# Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor



## Sabaki (Feb 19, 2014)

Hi everybody 

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.



What *L*-lenses do you own? Zooms? In my opinion, you will never get your photography anywhere with zooms. I suggest you try primes ... like the EF 35mm f/2 (non-IS version). Already own *L*-primes? Definitely go "full frame" then!



Sabaki said:


> *With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble*, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.



Yeah, we're pretty much in it, aren't we? Anyway ... personally, I think people are asking way too much for their old 5D2's ... R12000 is pretty much the limit, in my opinion. I'd rather look for a "Student Promotion" on an EOS 6D camera. Oh, no, I just checked ... seems everybody raised their prices by about R2K ... wow!



Sabaki said:


> The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?



You'll just see more of the lens.



Sabaki said:


> The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is *the increase in focal length*.



Myth. Doesn't happen.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

Oh, just saw your signature with your gear list ... Personally, I'd sell the EOS 500D, the EF-S 10-22mm and the EF 24-70mm ... and buy a new EOS 5D3. Why? Because you feel that the 500D is keeping you back; going "full-frame" will end the use of the EF-S 10-22; and the 24-70mm ... it's a good, jack-of-all-trades lens, but it isn't a lens that helps you define yourself in photography. Well, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 19, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Hi everybody
> 
> So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.



Might be worth checking out some of the images produced on crop sensors in places like 500px. Here's a link for starters:

http://500px.com/search?q=Canon+550D

FF is disproportionately expensive, but if you can afford it and if you get more pleasure from it, why not ?


----------



## GaryJ (Feb 19, 2014)

I went from 450D- 7D-6D ,couldn't afford 5DIII , hardly pick up the 7D except for when using MP-E 65 , ff rules. BTW I started shooting pics in 1969.


----------



## caruser (Feb 19, 2014)

My first and second DSLRs were also the 500D and 5D2, it was a great upgrade, build quality, handling, image quality ... everything except the AF (no, that's unfair, the 5D2's center point did really well in low light compared to the 500D) and frame rate. And yes, many lenses will behave better on full frame, although it depends on the lens and the criterion, for example vignetting is less of a problem with a crop sensor because you are not using the more-vignetted borders of the image circle.



Sabaki said:


> The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.



At the beginning it looks like an increase in focal length, but really you are just cutting away ("cropping") part of the image. The only advantage of crop sensors that is sometimes (!) relevant (except for price) is actually the higher pixel density.


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 19, 2014)

The 500D is a nice camera, but Canon's crop cameras do lag behind the FF cameras. You are probably making the right decision to change cameras and a 5Dii is a smart option for many. But some 1Ds and 1D models are in your price range and they have some positives, too.

But personally, it wasn't really until I got a FF camera that I realised how immaterial the whole APS-C vs FF debate is. I'm now using a little APS-C Fuji for much of my photography. It might be technically inferior to my Canon, but the difference isn't that big and it is better suited to what I do. 

So the only real suggestion I have is to sit back, evaluate your photographic goals, work out where your 500D is deficient and then decide which camera is best suited for your needs.


----------



## caruser (Feb 19, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> The 500D is a nice camera, but Canon's crop cameras do lag behind the FF cameras. You are probably making the right decision to change cameras and a 5Dii is a smart option for many. But some 1Ds and 1D models are in your price range and they have some positives, too.
> 
> But personally, it wasn't really until I got a FF camera that I realised how immaterial the whole APS-C vs FF debate is. I'm now using a little APS-C Fuji for much of my photography. It might be technically inferior to my Canon, but the difference isn't that big and it is better suited to what I do.
> 
> So the only real suggestion I have is to sit back, evaluate your photographic goals, work out where your 500D is deficient and then decide which camera is best suited for your needs.


Even ignoring the image quality, I found just the AF-ON button, the custom-modes, shortest shutter speed, second wheel, top LCD, the view finder etc. a huge plus.

Of course you don't need to go full frame for all of these features, but an older 1-series body as you suggest would have them, too.


----------



## aj1575 (Feb 19, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.



Buying better gear won't make you a better photographer!!!
The technical IQ of your fotos will improve if you go FF, but it will not help you to improve your composition and lightning, it won't help you to find a creative angle, or to press the shutte just at the right moment. Technology has a habit to go into the way of creativity.

I just moved up the cameratree (no not to FF, just to a better APS-C). I bought a 70D and sold my 350D after more than 7 years. Did the 350 hold me back? No not really; there where situations where the 350 could not keep up with the circumstances (low light, fast moving objects); I missed some shots, but I knew why I missed them, and it was not about me, it was about the camera.
Fact is, you have to learn to live with limitations, even if you go for a 1DX there will be limitiation of what the system can do. I suggest that instead of spending a lot of money for a new FF body, you should spend the money on some books about photography, or you try to shot more with the system you already have and learn more about that.

By the way, is there a way to see some of your work?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 19, 2014)

Consider FULL FRAME versus APS-C, both of the same generation technology and using the same lens, the image quality will be indistinguishable at ISO 100. Comparing APS-C at ISO 1600, will look like full frame ISO3200. In this sense one can expect an advantage of 5D mark II about 1 point better than 500D.

When comparing different technology generations, things do not work as well. If you compare the new 70D with 5D mark II using the same lens at ISO 100, then 70D has a slight edge in noise shadows, especially when you need to brighten the image in Photoshop. However, at high ISO 5D mark ii is still better. In terms of noise, 6D takes considerable advantage over 5D mark ii, and I think it is worth having the most current model.

To harness the potential of the camera's full frame sharpness is mandatory to use high quality lenses, and they are more expensive than their equivalent to APS- C. To replace its 10-22mm, the full frame equivalent is 16-35 F2.8, which is much more expensive, and although it is more luminous, 16-35L only have decent sharpness in the corners using F4 or more closed. Lose their 400mm range on full frame, and 600mm (natural replacement) costs a lot more expensive, and is much heavier.


----------



## rs (Feb 19, 2014)

Sabaki, for a way to compare bodies, take a look at some of the comparisons here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T1i-500D-Digital-SLR-Camera.aspx

People can give you the maths and their own personal experiences, but this is an objective way of you seeing differences without having the two cameras in your hands. 



Sella174 said:


> Oh, just saw your signature with your gear list ... Personally, I'd sell the EOS 500D, the EF-S 10-22mm and the EF 24-70mm ...


I would personally do anything to keep hold of the 24-70 II. It's a simply fantastic lens that shines on FF.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 19, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.
> ...



Hey Sella  Awesome to find a countryman on here!

My favourite photography genre is macro and I do a lot of it! Shooting with a MR-14 EX and extension tubes, I absolutely love the IQ of my subjects but equally hate the noise and banding in the shadow areas. Will full frame solve this issue?

Gotta tell you, even on a crop body, that 24-70 rocks! It's a long term keeper for me.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 19, 2014)

aj1575 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.
> ...



aj1575, I fully agree with you.

I'm at that phase of my photography where I can hit all the technically required aspects: sharpness, framing, exposure, composition but I have not yet transcended to that level of photography where I am taking compelling, arresting images that my photographic peers will appreciate.

Not being an artistic person, these are qualities I need to steadily unfurl in order to firstly comprehend then integrate in my shots.

Yet I do feel that a full frame is the next natural step for me to take. DxO (I know, I know. Not a fan either) scores my EF 100mm Macro L IS at 13 on the 500D but 25 on the 5D2. I'm trying to suss out if the images really experience such a push in IQ.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 19, 2014)

For MACRO work that the OP does, the depth of field wider APS-C becomes an advantage. In addition, the LCD articulated on 70D can be very useful when photographing near the ground.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 19, 2014)

All I have are opinions. I upgraded from a 60D to a 5D mkiii... and I really really like/love the mkiii... but I also really really liked/loved my 60D. The 5D is better... and after selling the 60D... the mkiii only cost around $2000... but do I believe the mkiii is worth the money I spent... and here is my answer. Kinda.

The low light performance of the mkiii is truly impressive. I never pushed the 60D passed iso 2500... and even then, that is significantly more than most people are willing to push it... some people are 1600 people. With the mkiii, I try not to go passe 3200... but in a pinch... 6400 isn't a crime. The images clean up nicely with lightroom and the images are still really really good.

The added shots per second... nice... but not mandatory. The magnesium core... nice, but I don't drop my gear, so it is a bit of a non factor for me. I do miss my articulating screen, but that's a small complaint. I do like the double card slots... I'm not a crazed fanatic of the joystick, but it is nice to have.

In great light, I'm not sure that I can tell a crop sensor photo from a full frame, but in low light, definitely. 

As for the depth of field, focal length issue... I don't miss the 1.6 conversion factor... and it is nice being able to get in closer with a subject with my 100mm L or my soon to arrive, 135L. As I get closer to my subject, the depth of field shrinks and the aspects of the bokeh can really come out. If I'm shooting outdoor sports, I throw on a 1.4 teleconverter.

I like my mkiii so much that I don't know that I will upgrade to an mkiv... but I also wasn't blown away by it so much. Would I make the jump again... yes...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 19, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.
> ...



I have primes... primes are lovely... but there are plenty of exceptional zooms in the Canon lineup. I always break out my zooms when I'm not sure exactly how far my subject will be or the subject moves frequently... so yeah.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> My favourite photography genre is *macro* and *I do a lot of it*! Shooting with a MR-14 EX and extension tubes, I absolutely love the IQ of my subjects but equally hate the noise and banding in the shadow areas.



In this case, the EOS 70D is the obvious choice. Plus a new one will cost you _less_ than a secondhand EOS 5D2.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 19, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > My favourite photography genre is *macro* and *I do a lot of it*! Shooting with a MR-14 EX and extension tubes, I absolutely love the IQ of my subjects but equally hate the noise and banding in the shadow areas.
> ...



Mind showing your math?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 19, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...


In macro, often need to open F11 (on APS-C) to achieve much of the object within the depth of field. In full frame, need to use F16 or more closed to achieve the same depth of field, and this negates (in part) the advantage of full frame at high ISO. Moreover, DUAL PIXEL AF, combined with the 70D articulated LCD is great for macro.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 19, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



With the same composition and framing... yes... but at identical distances (and I'm not sure why this is) the depth of field for full frame is greater. It's all very confusing.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 19, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



Should I rather say that macro comprises roughly 70% of my photography?


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Mind showing your math?



Over here in South Africa, a new EOS 70D cost about R12500 ... and a secondhand EOS 5D2 in good condition and serviced sells for about R15000.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 19, 2014)

My vote is full frame - I have owned both and while there's nothing wrong with crop and many of my favorite shots are from crop cameras, FF files are better, lens focal lengths make sense (again), and low light shooting is much better. I had the 5DII, 5DIII, and 7D for a while but ended up selling the 7D even though a lot of my work is wildlife. 

Also, FF is just as good or better for macro. I published a 100+ macro book last year and 90% of the photos were shot on my 5DII and 5DIII - you can take a look/download it for free here: 
http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/648136


----------



## sdsr (Feb 19, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> My favourite photography genre is macro and I do a lot of it! Shooting with a MR-14 EX and extension tubes, I absolutely love the IQ of my subjects but equally hate the noise and banding in the shadow areas. Will full frame solve this issue?



If you hate noise and banding in shadows, I would (other things being equal) recommend a 6D rather than a 5DII or 5DIII - the 6D not only provides less noise at high ISOs (though the difference there among those three cameras is far less than the superiority of any) but less noise, and much less banding (I don't think I've ever seen it in a 6D file, but it's quite obvious from 5DII and 5DIII). But if it's just a concern about high ISO noise, even a 5DII will seem like a revelation compared to any Canon APS-C body.

As for the suggestion that you buy books and learn better technique etc. with the equipment you already have, I don't agree - provided you can afford the upgrade. A FF camera won't, of course, make you more artistic etc., but your images will look at least technically better and there will be less you will be able to blame on your tools....


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 19, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Hi everybody
> 
> So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.
> 
> ...


If you need low light performance... FF all the way.
If you are always wishing you had a longer lens, go crop...
If you never wish you had a longer lens, go FF

If you are shooting with kit lenses on your crop camera, look at Lglass FF lenses... For instance, going from a $200 kit lens to a lens like a 70-200 (any varient) will have more effect on image quality than going from crop to FF will.

Get some decent imaging software (lightroom, photosop, etc...) and it will greatly improve your image quality, particularly if you shoot RAW.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2014)

As a general rule, the FF sensor will deliver a sharper image than an APS-C sensor. The reason is simple - for a given output size, the APS-C image needs to be enlarged more, and that extra enlargement leads to a loss of resolution. The larger sensor also gives you the capability to have a shallower DoF if you want it (the crop factor applies to aperture, too, in terms of DoF for the same framing), but if you need the additional DoF or the faster shutter speed, there's no penalty for using FF. 

Fundamentally, in _most_ use cases, the only meaningful benefit of an APS-C camera is the lower cost.



Sabaki said:


> The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.



You're not getting an increase in FL, you're just cropping away part of the image relative to a FF sensor. They're called *crop* sensors, not 'magnifying' sensors, for a reason. What you are getting is more pixels on target, but that's solely due to the usually higher pixel density of the smaller sensors (and as a counter example, the FF Nikon D800 puts more pixels on target than the APS-C Canon T3/1100D). 

If you're focal length limited (you're using your longest lens and it's not long enough), *and* you're shooting at fairly low ISO, *and* your desired output requires more resolution than the image cropped from a FF sensor provides, then you're in one of those use cases where APS-C has an advantage other than cost. In practice, what that means is that if you're focal length limited, printing at sizes larger than 16x24"/A2, and shooting at ~ISO 800 or lower, then APS-C is a better choice. For 'regular' size prints and/or at higher ISOs, cropping the FF image to the FoV of the APS-C sensor will yield results that are as good or better (and increasingly better as ISO goes up).



Sabaki said:


> My favourite photography genre is *macro* and *I do a lot of it*! Shooting with a MR-14 EX and extension tubes, I absolutely love the IQ of my subjects but equally hate the noise and banding in the shadow areas.



Macro is potentially another one of those 'exception' use cases. I say potentially, becuase it really depends on what you mean by macro. Formally, 'macro' generally means 1:1 magnification (or higher), and anything less than that (0.1x - 1x mag) is considered 'close-up' photography. If you're at 1:1 with a macro lens, you're at the MFD (or closer if you go higher with tubes) - that means there's no DoF 'advantage' (i.e. more of it) with APS-C. The APS-C sensor (e.g. 18-20 MP) is going to give you more pixels on target at a given magnification compared to a FF sensor (e.g. 20-22 MP), whereas the FF sensor will give you a wider AoV at that magnification. 

Below is an example of that (shot with the MP-E 65mm on a 1D X and EOS M, both at the same distance from the coin for equivalent _optical_ magnification, and since both use 18 MP sensors, no down- or up-scaling is required for the comparison). At 1x mag with FF you can frame nearly the whole quarter while APS-C crops much of the coin away but gives you higher resolution at the pixel level.

Personally, I usually choose FF for macro (and have done so since having both the 7D and 5DII).


----------



## DanielW (Feb 19, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Might be worth checking out some of the images produced on crop sensors in places like 500px. Here's a link for starters:
> 
> http://500px.com/search?q=Canon+550D
> 
> FF is disproportionately expensive, but if you can afford it and if you get more pleasure from it, why not ?



Man, don't you ever post a link like that again! Now how can I blame my camera for the lousy pics I take?


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 19, 2014)

DanielW said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Might be worth checking out some of the images produced on crop sensors in places like 500px. Here's a link for starters:
> ...



All the dslrs are incredibly competent machines, and have been for at least the last ten years, certainly in low ISOs at any rate. Sometimes if I want a reality check I'll look up something like 'Canon 10D' on 500px and proceed to embarrass myself.


----------



## ClayStevens (Feb 20, 2014)

I'm also wandering between 5D2 and 6D. Upgrade from 600D, though.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 20, 2014)

This past weekend I took a 5D III with me my daughter's dive meet. I was pretty excited after what I was reading in regards to ISO performance in lower light. I was thinking that this would be great compared to my T1i that I've got because natatoriums typically have crummy lighting in them.

Now, I'm not a pro, and I'm sure that it was me, but I pushed the ISO up to 6400 here to get a 1/1600 shutter speed to stop action of divers doing flips. I cropped this image in LR5, but did not apply any noise reduction (color or luminance). I wish I had my T1i with me so I could take some comparison shot, but I've attached and example of what I got during this trip. Most of my pictures have similar output. 

After seeing this, I know that the 5D is a superior camera in all regards, but I felt this output was ho-hum. Again, before I get beat up for speaking blasphemy - I'm not a pro, I was shooting in manual, and I just received the camera the day before the meet, so I didn't have much time to adjust to it. I'm sure this is due to learning curve.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 20, 2014)

Here's how I would clean up this image. Of course this would look better seeing the entire image.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 20, 2014)

Here's the complete image with noise reduction and exposure adjustment applied.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 20, 2014)

I know that this is not a fair comparison as the example here wasn't taken in the same location, but here you can see that at ISO 1600 on the T1i, it looks similar to the output on the previous 5D III examples. So, crop ISO 1600 is similar to FF ISO 6400 in low light situations. 

I hope these examples help you make your decision.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 20, 2014)

Here's the full image of the T1i example with noise reduction and exposure adjustments applied.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 20, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Hi everybody
> 
> So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.
> 
> ...



I have owned the 24-70mm f2.8L(I) for more than 2 years and I hadn't used it much because isn't wide enough and some other lenses offered better sharpness. I sold with some regreat my 7D and some EF-S lenses, before owning the 60D for a while, and bought the 5D3, after considering the 6D because I shot action very often.
No way back, my 24-70mm f2.8L hasn't ever been that sharp before and it's currently my go-to lens. This combo is a little heavy but I will get used to. Otherwise, if you are not in action photography get the 6D and you'll never regreat.


----------



## nc0b (Feb 20, 2014)

I have two crop and two full frame bodies, and for me it usually comes down to wanting the wider angle coverage I get from a given focal length lens. Walking around Hoover dam with a FF and my 24-105mm resulted in an excellent zoom range. A 1.6 crop factor would not have worked as well. Shooting a dance floor with the 6D and 70-200mm f/2.8 II wide open was again the correct combination. In that case the zoom would have been way too long with crop body. Often shooting wildlife the crop is a better choice, due to the extra reach, though I have done better with birds in flight with the 6D and 400mm f/5.6 than with the 60D, for some reason. Having started with crop and now having both, I would say I grab the full frame 80% of the time. On a trip in the car I usually try to keep three of the bodies with a lens attached so I am not fumbling with mounting a lens. Unless you simply have no choice from a monetary standpoint, keep your existing body and add a frill frame.


----------



## Vossie (Feb 20, 2014)

My recommendation would be ff as well. With the shallow DoF it gives you new creative possibilities (the statement that better gear does not give you better photos is not true in my opinion).

Depending on the budget you can choose between the 6D and 5D3. I would certainly not recommend to sell off your 24-70 II and use primes only.

For macro work, a good flash bracket, a good tripod and a macro rail can be good investments.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 20, 2014)

I honestly cannot agree with the recommendation that the OP keeps the 24-70mm lens. He's a photography student. He still has to learn and define _his_ version of the art. If he uses the 24-70mm, then IMHO, his photographs will look like everybody else's photographs and he won't develop a style of his own that's marketable in a very competitive business. (Over here in South Africa, every idiot with a "Rebel" and Sigma budget zoom considers herself a "pro" photographer ... heck, scratch "pro" ... considers herself a photographer.)


----------



## rs (Feb 20, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> I honestly cannot agree with the recommendation that the OP keeps the 24-70mm lens. He's a photography student. He still has to learn and define _his_ version of the art. If he uses the 24-70mm, then IMHO, his photographs will look like everybody else's photographs and he won't develop a style of his own that's marketable in a very competitive business. (Over here in South Africa, every idiot with a "Rebel" and Sigma budget zoom considers herself a "pro" photographer ... heck, scratch "pro" ... considers herself a photographer.)


I get what you're saying, but defining your own version of an art doesn't require being focal length limited and/or having inferior lenses. What's wrong with owning the ultimate, and not getting rid of it?


----------



## aj1575 (Feb 20, 2014)

Here are also some samples of macros shoot with a 500D. Pretty amazing work I think.

I personally think that better equipment won't make you a better photographer, better equipment just makes taking pictures more convenient, easier and more fun.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=canon%20500d%20macro


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 20, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> This past weekend I took a 5D III with me my daughter's dive meet. I was pretty excited after what I was reading in regards to ISO performance in lower light. I was thinking that this would be great compared to my T1i that I've got because natatoriums typically have crummy lighting in them.
> 
> Now, I'm not a pro, and I'm sure that it was me, but I pushed the ISO up to 6400 here to get a 1/1600 shutter speed to stop action of divers doing flips. I cropped this image in LR5, but did not apply any noise reduction (color or luminance). I wish I had my T1i with me so I could take some comparison shot, but I've attached and example of what I got during this trip. Most of my pictures have similar output.
> 
> After seeing this, I know that the 5D is a superior camera in all regards, but I felt this output was ho-hum. Again, before I get beat up for speaking blasphemy - I'm not a pro, I was shooting in manual, and I just received the camera the day before the meet, so I didn't have much time to adjust to it. I'm sure this is due to learning curve.



In this circumstance and from this distance I probably would have brought along a flash.

The image looks like it was still under exposed which is why there is so much grain... 

And it definitely needs some grain reduction...


----------



## bholliman (Feb 20, 2014)

I recommend full frame. A 5D3 if you shoot lots of action and wildlife, a 6D if not. Improved low light/high ISO capability and better ability to control your depth of field were the main reasons I made the switch.



Sella174 said:


> I honestly cannot agree with the recommendation that the OP keeps the 24-70mm lens. He's a photography student. He still has to learn and define _his_ version of the art. If he uses the 24-70mm, then IMHO, his photographs will look like everybody else's photographs and he won't develop a style of his own that's marketable in a very competitive business. (Over here in South Africa, every idiot with a "Rebel" and Sigma budget zoom considers herself a "pro" photographer ... heck, scratch "pro" ... considers herself a photographer.)



The OP already owns three primes (50 1.8, 100 Macro and 400 5.6) according to their equipment list. So, I really don't understand your suggestion to sell the 24-70 2.8 II. I agree with the premise that zooms often allow the photographer to become lazy and not work for the best framing and composition. But, I think selling maybe the best standard zoom lens available just to force working with primes seems a bit extreme. 

I have both zooms and primes and at times just take one prime on outings, or even restrict myself to just using a single prime for a week at a time to force myself to work on shot composition when restricted to one focal length. It is definitely a beneficial exercise. The OP can learn a great deal from use of primes and still have the flexibility of the 24-70 2.8 for situations (parties, receptions, festivals and events) where you will miss shots if you don't have a zoom mounted.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 20, 2014)

ClayStevens said:


> I'm also wandering between 5D2 and 6D. Upgrade from 600D, though.



I'd lean towards the 6D. Wifi, gps, and better low light performance... both are great... but the 6D in terms of shear performance is better.

And for reference... I hated the 6d when it came out. I thought it was a slightly better version of the 5d mkii and at the same time.. slightly worse... but I've changed my mind. If you do portrait or landscape... it's perfect... if you shoot action... the 5d mkiii is a good alternative to the 1dx and its cousins.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 20, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I agree that a flash would have helped me here. From what I read about how good FF low light performance was, I did not bring a flash as I thought I would not need it.
> 
> Now, don't take my experience as a recommendation for a crop camera. I was just illustrating the noise level advantage that the FF camera has over a crop camera. YMMV of course.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 20, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> I honestly cannot agree with the recommendation that the OP keeps the 24-70mm lens. He's a photography student. He still has to learn and define _his_ version of the art. If he uses the 24-70mm, then IMHO, his photographs will look like everybody else's photographs and he won't develop a style of his own that's marketable in a very competitive business. (Over here in South Africa, every idiot with a "Rebel" and Sigma budget zoom considers herself a "pro" photographer ... heck, scratch "pro" ... considers herself a photographer.)



Dictating that he should only use primes is limiting his artistic options. I did this really awful long exposure where I zoomed in during the middle of the shot... It wasn't good... but it also isn't achievable using a prime. 

Let him decide how and why... just because he has a zoom doesn't mean he won't zoom with his feet if he composes the shot he wants.

And shooting at wife open apertures and calling it artistic vision is a fallacy unto itself.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 20, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly cannot agree with the recommendation that the OP keeps the 24-70mm lens. He's a photography student. He still has to learn and define _his_ version of the art. If he uses the 24-70mm, then IMHO, his photographs will look like everybody else's photographs and he won't develop a style of his own that's marketable in a very competitive business. (Over here in South Africa, every idiot with a "Rebel" and Sigma budget zoom considers herself a "pro" photographer ... heck, scratch "pro" ... considers herself a photographer.)
> ...



Yes ... I do a lot of foot zooming when I'm only with a single camera with the 24-70 mounted on it. I do sometimes need a closer shot at 70mm so the only option is to use my feet. 

OTOH, if it were the 28-300L, I would (probably) understand.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 20, 2014)

J.R. said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Dictating that he should only use primes is limiting his artistic options. I did this really awful long exposure where I zoomed in during the middle of the shot... It wasn't good... but it also isn't achievable using a prime.
> ...



Depth of field changes with focal length... so if you compose a shot art 24mm but you want to frame it... some people will walk forward to get the shot they want or they will move the zoom to 35mm... and I believe that is what the other guy is objecting to... because you aren't really composing the shot with depth of field in mind, but just framing. Having said that.. having three focal length of four or five outings in one lens is convenient to.... 24, 35, 50, 60, etc... but it takes a little dedication to walk towards your target rather than zoom.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 20, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Oh ... I misunderstood in that case.

I agree with the point you make though and knowing the limitations / advantages of shooting at different focal lengths is important.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> ... some people will walk forward to get the shot they want or they will move the zoom to 35mm... and I believe that is what the other guy is objecting to... because you aren't really composing the shot with depth of field in mind, but just framing. ... but it takes a little dedication to walk towards your target rather than zoom.



As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.


Perspective... being the angle at which you view/shoot your subject?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.
> ...



Perspective determines the spatial relationships between objects in your image, and it depends solely on distance. 

'Wide angle distortion' (where noses look big when you shoot a portrait from a very close distance, or the flower in the foreground looks taller than the mountain in the background) and 'telephoto compression' (desirable and 'flattering' in portraits, where distant objects appear closer together) are manifestations of perspective. Note that they have nothing to do with the focal lengths used (although the terms themselves imply differently), but rather come from the subject distances at which those focal lengths are normally used.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Feb 20, 2014)

caruser said:


> At the beginning it looks like an increase in focal length, but really you are just cutting away ("cropping") part of the image. The only advantage of crop sensors that is sometimes (!) relevant (except for price) is actually the higher pixel density.



I shoot full frame for the most part.

But there are many situations where the extra range provided by the crop camera IN THE VIEWFINDER is helpful to me. If I am at a school play, sitting in the back, using my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on a crop camera, the fact is that I can tell better (@320mm on the crop) whether I have the caught the facial expression I wanted - WHILE TAKING THE SHOT. I can't run home, pop up the full frame shot (@200mm) on the computer screen. Sure, I could zoom in AFTER THE FULL FRAME SHOT to make sure I got it - but then the scene is over - it's too late. 

I know your first statement is correct and often cited as evidence that crop cameras are inferior, but the extra range available to the shooter in the viewfinder is a reality that can be quite useful in hundreds of situations. So, I must disagree with your second statement.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 20, 2014)

Bruce 101 said:


> caruser said:
> 
> 
> > At the beginning it looks like an increase in focal length, but really you are just cutting away ("cropping") part of the image. The only advantage of crop sensors that is sometimes (!) relevant (except for price) is actually the higher pixel density.
> ...



I look forward to the optical digital hybrid viewfinder... I hope to be able to zoom in with the digital so I can see if the image is in focus the way I can using live view and and the digital zoom function. 

Even better I hope they over lay each other and the camera recognizes where I'm looking so it zooms directly at that location... to dream.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.
> ...


JD, I wrote a detailed reply to your question, but didn't want to take over the thread, so I posted it as a new thread in the Techniques forum:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19685.0


----------



## sdsr (Feb 20, 2014)

aj1575 said:


> I personally think that better equipment won't make you a better photographer, better equipment just makes taking pictures more convenient, easier and more fun.



But don't you think that having equipment that makes taking photos easier, more convenient and more fun makes it more likely that someone will want to use that equipment more, experiment more, and think better about what you're doing? What ultimately matters most in making photos that are worth looking at is having a good eye; and while it's obvious that someone with a good eye can make fantastic images with lesser equipment, and equally obvious that buying superior equipment doesn't thereby give you a better eye, I suspect that the fewer technical obstacles your equipment provides the better your chances of improving your eye (though that may never happen).


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Just when I feel confident... 

I'll give it a look.. I believe I have noticed 'perspective' in my shots and used it to a certain extent... but there is definitely more to learn.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


It's one of those things that seems simple and is simple once you "get" it, but for some reason it's harder than most of the other concepts in terms of understanding it vs. using it. Also, there's no reason to shake your confidence - there's always more to learn no matter how much you master


----------



## sawsedge (Feb 20, 2014)

I moved from crop to full-frame when the 5D3 arrived. The main reason for me was the AF system; I found myself unable to track the kids with the 50D as they got bigger and faster. In fact, I passed on the 5D2 and bought the 50D because the AF was a little better (the 7D followed too quickly to justify it to she-who-must-be-obeyed).

I immediately noticed the other improvements of the 5D3 as well. I love being able to track and get more keepers. I love the image quality improvements (yet I have nice big prints on the wall from the crop cameras). I love how the 5D3 retains details as you increase the ISO. I can get nice hand-held portraits indoors with window light that didn't work well with previous cameras. I don't even mind the "grain" at ISO 8000-10000.

But there is one frustration I have with the full-frame, and that is for closeups. I got used to what 1:1 meant on the crop, and I can't get that magnification with the FF unless I crop. So I think about getting another crop body every now and then. Or maybe it is time to get the MP-E.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 20, 2014)

sdsr said:


> But don't you think that having equipment that makes taking photos easier, more convenient and more fun makes it more likely that someone will want to use that equipment more, experiment more, and think better about what you're doing?



I'm not sure that I'd consider a 5D3 easier and more convenient than a typical crop. It's work to use that camera, but if you are willing to do the work, then the rewards can be great.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Feb 20, 2014)

Viewfinder will be way better on a full frame camera. That's significant on every single shot. A fuller and closer view of your subject.

The other significant difference is depth of focus. There is a feeling and dimension to 35mm images that I much prefer to 24mm crop images, especially at wider apertures. That's significant.

If you shoot at middling apertures, you may have a really hard time noticing any difference between an apsc and full frame of the same vintage. You can take crappy shots, or great shots, with either.

If you have a bunch of full-frame lenses, then it makes some sense to use them on full-frame. But understand that you get more cost and weight with it.

I don't think it's a deal breaker either way. But you should try them, look through the finder, take some wide aperture shots, carry all the gear around and tell yourself if it makes a difference. It does for me, but maybe not for others. Those tiny Fuji's are appealing for a reason. But so is my 6D!


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 21, 2014)

sawsedge said:


> I moved from crop to full-frame when the 5D3 arrived. The main reason for me was the AF system; I found myself unable to track the kids with the 50D as they got bigger and faster. In fact, I passed on the 5D2 and bought the 50D because the AF was a little better (the 7D followed too quickly to justify it to she-who-must-be-obeyed).
> 
> I immediately noticed the other improvements of the 5D3 as well. I love being able to track and get more keepers. I love the image quality improvements (yet I have nice big prints on the wall from the crop cameras). I love how the 5D3 retains details as you increase the ISO. I can get nice hand-held portraits indoors with window light that didn't work well with previous cameras. I don't even mind the "grain" at ISO 8000-10000.
> 
> But there is one frustration I have with the full-frame, and that is for closeups. I got used to what 1:1 meant on the crop, and I can't get that magnification with the FF unless I crop. So I think about getting another crop body every now and then. Or maybe it is time to get the MP-E.



Thank you for this feedback sawsedge. My ultimate intention is to have both a FF & APS-C in my camera bag. 

This feedback has just put a FF camera at the very top of my shopping list


----------



## DRR (Feb 21, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> I honestly cannot agree with the recommendation that the OP keeps the 24-70mm lens. He's a photography student. He still has to learn and define _his_ version of the art. If he uses the 24-70mm, then IMHO, his photographs will look like everybody else's photographs and he won't develop a style of his own that's marketable in a very competitive business. (Over here in South Africa, every idiot with a "Rebel" and Sigma budget zoom considers herself a "pro" photographer ... heck, scratch "pro" ... considers herself a photographer.)



I know others don't, but I agree to this. I won't speak for Sella174 but I will add my own perspective. 

Basically, _as a student_, the fewer options you have, the more you have to work around and think about what you have. It's only then that you fully realize the consequences and tradeoffs, the pros and cons, of your decisions. It's not about zooming versus foot zoom, or having good equipment vs average equipment - it's about having the experience to know when to make those decisions. 

Taken to the extreme - if you were teaching someone who knew nothing about photo, and assume money was no object - what would you start them with? A 1DX with a 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200? Of course not - many would say here to start on film, with a 50mm. Get them understanding the basics. Or more realistically, a starter DSLR and force them to shoot monochrome JPEG. That's how you learn the importance of exposing properly, about watching highlight and shadow values, and about composition. Any idiot can fix it in post. RAW is great for salvaging shots, but should not be used in place of making good decisions. Similarly, a zoom is great for its versatility but if you have access to a good zoom, too early, it retards your learning curve because it doesn't force you to think about your decisions.


----------



## DRR (Feb 21, 2014)

Also let me add I am not speaking about the OP - I have no idea who he/she is or what level their photography is at, and I am not saying they do not make measured decisions - I am speaking purely in generalities.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 21, 2014)

DRR said:


> Also let me add I am not speaking about the OP - I have no idea who he/she is or what level their photography is at, and I am not saying they do not make measured decisions - I am speaking purely in generalities.



Hi DRR. 

I currently describe myself as an intermediate amateur who can take sharp, properly exposed and decently framed photographs. 
What I am lacking is the ability to create compelling photography but that is a process independent of technology. 

What I do with the 24-70 is that I occasionally lock the lens at a focal length and use it as a faux prime. 

As mentioned in my first post, I have loads of theory on full frame. Sharper, cleaner images with perceived higher quality of DOF. 

Thank you for your insights, I will try and incorporate your advise into my photography


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 21, 2014)

DRR said:


> Also let me add I am not speaking about the OP - I have no idea who he/she is or what level their photography is at, and I am not saying they do not make measured decisions - I am speaking purely in generalities.



I thought about teaching a class for. 6th through eighth grade and I don't care about their gear... film... digital... slr... but it should have a manual function.

My intent is to teach then about depth of field and the relationship they have with their subject... angle mostly... I'll leave perspective up to a guest speaker...


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 21, 2014)

If you are satisfied with the shots you are currently framing with APS-C and want better ISO performance, consider the 70D which is a much less expensive option especially if you have APS-C lenses


----------



## sdsr (Feb 21, 2014)

DRR said:


> Taken to the extreme - if you were teaching someone who knew nothing about photo, and assume money was no object - what would you start them with? A 1DX with a 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200? Of course not - many would say here to start on film, with a 50mm. Get them understanding the basics.



Why couldn't a competent teacher do that with a student who owned such equipment? I find the notion that you must start with a small, dark viewfinder, a sensor that makes noisy images in low light (or, worse, film, requiring you to wait perhaps days before you can see the results of your efforts), etc., and the implication that top level equipment is some sort of reward that you have to earn by first mastering technique elsewhere, quite bizarre. Of course, money usually is an object, especially if you have no idea whether your interest in photography will "stick", but otherwise....


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 21, 2014)

I take my ten year old daughter with me to some location shoots and I plug in the manual settings and tell her to have at it. Then after the fact... I tell her what changes should have been done here or there... different ways to learn... multiple destinations.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Other people find different reasons to prefer FF vs crop, but for me it's all about one thing - *the view finder*.



This isn't the only reason for me, but its a significant one! I considered buying an SL1 last summer as a smaller backup body to my 6D, but after looking through the cramped, dark view finder at one at a store, I decided not to.


----------



## tntwit (Feb 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If you're wondering what I mean, take the time to go to a camera store (or find someone with a FF camera - film or DSLR) and look through the view finder. Then hold your camera up to your eye. Yeah.



A while ago I picked up my old T70 (35 mm film from the 80's for those who don't know) and looked through the viewfinder and yeah, WOW!

Now I remember why manual focus was never really an issue. Compared to the 300D and T3i I had - what a difference.

I recently sold off my T3i and am now trying to justify the move to full frame vs either the 60D (great deals now) or 70D (currently back to "retail pricing").

The larger/brighter viewfinder will be a plus either way compared to the T3i, but the 6D will be better if I understand correctly. I had a chance to look through the viewfinder of a 70D at Bestbuy and it was noticeably better than the T3i. I haven't had a chance yet with a FF.

I loved my T3i, but of things I wanted to improve (buffer size, fps, external controls, battery life, auto focus, viewfinder, auto focus in video), noise was always at the top.  Plenty of pictures of my kids at birthday parties, gymnasiums, auditoriums, etc with too much noise. I fixed some of that with the 50 1.8, but there are still limitations to that solution. FF seems like the right answer, just trying to decide if roughly 2 stops are worth the cost (I also like the DOF advantage and more lenses seems ideal on FF than crop in terms of range).


----------



## tntwit (Feb 21, 2014)

I must say a lot of the comments here are making my head swell.

There are distinct advantages with FF (and disadvantages of any camera), but some comments make it seem like I'm trying to buy my way to better pictures if I go FF, so it gives me pause as to what is the right decision.

On the other hand, there is never ending criticism of the crop bodies on much of these forums.

I'm quite confident I am a limitation in my own photography and the more experience I get, the better my pictures get, regardless of the equipment.

I am also quite aware of the advice to look at your cameras limitations and decide what you really need before you upgrade. This is where the 60D answers many of my equipment's limitations for a whole lot less than FF. It just doesn't answer the one that bugs me the most (noise). 

I'm concerned that I will go FF and still be disappointed. That's why I might just rent first to see.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 21, 2014)

tntwit said:


> I must say a lot of the comments here are making my head swell.
> 
> There are distinct advantages with FF (and disadvantages of any camera), but some comments make it seem like I'm trying to buy my way to better pictures if I go FF, so it gives me pause as to what is the right decision.
> 
> ...



Get a Canon professional services if you have enough gear to qualify and then borrow from them.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 21, 2014)

tntwit said:


> I'm quite confident I am a limitation in my own photography and the more experience I get, the better my pictures get, regardless of the equipment.
> 
> I am also quite aware of the advice to look at your cameras limitations and decide what you really need before you upgrade. This is where the 60D answers many of my equipment's limitations for a whole lot less than FF. It just doesn't answer the one that bugs me the most (noise).
> 
> I'm concerned that I will go FF and still be disappointed. That's why I might just rent first to see.



All that is true, except that it's almost inconceivable that you would be disappointed by what a FF body does for your principal annoyance. And while it's true that better equipment won't necessarily improve *your* limitations, it's not likely to make them worse.

But yes, it makes sense to rent/borrow first. That's what I did - and when I did, I couldn't wait to buy one (in fact I ordered my 5DII before returning the one I rented), because I preferred everything about it, from ergonomics through to the actual image; because I enjoyed using it so much more, I used it more and, through practice, improved, probably more than I would have had I stuck with my Pentax K-5. You may have a similar experience - or not....


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 22, 2014)

I have a Canon 550d, 7d and the 6d. The 7d is brilliant for sport & wildlife particularly in South Africa but if you want great detailed landscape photographs the 6d is fantastic value for money I simply could not justify a 5dMKIII for hobbie usage. 
All the negative comments about the 11 AF points on the 6d in practice Ive never had an issue with and last week the centre cross point only worked great for taking photos of moving elephants at ADDO Elephant Park as it works fast. Low light this camera is amazing also.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 22, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> What I am lacking is the ability to create compelling photography but that is a process independent of technology.



I can go on and on and on about how I learned photography with just a 55mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/3.5 prime lens. I can go on and on and on about how the 55mm taught me to work within the limitations of the focal length, i.e. DoF and FoV. I can go on and on and on about how the 55mm taught me about angles and moments. I can go on and on and on ... but I won't. (Chorus: "Too late!")

I always challenge people, who want to really learn photography, to pick one prime lens and shoot straight to JPEG for three months. Everything, one prime lens in JPEG. Do it!


----------



## verysimplejason (Feb 22, 2014)

I've used the a Yashica SLR film camera before getting a 500D then after 3 years, went for a 6D. I won't go back to APS-C again after that. The shots I get from an FF and an APS-C is too different. Aside from that, high ISO capability for an FF is too amazing compared to APS-C. For events, an FF is really a joy to have.


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 22, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> I've used the a Yashica SLR film camera before getting a 500D then after 3 years, went for a 6D. I won't go back to APS-C again after that. The shots I get from an FF and an APS-C is too different. Aside from that, high ISO capability for an FF is too amazing compared to APS-C. For events, an FF is really a joy to have.



You are comparing a current camera with 3+ year old technology. The ISO capability has no connection to full frame or APS-C, it's a function of sensor age. The 70D would have given you as big a bump in ISO capability at nearly half the price and allow you to continue using your APS-C lenses. I could compare a 5D classic with a 7D and conclude that APs-C is superior in many ways.


----------



## verysimplejason (Feb 22, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > I've used the a Yashica SLR film camera before getting a 500D then after 3 years, went for a 6D. I won't go back to APS-C again after that. The shots I get from an FF and an APS-C is too different. Aside from that, high ISO capability for an FF is too amazing compared to APS-C. For events, an FF is really a joy to have.
> ...



Hmmm... 70D against 500D? If you are talking of RAW, I'd say there's not much improvement in terms of ISO performance. Comparing 5D with 7D is just comparing apples with oranges. 5D will beat 7D anytime if the target isn't moving. 7D will just win every time though if the target is moving due to superior AF. Have you really tried using a FF camera in low light and compared it next to an APS-C?


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 22, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > What I am lacking is the ability to create compelling photography but that is a process independent of technology.
> ...



What's funny is that while I'm on the other side of the fence than you are... that's is practically what I did. I hate the 18-55 and the 75-300 so much that I wound up using only the 50mm f/1.8... though I did it negligently... which is to say that I knew I liked the images so much more with the 50mm that I just shooting away without knowing the technical aspect of what I was doing... So there's that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> The ISO capability has no connection to full frame or APS-C, it's a function of sensor age. The 70D would have given you as big a bump in ISO capability at nearly half the price and allow you to continue using your APS-C lenses. I could compare a 5D classic with a 7D and conclude that APs-C is superior in many ways.



Sorry, no. The maximum ISO setting _available_ tracks with sensor age (loosely), but having a setting available doesn't mean it produces usable images. 'High ISO capability' depends on sensor size. The 7D *is* a better camera than the 5D in many ways...but at the same ISO setting, the 5D has less image noise despite being a much older sensor.

The 70D offers less than 1/2 stop improvement over the 500D, and the 5D is about 1/2-stop better than the 70D. A current FF (6D, 5DIII) is over a stop better than the 70D.


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 22, 2014)

I would have to disagree and my opinion is that the 70D sensor and capability is vastly superior to 5 year old APS-C technology in the 7D and 6 years in the 500D. I switched from a 7D to a 70D because I do get much better high ISO performance. IMO, my 6400 performance with the 70D exceeds 3200 on the 7D and the AF is much faster. Anything above 3200 on the 7D was, in my opinion, unusable. When working at low ISO, the older sensors hold their own. All due respect to Neuro but when was the last time you shot anything less than an up-to-date 1D series? For better low light performance without a new body, go with large aperture prime lenses?


----------



## verysimplejason (Feb 22, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> I would have to disagree and my opinion is that the 70D sensor and capability is vastly superior to 5 year old APS-C technology in the 7D and 6 years in the 500D. I switched from a 7D to a 70D because I do get much better high ISO performance. IMO, my 6400 performance with the 70D exceeds 3200 on the 7D and the AF is much faster. Anything above 3200 on the 7D was, in my opinion, unusable. When working at low ISO, the older sensors hold their own. All due respect to Neuro but when was the last time you shot anything less than an up-to-date 1D series? For better low light performance without a new body, go with large aperture prime lenses?



Neuro is talking of 5D (FF) against 70D. That very old FF sensor will still produce better IQ at the same ISO setting with the current 70D. Of course, if you pit a 70D against a 7D then it will be between 2 sensors with the same size. Then the more current sensor will win most of the time (but not all the time, see 550D vs 600D).


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 22, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> I would have to disagree and my opinion is that the 70D sensor and capability is vastly superior to 5 year old APS-C technology in the 7D and 6 years in the 500D. I switched from a 7D to a 70D because I do get much better high ISO performance. IMO, my 6400 performance with the 70D exceeds 3200 on the 7D and the AF is much faster. Anything above 3200 on the 7D was, in my opinion, unusable. When working at low ISO, the older sensors hold their own. All due respect to Neuro but when was the last time you shot anything less than an up-to-date 1D series? For better low light performance without a new body, go with large aperture prime lenses?




I am unsure what you are disagreeing with. As Neuro mentioned, the 70D is better than 7D/500D, which is what you said as well. There you are comparing apples against apples, which is all very true. 
However, that has nothing to do with an FF sensor, which in this case is an orange. The sensor receives more than twice the amount of light, which is a physical fact and has nothing to do with sensor technology. The pixels are larger, so you will get higher light sensitivity. So the 5D being better than 70D doesn't contradict the 70D being better than 7D. In fact, my 7D was worse than my 50D in terms of high-ISO noise.
With the current pricing of 6D and even used 5DIIs, I wouldn't recommend an APS-C to anyone who is primarily looking for IQ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> tiger82 said:
> 
> 
> > I would have to disagree and my opinion is that the 70D sensor and capability is vastly superior to 5 year old APS-C technology in the 7D and 6 years in the 500D. I switched from a 7D to a 70D because I do get much better high ISO performance. IMO, my 6400 performance with the 70D exceeds 3200 on the 7D and the AF is much faster. Anything above 3200 on the 7D was, in my opinion, unusable. When working at low ISO, the older sensors hold their own. All due respect to Neuro but when was the last time you shot anything less than an up-to-date 1D series? For better low light performance without a new body, go with large aperture prime lenses?
> ...



Exactly. Size matters, and this statement:



tiger82 said:


> The ISO capability has no connection to full frame or APS-C, it's a function of sensor age.



...is completely wrong. Ignoring advances in sensor technology, a FF sensor has a 1.3-stop noise advantage over APS-C based on the larger area gathering more total light. When you factor in sensor technology advancement, sensor size still trumps it, as shown by the fact that despite 8 years of advances, the old 5D still delivers better high ISO performance than the new 70D. 

Note that if you're shooting JPG, the you're adding advances in Digic to advances in the sensor. However, shooting RAW and applying proper NR in post yields better results than in-camera JPG, so only RAW performance matters when comparing noise.


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 22, 2014)

First of all, I did say low ISO performance is comparable. The OP was looking for better high ISO performance. Ass for size matters, you are talking about TOTAL light on an equivalent age sensor. The current generation sensor sensitivity is similar per square unit of area so if you compare a similar area on the FF sensor that is equivalent to an APS-C sensor, it would be very similar in performance. When you account for TOTAL area, obviously the larger sensor captures more. It's like saying 2 solar panels are better than 1 but the single panel could be equivalent to each of the two solar panels. Now the lenses' focal plane for both sensors is identical so the same image on the area of the APS-C sensor on the FF is identical is it not? Therefore, that area would be fairly similar in image content and IQ for same generation sensors. In fact the pixel density on the APS-C may even help it along. 20.2MP in APS-C vs 22.1 in a FF. 10% more pixels in 60% more area for the FF. 

Regardless, I'd prefer an 80MP medium format camera but even that won't suit what many of us shoot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> First of all, I did say low ISO performance is comparable. The OP was looking for better high ISO performance. Ass for size matters, you are talking about TOTAL light on an equivalent age sensor. The current generation sensor sensitivity is similar per square unit of area so if you compare a similar area on the FF sensor that is equivalent to an APS-C sensor, it would be very similar in performance.



Sorry, but you really don't seem to understand how this works... 

Total light *IS* what determines _image_ noise. Light per unit area determines exposure - for the same scene at ISO 800 with an f/2 lens wide open, I get the same shutter speed on my 1D X, EOS M (meaning yes, I've used a recent Canon APS-C camera), and PowerShot S100. But the image noise of the EOS M at ISO 800 is similar to the 1D X at ISO ISO 2500, and the image noise of the PowerShot S100 at ISO 800 is similar to ISO 16000 on my 1D X. 

You're right about similar areas, though - if I crop the 1D X to 38% of its area (= APS-C in EOS M) or to 5% of its area (= 1/1.7" in S100), the noise would be similar. But if you routinely need to crop away 60% or 95% of your image, you need a longer lens...



tiger82 said:


> It's like saying 2 solar panels are better than 1 but the single panel could be equivalent to each of the two solar panels.



Exactly. As a homeowner with solar panels on my roof, the output per panel is an academic curiosity - what I care about is the amount of electricity I get when the sun hits my roof...thus, two solar panels *are* better than one. Similarly, as a photographer the noise per unit area is of little practical relevance, what matters is the noise in my *pictures*, so FF is better than APS-C in terms of image noise, at both low ISO and high ISO.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Similarly, as a photographer the noise per unit area is of little practical relevance, what matters is the noise in my *pictures*, so FF is better than APS-C in terms of image noise, at both low ISO and high ISO.



Now this is something I cannot understand. I have before me, several 16x24 prints, all taken at ISO 400. Some with a 7D and some with a 5DIII. As for the shots themselves, the 5DIII shots are full frame, while the 7Ds are slightly cropped, which would place the 7D at a disadvantage. All were printed by MPix.

Yet, at any normal viewing distance, I cannot see *any* difference in noise. If I press my nose almost upon the image, I might see a small amount of added noise in *some* of the shadow areas of the 7D prints, but I really have to hunt for it and it has *zero* impact on the overall quality of the photo.

I know that people who have spent thousands on a full frame camera *want* to see a difference. But at ISO 400 or below, if you are seeing additional noise in a photograph taken with an APS-C sensor, it is likely to be either (a) confirmation bias or (b) your processing skills.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I know that people who have spent thousands on a full frame camera *want* to see a difference. But *at ISO 400 or below*, if you are seeing additional noise in a photograph taken with an APS-C sensor, it is likely to be either (a) confirmation bias or (b) your processing skills.



Sure. ISO 400 on APS-C is like ISO 1250 on FF...and with proper processing that looks perfectly clean. However, about 25% of my shots are at ISO 3200 or higher, and that includes the majority of my bird/wildlife shots (need fast shutter speed in lower light levels). 

In bright light, moderately large prints are possible even from sensors smaller than APS-C. The reason some of us spend thousands on a full frame camera is that we know some of our most impactful shots are taken in less than ideal light, and we're willing to pay a premium so those shots look as good as possible. 

Sometimes people who haven't or can't spend thousands on a full frame camera want to rationalize away the benefits.


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 23, 2014)

"The overall signal to noise ratio of a sensor (SNR), observed at the scale of a single pixel, is dependent on P, the incident photon flux (photons per second in the area of a pixel), Qe, the quantum efficiency, t, the exposure time, D, the pixel dark current in electrons per second and N, the pixel read noise in electrons."

I don't see signal-to-noise ratio as a function of total area here although I would concede a larger sensor area make for a better photo in terms of composition and framing. The exposure time would be a function of lens aperture so a larger aperture will improve SNR as well as pixel efficiency. Newer, and presumably better, sensors would be better than older sensors at high ISO regardless of sensor size when you are talking about APS-C and larger.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> "The overall signal to noise ratio of a sensor (SNR), observed at the scale of a single pixel, is dependent on P, the incident photon flux (photons per second in the area of a pixel), Qe, the quantum efficiency, t, the exposure time, D, the pixel dark current in electrons per second and N, the pixel read noise in electrons."
> 
> I don't see signal-to-noise ratio as a function of total area here although I would concede a larger sensor area make for a better photo in terms of composition and framing. The exposure time would be a function of lens aperture so a larger aperture will improve SNR as well as pixel efficiency. Newer, and presumably better, sensors would be better than older sensors at high ISO regardless of sensor size when you are talking about APS-C and larger.



You're fixated on pixel level noise, but we don't look at pixels, we look at pictures. What matters is the noise at the image level, not at the pixel level. Perceived image sharpness works in a similar manner - smaller pixels deliver higher spatial resolution, but images from FF sensors appear sharper (due to the additional enlargement needed from the smaller sensor for a fixed output size). As a side note, you're wrong about the pixel level noise being the same, too. The term 'P' you mention - photon flux - is higher with larger pixels, and pixels of FF sensors are generally larger. Basically, signal scales with pixel area (the square of pixel pitch), while noise scales with pixel pitch – therefore, larger pixels have higher S/N. I consider that an aside because in practice, the effect of sensor size trumps the effect of pixel size. 

As Emil Martinec states, "_The clear rule of thumb that emerges from such an exercise (not surprisingly) is that larger size sensor formats are less noisy than smaller size sensor formats. ... Bigger sensors have higher S/N ratios, because bigger sensors collect more photons._"

Perhaps a visual example will help, below are some of the noise test images from TDP's review of the 70D, showing ISO 3200 images from the 70D and 6D, both 20 MP and of a similar generation. According to your viewpoint, they should have similar noise. Looking at the images below, is the image noise the same? Absolutely not - the FF sensor delivers a much cleaner image (and slightly sharper, too). You can apply NR to the APS-C image and reduce the noise to a simlar level as the FF image, but if you do, you'll eliminate a fair amount of detail in the APS-C image…and end up with an image that is significantly softer, instead of just slightly less sharp.


----------



## candc (Feb 23, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Hi everybody
> 
> So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.
> 
> ...



the op was asking about what we think he should do with his setup. i think he should get a 6d. you have a 24-70ii and 100 macro plus the 50 f/1.8 those lenses shine on the ff body, that's what they are made for. you have the 10-22 and the long lenses for your 500d so if you are okay with a 2 camera setup then get a 6d. you were asking about iso 3200? thats what the 6d does, it is the best there is at high iso.


----------



## sanj (Feb 23, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > What I am lacking is the ability to create compelling photography but that is a process independent of technology.
> ...



I so totally disagree.


----------



## sanj (Feb 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> tiger82 said:
> 
> 
> > The ISO capability has no connection to full frame or APS-C, it's a function of sensor age. The 70D would have given you as big a bump in ISO capability at nearly half the price and allow you to continue using your APS-C lenses. I could compare a 5D classic with a 7D and conclude that APs-C is superior in many ways.
> ...



Basic fact!


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 23, 2014)

sanj said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



I'm not sure about the whole jpeg issue... I shot in jpg for the first 3 or 4 years with an SLR because I didn't like the file size of raw and I didn't have a program that would read a raw file. But in retrospect... I really like shooting in raw because of the added data and I feel as though I can bring out more of the shot than what a normal jpeg would be able to offer. Sure over saturation is a risk or over contrasting...


----------



## mkabi (Feb 23, 2014)

sanj said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



I think he said that so that you are limited to just you and the camera. Zero Post-processing. If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree... Seldomly, do we all take good pictures anymore, we all take half-assed pictures then throw it in lightroom to correct it, then crop it so they frame it better and lastly do a bunch of touch ups to make it clean and/or artsy.


----------



## sanj (Feb 23, 2014)

mkabi said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



No man. No no no.
Photography to me, in todays world means:
Knowing limits of the sensor/files and also how to enhance that. Without knowledge of proper benefits of RAW, the photographer will not be able handle exposures etc in low/extreme light situations. 
Being very well versed with lenses and knowing which will work best for the story telling is a must.

And how about people who want to shoot wildlife? They MUST have proper telephoto... Landscape guys would need a proper wide... Ya?

Of course composition, lighting, and learning to see are fundamentals. Which I believe was the point being made but to disregard lenses and post is a very simplistic and limited approach.


----------



## sanj (Feb 23, 2014)

mkabi said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Does not apply to me for sure...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 23, 2014)

mkabi said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



then why bother using auto focus. Isn't that cheating? How dare you allow the camera to follow your subject. You should either find the plane at which you want to take the photo and wait for your subject to get there or try and track your quickly moving subject while turning the focus ring and then track him the old fashioned way all while getting in the proper position, finding the right angle, exposing correctly, and applying the rule of thirds.

Good lord. This reminds me of the conversation about everyone should learn with film. Film film film. 

Gear isn't everything... but to refuse to use the new technology to make ones job easier is just silly.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I'm with JD and Sanj. Some of the comments make as much sense as saying that you have to use a pencil and paper to write a great novel. Actually...it sounds more like you have to use a pencil and paper and do no editing or proofreading to write a great novel. That's just silly.

Photographers have always used the tools available to them to manipulate images after the shot was taken. Some more than others.

If you have talent and vision, it's not going to be lessened by using the tools available to you.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I know that people who have spent thousands on a full frame camera *want* to see a difference. But at ISO 400 or below, if you are seeing additional noise in a photograph taken with an APS-C sensor, it is likely to be either (a) confirmation bias or (b) your processing skills.
> ...



Except that's not what you said in the earlier post (see below):



neuroanatomist said:


> ...FF is better than APS-C in terms of image noise, at both *low ISO* and high ISO.





And, frankly, ISO 400 on APS-C looks pretty much the same as ISO 400 on Full Frame. 



neuroanatomist said:


> The reason some of us spend thousands on a full frame camera is that we know some of our most impactful shots are taken in less than ideal light, and we're willing to pay a premium so those shots look as good as possible.



I never took issue with the argument that full frame provides better noise control at higher ISOs, I simply pointed out that at normal ISOs the differences are marginal at best. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Sometimes people who haven't or can't spend thousands on a full frame camera want to rationalize away the benefits.



I own both a 5DIII and a 7D, so it's not a question of having to rationalize anything. Perhaps I just have a healthier perspective about the limitations of equipment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> And, frankly, ISO 400 on APS-C looks pretty much the same as ISO 400 on Full Frame.



Unless you have to crop the image, and push the shadows a stop or two (after having lost a slight amount of shadow or highlight info already due to the lower DR). FF is better, unquestionably – the noise is lower and the image is sharper...but in many situations, APS-C is good enough that the benefits of FF are rendered moot.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 23, 2014)

mkabi said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



It shouldn't matter at which point of your workflow you create something beautiful or meaningful. It could be by being there while a significant scene unfolds before your camera, it could be when you use a photographic tool to transform something mundane, or it could be when you use a post-processing tool instead (this, of course, doesn't pertain to photojournalism). One shouldn't be a stickler for the technique as long as the end result satisfies. One shouldn't be limited to the semantics of what it means to be a photographer and what it means to be a photo editor. 
The fact that unavailability of editing tools made for better photographers is the same as saying removing seat belts made for safer drivers.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 23, 2014)

here's my 2-bits

You've got a nice collection of glass, so I won't tell you to abandon it for a different system. (but that's what I did)

Consider a 70D or a 6D, they have more manageable noise characteristics.
if you don't like noise and banding, a used 5d2 might disappoint, depending on the individual body - take some test shots and process before committing to it. I had an early model and it was noisy and had plenty of banding and a 7D is similarly cautioned against for the same reason.

Not sure if they're offered in your area, but a refurbished 6D can be a good deal and a better option and you'll only give up your 10-22.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Feb 23, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.



If you are 'focal length limited', i.e. need a longer lens, with FF then yes, crops have an advantage. If you're not then they don't.

The main advantage of full frame (to me) is being able to get a sharper drop off from the in focus plane to the out of focus plane. How is this achieved? To get the same framing on FF as on my crop I have to use a longer focal length... and it is the longer focal length that gives you the sharper drop off. In addition the depth of field is shallower in the first place.

Pretty much everything else can be regarded as minor or for pixel peepers only. If you're not making very large prints you can ignore lots of info 

(one other thing to add is that the FF bodies have better ergonomics than the Rebels and a larger, brighter, viewfinder. My 550D is only used when I'll be cropping (my FF is only 12MP) or am focal length limited, such is my preference for the ergonomics and viewfinder of the 5D)


----------



## koolman (Feb 23, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Hi everybody
> 
> So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.
> 
> ...



Hi,

My 2 cents. I have a 550d and my friend has a 5d mark 2. We often go shooting together. He uses a 24-70 2.8 mark 1 - I use a tammy 17-50 non VC.

1) Sure FF produces higher IQ. Is it "dramatic" ? well in my opinion it very much depends on the scenario of the shot. In good light - there is a difference - but I'm not sure "dramatic" comes to mind. In low light the FF is cleaner. In my opinion the photographers skill will influence the results in a much more "dramatic" way.

2) My style of shooting is often "walk around". The FF body and lenses are heavy and I'm not sure worth the weight and added overall drag.

3) The FF body and lenses - are more expensive and for me not worth the cost - as I shoot as a hobby. I much more enjoy the composition and photo part of my hobby then admiring the electronics of the result. That's me.

J.P.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2014)

koolman said:


> ...1) Sure FF produces higher IQ. Is it "dramatic" ? well in my opinion it very much depends on the scenario of the shot. In good light - there is a difference - but I'm not sure "dramatic" comes to mind. In low light the FF is cleaner. In my opinion the photographers skill will influence the results in a much more "dramatic" way.
> 
> 2) My style of shooting is often "walk around". The FF body and lenses are heavy and I'm not sure worth the weight and added overall drag.
> 
> 3) The FF body and lenses - are more expensive and for me not worth the cost - as I shoot as a hobby. I much more enjoy the composition and photo part of my hobby then admiring the electronics of the result. That's me...



That is a very reasonable assessment.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> If you have talent and vision, it's not going to be lessened by using the tools available to you.



Quite so; and if you don't have talent and vision, being forced to use a limited range of equipment won't impart them.

As for shooting JPEGs, no thanks. I like looking closely at photos, and if you do that you'll see that cameras' JPEG-creation tends to involve processing that smears fine details. It may be possible to reduce or avoid that by experimenting with the camera's JPEG settings, but why bother if shooting RAW lets you avoid that?


----------



## sdsr (Feb 23, 2014)

mkabi said:


> I think he said that so that you are limited to just you and the camera. Zero Post-processing. If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree... Seldomly, do we all take good pictures anymore, we all take half-assed pictures then throw it in lightroom to correct it, then crop it so they frame it better and lastly do a bunch of touch ups to make it clean and/or artsy.



Perhaps you should speak for yourself.... This distinction you're making is false anyway. Yes, it's nice if you can get it "right" in the camera in the first place, but that's still editing; the only difference with PP is that you're doing it somewhere else, outside the camera.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 24, 2014)

sanj said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > I always challenge people, who want to really learn photography, to pick one prime lens and shoot straight to JPEG for three months. Everything, one prime lens in JPEG. Do it!
> ...



A lot of you seem to agree with *sanj* on this challenge by me. Maybe clarifying a bit will help, or maybe it won't help an ocean. Oh, well, here goes nothing ...

This is not about RAW _vs_ JPEG. Full stop. Period.

This is about learning the art of photography, and one of the best ways of learning is to appreciate what you have at your disposal. The objective is to limit the student as much as possible (without resorting to film), so that the student can understand that something like post-processing is part of the whole, a cog in the machine; a whole that starts with the correct basically correct creation of the image.

Many people, in their infinite wisdom, view RAW and the camera as simply a means of acquiring data for processing with a computer. This, in my opinion, leads to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

And obviously, once you've progressed beyond this step in learning the art of photography, you don't need to ever shoot JPEG again.

However, what is pretty interesting, is how many of the "photographers" on CR are so violently opposed to the idea of going JPEG for a few months. Oh, well ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2014)

Yes, shoot JPG...and only use 256 MB memory cards so you're limited to ~36 exposures per roll card. That way, you learn that every shot should count.

Typical photographer progression: shoot JPG for a while...hear about the benefits of RAW, shoot JPG+RAW for a while, processing RAWs for a few 'select' images and keeping just JPGs...fully understand the benefits of RAW and switch to RAW only...wish you could go back and properly process some images for which you have only the JPG and regret not shooting RAW only from the start. 

Don't be 'that photographer'. Friends don't let friends shoot JPG.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 24, 2014)

Ah, yes ... ;D


----------



## Zv (Feb 24, 2014)

What you see on the LCD is the JPEG preview anyway, regardless of what file type you shoot. Therefore you could argue that you are always shooting JPEG in a sense. We should always try and get it right in camera and one way to do that is to use the info from the histogram and LCD. Though it's bloody hard on a 3" screen and usually things look fine until you look at it on the big screen!

As Neuro said there is no real benefit to the photographer by limiting the file type. You might as well shoot RAW, get it right in camera and then just convert to JPEG if required. You always have the option of not processing the image. 

That said I think the challenge is interesting in a way. I think I'd spend more time composing my shots and getting the light just perfect rather than getting it close enough. Could be useful someday if a client wants images on demand during a shoot. I prob rely too heavily on fixing it later. The thought of handing over unprocessed shots makes me very uncomfortable!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Typical photographer progression: shoot JPG for a while...hear about the benefits of RAW, shoot JPG+RAW for a while, processing RAWs for a few 'select' images and keeping just JPGs...fully understand the benefits of RAW and switch to RAW only...wish you could go back and properly process some images for which you have only the JPG and regret not shooting RAW only from the start.


Ouch! that hurts ;D ... just like truth hurts ...oh, how I wish I shot RAW from the beginning ... but most of the time, one only learns from making mistakes. :-[


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 24, 2014)

Zv said:


> As Neuro said there is no real benefit to the photographer by limiting the file type.



Only problem being that *neuroanatomist* does not understand the purpose of my "challenge".


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 24, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Typical photographer progression: shoot JPG for a while...hear about the benefits of RAW, shoot JPG+RAW for a while, processing RAWs for a few 'select' images and keeping just JPGs...fully understand the benefits of RAW and switch to RAW only...wish you could go back and properly process some images for which you have only the JPG and regret not shooting RAW only from the start.
> ...



That was me to the tee... but I didn't have a program to read raw... so I give myself a pass.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 24, 2014)

Zv said:


> What you see on the LCD is the JPEG preview anyway, regardless of what file type you shoot. Therefore you could argue that you are always shooting JPEG in a sense.



Not quite, if you use Magic Lantern you get a real raw histogram + (even automatic) ettr to minimize noise.



Hesbehindyou said:


> Pretty much everything else can be regarded as minor or for pixel peepers only. If you're not making very large prints you can ignore lots of info



I'd like to add one fact I completely missed before moving to ff, something that cannot be seen in sample images or charts: the bigger pixels of the current ff sensors provide more postprocessing elasticity, i.e. you can do much more with the shot before it falls apart like changing individual colors and also pushing shadows (esp. on 6d). Sharpening and nr also benefit a lot from the latest sensors (5d3/6d), I didn't try 70d for that though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > As Neuro said there is no real benefit to the photographer by limiting the file type.
> ...



I understand perfectly, I just don't agree that it's a worthwhile endeavor.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don't be 'that photographer'. Friends don't let friends shoot JPG.


+1 - LOL - I like that one - now we just need some T-shirts with that printed on them!


----------



## jhaces (Feb 24, 2014)

mkabi said:


> I think he said that so that you are limited to just you and the camera. Zero Post-processing. If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. *Post-processing makes you an editor*, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... *It wasn't like that back in the day*. And you have to agree... Seldomly, do we all take good pictures anymore, we all take half-assed pictures then throw it in lightroom to correct it, then crop it so they frame it better and lastly do a bunch of touch ups to make it clean and/or artsy.



Back in the day, there was this random guy, Ansel Adams. For some reason, people tend to label this _editor_ as a _photographer_. Some even have the nerve to term him one of the fathers of photography. Can you believe that?

Sella, your 'challenge' is plainly short-sighted. In keeping with the spirit of it, perhaps it would be more reasonable to still take RAWs, but processing them to the 'camera default'. Still pointless, but at least you don't deny yourself the possibility of going back to the picture later en re-edit it to your heart's content.

The guys that think that everything must be done in camera and everything else is not really a photo must surely stick to a disposable Kodak camera where _you press the button, we do the rest._ 

If you are taking the time looking for an interesting subject, framing, composing, choosing precisely when to press the button, etc, why would you let your camera's CPU take control at a critical part in the process and decide what curves to apply, what levels of saturation, intensity of NR, shadow/highlight clipping, etc?

Oh and just to be on topic, full frame. Never would want to go back. Of course the caveats are there if you need the 'extra range' for sports (hint: you never do) But the first time you look through the viewfinder you will be sold 8)


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I understand perfectly, I just don't agree that it's a worthwhile endeavor.



No, you don't. But I understand perfectly ... ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I understand perfectly, I just don't agree that it's a worthwhile endeavor.
> ...



Oh no, I'm too late to the thread, it's already page 3 and the mudslinging has already started


----------



## docsmith (Feb 24, 2014)

Sabaki....a year ago I was in much the same position and upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII. This is one of those decisions that I am somewhat conflicted about, but I doubt I will ever go back.

So, if you are happy with a crop sensor or if you can convince yourself to be happy. Do not upgrade. Just be happy. Get something like a used 7D or 70D. There are people taking excellent photos (even pros) working with crop sensor cameras. They really are very very good.

That said, there are several areas of improvement going to FF. The question gets to be do you want/need those areas of improvement. Are your crop sensor camera good enough for you. Because, there is always more money to be spent for what are often marginal improvements in photography....both with lenses, sensors, or formats. 

The improvements I've noticed include color rendition, bokeh, contrast, low-iso noise, high iso noise and the general latitude you have to process the photo in post (shooting RAW) are all at least a little bit, better. In short, almost everything is at least a little bit better. The real game changer that opened up for me is low light photography without a flash. I am now routinely taking photos at ISO 2000-3200 before I really tried to limit myself to ISO 400-800 on the 7D. So I am doing a lot more low light indoor photography. As others have noted, I even sometimes get "keepers" all the way up to ISO 12,800 (but ISO 6,400-8,000 is really the typical max). 

But this is always about deciding what is "good enough" for you....

Good luck....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2014)

jhaces said:


> Back in the day, there was this random guy, Ansel Adams. For some reason, people tend to label this _editor_ as a _photographer_. Some even have the nerve to term him one of the fathers of photography. Can you believe that?
> 
> Sella, your 'challenge' is plainly short-sighted. In keeping with the spirit of it, perhaps it would be more reasonable to still take RAWs, but processing them to the 'camera default'. Still pointless, but at least you don't deny yourself the possibility of going back to the picture later en re-edit it to your heart's content.
> 
> ...



+1

Be careful though, or Sella will start to question your comprehension of simple concepts as well…

Although maybe we just don't understand the "challenge" – but if that's the case, it's only because it was not explained adequately or intelligently.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 24, 2014)

jhaces said:


> Sella, your 'challenge' is plainly short-sighted. In keeping with the spirit of it, perhaps it would be more reasonable to still take RAWs, but processing them to the 'camera default'. Still pointless, but at least you don't deny yourself the possibility of going back to the picture later en re-edit it to your heart's content.



Look, I am not saying that a professional photographer doing a paying gig should photograph the whole thing in JPEG. If you think that that is what I am saying, then you're simply not thinking. Also, this is not about RAW _vs_ JPEG, so stop waving that flag each time somebody mentions JPEG's out of the camera.

The OP is a student of photography (and this goes for anybody else learning photography), so he is basically mucking about with his camera and lenses. I sincerely doubt whether he is doing any paying gigs (i.e. weddings) and I sincerely doubt whether he will ever have any reason to re-process this "student" output.

Besides, it's only for three months ... and then it's back to RAW!



jhaces said:


> The guys that think that everything must be done in camera and everything else is not really a photo must surely stick to a disposable Kodak camera where _you press the button, we do the rest._



Garbage in, garbage out. Sure, you can do wonders with RAW in post-processing to save your butt when you screw up. But the more the photograph is "optimized" and technically correct, then the more can be achieved with RAW. This means getting it right right there in the camera when the shutter button is pressed.



jhaces said:


> If you are taking the time looking for an interesting subject, framing, composing, choosing precisely when to press the button, etc, why would you let your camera's CPU take control at a critical part in the process and decide what curves to apply, what levels of saturation, intensity of NR, shadow/highlight clipping, etc?



Again, if you understand the limitations and bugs of the camera in your hand, then so much the more will you be able to produce RAW files that can be optimally post-processed. (As an aside, a lot of the post-processed images on the Internet look pretty much the same to me - seems like a lot of people have simply traded the Canon recipe for the Adobe recipe.)

But ultimately, what do I care whether or not someone becomes a great photographer or not. Go with the flow, follow the wave ... say "Baaaah!"


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Oh no, I'm too late to the thread, it's already page 3 and the mudslinging has already started



I actually surprised it took that long. Photographers tend to be rabidly opinionated. 

People just need to learn to do what they want. If they want to shoot JPEG, shoot JPEG. If they want to shoot RAW, shoot Raw. Same applies to FF vs CS. There are people shooting with either system and shooting fantastic pictures. There others shooting either system and shooting crap. 

Pick what you can afford and get out there and start honing your skill.

This is why I snicker when some people claim that it is the photographer and not the gear, but then spend time arguing about gear. LoL


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Be careful though, or Sella will start to question your comprehension of simple concepts as well…



Too late!



neuroanatomist said:


> Although maybe we just don't understand the "challenge" – but if that's the case, it's only because it was not explained adequately or intelligently.



Ah, yes, the old "putting down" post. You should try adding humour, like I did here ...



Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I understand perfectly, I just don't agree that it's a worthwhile endeavor.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Look, I am not saying that a professional photographer doing a paying gig should photograph the whole thing in JPEG. If you think that that is what I am saying, then you're simply not thinking. Also, this is not about RAW _vs_ JPEG, so stop waving that flag each time somebody mentions JPEG's out of the camera.
> 
> The OP is a student of photography (and this goes for anybody else learning photography), so he is basically mucking about with his camera and lenses. I sincerely doubt whether he is doing any paying gigs (i.e. weddings) and I sincerely doubt whether he will ever have any reason to re-process this "student" output.



Ok, so people 'learning photography' should just blithely ignore post processing – it's not important so don't bother to learn it. Or maybe it's just less important, so they should learn it later. 

To learn photography properly, you must shoot JPG, use only a 50mm lens, and stand on your left foot. Any other handicaps you'd like to dump on students of the art?


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Any other handicaps you'd like to dump on students of the art?



No, that about covers it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> To learn photography properly, you must shoot JPG, use only a 50mm lens, and stand on your left foot. Any other handicaps you'd like to dump on students of the art?



Reminds me of the time when I was studying chemistry - we had to do test series with ~60 year old equipment, the swastikas and imperial insignias (nearly )) still on them. The front argument: You gotta know the basics even though you'll never ever use them again, only then can you learn modern methods. The real background: The people in charge did it in their time, hated it like everybody else, so why lift the burden? Also never touch a running system :->

Back to the subject: For me, digital photography is knowing what you can easily "fix" in postprocessing, and what more severe problems you can work around if in a pinch for select shots. That lets me concentrate on the issues I have to get right while shooting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Reminds me of the time when I was studying chemistry - we had to do test series with ~60 year old equipment, the swastikas and imperial insignias (nearly )) still on them. The front argument: You gotta know the basics even though you'll never ever use them again, only then can you learn modern methods. The real background: The people in charge did it in their time, hated it like everybody else, so why lift the burden? Also never touch a running system :->



Yeah, that's likely one of the reasons. That reminds me…I forgot to add 'turn off autofocus and don't look at the camera's meter' - learn to focus manually and use a light meter! 

They used toluene to wipe down the benches in our chemistry labs. Perfectly safe. Oops.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> That reminds me…I forgot to add 'turn off autofocus and don't look at the camera's meter' - learn to focus manually and use a light meter!



You know what, *neuroanatomist*, you can put me down, make fun of what I write and twist it around all you like, but it doesn't bother me ... because I know _why_ you are doing it. [INSERT DERANGED LAUGH HERE]


----------



## unfocused (Feb 24, 2014)

I really think this off-topic debate really boils down to differences in psychology and maybe culture.

There are those who read a manual from cover to cover before flipping the "on" switch. Then there are those who once they find the "on" switch, just jump in learning as they go.

One is not right and one is not wrong, they are different. This is true of even the greatest practitioners of any art (although I admit it doesn't work quite so well with things like heart surgery or wiring a house.) 

The history of photography is full of great artists from each school of thought. Because photography is a technological art to a much greater degree than many of the traditional arts like painting, most great photographers arrived at a certain level of technical expertise sooner or later. But, whether you take it from the beginning progressing methodically through each step or just jump in and start trying things, it ultimately doesn't matter. After all, it's the final image that counts.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> There are those who read a manual from cover to cover before flipping the "on" switch. Then there are those who once they find the "on" switch, just jump in learning as they go.



Interesting enough it seems men are said to be the "just turn it on, change all options and see if it still works" type, while women are more likely to rtfm - but as we don't have any (or very few) women on tech internet forums, we wouldn't know about the latter


----------



## Skirball (Feb 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> There are those who read a manual from cover to cover before flipping the "on" switch. Then there are those who once they find the "on" switch, just jump in learning as they go.



And don’t forget that subset of people that flip the on switch and jump in, then 3 hours later in hysterics, post on internet chat forums about something that is clearly addressed on page 7.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2014)

Skirball said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > There are those who read a manual from cover to cover before flipping the "on" switch. Then there are those who once they find the "on" switch, just jump in learning as they go.
> ...


That only applies to Canon - have you ever tried to use a Panasonic or other camera with a lousy manual and locked features? Example with my Panasonic LX-5: Flash is disabled if bust mode is enabled. Period. I took it to an event once and couldn't turn the [email protected]#$ing camera flash on no matter what mode was selected and the 30 pages of menus didn't help. Weeks later, I read the manual and found a "Tip" explaining this "feature". Canon cameras may have some faults, but bad manuals, uinintuitive controls, bad menus, and self-defeating features are not among them


----------



## Larry (Feb 24, 2014)

mkabi said:


> If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...



Nope. Don't have to agree.

A photograph is a thing. The person who makes the thing is a photograph-er. The thing is not made until the image captured by the camera is made visible on the paper or other viewing surface. This "making" consists of the entire process from choosing/arranging/lighting the subject, adjusting/aiming/operating the camera and doing what one will to get it onto the paper. Ansel has already been mentioned as an example of a "back in the day" photograph-er who certainly made use of his dark room, his enlarger, and whatever other tools he chose, to create his "art". The photographs thusly made have been greatly admired by many, and few of the admirers fail to call him a "photographer", rather than an "editor". (Ansel the dodger/burner?)

Adams and the numerous other "photographers" one could mention as widely recognized and acclaimed, used the tools available to them in their time, just as we do today. I don't doubt that they would envy us our new tools.

It hardly seems appropriate to try to differentiate a carpenter from a measurer, a sawer or a hammerer. Perhaps we should further distinguish him as a laser level technician, an adhesives applier, or a plumb(vs. apple)-bobber.

Are we having fun yet?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 24, 2014)

Larry said:


> Nope. Don't have to agree.



+1, I'd like to add that every image from a *d*slr is already postprocessed, or you would see the pattern of the bayer sensor to begin with, so the image already is processed and lens/ca/exposure-"corrected".

Most important: The camera freezes motion that is a blur to your bare eye, has a depth of field characteristic alien to us and presses a dynamic range you cannot see with the human eye at one time into one image. So why is a jpeg out of camera suddenly sacred and exempt from further modification?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> So why is a jpeg out of camera suddenly sacred and exempt from further modification?



Because the 'pure photographers' say so. Come to think of it, Nikon should really have made the Df a JPG-only camera.


----------



## Larry (Feb 24, 2014)

[quote author=neuroanatomist
[/quote]

I am way over my head in this company!

What does one do with the atoms in a neuroan?


----------



## Skirball (Feb 24, 2014)

Larry said:


> [quote author=neuroanatomist



I am way over my head in this company!

What does one do with the atoms in a neuroan?


[/quote][/quote]

Perhaps you should just focus on perfecting your quoting technique first


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > So why is a jpeg out of camera suddenly sacred and exempt from further modification?
> ...


+1 and it would have made more sense if they had limited you to 36 24 exposures and one ISO setting per day - and a built-in "protection" that would have made it impossible to use a zoom


----------



## Larry (Feb 24, 2014)

Skirball said:


> Perhaps you should just focus on perfecting your quoting technique first



What?

I have an imperfection?

I was afraid it would happen someday!

How can I go on? :-[

( …at least I know how to spell screwball.)


----------



## candc (Feb 24, 2014)

Ansel Adams was known for saying "50 % of the creative process happens in the darkroom"


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 24, 2014)

Those who think that an image should be perfect from the camera have clearly never worked with film. Negative film was all about the developing and printing. Those on this thread who call post processing 'editing' and not photography are way off the mark. Post processing ( aka developing and printing) has ways been an integral part of photography.

"But transparencies were straight from the camera"! Not so in the professional world. When I was in my teens and used to assist some pretty well known London photographers even transparencies were 'post processed'. Test strips were developed from a shoot, and then the developing process (generally time) was adjusted depending upon what the initial test clips had shown. Colour was added by duping; that is re photographing the transparency with selective colour. 

Processing is as much photography as firing the shutter; always has been.

I think what Stella is meaning is that as a photographer you can become complacent about exposure when always shooting RAW. There was a staunch advocate of shooting RAW on CR about six months ago, who I think has now left, and he stated that a full stop difference in exposure was neither here nor there. That's a mistake in my opinion. Nailing the optimum exposure for a scene makes for better IQ in the image - thank goodness. I hope that will continue.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 24, 2014)

candc said:


> Ansel Adams was known for saying "50 % of the creative process happens in the darkroom"



That was his pickup line at bars...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 24, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Those who think that an image should be perfect from the camera have clearly never worked with film. Negative film was all about the developing and printing. Those on this thread who call post processing 'editing' and not photography are way off the mark. Post processing ( aka developing and printing) has ways been an integral part of photography.
> 
> "But transparencies were straight from the camera"! Not so in the professional world. When I was in my teens and used to assist some pretty well known London photographers even transparencies were 'post processed'. Test strips were developed from a shoot, and then the developing process (generally time) was adjusted depending upon what the initial test clips had shown. Colour was added by duping; that is re photographing the transparency with selective colour.
> 
> ...



I contend that the shroud of tourin was the first raw image... and that definitely was in need of post production.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Ansel Adams was known for saying "50 % of the creative process happens in the darkroom"
> ...



I thought that was "50 % of the creation process happens in the bedroom"


----------



## candc (Feb 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



So Ansel Adams walks into a bar, walks up to a smoking hot blond and says "50% of the creative process happens in the darkroom, come with me and I'll show you why they call me tripod"?


----------



## dash2k8 (Feb 25, 2014)

"I contend that the shroud of tourin was the first raw image... and that definitely was in need of post production."

LOL x100


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 25, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Hi everybody
> 
> So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.
> 
> ...



You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 25, 2014)

I don't have anything constructive to add, except that I'm enjoying this thread immensely.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Hi everybody
> ...



There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses. 

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 25, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



not to mention the decent 3rd party options...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 25, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Speak of the devil and he'll try and sell you a tamron. Kidding... I swear.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 25, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



Sure, but you'll want to add at least one pricey one.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 25, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



I'd buy a Tamron!! I own two Sigma...but might sell them. Not because they aren't good enough, but because I can't afford to own a lot of lenses right now.


----------



## koolman (Feb 25, 2014)

Larry said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...
> ...



Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture. "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



lol. I do have some pricy (for me) lenses. 

Canon 100mm macro L, Canon 400mm f/5.6 L, Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L mkii. 
Then also have the EF-S 10-22 & 50 f/1.8.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 25, 2014)

koolman said:


> Larry said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



With all due respect (uh oh) I think this is a misunderstanding of what happens when a picture is created - especially in a digital camera (although as others have pointed out, film wasn't necessarily 'truer' in any sense).

Your camera records the world in a partial way. The choice of lens, the sensor, the in-camera processor and software - all are making choices about how the light is recorded, altering it. It's arbitrary to say what happens in the camera is fundamentally different to what happens when the file is transferred to a computer. One is not 'truer' than the other. Both devices - camera and computer - are making decisions, or implementing decisions made by the photographer.

Now I happen to try to make most of my photographs look as much like the world as I saw it (with the exception of depth of field, which has no real correlate in human vision (except maybe when I don't wear my contact lenses). But that is a stylistic choice - and indeed one that requires a lot of fine postprocessing, in my experience (mostly to try and mitigate or overcome the limitations of the technology). But that style is no more or less photography than one departing from what I may have seen - not that others necessarily know what the scene looked like to me anyway.

It's a rather strange myth that has developed - maybe it's always been there in photography - that some pictures aren't real pictures. Of course, where one draws the line between a photograph and photo-art is itself arbitrary, and we'll all choose different places along a continuum (for me, it would probably be the creation of a scene whose elements could not have been so arranged in the real world).

To end my rambling, I'd say: you use the word 'accurate' without acknowledging that it is not an objective term. You seek to imbue some pictures with an authenticity, whilst denying it to others, but that is based on a subjective assessment. And terms like 'vision' don't really clarify anything. Sorry.


----------



## Zv (Feb 25, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Nice glass shame about the body! Did you just forget to upgrade your camera when you were acquiring your L lens collection??


----------



## sanj (Feb 25, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh no, I'm too late to the thread, it's already page 3 and the mudslinging has already started
> ...



Well said.


----------



## sanj (Feb 25, 2014)

koolman said:


> Larry said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



Your understanding, as per my understanding, is totally wrong. Will find a photo I saw yesterday on this forum on a TS lens which was beautiful and far from accurate. Will find it and post next so you can see better.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 25, 2014)

I don't want to muddy the waters here, but it sounds like this conversation is heading towards artistic expression versus technical know how... and I would just like to say... high dynamic range. 

I see so many boring photos that have been hdr'd with crazy color saturation and extreme contact that in no way shape or form Lloyds normal. 

I played with it for a while and I'll use it periodically if I need the added dynamic range because the lighting circumstance is difficult to contend with... but I stopped making the mundane psychedelic. 

First and foremost should be the subject being interesting... then maybe being enhanced.. but just like boobs... going from an a cup to a c cup is good.... a to a double f... just kinda weird.



sanj said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > Larry said:
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 25, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> First and foremost should be the subject being interesting... then maybe being enhanced.. but just like boobs... going from an a cup to a c cup is good.... a to a double f... just kinda weird.


Nice analogy - LOL - and I feel the same way about HDR and over saturation.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > First and foremost should be the subject being interesting... then maybe being enhanced.. but just like boobs... going from an a cup to a c cup is good.... a to a double f... just kinda weird.
> ...



Can we start a thread called: double f stops or bigger.


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 25, 2014)

I would bet medium format shooters snicker at lowly FF shooters and the FF shooters resort to the same arguments APS-C shooters make.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 25, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


Definitely, and just to keep this post relevant to the OP - another one called: Bigger sensors and the women who love them


----------



## Larry (Feb 25, 2014)

*Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)*



koolman said:


> Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture. "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.
> 
> Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.
> 
> ...



Hi Koolman,

"totally" disagree?

You have broadened the subject from the definition of a photographer to what his subject should be, i.e., what he chooses to present, and how he chooses to present it, to the viewer. Now we are in subjectivity-land. 

I'll go back to my carpenter analogy - the carpenter may be a good or poor craftsman. He may choose to make a fine home (by YOUR standards), or some piece of woodworking "art" to take to the Burning Man Festival. Or the very same carpenter may do both on different occasions. What he chooses to "carpent", makes him no less a carpenter. ;-)

In any case, he will likely make use of the best tools available to him to do his type of creating. 

I made no mention of "digital art", and my comments about what defines a photographer, I believe, hold while discussing your preferred "realism" style.

I personally think that your preference that the photograph represent "something that the photographer saw" is reasonable, considering that digital art may readily be created on a computer alone, with no camera involved at all..

I believe that the usual expectation is that a photographer would use a camera. With that understood, I would then expect him to point the lens at something of his choosing, operate the camera as he chooses or as his ability allows, and then, using the image presented to his recording medium by the lens, complete the photograph per his personal "vision", using his "completing" tools, …the same as A. Adams and the host of acknowledged-to-be-great-photographers have (usually) done. "Usually", because there is always, among any numerous group of creators, some few "purists" who have decided that less is more. These same few might declare that the artistic fine woodworker is not a carpenter, because he decided to add some particular finish or stain, to, in his opinion' "enhance" the piece. 

I hardly think this would disqualify him as a carpenter. But the purist might be left wondering what the natural wood would look like, if the so-called carpenter hadn't "messed it up", with his post-processing.

When the definition of photographer is a person who "realistically " presents all his subject material, …if this could be perfectly done, and if numerous persons attained this level of expertise, there would be no such thing as a recognizable "style" by which to differentiate among them.

If we add the requirement that the composition be perfect ( by some arbitrary standard), that the lighting be perfect also, by the same arbitrarily decided standard, then when all was done, there would be ONE style. Any one's work would be perceptually the same as that of any other.

"Vision" would be limited by decree, and any expression of personal style, a digression, …disqualifying the offender, one would expect, as "a photographer". :-[

If the intent is more than the "accuracy" expected in photographic recording in the fields of science, medicine, archeology, etc., … if the objective is to create something pleasing to look at or display,then some degree of artistic license has to be permitted, if all work is not to be the same in presenting "Just the facts, Ma'am" ;-)

I wonder if you would consider A. A. less than a photographer, because the lighting he presents in a print of "Moonrise" (or some other work of his) wasn't REALLY as dramatic in the flesh? ( For a before-and-after example of Ansel's "post-processing" see this link:

http://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/

There is discussion on the above linked-page that will be of great interest, I'm sure, to anyone participating in or enjoying this part of this thread! Accuracy vs. Interpretation(or "Vision")

(Is a bell pepper really seen as in Weston's print without some contrivance as to lighting , and without a few darkroom touches? Set one on your table, and see if it looks the same :

http://www.edward-weston.com

It would cause somewhat of stir to declare either of these two men "not a photographer!". 

Do we think they would have used Photoshop?


----------



## Larry (Feb 25, 2014)

*Full Frame vs Crop*



jdramirez said:


> First and foremost should be the subject being interesting... then maybe being enhanced.. but just like boobs... going from an a cup to a c cup is good.... a to a double f... just kinda weird.



We are going to get in trouble wandering around like this. :

But if we're going to compare full-frame vs. crop, I've an (subjective, of course) opinion:

There are both esthetic and experiential aspects to boobology. When we consider elements beyond simply shape and appearance, I believe hand-filling and a pleasing "heft" add certain somethings. 

D - DD works for me.


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 25, 2014)

But would anyone crop boobs?


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 25, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> But would anyone crop boobs?



Shockingly yes. I had a friend who had them reduced and it felt like she got a gift from good and then proceeded to return them for store credit. 

The wife also had a friend who reduced, or cropped if you will, and I got to see them and I was unimpressed. Just... seems sad looking. 

And the sister in law... but I'm not going to talk about that.


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 25, 2014)

Oh my, the forlorn days of the enlarger....


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 25, 2014)

Nice glass shame about the body! Did you just forget to upgrade your camera when you were acquiring your L lens collection??


[/quote]

The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body. 

Roger Machin, head of Canon South Africa gave me that advise.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 25, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.
> 
> Roger Machin, head of Canon South Africa gave me that advise.



I heard that too long time ago... but did I listen... nah. I had my heart set pin the 60d and because of my lack of glass I always used my 50 f1.8. The funny thing is that when I upgraded to the f1.4, I never used it because it wasn't the best lens in my arsenal.

Now... all my lenses fight for time on my body & I feel sad when I have to leave one behind.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 25, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.
> ...


I listened and was actually berated by some "pro" photographers for having so many L lenses and a "amateur" XSi and later T2i. I didn't care, and I'm glad I waited and bought good glass first


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I listened and was actually berated by some "pro" photographers for having so many L lenses believe my point at the time is that and a "amateur" XSi and later T2i. I didn't care, and I'm glad I waited and bought good glass first



I'm trying to do the math from five years ago. I bought the 60d for 1100 and sold the lens for 300. Then I sold the xs I had for 375 resulting in an upgrade for 425. I needed something with video and I didn't want to spend $200 on a video camera and have to carry two devices around. 

So my cash in pocket was only $425, 225 if I did get a video camera. And 225 doesn't get us very far when we are talking about lenses. 

I don't want to say I regret going body first... because I simply didn't have the coin to go lenses first.


----------



## tiger82 (Feb 25, 2014)

Glass before body: How many of you shoot 200-400mm 1.4X 4.0L with a 6.2mp Digital Rebel?


----------



## Zv (Feb 26, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Nice glass shame about the body! Did you just forget to upgrade your camera when you were acquiring your L lens collection??



The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body. 

Roger Machin, head of Canon South Africa gave me that advise.
[/quote]

Finding the right camera is just as important as having a great lens to go with it. Cheap camera great lens is just the better of the two other situations. I agree better glass is important but after a while it just becomes silly when you are prepared to lay down 2k for a top of the line L lens and ignore what it's attached to. 

It's like you bought the Armani suit but are still rockin the old New Balance trainers to go with it!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Good for you! In my opinion only one of those is "pricey"...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > Larry said:
> ...



Hi Sanj...thanks for posting that, not sure who shot it, did you? It is beautiful no doubt, but I will venture a criticism...the phrase I would use is "they got happy with the black slider a bit"...I admit it creates a lot of negative space which makes the rest "pop"...but true enough, it looks hyped and unnatural. If I were doing it, I would have some shadow detail, but try to let perhaps only 30 to 40% of what is total "black" here, be black. As for the hyped color, well that's typical of what people do with digital photos these days. This one is really not all that bad though.


----------



## sanj (Feb 26, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > koolman said:
> ...



Not my photo, I just put it there to make a point that photography is not _only_ documentation but an art expression as well.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 26, 2014)

koolman said:


> Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.


Nope, that would be "journalism".

Photography is painting with light.



Sabaki said:


> The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.


That's a leftover from the film era, when the body was mostly a light-tight box for your lenses and for your sensor (film), and no one caring about quality were shooting APS.

Now, an FF body _will_ make your L lenses work better.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I thought so, just making sure...and a good point it was, especially since again, there are far more photos that commit worse transgressions than one like that, in my opinion.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 26, 2014)

Kit. said:


> That's a leftover from the film era, when the body was mostly a light-tight box for your lenses and for your sensor (film), and no one caring about quality were shooting APS.
> 
> Now, an FF body _will_ make your L lenses work better.



I still agree with the sentiment... for 2 reasons... Lenses don't depreciate quickly... so you are better off running your body into the ground (150K of actuations) because it won't really be worth that much after a few years when you try and sell it. Point in case... the 1d iii which sold for $6K and is now selling for $1k. Whereas... if you bought a few nice lenses, you can still get well more than 16% of their original value.

And you can put an L lens on an older body and still get fantastic results... depending on what you are shooting. If it is landscape or portraiture, the advances in high iso performance and AF performance are minimized and you can still get some amazing images using an older XTi. Heck... if you are still rocking the t2i, there haven't really been that many advances along the lines of the crop sensors that would warrant buying a t5i. 

When I sold my XS... it was a wash... when I sold my 60D, I lost $200 in depreciation... and when I sell my 5D mkiii, I will lose around $1000 in depreciation... which kills me. But maybe I avoid that by just using the mkiii until it dies in 10 years.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 26, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> Glass before body: How many of you shoot 200-400mm 1.4X 4.0L with a 6.2mp Digital Rebel?



How many of you pros own one of those? :


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 26, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> tiger82 said:
> 
> 
> > Glass before body: How many of you shoot 200-400mm 1.4X 4.0L with a 6.2mp Digital Rebel?
> ...



It is on my to try list... I 'd mull it over if it can ever be found in the $6000 to $7000 range.


----------



## ecka (Feb 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too , for a hobby).


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 26, 2014)

ecka said:


> If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
> I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too , for a hobby).



I don't think I was saying you should never upgrade your body... but with limited funds and the presumption of good light, you will be better off with a crop sensor plus s good L lenses versus a full frame and a 28-135.

Not to long ago a guy was asking if he should get a5d mkiii to pair with his 70-300... and everyone but me said Heck yes... I don't know if I'm clairvoyant, but I eventually got it out of him that his lens was a 75- 300, which is one of the worst lenses canon makes. 

So with the money, I'd rather spend 3000 on a 24-105, a t3i, a 70-200 f4L IS, and a 580 ex ii over the full frame alternative. And with my math... I still have enough for a tokina wide angle or some nice primes...

Full frame is great... but you really should have some lenses to complement it.

As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.

If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort. But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition. And I'm happy to oblige.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.
> 
> If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort. But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition. And I'm happy to oblige.


+1 on everything and the other hard lesson is that when you go to sell (Canon) lenses, you'll either make money, break even, or lose just a bit of money (10-20%). When you sell bodies, you will always lose money - usually 20-50% even if you keep it in mint condition. Better to upgrade a lens two or three times (i.e. 50 1.8>50 1.4>50 1.2) and upgrade your body once (T3i>5DIII) then the other way around.


----------



## ecka (Feb 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
> ...



Somehow most people think that FF is only better for low light and that it is the only advantage over APSC (or maybe they don't care about the rest), while there is actually much more than that (at least 2.5x more). Same people are most likely to support the in-camera JPG propaganda, because they don't care about the difference. If you take 5 different cameras (different brands) and get it all right in camera for shooting the same scene, you'll still get 5 different photographs. Then what? Choose the one you like best and declare all the rest a blasphemy? But do you remember that you did everything right in each camera? That makes no sense. Let's do science, not religion. 24-105L on 6D won't scream "you need something wider!".


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 26, 2014)

Boil it down. I think I understand what you are saying and then just as quickly I don't have a clue.



ecka said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...


----------



## ecka (Feb 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



I'm saying that 6D+Sigma 35/1.4 (or even 35/2 IS USM) is much better than T2i+24L'II.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 26, 2014)

I love my primes... and I shot with a 50mm f1.8 for a year or two as my primary lens... but I'm not sure on what planet someone buys a 24 mm lens as their primary do it all lens alone. No zooms... no other primes... no flashes.

And I realize what sites through the view finder is comparable... but if you give me as a beginner a pile of cash... I don't think I will go out and buy a 24mm prime.

With that 1700 I can get a combination of the following depending on what I want to shoot:

Tokina 11-16
Canon 24-70 f2.8L
Sigma 35 art
Canon 50mm f1.4
A 100mm f2.8L is
A 135 f2L
A 70-200 f4L IS
A 430 or 580 ex speedlite...

Mix and match as much as you like... and you will have greater flexibility in your photographic efforts. True the images will not be quite as nice as a full frame alternative.

I might be doing a disservice to the 24mm, but it isn't about the individual maximization of the images as much add having the tools to get the images... and a crop will get you there until you have the coin for full frame. 

I feel as though I missing something that needs to be said...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 26, 2014)

Also... I don't like the math of your example.

2650 for the 6d and the 35...
2150ish for the t2i and the 24mm...

Let's knock off 500 from the ful frame option and we are looking at a 35 f2 is.. and suddenly image quality starts to even out...


----------



## ecka (Feb 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I love my primes... and I shot with a 50mm f1.8 for a year or two as my primary lens... but I'm not sure on what planet someone buys a 24 mm lens as their primary do it all lens alone. No zooms... no other primes... no flashes.
> 
> And I realize what sites through the view finder is comparable... but if you give me as a beginner a pile of cash... I don't think I will go out and buy a 24mm prime.



There are many. X100 has 35mm equivalent lens and people love it . EOS-M has 22mm prime lens which is 35mm equivalent too. I'm using 40STM pancake a lot and it is very close to 35mm. It is a very popular standard focal length. I agree that 24L is not the lens to begin with on crop (huge, heavy, expensive), but for "glass before body" kind of thinking it may be an option.



> With that 1700 I can get a combination of the following depending on what I want to shoot:
> 
> Tokina 11-16
> Canon 24-70 f2.8L
> ...



Ok, but I choose quality over quantity. I don't need to "cover the range" and it is only one L lens less for FF, really. What you'd get from your list on APSC is:
Tokina 18-26/4.5
Canon 38-112/4.5
Sigma 56/2.2
Canon 80/2.2
A 160/4.5 IS
A 216/3.5
A 112-320/6.3 IS
Nothing impressive for the price . I have a friend who decided to add a FF camera, so he would have twice more camera/lens combinations with his current lens collection (L zooms mostly), but now I see that he is not using his 550D anymore. 5D3 is so much better, he says . Now I have to convince him to shoot RAW .



> I might be doing a disservice to the 24mm, but it isn't about the individual maximization of the images as much add having the tools to get the images... and a crop will get you there until you have the coin for full frame.
> 
> I feel as though I missing something that needs to be said...
> 
> Also... I don't like the math of your example.



That's just one of many possible examples, like FF+85/1.8USM vs Crop+50L, or FF+135L vs Crop+85L



> 2650 for the 6d and the 35...
> 2150ish for the t2i and the 24mm...



Well, you can get a used 5D2 for as low as 1k these days. My point is that you can get a much better combo for just a few hundred $ extra.



> Let's knock off 500 from the full frame option and we are looking at a 35 f2 is.. and suddenly image quality starts to even out...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 27, 2014)

I don't begrudge people the whole field of view argument with crop v. full because a 50mm is indeed like an 85mm... and I'm not sure why, but with full frame, depth of field is greater, though with comparable framing, the full frame's depth of field is thinner... 

I've heard the argument about the f/2.8 is comparable to f/4.5 (or whatever), but I didn't bother to ask what they meant.

So if I'm shooting with a 135L f/2 in moderate light and at iso 800 I'm shooting at 1/2000 of a second... that should still be the same achieved shutter speed regardless of crop or full.

And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable. So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?



ecka said:


> Ok, but I choose quality over quantity. I don't need to "cover the range" and it is only one L lens less for FF, really. What you'd get from your list on APSC is:
> Tokina 18-26/4.5
> Canon 38-112/4.5
> Sigma 56/2.2
> ...


----------



## philmoz (Feb 27, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable. So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?



DoF is dependant on the 'circle of confusion' (CoC) of the sensor, which is determined by the sensor pixel size.
Smaller sensors pixels have smaller CoC so the DoF will be narrower - all else being equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Phil.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2014)

Pixel size has absolutely nothing to do with coc.


----------



## philmoz (Feb 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Pixel size has absolutely nothing to do with coc.



Doh (temporary brain freeze), of course you are correct - I meant to say sensor size (post updated).

Phil.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I don't begrudge people the whole field of view argument with crop v. full because a 50mm is indeed like an 85mm... and I'm not sure why, but with full frame, depth of field is greater, though with comparable framing, the full frame's depth of field is thinner...
> 
> I've heard the argument about the f/2.8 is comparable to f/4.5 (or whatever), but I didn't bother to ask what they meant.
> 
> ...



Because the only fair comparison between the two images is two same sized images, to get a same sized image you have to enlarge the crop camera image more, in this instance, same lens, same settings, different framing but same sized output, the crop camera image has less dof.

People have to get it in their heads that dof is subjective and the only factors that affect it are aperture, as in the actual size of the aperture, not he number, and magnification. Make something bigger and it has less dof. Use a shorter lens from the same place and it has more dof because the same aperture value is a smaller physical size on the shorter lens and this more than overcomes the additional enlargement factor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2014)

philmoz said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Pixel size has absolutely nothing to do with coc.
> ...



Nice one Phil, I was worried we had another pixel worshiper


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2014)

Zv said:


> If the light is constant and you compare an image from a crop sensor and FF. both shot in M mode, at the same aperture and SS you'll notice the FF image to be brighter. I think it's like 2/3 of a stop. Could be more. However, in Av mode both cameras should spit out the same as the camera adjusts the SS accordingly. I did this experiment with my 5D2 and 7D. The FF gathers more light. So in low light it does make a difference. In bright sunlight that wouldn't be an issue as your SS can be whatever.



Only if your camera is faulty, exposure has nothing to do with sensor size. Absolutely nothing.


----------



## ecka (Feb 27, 2014)

philmoz said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable. So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?
> ...



That's not it. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from the same distance, you get the same DoF, but 2.5 times smaller FoV on APSC camera. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from different distances to achieve the same framing, then you get different DoF. So, when you are using 35/1.4 on APSC the FL doesn't change, it's still 35mm, but you are using it at a longer distance than on FF, but now it is cropped, so the FoV is 56mm equivalent and that's why you are getting deeper DoF. In other words, you are cropping 56mm FoV out of 35mm FoV shot at a longer distance.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2014)

ecka said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Kit. said:
> ...



"marriage without sex"...isn't that just "marriage"?


----------



## Zv (Feb 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > If the light is constant and you compare an image from a crop sensor and FF. both shot in M mode, at the same aperture and SS you'll notice the FF image to be brighter. I think it's like 2/3 of a stop. Could be more. However, in Av mode both cameras should spit out the same as the camera adjusts the SS accordingly. I did this experiment with my 5D2 and 7D. The FF gathers more light. So in low light it does make a difference. In bright sunlight that wouldn't be an issue as your SS can be whatever.
> ...



I see. Could it be due to the larger pixels then? 

Edit - I am talking like a crazy person, please ignore my stupidity.


----------



## koolman (Feb 27, 2014)

*Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)*



Larry said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture. "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.
> ...



Dear Larry,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

The web is loaded with very skilled photographers pictures - in which we can easily identify that the "picture" we are viewing - is NOT a photograph of something real - but a photograph that was taken "to the next level" and changed into something I would call "digital art".

I am not discussing the what label I would use for the person who created this picture. He or She may well be a world class photographer. I am saying, that to my mind, the result is not a photograph but a picture, and reflects PP skills more then VISION.

Look any pro photographer selling his work, is coerced to doctor up his photos- so the client will be impressed. 

PP is so advanced, easily obtained, and easy to use - that we are all tempted to use it!

The results are stunning. The client does not care about how we did it.

However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design.


----------



## ecka (Feb 27, 2014)

*Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)*



koolman said:


> Dear Larry,
> 
> Thank you for your detailed reply.
> 
> ...



Is there any camera that can capture _a real photograph_ by your standards? I don't think so. Human vision has much wider dynamic range than any photographic system these days, including film. You can fake it in PP (that's what I'm trying to do most of the time). For me, photography is about capturing information about the real world. Then by manipulating it in PP I can either purify the true data (make it look like I saw it with my own eyes), or add some false information (which would make it a "digital art"). So let's be honest, there is always some amount of false information in all photographs. There is no such thing as a _real photograph_. You can only decide for yourself if the image contains enough information to call it a photograph.


----------



## Northstar (Feb 27, 2014)

Zv said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Zv...my 5d3 and 1dx always seem to underexpose by 1/4 stop if I let the camera choose the exposure. Different cameras expose differently even in manual with the same settings. Maybe the reasons are technical design differences, manufacturing allowances, product manager goals/ objectives for marketing the camera...I don't have the answer, maybe someone else does.


----------



## ecka (Feb 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Maybe, can't confirm yet .


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 27, 2014)

ecka said:


> Maybe, can't confirm yet .



Yeah... he's right.


----------



## sanj (Feb 27, 2014)

Zv said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I don't begrudge people the whole field of view argument with crop v. full because a 50mm is indeed like an 85mm... and I'm not sure why, but with full frame, depth of field is greater, though with comparable framing, the full frame's depth of field is thinner...
> ...



Huh?


----------



## Zv (Feb 27, 2014)

sanj said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Sorry, I may have been wrong. Never mind. I'll edit the post. Today I learned .....


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 27, 2014)

I'm stool a little confused... but I'm glad the topic of conversation has gone back to full v crop and how we measure the difference... having said that... I'm still just as confused as when I first posed the question...


----------



## ecka (Feb 27, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm stool a little confused... but I'm glad the topic of conversation has gone back to full v crop and how we measure the difference... having said that... I'm still just as confused as when I first posed the question...



Maybe you are asking the wrong question?


----------



## unfocused (Feb 27, 2014)

ecka said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still a little confused... but I'm glad the topic of conversation has gone back to full v crop and how we measure the difference... having said that... I'm still just as confused as when I first posed the question...
> ...



Or more accurately, maybe because there is no correct answer...just never-ending commentary on web forums from people who are convinced they are right, when if they would just listen they would know that *I am* the one who is right.


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 27, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm stool a little confused... but I'm glad the topic of conversation has gone back to full v crop and how we measure the difference... having said that... I'm still just as confused as when I first posed the question...



If I understand the question, see if this helps make sense of it:

Depth of field is affected by two things: absolute aperture and subject magnification. In terms of exposure, sensor size doesn't change anything, the whole "2.8 on crop is like 4.5 on FF" only refers to DoF. 

If you took a picture, with a given aperture and subject distance, on FF and crop, you would get the same depth of field on both, just framed differently. (The FF image would have a wider angle of view.) if you framed them identically, your subject distance would have to change, therefore changing depth of field as well. 

I just don't worry about it, as I'm quite happy with my 7d and the depth of field it gives me. 

Edited to steal PBD's words, since I had ignored focal length.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2014)

bseitz234 said:


> Depth of field is affected by two things: aperture and subject distance.



No, dof is affected by two things, aperture size (not number) and subject magnification. 

A 17mm and 200mm shot from the same place with the same aperture value have different dof, your statement says they would be the same.


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > Depth of field is affected by two things: aperture and subject distance.
> ...



Ok good point. I was taking FL as static, basically trying to distinguish lens from sensor. But that is more accurate, I will edit.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 27, 2014)

*Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)*



koolman said:


> However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design.



Where has all that crop vs FF discussion gone? 
I understand PP is a philosophical rather than technical argument and that there will be no winner. 
Take for instance David Nightingale's B&W work. It's terrific. (I highly recommend this course of his: https://www.udemy.com/the-art-of-black-and-white-photography/) He manages to get B&W images that really stand out, even though they're not accurate representations of the real scene. There's a dull photo of a wrecked ship that he converts to B&W with such a dramatic sky that you think it's Noah's ark and the flood is about to come. It's far from an accurate representation, but it looks rather good. Right? Wrong? I don't care.
On the other hand, I've learned through the years that correcting in PS is not my thing. I'm not into removing power lines from an image; it feels (to me!) like cheating. I do crop to hide a few things, however... 
To each his own, but to me it works like this: I like PP when it helps you get something that you could not achieve in camera, but I'm not fond of it for "correcting" things.
I like this one very much, from Zack Arias: “If you find yourself out shooting a client and you’re sayin’ in your head ‘oh I’ll just fix that later in photoshop’ stop what you’re doing and slap yourself as hard as you can.’”
Cheers
Daniel


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2014)

bseitz234 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > bseitz234 said:
> ...



Well we still aren't quite there. If you take the same picture from the same place with the same lens and settings and on a crop and ff cameras, then make two prints the same size, the image is different (obviously) and the dof is less in the crop camera image. 

If you have two different sized prints, such that the subjects were the same size then the dof would be the same from both cameras.

DOF is dependent on magnification, to get a same sized print you have to enlarge the crop camera more so it has less dof.

It isn't until people accept that dof is subjective and dependent on magnification, that it clicks that crop cameras can have, more, less, or the same, dof as a ff camera.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Maybe it will click tomorrow... but tonight... I'm enjoying my gambling winnings from a triple overtime game.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > Depth of field is affected by two things: aperture and subject distance.
> ...


DoF is affected by 3 things:
1. entrance pupil ("aperture") size - *D*,
2. distance from the plane of focus (i.e. from the plane of an object we are shooting) to the entrance pupil - *L*,
3. diameter of the acceptable unsharpness measured in the plane of focus (i.e. as a property of the object we are shooting) - *d*.

If *lf* is front DoF and *lb* is back DoF, then:

*(L-lf) / D = lf / d
(L+lb) / D = lb / d*

If *lf* and *lb* are much smaller than *L* (as in macro), then *lb ~= lf ~= L * d / D*.

That can be derived from simple geometrical optics if we study where rays passing through a point in the front or the back DoF plane cross the plane of focus and the entrance pupil plane. No information about what happens behind the lens entrance pupil (except the information that is already contained in the choice of *d*) is actually needed or relevant.

The difference in the DoF of 17mm and 200mm lenses (other than from the obvious difference in *D*) comes from the fact that *d* acceptable for shooting most "17mm" subjects (sometimes up to centimeters) is unacceptable for shooting most "200mm" subjects (usually well below a millimeter, as we need to resolve hair/fabric structure).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2014)

Kit. said:


> DoF is affected by 3 things:
> 1. entrance pupil ("aperture") size - *D*,
> 2. distance from the plane of focus (i.e. from the plane of an object we are shooting) to the entrance pupil - *L*,
> 3. diameter of the acceptable unsharpness measured in the plane of focus (i.e. as a property of the object we are shooting) - *d*.
> ...



By attributing the DoF difference between a 17mm lens and a 200mm lens at the same distance to *d*, you're suggesting that *D*, the physical diameter of the aperture, is the same for a 17mm lens and a 200mm lens set to the same f/stop. That's clearly not the case - and it's that latter difference that accounts for the DoF differential between 17mm f/4 and 200mm f/4 at the same subject distance. 

I suppose you could hold *D* constant (for example, comparing 17mm f/2.8 with 200mm f/32 would get you close), but I'm not sure why you would want to do that.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 28, 2014)

Yes, I've added it in the edition of my post after the one you are quoting. Still, the difference in *D* alone is not enough to explain the difference in acceptable DoF of wide-angle and telephoto shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2014)

Kit. said:


> Yes, I've added it in the edition of my post after the one you are quoting. Still, the difference in *D* alone is not enough to explain the difference in acceptable DoF of wide-angle and telephoto shots.



The difference in DoF based on *D* alone between 17mm f/4 and 200mm f/4 is massive. 17mm f/4 with a subject 20 feet away yields a DoF extending from 14 feet in front of the subject to infinity, whereas 200mm f/4 with a subject at 20 feet yields a DoF that extends approxiamtely 4 inches on either side of the subject. Not is that difference (e.g. 8" vs. infinity) more than sufficient to explain the difference in DoF, the difference is so great that *d* becomes basically irrelevant. 

I also have to disagree with the idea that, "_*d* acceptable for shooting most "17mm" subjects (sometimes up to centimeters) is unacceptable for shooting most "200mm" subjects (usually well below a millimeter, as we need to resolve hair/fabric structure)._" One of the most efective uses of wide angle lenses (and particularly ultrawide lenses) is with extremely close subjects in the foreground, taking advantage of the perspective distortion that results from close subject placement to emphasize that subject within the wide FoV. In that case, I want the foreground subject to be as sharp as possible (although there's a practical limit on that with the resolution delivered by most ultrawide lenses, particularly if the subject is not at the center of the frame).


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> One of the most efective uses of wide angle lenses (and particularly ultrawide lenses) is with extremely close subjects in the foreground, taking advantage of the perspective distortion that results from close subject placement to emphasize that subject within the wide FoV. In that case, I want the foreground subject to be as sharp as possible *(although there's a practical limit on that with the resolution delivered by most ultrawide lenses, particularly if the subject is not at the center of the frame).*



That is one very cool and under appreciated uses for shift in the TS-E's, shift so that the important part is covered by the center (or close to) of the image circle. It also works with projection distortion, you can place a person on the extreme edge of a 17mm TS-E shot and if you have shifted they have no distortion.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I've added it in the edition of my post after the one you are quoting. Still, the difference in *D* alone is not enough to explain the difference in acceptable DoF of wide-angle and telephoto shots.
> ...


That's for the calculations based on the same circle of confusion, *c* (0.03mm). These setups have different magnifications, *M* (1/28 for 200mm, and 1/350 for 17mm), and as *c = d * M*, that gives us *d200mm* = 0.84mm and *d17mm* = 10.5mm. That's a huge difference in *d*.

If we require the 1mm *d* for our 17mm image, the DoF will extend 6ft, and not 14, on the front, and 18ft, and not infinity, on the back.



neuroanatomist said:


> I also have to disagree with the idea that, "_*d* acceptable for shooting most "17mm" subjects (sometimes up to centimeters) is unacceptable for shooting most "200mm" subjects (usually well below a millimeter, as we need to resolve hair/fabric structure)._" One of the most efective uses of wide angle lenses (and particularly ultrawide lenses) is with extremely close subjects in the foreground, taking advantage of the perspective distortion that results from close subject placement to emphasize that subject within the wide FoV. In that case, I want the foreground subject to be as sharp as possible (although there's a practical limit on that with the resolution delivered by most ultrawide lenses, particularly if the subject is not at the center of the frame).


That's what we use _tilt_ for.

However, in your calculations above it's considered OK to have a dot in the front plane of "DoF" rendered as a 1cm blob over the plane of focus.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2014)

Kit. said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > bseitz234 said:
> ...



As for this, aside from the corrected error, I would again say DOF is created by two factors, aperture size, not number (I have been consistent with that) and magnification. What then defines the subjective aspect of dof is the decision on CoC size as related to reproduction size (magnification), viewing distance (magnification), and viewer acuity (taken to be "average"). 

There is no definitive size for CoC, and no definitive DOF, they are subjective. Mostly CoC is taking some of the subjectivity out of the the equation by normalising different formats, print sizes, and viewing distances and using "average eyesight" to do it.

From a practical point of view CoC figures are moot, people never view from "the correct" distance, they don't intuitively think as they move back and forth whist looking at a print or screen the DoF is changing, but it is.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2014)

Kit. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Kit. said:
> ...



If the aperture _value_ is consistent crop the 17mm image to the 200mm image and you then have the same magnification, but very different dof. Change the aperture value to give yourself the same aperture area and crop and the DOF is the same.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

Here are some good articles from the Luminous Landscape related to this discussion:

A very technical article about this subject:
Full sized vs. Crop Sensors

A nice photo comparison to bust a myth about DOF and lens length:
Do Wide Angle Lenses Really Have Greater Depth of Field Than Telephotos?

Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
The Full Frame Myth


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> As for this, aside from the corrected error, I would again say DOF is created by two factors, aperture size, not number (I have been consistent with that) and magnification. What then defines the subjective aspect of dof is the decision on CoC size as related to reproduction size (magnification), viewing distance (magnification), and viewer acuity (taken to be "average").
> 
> There is no definitive size for CoC, and no definitive DOF, they are subjective. Mostly CoC is taking some of the subjectivity out of the the equation by normalising different formats, print sizes, and viewing distances and using "average eyesight" to do it.
> 
> From a practical point of view CoC figures are moot, people never view from "the correct" distance, they don't intuitively think as they move back and forth whist looking at a print or screen the DoF is changing, but it is.



Exactly - which is why we ignore *d* in the above.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 28, 2014)

Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?



mackguyver said:


> Here are some good articles from the Luminous Landscape related to this discussion:
> 
> A very technical article about this subject:
> Full sized vs. Crop Sensors
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL, I feel the same way! I've always thought the "circle of confusion" was appropriately named!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
> The Full Frame Myth



Interesting musings. His viewpoint seems to be that current APS-C sensors _can_ deliver IQ on par with FF sensors in many situations - and that's true. But the converse is that FF at it's worst is equivalent to APS-C, and in many situations, it's better. 

Also, aside from the IQ considerations, can I get DoF from an APS-C sensor equivalent to f/1.2 on a FF sensor with the same framing and perspective? No. Likewise, a significant portion of my shots are at ISO 3200 or higher, and APS-C is significantly inferior to FF in terms of noise at those high ISO settings. 

From a practical level, we buy cameras and not sensors. There is not an APS-C dSLR that can deliver 12 fps or has the most advanced AF and metering systems that Canon has to offer.

So I keep coming back to my earlier point: the primary advantage of APS-C sensors, and the cameras in which they are used, is that they cost less.


----------



## Kerry B (Feb 28, 2014)

With good light and a decent lens a crop sensor such as the one on the 7D can produce excellent images. Little owl for example.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> With good light and a decent lens a crop sensor such as the one on the 7D can produce excellent images. Little owl for example.


I would agree 100% and excellent shot! Having had crop sensors longer than FF, most of my favorite shots are from crop sensors, too


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?



You don't. Look at these three images and tell me what you don't get.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> With good light and a decent lens a crop sensor such as the one on the 7D can produce excellent images. Little owl for example.



I don't believe anybody has said otherwise.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?
> ...



I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I would again say DOF is created by two factors, aperture size, not number (I have been consistent with that) and magnification. What then defines the subjective aspect of dof is the decision on CoC size as related to reproduction size (magnification), viewing distance (magnification), and viewer acuity (taken to be "average").


My idea was to get rid of parameters depending on sensor format (magnification and CoC size) in the formula for DoF, and at the same time to replace CoC with something that _has_ physical sense in the scene we are capturing. My approach is not necessarily the best way to _calculate_ DoF, but is a very good one to _understand_ it. In particular, it easily shows when cropping reduces the perceived DoF, and when it doesn't.



privatebydesign said:


> There is no definitive size for CoC, and no definitive DOF, they are subjective. Mostly CoC is taking some of the subjectivity out of the the equation by normalising different formats, print sizes, and viewing distances and using "average eyesight" to do it.


That's the main problem with CoC. It has no easily understandable meaning in the context of the original subject, and it has no easily understandable meaning in the context of the final product either.

Divide CoC size by magnification - and you get a value that has such meaning.

It shouldn't be interpreted as if sensor-side resolution limits have no meaning at all. Of course, you cannot resolve a feature of an original object that is smaller than pixel size divided by magnification. But it's not a DoF problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.



Focal length _can_ affect DoF - it just depends on what else you do or do not hold constant. If you change focal length without changing subject distance, you're changing DoF. If you change subject distance without changing focal length, you're changing DoF. In each case, you're changing the magnification - the size of the subject. But if you keep the size of the subject constant (e.g., move closer as the focal length gets shorter), then DoF remains constant for a given aperture - that's why the statement that DoF depends on magnification and aperture is a better way to phrase it.

Put another way, DoF is determined by magnification and aperture, and magnification is determined by focal length and subjet distance.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.
> ...



I'm at work so I skimmed it... but I'll give it a real look when I'm free from my shackles.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Again, my point is that we can consider 1cm as "still sharp" on the "17mm" full image above, but we cannot afford that on a "200mm" crop from the same "17mm" image.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Focal length is a function of magnification, change magnification and you change dof. So, if you shoot from the same place with different focal lengths then make same sized prints with the same aperture value the dof is different. The focal length changed the magnification so it did affect dof. 

If you use a shorter focal length and move forwards to keep the subject the same size in the viewfinder and use the same aperture value, the dof will be the same because the subject magnification is the same, but the perspective will be different. As per the second LL ink above.

If you shoot different formats from the same place you need to change the focal length to get the same fov and change the aperture value to give the same actual physical aperture and the dof is the same. Did you notice in the above example that 75mm/f2.8 = 26.8mm, 100mm/f3.5=28.6mm and 150mm/f5.6=26.8mm, all three apertures are basically the same actual physical size. In this instance focal length, in and of itself, did not affect dof, as different focal lengths from the same place took images with the same dof.

You need to disassociate dof from focal length, think magnification and it gets a little simpler.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


As long as you capture
*the same scene* (with the same subject distance and angle of view)
through the *the lens entrance pupil of the same size*,
and expect the *same sharpness from the image on your final medium* (display or print),
it doesn't matter what focal length you are using, you will get the same DoF.

However, in order _to capture the same scene_, you will be required to use a particular focal length depending on the size of the sensor area you are going to use to capture the picture.


----------



## ecka (Feb 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
> ...



+1

Smaller pixels tend to produce more false color (noise, grain, bayer demosaicking errors, rough color gradation patterns). Therefore, APS-C requires better lighting conditions to achieve the IQ level similar to same resolution FF sensor ... and perhaps a better lens, which would make the price close to FF combo (it is sad to watch m4/3 users being robbed by Pana, Oly and Leica). In perfect lighting conditions, the difference may be negligible.


----------



## Kerry B (Feb 28, 2014)

Ecka you are right. In the real world with good light I would not hesitate to use a crop sensor camera with a good lens. The problem is noise at high ISO when light levels drop. This is where a full frame body comes into its own. The maximum ISO I use on my 7D is 800 whereas on my 5Dmk111 I will go to 4000 ISO. I do not rely on test charts to tell me what the best images are from a camera, I rely on experience and the final image displayed on my computer.


----------



## ecka (Feb 28, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> Ecka you are right. In the real world with good light I would not hesitate to use a crop sensor camera with a good lens. The problem is noise at high ISO when light levels drop. This is where a full frame body comes into its own. The maximum ISO I use on my 7D is 800 whereas on my 5Dmk111 I will go to 4000 ISO. I do not rely on test charts to tell me what the best images are from a camera, I rely on experience and the final image displayed on my computer.



Actually, I was talking about low ISO , but yes, FF wins the high ISO battle by 2 stops.


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 3, 2014)

So to further my question:

16-35mm f/2.8 L II on a 5D3 Vs 10-22mm on a 70D, which theoretically would give the better image?


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 3, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> 16-35mm f/2.8 L II on a 5D3 Vs 10-22mm on a 70D, which theoretically would give the better image?



The often criticized "problem" of current Canon ff lenses is the lack of corner performance esp. wide open (if you care about that). Ignoring that, the ff sensor can always generate higher res yadayadayada (see posts above), this is visible in the iso crop.

Another potential fact to keep in mind is that you can buy nearly 3x 70d+10-22 for 1x 5d3+16-35 :->

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=271&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> So to further my question:
> 
> 16-35mm f/2.8 L II on a 5D3 Vs 10-22mm on a 70D, which theoretically would give the better image?



The 16-35 on FF, which is why I sold my 10-22 after getting the 16-35 II. The 10-22 will have less barrel distortion at the wide end, the FF/16-35 image would still be sharper after correction. 

Of course, for the price of the 5DIII+16-35 II, you could buy two 70D bodies and four 10-22 lenses...


----------



## ecka (Mar 3, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > 16-35mm f/2.8 L II on a 5D3 Vs 10-22mm on a 70D, which theoretically would give the better image?
> ...



For fair comparison it should be [email protected]/5.6 vs [email protected]/3.5, or at least choose the best performing aperture number from each lens. "Wide open" vs "wide open" is pointless.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 3, 2014)

ecka said:


> "Wide open" vs "wide open" is pointless.



I see your point, but I beg to differ concerning the conclusion: If you want the thinnest dof (or fastest speed) with any lens/camera combination you'll use "wide open" a lot in reality, so it's perfectly valid to look at this performance no matter the synthetic equivalence.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 3, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > "Wide open" vs "wide open" is pointless.
> ...


+1 and another comparison that is pretty valid - the 16-35 II vs. the Tokina 11-16, both at f/2.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=718&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Skulker (Mar 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.
> ...



A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. Including some who think they know better in this thread. ;D Its shown quite well in this article.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml


----------



## Skulker (Mar 3, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> So to further my question:
> 
> 16-35mm f/2.8 L II on a 5D3 Vs 10-22mm on a 70D, which theoretically would give the better image?



Are you photographing apples or oranges?


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 3, 2014)

Skulker said:


> A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. Including some who think they know better in this thread. ;D Its shown quite well in this article.
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml



Note that no where in the luminous landscape article did the guy refer to subject isolation.


----------



## wsheldon (Mar 3, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. Including some who think they know better in this thread. ;D Its shown quite well in this article.
> ...



Exactly my thought. But interesting illustration that the DOF and therefore amount of OOF blur of objects in the background is determined by aperture and magnification regardless of how large or small they are rendered by the lens perspective.


----------



## Skulker (Mar 3, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. Including some who think they know better in this thread. ;D Its shown quite well in this article.
> ...



you are, I'm sure, entirely correct, although i can't say i bothered to check. Also i don't belive he mentioned a lot of other things, probably because they were not related to what he was talking about.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 3, 2014)

Skulker said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


I don't see how the context of the article would contradict anything said in this thread.

The article studies "zooming by feet", while keeping the same sensor format.

The thread discusses changing sensor formats, while keeping the perspective intact.


----------



## Skulker (Mar 3, 2014)

Kit. said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm not sure if you are thinking that I claimed or implied that "the context of the article would contradict anything said in this thread". Au contraire what I was saying was that some people don't seem to grasp this simple relationship, the subject of the article I linked to. It is rather counter intuitive and many people have not grasped the link. I thought the article was a good clear explanation that restricted itself to a relevant and concise description, without going of at a tangent into irrelevant areas as so many do. It was jdramirez who questioned what someone had said. (and pleased don't read that to be a criticism of jdramirez from my point of view he was just asking for clarification and there is nothing wrong with that.)


----------



## Cory (Mar 3, 2014)

If it helps with the discussion - tried a Sigma 18-35 yesterday at a workshop on my 70D and was thoroughly blown away. So thoroughly that I ordered one today.


----------



## candc (Mar 4, 2014)

Cory said:


> If it helps with the discussion - tried a Sigma 18-35 yesterday at a workshop on my 70D and was thoroughly blown away. So thoroughly that I ordered one today.



Its a smashing lens, the best one I have but I never use it because I always seem to shoot ultrawide or super telephoto, I just don't seem to use the mid fl much, if you do then this is the best one there is for aps-c.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 4, 2014)

Skulker said:


> I'm not sure if you are thinking that I claimed or implied that "the context of the article would contradict anything said in this thread". Au contraire what I was saying was that some people don't seem to grasp this simple relationship, the subject of the article I linked to. It is rather counter intuitive and many people have not grasped the link. I thought the article was a good clear explanation that restricted itself to a relevant and concise description, without going of at a tangent into irrelevant areas as so many do. It was jdramirez who questioned what someone had said. (and pleased don't read that to be a criticism of jdramirez from my point of view he was just asking for clarification and there is nothing wrong with that.)



I'm still wrapping my head around all of this. I was under the impression that dof was dictated by aperture, distance to your subject, and focal length... and then there is the full frame v. crop... where full frame has a slightly more dof field all things being equal... but if focal length isn't a factor... well...

And then I was reading something about shooting video a few months back... and they made a point that instead of shooting at 35 or 40mm on a zoom lens... use the larger depth of field when @ 24mm and you don't have to worry about dof as much.

But if I'm framing my subjects identically... then that advice is flawed. 

And there are so many (what feels like differing opinions) opinions from people whose opinions I respect... that it is hard to say what is or is not accurate. Do I trust this person... or this person... or neither... 

I'm just going to say screw it and shoot everything at minimum focusing distance and wide open. I don't care if all of my subjects are in focus... seriously... what do they expect... not to be blurry?


----------



## ahab1372 (Mar 4, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. Including some who think they know better in this thread. ;D Its shown quite well in this article.
> ...


DOF and subject isolation (or background blur - or do you mean something else?) are not necessarily the same. 
Taking pictures with a short focal length and short subject distance vs with a long focal length and longer subject distance (for the same framing, using the same camera and aperture) results in the same dof, but the latter will give you a much blurrier background.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 4, 2014)

Skulker said:


> I'm not sure if you are thinking that I claimed or implied that "the context of the article would contradict anything said in this thread".


Content, sorry, but anyway.



Skulker said:


> Au contraire what I was saying was that some people don't seem to grasp this simple relationship, the subject of the article I linked to. It is rather counter intuitive and many people have not grasped the link.


Well, it's probably counter intuitive because it's wrong in general. It only works when the distance to the subject is much shorter than hyperfocal.



Skulker said:


> I thought the article was a good clear explanation that restricted itself to a relevant and concise description, without going of at a tangent into irrelevant areas as so many do.


The article itself belongs to an irrelevant area. It's a piece of trivia that is good to know when you choose a lens for your macro work (DoF vs. background separation), but it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.


----------



## ecka (Mar 4, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > "Wide open" vs "wide open" is pointless.
> ...



Look? - yes. Compare? - no. If you want the thinnest dof, then you should get a FF camera in the first place. The fact that 10-22 can't do f/1.8 (which is the FF equivalent for f/2.8 ) doesn't justify your logic. There is no f/1.8 UWA for APSC (for now, maybe the mighty Sigma will make one later  ) and that's another reason to go FF.


----------



## ecka (Mar 4, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...



How about - "For the same magnification of the area in focus (different lenses, different distances), longer focal length at the same aperture will give you same DoF and more background magnification".


----------



## ahab1372 (Mar 4, 2014)

ecka said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


Yes. Or, in simple statements, which I can remember easier  :
The longer the lens at the same f, the more blur, but same dof.
The smaller the f at the same mm, the more blur, and less dof.
(assuming the same framing)


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 4, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > ahab1372 said:
> ...



My point is that the article deals with pure theory of one aspect, sets up an experiment to prove that theory, ( correctly ) but then does nothing to put this into practical context, creating the real possibility of leaving someone who is new to photography, but trying to learn, more confused about what they find in practice. 

That's all. There are people who post on CR who are better at putting pure physics into practical context.


----------



## ahab1372 (Mar 4, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> My point is that the article deals with pure theory of one aspect, sets up an experiment to prove that theory, ( correctly ) but then does nothing to put this into practical context, creating the real possibility of leaving someone who is new to photography, but trying to learn, more confused about what they find in practice.
> 
> That's all. There are people who post on CR who are better at putting pure physics into practical context.


True, someone new to photography might wonder "what's the point?". I haven't read a lot on LL, but my feel is that that is true for most of their articles.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 4, 2014)

It is just magnification and aperture, once you accept that, however convoluted the route to getting there, then it is easier on the mind.

Start to think magnification and aperture and all the inconsistencies and complications fall away.


----------



## ecka (Mar 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It is just magnification and aperture, once you accept that, however convoluted the route to getting there, then it is easier on the mind.
> 
> Start to think magnification and aperture and all the inconsistencies and complications fall away.



Well, there are other things involved in "magnification" which are not taken into account by most people who are trying to learn how things actually work, so it may be an oversimplification. This rule may not work that well when shooting something farther away, because UWA lenses would go hyperfocal, while the tele lens would still produce some blur in the background (due to stronger magnification) and that's the rare situation when the CoC thing becomes important before you actually take a picture. You have to take the convoluted route first, and then, if you survive , you can calculate using the magnification and aperture, because you'll know the exceptions.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 4, 2014)

So the only important bit is to educate people on the apparently simple concept of magnification.

At the very essence of all this is: 

1. How big is the object as you now see it in relation to how big it is in real life.
2. How big was the aperture opening.

The first allows for everything involved in the reproduction; focal length, distance to object, coc, sensor size, crop, print or screen size, and viewing distance. Each of those affects the magnification. Plugging these values into a dof calculator just allows it to calculate the magnification taking the print or screen size and viewing distance as standards for a set CoC, some calculators actually allow you to change the CoC and magically your DOF changes, even though the image is already taken.

The second dictates the amount of blur in relation to the magnification.

Hyperfocal is a side issue with no merit, stuff falling within the hyperfocal is still not as sharp as the plane of focus. magnify it the same and it is just as blurred (try it with the images on the LL link, I did for a thread a long time ago). Indeed lenses marked hyperfocal scales are historically at least one stop wider than accepted norm CoC figures because they used a different value to calculate them. But the important bit is that hyperfocal is just another manifestation of magnification, it isn't sharp, it is just small enough to give the illusion of sharp.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 4, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm just going to say screw it and shoot everything at minimum focusing distance and wide open. I don't care if all of my subjects are in focus... seriously... what do they expect... not to be blurry?



http://www.27bslash6.com/photography.html


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 4, 2014)

sdsr said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just going to say screw it and shoot everything at minimum focusing distance and wide open. I don't care if all of my subjects are in focus... seriously... what do they expect... not to be blurry?
> ...



I enjoyed that very much.


----------



## ecka (Mar 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> So the only important bit is to educate people on the apparently simple concept of magnification.
> 
> At the very essence of all this is:
> 
> ...



It is all about the illusion of sharp. The actual plane of focus is always at it's thinest, which is the diffraction limit of a lens. However, when the CoC becomes as small as a single pixel of your camera sensor, it is perfectly sharp from that point and smaller. That's how you gain the depth (of field  ). You will cross the line when it is impossible to magnify it enough, because the resolution is too low.


----------



## Northstar (Mar 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It is just magnification and aperture, once you accept that, however convoluted the route to getting there, then it is easier on the mind.
> 
> Start to think magnification and aperture and all the inconsistencies and complications fall away.



PBD....you're right, i had always thought of the three.... focal length, distance to subject, aperture....but when i read what you wrote, "start to think magnification and aperture" only....you're right, it's easier to think of it that way.

thanks,
north


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2014)

Northstar said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It is just magnification and aperture, once you accept that, however convoluted the route to getting there, then it is easier on the mind.
> ...



Glad it helped, t least one person.


----------

