# Review on the 5D4 low light vs 1Dx2 and 7D2



## Mikehit (Oct 23, 2016)

Glenn Bartley has done an excellent review of the 5D4 looking at its performance in low light in comparison to the 1Dx2 and 7D2, especially in focal-length limited situations for bird photography (that is, cropping all outputs to the same FOV). 

http://www.glennbartley.com/Canon5DmarkIVSetupReviewandSettings.html


----------



## Click (Oct 23, 2016)

Excellent review. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 23, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Glenn Bartley has done an excellent review of the 5D4 looking at its performance in low light in comparison to the 1Dx2 and 7D2, especially in focal-length limited situations for bird photography (that is, cropping all outputs to the same FOV).
> 
> http://www.glennbartley.com/Canon5DmarkIVSetupReviewandSettings.html


Assumes that for whatever reason, you can't go with a longer telephoto lens on the FF camera. That assumption is often true when shooting small objects like birds. You are frequently maxed out with whatever telephoto equipment you have. Also using tele extenders in very low light just makes the ISO/shutter speed trade worse. So, in his situation, I agree with his assessment.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 24, 2016)

Glenn's needs are, as he says quite narrowly defined and I'd be surprised if many CR readers fit that category. Even though I'm possibly 80% birds I would hate to give up my FF wide angle capability and so forth. For three years I've been very happy with FF 300 X2 but I was well aware of noise creeping in when cropping and just accepted that and I also accepted that distant birds simply would not be shot (other than ID). However, I'm speaking primarily as a single camera guy. 

And I can't afford to go to rain forests very often (actually maybe never). 

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 24, 2016)

I think it is more common than you would think, Jack. 

A lot of wildlife shots need cropping (predators and very shy animals), outdoor sports in the fall and some scenic shots where you want to abstract some elements. And that is the only review have found that has specifically tackled the higher(er) ISO issues, and it shows that at higher ISOs the old rule applies - glass first :-\ .


----------



## arthurbikemad (Oct 24, 2016)

I placed an order for a 7D2 after using my partners 1200D on my 500L, the reach is nice! Also detail shown even on the little 1200 was GREAT imo! I may well revisit the crop factor later on but for now I have made my choice, meantime if you want ultra lightweight the smaller bodies have something to offer on big whites I think.

1200D + 500L


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 24, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> I think it is more common than you would think, Jack.
> 
> A lot of wildlife shots need cropping (predators and very shy animals), outdoor sports in the fall and some scenic shots where you want to abstract some elements. And that is the only review have found that has specifically tackled the higher(er) ISO issues, and it shows that at higher ISOs the old rule applies - glass first :-\ .



Of course, that's just my guess. However, I know that we all would like more reach but at what cost and weight. You can't go wrong prioritizing good glass.

I see one indisputable advantage to a crop camera with a telephoto and that's the narrower view allows you to place a focus point more appropriately and to see your subject at the moment of shooting in more detail. As far as the actual reach advantage, I thought that subject had been beaten to death and crop proven to be an insignificant advantage, or is the jury still out?

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 24, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is more common than you would think, Jack.
> ...



I have seen a lot of discussion about the 'reach advantage' of the 7D2 but most of it has been discussions in good light. This was the first view I have seen where the writer has specifically addressed higher ISOs and how the quality of pixels overrides the number of pixels and it is at that point that the 7D2 definitely loses any telephoto advantage. From Glenn's article at ISO 1600 the 1Dx2 seems to be slightly better than the 7D2. The 5D4 is somewhere in between. 
You are also right about the focus point placement and I am weighing that up with birds in flight where the narrow FOV on the 7D makes it harder to find the little critter in the first place.


----------



## Otara (Oct 24, 2016)

Very good news for me as a 7D2 owner.

I also have a 6D so this helps decide me to finally give up on the 'one camera that will rule them all' fantasy I keep having.


----------



## MJ (Oct 24, 2016)

...and the moral of the story is (yet again) any of these cams is quite capable.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 24, 2016)

I use the 7DII, 5DIV and 5DS R. There are differences among these cameras.

AF; 5DIV is better than 5DS R, which is better than 7DII. This is both in terms of locking on and reproducibility of focus. I get keepers in that order.

Noise; the 5DS R is best because it needs less sharpening, at the expense of the occasional Moire. I find the 5DIV no better than the 5DS R in general, and both better than the 7DII, despite the comments in that review.

Field of view; the 5DS R wins out by having the reach of a crop and the FOV of FF.

Frame rate; the clear winner is the 7DII. But, like Art Morris, I tend not to fire the camera like a machine gun, but if I need to I will use the 7DII.

Narrower focus; the centre point focus is indeed best on the 7DII.

Quality of glass required; both my 300mm f2.8 II and 400mm DO II virtually max out with the 1.4xTC on the 7DII and 5DS as the hit on going to the 2xTC means that the sensor is beginning to out=resolve the lens. But, both those lenses resolve better with the 2xTC than the 1.4xTC on the 5DIV (and will do so on the 1DXII and 5DIII etc).

If you can't good results doing bird photography with all of these, find a new hobby.


----------



## zim (Oct 24, 2016)

Interesting indeed (assuming it's not a flawed test in principle) 

For me the 1Dx2 is not on the table so it's not so much that the 5D4 isn't way ahead of the 7D2 but rather that in that situation, which would be fairly extreme for me, IQ is basically a wash. For all the other types of photography I like to do the 5D4 would be better than the 7D therefore it is shaping up to be the better 'all rounder' for my needs. The only things the 7D2 has in it's favour is fps and cost.

Having said that in the feather comparisons I actually see the order as 1DX2, 7D2, 5D4 but it is very slight to my eyes. It would be interesting to see those files processed to their best through other raw convertors like DxO Optics Pro and C1


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 24, 2016)

This account goes to prove what I already knew as a 7DII owner. The camera holds up very well and really only struggles in night shooting and very low light. I will often see people complaining about the camera's noise performance, which will have me going back to check where they're coming from with the complaint. Side-by-side with one of my full-frame cameras, it handles noise in a different way. It's certainly not 'as good' or on the same playing field by all noise measurements, but for sports shooting, it's on the money.

I'm the photographer for the NMRA/NMCA racing series and I toss around the idea of a 1DXII all the time. Then I just remember that I got the job using a 7D2 and 5D3...upgrading can wait. The full-frame look can't be denied as it gives images more of a three dimensional feeling versus the more flat looking photos of the 7D2 at the same settings. That's where the 5DIV comes in and helps out with its even better AF and 7fps...the 5D3 can't AF night racing at all and the 5DIV and 7DII stick on.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 24, 2016)

I should also have mentioned one important point relevant to my usage. Currently, I am tending to use the 400mm DO II with TCs. The 400mm + 1.4xTC on the 7DII gives the same field of view and effective depth of field as the 400mm + 2xTC on the 5DIV. But, at f/5.6 on crop you get an extra stop of shutter speed or iso as f/8 on FF for the same effective resolution.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 24, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> I placed an order for a 7D2 after using my partners 1200D on my 500L, the reach is nice! Also detail shown even on the little 1200 was GREAT imo! I may well revisit the crop factor later on but for now I have made my choice, meantime if you want ultra lightweight the smaller bodies have something to offer on big whites I think.
> 
> 1200D + 500L



It's seriously front focussing and you can't AFMA that ultra lite body.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Oct 24, 2016)

The fact that the 5D IV is slightly better than the 7D II once equivalent crop is taken is all I need, I didn't expect it to be better. The 5D IV is better in most other situations, so there is no negative other than price. This comparison is great to see, and frankly I think it is pointing me towards waiting for the 6D II because of the price. Even though the 6D will most likely be lower res (rumoured 25MP), it should still be close to a wash with the 7D II. Really, I don't know why I'm fighting the idea of two bodies and get a current 6D, then have the high frame rate plus a FF to make some of my lenses shine they way they should, but a single body solution appeals to me.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 24, 2016)

The reality that may have to settle in is that the cameras have plateaued in certain respects and "better" photos will have to come from more creativity and planning. The masses have practically the same opportunity of producing a stunning photo as the guy with all the gear, if they are dedicated/motivated. 

"Tim Laman spent three days using rope to climb up and down a tree in Indonesian Borneo, placing cameras at various angles to prepare for the return of an orangutan he knew would return to eat. 
When the great ape came back, Laman shot the picture—and now, he is the grand-prize winner of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition." 

http://www.timlaman.com/wildlife-diaries/world-press-photo-win/


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Oct 24, 2016)

9H6A1277-1 by Big Ant TV Media LLC, on Flickr


9H6A1228-1 by Big Ant TV Media LLC, on Flickr
my 5d4 lowlight test 1st image is 5000 iso
and other image is 1600


----------



## AlanF (Oct 24, 2016)

After many years of analysing data, I never believe anyhting until I repeat it. So, I downloaded the files of the feathers, processed the .CR2s with DPP with my usual fine settings, pasted a section from each into Photoshop, stretched them all to a similar size in order to compare. I get quite different results from what I expected from the article. The 7DII is far worse than the others. I don't what I did wrong to get this result.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 24, 2016)

AlanF said:


> After many years of analysing data, I never believe anyhting until I repeat it. So, I downloaded the files of the feathers, processed the .CR2s with DPP with my usual fine settings, pasted a section from each into Photoshop, stretched them all to a similar size in order to compare. I get quite different results from what I expected from the article. The 7DII is far worse than the others. I don't what I did wrong to get this result.



Thanks Alan

The 5DIV shots are amazingly clean!


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 24, 2016)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> Big Ant TV Media LLC[/url], on Flickr
> my 5d4 lowlight test 1st image is 5000 iso
> and other image is 1600



Not surprising, BigAnt. Even Glenn Bartley admits that the full-frame shots from the 5DIV will be superior at any ISO. The article was about cropping to a similar FOV for a subject smaller than any of the sensors.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Oct 24, 2016)

bholliman said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > After many years of analysing data, I never believe anyhting until I repeat it. So, I downloaded the files of the feathers, processed the .CR2s with DPP with my usual fine settings, pasted a section from each into Photoshop, stretched them all to a similar size in order to compare. I get quite different results from what I expected from the article. The 7DII is far worse than the others. I don't what I did wrong to get this result.
> ...



Thanks Alan, that certainly shows that I'll have no use for my 7DII (other than shutter speed) once I can save for one of the current FF bodies.

With your experience with the 7 and 5D bodies, where would you expect the 5DS R to fit into the same comparison?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 24, 2016)

I normally use DxO PRIME to process RAW files as it is so good at removing noise without compromising detail too much. The 5DIV is not yet compatible so I have been using DPP for all my 3 bodies for comparison. It seems to me, from iso250 up the 5DS and 5DIV are reasonably similar. The comparisons on TDP have the 5DIV getting better with higher iso:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=1074&Test=0&ISO=800&CameraComp=979&TestComp=0&ISOComp=800

etc. However, I am very conservative about using high iso when I have to crop.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 24, 2016)

Would be nice if the 5DIV had 1-2fps more and more buffer for BIF/action shots. Doesn't matter how good the AF is if you can't catch the right millisecond of action.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Oct 24, 2016)

AlanF said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > I placed an order for a 7D2 after using my partners 1200D on my 500L, the reach is nice! Also detail shown even on the little 1200 was GREAT imo! I may well revisit the crop factor later on but for now I have made my choice, meantime if you want ultra lightweight the smaller bodies have something to offer on big whites I think.
> ...



Agree you can't AFMA the SL-1, but I don't see 'serious front focusing.' Go to the Flickr page and check the mag. view... looks darn good for effective 1120mm.



AlanF said:


> After many years of analysing data, I never believe anyhting until I repeat it. So, I downloaded the files of the feathers, processed the .CR2s with DPP with my usual fine settings, pasted a section from each into Photoshop, stretched them all to a similar size in order to compare. I get quite different results from what I expected from the article. The 7DII is far worse than the others. I don't what I did wrong to get this result.



Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't your 7DII crops as shown here at higher magnification than the FF images? Would look better if they were the same magnification.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 24, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Would be nice if the 5DIV had 1-2fps more and more buffer for BIF/action shots. Doesn't matter how good the AF is if you can't catch the right millisecond of action.



It was a tough decision but that's partly why I went 1DX II over 5D4. It's not even necessarily BIF. It can be simply bird movement that changes the pose. Just a Downy I posted in the other thread but this example is a pose that was split second and not acquired if I was using my 6D. It's 3 or 4 shots right when it matters that increases the chance of success. And that illuminated AF point in the dull ISO 3200 situation I was in, saved a split second too. I fell in love with that feature with the 1D4.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Oct 24, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > arthurbikemad said:
> ...



I did go to the page. The very front of the wing and face are in sharp focus, but nothing else. If it was correctly focussed, then there should have been sufficient depth of field for further back to have been in focus as well. 

Yes, they are at different magnifications to get to the same final size. But, that is what was provided in the downloads from his website. I went out in the fading light this evening and took some comparison shots with the 7DIi and found it significantly noisier.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 24, 2016)

AlanF said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I have a 6D and had a 7D for a while at the same time. When comparing the two I found the IQ loss (for my particular lens, 70-300L) and incredible amount of noise with the 7D, unbearable. When the 7DII came out I was excited but after seeing a lot of testing, the noise still looked painful though improved. Sadly, it doesn't look like we will get a non-1series faster than the 5DIV this generation.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 24, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Would be nice if the 5DIV had 1-2fps more and more buffer for BIF/action shots. Doesn't matter how good the AF is if you can't catch the right millisecond of action.
> ...



Haha Downys are like little crack heads, running up and down trees. I certainly get frustrated with the 6D frame rate and buffer when I can fill the frame but not get a decent shot of one.


----------



## kasperj (Oct 25, 2016)

Here are larger views for a better comparison. 
Files imported in LR CC 2015.7 (Camera Raw 9.7) and cropped the 5DIV and 1DXII to same FOV as the 7DII file Develop settings = none. Noise and sharpness = 0
ISO 6400:






ISO 12800





To my eyes the 7D holds up better than expected, and in line with the reviewers conclusion


----------



## old-pr-pix (Oct 25, 2016)

AlanF forgive me, some nights I'm just slow... (plus I don't have this specific hardware to do my own testing, I'm trying to decide on 5DIV). In your composite aren't the 7DII images about twice the size of the others? Meaning the overall image if printed would be about twice as large as the FF images? If the 7DII image were reduced to be equal size, wouldn't the apparent noise be significantly less as shows in the images by kasperj? (Although perhaps still more noisy than the FF images.)

As to the SL-1 shot, you seem to agree the face and part of the feathers are in focus. At f5.6 and 1120mm the DOF is only about 1/4" (roughly 1/8" fore and 1/8" aft of the plane of sharpest focus). While it may be fair to say a better choice of f-stop could have yielded better DOF, I don't think AFMA would have helped this shot. IMO the plane of sharpest focus is right where it should be... on the eye and face.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 25, 2016)

Isn't it possible there could be noise variation from camera to camera just like we see with other parameters such as AF consistency etc. That would suggest that a fair number of shots would be needed to really draw a conclusion.

Regardless the performance of all three is pretty impressive.

Another thought. The concept thus far is to take a FF shot and compare it to the crop down-sized. What happens the other way around - crop FF to match the crop sensor output. And what is happening to the other qualities that contribute to the best overall IQ in this scenario?

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Oct 25, 2016)

1. Noise
I wouldn't decide to buy any camera based on the noise tests here. First, noise can be analysed in a number of different ways, depending on the purposes of the shot and the conditions, with quite different conclusions.

a) Crop has 1.6x shorter lens to give the same field of view as FF. Both shots are examined at the same size. The crop image will have 1.6x1.6 less light and so you lose 1.36 stops of light at the same f-stop.
b) Crop and FF have the same lens and aperture. Both are at the same distance from the subject and the image covers the same area on each sensor. The noise should be similar on both, the crop being finer grained and a bit worse because of light loss in the gaps between pixels.

a) is often the case for landscapes, portraits and general photography.
b) is often the case for bird photography comparisons.
Other examples are in between. 

And, it is further complicated by the isos used. I personally never use iso6400 for bird photography as too much detail gets lost. 

Secondly, the tests weren't well controlled or sufficiently described. The amount of sharpening also greatly affects noise levels, and different degrees are required for different sized enlargements and crops.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 25, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Regardless the performance of all three is pretty impressive.



Oh, I agree. I started out shooting film and am still amazed that I can have a picture of a bird that barely covered the centre point in the VF and I can blow it up and recognise the bird. We are definitely spoilt ;D




Jack Douglas said:


> Another thought. The concept thus far is to take a FF shot and compare it to the crop down-sized. What happens the other way around - crop FF to match the crop sensor output. And what is happening to the other qualities that contribute to the best overall IQ in this scenario?
> 
> Jack



That is what Glenn Bartley did in his test - he cropped the 1Dx2/5D4 samples then up-scaled them. That is what you would do in real life.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 25, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> I don't know where your calculation comes from. He used a 500mm lens not a 1120mm, and depth of filed calculations need the distance as well. I take thousands of shots of birds close up under conditions of low depth of field and always get more in focus than that. Here are two recent ones where I was so close (560mm lens, f/5.6) that the robin filled nearly the whole frame and I had to reduce size to upload. In one, I focussed on the eye, and the other the front wing. See how much more is in focus than the one I said was front-focussed.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 25, 2016)

Ok, I have gone off and done my own testing at my favourite iso, 640, with the 7DII, 5DS R and 5DIV, using RAW. All of these are at f/5.6 and 1/800s at 560mm with the 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC, at 12.7m from a target I produced myself. The target is a 100% crop, each pixel = 1 pixel of the original. Each pair has at the top my standard fine sharpening and noise reduction, and below no noise reduction and sharpening. The noise isn't particularly intrusive. In terms of IQ, the 5DS R is cleaner than the 7DII and slightly outresolves it. The 5DIV has marginally less resolution but higher accutance. Conclude for yourselves.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 25, 2016)

And now for Bob Atkins chart for resolution, as above with slight sharpening and noise reduction. Order as above, top 7DII, 5DSR and 5DIV at bottom. The 5DSR wins, and the 5DIV isn't far behind the 7DII.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 25, 2016)

In conclusion, they are all damned good, and I have more cameras and telephoto lenses than sense.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Oct 25, 2016)

AlanF said:


> In conclusion, they are all damned good,* and I have more cameras and telephoto lenses than sense*.



Same here, I am a sucker.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Oct 25, 2016)

AlanF said:


> I don't know where your calculation comes from. He used a 500mm lens not a 1120mm, and depth of filed calculations need the distance as well. I take thousands of shots of birds close up under conditions of low depth of field and always get more in focus than that. Here are two recent ones where I was so close (560mm lens, f/5.6) that the robin filled nearly the whole frame and I had to reduce size to upload. In one, I focussed on the eye, and the other the front wing. See how much more is in focus than the one I said was front-focussed.



Nice example to prove your point, but I still contend technique and not AFMA is the likely solution in this specific case. Yet, apologies are due... we are both only part right... here is quote from Flickr page that misled me "*Just for fun, 1200D and 500/4 Mk2+1.4XMk3... Wanted to see what happens when you use the mighty 500/4 Mark 2 and 1.4X Mark 3 giving 1120mm on the little Canon 1200D a body that cost £250.00 new.*" And, your are correct, I had to assume a distance (I tried both 10 feet and 20 feet). But, I should have put 700 mm (500x1.4) into the on-line DOF calculator, not 1120.


----------



## Tuke (Oct 25, 2016)

My bad, tought that the photos were shot with different distance. Thank you for pointing out Mikehit.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 25, 2016)

Not sure what your point is there, Tuke. 

The aim would be to crop all images to the same FOV so that the subject (in this case a feather) were the same size in the final output.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 25, 2016)

AlanF said:


> In conclusion, they are all damned good, and I have more cameras and telephoto lenses than sense.


If you had to pick one of your bodies (5DIV, 5DSR, 7DII) for birding specifically, which would you choose? They all seem to have pretty equal trade offs.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 25, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > In conclusion, they are all damned good,* and I have more cameras and telephoto lenses than sense*.
> ...



I think the real problem is when you have more gear than actual BIF pictures


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 26, 2016)

Since this is all light hearted I thought it an opportune time to place a quote that is worthy of consideration. I have been through a period of fretting about camera and lens and all things technical because who wants to acquire gear at great expense and find out it is ........ _inferior_. Horrors! 

From Tin Man Lee:

"There are many good wildlife photographers out there. Getting something different is more and more difficult. First, you have to ask yourself what you want people to say about your photos. Do you want people to say, "Wow, your photos are so sharp with no noise" or "Wow, you are so good in Photoshop." Or you want people to say, “Your photo touches my heart. You really captured the emotion here.” "

Jack


----------



## mitchel2002 (Oct 26, 2016)

with all the talk about the 1200d i just want to say that you dont even have to look so good to see noise all the way at iso 100 and same thing with the 1300d


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 26, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Since this is all light hearted I thought it an opportune time to place a quote that is worthy of consideration. I have been through a period of fretting about camera and lens and all things technical because who wants to acquire gear at great expense and find out it is ........ _inferior_. Horrors!
> 
> From Tin Man Lee:
> 
> ...



You've hit the nail on the head Jack.
After being a photographer for many years, people like shots with impact, not just technically perfect images.
Prize winning photos are often lacking in some technical details, but they elicit feelings in people.
That's what photography is REALLY about.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 26, 2016)

I think we all know this but we tend to be competitive and some like me are perfection oriented and nothing but the best technically speaking is acceptable. I recognize this trait in myself and try hard to work against it. 

CR technical threads tend to accentuate the gear over the artistic. It wasn't until I read *The Photographer's Eye* that I even realized that I could gain technical expertise and still be missing the boat, massively, due to poor composition. For the most part composition has little to do with the quality of gear and all to do with the shooters eye. It's all about "seeing". 

I'd probably be better served by spending on courses rather than gear. However, gear is well .... captivating and an adrenaline rush. 

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> It wasn't until I read *The Photographer's Eye* that I even realized that I could gain technical expertise and still be missing the boat, massively, due to poor composition.



An excellent book, that Jack. have you read 'Within the Frame' by David DuChemin? (He even has a chapter called 'The Artist and the Geek')


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't until I read *The Photographer's Eye* that I even realized that I could gain technical expertise and still be missing the boat, massively, due to poor composition.
> ...



No. However, I just Googled and up came a pdf of the whole book; it seems! The price is right, so I will be reading. Thanks for that heads up.

I can see by perusal that it takes a different mind set to appreciate his perspectives, perhaps that's a more cultured perspective, if you like (not in a snobbish sense). Perhaps it mirrors my experience of gradually gravitating towards classical music, which as a kid I couldn't or wouldn't tolerate. No matter, I am aware that I have started on a journey, a little too old unfortunately, that is opening my eyes.

I see he used an old 5D so I guess all his shots are of unacceptably poor quality, sadly. 

Jack


----------



## dak723 (Oct 27, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> I think we all know this but we tend to be competitive and some like me are perfection oriented and nothing but the best technically speaking is acceptable. I recognize this trait in myself and try hard to work against it.
> 
> CR technical threads tend to accentuate the gear over the artistic. It wasn't until I read *The Photographer's Eye* that I even realized that I could gain technical expertise and still be missing the boat, massively, due to poor composition. For the most part composition has little to do with the quality of gear and all to do with the shooters eye. It's all about "seeing".
> 
> ...



I am not a professional photographer, but a relatively serious amateur who has been lucky enough to sell a few prints at summer art festivals. It wasn't until I started reading threads on this forum maybe 3 years ago that I ever thought about noise and realized that people were so hung up on it. I often want to say - if you are looking at the noise, then you aren't even looking at the photograph. But, unfortunately, in the age of the internet, the only way these camera sites can compare and "rate" cameras is by testing things such as noise and DR. Two things, that in my experience, are almost irrelevant. And yet, the techno-geeks have no other way to compare sensors, so that is what has become the priority for so many. And as long as the techno-geeks, drive the conversation, the technical aspects of the cameras (and the photos) will become increasingly the priority. And the quality of photography will drop even as the cameras become technically better.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 27, 2016)

These points are of course valid. The reality is that a review of a tool can only describe the tool's features independent of the user. Since CR is largely a gear forum the discussions tend to be the comparative advantages and disadvantages and such things are useful to know when purchasing new gear.

Beyond that it all depends on the various contributors personal fixations, biases and opinions and sometimes this leads to statements like a given Canon camera is garbage, etc. Anyone making such a statement has exposed themselves as a dummy but given the lack of disclosure we will never know who these dummies are and really neither should we care. When a thread turns to that kind of commentary I generally un-check it and do something more worthwhile with my time.

We all have our particular interests and so however the threads go, short of being infected by dummies, is OK by me. The many knowledgeable folk on CR have always been super helpful to me and I like CR over all. Likewise I try to contribute positively when I have something worth contributing.

It baffles me how some threads have so many readers and responses when they are moving along with commentary at the level of about a 5 year old. 

This particular thread has been informative.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Perhaps it mirrors my experience of gradually gravitating towards classical music, which as a kid I couldn't or wouldn't tolerate. No matter, I am aware that I have started on a journey, a little too old unfortunately, that is opening my eyes.
> Jack



_I have a bone to pick with fate,
Come here and tell me girly,
Do you think my mind is maturing late,
Or simply rotting early._

Ogden Nash


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 27, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps it mirrors my experience of gradually gravitating towards classical music, which as a kid I couldn't or wouldn't tolerate. No matter, I am aware that I have started on a journey, a little too old unfortunately, that is opening my eyes.
> ...



That's a good one. More than my brain is rotting early!

Jack


----------



## atkinsonphoto (Oct 31, 2016)

I don't want to complicate the experiment, but I do have a question. Don't aperture and ISO change with different sensor sizes? My understanding is that focal length and aperture should be multiplied by the crop factor and ISO divided by the crop factor to get equivalence. This means for any given lens/aperture/ISO, you'll get a longer focal length, narrower aperture and lower ISO for crop sensors vs full frame. Do the results still compare apples to apples to apples?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 31, 2016)

atkinsonphoto said:


> I don't want to complicate the experiment, but I do have a question. Don't aperture and ISO change with different sensor sizes? My understanding is that focal length and aperture should be multiplied by the crop factor and ISO divided by the crop factor to get equivalence. This means for any given lens/aperture/ISO, you'll get a longer focal length, narrower aperture and lower ISO for crop sensors vs full frame. Do the results still compare apples to apples to apples?



For the same exposure, the settings should be the same, your calculations are about depth of field.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 31, 2016)

atkinsonphoto said:


> I don't want to complicate the experiment, but I do have a question. Don't aperture and ISO change with different sensor sizes? My understanding is that focal length and aperture should be multiplied by the crop factor and ISO divided by the crop factor to get equivalence. This means for any given lens/aperture/ISO, you'll get a longer focal length, narrower aperture and lower ISO for crop sensors vs full frame. Do the results still compare apples to apples to apples?



Yes they do. But the premise of the OP's linked article is specifically focal length limited situations where all images are cropped to the same fov, the same area from each sensor. Therefore effectively the same sized sensor. 

In this specific comparison there is no equivalence calculation.


----------

