# Difference in image from APS-C to FF



## jefflinde (Jan 7, 2015)

I am looking at going to FF from APS-C and i am curious as to how my images will look different. I know that image quality and noise will be better but i would like to see the same image taken on a FF and crop body. I currently have a 70D and i am very pleased with it but all this talk of FF being so much better as me curious. I would love for some one that has both a FF and crop body to take images with both of the same subject. thank you in advance.


----------



## sanj (Jan 7, 2015)

If you happy with 70D, continue with it till you get unhappy.


----------



## candc (Jan 7, 2015)

this subject may have been discussed a time or two around here. 

6d+16-35f/4 (16mm) 70d+sigma 8-16 (10mm)


----------



## TeT (Jan 7, 2015)

300mm 1/125 5.6 400 from 6D & SL1


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> If you happy with 70D, continue with it till you get unhappy.



+1. Learn and fully exploit what you have now. The 70D is a great camera. Buy some more glass first. FF isn't going anywhere. If you absolutely must get FF now, you could probably find a nice 5D classic for peanuts and learn with it first for less expense. (Unless money isn't an issue, then the 6D would be a great starter FF body.)

The #1 thing you will experience comparing FF vs. Crop is the effect of the 1.6x crop factor difference. Esp with ultra wide lenses. If you prefer to shoot wide, FF will be a huge upgrade for you and will give you more creativity. If you prefer to shoot long, not so much since all your EF lenses will become shorter on FF.

Small FYI Reminder: EF-S lenses can't be used on FF!


----------



## mangobutter (Jan 7, 2015)

IQ between the two formats, given using same or similar generation processors/bodies, are negligible. If you pixel peep for a living and have a trained eye, you might be able to spot differences. But even then it would mean little to nothing.

Lenses and post processing will make the biggest difference assuming the user (photographer) is the same. APS-C tends to be noisier vs. full frame ONLY because you typically have to use higher ISOs given the same aperture to achieve the same exposure. Even then it's negligible. Actual tangible benefits won't be realized unless shooting really dark with slow lenses.

Personally I love full frame because I can use more light... and I don't have to use my calculator. =)


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 7, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> I am looking at going to FF from APS-C and i am curious as to how my images will look different. I know that image quality and noise will be better but i would like to see the same image taken on a FF and crop body. I currently have a 70D and i am very pleased with it but all this talk of FF being so much better as me curious. I would love for some one that has both a FF and crop body to take images with both of the same subject. thank you in advance.



FF is better under certain conditions.... crop is better under other certain conditions...

most of the time the difference is not significant...

If I were thinking of improving my kit, my first place to look is at lenses.....


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 7, 2015)

IMO, both cameras have their place. I own a 5D3 and a 7D-II. (which replaced a 70D I liked very much.)

I use the 5D3 with 16-35, 24-70, 24-105, 70-200, 15mm FishEye along with several other lenses for most of my shooting which is walk around, journalistic, events, candids, portraits, etc. General Purpose shooting. I like to shoot wider most of the time. With FF I get the FL of the lens and it is more versatile.

However, when I shoot sports, swimming, etc I prefer a crop body because I have the extra reach I need without an extender and both the 70D (8 fps) and the 7D-II (10 fps) are much faster. And the 7D-II has more advanced AF as well. The main reason I upgraded to the 7D-II was because of its new "DeFlicker" feature and the fact that I got a great deal on it so it didn't cost much after I sold the 70D. I was otherwise happy with the 70D.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 7, 2015)

The 70d has a better sensor & processor than my 7d. The 6d I also own has hugely improved IQ over the 7d particularly if you crop which I do often. 
As said elsewhere FF comes into its own with wide angles which for me mainly shooting landscape is great.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 7, 2015)

If Ignore the difference in size, weight and price of the lenses and bodies, full frame is more versatile.
If you need to use ISO 6400 often full frame is more advantageous.
If you like a very shallow depth of field, full frame is more advantageous.

On the other hand, if you need to shoot the long distances, without dragging huge and expensive lenses, then APS-C has an advantage.
If you need a wider depth of field, as in Macro photography, APS-C has an advantage.

For other types of photography, there is nothing that makes full frame sensor, which can not be done with APS-C sensor. I agree with those who say "_*invest first in good quality glass*_."


----------



## chauncey (Jan 7, 2015)

Equal generation cameras and glass, maintaining the same field of view without cropping...
no one can discern the difference in camera brands in the final print, let alone bodies.
Unless your going crazy in upsizing your images. Nobody!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2015)

chauncey said:


> Equal generation cameras and glass, maintaining the same field of view without cropping...
> no one can discern the difference in camera brands in the final print, let alone bodies.
> Unless your going crazy in upsizing your images. Nobody!



Have you actually done that?

I have and get well over 50% right even at 'normal' sized enlargements.

But, the difference, especially in good light, is often small, however as the light gets poorer it becomes easier and easier to tell them apart.


----------



## jefflinde (Jan 7, 2015)

thank you for all the advice. i think i will stay put with what i have. i don't think my current skills will use up 10% of my 70D's capabilities and i mainly shoot wildlife and people so the extra reach is a good thing.

thanks again for the input and the comparison images.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 7, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> thank you for all the advice. i think i will stay put with what i have. i don't think my current skills will use up 10% of my 70D's capabilities and i mainly shoot wildlife and people so the extra reach is a good thing.
> 
> thanks again for the input and the comparison images.



What lenses do you have currently? Any lenses you are considering buying? Glad to see that the forum helped you. Welcome to CR!!


----------



## NancyP (Jan 7, 2015)

I shoot with both a 60D (soon to be upgraded to a 7D2) and a 6D, with different uses for each camera. 
60D: used for birding with a 400mm f/5.6L no-IS, benefiting from the crop factor (more pixels on the bird), although you will hear a lot of argument in the birding community about FF vs crop. However, to get a FF action body is expensive. 60D is also my one camera and one lens (EF-S 15-85mm) general use / travel / "casual" camera. I started shooting more landscapes and especially night landscapes and stars, and the high ISO performance of the 60D was wanting compared with the 6D. There is about two stops difference in the amount of noise: 60D ISO400 (minimal noise) = 6D ISO 1600 (minimal noise), 60D ISO 1600 (significant chrominance noise) = 6D ISO 6400 (significant chrominance noise). This makes a huge difference if you are shooting landscapes with stars, because reducing the chrominance noise in post processing also dampens down the star color (yes, they have many colors). I also wanted to play more with ultrawide angle lenses and do more narrow-depth-of-field shooting, both of which are easier to do on full frame. So that's why I ended up with 2 cameras. As it turned out, I started playing with vintage manual focus lenses on adapters because I had some good film era lenses and I didn't have a lot of full frame-capable modern lenses in normal and short telephoto lengths. My 50ish and 100mm lenses are old AIS manual Nikkors - pretty good optically - I have to pixel peep to see the chromatic aberrations stopped down one stop.

I had been shooting with the 60D for 3 years before I decided I wanted FF for the above reasons. I had accumulated a number of specialty lenses (400 f/5.6, a macro, an ultra-wide, a fast normal lens 35mm f/1.4) in addition to that great utility zoom 15-85. I have had 24" x 36" prints made from the non-cropped 60D files, and they look perfectly fine at 4 to 6 feet away, a normal viewing distance for a print that size. For close viewing, I have printed 60D files at home up to 11" x 14" with fine results. There's no question that the low-light 6D files have more subtlety in color and less noise, but if you shoot in adequate light levels, you can't really see a significant difference at small print size.

For most people, a good tripod and head, some off camera flash, and an additional lens or two would give you more options than spending the same on a FF body.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 7, 2015)

Great post *NancyP*!

I started back into photography in 2009 with a used 30D from a friend. I soon upgraded to a 40D for a variety of reasons not the least of which was better weather sealing and rear LCD. In fact, I bought four 40D cameras, all used, over the next year or so and sold each of them to good friends that were looking for a great DSLR and trusted my judgement. They all still have and use them. I also purchased a used 5D during that time and used a 40D + 5D combo for quite a while. Eventually I got the 60D new about a year after it was released and kept that until I got the 70D about 6 months ago. I feel like the 70D is a nice improvement over the 60D. I bought the 5D3 (intentionally skipping the 5D2) about 2 years ago and use it most of the time. I bought a 6D a month or two after the 5D3 because the low light AF on the 5D3 was lacking but was eventually improved with a firmware update.

As of now, I have sold the 6D, 60D and the 70D due to a cheap 7D2 upgrade opportunity. But I miss a few features the 70D had like WiFi, Remote Shooting, flip screen, etc. It's a great all purpose camera. I also miss having two FF bodies when shooting important events because having a 24-70 and 70-200 dual body combo is very effective for that purpose. Mixing FF and Crop can be a bit frustrating due to FL overlap and the crop body being too long indoors, etc. So I'm considering getting another 6D at some point. (Or simply keep the one I'm trying to sell that I got for such a low price on Black Friday.)


----------



## nc0b (Jan 7, 2015)

I could not see on your profile what lens or lenses you have, but others have clearly pointed out what you likely need next are more or better lenses. I have two crop bodies and two full fame. They all take excellent pictures, including the 10 and 12 megapixel older models. I can think of a portrait taken with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the 40D where you can count each eyebrow hair, or a very detailed shot of a prong horned antelope take with a 300mm f/4 IS and a 5D classic. It really comes down to flexibility and the right combination of hardware for a job or a trip. For a trip to Easter Island and Machu Picchu I took a 6d FF with 24-105mm, and a 60D with 70-200mm f/4 IS. That covered relatively wide angle with the FF and reasonable telephoto with the crop body. I could have coped with the 60D and the fine 15-85mm IS lens, if I had been willing to be 1000s of miles from home with only one body and one lens. 

For whatever reason, I have better luck with BIF with my 6D and 400mm f/5.6 than with my 60D body. For a trip to Alaska this year I will take two FF, one crop and three or four lenses. If at some point you want to add a FF body, don't rule out buying used. Over half my equipment was purchases use, and everything has been wonderful except for one inexpensive zoom.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 7, 2015)

It all depends upon what you are doing. I shoot for magazine output, not large prints. *For magazine use the is NO difference between M4/3, Canon APS-C and Full Frame.* BTW I shoot FF with a 90mm f/2.8 TS-E in the studio, and xxD with either an EF-S 10-22mm or a EF 85mm F/1.8 for outside or personal work.

Magazines are printed at about 150 DPI. Advertising is submitted as 300 DPI PDF files. Standard magazine size is 8 3⁄8” x 10 7⁄8” scanned at 300 = 2513 x 3263 DPI. A 16 Megapixel M4/3 Olympus E-M1 is 4608 x 3456 pixels. A Canon 70D (5472 x 3648 pixels) would be overkill for what I do, YMMV.

For working outside the studio, I prefer looking like an average tourist. Pro bodied cameras with big zoom lenses attract attention from everyone, including the police. For me a crop mirrorless, with a prime lens, would be perfect (Canon are you listening?).


----------



## mangobutter (Jan 7, 2015)

c.d.embrey said:


> It all depends upon what you are doing. I shoot for magazine output, not large prints. *For magazine use the is NO difference between M4/3, Canon APS-C and Full Frame.*
> 
> Magazines are printed at about 150 DPI. Advertising is submitted as 300 DPI PDF files. Standard magazine size is 8 3⁄8” x 10 7⁄8” scanned at 300 = 2513 x 3263 DPI. A 16 Megapixel M4/3 Olympus E-M1 is 4608 x 3456 pixels. A Canon 70D (5472 x 3648 pixels) would be overkill for what I do, YMMV.
> 
> For working outside the studio, I prefer looking like an average tourist. Pro bodied cameras with big zoom lenses attract attention from everyone, including the police. *For me a crop mirrorless, with a prime lens, would be perfect *(Canon are you listening?).



You mean EOS M with a 22mm 2.0? (35/f3.2)


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 7, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> For working outside the studio, I prefer looking like an average tourist. Pro bodied cameras with big zoom lenses attract attention from everyone, including the police. *For me a crop mirrorless, with a prime lens, would be perfect *(Canon are you listening?).





> You mean EOS M with a 22mm 2.0? (35/f3.2)



*NO*, I was thinking of a *Pro camera*, Something like a Fuji X-Ti (EVF, decent grip size, etc), with a nonexistent 10mm f/1.8 or maybe a nonexistent 17.5 f/1.8. 

BTW *f/2.0 is ALWAYS f/2.0*, if I were to use f/3.2 the exposure would be wrong ???


----------



## DJD (Jan 7, 2015)

The OP specifically asked for some photographic examples so here are mine with some explanation.

I've had a 7D for several years now and have been very happy with it's performance and image quality. But I have to admit, after reading a lot of the discussions on this board, I've wondered if a 5DMkIII would help me take better bird pictures. Is the noise performance that much better, etc. 

After the announcement of the 7D MkII, I decided to rent a 5DMkIII for the weekend and see difference for myself. I was expecting to be blown away by the incredible performance difference in high ISO performance. I was expecting to be left wanting to get a 5D after my testing. But that was not the case. 

It just so happened that I found two shots taken from the same spot of a similar bird with the same exposure and processed in Lightroom with the same setting. I've had to crop the 5D image to account for the 1.6 crop factor and below are the shots. These were take with *ISO 2500* so if the 7D is so much poorer at high ISO you'd expect to see a difference. I know this test wasn't done in a controlled environment with test charts. And the lighting is different because they were taken on different days. But these two images look pretty much the same, don't you think.

So my advice to you is to rent a FF camera, take the kind of pictures you are interested in, and see the difference for yourself.

Cheers






Model: Canon EOS 7D
ISO: 2500
Exposure: 1/250 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 400mm





Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark III
ISO: 2500
Exposure: 1/250 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 400mm


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 7, 2015)

Yeah, but all the cool kids shoot FF.

No, can't back that up. Glass before bodies. 

;D


----------



## jefflinde (Jan 7, 2015)

DJD said:


> The OP specifically asked for some photographic examples so here are mine with some explanation.
> 
> I've had a 7D for several years now and have been very happy with it's performance and image quality. But I have to admit, after reading a lot of the discussions on this board, I've wondered if a 5DMkIII would help me take better bird pictures. Is the noise performance that much better, etc.
> 
> ...




thank you very much for this post. this is what i was looking for. i have though about renting lenses but never bodies. I will have to check that out at my local shop. 

thanks again.


----------



## DJD (Jan 7, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> thank you very much for this post. this is what i was looking for. i have though about renting lenses but never bodies. I will have to check that out at my local shop.
> 
> thanks again.



FYI - I used LensRentals.com and was really happy with the cost and the service. Good luck.


----------



## Cory (Jan 7, 2015)

Just completed my 8th paid shoot - 23 portraits and a group shot for a law practice with my 70D and Sigma 50mm Art (although I returned the Art because my Canon 35 2.0 IS is too similar and a bit more versatile even though the Sigma rendered slightly nicer pictures and bought a Canon 85 1.8 for outdoor portraits). 
Not to brag (and I was told to be eternally humble allowing clients to do my bragging for me), but the results are in the upper levels of goodness on a par with some of the more accomplished professionals who are likely using full frame cameras. 
The only advantages, then, might be greater depth of field opportunity and better high ISO performance. From my experience (which is pretty limited compared to many) that might be it.


----------



## Buzr (Jan 8, 2015)

Not to highjack, but I'm in a fairly close situation myself. I bought a T2i kit as a noob and thought I'd have to buy a "big shot" camera someday if I wanted better pictures than I was taking. Naturally, the more I shot- the better my pictures got. To the point that through these years, I've come to love that cheap little plasticky thing, and really have a hard time selling myself on the thought that a new body is going to make my captures _that_ much better for the investment. I've sold some pictures, and even have a full covershot of a local paper to my credit, but I'm ultimately just a ham and egger. The only reason I'm considering changing bodies is I've finally felt a little hindered by the T2i's light sensitivity and hunt and peck focusing, and I've got a couple trips this year that I really want to make the most of from a landscape wide angle perspective.

My gear is the aforementioned T2i
EFS kit lens I never use
EF 70-200 2.8L II
EF 16-35 2.8L II

I'm really torn between a)getting a 6d, simply because it's "FF", my two good lenses are made for it, etc. or b)upgrading to a 70d with better focusing a feature laden by caparison, getting an efs 10-18 for landscape, and waiting for the trickle down when Canon finally competes with Nikon in MP

I guess even at it's current $1500 pricetag, I just doubt a 6D will have been worth it. Thoughts?


----------



## candc (Jan 8, 2015)

Buzr said:


> Not to highjack, but I'm in a fairly close situation myself. I bought a T2i kit as a noob and thought I'd have to buy a "big shot" camera someday if I wanted better pictures than I was taking. Naturally, the more I shot- the better my pictures got. To the point that through these years, I've come to love that cheap little plasticky thing, and really have a hard time selling myself on the thought that a new body is going to make my captures _that_ much better for the investment. I've sold some pictures, and even have a full covershot of a local paper to my credit, but I'm ultimately just a ham and egger. The only reason I'm considering changing bodies is I've finally felt a little hindered by the T2i's light sensitivity and hunt and peck focusing, and I've got a couple trips this year that I really want to make the most of from a landscape wide angle perspective.
> 
> My gear is the aforementioned T2i
> EFS kit lens I never use
> ...



Get a 6d, you already have 2 of the best lenses for it. Maybe get a fast 50 and you are all set. If you can do with the limited number of AF points then there is nothing better.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 8, 2015)

Buzr said:


> Not to highjack, but I'm in a fairly close situation myself. I bought a T2i kit as a noob and thought I'd have to buy a "big shot" camera someday if I wanted better pictures than I was taking. Naturally, the more I shot- the better my pictures got. To the point that through these years, I've come to love that cheap little plasticky thing, and really have a hard time selling myself on the thought that a new body is going to make my captures _that_ much better for the investment. I've sold some pictures, and even have a full covershot of a local paper to my credit, but I'm ultimately just a ham and egger. The only reason I'm considering changing bodies is I've finally felt a little hindered by the T2i's light sensitivity and hunt and peck focusing, and I've got a couple trips this year that I really want to make the most of from a landscape wide angle perspective.
> 
> My gear is the aforementioned T2i
> EFS kit lens I never use
> ...



That's a tough question *Buzr*. The way I see it, you are more in touch and honest with yourself and your gear than most. And obviously you don't buy a lot of gear just for sake of merely owning it. You have a lot of confidence and experience with that T2i crop camera. You're used to it. You like it. And you don't feel limited by it. So with that in mind and your apparently frugal nature, the 70D seems like a good idea and a great value.

But let's push your boundaries a bit with the 6D FF question: While you own two amazing fabulous lenses that would benefit in a big way from the FF aspect ratio, you don't seem that interested in FF. But then you mention buying a somewhat inferior and dedicated EF-S lens to gain better wide angle FL. Buying the EF-S 10-18 with the 70D will also increase your investment to essentially what you would pay for the 6D. So that is a contradiction. You already own a MUCH better wide angle zoom lens (EF 16-35L) than the EF-S 10-18. The 16-35 would give you everything you could ever dream of with the 6D. And I promise you that you haven't lived until you use that 70-200 lens on a FF camera.

Lastly, you also have a bit of a gap in your lens collection between the 16-35 and the 70-200. Why not 'go for it' and buy a 6D + 24-105-F/4L Kit and fill that gap with a great walk around L lens in the bargain?

I think that based on what you say you shoot and the skill level you are probably at, it is probably a perfect time for you to embrace full frame and see what it can do for your creativity. Great low light, remote shooting and expanded FL options all are waiting with a FF body. And currently, the 6D is about as cheap as it may ever be new. (OR, buy a used 5D Classic FF and see what it's all about for less $$.)

Look, it's a given that you'll love the 70D. That's a no brainer. What I think I am reading between the lines in your post is that you might secretly be pining for a FF 6D. That EF-S 10-18 lens is a bit of a tell and possibly a step backward with the lenses you already own. You are already in a higher class of gear with those and you may likely be disappointed with a variable aperture EF-S lens that can only be used on crop cameras. Thoughts?


----------



## nc0b (Jan 10, 2015)

Randy is right on the money. Get the 6D and the 24-105 L. If I am not shooting something specialized, that is my go to combination. If I am indoors, it's the 6D and the 70-200mm f/2.8 II. Portraits, the same. BIF the 6D and 400mm f/5.6. If I need more reach, a crop and a 300mm f/4 IS for larger animals. Before I had the 300mm and 400mm, I used a Canon TC with the 70-200mm f/2.8 II. Except for BIF it was fine. I sold the 2X TC III, but kept the 1.4X TC III. I only have one EF-S lens, the fine 15-85mm, but I rarely use it since I now have the 6D and 5D classic.


----------



## Buzr (Jan 10, 2015)

Hmm. You guys are awfully persuasive. I appreciate the thoughts and have chewed on them a couple days. I think my hesitance to take the leap is mostly rooted in the lenses I've bought. The 70-200 blew me away when I got it, I couldn't believe how much better my shots got- instantly. Obviously this was after developing just enough skill for that to take place, but it was amazing. Then I bought the 16-35. Honestly, I was underwhelmed. You all probably recognize instantly that it stands to reason and was predictable given the body I'm shooting with. I think that started a faulty subconscious line of thinking that FF wasn't going to wow me either, that it's all about the glass, good or bad (thus the efs 10-18 that I haven't read a bad word about). I've known for a while I would eventually need to upgrade the T2i, and it kind of stuck in my head to do that now and wait to see what happens with FF as Canon (maybe?) actually enters the war. I was actually leaning 70D and figured I'd get input that it would be an appropriate next step. In the end you guys are right, if I'm reading you correctly: My lenses certainly, and possibly me as a developing photographer, will not come into their own unless I stop being cheap already and just get the 6D ) 

My only follow-up question is, do I wait to see what Canon's rebates will be in Feb?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 10, 2015)

Buzr said:


> Hmm. You guys are awfully persuasive. I appreciate the thoughts and have chewed on them a couple days. I think my hesitance to take the leap is mostly rooted in the lenses I've bought. The 70-200 blew me away when I got it, I couldn't believe how much better my shots got- instantly. Obviously this was after developing just enough skill for that to take place, but it was amazing. Then I bought the 16-35. Honestly, I was underwhelmed. You all probably recognize instantly that it stands to reason and was predictable given the body I'm shooting with. I think that started a faulty subconscious line of thinking that FF wasn't going to wow me either, that it's all about the glass, good or bad (thus the efs 10-18 that I haven't read a bad word about). I've known for a while I would eventually need to upgrade the T2i, and it kind of stuck in my head to do that now and wait to see what happens with FF as Canon (maybe?) actually enters the war. I was actually leaning 70D and figured I'd get input that it would be an appropriate next step. In the end you guys are right, if I'm reading you correctly: My lenses certainly, and possibly me as a developing photographer, will not come into their own unless I stop being cheap already and just get the 6D )
> 
> My only follow-up question is, do I wait to see what Canon's rebates will be in Feb?



You're very observant, because what you have seen is the difference in the volume of light that a longer lens passes and the lower volume that a short focal length passes. 

Half the problem with the so called IQ difference between aps-c and FF is the fact that, pro rata, you're using a shorter focal length on a smaller format, and gathering less light. So using a lens such as the 70-200 on a crop camera, especially an f2.8 one, is going to give that smaller sensor the best chance. The 16 to 35 on the other hand is going the other way and reducing the volume of light available to the sensor. For example a 200 mil lens at f8 has an aperture diameter of 25 mm. A 16 mil lens at f4 ( you can get away with wider aperture on wider lens for dof etc) has an aperture diametre of only 4 mm ! If you could use a 200 mil lens at f2.8 on a crop sensor all the time no one would have any complaints about smaller sensor noise etc, but unfortunately that is hopelessly impractical. This is why bigger formats are better for using with wider angle ( shorter focal length ) lenses. How often do you hear how people like APS camera for birding ? What length of lens do they use for birding ? The longer the lens you stick on a crop camera the better it's going to be. 

So you are spot on when you say the 70-200 f2.8 is fantastic on APS, but no the 16-35 f2.8.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 10, 2015)

The only difference you will see with FF is better IQ at high ISO's, and the possibility of wider angles and shallow depth of field.

As far as viewing photos, there are literally billions available online. Do a little searching at places like flickr to start.

Many users prefer the additional depth of field and looks of a small sensor, so it is not really a concept of better IQ but of ability to expand capabilities. Going to medium format can further expand capabilities.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 10, 2015)

Buzr said:


> My only follow-up question is, do I wait to see what Canon's rebates will be in Feb?



I'm no expert on rebates. However, others will probably correct me but rebates are usually over after New Years. This year, they extended them through January. Who knows what Canon will do after that but I suspect the rebates will be over. I think that this year there is enough stuff coming in 2015 that Canon is trying to help the various authorized dealers clear some inventory for another month past the normal Nov-Dec rebate/sales time window.

If you aren't already looking at canonpricewatch.com, I would give that a shot. Gordon does a great job of doing deal alerts, and wrangling a few deals for his subscribers. If anyone can predict rebate stuff, it might be him.


----------



## Buzr (Jan 10, 2015)

Thank you all for the nudge/encouragement/education. Owe you all a pint. Hitting up Breckenridge this month and Antelope Canyon/Buckskin Gulch in the spring- I feel confident now this is the right camera to arm myself with, and I can't wait. 

And good looking out on canonpricewatch, I was not plugged in enough to be aware of their site, and found only praise for Gordon looking through various forums. Sent an email and was immediately responded to, now dealing with a very reputable authorized seller, full US warranty, free ship, no tax, still get the rebate- great way to save a couple Benji's over buying from Amazon. jefflinde, if you haven't bought yet, I can let you know how satisfied I am when Santa brings a late delivery. )


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 10, 2015)

<You're very observant, because what you have seen is the difference in the volume of light that a longer lens passes and the lower volume that a short focal length passes.>


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> <You're very observant, because what you have seen is the difference in the volume of light that a longer lens passes and the lower volume that a short focal length passes.>



Think about it...my 600/4 gathers light from a 150mm diameter front element and passes it through an aperture that's 150mm in diameter. At the wide end, the 16-35/4 lens is gathering light from a 46mm front element and passing it through an aperture that's 4mm in diameter. A much greater volume of light passes through the supertelephoto than the UWA lens, since the area of the aperture is 1400x larger. That's why when you shoot both lenses wide open at the same shutter speed and ISO, the shot with the 600/4 is >10 stops brighter than the 16/4, exactly as the math predicts. 

No, wait...the front element is the limiting factor, that's a 10x larger area on the 600/4, meaning images with that lens are >3-stops brighter, exactly as the math predicts. 

No, wait...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 10, 2015)

YOU STOLE THE PICTURE I STOLE FROM JRISTA!!!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 10, 2015)

I get that, I was more or less thinking in terms of absolute area of the lens diameter and not the focal length. Because in theory in Bizzaro World I could create a 16mm lens with a gigantic diameter or a super long and narrow 600mm lens. I didn't do the math on any of it so the 600 might very well always beat the 16mm...

...Ooo time for more Guiness Extra Stout...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> ....Ooo time for more Guiness Extra Stout...



Since the FF vs. APS-C thing has been done beyond death, I have an *important* question. Have you ever tried Guinness Foreign Extra Stout? If not, I highly recommend it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2015)

Ps. After that, if you like dark beers try a Sam Smith's Imperial Stout. In the bottle, which has gold foil over the top, it looks a bit darker than a Guinness ES. But after you remove the foil, you see that unlike the brown Guinness bottle, the Sam Smith's is clear glass.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 10, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I get that, I was more or less thinking in terms of absolute area of the lens diameter and not the focal length. Because in theory in Bizzaro World I could create a 16mm lens with a gigantic diameter or a super long and narrow 600mm lens. I didn't do the math on any of it so the 600 might very well always beat the 16mm...
> 
> ...Ooo time for more Guiness Extra Stout...



Yea, it does get complicated. Here's a link to a guy who can explain it much better than me:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exposure/

In a nutshell light _density_ is not the same as total light in volume terms. Exposure is dictated by light density, not volume. A greater volume of light will lead to less noise. 

When you magnify you lose light density. This is why the given aperture of a longer lens is larger in diameter than a shorter one, to give the same exposure. So when I said a longer focal length lens passes more light, in practice it does, unless you want a 600 mil lens that starts at f64. 

This is why those who use long focal length lenses on their aps cameras are generally more content with the sensor size than those who use very short focal length lenses. 

Of course this becomes more relevant in lower levels of light density - darker. 

'Landscape' FF focal length lenses are still quite short, and so suffer from small diameter. This is why I find it amusing when I hear people referring to the likes of a D810 or A7r as the 'ultimate landscape camera'. It is also going to be the problem with cramming more pixels into a FF size sensor, and the reason why a lower mp count DMF sensor will run rings round a very high FF.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ps. After that, if you like dark beers try a Sam Smith's Imperial Stout. In the bottle, which has gold foil over the top, it looks a bit darker than a Guinness ES. But after you remove the foil, you see that unlike the brown Guinness bottle, the Sam Smith's is clear glass.



Cool. I love dark beers and it has always been a small hobby of mine to seek and find obscure ones. Thank you. My wife is about ready to kill me right now because I've been watching the New England game with my "6 pack." Sam Smith's Imperial Stout, I will have to try that. Where do you get the Foreign Stout?

Thanks.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 10, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I get that, I was more or less thinking in terms of absolute area of the lens diameter and not the focal length. Because in theory in Bizzaro World I could create a 16mm lens with a gigantic diameter or a super long and narrow 600mm lens. I didn't do the math on any of it so the 600 might very well always beat the 16mm...
> ...



Thanks to you and Neuro, I got it now. That's actually a really, really good point and one often overlooked.


----------



## emko (Jan 10, 2015)

APSC with a EF lens will have sharper center to corners vs FF on many lenses as it will use mostly the center of the EF lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> You're very observant, because what you have seen is the difference in the volume of light that a longer lens passes and the lower volume that a short focal length passes.





Sporgon said:


> Yea, it does get complicated. Here's a link to a guy who can explain it much better than me:
> 
> http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exposure/
> 
> In a nutshell light _density_ is not the same as total light in volume terms. Exposure is dictated by light density, not volume. A greater volume of light will lead to less noise.



Consider his comparison – a 200mm f/4 lens vs. a 50mm f/2 lens, same shutter speed, same ISO, same subject. The image from the 200mm f/4 lens has less noise despite being two stops slower and pushed in post for matched brightness. You seem to be concluding that the greater 'volume of light' means less noise from the longer focal length. 

But you must consider his setup, about which he states, "_The images were made with the same camera, from the same distance, using two different lenses._" He's showing the subjects at (essentially) identical size, which means the image from the 50/2 is a *4x crop* compared to the 200/4 image. Of course the noise is worse with a 4x crop...the 'volume of light' is lower because a much smaller area of the sensor is being used with the shorter FL lens. It's like proving that at the same exposure, my 1D X has less noise than my PowerShot S100 (a 4.6x crop sensor). I don't think we should call Reuters to have that put on the wire services...

If he had moved forward with the 50mm lens so the framing was identical to the 200mm lens, the same area of the sensor would have been used in both shots, the 50/2 shot would have been less noisy than the 200/4 shot after the latter was pushed two stops to match brightness. 

Your 'volume of light' concept (more light means less noise) is correct, but focal length is irrelevant. It's about the area of the sensor, which determines the total light gathered for a given exposure. I could compare 24mm on my 1D X with 24mm on my S100, same subject framed identically (thus from much further away with the S100), with the same exposure settings and the S100 would obviously have more noise because the area of the sensor is much smaller, and therefore gathers less total light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ps. After that, if you like dark beers try a Sam Smith's Imperial Stout. In the bottle, which has gold foil over the top, it looks a bit darker than a Guinness ES. But after you remove the foil, you see that unlike the brown Guinness bottle, the Sam Smith's is clear glass.
> ...



I first had the Foreign Extra Stout when I ordered "a Guinness" in the cafe/bar at the Hotel Muhabura in Ruhengeri, Rwanda. But about a year ago I ran across some 4-packs in the liquor store next to the Whole Foods in the town where I live, so obviously it can be ordered in the US. Maybe ask your local store?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, it does get complicated. Here's a link to a guy who can explain it much better than me:
> ...



Darn you beat me to it.

Surely this 'observation' is just a function of magnification?

The first two images in the link illustrate this, the stars are dimmer because the same amount of light captured is being enlarged more, bearing in mind both images are crops, it is just that the 15mm image is cropped and enlarged more.


----------



## JoFT (Jan 14, 2015)

I believe this comparison is too weak: you should consider µ43 as well. I do have 2 photos from all 3 formats in comparison:

The top is the 5D3
The middle is 7D2
The lowest is the Panasonic GM1

I will extend that comparison in the future but I think you have to do extrem stuff to get the advantage of FF, but than there is no choice, f.i. @ HDR and extreme adaptions in post...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2015)

JoFT said:


> I believe this comparison is too weak: you should consider µ43 as well. I do have 2 photos from all 3 formats in comparison:
> 
> The top is the 5D3
> The middle is 7D2
> ...



Without knowing the specific camera settings for each shot the comparisons are useless. But the DOF apparent in the bottom group would suggest you have the labels reversed with the ff crop on the bottom and the m4/3 on the top.


----------



## JoFT (Jan 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > I believe this comparison is too weak: you should consider µ43 as well. I do have 2 photos from all 3 formats in comparison:
> ...



That was exactly the idea: All images were shot at comparable settings getting rid of the influence of the crop factor for DOF:

5D3 with 1.4 [email protected] f2.8
7D2 with 2.0 35mm @ f 2.0
GM1 with 1.4 25mm @ f 1.4

ISO @ the night shot: 1600
ISO @ the water tap: ISO 200


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2015)

JoFT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > JoFT said:
> ...



If they were then they would be identical, I have done similar comparisons (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15884.msg291300#msg291300). I would suggest here is a fault in your methodology because my results did not show that difference in dof.


----------



## JoFT (Jan 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



there is basically no difference in DOF, but I did not had the camera in a tripod. Therefore the focusing was not exactly at the same point of the water tap. It was some millimeters difference... and in the camera angle as well.

My main topic is to check wether i will see the difference in dynamic range, tonal range or color sensitivity etc...


----------



## jepabst (Jan 14, 2015)

Honestly, you will be very happy with your 70D, until you get a 6D or a 5DIII. Then your 70D will begin to collect dust. 

Put it this way, you don't know what you are missing, so you love your 70D. But if you had a 5DIII and someone took it away and gave you a 70D, you'd probably not like photography any more. 

I exaggerate, a little, for impact.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2015)

JoFT said:


> there is basically no difference in DOF, but I did not had the camera in a tripod. Therefore the focusing was not exactly at the same point of the water tap. It was some millimeters difference... and in the camera angle as well.
> 
> My main topic is to check wether i will see the difference in dynamic range, tonal range or color sensitivity etc...



As I said, there is a problem in your methodology. You cannot make comparisons of minutiae if you have bigger flaws in the methodology. There are big differences in your point of focus and/or dof so your comparison is fatally flawed for comparing the smaller differences in other aspects.


----------



## jepabst (Jan 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > there is basically no difference in DOF, but I did not had the camera in a tripod. Therefore the focusing was not exactly at the same point of the water tap. It was some millimeters difference... and in the camera angle as well.
> ...



I agree; the method is flawed, all the pics should be at the same f-stop. Sure, the FF can create similar bokeh as the micro 4/3, but the POINT is that the opposite is not true. The Micro 4/3 can't achieve the same shallow DOF as the FF. Changing the f-stops to create the same looks is a pointless endeavor. If they were all shot at f/2.0 the shallow DOF capability of the FF would be illustrated.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 14, 2015)

jepabst said:


> I agree; the method is flawed, all the pics should be at the same f-stop.



I thought the whole idea is that the guy is trying to show _equivalence_ between the format sizes - so the actual aperture opening has to be the same diameter - the f stop will be different on the different focal lengths to achieve this.


----------



## jepabst (Jan 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> jepabst said:
> 
> 
> > I agree; the method is flawed, all the pics should be at the same f-stop.
> ...


Then I retract my ignorant statement. I should have read closer. My apologies. I guess I didn't see the point of that.


----------



## JoFT (Jan 15, 2015)

jepabst said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > jepabst said:
> ...


----------



## SPKoko (Jan 15, 2015)

TeT said:


> 300mm 1/125 5.6 400 from 6D & SL1



Thanks for this very good example! I shows perfectly that when shooting a subject with the exactly same parameters and distance, the APS-C photo is really a crop of the FF photo: Same DOF, same perspective, same everything... just a crop!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Watch that Foreign Extra Stout it makes your eyes go funny! 
Note there are a number of versions, I prefer the one brewed in St James' Dublin. It is also made in: 
"FES is produced at Diageo owned breweries in Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Seychelles, Malaysia and Jamaica.[23] In addition, it is produced under licence in 39 other countries.[23][24] Diageo has brewing arrangements with the Castel Group to license brew and distribute Guinness in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gambia, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Togo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Guinea" according to Wikipedia.


----------



## JoFT (Jan 26, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > I believe this comparison is too weak: you should consider µ43 as well. I do have 2 photos from all 3 formats in comparison:
> ...



Meanwhile my blogpost to this topic is online, If you like: http://bit.ly/1yIg63r


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2015)

JoFT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > JoFT said:
> ...


Well done, lead off with the DxO overall score (which even DxO says can't be used between sensor sizes, though most would say is entirely irrelevant for any kind of comparison), then follow up with your flawed methodology comparison images that are handheld and auto focused, some in different years!

Sorry my friend, your conclusions might make sense, but your post is so rife with inaccuracies it is scary.


----------



## JoFT (Jan 26, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Thank you for your comment. My idea was to show real world comparison and not a scientific one.

For the comparison of dynamic & tonal range as well as color sensitivity shooting from a tripod will not give us a different result than handheld - due to my understanding.

If I want to make ist scientifically correct: Comparing cameras from a tripod would make an alignment of all cameras to the same optical path necessary without any influence on the conclusio... This means adapters for each cameras which I can align... And the result would be the same...

And the mixing of an old image from 2011: If I know that I have two photos were I see a certain phenomena much clearer I think I can use this image - als long as both images are taken under comparable circumstances... (Same place, same time etc...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Sorry my friend, your conclusions might make sense, but your post is so rife with inaccuracies it is scary.



Based on past statements, I didn't even bother clicking on the link. I can drive by a wreck on the side of the highway without slowing down to look at it, too.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 26, 2015)

Here's one big difference between APS-C & FF - the pixel density really brings out the flaws in lenses - check out the purple fringing in the 7DII vs. 1DsIII from the latest test on TDP - yikes:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 26, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Here's one big difference between APS-C & FF - the pixel density really brings out the flaws in lenses - check out the purple fringing in the 7DII vs. 1DsIII from the latest test on TDP - yikes:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



Is that pixel density doing that or distance from the chart ? I presume these are shot on the same framing so the 7DII will be further away.

I think TDP is a very useful and well executed resource, but I'm not sure allowing direct comparisons between APS and FF reflects real world results.


----------



## JoFT (Jan 26, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Here's one big difference between APS-C & FF - the pixel density really brings out the flaws in lenses - check out the purple fringing in the 7DII vs. 1DsIII from the latest test on TDP - yikes:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



Thank you, good sample... I have the feeling that pixel density gives a big impact.. What might work with a pixel pitch of 6,3µ may not work with 4,0µ... 

The pixel of µ43 with 3,7µ is very close by. And to design a lens for just the µ43 size is much easier than for FF... The result you see in this comparison


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 26, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one big difference between APS-C & FF - the pixel density really brings out the flaws in lenses - check out the purple fringing in the 7DII vs. 1DsIII from the latest test on TDP - yikes:
> ...


I'm no optical expert, but I would think that the abberations would improve the closer you get towards infinity focus, so I would think it's the pixel density. I noticed this same phenomenon with my fast lenses, particularly with the 24L II and 50L when I was shooting with a crop sensor.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 26, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Yikes ! Yet another point then, to add to my list of reasons to get hold of another 5D mark one.


----------



## JoFT (Jan 26, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



It is always a bit depending on the lens design. But basically you are right. Color fringing or Chromatic aberrations are an optical phenomena which is based on diffraction. Look at the Dark side of the moon cover: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pink-floyds-dark-side-of-the-moon-128883

The same effect happens while focusing. The effect is just related to geometric conditions. In the sensor plane this effect has an absolute size. And as higher the pixel density is as more sensitive is this sensor against this optical failure.


----------

