why should folks go fullframe?

[Lee Jay]

On cheap lenses the border IQs already degrade significantly
compared to the center portion on crop cameras. So what you are
saying is that the extreme borders in FF magically improved
compared to the center. I bit of a contradiction?

No, for a great many shots, edge-sharpness is not relevant. When shooting portraits, the edges are usually OOF anyway and, when shooting landscapes you are usually in a position to stop-down a lot because of good light or the use of a tripod.

Maybe the overall
image near the center is improved due to a larger pixel size right
now with 13 or 17MP sensor. What happens to future sensor with even
higher pixel density? How about the same density as the 8MP APSC
sensor?

That would be about 22MP. Even in that case, the reduced enlargement is the issue, not the pixel density. A sensor with more pixels will always produce a sharper image from the same lens at the same final print size, all other things (processing, AA filter, printer, etc.) being equal.

Why equate 1.6X to f-stop?

See my post above on this.

Because of noise. I don't see 1.6x
better noise performance on the FF sensor over crop sensors.
Neither does Phil:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp

Yes he does. He just doesn't see it at a constant level of detail . You can get one or the other - more detail or better noise performance (or a combination) but not both. I never claimed the 5D produces more detail and 1 1/3 stops better noise performance.

If your are referring to DOF, not everyone is after large apertures
for the shallow DOF. It could be a disadvantage.

Never a disadvantage. You can always get it back if you need to.

If what you are saying is true, then there is no point in testing
these better lenses with any Canon DSLR. All of them would have the
same maximum sensor limited resolution measurements.

No, the results of a system test are useful, but they are not lens tests.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Daniella68313]

more noise? who says we have to shoot at ISO 1600?

You have to shoot at 1 1/3 stops higher ISO for the same shutter
speed since you went from f2.8 to f4.5.

that,s ok. nothing to do with resolution though.

In which case you are focal length limited.

you lose track of one tiny detail..what ever you can get in focal
length with your 5D..you could also put on a 20D and get more
detail from the same distance.

Not if the subject is already filling the frame on the 5D.

still yes. you will crop the subject off with the XT but what you will have captured of it will swow finer detail.

of course if you frame the subject the same way..that will change but that also mean that you are taking it from a different distance or with different focal length.

basicaly it goes like that..even ever you fill the subject full frame with either camera..the 5D will have the advantage..

but when ever you do not fill it fully and you can't get any closer, then the XT will have the advantage.

with the XT you would then have cropped off some of the subject but it would have a bit more texture detail in that section.

I shoot

at less than my maximum focal length about 99.9% of the time. Most
of my tests assume constant-framing and state so explicitly because
that is the exact situation I usually have (as do most people). I
also stipulate that crop-sensors with high-pixel-density are an
advantage when you are focal-length-limited . In fact, I kept my
20D when I got my 5D for just those situations (also for a couple
of other reasons).

yes for portrait and that sort of photography the 5D is better because it capture more of the scene and it has less noise and get you a higher res..

for wildlife and birds photographers..this is worthless. the 1.6x wins because of the finer detail captured.

I agree with you but you don't seem to recognize that many people
are not focal length-limited nearly as often as you are.

I surely recognise this and you're right

we just need better cooperative subjects but that,s not going to happen in wildlife and birds.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[DNAmaster]

no text

 

[Lee Jay]

for wildlife and birds photographers..this is worthless. the 1.6x
wins because of the finer detail captured.

You keep assuming that all wildlife photographers are always focal-length limited. This is not always the case, even on full-frame. You like to shoot with the 400/5.6L + 1.4. What if a full-frame person were shooting with a 600/4 + 2x at the same target? Some people have longer lenses that you do and may not be focal-length-limited for what they shoot, even if it's wildlife.

The higher pixel density wins when you are focal-length-limited , not always when you are shooting wildlife . I could have filled the frame with a small bird today, even with a full-frame camera and 17-40L (long story but it was a wild bird).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Forrest41926]

you definitly have a reading skill problem. where exactly did I

Again:

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?

Again, the photo I showed you doesn't fall under your "only time."

that'S enough.

Have to agree with with you there. I asked you three times to point out the truth to what you said, and you just won't do it. So here's a new request: if you're going to say things here, please stick to what's true. That isn't very hard. Thanks.

 

[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?

Pretty much about 90% for me...

ok I am always refering to wildlife and birds. that's what from the fist reply I posted and I am following my line of thoughts here. of course what is valid for me and other wildlife photographers is not valid for someone shooting architecture.

But what I pointed above is not exactly the issue we were
discussing. Let's say an object is 200 pixels wide in a 20D pic.
Another pic of the 5D shows the object at 200 pixels wide too
(you'd have to be closer or have a longer FL of course, but again,
the possibility of that is not the point.)

in that situation the 5d would be better.. it is simple.

each time you frame a subject the same way with with both camera then the 5D wins..

each time you take a subject from the same distance with the same focal, the 1.6X crop factor camera will capture more fine detail. it will have captured less of the scene than the 5D but what it would have captured would have finer small detail.

lets take the brick wall..capture 4 bricks with the 5D and with the Xt..the 5D wins..

now from the same distance, with same focal capture a patch of the brick wall..the XT will have finer detail in one brick than the one brick in the 5D shot.

We are not even talking about crop factor here, not even pixel
density. Just pixel pitch, so the results should be similar for
cameras with the same pixel pitch, regardless of their crop
factors, and also provided the AA filters and technology are
similar.

want to see the result? check out the reply to me by lee..he has done the test with text chart. that says it all.

or even better..check out this site. it explain very well with photo sample and 100% crop what I am trying to explain here:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm

That same object with the same pixel resolution (200 px) will
generally look sharper

it is not if it look sharper or not, but more what amount of detail it will capture. sharp look is relative..not always representative of the resolution. but when I compared my photos taken at 200mm with the XT . recently..with the 80-200 F2.8 L vs a 5D with 70-200 F2.8 L, my photos where sharper. the guy was really impressed by my photos..then I was curious and went to see his. oki. they were nice..make no mistake but I prefered mine. mine framed the subject a lot better and they were really sharp compared to his, not sure why. we both had good lenses.

(I guess the correct way to say it is that

the pixels will have more acutance)

I don,t think so but you are welcome to point me to some test showing this.

because the pixel pitch on the

5D, being larger, is more forgiving on a lens' resolution that is
more limited than the sensor's

my 400mm F5.6 outresolve both my XT sensor and probably the 1Ds II as well.

Of course, this doesn't apply for wildlife. I think we all agree
that there's an inherent pixel density advantage of the 20D over
the 5D here, and I believe most people acnowledge that. That is
mostly why we kept our 20Ds when we got the 5D.

yes that's probably the best way to go. I would love a 5D for landscape..no doubt. would keep my XT for wildlife.

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Forrest41926]

factor to image quality now becomes the older EF lenses. Only the
best EF 'L' lenses will do. You will run into more vignetting and
soft borders even with good EF lenses.

So the 100/2.8 Macro is the best EF 'L' lens?

Furthermore, there will not likely be higher MP FF sensors. Again

Ah, yes, and the moon isn't real.

 

[Gordon Leitch]

Well put. I have only EF-S lenses (and a Sig 30 crop lens). I never thought of it this way. Thank you!

And how do you master DNA?

Gordon

 

[saynomore]

But what I pointed above is not exactly the issue we were
discussing. Let's say an object is 200 pixels wide in a 20D pic.
Another pic of the 5D shows the object at 200 pixels wide too
(you'd have to be closer or have a longer FL of course, but again,
the possibility of that is not the point.)

in that situation the 5d would be better.. it is simple.

each time you frame a subject the same way with with both camera
then the 5D wins..

I'm not talking about that either. I'm talking about same pixel resolution for objects... the camera would have to be 1.28x closer, not 1.6x (this is for same framing). It's some sort of middle-ground.

each time you take a subject from the same distance with the same
focal, the 1.6X crop factor camera will capture more fine detail.
it will have captured less of the scene than the 5D but what it
would have captured would have finer small detail.

I understand that, but it's not because of crop factor, but pixel density. But that's another discussion altogether, one which you, I and many others understand very well I think.

We are not even talking about crop factor here, not even pixel
density. Just pixel pitch, so the results should be similar for
cameras with the same pixel pitch, regardless of their crop
factors, and also provided the AA filters and technology are
similar.

want to see the result? check out the reply to me by lee..he has
done the test with text chart. that says it all.

I have seen that pic, it's become sort of a classic around here, but again, now what I was talking about.

or even better..check out this site. it explain very well with
photo sample and 100% crop what I am trying to explain here:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm

will check it. gotta beat the 150 post limit now

That same object with the same pixel resolution (200 px) will
generally look sharper

it is not if it look sharper or not, but more what amount of detail
it will capture. sharp look is relative..not always representative
of the resolution. but when I compared my photos taken at 200mm
with the XT . recently..with the 80-200 F2.8 L vs a 5D with 70-200
F2.8 L, my photos where sharper. the guy was really impressed by
my photos..then I was curious and went to see his. oki. they
were nice..make no mistake but I prefered mine. mine framed the
subject a lot better and they were really sharp compared to his,
not sure why. we both had good lenses.

(I guess the correct way to say it is that

the pixels will have more acutance)

I don,t think so but you are welcome to point me to some test
showing this.

I will try to start a new thread on this with examples. I'll do some tests maybe by next week with both the 20D and 5D.

 

[Daniella68313]

for wildlife and birds photographers..this is worthless. the 1.6x
wins because of the finer detail captured.

You keep assuming that all wildlife photographers are always
focal-length limited.

I doN,t know where you live..but I live in a bird rich environement where the birds are acceptably friendly..and no way I frame them even with a 1.6x and even with 560mm of lens.

not everybody is like that for sure..but more are with the same problem.

I think it is very safe to say that the 5d is not a wildlife camera..no sir.

maybe the 1Ds II at the limit because that camera with 16mp res sort of catch up with the 20d..but that's the only FF so far that will more or less match it for wildlife.

This is not always the case, even on

full-frame. You like to shoot with the 400/5.6L + 1.4. What if a
full-frame person were shooting with a 600/4 + 2x

they would still get less detail in their shots whooting with a 5D and 1200mm than if they would use a 20D with the same lens setup.

execpt that it would be a bit easier for them to take the shot because they would not have to get as close with the 20d than with the 5D.

BTW..dunno too many people who shoot with the 600mm F4 and a 2x..do you?

at the same

target? Some people have longer lenses that you do and may not be
focal-length-limited for what they shoot, even if it's wildlife.

I shoot at 560mm most of the time and that is not including the crop factor.. I still crop that 50% often. not to mention that I am a lot more mobile than you joe with a 600mm F4..so I could get closer a lot easier

anyway..that same guy with a 600mm F4 lens would get better results with a 20D than with a 5D and would not have to get as close. this is always an advantage.

The higher pixel density wins when you are focal-length-limited ,

yep..

not always when you are shooting wildlife .

not always when you are shooting wildlife, but the 5D is not a good camera for wildlife. there is just too many times where you are limited in focal and even at 1200mm.

beside..put a 1.6x crop factor with the 1200mm combo and you get even better feather detail.

I could have filled

the frame with a small bird today, even with a full-frame camera
and 17-40L (long story but it was a wild bird).

sure you could have..there are plenty of backyard birds around if that's what you're after.

most wildllife and bird photographers however are trying to capture more rare birds and animals..elusive and difficult to see and catch.

If they choose to go FF..they probably choose the 1Ds II instead of the 5D. not the right camera for wildlife..sorry.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Homl]

On cheap lenses the border IQs already degrade significantly
compared to the center portion on crop cameras. So what you are
saying is that the extreme borders in FF magically improved
compared to the center. I bit of a contradiction?

No, for a great many shots, edge-sharpness is not relevant. When
shooting portraits, the edges are usually OOF anyway and, when
shooting landscapes you are usually in a position to stop-down a
lot because of good light or the use of a tripod.

LOL. Edges sharpness is the main quality that separates the 'L's from the way less expensive 'consumer' lenses. I hate to be the poor guys/gals that are stand at the far ends in a group shots.

Maybe the overall
image near the center is improved due to a larger pixel size right
now with 13 or 17MP sensor. What happens to future sensor with even
higher pixel density? How about the same density as the 8MP APSC
sensor?

That would be about 22MP. Even in that case, the reduced
enlargement is the issue, not the pixel density. A sensor with
more pixels will always produce a sharper image from the same lens
at the same final print size, all other things (processing, AA
filter, printer, etc.) being equal.

Why equate 1.6X to f-stop?

See my post above on this.

Assuming the border quaity of the lenses does not degrade at a steep rate towards the extreme edges.

Because of noise. I don't see 1.6x
better noise performance on the FF sensor over crop sensors.
Neither does Phil:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp

Yes he does. He just doesn't see it at a constant level of
detail . You can get one or the other - more detail or better
noise performance (or a combination) but not both. I never claimed
the 5D produces more detail and 1 1/3 stops better noise
performance.

That is correct, than it just equalized the two systems and there is little advantage toward FF other than MP. The resolution advantage is again limited by the sharpness of the available lenses. With the release of the ultra sharp 17-55f2.8IS compare to the equivalent normal EF zooms, the advantage is further reduced, unless one is limited to using only the sharpest EF primes. Is guess one has to weight the huge price/performance premium between the systems.

If your are referring to DOF, not everyone is after large apertures
for the shallow DOF. It could be a disadvantage.

Never a disadvantage. You can always get it back if you need to.

By sacrificing speed or losing your noise advantage.

If what you are saying is true, then there is no point in testing
these better lenses with any Canon DSLR. All of them would have the
same maximum sensor limited resolution measurements.

No, the results of a system test are useful, but they are not lens
tests.

Not true. The camera is a fixed parameter. The differences in results are due purely to the lens.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)