# Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF



## ahsanford (Jul 28, 2014)

Another APS-C vs. FF rant, this time by Zack Arias:

http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/crop-or-crap-zack-arias-takes-a-real-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/

I'm not remotely foolish enough to stir a debate so much as pass on something that will give the pre-digital-era photographers a smile.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 29, 2014)

Its a Fujifilm commercial.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 29, 2014)

I moved to 645 MF digital.


----------



## tolusina (Jul 29, 2014)

So, he'll shoot his assignment with an APS-C camera, wonder if he would have shot a similar job back in the film days with a Pentax 110?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2014)

Neg-li-gi-ble.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 29, 2014)

Hi ahsansford. 
Yep got neg-li-gi-ble, can't decipher the gi-ber-ish after neg-li-gi-ble, and to be honest I'm not sure I need or want to know, I quit watching it after that point, I just wanted to grab that stick and tap tap tap him on the head with it!

Cheers Graham. 



ahsanford said:


> Neg-li-gi-ble.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 29, 2014)

That video doesn't demonstrate his point. It does demonstrate how to appear as if you're a babbling idiot.


----------



## emko (Jul 29, 2014)

there is nothing wrong with aps-c if that's what you like who cares BUT FF is just better if someone wants the best they can afford why not? Since i went to FF from APS-C i have not wanted to go back the APS-C at iso100 it is almost the same but FF is sharper and has better DR and every iso after 100 is better on FF. Is there that much size difference between the FF sony cameras vs the fuji? 

he says Neg-li-gi-ble i say BS if that where the case he wouldn't need a FF


----------



## slclick (Jul 29, 2014)

It was that fracking stick he was swinging that killed me. Ugh, I'd rather watch Kai.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 29, 2014)

I've been thinking roughly the same thing for a while now. It looks to me like "back in the day" you were multiplying surface area several times to differentiate between effective formats, and here the camera companies are now trying to get everyone excited about a 70% increase in sensor size.
If you're constantly on the bleeding edge, fine, you'll be picking up whatever incremental increases happen to come along. If you're looking for something worth investing in, I wouldn't bother replacing all my glass just for "almost a stop" of extra light gathering. 35mm will be standard for a long, long time.
When they start making IMAX sized sensors, a 4X jump, that will have my attention.

As for APS-C vs. FF, the "good enough" argument is still valid, however, I have a hard time investing in an APS-C specific system just from a value perspective. The Fuji 56f1.2 is a fantastic lens, but you're getting the 35mm equivalent of... "drum-role" The Canon 85f1.8 (actually not even, anyway)
...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
That should be a loosely similar comparison.
So instead of an X-T1 and a 56f1.2 for $2,300, you could get equivalent results with a 6D and the cheapest lens Canon makes for about $1,600 (depending on your bargain hunting skills).

Now, this only works because 35mm has been standard for so long, you have decades of infrastructure built around that exact thing. If 645 were in the same situation (you could buy $100 lenses that gave better performance than $1,000 lenses on 35mm, and the body cost almost the same) I would be quite happy to invest in a 645 body. But that's not the situation, and probably never will be.


----------



## dpc (Jul 29, 2014)

Haven't watched it. Might, might not. I have both APS-C (7D) and FF (5D Mark II). I use both with some regularity, but I honestly use the 7D more. I'm not much interested in the technicalities of the sensors and whatnot. I'm only interested in the pictures and, for what I do, either is sufficient in its own sphere.


----------



## distant.star (Jul 29, 2014)

.
I like ZA, but this isn't his best work. In a few months, he'll look back at this and be embarrassed.

Despite the pointer, I think it's pretty pointless.

One relevant point is the Fuji APS-C sensor (I'm using one in the X100S) is incomparably better than Canon's APS-C sensors.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> I like ZA, but this isn't his best work. In a few months, he'll look back at this and be embarrassed.



Probably embarrassed all the way to the bank.

It's quite a bit over the top, but I think his point is legitimate. People obsess over sensor size and convince ourselves that it makes a huge difference. I'm as guilty as the next person, but if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.


----------



## rs (Jul 29, 2014)

Zack Arias. Sponsored by Fuji.


----------



## slclick (Jul 29, 2014)

unfocused said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




I have issues with your comparison.7D iso over 6400 anyone? I don't get that noise until I hit 25k on the 5D3. to each their own but my 5D3 and 7D images are night and day.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2014)

slclick said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.
> ...



I think that's unfocused's point -- the 5D3 may be better, but maybe not for what he shoots or how he shoots it. What if he doesn't _need_ ISO 6400, for instance? 

Arias' only argument in that video that I'll back him up on: the limiting factor is usually our ability, camera know-how, composition skills, etc. and _not_ our hardware. 

_That said_, I *do* need ISO 6400 and I love my 5D3 for it. 

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jul 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Yes. Most of my photography falls into two categories. Things I shoot for myself for my own pleasure and personal expression and things I shoot for others. Not commercially, but generally as a favor to others who can't afford to pay (head shots for starving actors, senior pictures for kids whose families don't have a lot of money, family member portraits, etc.) 

I seldom shoot over ISO 400 if I can avoid it, especially when I'm shooting for myself – which are the images I really care about. But, there have certainly been times when I have needed and appreciate the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3. But, few of those high ISO images are ever going to go in my portfolio, so what I was really referring to was the images that I am most proud of. 

Just trying to bring a little perspective to things, I guess. I don't think Arias' point (nor mine) was that there is no difference between formats, but that the differences are not nearly as great as people make them out to be.


----------



## slclick (Jul 30, 2014)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Gotcha, it just came across as saying they are on equal footing. That made me metaphorically spit all over my keyboard


----------



## BL (Jul 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Another APS-C vs. FF rant, this time by Zack Arias:
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/crop-or-crap-zack-arias-takes-a-real-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/
> 
> ...



I wish all commercials were as fun as this one ;D


----------



## Click (Jul 31, 2014)

BL said:


> I wish all commercials were as fun as this one ;D




Ha Ha ha ;D +1


----------



## slclick (Jul 31, 2014)

The repetition is so frakking annoying. The whole thing could have been reduced by half. He should be embarrassed.


----------



## Artifex (Jul 31, 2014)

My brain hurt.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 31, 2014)

I've read enough here on on PP that make me want to never watch this video. I shoot wildlife in very low light and the 1D X absolutely destroys what I was able to do with the 7D, and to a lesser extent with the 5DIII. I'm just talking about the sensor here.

For people who shoot under ISO 1600 on crop sensors, on the other hand, the difference is very minor, but I still like having the choice of wide lenses.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jul 31, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I shoot wildlife in very low light and the 1D X absolutely destroys what I was able to do with the 7D



Yep.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jul 31, 2014)

slclick said:


> I have issues with your comparison.7D iso over 6400 anyone? I don't get that noise until I hit 25k on the 5D3. to each their own but my 5D3 and 7D images are night and day.



IMHO the 7D shouldn't even be mentioned with the 5D III, 6D, 1DX, or the 5D II for wildlife. The 7D produces grainy, rough images with drab colors. The slab of margarine known as the AA filter doesn't help, either. Blue channel noise at low ISO's is especially disturbing for landscapes or bird backgrounds.

In the absolute best of light, the 7D does fine. But then, so does a cell phone.

I find the 70D to be a far superior wildlife camera, too.


----------



## kennephoto (Jul 31, 2014)

FF...aps-c... Nah, my aps-h 1D mark iii and me are happy as can be!


----------



## DRR (Jul 31, 2014)

I have my preference and that's what I use. I don't disparage others who have different needs.

One thing I noticed though, when he's got his lightbox up and comparing sensor sizes, the one he refers to as "APS-C" is much too large in comparison to the FF sensor. Grab a still and compare for yourself. 

While I don't necessarily disagree with the points he's trying to make, I don't think he should be cheating to get those points across. I have no evidence to prove that he did this intentionally, but go ahead and grab a frame if you don't believe me. The difference between the "APS-C" example he puts up and the "full frame" example are pretty minimal. It looks more like APS-H to me. Overlay with actual mm measurements of what an APS-C sensor should be, and you'll see the example he uses is about 20-30% larger than actual APS-C, whether it's Canon standard (1.6x) or Nikon standard (1.5x)


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 31, 2014)

Hi DRR. 
I'm glad you raise that point, I thought it looked too large as well, the only difference is, I was by that point so annoyed with the presentation that I couldn't find the inclination to mess with it any more! If I had confirmed APS-C to FF I would have then been checking the ratios of the rest just in case, they were wrong too! 

Cheers Graham. 



DRR said:


> I have my preference and that's what I use. I don't disparage others who have different needs.
> 
> One thing I noticed though, when he's got his lightbox up and comparing sensor sizes, the one he refers to as "APS-C" is much too large in comparison to the FF sensor. Grab a still and compare for yourself.
> 
> While I don't necessarily disagree with the points he's trying to make, I don't think he should be cheating to get those points across. I have no evidence to prove that he did this intentionally, but go ahead and grab a frame if you don't believe me. The difference between the "APS-C" example he puts up and the "full frame" example are pretty minimal. It looks more like APS-H to me. Overlay with actual mm measurements of what an APS-C sensor should be, and you'll see the example he uses is about 20-30% larger than actual APS-C, whether it's Canon standard (1.6x) or Nikon standard (1.5x)


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 31, 2014)

When Zack implies that shooting APS-C is a good as Nikon full frame, that doesn't automatically apply to Canon APS-C sensors. We're lagging behind. But when you look at other modern sensors (such as Fuji) that are being put into camera systems in which quality lenses are being specifically designed for APS-C sensors (such as Fuji), you'd be surprised at the high image quality. Modern APS-C sensors are excellent. Rather than being defensive and negative, we should become proactive and demand Canon pick up their game.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 31, 2014)

Maybe in the context of what he is shooting the difference is negligible. Maybe he is at bright lights, always less than ISO 400 and bokeh/noise do not matter. Maybe his clients do not perceive or require a difference. 

Those contexts exist, sure. But I use 1 camera for all the different contexts in which I shoot. The 5DIII. And I like the images I get from it better than my excellent 7D.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 31, 2014)

I can only compare the 6D and 60D, but I have compared them a lot, mostly ISO 100-1000 with a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and Sigma 180 f/2.8. The 6D is very much better.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2014)

Comparisons are "interesting" to say the least..... People love to stack the deck when making comparisons. An APS-C fanboy will compare a new Nikon APS-C against a 5D2.... and there isn't a whole lot of difference. The FF fanboy will compare a new Nikon FF against a 7D and the FF is miles ahead. You can't compare new technology to old and you can't compare different technologies.

A fair comparison is the same technology of the same age.... and good luck finding it because technology is not static and unlike the automotive world, Sony, Canon, or Nikon don't release all their 2014 models at the same time.... releases are staggered and there are changes between releases.

In theory, if the two cameras had the exact same pixel count and the exact same level of technology, you would expect the FF would have a 1 1/3 stop advantage over the APS-C camera. Yes that is a difference, but it is not earth shattering. That's the difference we saw going from the 5D2 to the 6D.

The reality is that todays cameras are far superior to those of the past. My first DSLR produced terrible images at ISO800 and the upper limit of ISO1600 produced garbage... years go by and I end up with a 60D that shoots all the way up to ISO12800... still a crop camera, but at ISO12800 produced superior images to my E-300 at ISO400, despite the pixels of the 60D only being half the size.... that's about 6 stops of improvement and if I were to rush out and buy a new Nikon crop camera I could get another 2 stops.

Today, cameras are stabilizing. In the crop world there is about 2 stop of difference between new models of similar pixel count of different manufacturers, and that is mostly because Canon is still using old technology in their sensors. It is believed that they are switching over to new designs and new manufacturing processes, so expect that gap to disappear. As things stand now, we are approaching the theoretical limits of current technology so unless there is some new magic technology that erupts on the scene, expect things to get even closer.... and as Sony has just shown us, pixel count has more impact in a stable market than swapping between FF and crop.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jul 31, 2014)

Dont like all the repeats, brainwashing.
Dont like this kind of religious argumentation at all.
I still like the sensor in my Fuji X100s, but Mr. Arias less now.


----------



## m (Jul 31, 2014)

So "4x5, 8x10 spanks you all" and so he chooses...the aps-c, because it's not that much worse than full frame.

That makes no sense.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Jul 31, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> When Zack implies that shooting APS-C is a good as Nikon full frame, that doesn't automatically apply to Canon APS-C sensors. We're lagging behind. But when you look at other modern sensors (such as Fuji) that are being put into camera systems in which quality lenses are being specifically designed for APS-C sensors (such as Fuji), you'd be surprised at the high image quality. Modern APS-C sensors are excellent. Rather than being defensive and negative, we should become proactive and demand Canon pick up their game.



I was about to make that point about the lenses. Nearly 15 years into the digital age, neither Canon nor Nikon has bupkiss for APS lens lineups. Unless you absolutely love 18-xxx megazooms. Still no fast portrait lens. Still no fast normals. Still no fast short telephoto zooms (70-200 equivalent). Fuji and m4/3 have fleshed-out lens lineups already. And Pentax has some amazing APS format lenses. Small and sharp. Professional lenses. 

What does Canon have? A bunch of idiot parrots saying "Use an L lens." Well yes, if you're using FF. But for APS format cameras, they have absolutely nothing, despite having an awesome camera in the 7D. A pro grade camera with no pro grade lenses. Lovely. 

I'm probably going to move to the Fuji or a M4/3 at some point. Not that I don't love my Mk III and high end lenses. But at some point, you get tired of lugging around heavy gear. I have a great assistant, for now. Once these smaller formats catch up -- and they will -- the FF format will look like a dinosaur. N and C have had a huge head start, but they've been resting on their laurels. Shame on them.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2014)

m said:


> So "4x5, 8x10 spanks you all" and so he chooses...the aps-c, because it's not that much worse than full frame.
> 
> That makes no sense.


That's because you are looking at it logically


----------



## zlatko (Jul 31, 2014)

m said:


> So "4x5, 8x10 spanks you all" and so he chooses...the aps-c, because it's not that much worse than full frame.
> 
> That makes no sense.



I think he makes some good points, but the point about 4x5 and 8x10 is a bit silly because those aren't just different formats ... they're film. You can't get those formats in digital. So yes they are a lot bigger, but they aren't ready substitutes for a lot of the work that photographers do.

The XT1 looks wonderful as a camera design — great size & controls — but I was surprised to see that it offers noticeably less sharpness than other APS-C cameras in DPReview's studio comparison scene. Comparing the RAW at various ISO's, the XT1 just lacked some detail that was evident in the same scene in images from the 70D and D7100, for example. It may be that DPReview is using a RAW converter that doesn't yet properly convert the Fuji RAW files, or it may just be less sharp. It *should* be just as sharp as any other APS-C camera.

Also, ZA has the luxury of ditching FF because he has a super expensive medium format digital. For those who don't have a super expensive medium format digital, FF is still pretty compelling, i.e. the next-best thing to medium format digital (and much cheaper).


----------



## Zv (Jul 31, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > When Zack implies that shooting APS-C is a good as Nikon full frame, that doesn't automatically apply to Canon APS-C sensors. We're lagging behind. But when you look at other modern sensors (such as Fuji) that are being put into camera systems in which quality lenses are being specifically designed for APS-C sensors (such as Fuji), you'd be surprised at the high image quality. Modern APS-C sensors are excellent. Rather than being defensive and negative, we should become proactive and demand Canon pick up their game.
> ...



You're assuming FF tech will remain static in that time. 

----

The video could have been done better but he gets the point across, in an annoying kind if way! For me FF is a lot better when trying to pull details out of RAW files, there's a lot more flexibility. Files tend to take more punishment when correcting exposure errors. 

There's nothing wrong with modern APS-C sensors though and even my humble EOS M produces more than adequate quality in good light. I get that the difference is minor in some cases but I wouldn't say neg-lig-ible! Damn that was annoying!!


----------



## sdsr (Jul 31, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> When Zack implies that shooting APS-C is a good as Nikon full frame, that doesn't automatically apply to Canon APS-C sensors. We're lagging behind. But when you look at other modern sensors (such as Fuji) that are being put into camera systems in which quality lenses are being specifically designed for APS-C sensors (such as Fuji), you'd be surprised at the high image quality. Modern APS-C sensors are excellent. Rather than being defensive and negative, we should become proactive and demand Canon pick up their game.



A few observations:

1. Whether one is "as good as" another rather depends on what your criteria are - what you photograph, how you view images, how fussy you are about what one should probably refer to as small differences (though that's hardly objective either - differences that matter to me may not even be noticed by you and vice versa), etc. I own several different cameras (too many; I should do some pruning...) - FF (Canon 5DIII & 6D, Sony A7r), APS-C (Canon SL1 & Sony a6000) and M43 (Olympus OMD-EM5), with lenses all over the map, from rather elderly manual Russian lenses to high-end current ones. I'm often tempted to think that even viewing on a 30" monitor, if I don't pixel peep, and don't go out of my way to look for differences, there are many images I've taken with various combinations of equipment which, if I (or anyone else) looked at the images in succession, I would have a hard time matching up accurately with the images, and perhaps a harder time forming a preference. 

2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43, and not just when comparing Sony/Nikon ff to Canon APS-C. It may be that the a6000 makes better images than the SL1, but it's also true that the a7r makes better images than the a6000, just as the 5DIII and 6D make better images than the SL1.

3. I still don't get all the fuss over Fuji's x APS-C sensors. Before Christmas I bought an XE1 and returned it a couple of weeks later, assuming that the unsharp results, especially in photos where the subject wasn't close, were the result of a defect in the camera or lens, but I don't think they were - I've looked at countless images online taken by fans of these cameras (not to mention the comparisons you can make at dpreview) and seen much the same lack of sharpness. There may be less noise than on images taken with other APS-C bodies, but there's less detail. Frankly, I prefer the images I get from my SL1, extra noise and all. Again, the differences aren't so noticeable if you don't scrutinize closely, and if you care more about noise than detail it won't matter, but if you do.... (Even some Fuji fans acknowledge this - e.g. whatsisname at soundimageplus says they're his favorite cameras to use, but he much prefers the images from his a6000, not to mention a7& a7r.)

4. I've not seen the video yet....


----------



## DRR (Jul 31, 2014)

Also not the first time he's ranted on about Fuji vs DSLRs:

https://fstoppers.com/location/zack-arias-claims-dslr-dead-result-fuji-x100s-3406

To me, someone declaring DSLRs dead or that APS-C is just as good as FF, is just as bad as the opposite - the person that spouts out that DSLRs are king or the FF is the only "real" format.

Both of these are uneducated viewpoints and contribute nothing. In fact I think of Arias less of a knowledgeable photographer now that I've seen that video.

Not all photography is the same, and as a result it requires different equipment. Different equipment requires different tradeoffs. Choose what's best for you, not what someone else declares to be better or worse.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 31, 2014)

DRR said:


> Also not the first time he's ranted on about Fuji vs DSLRs:
> 
> https://fstoppers.com/location/zack-arias-claims-dslr-dead-result-fuji-x100s-3406
> 
> ...


Well said, DRR! I visit blogs that are specific to certain types of photography and hear so much animus and ignorance out there. Crop is all you need, primes rule, natural light is for idiots, L lenses are overpriced, only shoot with L lenses, etc., etc.

Each genre of photography has its own requirements and while any gear can be used, some gear works better than others. For example, shooting sports with a 3fps camera with limited AF is very difficult, but the same camera can produce amazing portraits. Large aperture lenses are wasted on landscape photographers, but necessary for sports & wildlife. A 85L is a horrible choice for most shots other than portraits, but can be used for other things. The list goes on and on and on....

To argue that any one technology, system, lens, or anything else is perfect (or pointless) is pure ignorance (or blatant commercialism supporting a sponsor).


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 31, 2014)

sdsr said:


> 2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43,



Yeah it is actually. The problem with this debate is 99.9% of the people debating have never been forced to pick between unlabeled prints. Much like wine experts discover when they are blindfolded, our ability to "scrutinize" photos is not nearly what we believe it to be when labels are in front of us.

ISO 100-800 (probably throw in 1600 for Sony sensors)...all other factors being equal (MP; lens IQ) with optimal processing for both...you're not going to identify the format between APS-C and FF even in big prints.

Above that...FF starts to walk away, and the difference is significant enough that you can't post process it away, and it's visible in large prints. FF is the low light king. But the difference is becoming less and less important as sensor tech improves and IS finds its way into more scenarios.

FF can of course achieve less DoF, though I honestly feel like APS-C is the sweet spot here. Moving at all will throw a normal/mild tele at f/1.4 out of focus on FF. And by moving at all I mean random quantum fluctuations seem to be sufficient to shift the plane of focus and ruin the shot. Even on APS-C I'm often stopping down to f/2 to make sure I have some DoF. One in focus eyelash is not appealing to me.

I will admit there are lenses which beg to be shot on FF (Canon's T/S and 24/35L's).

But that's about it. The differences are really not what they're often made out to be unless you need to shoot at really high ISOs or you can make use of the 36 MP from a D810 or A7R (so...really big prints). Or you like one focused eyelash surrounded by bokeh.



> I still don't get all the fuss over Fuji's x APS-C sensors.



Neither do I. Their one Bayer model seems to have the same IQ but with slightly different color rendition that could be equalized in post pretty easily.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2014)

The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 31, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> IMHO the 7D shouldn't even be mentioned with the 5D III, 6D, 1DX, or the 5D II for wildlife.



OTOH Poul Souders took his prize winning polar bear pic with a 7D and 10-22m lens:
http://worldfoto.blogspot.com/2013/10/2013-bbc-wildlife-photographer-of-year.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/2013-national-geographic-photography-contest-winners/#!bshaEo

It is all about technique, especially spending the time.
Tom


----------



## sdsr (Jul 31, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > 2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43,
> ...



I guess you may be right if "optimal processing" is applied, and I dare say I don't do it. At any rate, if I look at images on a monitor at 100% (which is what I had in mind by "scrutinize"), I see more noise even at ISO 100 on APS-C than FF (regardless of whether it's Canon or Sony), and of course with m43 there's the "problem" that ISO starts at 200. Would I see it if I weren't looking for it? Probably not. Would I see it at less than 100%? Probably not. Does it matter? No (well, not for me, anyway, unless I want to boost shadows a lot, and even then it's usually not noticeable). Would I bother applying NR? No. Anyway, I doubt we're disagreeing about much, if anything.

Anyway, I've now seen the video and am not impressed either. All he says is that the difference in sensor size between FF and APSC is trivial compared to the difference in sensor size between FF and large format (etc.), and that the differences between FF and APSC have become insignificant. That could be said in less than 30 seconds. It may or may not be true (it all depends on what you think is significant), but he does nothing at all to prove his point besides waving a stick at a series of photos of sensors over and over again. I rather doubt this is a Fuji ad - wouldn't their publicity department come up with something better?


----------



## sdsr (Jul 31, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.



I think you'll find that most reviewers and users are of the opinion that the difference in image quality between m43 and APS-C is very small indeed except at higher ISOs.


----------



## zlatko (Jul 31, 2014)

sdsr said:


> 3. I still don't get all the fuss over Fuji's x APS-C sensors. Before Christmas I bought an XE1 and returned it a couple of weeks later, assuming that the unsharp results, especially in photos where the subject wasn't close, were the result of a defect in the camera or lens, but I don't think they were - I've looked at countless images online taken by fans of these cameras (not to mention the comparisons you can make at dpreview) and seen much the same lack of sharpness. There may be less noise than on images taken with other APS-C bodies, but there's less detail. Frankly, I prefer the images I get from my SL1, extra noise and all. Again, the differences aren't so noticeable if you don't scrutinize closely, and if you care more about noise than detail it won't matter, but if you do.... (Even some Fuji fans acknowledge this - e.g. whatsisname at soundimageplus says they're his favorite cameras to use, but he much prefers the images from his a6000, not to mention a7& a7r.)



I agree about the SL1. Fuji offers less noise but less detail too, at least using Lightroom.

While some praise Fuji's color because they have all of that film experience, I frankly did not see excellent color from the XPro1 or the X100S (don't know about the XT1). The color from their RAW files was always much better than from their in-camera jpegs.


----------



## zlatko (Jul 31, 2014)

fish_shooter said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO the 7D shouldn't even be mentioned with the 5D III, 6D, 1DX, or the 5D II for wildlife.
> ...



And having a boat.  And being willing to get within 15 feet (?) of a polar bear in the wild. 

Some World Press Photo award winning photos were also made with the 7D.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2014)

sdsr said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.
> ...



Sure, but where does the "very small" end? If the difference between FF and APS-C is very small, and the difference between APS-C and m4/3 is very small, and the difference between m4/3 and 1" is small, is the difference between FF and 1" some degree of small?

Maybe it is, but without quantifying what "small" is, it's a bit of a useless comparison, and in a world where people report for example dynamic range in tenth-stop precision, maybe small from the general lexicon doesn't apply.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 31, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



You're right, of course, that as a general proposition it's useless - for one thing, even assuming the differences can be measured, what's "small" for me mightn't be for you, and vice versa, and the only way to know is to use the different formats in question and see if you notice any differences that matter to you given the uses to which you put them (or find useful comparisons online). I'm not sure, though, what the point is you're trying to make with your invocation of slippery slopes.


----------



## slclick (Jul 31, 2014)

That small amount of difference can and usually is the game changer for some to take their game to the next level of detail, sharpness, color rendition and print sizes. 

But what do I know, I like pinhole photography, which he failed to mention.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 31, 2014)

I have both but full frame rules as an all-round format: shallow DOF capability (even at f2.8 ) , better colors (at least in Canon), better low light performance. 
As you shrink the sensor you need to improve the glass: it needs better resolution because of smaller pixel pitch, and wider aperture to achieve the same DOF. 
Anyway, if there was an APS-C solution as good as full frame, but cheaper and/or lighter, I'd go for it. But it doesn't exist.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2014)

sdsr said:


> I'm not sure, though, what the point is you're trying to make with your invocation of slippery slopes.



Basically the point at which one concludes that sensor size is irrelevant because incremental steps down in size are regarded as irrelevant. But I fully admit that my commentary is worth less than the amount you paid to read it


----------



## kennephoto (Aug 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> [quote
> Well said, DRR! I visit blogs that are specific to certain types of photography and hear so much animus and ignorance out there. Crop is all you need, primes rule, natural light is for idiots, L lenses are overpriced, only shoot with L lenses, etc., etc.
> 
> Each genre of photography has its own requirements and while any gear can be used, some gear works better than others. For example, shooting sports with a 3fps camera with limited AF is very difficult, but the same camera can produce amazing portraits. Large aperture lenses are wasted on landscape photographers, but necessary for sports & wildlife. A 85L is a horrible choice for most shots other than portraits, but can be used for other things. The list goes on and on and on....
> ...



Now that's well said. Thank you! More people need to think like this, because cameras are tools and many people can use them in many different ways. Some tools are better than others but in the right hands basic tools can accomplish amazing things.


----------



## ecka (Aug 1, 2014)

There may be many reasons for not seeing FF advantages clearly, like bad vision, small snapshots (too small to care), money, herd effect, bokeh'fobia or other psychological conditions.  None of those can beat physics.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 1, 2014)

Who cares what Zack Arias has to say. His main talent is self-promotion, i.e. he's not much of a photographer. His major source of income seems to come from being a guru/media whore/pitchman. If he wants to maintain that income he has to stop acting like a hopped-up loon.

His understanding of photo history leaves much to be desired. Back in the day many magazine covers were shot with 35mm cameras (gotta love Kodachrome). Photojournalists stopped using 4x5 and 6x6 during the Vietnam War era.

Now-a-days no-one except pixel peepers care about sensor size. No. One. Cares. Got that -- No. One. Cares.

Professionals are shooting paying work with everything from iPhones to 8x10. The impossible Project is now making New 8x10 Polaroid film https://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film/8x10inch/fi_8x10_1_imp_2_mum

So please don't bore me with senseless sensor wars. No. One (except you). Cares.


----------



## ecka (Aug 1, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Who cares what Zack Arias has to say. His main talent is self-promotion, i.e. he's not much of a photographer. His major source of income seems to come from being a guru/media whore/pitchman. If he wants to maintain that income he has to stop acting like a hopped-up loon.
> 
> His understanding of photo history leaves much to be desired. Back in the day many magazine covers were shot with 35mm cameras (gotta love Kodachrome). Photojournalists stopped using 4x5 and 6x6 during the Vietnam War era.
> 
> ...




Why should we care what careless people think? (except when their carelessness affects our quality of life)
Why careless people need others to support their careless beliefs? (except when they do it for money)
Why bother fighting for carelessness? It makes no sense. (except when you're a troll or doing it for money)


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 2, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.



It's not "barely better" at high ISOs. That's where the surface area and therefore light gathering come into play. At ISO 6400, 12800, 25600 it is much, much better. I'm comfortable shooting FF 3 stops higher then APS-C. I won't shoot APS-C above 3200, but I will shoot FF above 3200.

But at ISO 400? Meh. Differences are insignificant because noise isn't an issue at those light levels for either size sensor.

There seems to be this meme that FF is always and forever better at all things, Amen. That's what Zack was ranting against. Where FF advantages come into play they are large. They just don't come into play all the time.


----------



## ecka (Aug 2, 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhxzqYJnN4


----------



## m (Aug 2, 2014)

ecka said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhxzqYJnN4



"mark my words", lol. The internet never forgets.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 3, 2014)

ecka said:


> There may be many reasons for not seeing FF advantages clearly, *like bad vision*



I think this is more common than most people realize.


----------



## DRR (Aug 3, 2014)

ecka said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhxzqYJnN4



OMG that's great. Not even 4 years ago. Funny how a sponsorship will change your "opinion." Arias has ZERO credibility to me now.


----------



## Click (Aug 3, 2014)

DRR said:


> OMG that's great. Not even 4 years ago. Funny how a sponsorship will change your "opinion." Arias has ZERO credibility to me now.



+1


----------



## ecka (Aug 3, 2014)

Click said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > OMG that's great. Not even 4 years ago. Funny how a sponsorship will change your "opinion." Arias has ZERO credibility to me now.
> ...



Don't be too harsh on him, he is a nice guy. I do (did) agree on most points of his photographic philosophy (before he lost his way ) ), like learning the full potential of one lens before buying another, or that "glass before body" is BS (there has to be a balance), FF + nice and cheap primes work amazingly well!


----------



## notapro (Aug 3, 2014)

I noticed that in a link listed on the initial linked page for this thread, Arias makes note of what many here have mentioned: that he's "back pedaling now".

The link ( http://dedpxl.com/crop-or-crap-math-or-moment/ ) also has the video where has expresses a view contrary to his current one, the very video ecka mentions earlier in this thread.

In the article, he writes, "Look. Some of the trolls out there are going to think this is a Fuji sponsored message. It isn’t. While Fuji is a client of mine and I have done work for them they sure as hell don’t keep food on my table or a roof over my head on any sort of regular basis. " He continues in the same paragraph to explain his perspective.

It appears that he is aware that he holds a different perspective now and is aware also of what he has stated in the past. He gives reasons for which he holds his current view.

Is it not reasonable to see him merely as someone who has changed his mind about something in light of his self-reported experience, and also to take his word that he is not doing Fuji's bidding?

Just a question I'm left with as I read this thread.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 3, 2014)

notapro said:


> I noticed that in a link listed on the initial linked page for this thread, Arias makes note of what many here have mentioned: that he's "back pedaling now".
> 
> The link ( http://dedpxl.com/crop-or-crap-math-or-moment/ ) also has the video where has expresses a view contrary to his current one, the very video ecka mentions earlier in this thread.
> 
> ...



I think the lesson to be learned is not to have too strong opinions or the feeling you are absolutely right. That is what makes it odd that such a strong proponent of 'cannot go back to crop' now says 'difference between crop and full frame is negligible'.
I think both his viewpoints are partially correct, but that doesn't prevent him from looking like an obnoxious, repetitive, opinionated know-it-all who likes to hear his own voice, in the video (even though he might be a perfectly nice guy in person). 
He might have said some good points in favor of his viewpoint in the last few minutes- I don't know, because I couldn't watch past the first 10 minutes. All I remember from those 10 minutes is 'people shouldn't care between APS-C and FF because the difference between them is 'negligible' compared to FF and MF'. 
That's very poor logic- would you not care whether you buy a two-seater compact or a four-seater sedan, because both are so much smaller compared to a minivan!
There are lots of reasons why APS-C should suffice, but I didn't hear him utter any. For example, under strong lighting and plenty of DoF, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> The 7D produces grainy, rough images with drab colors. The slab of margarine known as the AA filter doesn't help, either. Blue channel noise at low ISOs is especially disturbing for landscapes or bird backgrounds.



You really need to learn how to use it, and how to convert and process the files from it properly, then.

Your interminable bashing just makes those of us who know how to get the best out of the 7D, realise how much it must suck to be you.

_Obviously_ at high ISOs (say, over 6400 ISO), crop sensors give ground to FF, but that's true of _all_ crop sensors. 

The 7D's sensor is, even today, broadly comparable with any other crop sensor out there at high (for crop) ISO, _converted and processed intelligently_. 

*I've long said the 7D's biggest problem is some of the people that bought it...*


----------



## koolman (Aug 3, 2014)

Obviously a Fuji Sponsored campaign.

However - I agree with the idea - that the advantages of FF over Crop - are getting smaller all the time, as far as overall IQ. The DOF issue will always remain as it is an issue of optics and not electronics.

CROP also has many advantages - primarily smaller cheaper gear, lenses that are cheaper to develop.

Less to carry, and cheaper price for many of us = more fun taking pictures.


----------



## reczey (Aug 3, 2014)

*Important Points!*

I should not have seen this video...  

I know how big the difference is between FF and APS-C, and I use both formats as I need them... According to him, however, the difference is negligible...! Wao...! What is negligible to him, is very important to me, but I see his point about the even larger formats! His presentation simply suggests that it would be an *even larger step* ahead in quality! Now I begin to long for the Medium and Large formats...!


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 3, 2014)

All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here. I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used. And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review. I'll admit it, I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used. But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference. I'm now worried that I must be missing something. Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on). 

Help me! When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera? If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12. I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Aug 3, 2014)

LOL, I look at my 5dIII as a crop to the S2, which is a crop to the 4x5, which is a crop to LH 8x10


----------



## ecka (Aug 3, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here. I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used. And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review. I'll admit it, I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used. But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference. I'm now worried that I must be missing something. Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on).
> 
> Help me! When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera? If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12. I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.



This "dead horse" has a message written on him long time ago - "Superior camera can shoot poor snapshots too, so what?" ). If you don't/can't exploit larger format potential, then you don't need one to do the job.


----------



## wsheldon (Aug 3, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here. I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used. And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review. I'll admit it, I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used. But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference. I'm now worried that I must be missing something. Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on).
> 
> Help me! When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera? If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12. I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.



I sure hope this is sarcasm :-\


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 3, 2014)

wsheldon said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here. I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used. And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review. I'll admit it, I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used. But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference. I'm now worried that I must be missing something. Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on).
> ...



No, it will be true. 

I'm sure most people here on CR would consider the 5DII and the 6D to produce higher IQ / resolution than the original 5D, or even the APS 650D.

On my website at Building Panoramics about 40% of the images are shot on the 5D, about 45% on the 5DII, about 15% on the 6D. There are two shot on APS. 

I'll offer a $500 reward to anyone who can tell me which pictures were shot on the 5D.


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 3, 2014)

Just watched the video. 

That's 13 minutes of my life I'm never going to have again. 

You all have covered the technological arguments far better than I ever could. So I'm just going to say that I found Arias to be incredibly annoying and unprofessional in that video. I kept hoping that someone would come from behind the camera filming the video to yank that twig out of his hand and break it in two. 

If I were Fuji, I would consider that video to be terribly unflattering to my product and I would be trying to figure out how to distance my company from this performance of a grown man having a tantrum.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 3, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> wsheldon said:
> 
> 
> > Hillsilly said:
> ...



There is, obviously, little difference between images taken with any SLR under optimal conditions FOR that camera.
A daylight image with a Rebel vs a 1D might not look different.
However, that doesn't still mean a 5DIII isn't a far superior camera to the 5D, because when the highlights are blown, for example, I can recover them in my 5DIII and not in my 5D (just one of many factors).
It's those suboptimal conditions when a superior camera shines.
If it weren't so, professionals like yourself won't be using FF, would you?
On the other hand, I have seen many studio photographers who use APS-C, shooting mostly under strobes at f/7.1 and smaller.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 3, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here. I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used. And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review. I'll admit it, I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used. But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference. I'm now worried that I must be missing something. Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on).
> 
> Help me! When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera? If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12. I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.



Well, of course you've got it all wrong. First, you are looking at prints, which means those images are meant to be shown to others and to be shared. Anyone knows that real photographers only care about looking at their images on a computer screen at intense magnification. 

When you look at a print, you can be too easily distracted by such mundane things as whether or not the picture is interesting, whether or not the composition works, if the picture actually has something to say, etc. etc. Those things can get in the way of what's really important -- things like how much dynamic range the RAW file has and what kind of shadow and highlight detail can be seen in the electronic files. 

Really, you should never look at printed pictures at all. You mention 8 x 12, but honestly, it's impossible to tell the difference in format even at much larger sizes if you insist on looking a printed images. If you really must do that, at least buy yourself a good quality loupe and hold it up to the print so you can examine the image properly. 

If you do this all the time you will soon learn. In fact, although the museums frown on it and you can even get tossed by a guard, if you take the loupe with you all the time you will soon learn what terrible photographers Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Lee Friedlander, Garry Winogrand, W. Eugene Smith and others were.


----------



## EdB (Aug 3, 2014)

Here is an article from Michael Reichmann, it is quite old, from 2008, that fit right in with this discussion. Like his photography or not, he knows what he is talking about.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 3, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > wsheldon said:
> ...



You are of course quite right, the 5DIII is a far superior camera technically, and yes I very much agree on the highlights. The latest Canon FF also have much better tonal graduation and graduation to White and black, as good as film now really, in fact IMO this aspect of the film-like tonal graduation is better on the 5DIII than the D800, at lowest ISO too. 

[/quote]
If it weren't so, professionals like yourself won't be using FF, would you?
On the other hand, I have seen many studio photographers who use APS-C, shooting mostly under strobes at f/7.1 and smaller.
[/quote]

Actually I'm only professional when I feel like it 

To be honest the reason I'm using FF is because I come from an era when APS was the most hideous creation of film ever developed, and the crop factors on lenses drove me nuts. 

There are many brilliant photographers using four thirds, never mind APS. I could produce all my pictures on APS and no one would know - except for me, and that's enough.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 3, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Quote contracted



For me, it was the noise on my 7D.
I am not good with artificial lighting (yet, I hope) and I always end up in situations where the ISO would jump to 1600 (which is BAD, in a 7D) or above.
And the difference in ISO performance between FF and crop is _NOT_ neg-li-gi-ble


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 3, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D produces grainy, rough images with drab colors. The slab of margarine known as the AA filter doesn't help, either. Blue channel noise at low ISOs is especially disturbing for landscapes or bird backgrounds.
> ...



Wow. Here we have one person criticizing a camera sensor for well known shortcomings, and another person declaring that such criticism is evidence of a miserable existence.

Think before you type.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 3, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> You really need to learn how to use it, and how to convert and process the files from it properly, then.
> 
> Your interminable bashing just makes those of us who know how to get the best out of the 7D, realise how much it must suck to be you.



Keith, you seem pretty angry.

I know how to use the 7D. I've used it for years. I chose not to for the image that was featured in _Outside_ magazine last month. For that image, I chose the 50D.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 3, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> *For me, it was the noise on my 7D.*
> I am not good with artificial lighting (yet, I hope) and I always end up in situations where the ISO would jump to 1600 (which is BAD, in a 7D) or above.
> And the difference in ISO performance between FF and crop is _NOT_ neg-li-gi-ble



Yes, the 7D is great when you control the lighting. Those environments are almost meaningless for testing a camera, IMHO. It's only when you get outside, in demanding conditions that a camera proves its mettle.


----------



## Skirball (Aug 4, 2014)

DRR said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhxzqYJnN4
> ...



I think the only option is for Arias to duke it out in a cage match with Ken Rockwell. Winner earns the title Most Hated Man in Camera Chat Forums.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 4, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Wow. Here we have one person criticizing a camera sensor for well known shortcomings, and another person declaring that such criticism is evidence of a miserable existence.



He may have been harsh, but his point stands. The web is loaded with clean, sharp, detailed 7D images with gorgeous color. If you are not producing work with similar IQ it is not the camera model. Either you have a faulty unit or your technique is flawed, and it's usually the latter.

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF. They didn't notice any horrible noise. The "7D is noisy!" meme gets annoying to those who don't seem to have any problem producing excellent images with it.

Now if we're talking high ISO...yes, the 7D is noisy and soft vs. the 5D2 and especially the 6D, 5D3, and 1DX. But so is pretty much every other crop sensor. Granted newer sensors are better, but still pale in comparison to the latest FF sensors at high ISO.


----------



## ecka (Aug 4, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Here we have one person criticizing a camera sensor for well known shortcomings, and another person declaring that such criticism is evidence of a miserable existence.
> ...



Well, it is called photoshop . Any big sensor camera can produce clean, sharp, detailed images these days.
As a former 7D user (and I did like that camera very much) I must say that my 6D has a lot more potential for what I do - lower noise, lower aberrations, better subject isolation, better contrast (and micro contrast), better sharpness, better cropability, better DR, nicer bokeh, wider and better range of lenses (specially primes, while equivalent crop lenses are either just as big, as heavy, as expensive and still inferior, or do not exist). Every review is subjective, every professional has his own opinion, but we should only discuss facts. Let's keep all the prejudice out of it. Science and religion don't mix.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 4, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: *at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF*.




Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.


----------



## Zv (Aug 5, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: *at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF*.
> ...



Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 5, 2014)

Zv said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.


----------



## ecka (Aug 5, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



I switched from 500D (I think 50D has the same sensor) to 7D (back in 2010), which was quite a bit better in noise department. 500D/50D seemed more grainy.
I always tried to keep my 7D macro shots under ISO 800, but now, with 6D I can go up to ISO 3200.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 5, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> +1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.



And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?

It's a good guess your opinion was formed by zooming straight to 100% which means 18 MP magnified > 15 MP magnified > 12 MP.

Another good guess is that if you had to pick from unlabeled screen or print views...equal in size...you would pick the 5Dc image as the noisy one that "must be the 7D."


----------



## sdsr (Aug 5, 2014)

Zv said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)? dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....


----------



## tayassu (Aug 5, 2014)

I just wanted to say that I found the video awesome and I found it to be the first of all those claiming to use a real-world approach to that discussion that lived up to its title. I really enjoyed watching it and I'm going to enjoy even more not reading the 7 pages discussion before this post, which was surely not intended by Mr. Arias, who has my greatest respects! 
I wish everyone happy shooting with his or her camera, whether it is an iPhone, a 70D or a Linhof Master Technika! And Mr. Arias is right, it is about light, composition, emotion and moments, it is about the moron behind the camera! And sadly, there are enough morons behind cameras that only care for gear... Try shooting a week without thinking about your camera specs and you'll appreciate the work of art coming out much more! 
A happy week to you all!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 5, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > +1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.
> ...




First of all, read my post first- I said both 5D (FF) and 50D (APS-C) that I have used appeared less noisy than my 7D. So it has nothing to do with confirmation bias. Also I say 'my 7D' which was noisy. I loved it for everything else, but I have complained about the noise several times on these forums before I switched to the 5D III. Was my 7D out of spec? I think not- I have heard of similar noise issues from many people.

Secondly, your first guess is wrong- I don't pixel peep when looking for noise. When I say, ISO xxx was unacceptable it means I looked at it full screen on my 24" monitor and it looked bad. That's a pretty low bar, wouldn't you say?

Thirdly, your second guess is irrelevant- what matters is data. I am pretty confident I will do far better than chance in picking out my 7D images at high ISO (large size jpegs, at least). If I care enough, I can post some of them from my 7D and I think you might agree.

Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them. As it is, comparing high ISO images from single copies of two cameras side by side don't comprise scientific tests as far as I am concerned. Show me something like what Roger Cicala does, and I will hear you.


----------



## Meh (Aug 5, 2014)

Over the past week or so as I've watched this video being posted and shared with comments like "Zack nails it" or "Zack finally settles the crop debate"... etc. etc. I've been very tempted to post a rant here and there... not because the overriding message that APS-C sensors are very good or that the Fuji cameras are very good... the fact is they are very good and produce exceptional image quality. Part of what bothers me is the factually incorrect analysis and his generalized statement that the difference between APS-C and FF is "negligible" when the fact is that there is a measurable difference between the two. For a well lit scene with only a few stops of dynamic range an iPhone has excellent image quality, otherwise it kinda sucks. Zack's video is way oversimplified... it's a sliver of a conditionally true statement and therefore pretty much useless. The other part that bother's me is his use of extended comparison... by putting even larger and even smaller objects beside the two you are actually comparing makes them look relatively similar in size and we humans are generally bad at absolute comparisons... we are much better at relative comparisons so what we "see" is that the APS-C and FF look about the same when compared to the really big and the really small. But that is scientifically invalid method of analysis. The visual distortion does not change the fact that the FF sensor is 2.5X larger than the APS-C and has significant and measurable differences in a number of performance parameters. Sure, under certain conditions the differences may not be within the ability of a human being to see it or any particular person may not care... but so what, not seeing or not caring does not change the physics and the facts. But taking those specific cases and uses that as evidence to make a general conclusion is faulty logic. That might not be Zack's fault per se... he is not a physicist or sensor technology expert. On the other hand, the guy is making money off blogging, teaching, writing, and possibly from sponsorship by Fuji. He is purposely entering the "sensor size debate" with a "humorous and endearing sensor size doesn't matter" video in order to get people to watch his video... it's a tried and true trick of marketing... tell people what they want to hear and in a way they can relate to it and they will buy what you be selling... in droves. And what is Zack selling... video views, blog posts, teaching, and Fuji cameras. I'm not buying. Except that I did because I watched the video and wrote this post. Arghhhhh.


----------



## Skirball (Aug 5, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?
> ...


----------



## Zv (Aug 6, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



He implied the difference is not noticeable to which we responded (based on actually having owned a 7D and 5D) that we disagree. That is all we are stating. Neither person is wrong as we are simply stating opinions. What others choose to do with that info is their business. 

Note this is based on the 7D. Modern day APS-C cameras with Sonikon sensors is a different debate. Perhaps in those cases the difference is less. I'm sure someone with both could comment.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 6, 2014)

Skirball said:


>



? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 7, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> +1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but *I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D*.



Yeah it's perplexing. The 50D may be as noisy as the 7D, but it lacks the waxy AA filter that just smears details on the 7D. It's the combination of inconsistent focus (burst mode in AI Servo and/or AF single point even on static subjects), drab colors, low ISO blue channel noise, and thick AA filter that made the 7D the worst IQ of any Canon DSLR I've owned. 

I've never had a complaint or trouble with any of them until that body. Too bad, because it feels great in the hand and sports an amazing build.

Even the 70D I own is a considerable upgrade in IQ, especially in color and sharpness with the same set of lenses.


----------



## Zv (Aug 7, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > +1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but *I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D*.
> ...



Yup, sounds about right.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 8, 2014)

Zv said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)? dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....
> ...



Well, I have both (Canon 5DIII, 6D & SL1, and Sony a7r & a6000) and can certainly see differences between FF and APSC (and between the 5DIII and 6D, for that matter), both within and between camps. I've not done anything resembling scientific testing, but I get the impression that the differences are similar (though at least for low ISO noise the Sony camp wins because their APS-C and FF sensors both have less noise at low ISOs and better DR). 

I've never used a 7D, though that doesn't really affect the point I was trying to make with my comment above, which is merely that whether something is noticeable, whether a difference is negligible, depends on who's looking, how and why, so that some of this evident disagreement may be in some sense spurious. You could sit two people, A and B, side-by-side in front of the same photograph and A could say to B "they look the same to me", B could respond "but what about (say) this patch of noise here?" and A could in turn respond "Oh, OK, I see that now that you point it out, but it's not the sort of thing I notice because for me it's an unimportant element in how a photo looks". (I've actually done something like this myself.) But if A were instead to respond to B "no, I don't see it at all," that could mean that A or B needs new glasses....


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> First of all, read my post first- I said both 5D (FF) and 50D (APS-C) that I have used appeared less noisy than my 7D. So it has nothing to do with confirmation bias.



First of all, read my post first - I did not say your opinion was from confirmation bias. My suggested theory is that you don't know how to size/compare properly. (And having three cameras in the mix would not preclude confirmation bias.)



> Was my 7D out of spec? I think not- I have heard of similar noise issues from many people.



Noise issues which don't show up in scientific tests? I guess Canon sent the special noise free 7D's to the reviewers.



> Secondly, your first guess is wrong- I don't pixel peep when looking for noise. When I say, ISO xxx was unacceptable it means I looked at it full screen on my 24" monitor and it looked bad. That's a pretty low bar, wouldn't you say?



As a testing methodology yes, that is very low bar. Your software, scaling algorithm, monitor, monitor settings, all affect the final result. For example: at the right scaling in Apple Preview on a MacBook (non-Retina) you can make a FF 5D3 or D600 look noisy at base ISO because the scaling mechanism screws up.



> Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them.



Pretty much every review on Earth noted that the 7D was cleaner then the 50D, and at 3200 the 5D has visibly more chroma noise (though I think it's visibly even and tests a bit better on luminance). Go review the Dave Box tests at Imaging Resource.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 9, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Yeah it's perplexing. The 50D may be as noisy as the 7D, but it lacks the waxy AA filter that just smears details on the 7D.



LOL! Google "Comparometer." Pick the 50D and 7D. Click the ISO 100 test scene with the fabric and the bottles, etc. Pay careful attention to which one looks "waxy."

In fairness this is about the JPEG engines. The 7D has the better JPEG engine, and both cameras are capable of higher IQ in ACR. But it's the 50D that was "waxy" in JPEG. The AA filter isn't an issue with either body.



> It's the combination of inconsistent focus (burst mode in AI Servo and/or AF single point even on static subjects),



http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/03/autofocus-torture-test-updated-canon-1d-mkiv-nikon-d3s-added/?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pph%20newsletter%20autofocus%20mkiv%20robg

If you experienced poor AF you should have returned the body for repair work/calibration.



> drab colors



It's digital. You decide the colors.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 9, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, read my post first- I said both 5D (FF) and 50D (APS-C) that I have used appeared less noisy than my 7D. So it has nothing to do with confirmation bias.
> ...






You mentioned that I shall attribute the noisier image to 7D. How does that relate to my inability to size images? Of course, it will be affected by my alleged inability to compare images, but then that is just your guess, isn't it? Do note that the 50D was mentioned anecdotally, I did say that I have NOT done ANY comparisons. So yes, there could be bias, and my statement implicitly expressed that possibility. Although it is cognitive bias, not confirmation bias.

A low bar for performance is not the same as low bar for technique. 
I am not a professional pixel-peeper or someone with lots of free time in hand. I don't objectively test cameras or formats so all the parameters you mentioned are moot. My finding was, at the same monitor settings and when displayed full screen, the 7D images looked noisy. Yes, I know it isn't the same ratio of enlargement. Who cares? All that matters to me is whether or not an image looks good at the size I will use it. If the one from 5Dc looks better, I will keep that camera. And I did.

So what are you trying to prove through your offensive statements, unsupported information and uneducated "guesses"? If I read some 10 reviews saying 7D is supposed to be better, the images that looked noisy before will now appear clean? 

Put less stock in theories and calculations, and rely on your eyes. If you feel 7D is better, good for you. Don't come trying to tell me what I should feel.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 9, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> In fairness this is about the JPEG engines. The 7D has the better JPEG engine, and both cameras are capable of higher IQ in ACR. But it's the 50D that was "waxy" in JPEG. The AA filter isn't an issue with either body.



I don't shoot in jpeg, so I really can't comment in this context.




> If you experienced poor AF you should have returned the body for repair work/calibration.



I did. Five times.




> It's digital. You decide the colors.



Feel free to enjoy a Rebel XTi with the 18-55 non-IS wide open. After all, you choose the colors.


----------



## Zv (Aug 9, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



Yes OK that makes sense. I see what you're getting at. Two people can see the same thing differently.


----------



## Skirball (Aug 12, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Feel free to enjoy a Rebel XTi with the 18-55 non-IS wide open. After all, you choose the colors.



What does non-IS wide open have to do with colors?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 12, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> You mentioned that I shall attribute the noisier image to 7D. How does that relate to my inability to size images?



Most people drop images in PS and zoom to 100% forgetting that higher MP images are magnified more at "100%".



> Of course, it will be affected by my alleged inability to compare images, but then that is just your guess, isn't it?



You are correct that I am guessing as to why you believe the 7D is noisier when reproducible tests say otherwise.



> I don't objectively test cameras or formats so all the parameters you mentioned are moot.



No, your opinion is by your own admission moot.

It simply amazes me how people will stubbornly cling to opinions even when they fully admit their opinions are not based in any way on anything objective, reproducible, or reasonable. No wonder Zack went on his rant. I'm behind him 100%.



> Yes, I know it isn't the same ratio of enlargement. Who cares?



Now I have no need to guess.



> So what are you trying to prove through your offensive statements,



Pointing out the truth is offensive? But it's not offensive at all when people appeal to hyperbole to prop up clearly false statements?



> and uneducated "guesses"?



My guess was spot on as you just admitted.



> Put less stock in theories and calculations, and rely on your eyes.



Silly statement considering I'm telling you to rely on your eyes with a proper comparison.

Human nature just amazes me sometimes...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 12, 2014)

I wonder if anyone can tell me which of these came from which camera? Or brand? Or even format? All scaled so that on a 96ppi monitor it's like looking at sections from a 36" print.

http://imgur.com/B2DUlmJ

NEG-LI-GI-BLE


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 13, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > You mentioned that I shall attribute the noisier image to 7D. How does that relate to my inability to size images?
> ...




As unfocused stated in a different context- you let your keyboard run off before your brain and now you have to keep it up... (paraphrasing)

1. I did not drop images into PS and zoom to 100%. As I clearly stated before, I set the image full screen on a 24" monitor to see how it looks. Being higher resolution, the 7D gains an advantage in terms of pixel downsampling, but being a smaller sensor, it has the disadvantage of enlargement. Regardless, if one is trying to gauge whether his photos look good and presentable, all that matters is looking at them at the same size that your viewers will be looking. For me, that is either a 24" monitor or an 8x10 print. For someone comparing a 7D and a 5Dc, comparing them with similar enlargement of pixel makes sense. But I never owned both cameras at the same time. Which brings me to my second point.

2. My comments about the 7D noise is not an opinion, it is an observation. I owned the 7D and loved it except when I needed to use it at high ISOs. I could not use it at ISO 3200 and above, ISO 1600 was best avoided and ISO 800 was borderline. Not an opinion, an observation at the extremely low performance bar that full screen images from 7D showed unacceptable noise. I have frequently lamented that fact, and still I stuck with the camera for all the other attributes and the great and inexpensive EF-S lenses. So I have no idea why you are blowing this whole issue up as appealing to hyperbole to prop up clearly false statements. What would be my reason for doing that? Being able to keep the 7D would have saved me a lot of money. In fact, I tried to wait for 7DII but it took too long and I just went for the 5DIII. The difference was immediately apparent. 
So, why the comment about 7D vs 5Dc? I own the 5Dc now, and had considered selling it after a small job, but I realized that I was able to use images at ISO 1600 without any problem. So, given my subjective scenario, saying 'my 7D was worse than my 5Dc" makes sense.

3. Your guess was I don't know how to compare images. Well, as a scientist, I have published my work that included various images of neurons, that needed to be counted and examined for shape and form. These were fluorescent microscopy images taken using various microscopes and magnifications. I am fortunate that the expert reviewers that accepted my work for publication didn't share your view!

Now, less cross-examine your rants:

4. You still haven't cited any "reproducible" tests or shown any of your own images. You really expect someone to comment on those low-res images without any ISO information? If you're so convinced, why not post some of your OWN 7D images at ISO 1600 without any de-noising. Let everyone see for themselves?

5. You stated one guess at the beginning at the post (PS>100%, etc) and when I said I used a different way to compare, you concluded that supports your guess.

6. Zack Arias is essentially speaking about APS-C sensors that perform better, and not having used Fuji I am willing to take his word for it. I am not saying APS-C sensors cannot be good. In fact, I mentioned he is partially correct in my first post. The reason I got irritated by the video is the weird argument that FF vs APS-C is negligible because they are both so much smaller than MF etc. So you wouldn't care if your arm broke vs it got twisted just because they are so much better than your arm getting ripped off? That's terrible logic. And he is annoying and obnoxious. But he feels like a sweetheart compared to you. I made a subjective comment, stating my observation with my own camera. And you keep trying to prove that I have an 'opinion' against the 7D based on 'what? certainly couldn't be the reviewers who unanimously praise it's high ISO performance'. It is not the words you say that are offensive (well they are, but I don't care), it is the nature of your argument- how you are making a normal, civil discussion into a fight. 

7. I am surprised human nature sometimes amazes you. It should always amaze you, considering how foreign it should feel...

Say what you want to say to this... I am not going to waste any more of my time responding to your posts.


----------



## DRR (Aug 13, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> I wonder if anyone can tell me which of these came from which camera? Or brand? Or even format? All scaled so that on a 96ppi monitor it's like looking at sections from a 36" print.
> 
> http://imgur.com/B2DUlmJ
> 
> NEG-LI-GI-BLE



I think you have missed the point entirely.

In a studio with tripod and lights at ISO 100 and f/11, yes the difference is negligible. In fact, photographers have put an iPhone up against a Hasselblad with "negligible" difference.

http://www.photigy.com/iphone-vs-hasselblad-still-thinking-buying-new-camera/

Now I am certainly not saying that FF is "better" than APS-C, or iPhone, or pinhole. It's a tool to give you a certain result. APS-C has its advantages over FF, it's up to the photographer to choose the best tool for the job. 

But to say broadly, that the difference between FF and APS-C is negligible, is ignorant. It's not negligible. High ISO performance is significantly better with FF. That alone is enough to make me want FF. It's not up to Arias or you or anyone else to judge the needs of others and tell me where my priorities should lay.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 14, 2014)

DRR said:


> High ISO performance is significantly better with FF.


Nope, not even _close_ to true. 

It's precisely this sort of unconditional sweeping statement - which has been demonstrated more times than tongue can tell to be nonsense - that sticks in some folks' craw.

_Fact_: my 7D and especially my 70D, are night-and-day better at low light/high ISO than, say, the old 5D - so right there is a perfect example of the lie that the statement "High ISO performance is significantly better with FF" is.

_Other things being equal_ a FF sensor should beat a crop sensor of the same technological maturity, but that's an utterly different statement to the "FF is always better" meme that gets interminably churned out.

Let's see a 5D do better than this: 10,000 ISO with my 70D. Straight out of Capture One 7 Pro, default NR and _no_ PP NR.

And check the Exif in the image - there's hardly _any_ light on that scene...

Here's a 100% crop from the same camera -"only" 6400 ISO this time, but again, straight out of Capture One, at default NR.

Each easily beating what the older FF cameras (including the older 1Ds pro bodies) can do.

Of particular significance is that neither the 7D nor (especially) the 70D throw out the high ISO banding/pattern noise that bedevilled the 5D/5D Mk II - so right there, you've got a significant high ISO performance improvement.


----------



## DRR (Aug 14, 2014)

Fair enough. Full frame _of the same generation_, has significantly better ISO performance than APS-C of the same generation.

For the record I've been touting "best tool for the job" since day one, so I am not lying (e.g. trying to deceive) as you suggest, but thank you for helping me clarify. I had thought this was a pretty basic assumption ("of the same generation") but a conclusion can always be nitpicked to inaccuracy. I'll be more careful in the future when posting here.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 14, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> It's precisely this sort of unconditional sweeping statement - which has been demonstrated more times than tongue can tell to be nonsense - that sticks in some folks' craw.



A bit dramatic, isn't it?

Also, comparing a first generation FF to newer crops doesn't make much sense. Of course technology is going to improve. But it also improves on FF, too, not just crop. Why not compare the 70D to the 6D? I have both sitting right here. There's no comparison.

The poster was correct when he said that crops don't compare to FF in terms of noise and low light handling. Anyone can create an outlier buy comparing extremes or cherry picking, or ignoring parallel sensor improvements in both formats over time.






> Let's see a 5D do better than this: 10,000 ISO with my 70D. Straight out of Capture One 7 Pro, default NR and _no_ PP NR.
> 
> And check the Exif in the image - there's hardly _any_ light on that scene...



Plastic knobs should be smooth, not rough and grainy. I'd say the 70D didn't get the job done. And I think using a crop at ISO 10,000 is masochistic. Sure, you can take pictures that way, but why?




> Of particular significance is that neither the 7D nor (especially) the 70D throw out the high ISO banding/pattern noise that bedevilled the 5D/5D Mk II - so right there, you've got a significant high ISO performance improvement.



I owned the 7D and the 5D II, side by side. There is no comparison on lowlight performance. And, my 7D did have banding issues. The 70D is much better than the 7D (which I now own).

I don't know. Some of these arguments here feel like people defending what they bought, rather than any objective discussion. This feels like one of those.


----------



## Skirball (Aug 14, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > High ISO performance is significantly better with FF.
> ...



I'm amazed you decided to take that much time typing an extensive "response" comparing 10 year old FF technology to a modern APS-C.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 14, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> I don't know. Some of these arguments here feel like people defending what they bought, rather than any objective discussion. This feels like one of those.



People base their response on their *self esteem*. If you own a (pick one) camera, you have to defend that *brand/format*. If you don't do this you (and other people) may think that *you bought the wrong camera!*  And being *wrong* about your camera choice lowers your self esteem, and your perceived standing in your community.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 27, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> As unfocused stated in a different context- you let your keyboard run off before your brain and now you have to keep it up... (paraphrasing)



You can always tell that someone is about to provide a rational and logical proof of their statements when they open with personal insults ;D



> 1. I did not drop images into PS and zoom to 100%. As I clearly stated before, I set the image full screen on a 24" monitor to see how it looks. Being higher resolution, the 7D gains an advantage in terms of pixel downsampling,



That depends entirely on the program used to view the samples and the scaling to screen resolution. Some popular viewers will chew up files, Apple's Preview being an infamous one. In print I would agree.



> 2. My comments about the 7D noise is not an opinion, it is an observation.



To others it is an opinion until you provide examples.



> What would be my reason for doing that?



Oh, I believe that when you looked at your screen you saw noisy images. It just doesn't mean what you think it means.



> 3. Your guess was I don't know how to compare images. Well, as a scientist...blah blah blah...I am fortunate that the expert reviewers that accepted my work for publication didn't share your view!



One has zero to do with the other. That said, I have an honest question: are you this defensive when someone critiques your scientific work?



> Now, less cross-examine your rants:



Oh boy here we go! ;D



> 4. You still haven't cited any "reproducible" tests or shown any of your own images.



Just head on over to DPReview or Imaging Resource.



> You really expect someone to comment on those low-res images without any ISO information?



Those are 50% views of one of the Imaging Resource studio test scenes. I remember which cameras I picked...but now I forget the order...hmmm...guess that was Arias' point ;D



> If you're so convinced, why not post some of your OWN 7D images at ISO 1600 without any de-noising.



And listen to all the whining that I didn't do X or Y or Z right and that must be the reason it looks good but FF SURELY would be better if I had just shot it at the same time??? 

Nah...just go look at professionally produced and unbiased results. IR's studio scene can vary in lighting, but their Dave Box scene is strictly controlled.



> And he is annoying and obnoxious. But he feels like a sweetheart compared to you.



Let's get down to it, shall we? You said the 7D was noisier then the 5Dc and 50D. I said professional tests showed otherwise. You got hurt that I contradicted you. The rest of this is fluff.

So...is no one ever supposed to contradict you online? Point you to evidence that shows something other then your opinion? Is this how you practice science?



> I made a subjective comment, stating my observation with my own camera. And you keep trying to prove that I have an 'opinion' against the 7D based on 'what?



Not at all. Just pointing out your opinion is contradicted by hard evidence and is likely due to some other factor.



> how you are making a normal, civil discussion into a fight.



First you say that. Then you say...



> 7. I am surprised human nature sometimes amazes you. It should always amaze you, considering how foreign it should feel...



Who is starting a fight? And who, btw, is blatantly violating forum rules? Did I personally attack you or insult you once? You've done it *three times now* in this one response.

If you can't handle the possibility of disagreement then maybe you shouldn't offer your opinion


----------

