why should folks go fullframe?

[Daniella68313]

originalamit wrote:
The difference in focussing is

that your 500mm becomes a 800mm crop in your view finder itself and
that is a huge huge advantage if you are doing birding...

difference in focusing? you mean the difference in focal length?

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Daniella68313]

As the viewfinder on a crop camera is so small/tiny, you actually
can better frame/track wildlife/birds with a full frame camera,
which a much larger/brighter viewfinder. I am concluding this from
experience, as i moved from a 10D to a 5D last year.

it does not matter at all for tracking birds..siince we usualy cannot frame them completely anyway. the XT viewfinder is good enough and bright enough that I never ever had a problem to frame anything or find anything..it's not like it's totaly dark and we can't see a thing.. no way near that.

I would not see ANY advantage to use a 5D for wildlife.. not a single one and I like I mentioned..I compared my photos taken from the same distance with the same focal length with those of a guy that was shooting with the 5D and my photos were A LOT more detailed than his. he was in aweee at the sharpness and detail in my photos.

now I understand why he was angry that he could nto get closer to the animals. must have been frustrating.

--
DiG!C
http://www.pbase.com/hugoneto
(PBase Supporter)
http://digitalphotography.blog.pt/
(Digital Photography Techniques Blog)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Daniella68313]

Why is that s appealing then? Just curious, why one would want to
have to store such huge files to get pretty much the same thing?

Because if you have enough focal length to fill the frame,

if is the right choice...you DON'T have enough focal length to fill the frame most of the time with birds..it is very rare that you will be able to fill the frame with a 400mm lens. it happens..but it is rare..especialy with small skittish birds. it is ok with larger birds like big egrets..and even then it really depends where.. In Quebec for exemple..you won't be able to get anywhere close to a great blue heron...here I can frame their heads.

it is so rare to be able to frame the birds completely that I don't consider a 5D of any advantage what so ever.

heck..even at the game farm in a controled situation and with captive it was not an advantage..in fact..the narrow DOF was a problem too because often it was dark..and we needed to open wide..but I got more DOF with my 200mm wide open at F2.8 than the guy next to me got with his 5D at F2.8..so he had to stop down more than me or risk getting lots of stuff out of focus. he had to be really carefull of that. the DOF was really really small..even with my camera.

he could stop down in bright light but often we shot in shady areas so he had to raise the ISO quite a bit and raise that F number to get more things in focus.

to be happy with a 5d..I would need a 600mm F4 lens..oh wait..I would get a 1Ds instead of a 5D..I woudl be much more happy with a 1Ds than a 5d. at least the 16mp res sort of compensate a bit for the loss due to the FF.

you get

more resolution and cleaner files and more DOF control.
High-pixel-density is only an advantage if you are
focal-length-limited. The rest of the time, a larger,
lower-pixel-density sensor is better.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Daniella68313]

... So due to the larger pixel pitch and the superb sensor
technology, it's very reasonable to assume the 5D produces sharper
images with the same lens. I know they're sharper than my 20D's in
this sense. Those shots you posted are a different kind of test.
They test the "reach" of the sensor using the same focal length at
the same distance.

from the same distance to subject, with the same focal length..I got sharper and more detailed images with my XT and 80-200 F2.8 L than the guy next to me got with his 5D and 70-200 F2.8 L.

we compared them both at 100% crop with the same RAW export (RSP with same settings) and he was in awe when he saw mine.

those shots that I posted show exactly what I am talking about..from the same distance to subject with the same focal length..it is what really happen.

now if you can get closer with the 5D..you can get closer with the XT. there is no argument there.

the only time the 5D would be better is if you can get closer with the 5D and NOT with the XT. what are the odds of that hapening?

What Digic meant was that for the same given resolution (your
objects in the picture have the same number of pixels defining
them) the 5D's pics will show more detail, because of the larger
pixel pitch, and maybe the less blurry AA filter. You would most
probably have to stand closer or have a longer focal length for
this specific test, thus having more magnification, thus more
detail.

sure..but that does not apply to wildlife..not even captive ones

This is also the reason it's said that the 5D is more forgiving of
lens' resolution.

againg that does not apply to wildlife much, at least it would not apply to me because of the wildlife being skittish enough or far enough.

I would tend to agree here with Digic, but I don't know if he was
also counting the original 1D, at least at lower ISOs, it should be
able to get super sharp images because of its even lower pixel
density / larger pixel pitch.

sure..but that does not work with wildllife. not unless you can frame it with the 5d and not with an XT.. if you frame the animals from the difference distance..then yes maybe.

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Daniella68313]

Between the two, the difference should be very tiny at the pixel
level. So tiny, that only the photographer behind each camera will
do the difference, not the cameras...

it woudl be nice to see this in image..why don't you prove your point with some 100% crop samples? if you have access to a 1.6x crop factor camera..you could take a subject from the same distance and show the level of detail from both, with a 200mm lens for exemple..

--
DiG!C
http://www.pbase.com/hugoneto
(PBase Supporter)
http://digitalphotography.blog.pt/
(Digital Photography Techniques Blog)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Lee Jay]

No it's not. FF cameras can get just as much DOF as smaller-sensor
cameras, but smaller-sensor camera can't get as shallow of DOF. I
can get just as much DOF for the same FOV with my 5D and my 1/4"
CCD camcorder.

But only if you stop down the 5D lens much more. If you are already
at the diffraction limit with the smaller sensor camera to get
maximum DOF, you will lose the resolution advantage of the 5D
sensor due to diffraction.

Exactly right. At diffraction-limited DOF, there is no advantage to one format over another, but no disadvantages either which is what I've been saying.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

You can have the same FOV, but with at the most 25% more detail.
Different filter on the 5D sensor compared to previous low end
Canon dSLRs allow for more details and sharper images.

The difference in FOV is 1.6x, the difference in detail captured (pixel density) is about 25%. I said 25%, not 60%.

I'll take a FF shot over a cropped shot with slightly more detail
anyday. I don't upgrade a computer unless I can get significantly
better performance. 25% increase isn't much. That'd be going from
a Pentium 400Mhz to a 500Mhz. Hardly worth the money.

Do you see a difference in effective resolving power here? Same lens, same place, both 100% crops, 20D on top, 5D on bottom.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Daniella68313]

if all you do is studio work then FF is a better option than crop
purely because of the picture quality but for everything else there
is no argment against crop bodies.

.........For landscapes, architecture and all other wide angle
shots, FF is better than cropped. With a proportional increase in
lens focal length for FF, the FOV advantage at long focal lengths
of a cropped sensor camera disappears as well.

yes but for architecture you need a huge DOF most of the time..probably you can get a wider DOF with a 10mm lens on a 1.6x crop factor camera than you can on the FF with a 16mm focal.

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[mattr]

the only time the 5D would be better is if you can get closer with
the 5D and NOT with the XT. what are the odds of that hapening?

OK, Daniella, I'm on your side here but the argument from Lee Jay and others is (as I understand it):

Lets assume you have the XT with an 200/2.8 and the other guy next to you a 5D with a 300/4. Both lenses are roughly equal size and similarly convenient to handle for wildlife work. Light is dim and you both shoot wide open. The other guy increases ISO by one stop compared to you to get similar shutter speeds. Because the 5D sensor is better with larger pixels overall quality of a print will still be better from the 5D 300/4 combo.

I have a few problems with that (see lower in this thread) that are related to autofocus performance, availability of certain lenses of course, viewfinder brightness, DOF.... This should be simple and not so complicated....

 

[mattr]

Exactly, glad we come to the same conclusion!

 

[Lee Jay]

Lets assume you have the XT with an 200/2.8 and the other guy next
to you a 5D with a 300/4. Both lenses are roughly equal size and
similarly convenient to handle for wildlife work. Light is dim and
you both shoot wide open. The other guy increases ISO by one stop
compared to you to get similar shutter speeds. Because the 5D
sensor is better with larger pixels overall quality of a print will
still be better from the 5D 300/4 combo.

You have to be careful here. What I have always said was that you multiply focal length and f-stop by crop factor for equal performance. You can't have it both ways. The 5D gives you about 1/3 of a stop better high ISO performance and more detail or it gives you 1 1/3 stops better high ISO performance but with the same detail.

In your example above (200/2.8 versus 300/4), the results (ignoring the IS and the 1/3 of a stop that's missing) will be about equal .

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Daniella68313]

So if canon makes a full frame sensor that has the same pixel
density as the crop cameras have the 1.6 crop cameras wont have any
more reach that the full frame with the same pixel density.

and what are the odds of that hapening?

you would still end up with a load of wasted pixels if you are into wildlife and birds. but a higher pixel density would surely be better for wildlife.

I seriously doubt that Canon will do that..

Right now the pixel density is the highest in the 30D/XT/20D
cameras for now. The next highest is the 1DSMK2 then the 5D/1DMK2
at the same pixel density.

Dont forget difraction sets in with higher pixel densities. Thom
Hogan over on the nikon forum has discussed this as how the D2X has
this effect because of the high pixel density of that camera. So to
high and it starts to have defraction problems and theres no cure
for that.

sure but even with the XT the diffraction is not a problem until F16. not too bad.

that kind of make me think that 8mp is pretty much the limit.. maybe 10mp if they push this to the limit.

So in conclusion full frame is if you want the highest possable
resolution with low noise and less of a problem with diffraction.

again highest possible resolution depend on the subject. if you take a bird with both cameras with a 400mm lens, you will get more resolution with the 1.6x crop factor camera than with the 5D.

Other side benifits are better depth of feild control, bigger
brighter veiwfinder.

advantage and inconvenient for the DOF...that is also depending of the effect you want. if you are in low light and need to open wide on a subject at close range...you might consider the narrow DOF a little bit of a problem.

Crop sensors will stay because of lower costs. So you can always
sell an EFS lens to somone like that.
--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Doug Kerr]

. . . were half frame (and called such).

Your point is still well taken!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Daniella68313]

the only time the 5D would be better is if you can get closer with
the 5D and NOT with the XT. what are the odds of that hapening?

OK, Daniella, I'm on your side here but the argument from Lee Jay
and others is (as I understand it):

Lets assume you have the XT with an 200/2.8 and the other guy next
to you a 5D with a 300/4.

but that would not be a fair comparison now would it?

of course assuming that I use a 30mm lens to capture a bird with a 1Ds II and the person beside me use a point and shoot 2mp Olympus c700uz..that person will get a much better photo than I will..with more detail etc...

Both lenses are roughly equal size and

similarly convenient to handle for wildlife work. Light is dim and
you both shoot wide open. The other guy increases ISO by one stop
compared to you to get similar shutter speeds. Because the 5D
sensor is better with larger pixels overall quality of a print will
still be better from the 5D 300/4 combo.

I don,t beleive that. it would probably take a 400mm lens on the 5D to really make a difference.

remember that not only the crop factor has influence here, but the pixel density. he would need to put a 400mm lens or 500mm lens to get the same level of detail that I get at 200mm. he'll probably need a 400mm F2.8 to match my 200mm F2.8 on the XT.

I have a few problems with that (see lower in this thread) that are
related to autofocus performance, availability of certain lenses of
course, viewfinder brightness, DOF.... This should be simple and
not so complicated....

I never had problem with the viewfinder..so not sure what,s the big fuss here. I don,t care for that but probably some people do.

I don't like the graininess of the viewfinder in those cameras. I prefer the smooth viewfinder of the XT but that's me

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Robert Deutsch]

I've had the 5D for a couple of weeks, and agree that the larger, brighter viewfinder is still the No.1 subjective advantage over the 20D. It's what Phil appropriately referred to as the "wow" factor. I also like the quieter shutter. The 20D/30D are fine cameras, but the 5D is simply better, in my opinion. This is not to say that Photographer X may not take better pictures with the 20D/30D than Photographer Y with the 5D.

Bob

 

[Daniella68313]

Lets assume you have the XT with an 200/2.8 and the other guy next
to you a 5D with a 300/4. Both lenses are roughly equal size and
similarly convenient to handle for wildlife work. Light is dim and
you both shoot wide open. The other guy increases ISO by one stop
compared to you to get similar shutter speeds. Because the 5D
sensor is better with larger pixels overall quality of a print will
still be better from the 5D 300/4 combo.

You have to be careful here. What I have always said was that you
multiply focal length and f-stop by crop factor for equal
performance. You can't have it both ways. The 5D gives you about
1/3 of a stop better high ISO performance and more detail or it
gives you 1 1/3 stops better high ISO performance but with the same
detail.

In your example above (200/2.8 versus 300/4), the results (ignoring
the IS and the 1/3 of a stop that's missing) will be about equal .

it would not..because you both discard the pixel density in your comparison and only take into account the crop factor.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[harrygilbert]

It may be an individual decision, but for someone who grew up with 35mm cameras, I have an idea of what each focal length does in that format, and am probably too lazy to convert. Plus, I frequently make ultra wide angle shots, and don't want to sacrifice that capability. This whole thing about a crop camera giving "extra reach" doesn't make sense to me, as my 5D gives me enough pixel density to crop and enlarge. If I need more reach, I buy a longer lens, oops, a "big gun".

 

[Lee Jay]

it would not..because you both discard the pixel density in your
comparison and only take into account the crop factor.

No, I account for that as well. The extra detail the 5D captures is not as much as it would if it had the same pixel density, and it's noise performance is better at the pixel level precisely because it has lower pixel density.

20D+200/2.8 = 5D+320/4.5 (to first order). Neither will produce better noise performance or more detail than the other at the same shutter speed.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Jeremy]

I'm not quite sure I'm following your statement. I thought the 5D has 1-2 stop noise advantage over the crop cameras. If you have the same FOV on both cameras, why would noise be the same as well? And if you have the same FOV, wouldn't the camera with more mp provide more detail?

it would not..because you both discard the pixel density in your
comparison and only take into account the crop factor.

No, I account for that as well. The extra detail the 5D captures
is not as much as it would if it had the same pixel density, and
it's noise performance is better at the pixel level precisely
because it has lower pixel density.

20D+200/2.8 = 5D+320/4.5 (to first order). Neither will produce
better noise performance or more detail than the other at the same
shutter speed.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--
Jeremy

 

[Lee Jay]

I'm not quite sure I'm following your statement. I thought the 5D
has 1-2 stop noise advantage over the crop cameras. If you have
the same FOV on both cameras, why would noise be the same as well?
And if you have the same FOV, wouldn't the camera with more mp
provide more detail?

Read this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=16107908

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)