full frame dof advantage/disadvantage

[m_tt_donuts]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, you answered my question when you said you didn't use your 70-200mm much because you're usually too close. Clearly you're not cropping your crop-sensor images, so I think that you're likely to enjoy an IQ increase by going to a FF camear and using your excellent lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David I'd like to know how you take pictures of people indoors in rooms that are typically 12 x 12 using a 70-200 F2.8 on a crop factor and tell us we need IQ improvement it's not the lens that's limiting. I sense you're getting confused between IQ and physics. Go take portraits of someone using your 500mm in a typical bathroom (with door shut) and come back and tell us it's the IQ of the person not physics... Clearly :)</p>

<p>I find a 70-200 F2.8 on a crop factor is very limiting, was never that way when I used it on my film camera. Once I got a crop factor, that's the first time I started using a 50mm for portraits & candids instead of the 70-200 and I hated to give up the zoom and stabilization... I can't back up enough and felt silly telling people to stand on the other side of the room. I still use it outside, in churches, but I'm going to get an FF so it will be like when I used it with film as I do enjoy zoom and stabilization over a fixed prime.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Matt, you quoted me saying that I thought he'd enjoy the benefits of going to a FF camera. I never suggested using a 70-200mm lens in a 12x12 room on a crop sensor camera.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I'm arguing about pixel pitch because you said</p>

<p><em>" pixel-pitch is more important [than] the sensor size in determining the limit of detail"</em></p>

<p>It is not. A 5D MkII has a lower pixel pitch than a 7D but has a higher system resolution. The one instance where the 7D can display that potential theoretical resolution advantage is when you crop the 5D MkII to match. You tried to make a broad statement but it was wrong.</p>

<p>Here is a 7D and a 1Ds MkIII comparison. This set up demonstrates your scenario and totally favours the 7D, It is optimal conditions and technique, a situation hardly ever realisable in real world images. I forget the crop ratios, but they are both very well over 100%. The only processing was to resample the FF capture to match the crop capture pixel for pixel. Like I said, this is the only situation where the extra pixel density of the 7D potentially shows an advantage. As the crops show, it does, but not significantly even in totally optimal conditions.</p>

<p>Both images were shot on a very sturdy tripod with a 300mm f2.8 at f5.6 and iso 200, I used remote flash and mirror lock up and 10x live view manual focus. This all adds greatly to the sharpness and resolution of both images but is a totally impractical way of working outside the studio.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>William, pixel-pitch is really the measure of the density of the pixels on the sensor. Smaller pixels, tightly packed are denser and have the potential to yield more detail. As for whether this is going to matter to you in your own shooting, I think it's unlikely, based on what you've said so far.<br>

How likely are you to want a frame filling hawk's head (like above) from 20-yards? I'm thinking that's pretty unlikely for you. If you do shoot some wildlife you'll put a 1.4x TC on your 70-200mm and call it good, or maybe step up to a 2x TC. This set up on a FF body will cover lots of territory. If the bug bit you, then you could step up to the 300/2.8 plus a TC and/or buy the latest and greatest crop-sensor body at that point. (When lenses get this long, bodies start looking cheap).</p>

<p>DOF differences and image detail differences are all pretty small for your planned shooting. There's no "perfect" camera in every respect, but I think you'll be very happy with a FF camera. With the right lenses you'll also be happy with a crop-sensor body. Don't worry about the differences in IQ of EF-S lenses and EF lenses, because those are very, very small and Canon's very best lenses, generally but not always, are designed for EF mounts. Mine are all EF L-series and I have no qualms at all about putting them on my crop-sensor body.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>2, FF cameras are better at high iso and there's a lot of talk that you won't see the different between cropped and FF at low iso . But wouldn't you have more shadow detail at low iso on a FF then a crop camera. </em></p>

<p>You will get more DR by about a stop, as noted.</p>

<p><em>3, Even if you crop a 5d mkii to match a 7d, you will get less pixels but the remaining pixels will be physical larger then the ones on the 7d and thus be able to gather more information. This must count for something.</em></p>

<p>There's no mystical "information" there. What the large pixels allow for is greater DR.</p>

<p><em>4, after reading, I think it was Sarah's article, am I right in assuming that the best EFS lenses are optical made better then EF lenses so they can cope with the extra magnification a cropped camera would put on it and any imperfections would be more obvious.</em></p>

<p>I don't think that's a fair general conclusion. It is easier to design and manufacture a lens with smaller pieces of glass. So there are examples of crop lenses which are better optically for a given price point.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Scott, great comparison of a $7,000 camera to an $1,800 camera. The 7D stands up amazingly well in this little contrived test. In the real world, I often shoot images like the 209% hawk crop further up this thread. That was hand-held, mirror slapping, in-the-field shooting that still shows great detail to rival your little "test."</p>

<p>Also everyone should realize that unadjusted comparisons are meaningless these days, since that's not how we use our digital equipment. Most of us seeking the best that our equipment has to offer use RAW conversion and PP software that adjusts for the differences in each of our camera bodies and lenses. Difference are getting smaller and smaller.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>In my experience, full-frame cameras have the advantage that for a given level of image quality, if you do not require the highest resolution and print at more modest sizes (i.e. A4/letter) you have the option of choosing almost any aperture and get a good result (with the exception of f/22 and smaller). You will still get better quality at or near the optimum aperture of the lens but for acceptable quality the range of apertures is broad. With small-sensor cameras you really have to hit the best aperture of the lens to get adequate detail in the smaller frame (assuming your final print is of the same size). You also have to limit your ISO down, and finally any focusing errors will be magnified.</em></p>

<p>I've never even heard these claims before. They are completely off the wall.</p>

<p>It's true that you don't want to stop down too far due to diffraction, and that you don't need to due to greater DoF for a given aperture. But with good glass anything from wide open to f/11 is usable for any print size within the range of the sensor / subject matter. I will use f/16 on occasion though I consider this less than optimal and in need of additional sharpening in post. Even then you start to lose fine detail in larger prints at f/16, but for letter sized? Fire away.</p>

<p>I use fast primes all the time, including a Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8, and Canon 300 f/4L IS, and wide open looks great on all of them. My Tokina 11-16 isn't a prime, but f/2.8 works great. I'm not sure I agree with the theory that focusing is more critical on crop (greater DoF), but regardless in practice I find no difference between the two formats. Fast lenses require some care to put the focus where you want, otherwise it's just not that big of a deal.</p>

<p>If we're talking letter size, well...from a 7D I can make letter sized ISO 3200 prints which have tighter / finer grain than slow speed 35mm portrait film prints. That's being critical. Most people would look at prints from either and say they see no noise. If we're talking letter size then ISO 6400 is usable, f/16 is fine, and f/22 can probably be put to use as well. Letter sized just isn't very demanding.</p>

<p>To put some perspective on the "everything must be optimum for crop" claim...</p>

<p>* Using my 300 f/4L IS I've made multiple 16x20 prints of surfers from cropped, 8-10 MP sections of 7D files shot wide open. They are tack sharp, still retain plenty of fine detail for the subject matter, and are clean. Incidentally, this demonstrates David's claim. I'm focal length limited during these shoots and if I were using 21 MP FF to achieve the same magnification I would be cropped down to 3-4 MP, insufficient for the desired print size.</p>

<p>* I've also made multiple 16x20 portrait / candid prints from 7D files made using my Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon 85 f/1.8, at or near wide open. Lots of background blur but eyes, skin, and hair in the plane of focus are tack sharp.</p>

<p>It's amazing to me the differences people claim for these two formats. You would think the discussion was small vs. medium format. The difference in sensor size is small which is why both formats use the same bodies and, for the most part, same lenses. Differences are also going to be small.</p>

[william_bray1]

I wasn't expecting a lot of the responses I got on this thread. I

remember talking to people about comparing cropped to FF and it

seemed blasphemous to them , it seems It's not that cut and dry

anymore. Ideally I'd like to have a FF and a good cropped but I can't

stretch to that now.

I came across this

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eos-7d-review/

It shows the 5d mkii to deliver significant sharper results how can this

be if as some have said that the difference is small and you only get 1

stop of noise extra and a little bit of DR.

Thinking about it I always hear people trying to decide about going FF

I've never heard anyone trying to decide about going FF to cropped. I

spoke to a few shops today all said as soon as they got a 5dmkii in it

sold. The 5dmkii always out sold the 7d.

I didn't wasn't to start a 5d vs 7d thread, that's why I tried to keep

referring to FF or cropped.

But as I said some of the responses surprised me and even made me

rethink going FF , but I think I'll stick with FF ........for now.

Thanks to everyone.

[dcstep]

<p>I think you'll be very happy with a FF, William.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I came across this <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eos-7d-review/" target="_blank">http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eos-7d-review/</a> It shows the 5d mkii to deliver significant sharper results how can this be if as some have said that the difference is small and you only get 1 stop of noise extra and a little bit of DR.</em></p>

<p>One can only speculate as to why he got the results he did. They are not consistent with professional reviews from other sites. There are a couple blog reviews out there that show the expected difference when using identical sharpening, and the answer is to simply up the sharpening a bit on the 7D file. But at this site the difference appears greater. No idea why.</p>

<p>There was one other review being passed around a while back like this one where the 7D files were sub par. I forget the site but I remember his files were worse and his review was heavily criticized. What strikes me as odd is why these reviewers don't think to isolate the problem. They will spend hours testing equipment but not 5 minutes checking reviews from their peers? If everyone else is getting better results then you are, it's not the camera, or at least not the camera model. (Individual bodies might need warranty work.)</p>

<p><em>Thinking about it I always hear people trying to decide about going FF I've never heard anyone trying to decide about going FF to cropped.</em></p>

<p>Of course not. The 7D offers superior AF and features at a $900 discount. The 60D offers comparable AF, still better features, at a $1,500 discount. Crop has always been cheaper and is therefore the 'default' position.</p>

[william_bray1]

So if both cameras were priced the same and both had the same features , do you

think anyone would buy the 7d for the extra reach for telephoto lenses instead of the

FF sensor?

Because the impression I seemed to be getting from some comments was if that was

the case the difference in IQ is so small they would buy the 7d .

Are you saying that the 5d mkii images look better then they should or are you saying

the 7d images look look worse then they should in the Roland lim comparison?

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Thinking about it I always hear people trying to decide about going FF I've never heard anyone trying to decide about going FF to cropped.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because people too easily buy into the "FF is better in every way"/"serious photographers only use FF" propaganda.</p>

<p>As has been unequivocally demonstrated here and on other forums time and time again, the IQ differences between FF and the best current crop cameras is so trivial as to be irrelevant (certainly <em>nobody</em> has succeeded in showing the opposite position to be true - we're still waiting to see proof of FF's undenbiable "superiority") and can easily be eliminated, as Daniel suggests, simply by pushing the sharpening slider up a notch, or adding a click of NR.</p>

<p>DOF? Grab your crop camera, and take a couple of steps closer to the subject...</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Thinking about it I always hear people trying to decide about going FF I've never heard anyone trying

to decide about going FF to cropped.

 

Probably because once you experience the superior image quality, larger dynamic range, more robust

files, etc, it's too tough going back. Some people need the extra performance/quality. Others don't. That's why canon

and nikon offer performance options tiered to price.

 

Kind of like comparing the 35/1.4 and the 35/2. I'd never go back, despite the $1,000 discount for not

having that extra stop and quality, even putting up with the extra weight. A couple of friends have

upgraded from the f/2 to the f/1.4. After using the f/1.4, even though the f/2 is a great lens, they're never going back either.

[dcstep]

<p>William asked:<br>

So if both cameras were priced the same and both had the same features , do you think anyone would buy the 7d for the extra reach for telephoto lenses instead of the FF sensor? Because the impression I seemed to be getting from some comments was if that was the case the difference in IQ is so small they would buy the 7d . Are you saying that the 5d mkii images look better then they should or are you saying the 7d images look look worse then they should in the Roland lim comparison?</p>

<p>I owned the 5D2 before I bought my 7D. At first I bought the 7D for it's 8-fps burst rate and more flexible AF programs. Those are still the main reasons, but in my case, using my RAW conversion software (DxO Optics Pro) I also find that I get finer detail in my cropped images. I use the 5D2 for scenics, portraits, night street photography, archetecture and everything other than wildlife and outdoor sports.</p>

<p>Despite my great success with the 7D, I wouldn't recommend it to a 5D2 owner unless they're going to be shooting birds, wildlife and outdoor sports.</p>

<p>The people that say things like "it's too tough going back" (to a crop sensor) or "FF is better in every way" probably just haven't stressed their FF in the same ways that I have. Also, I compare my crop-sensor results to my prior film results and I'm have worlds more success at much less cost.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> The people that say things like "it's too tough going back" (to a crop sensor) or "FF is better in every

way" probably just haven't stressed their FF in the same ways that I have.

 

 

Now that's funny! Especially not knowing who these people are, what they shoot, or even what their

requirements are...

[KenPapai]

<p>After reading all of these answers and replies -- most of them pretty good!<br /> I come to my own conclusions about the <strong>real advantages of FF over APS-C sensor</strong> after reading this and being an EOS DSLR aficionado since 2003:</p>

<p>1. Increase in DR<br /> 2. Lower noise at ISO 800+ (my baseline for crop is the 7D)<br /> 3. Wide angle is really WIDE angle! (I use only EF lenses)<br /> 4. Larger viewfinder</p>

<p>Nothing else. To me the bokeh issue is trivial to non-existent.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Brad, you forget that I own a FF. There are times to use FF and times to use crop-sensor. Use the best tool for the job. FF and crop-sensor will certainly change over time and there is likely to be a FF that works as well as my 7D for the jobs where I use it, but, for now, the 5D2 is NOT better than the 7D in every way. If that were true, I'd use my 5D2 for everything, but I don't, even though they sit side by side and it's just as easy for me to pick up one as the other.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, you forget that I own a FF.

 

No, I didn't forget as it was mentioned up above. Perhaps you forgot I owned a 7D. And other crop-body

cameras.

 

In any event, I was commenting on your sweeping statement, that only *you* (and not others you don't

even know) have stressed your equipment, suggesting that you somehow know *their* needs and

requirements. And *they* just don't know any better.

 

I'm glad your 7D meets *your* needs. It didn't with respect to mine. And many other photographers

whose requirements are different and/or more demanding.

[dcstep]

<p>Brad, I'm sorry to read that your needs are so lofty that one of the best cameras in the world can't satisfy them. It must be tough at the top of your mountain.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>The 7D is a superb camera, I don't know how many times I have said that. I have never said it can't take great pictures handheld at high iso that print superbly. Though the bird picture has had so much noise reduction there is zero detail.</p>

<p>However, as a reality check to those who don't believe how much 1 stop is worth to <strong>some</strong> people, actually quite a lot of people.</p>

<ul>

<li>EF 200 f2.8L $ 789</li>

<li>EF 200 f2 L IS $ 5,699 =$4,910 more for one stop and IS.</li>

<li>EF 300 f4 L IS $ 1,376</li>

<li>EF 300 f2.8 L IS II $ 7,299 =$5,923 more for one stop difference.</li>

<li>EF 400 f4 DO IS $ 6,145</li>

<li>EF 400 f2.8 L IS II $11,499 =$5,354 more for one stop difference.</li>

</ul>

<p>If you are in that group you can often see a difference, sometimes 67% of the time, though just once might be enough. :-)</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, I'm sorry to read that your needs are so lofty that one of the best cameras in the world can't

satisfy them. It must be tough at the top of your mountain.

 

Huh? Lofty? Cheap shot. And funny. I was commenting on *your* statement saying no one else stresses

their cameras like you do.

 

With respect to myself, I said the 7D did not meet my requirements. And the 5DII does, Ditto with many

other photographers. Pretty simple. Ascribing anything more into that is bs...

[Brad_]

>>> Though the bird picture has had so much noise reduction there is zero detail.

 

I myself was wondering why that was put out as an exemplar of great performance. Seems nothing is sharp...

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>So if both cameras were priced the same and both had the same features , do you think anyone would buy the 7d for the extra reach for telephoto lenses instead of the FF sensor? </em></p>

<p>I would. However, in practice this only matters if you're cropping in quite a bit beyond the 1.6x crop of APS-C and making large prints.</p>

<p><em>Are you saying that the 5d mkii images look better then they should or are you saying the 7d images look look worse then they should in the Roland lim comparison?</em></p>

<p>The 7D images are softer then I would expect them to be.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>In any event, I was commenting on your sweeping statement, that only *you* (and not others you don't even know) have stressed your equipment, suggesting that you somehow know *their* needs and requirements. And *they* just don't know any better.</em></p>

<p>LOL! Didn't you, just a couple posts earlier, state: <em>Some people need the extra performance/quality. Others don't.</em> Having played the snowflake card I don't think you're in any position to judge David's comments.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> LOL! Didn't you, just a couple posts earlier, state: Some people need the extra performance/quality.

Others don't. Having played the snowflake card I don't think you're in any position to judge David's

comments.

 

 

Is it your position then, that everybody should have the same requirements and therefore your camera

choice is right for all?

 

And that only David has stressed his gear to sufficient levels, beyond anyone else, supporting that same conclusion.