ioan_sergiu_luculescu Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>I own a 5D Mark II and my longest lens is a Canon L 100-400mm. I need sometimes a longer lens and I wonder if my 100-400 mm on a EOS 2Ti would not be a better solution. I need auto focus and I cannot use an extender.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael.gregory Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>no.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_j2 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>Why can you not use an extender such as the Canon 1.4X TC?<br> Is there some limitations with the 5D Mark II that makes use of the TC's incompatabile?</p> <p>I have the 100-400L and the 1.4X TC. Granted they work the best on my EOS3 film body, and I do not often use the extender on my 50D, but I have used it although I have to manual focus, it still performs well.</p> <p>Basically I think a "small sensor" body more desirable for bird photography, and I personally prefer the xxD's because of the feel in my hands. But then again, I have never owned a Rebel.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel barrera houston, Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>I would say yes the T2i would be a better solution, because of the crop factor, 18mp v 21 mp. The 1.4 will work but auto focus will not work with the 1.4 x, it will work on a 1D body on single point, according to what some friends who own both pieces of equipment have told me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_bryant1 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>Certainly the T2i will put more pixels on the bird - about 50% more linear pixels, so if the 5D2 framed a bird 1,000 pixels high, with a T2i you'd frame it 1,500 pixels high. Not an insignificant difference. The 7D would do the same though, and if it's within your budget it's probably worth the extra money.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>Some argue that lens on a crop factor camera does not become magically longer, and it does not provide any magnification or reach.</p><p>This is true for full frame 35mm sensor cameras that may also have a built-in crop factor mode, but not true for true smaller sensor cameras.</p><p>The greater pixels density of the smaller sensor provides the extra magnification or reach. That is, the 400mm lens is always 400mm, but when mounted on a small sensor camera, the camera sensor density provides the magnification, so the lens and camera together behave like the much longer lens, longer by the crop factor ratio.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock-Photos Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>I own a 7D (similar sensor to Ti2)and from my experience / opinion, my 5D has better image quality over the 7D, especially if noise reduction is left turned on on the 7D.</p> <p>The Ti2 will certainly get you a closer perspective.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>J. Harrington,</p> <p>No it won't. It will give you exactly the same perspective. Same lens, same place, different bodies, still equal the same perspective. Will looking through the 7D give you impression that the magnification is greater with a crop camera, yes. But the reproduction ratio (the size of the subject on the sensor) is exactly the same.</p> <p>Now the real question should be "Does the full image from a 2Ti give me more resolution and image information than a cropped image from a 5D MkII?". My experience has been that from same generation cameras the crop camera, even though it has more pixels, does not give you more information hence better images. Truth is only somebody with both cameras can test it for you and tell, but even if there is a difference it will be small either way and shouldn't be the highest priority for choosing a body.</p> <p>I have a week off in four weeks, I have a 7D and 1Ds MkIII and a 300mm, I am going to test them to see if my previous findings still hold up.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_biggar Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>I'm sorry Frank but greater pixel density does not create greater reach. Only the lens does that. A small sensor is simply<br> enlarged more to make an 8 by 10.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_bryant1 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>Scott, if you do those tests, please post the results.</p> <p>Leaving aside all the bs about crop factors and focal lengths, it's indisputable that - given a particular lens, particular subject, and particular distance to subject - a 7D can put more pixels on the subject than a 5D2 can. Whether the pixels are useful will depend on many things, including technique and the resolving power of the lens. But it seems insane to say it will never give more detail. It would mean, for example, that the 7D is never capable of actually resolving more than 8.2 megapixels - less than half the resolution it claims. I find that hard to believe.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>Alan,<br> I will do the tests and I will post, I'll start a new thread with them though because I want to have enough time to redo things the way people would like to see them. ie different apertures, center crops, corner crops etc, whatever anybody would like to see I'll post.</p> <p>Many people don't find it hard to believe, they find it impossible to believe, but in previous generations it has been the case, technique, or lack of it has easily been able to level any "advantage" one might have over the other. But as a perfect example of pixels aren't everything, ponder this, my Canon G10 has a far higher pixel density than the 7D or 1Ds MkIII, it doesn't make more detailed images though, and that is not because of the lens. Diffraction is the P&S killer, it affects crop cameras way more than FF ones too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>"I'm sorry Frank but greater pixel density does not create greater reach. Only the lens does that. " - you may not see any greater reach, depending on camera viewfinder optics.<br />However, after you take the picture, the greater pixel density provides the magnification in the picture file, regardless if you enarge it or not. <br />You do not have to "enlarged more to make an 8 by 10", since the enlargement is already embedded in the picture file, taken with the small sensor crop camera with greater pixel density.</p> <p>This is the major practical benefit of using crop sensor cameras for wildfile photography, where longer reach is benefitial, and lenses cost much less.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 <p>Frank,</p> <p>The subject is reproduced exactly the same size in both cameras. The question is does the 2Ti's greater number of smaller pixels on the subject translate to an appreciable and practical real world improvement in image quality over the smaller number of larger pixels the 5D MkII has for the same copped area.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangardner Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>The 7D would be a better choice with the superior AF and faster burst rate. For a similar price to a new 7D, a used 1D III is also a choice. Its only a 1.3x crop instead of 1.6x, but has the 1D pro AF with 45 AF points that can be clustered for better accuracy. It also shoots 10fps. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>Scott,<br> For best quality is to use long lenses on full format cameras. This is usuaally very expensive, and the crop sensor camera provides economical solution, and stays as formidable contender to full frame cameras, at least for the application where long reach is needed. The difference in solutions could be a number of thousands of dollars.<br> Perhaps the quality with crop camera could be sufficient? or not?, all depends, as there are too many variables for a single answer.<br> If one can afford full sensor long lenses then this is the best quality solution.<br> Otherwise the 1.6x cropped image from full frame 21 MP is far smaller (perhaps around 5 MP?) than the 18 MP from 2T1 or 7D image. Depending on ISO used and intended print size, the 2Ti and 7D seems to have clear economical advantage.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holzphoto Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>if someone could post test results that would be awesome. i have a 1d iv, iii, and t2i...the t2i never gets used.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>Frank,</p> <p>Now you are talking about a different point. I well understand all this stuff. But this question is, and remains, <em>"The question is does the 2Ti's greater number of smaller pixels on the subject translate to an appreciable and practical real world improvement in image quality over the smaller number of larger pixels the 5D MkII has for the same copped area."</em>. Which gives you the better shot, and by how much?</p> <p>For instance, if somebody owned a 5D MkII and wanted to go birding and only had a 300mm lens, how much IQ difference is there if they got a 7D, or if they used a 1.4 TC on the 5D MkII and cropped, or if they just cropped their 5D MkII image anyway? Every-bodies automatic answer is the 7D will be much better, I don't believe this to be the case, better probably, but much better, I doubt, I think the differences will be slight and that technique would be a greater leveler, IQ wise. A real world example could be birds in flight hand held, just from an image quality standpoint the differences would be very small, however from a usability stand point the cameras are very different.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_b15 Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>I really look forward to the comparisons!</p> <p>There is a precedent in the DLSR world - Nikon's D3. There's a format switch on it where you can switch the camera into DX mode from FX. That same sensor in DX mode is 5 MP from 12. </p> <p>So, with the same MP density of the 7D, what would a FF sensor's MP be? 36MP? </p> <p>Like I said, the only real way to tell is to run tests.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat_powell Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>Why is this so hard to understand? It should not even be up for discussion, it is fact that the Rebel T2i will put more pixels on the subject than a 5D Mark II and it will have a ton more detail when you are focal length limited by your lens.<br> Let's use the example of a wildlife photographer with a 5D Mark II, Rebel T2i, and a 400mm 5.6 Canon L lens. If he shoots the same subject at the same distance using that lens on both cameras, and then crops the 5D Mark II by 1.6 to equal the T2i reach, he will only have 8.2 megapixels left. And yes, you can absolutely see the difference between 8.2 and 18 megapixels of detail. If he wanted to approximately equal the detail of the T2i in the same situation, he would need to use the 600mm F4 L on the 5D mark II.<br> In this same (focal length limited) situation, the Canon 1.6 crop cameras that only equal the 5D Mark II, are the 20D and 30D. All 3 will put the same number of pixels on the subject using the same lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangardner Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <blockquote> <p>Why is this so hard to understand? It should not even be up for discussion, it is fact that the Rebel T2i will put more pixels on the subject than a 5D Mark II and it will have a ton more detail when you are focal length limited by your lens.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not all pixels are created equal. The individual pixels on the T2i are smaller than those on the 5D II, and thus won't create as clean of an image. So the arguement that less 5D II pixels may create a better image than more T2i pixels holds water. In logic it sounds simple, but we're comparing apples and oranges here and its not as cut and dry as it sounds. That's why its so hard to understand.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>Thanks Nathan,</p> <p>Pat don't forget the example I gave earlier, my G10 has a far higher pixel density than any DSLR, but it can't resolve more detail. It is not just about pixel numbers, it is a far more complicated equation that includes how you shoot, how good the pixels are and many other factors.</p> <p>I don't believe the 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII's cropped image will be better than the 7D/2Ti's, but I don't believe there will be much in it, certainly not as much as most people would expect, and, what differences there are would be insignificant if bad technique were used.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salem_thannoon Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p> It is confusing but Ill wait for some sample photos, which should reveal more to us. I think however, in technical terms, resolution (number of bytes interpreting data, more is better and finer) is a big factor in electronics and the number of bytes in a file would make a difference. When the sensor for the T2i is seeing the image, the rendering of that image has more/finer details than the cropped 1.6 image from a 5D full frame. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattb1 Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>I did some very basic compares of my XTI and my 5DII. The 5DII was a little better when it was cropped to match the image size of the XTI. Since the XTI is 10mp, I'd think the 7D/T2I could be a little better. But, like Scott said, technique will be a much bigger influence on IQ. </p> <p>Now the 5DII with a teleconverter may be better. I'm thinking of buying one. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anov Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>Scott, I'm intrigued by your comment re: G10 (which I have as well). It has a zoom range of 6.1-30.5mm (FF FOV approx equivalent 28-140mm)</p> <p>Say we have a 5D mk II with 28mm lens and the G10 at approximately 28mm zoom. If we compare the 2 pictures you think the G10 might not outresolve the 5D mark II?</p> <p>The G10 has approx 4.6 crop factor. To get the the same angle of view from the 5D, we need to crop very heavily to get about 4.56 MP. While native resolution of the G10 is 14.7 MP.</p> <p>I know not all pixel are created equal but 14.7 vs 4.6 MP?</p> <p>I might have to test it myself too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 <p>A Novisto,</p> <p>That is not quite what I am saying, but I can make nice detailed 12x18 prints from my G10, I can make nice detailed 12x18 prints from my original 1D at 4.2mp, after that size they both need prodigious software help. I could make nice 20x30 print from my 1Ds MkII's 16.7mp, three times the area of the G10's 14.7mp 12x18's.</p> <p>You have the cameras, try it. It doesn't work out anything like the numbers say it should, I know I am not the only person to notice this.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now