.

I would think that most people either make a positive comment or don't say anything.

Well exactly

I don't remember many people commeenting "oh , BTW, your dog is really ugly..."

 

[Flavil]

Is it seriously worth purchasing a 6d or a 5d mk2 or mk3 if you want full frame on a budget. I have a 77d and a g85

Yes

 

[Juyal]

No. Higher priced cameras will save your time (as they have more buttons to quick access) but not necessarily will improve the photography.

 

[mahidoes]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

--
Check my pictures on
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/
https://www.instagram.com/yuvaanaka/

 

[ikolbyi]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

 

[J A C S]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

 

[ikolbyi]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

The EVF locks up/freezes/hesitates around the 8th consecutive photograph in a burst creating a situation you loose sight of moving subject. Again, well documented in these forums.

 

[J A C S]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

The EVF locks up/freezes/hesitates around the 8th consecutive photograph in a burst creating a situation you loose sight of moving subject. Again, well documented in these forums.

You can't shoot sports and wildlife with bursts of 7 frames or less?

 

[New Day Rising]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

The EVF locks up/freezes/hesitates around the 8th consecutive photograph in a burst creating a situation you loose sight of moving subject. Again, well documented in these forums.

You can't shoot sports and wildlife with bursts of 7 frames or less?

You can, but isn't it better to have the option of more frames? Maybe frame 8 was the money shot.

 

[EOS GUY]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

I agree with cameras like the 5d, 5d ii and older Nikons and current APSC being close or better for IQ.

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

But the 2014 Nikon D750 is still an IQ marvel even today compared to APSC and used prices are very good - £650 here in UK very good condition with warranty from used dealers. Then the AF-S lenses are still excellent and prices have dropped too.

It leaves the D7200 in the dust in many ways especially low light

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

Also the Canon 5d R / S is a steal of a deal mint used also and again the dslr EF lenses can be a lot more affordable than the R mount.

The D750 and D610 if not need fancier AF are the ones that are the tempters in my eyes at the moment!

 

[ikolbyi]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

The EVF locks up/freezes/hesitates around the 8th consecutive photograph in a burst creating a situation you loose sight of moving subject. Again, well documented in these forums.

You can't shoot sports and wildlife with bursts of 7 frames or less?

That all depends on what you are attempting to photograph and the look we are tring to achieve. For example: bird in flight or skier/snowboarder performing a jump. In those 2 examples 30 frames may be necessary in order to 'get the shot'.

Canon R & RP are late to the game compared to Sony, Olympus/OMD and Fuji. Their is no excuse by Canon why they couldn't get the EVF correct right out of the gate.