# Crop vs FF for landscape photography



## Corylus (Dec 12, 2012)

So I was wondering, if higher pixel density is useful for landscape photos, would the 7D be a more useful tool for the job than say the 5Ds or 6D. As I understand it (which may not be very well...) the shallower DOF with FF is no advantage and neither is high ISO capabilities if shooting with good ambient light (which most landscape shots tend to have I think).

I ask because i want to take more landscape shots. I currently own a 40D and am thinking of getting a 10-22mm. However, i will prob upgrade from the 40D in the new year (once we know what's happening with the 7D line) and may move to full frame (which would make the 10-22 redundant).

My first post btw - thanks all


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 12, 2012)

Welcome to the forums! If you've been reading a while, you'll see most of us tend to be pretty civil and helpful 

I think the other thing is that there tends to be better quality lenses for super-wide. I know the 10-22 is pretty good, but I believe the 16-35 is at least as good with better build quality, and the 14L is pretty good, and the 17mm T-S is phenomenal from what I understand. 

If you have good lighting, I'd actually go for the 5d2 or 6d, as the 5d2 has a bit of an edge in low ISO over the 5d3 I believe, and I think the 6d performs pretty good, although I haven't done much research on it over the 5d2 with IQ. 

Note: I don't really shoot landscapes, so I probably am not the most qualified person to reply to this


----------



## inter211 (Dec 12, 2012)

I would recommend going FF (5Ds or 6D) for landscape. I primarily shoot landscapes and went from a 7D to a 5D2. From that switch I could tell that the 5D2 images were cleaner and crisper across all ISO ranges (even low ISO). Also, the FF cameras offer ISO-50 which comes quite handy at times when longer exposures are needed to smoothen out the scene. The L-lenses are also optimized for FF in terms of focal length and the weather sealing combo of L-lens + FF bodies help when outdoors in nature shooting landscapes. My advice...go FF.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 13, 2012)

Corylus said:


> So I was wondering, if higher pixel density is useful for landscape photos, would the 7D be a more useful tool for the job than say the 5Ds or 6D.



Higher pixel density is not more useful for landscape photos because you are typically not telephoto limited. You can use telephotos for landscape shots, but you typically end up using wide angle, ultra wide angle, and shorter telephoto lengths when you do use them. Higher pixel density comes into play when you need more reach then you can achieve with your longest telephoto, which is typically sports and wildlife.

On the flip side, contrary to the many claims you will hear, right now in the Canon lineup a 36x24 sensor is also not more useful for landscape photography *UNLESS* you own and use the T/S wide angle lenses. You will hear all day long how FF offers better image quality at low ISO. It does not, and you can demonstrate this all day long by presenting unlabeled large prints from both (or pixel crops online) and watch while FF fans stumble trying to guess which is which. They never can.

The Nikon D800 is the only DSLR which currently blends a FF sensor with crop sensor like pixel density for 36 MP, and that is useful for landscape photography if you are making large prints.

Another note: diffraction does not impact any format more than another for the same FoV/DoF. So there's no real deep DoF advantage for crop.

What does all this mean? Buy your crop lens if you want it. Don't worry about FF for landscapes until Canon produces a high resolution FF. (Or until you can afford $2k T/S lenses.) Even if you do decide to go FF, you can sell the lens for not much less than you paid for it.

Oh yeah: take a long, hard took at the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It has the optical IQ of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> Pn the flip side, contrary to the many claims you will hear, right now in the Canon lineup a 36x24 sensor is also not more useful for landscape photography *UNLESS* you own and use the T/S wide angle lenses. You will hear all day long how FF offers better image quality at low ISO. It does not, and you can demonstrate this all day long by presenting unlabeled large prints from both (or pixel crops online) and watch while FF fans stumble trying to guess which is which. They never can.



Who is 'they'? Here's what I can tell you. I took a series of paired, identically framed shots shots with the 7D and 1D X, using either the 24-105L or the 70-200/2.8L IS II, using the zoom to compensate for the effect sensor size on FoV (meaning same distance, so same framing and same perspective for each pair). I shot about a dozen paired images like that, some landscapes, some architecture, and a couple of close-up flower/plant shots with the 24-105. I processed them equivalently, then showed the paired images to my wife, scaled down to 3.7 MP (full screen on an Apple Thunderbolt Display), and asked her which she liked better. For 11 of the 12 shots, she picked the 1D X image. Subjective and completely anecdotal? Yes. But subjectively and anecdotally, at least, the 'FF mystique' is real.


----------



## SPL (Dec 13, 2012)

I absolutely agree with Neuro, there is just something about an image shot with FF.


----------



## iMagic (Dec 13, 2012)

I have done landscape both with 7d and 5d using the same scene. No comparison. FF is miles ahead.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Pn the flip side, contrary to the many claims you will hear, right now in the Canon lineup a 36x24 sensor is also not more useful for landscape photography *UNLESS* you own and use the T/S wide angle lenses. You will hear all day long how FF offers better image quality at low ISO. It does not, and you can demonstrate this all day long by presenting unlabeled large prints from both (or pixel crops online) and watch while FF fans stumble trying to guess which is which. They never can.
> ...



And neuro strikes again. But this is why we all love him, because he runs the tests we are too lazy to do ourselves


----------



## katwil (Dec 13, 2012)

I prefer my 5DII to my 7D for landscape photography. You mentioned possibly getting a 10-22, and another poster provided feedback on the 16-35. From my limited experience I think the 16-35 is a better lens, but there’s a value proposition that’s unique to everyone. The bigger issue for me was that next lens up, i.e. what’s my walkabout lens that can go fairly wide and still give me some flexibility with zoom. Using a 24-70 or a 24-105 on a crop camera gives you a lens no wider than 38mm. The best options for the walkabout lens with reasonable wide angle capabilities on crop cameras are the EF-S 15-85 or the EF-S 17-55. Just as with the 10-22, both of those lenses are good to very good, but now you’re really invested in a crop system. If landscape is the top priority, it’s probably a good time to move over to full frame.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 13, 2012)

Given you have a crop already, albeit a 40D, just leap frog directly to the FF especially if 6D goes down in prices. Perhaps even 5d2 as its price new or used is bound to slide even further with the entry of 6D. 

7D II when it shows up is bound to sport better features, but I subscribe to the idea that crops are transitionary in the long run. Also, most EF lenses that are "blah" on crops, come into their own on FF... This is particularly true for good UWA lenses IMHO.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Who is 'they'?



Everyone who has ever tried. I've posted unlabeled crop pairs to photo.net and dpreview, and shown 24" print samples to people in a couple photo clubs. Another dpreview member did the same exact thing, online crops, only with Nikon equipment. The results were random in every instance. Nobody could reliably tell FF from crop when push came to shove, even people that insist that there is a huge, just huge IQ difference. There is not at ISOs where noise does not come into play.

I always state that this is *after* processing. Crop takes more sharpening and more LCE. When you get close to the ISO where noise differences are clearly apparent, crop takes more NR as well. Make of that what you will. But I process all of my shots any way. If two sensors are close enough that differences are gone after processing, then they are equivalent for my purposes.

Now at higher ISOs it's not a contest. Crop is very good, but FF clearly has less noise with more detail. I should also note that if higher pixel densities were applied to FF then there would be a human observable IQ difference at any ISO, at least for large prints. Put another way, the D800 does produce large prints that are better than those from any crop body. But they're also better, by about the same amount, as those from any Canon FF.



> Here's what I can tell you. I took a series of paired, identically framed shots shots with the 7D and 1D X, using either the 24-105L or the 70-200/2.8L IS II, using the zoom to compensate for the effect sensor size on FoV (meaning same distance, so same framing and same perspective for each pair). I shot about a dozen paired images like that, some landscapes, some architecture, and a couple of close-up flower/plant shots with the 24-105. I processed them equivalently, then showed the paired images to my wife, scaled down to 3.7 MP (full screen on an Apple Thunderbolt Display), and asked her which she liked better. For 11 of the 12 shots, she picked the 1D X image.



Your three mistakes are as follows:

* Zooming the lens. This is likely inconsequential with these lenses, but it is a mistake none the less.

* Equivalent processing. This is a *huge mistake* which invalidates your test and your results out right. You do not use identical processing with different sensors, even different sensors of the same format.

* You do not mention if the shots were unlabeled. If your wife knew which came from which before picking, the results are less than worthless, they are misleading. There is no shortage of examples of conscious and subconscious human bias, of people picking what they think they should pick. It's just what we do. Even if they were unlabeled, a strict scientist would discount your results because you knew, and there's no shortage of ways you could have consciously or subconsciously telegraphed the "correct" choice to her.

That said, if you want to post a zip archive some where with the RAWs I would love to process them optimally and run a taste test at a site/time we agree upon. I'll record all processing steps for your review, and we can play with those if you feel they are less than optimal. I doubt you made any shooting mistakes that invalidate the comparison.

Side rant: One of my pet peeves with photography is that people make mountains out of molehills. FF vs. crop, Canon vs. Nikon, lens A vs. lens B, tripod A vs. tripod B, etc. They used to do it with film A vs. film B, developer A vs. developer B, etc. During the film/digital transition it was film vs. digital all the time. I've seen people argue that there are huge, just huge differences between PS scaling in one step or multiple steps.

Most of what we debate is meaningless. It is below the threshold of human observability even in a large print (or on a modern LCD), especially in the age of digital processing. But people absolutely cling to these debates. If you think there's a real IQ difference between two pieces of equipment or two techniques, produce some big prints with both. Go to a mall. Ask people who pass by if the photos are identical or different, and if different, which is better. You will quickly learn if the difference is meaningful or not.


----------



## bycostello (Dec 13, 2012)

i bet if you had 2 images side by side you'd not see the difference....


----------



## christianronnel (Dec 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Pn the flip side, contrary to the many claims you will hear, right now in the Canon lineup a 36x24 sensor is also not more useful for landscape photography *UNLESS* you own and use the T/S wide angle lenses. You will hear all day long how FF offers better image quality at low ISO. It does not, and you can demonstrate this all day long by presenting unlabeled large prints from both (or pixel crops online) and watch while FF fans stumble trying to guess which is which. They never can.
> ...



I agree with neuro. I'm not an expert and I'm only speaking from my limited experience. The magnification of the lenses are independent of the sensor size. For instance, a 16mm lens would have the same angle of light on full frame or crop sensor. However, on crop sensor, the field of view would be, well cropped. In other words, with the same framing by zooming, the distant objects on crop sensor will appear farther away. For example, an image with mountains in the background, the mountains would appear much smaller when taken with a 15mm lens on crop (1.6 factor) compared to an image taken with a 24mm on full frame.

Regarding the TS lens, they offer two advantages. The obvious is control of distortion, again has something to do with angle of light coming in to the sensor. The other advantage is greater DoF. The latter can be remediated by focus stacking. Furthermore, greater DoF doesn't matter whether you're shooting with full frame or crop due to diffraction. Shallow DoF on the other hand is achieved easier with larger sensors.

Your concern regarding higher pixel density, higher gets better detail in low ISO. In my experience, if you want to print larger prints with higher resolution for closer viewing distance you need higher megapixel camera. The other benefit is the ability to crop more from the image. However, higher pixel density sensors will also require higher quality lenses, which means spending more money, a lot more!

I hope I explained that correctly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> Your three mistakes are as follows:
> 
> * Zooming the lens. This is likely inconsequential with these lenses, but it is a mistake none the less.
> 
> ...



Actually, those are _your_ three mistaken assumptions. 

* Zooming is necessary. Cropping to match FoV negates the purpose of the test, and moving the camera changes the perspective of the image, i.e. the size relationships of various elements - kind of important to a picture. What viable alternative would you suggest?

* I stated 'equivalent' - thinking that I meant 'identical' is a *huge mistaken assumption*. Equivalent means processed in such a way as to extract maximum detail with minimum noise, correct color as appropriate, etc. Obviously, that means different processing for different sensors. The idea was to make both images as good as they could be, not to stack the deck against the 7D. 

* Did I have to mention that? Really? What do you think, that I said, "_Sweetheart, the first image in each pair is from my new, top-of-the-line camera, my favorite camera in the world, the second is from the old piece of crap camera that I'm going to give to our 3 year old as a toy...now tell me which ones you like better, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?_" The fact that you even considered something like that, much less labeled it a mistake that I made, is actually pretty damn offensive. In fact, I watermarked a '+' or a 'o' on each image, each label was randomly assigned to one of the pair, but balanced so there were the same number of each label in total, and I set up a looping slideshow that she looked at when I wasn't in the room. Before you go to the next level and suggest she peeked at the EXIF, if she did I bet she'd have picked the 7D because 7 is a bigger number than 1. She likes my pictures, supports my hobby, and doesn't give a darn about the gear itself. But being a Professor of Anatomy, she does have a keen eye for detail in the images. 

FWIW, I am a card-carrying 'strict scientist', PhD and a day job in the field (including responsibility for some bioanalytical assays conducted under GLP conditions), and once upon a time I actually conducted neuropsychological testing. I explicitly stated the above was subjective and completely anecdotal. You seem to have truncated your quote of my post right before that statement. 

Given your evident bias and unsupported assumptions in calling out my 'mistakes' I don't see any point in pursuing this discussion further.


----------



## wayno (Dec 13, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Given you have a crop already, albeit a 40D, just leap frog directly to the FF especially if 6D goes down in prices. Perhaps even 5d2 as its price new or used is bound to slide even further with the entry of 6D.
> 
> 7D II when it shows up is bound to sport better features, but I subscribe to the idea that crops are transitionary in the long run. Also, most EF lenses that are "blah" on crops, come into their own on FF... This is particularly true for good UWA lenses IMHO.



Agree about EF lenses coming into their own. My 50 1.4 was average at best on my crop. It shines on full frame.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 13, 2012)

To my mind, crop is the way to go for shooting wildlife through good glass, but for landscape I would go ff

My observations are that the ultimate sharpness of your pictures is a combination of three things, sensor, lens, and calibration. In moderate conditions, both using a top quality lens, I see very little difference between crop and ff, but as the light dims (sunsets) or where there are dark areas of the picture, ff seems a bit better. When the light gets real bad, ff seems noticeably better. If you are not using really good glass, even in good light, crop just doesn't seem as nice. Of course, this is all about pixel peeping, depending on how much you zoom in on the image you will notice differences more...

The third factor is AFMA. Until you have had experience with it, it is hard to appreciate the importance of it. This is the calibration of your equipment... A camera, crop or ff, will take better focused pictures when the lenses and body are calibrated, unless you are insanely lucky and everything you own came perfectly set for each other and that is a very rare occurance. Lenses and cameras are manufactured to tolerances... Not to perfection. Your lens and your body have to be calibrated together to bring out their maximum potential. Personally, I would rate calibration of your gear as far more important than the crop/ff debate... But note that the only canon crop body to offer AFMA is the 7D, while all the ff offer it. Calibrated gear is professional, uncalibrated is just someone goofing around.

So to summarize, I would say in good light it's AFMA, lens, sensor and in poor light AFMA, sensor, lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> But note that the only canon crop body to offer AFMA is the 7D...



...and the 50D (yet another way in which the 60D was not an upgrade, and consumers were pushed to the 7D, similar to how the 6D is not an upgrade to the 5DII, but I digress). Oh, and the 1DIII and 1DIV...1.3x is a crop sensor, too.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > But note that the only canon crop body to offer AFMA is the 7D...
> ...


Thanks Neuro.... I should have said APS-C, and didn't know about the 50D. Always learning something here


----------



## Corylus (Dec 13, 2012)

Thanks for everyone's comments. It seems most here give FF the nod with regard to landscape work. I do shoot mainly wildlife (more macro and portraits than fast action stuff) but I'm getting increasingly into landscapes. The 5DIII is the dream for me. If i can stretch to one of those come 2013 i think i'll go for it. I'd still have the 40d if i ever got desperate for extra 'reach'. I own a 400mm f5.6 and the f8 firmware upgrade for the 5DIII would be fab for the 1.4x TC. AFMA will also be great. 2013 could get expensive!

Thanks again


----------



## Corylus (Dec 13, 2012)

Incidentally, does anyone know if you can store AFMA settings in camera for, say, a 400mm f5.6 as well as a separate setting for the same 400mm but with a TC attached - i.e. are TCs recognised by cameras when storing AFMA settings?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2012)

Corylus said:


> Incidentally, does anyone know if you can store AFMA settings in camera for, say, a 400mm f5.6 as well as a separate setting for the same 400mm but with a TC attached - i.e. are TCs recognised by cameras when storing AFMA settings?



Yes, each unique combo of lens + TC is treated as a separate lens.


----------



## Corylus (Dec 13, 2012)

Good to know. Thanks Neuro


----------



## Botts (Dec 14, 2012)

Corylus said:


> Incidentally, does anyone know if you can store AFMA settings in camera for, say, a 400mm f5.6 as well as a separate setting for the same 400mm but with a TC attached - i.e. are TCs recognised by cameras when storing AFMA settings?



I'm seriously considering keeping an EOS-M in my bag instead of a TC. Similar to Corylus' comment of using the 40D when extra "reach" is required. You also seemingly wouldn't lose the aperture advantage, though you'd sacrifice some ISO performance. I fully expect Neuro to correct me if I'm way out to lunch.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2012)

Botts said:


> Corylus said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally, does anyone know if you can store AFMA settings in camera for, say, a 400mm f5.6 as well as a separate setting for the same 400mm but with a TC attached - i.e. are TCs recognised by cameras when storing AFMA settings?
> ...



Not a bad idea from an optical standpoint, but depending on what you're shooting, the AF speed may be an issue. A TC does slow down AF (by 50% for 1.4x, 75% for 2x), but the EOS M may be a several-fold reduction.


----------



## te4o (Dec 15, 2012)

Apart from the heated scientific debate based around personal selection of images collected under controversial but plausible methodology, let me give you my personal experience: 
I had a 40D since 2008. In 2010 I borrowed a 5D2 and went for several days of parallel test shooting with my 70-200/4 in pursuit of the same answer you are chasing.
I uploaded the images from both cameras on my NEC PA 27" with Aperture. Well, I did not find much of IQ difference at standard ISOs (100-400) ie my preferred range for tripod based landscape photography. Sure, the FF has a lot more functions, better high ISO etc, but I was not convinced and returned it waiting for the 5D3 while gearing up with some Zeiss. Well, in retrospect the IQ of the 5D3 at lowish ISO is not dramatically different to the oldish 40D. Of course, it is a different style camera, we all know it, but if you are strictly shooting landscapes, lenses and right technique (PP, stitching etc) make more difference than anything. Sorry, Neuro, I did ask my wife to differentiate as well. Hmm, she couldn't and after that she asked unfortunately about the price of the FF... So, I needed a reason to justify the purchase and this was mainly videography of our second son, but not the IQ. 
But who does ONLY landscaping with a DSLR. The FF excels in so much else that the discussion shifts always towards them. In your place I'd wait for the full frame megapixel something coming next year or change the company for a completely different sensor.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 15, 2012)

My thoughts on it- generally, the colours from the full frames are much nicer compared to the crop sensors. On crop you can still get brilliant glass to do it with that ultra-wide angle (the 10-22), but the DR on a 5D II/III compared to a 40D/7D is just really different. 
And as stated before.. all this technical stuff away, there's something really different when using a full frame sensor as opposed to a crop frame. Then again, I suppose it's a similar concept when people jump up to medium format photography.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 15, 2012)

I think the main advantage of FF to APS-C in terms of landscape photography will be DR. You might argue that it's achievable with HDR but still it's different. As for noise, @ISO 100-200, I think they're comparable except if you're printing mural-sized photos. Also, according to some sites, DLA also occurs in much narrower apertures in FF thus helping the photos become sharper (even @ the same comparable DOF). I still have to verify this statement since I haven't owned an FF yet though I'm already saving up for one. This is a sample of diffraction comparison. A 50D @ F5.6 and F11 using the same lens. I believe DLA is also one of the determinants of how sharp your picture will be.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=458&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6&Camera=474&CameraComp=474&Sample=0&SampleComp=0


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> * Zooming is necessary. Cropping to match FoV negates the purpose of the test, and moving the camera changes the perspective of the image, i.e. the size relationships of various elements - kind of important to a picture. What viable alternative would you suggest?



We are discussing whether or not there is an IQ difference between sensors of similar resolution but different physical size. *All other factors must be equal in testing this, or perceived differences could be due to something other than the physical sensor size.*

I will grant that in some situations those other factors may be practically relevant. For example, when the choices were the 5D and 20D there were no good options for UWA on crop. But in judging any of this we must first determine what, if any, sensor differences exist absent all other influences.



> * I stated 'equivalent' - thinking that I meant 'identical' is a *huge mistaken assumption*.



No, it's not. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivalent. Note "equal in value".

I did not assume anything, you misspoke. Next time be more clear and precise in your test description.



> * Did I have to mention that? Really? What do you think, that I said, "_Sweetheart, the first image in each pair is from my new, top-of-the-line camera, my favorite camera in the world, the second is from the old piece of crap camera that I'm going to give to our 3 year old as a toy...now tell me which ones you like better, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?_" The fact that you even considered something like that, much less labeled it a mistake that I made, is actually pretty damn offensive.



I have to mention it because the simple fact that you presented the images was a mistake, no matter how sincerely you tried to minimize it.

In all fairness, you could say the same of my experiences. But I wouldn't get all huffy and puffy and act "offended" if someone pointed it out. I'll admit it. So let's do it the right way and see if the results change.



> FWIW, I am a card-carrying 'strict scientist', PhD and a day job in the field



This means nothing at all. All that matters is how a test is performed, and not who performed it. As a "card-carrying 'strict scientist' PhD' you should know and live by this.



> Given your evident bias and unsupported assumptions in calling out my 'mistakes' I don't see any point in pursuing this discussion further.



Translation: you can't prove your point with hard evidence, so you're taking your ball and going home.

What a classic and intriguing case of human bias and emotion in action, and from a "card-carrying 'strict scientist', PhD" no less. This is why I never automatically trust scientists even in their narrow fields of study, but treat their claims with the same critical eye as I would anyone else. No matter what is claimed in training or degrees (pieces of paper with ink), they are still human, and display all the classic flaws of human nature.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 15, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> I think the main advantage of FF to APS-C in terms of landscape photography will be DR. You might argue that it's achievable with HDR but still it's different.



I've never thought this was that big of a deal for landscape because the landscapes I shoot tend to either be in the range of both, or way outside the range of both. It's never a 1-2 stop difference. The sun and shadows come into a scene (i.e. sunset) and it's 6 or 8 stops more and I'm shooting HDR. That said, yes, FF sensors generally have greater DR, especially when you post process to dig into the shadows. If you feel that's significant, it's a definite tick in the FF column.



> Also, according to some sites, DLA is also occurs in much narrower apertures in FF thus helping the photos become sharper (even @ the same comparable DOF).



Diffraction does not impact any format more than any other for a given FoV/DoF. There's no deep DoF advantage either way, though FF does enjoy a shallow DoF advantage. (I think shallow DoF is overblown, but it's clearly there.)

The real advantage here, if you can afford it, is T/S for FF. Tilt the lens and you can get insane DoF at optimum apertures. You can sort of use T/S on crop, but the flash housing gets in the way, and who wants to pay insane amounts of money for an ultra wide T/S focal length only to have it cropped.


----------



## marinien (Dec 15, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> > * Did I have to mention that? Really? What do you think, that I said, "_Sweetheart, the first image in each pair is from my new, top-of-the-line camera, my favorite camera in the world, the second is from the old piece of crap camera that I'm going to give to our 3 year old as a toy...now tell me which ones you like better, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?_" The fact that you even considered something like that, much less labeled it a mistake that I made, is actually pretty damn offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to mention it because the simple fact that you presented the images was a mistake, no matter how sincerely you tried to minimize it.



So you really think that Neuro presented his photos to his wife with a video projector instead of leaving his wife alone with the computer? Thanks for a good laugh!


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 15, 2012)

Generally, bigger is better with landscape photography. The bigger piece of film/ sensor will always resolve more detail than a smaller format. 

But yes, I've shot some fantastic landscapes with my 7D+10-22mm when I had them.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Dec 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Your three mistakes are as follows:
> ...



I literally grabbed some popcorn for this thread, starting from this post.


----------



## marinien (Dec 15, 2012)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



Yeah, the problem with some people is that they are full of (negative) assumptions. And when they read a sentence in which the first half somehow "matches" their assumptions, the second half just becomes invisible or disappears. Neuro clearly wrote that his wife had a look at the slide show when he was not in the room in the second half of his paragraph, and dtaylor quoted the first half of the paragraph and commented some ***** on how Neuro presented his photos to his wife!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 15, 2012)

I personally could tell a big difference when I went from my 60D to my 5D MKII as my primary landscape body. There simply seems to be both more color information and also a smoother graduation in color.

That being said, I used both the Canon 10-22 and the Tokina 12-24 and love them both for landscape work.

I now use the 17-40L, but would be hard pressed to say that I like it better overall.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > * Zooming is necessary. Cropping to match FoV negates the purpose of the test, and moving the camera changes the perspective of the image, i.e. the size relationships of various elements - kind of important to a picture. What viable alternative would you suggest?
> ...



Sorry, I'm not seeing a _viable_ suggestion from you. The sensors are different sizes - something must change for the resulting images to be framed the same. The three options are crop the FF image, change the distance to the subject, or change the focal length. The first defeats the purpose, the second changes the perspective of the image. Maybe I should have moved the camera, but arranged for the Museum of Fine Arts building to be moved closer to the foreground? Or maybe I should have chosen perfectly flat subjects like test charts, obviating perspective? Have I missed any options?



dtaylor said:


> > * I stated 'equivalent' - thinking that I meant 'identical' is a *huge mistaken assumption*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Equivalent in result - the best possible IQ output. Are 2+6, 4+4, and 23 identical? No - but they are all equivalent in that the _result_ is equal in value. 



dtaylor said:


> ... the simple fact that you presented the images was a mistake,



So...the comparison should have been done with non-presented, i.e., imaginary images? Most inane comment, ever. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, in which case, you should be more clear and precise in your phrasing. 



dtaylor said:


> Translation: you can't prove your point with hard evidence, so you're taking your ball and going home.



I was never trying to prove a point with hard evidence. Please go back and reread my initial post, and this time, pay very close attention to the part you ignored in your first response, the part where I stated that *my observations were subjective and completely anecdotal*. Your treatment of it as if it were hard evidence was your first and biggest mistake, one that essentially renders the rest of the discussion moot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2012)

Mmmmm....popcorn.


----------



## Kernuak (Dec 15, 2012)

First off, I haven't done anything even as objective as Neuro's comparisons (even if you think they are subjective). Also, as with any picture (photo, painting or otherwise), it is the subject and composition that largely dictates the success or failure of an image. One person's favourite photo may be hated by someone else. Art is very subjective and always will be. Basically, I don't have any hard evidence and it is my subjective opinion.
In the favour of crop sensors, the corners, usually the weakest part of a lens is cropped out. However, something that hasn't been considered is the diffraction limited aperture and circle of confusion. Granted, many don't consider it important, but I can certainly see the difference in sharpness between my 7D and wehn I first started shooting with my 5D MkII. Yes I could add more sharpening to the 7D, but that doesn't replace sharpness in the original image capture, all it is doing is increasing the micro-contrast in the transition areas to give the appearance of sharpness. Also, when you are sending images to stock libraries, they specifically state that images should not be sharpened, in this scenario, there is a greater risk of a landscape image from a crop sensor being rejected for being soft (although you would have to have made a pretty big error for that to occur). When you take the DLA into consideration, the current (Canon) full frame sensors allow you to stop down an extra two stops or so to get similar sharpness. With my 7D I could easily see loss of sharpness at f/11, whereas with my 5D MkII, I could go to f/22 before I saw similar levels of diffraction blur (I'm assuming the 5D MkIII would give me similar results, but I try to avoid f/22 and rarely need to stop down that much). The lower pixel density of the 40D allowed me to go to f/16 before softness became noticeable. Of course, for most printing or web viewing, the differences in sharpness would unlikely to be noticeable, it's only when you start looking at 100% (which you do for stock images), that you can see the differences. Also, the higher pixel density will show up lens deficiencies (or indeed poor technique) much more than the lower pixel densities), this is the reason that I feel the D800/800E have only minimal advantages over the 5D MKIII, simply because lenses still need to catch up. I can only judge those cameras by their respective Nikon sample images though, so there is room for error there.
Something that is even more subjective, is the look of an image. I much prefer the look of landscapes from full frame sensors over crop sensors, it isn't about dynamic range (if you beleive DxO, tee 7D has just as much DR as the 5D MKII anyway), it's more about the tones. To some degree, you can process a crop sensor to mimic a full frame one, but I don't believe it would be exact. It is this same difference in look that drives people twoards Zeiss lenses or the larger format cameras. Some consider it subjective and not valid in the real world, while others swear by them.
In short, you can capture good landscape photographs with any camera, but in the hands of an expert, the full frame camera will have the edge in most circumstances. Whether that difference is enough to make a real world difference largely depends on use and how that image will be viewed (and also the discernment of the viewer themselves). There is a reason why most professional landscape photographers use full frame or larger over crop, partly due to image quality, but also due to the actual resolution. While the difference between 18 MP and 21-22 MP is small, the latter does allow larger prints at 300 ppi, just like the 36 MP Nikons allow even larger prints, if you have the equipment to achieve it.


----------



## nightsky87 (Dec 15, 2012)

Popcorn was fine up to a certain point... But I have to agree with neuro on this.



neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > We are discussing whether or not there is an IQ difference between sensors of similar resolution but different physical size. *All other factors must be equal in testing this, or perceived differences could be due to something other than the physical sensor size.*
> ...



Cropping the image and doing side-by-side comparisons definitely isn't the way to go. Assuming that the camera position was not moved and the same lens and focal length were used, you have a 22MP (say the 5D3) at focal length X and an 18MP (i.e. 7D) at focal length 1.6X. So cropping this to produce the same view would mean that your APS-C image has 2.0736 times more pixels than the FF one. You could resample the images but that would give the APS-C image a slight advantage.

Besides, why would you have to deal with the crops? The fact is, the FF cameras out there (on Canon's end at least) have higher resolutions than the APS-C ones. Do our eyes crop the image to equalize the resolutions? Doesn't it make more sense to compare whole images?

Zooming in the lens like neuro makes sense since that at least preserves perspective without biasing the resolution significantly. In fact, if you think about it, some lenses perform poorer on the long end so it can actually be to the FF disadvantage anyway. When you downsample everything to a smaller resolution like neuro did, the difference between 18MP and 22MP should be negligible along with minor fluctuations in lens characteristics (assuming good lenses were used of course). At least that way, there is less bias.



neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Translation: you can't prove your point with hard evidence, so you're taking your ball and going home.
> ...



Hard evidence was never neuro's point from his first post. But if we're discussing hard evidence, shouldn't the methodology at least be properly established?



dtaylor said:


> > FWIW, I am a card-carrying 'strict scientist', PhD and a day job in the field
> 
> 
> 
> This means nothing at all. All that matters is how a test is performed, and not who performed it. As a "card-carrying 'strict scientist' PhD' you should know and live by this.





dtaylor said:


> What a classic and intriguing case of human bias and emotion in action, and from a "card-carrying 'strict scientist', PhD" no less. This is why I never automatically trust scientists even in their narrow fields of study, but treat their claims with the same critical eye as I would anyone else. No matter what is claimed in training or degrees (pieces of paper with ink), they are still human, and display all the classic flaws of human nature.



Okay... now that really ticked me off. While it is true that everything should be taken with a grain of salt, it is equally as true that scientists do a lot to get their degrees. These are "pieces of paper with ink" but are they inked so easily? Objectivity is one important aspect that is learned as a scientist. You don't publish works that scream out "BIASED". Those things rarely get past peer reviews.

FWIW, I am an academic researcher myself and I deal especially with image processing. And from what I see, neuro's post was anecdotal but technically sound. This would be much easier if there were a good ubiquitous no-reference quality metric but subjective testing is really the only option at this point and there can never really be a perfect "standard" procedure that everyone agrees on.

Personally, I haven't used a FF yet so I can't tell if there is really a difference. I've been using the 60D and I do feel that there's an extra quality that's missing. Maybe its my lenses. Or maybe its the effective DoF. Heck, maybe its even just me! I'll only know for sure when I get my hands on the 5D3 arriving soon.


----------



## phixional ninja (Dec 15, 2012)

nightsky87 said:


> Zooming in the lens like neuro makes sense since that at least preserves perspective without biasing the resolution significantly.



As I understand it, zooming as described in Neuro's test preserves field of view, but _not_ perspective. I don't see that as a problem in the test though, I think it just demonstrates an (admittedly subjective) advantage of full frame over crop in this arena. In the same way that full frame is seen as having an advantage in portraiture due to shallower depth of field for a given field of view, in landscape shooting I see it as advantageous to get greater distance compression for a given field of view.

If the shot I want is at 100mm on a crop sensor and 160mm on a full frame, that's an extra 60mm bringing the mountains in the distance closer. At least for my own photography, I pretty much always want mountains to appear larger, it's rare that I have the opposite problem.

Of course that means the test is evaluating the overall shot quality, including composition, and not just image quality concerns such as noise and dynamic range, but again, I don't see that as a problem.

Apologies if I've mucked up any of the terminology, or am just plain wrong on anything. Until a couple of weeks ago I wasn't even thinking about being able to get a full frame camera, and now I'm probably upgrading next week, so I've been doing... a lot... of reading and thinking about the subject.


----------



## nightsky87 (Dec 15, 2012)

phixional ninja said:


> As I understand it, zooming as described in Neuro's test preserves field of view, but _not_ perspective. I don't see that as a problem in the test though, I think it just demonstrates an (admittedly subjective) advantage of full frame over crop in this arena. In the same way that full frame is seen as having an advantage in portraiture due to shallower depth of field for a given field of view, in landscape shooting I see it as advantageous to get greater distance compression for a given field of view.



Zooming changes the focal length being used which changes the FoV. But as long as the distance between the camera and subject are not changed, perspective is preserved. What this basically means is that you're effectively cutting out the outer areas of the image. The perspective change comes when you try to move the camera closer or farther away from the subject to maintain the FoV. In the of between FF and APS-C, you have to zoom the lens further on a FF to get the same frame and perspective as the APS-C. Without moving the camera, that is.



phixional ninja said:


> If the shot I want is at 100mm on a crop sensor and 160mm on a full frame, that's an extra 60mm bringing the mountains in the distance closer. At least for my own photography, I pretty much always want mountains to appear larger, it's rare that I have the opposite problem.



As some people would say in these forums, if you don't really plan on printing your pictures and resolution is not that critical, you can crop a FF image in post. Since there isn't any perspective difference, you can get the APS-C reach by cropping an 8.64MP out of a 22.1MP image. That might sound like a big loss but that's still a good 3600x2400 image! For screen use, only a few displays can even match that kind resolution and that's certainly not the general public!



phixional ninja said:


> Apologies if I've mucked up any of the terminology, or am just plain wrong on anything. Until a couple of weeks ago I wasn't even thinking about being able to get a full frame camera, and now I'm probably upgrading next week, so I've been doing... a lot... of reading and thinking about the subject.



I'm pretty much new to photography (started sometime around April this year) so I know the feeling. Hey, I might even be wrong with what I just said above! In which case, someone please correct/confirm what I just said.


----------



## phixional ninja (Dec 15, 2012)

nightsky87 said:


> Zooming changes the focal length being used which changes the FoV. But as long as the distance between the camera and subject are not changed, perspective is preserved. What this basically means is that you're effectively cutting out the outer areas of the image. The perspective change comes when you try to move the camera closer or farther away from the subject.



Perhaps I'm not doing a good job of it, but I'm talking about this. That example _is_ moving the camera to preserve the size of the subject, but that's because it's dealing with a single camera and sensor size. In my hypothetical though, a full frame and a crop camera in the same position would require different focal lengths to capture equivalent fields of view (as described by Neuro). (Again, as I understand it) The longer focal length on the full frame camera would offer greater distance compression though, and so a shot with a far away mountain would appear to bring that mountain closer.

Edit to add:


nightsky87 said:


> As some people would say in these forums, if you don't really plan on printing your pictures and resolution is not that critical, you can crop a FF image in post. Since there isn't any perspective difference, you can get the APS-C reach by cropping an 8.64MP out of a 22.1MP image. That might sound like a big loss but that's still a good 3600x2400 image! For screen use, only a few displays can even match that kind resolution and that's certainly not the general public!



To clarify, I am not bemoaning the lesser apparent reach of full frame. My hypothetical assumes available glass to get the same field of view on both sensors without cropping. I'm less concerned with the overall size the mountain takes up in the frame (solvable with cropping), and more with its relative size compared to everything else (which cropping doesn't change).


----------



## nightsky87 (Dec 15, 2012)

phixional ninja said:


> Perhaps I'm not doing a good job of it, but I'm talking about this. That example _is_ moving the camera to preserve the size of the subject, but that's because it's dealing with a single camera and sensor size. In my hypothetical though, a full frame and a crop camera in the same position would require different focal lengths to capture equivalent fields of view (as described by Neuro). (Again, as I understand it) The longer focal length on the full frame camera would offer greater distance compression though, and so a shot with a far away mountain would appear to bring that mountain closer.


In that particular example, the camera _*was*_ moved around as you mentioned. Focal length doesn't inherently change the perspective. Its the camera-subject distance that does this. So increasing focal length means your subject is larger. To maintain the same subject size, you step back which then changes perspective.

In the APS-C and FF discussion, the FF has a wider FoV due to the bigger sensor. So to get the same FoV as the crop sensor, you can zoom in (increase focal length) _*without*_ moving the camera. No camera movement = same perspective and same compression.



phixional ninja said:


> To clarify, I am not bemoaning the lesser apparent reach of full frame. My hypothetical assumes available glass to get the same field of view on both sensors without cropping. I'm less concerned with the overall size the mountain takes up in the frame (solvable with cropping), and more with its relative size compared to everything else (which cropping doesn't change).


Undeniably, there will be differences in FF and APS-C _*if*_ you try to maintain the same subject sizing with the same focal length. But assuming you're simply using the zoom of the lens, there will be no difference in relative sizing. So if what you're saying is that you have a lens and use it with the _*same*_ focal length for both sensors, you have to move to maintain the FoV which then changes perspective.


----------



## phixional ninja (Dec 15, 2012)

nightsky87 said:


> phixional ninja said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I'm not doing a good job of it, but I'm talking about this. That example _is_ moving the camera to preserve the size of the subject, but that's because it's dealing with a single camera and sensor size. In my hypothetical though, a full frame and a crop camera in the same position would require different focal lengths to capture equivalent fields of view (as described by Neuro). (Again, as I understand it) The longer focal length on the full frame camera would offer greater distance compression though, and so a shot with a far away mountain would appear to bring that mountain closer.
> ...



Well dang, it looks like you are totally right: http://www.scottbideauphotography.com/myths-about-lens-compression/

I've always heard it referred to as "lens compression" and read stuff like this which make it sound as though the focal length is what is responsible for the phenomenon. Nope!

Thanks for prodding me into reading further.


----------



## nightsky87 (Dec 15, 2012)

phixional ninja said:


> nightsky87 said:
> 
> 
> > phixional ninja said:
> ...



You're welcome. I actually used to think the same way myself.  When I read about how focal length doesn't actually change perspective (I think it was some post by neuro), I went out to my balcony to confirm it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2012)

phixional ninja said:


> nightsky87 said:
> 
> 
> > Zooming changes the focal length being used which changes the FoV. But as long as the distance between the camera and subject are not changed, perspective is preserved. What this basically means is that you're effectively cutting out the outer areas of the image. The perspective change comes when you try to move the camera closer or farther away from the subject.
> ...


Just to drive the point home, I pulled this from a recent post of mine on this issue.


Here's an example from the wiki page on perspective distortion, an example that illustrates some of this confusion:







You see the different focal lengths printed on the images, and you see the relative sizes of the two water bottles changing, and you think that focal length is the reason. Even the text in the caption of that image suggests the effect is due to focal length. But consider...the pink bottle is the same height in all three images - therefore, as the focal length is reduced, the camera must have been moved closer to achieve the same framing. It's the movement of the camera, not the change in focal length, that results in the different perspectives.

Let me try to illustrate what I mean with a similar set of examples, but where I first vary just focal length but not distance, and then vary focal length and distance. Since I prefer beverages other than water, I selected a different pair of subjects for a similar test. 






The two bottles are 18" apart, and the distances in the image are measured from the sensor to the front bottle. All were shot at f/5.6. As described above, it's normal for the bottle in front to look larger, that's perspective - objects that are further away look smaller, even though we know they are the same size. Note that the bottle in front is the same height in all the images.

In the left column, the 50mm and 24mm shots were at the same distance as the 100mm images, and the images were cropped to match the framing of the 100mm image. As you can see, the relative size of the rear bottle is the same in all the images. The perspective is the same - the two bottles maintain the same relative size, despite the differing focal lengths. The distance is the same, so the perspective is the same.

In the right column, which is equivalent to the water bottle shots from the wiki page, the 50mm and 24mm shots were taken at successively closer distances to the bottles, matching the framing to the 100mm shot by moving the camera. As you can see, the relative size of the rear bottle gets smaller as the camera is moved closer. Different perspective, because the distance is changing. Comparing the side-by-side 50mm and 24mm images, you can see that with the same focal length but different subject distances, the perspective is different.

So, varying focal length alone, without changing distance, does not affect perspective. As stated above (by me and others), perspective is determined by distance, and distance alone. 

'Telephoto' compression and 'wide angle' expansion distortion are the same phenomenon. The reference to 'telephoto' and 'wide angle' there is misleading - it has nothing to do with the focal lengths, only the distance. But longer lenses are usually used at longer distances, and wide lenses are usually used at closer distances (think of framing a person for a portrait), thus the erroneous association with a lens type when it's really the commonly used distances for those lenses that is the cause of both types of perspective distortion.


Ps. the Chocolate Stout was very good.


----------



## Anthony (Dec 15, 2012)

With my 7D, I can do 18 Mpix to Gpix.
What else. If you want high resolution, slice your scenery into small parts and shoot. Then use pano tools.

http://www.kolor.com/panogear-motorized-panoramic-head.html


----------



## Area256 (Dec 15, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Corylus said:
> 
> 
> > So I was wondering, if higher pixel density is useful for landscape photos, would the 7D be a more useful tool for the job than say the 5Ds or 6D. As I understand it (which may not be very well...) the shallower DOF with FF is no advantage and neither is high ISO capabilities if shooting with good ambient light (which most landscape shots tend to have I think).
> ...



+1 With my 6D most of my lenses visibly resolve much more detail, despite only having 2 more MP than the 60D. With very high quality optics, like the 100mm f/2.8L, it's harder to see the difference in detail/sharpness. 

However, there are three advantages that even the best optics won't give you on crop, and that is *DR*, *tonal range*, and *color depth*. Since the surface area is larger on a FF, it takes more light per pixel (or down-sampled pixel on a D800), and thus can read smaller changes in colour and brightness, and pick up smaller details in darker parts of the frame (giving more DR in post).

You'll almost always be shooting at ISO 100, and you may need to stop down more to get enough DOF, but since you can just expose for longer, a FF will collect more light per (resolution adjusted) pixel. So you will have better DR, tonal range, and color depth than on a crop sensor camera. There seems to be a war going on about whether a person can actually notice that, and I won't get into that, but there are at least _technical reasons_ that FF is much better than crop for landscape photography. Note some crop sensors can, due to better design, do just as well as some lesser quality FF sensor on these metrics. So sensor design clearly has an impact, but sensor design aside, the FF will do better between two sensors of the same design. Also it's fair to say Nikon (via Sony) has the edge at the moment in sensor design, but I own a 6D, not a d600, so sensors aren't everything.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 15, 2012)

so to sum it all up, the majority of responses vote for "FF for landscape photography". You can use the APS-C sensor with a 10-22 if you'd like but it might take a little extra work in post. 

I just went full frame so I'm still a noob. What I _can_ say is that I notice qualities in my photos from the 5D mkiii that I NEVER noticed from my 60D. It was as if I could "feel" textures in the photos... and that's with the same lenses. I'm saving for a 16-35 2.8 II to complete my 2.8 zoom trinity. For now, 24mm is wide enough for some casual landscape shots. I have the 60D and 10-22mm on hand until I can sell it to put more money towards the new 16-35...or hopefully a 14-24 2.8L.

As far as opinions go, I think neuro does a great job of helping others (on CR) out with real world experience and accurate data. I've done my share of reading too much into what's written on the forums and getting offended when I didn't need to be. Let's all just enjoy the holidays and post up some great Winter Landscape pictures! I hear winter time is great for that style of photography =)


----------

