Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2011 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, F...
  
 
24Peter
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


I use both (5DII and 60D). They each have their place. I really prefer the handling on the 60D (esp. the swivel screen since I shoot a lot of video) and sometime more DOF is better. But I have to say, while the IQ on the 60D is really good, the 5DII is just better, esp. at higher ISO's.

I brought my 60D to the family Christmas Eve gathering this year to shoot both stills and video. The stills were great since I was using (off camera) flash. But the video wasn't as good as my 5DII did in years past since it was fairly dark and ISO 5000-6400 is pretty ugly on my 60D. The 5DII would have been a better choice for shooting video.



Dec 27, 2011 at 06:24 PM
John--G
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


adrianb wrote:
You're JOKING, right?


Nope. Just an honest observation from a guy in the trenches.




Dec 27, 2011 at 08:38 PM
John--G
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


Invertalon wrote:
I never really saw the difference in DOF or the "magic" of FF... But I for sure see the better detail and lower noise at all ISO's... The most important thing, to me.

Everything else? meh. Don't see it. Even when I really, really try with extremely fast glass (85L for example). I could not tell if put side by side.



I agree completely on the noise, but even then it depends on the camera you were coming from. My MkIV has lower noise than the 5DII despite being 1.3X. But then again it is a more recent body. But it's nice to see someone else admit to not seeing any magical DOF characteristics on a FF sensor.

Granted, I've never compared 1.6X to FF. My comparisons have only been 1.3X to FF.





Dec 27, 2011 at 08:44 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


John--G wrote:
I don't get it. Even after shooting film for 30 years I still do not see the fascination with full-frame unless you are a super-WA shooter. I shoot with a couple of MkIV's but I also have a 5DII. To me, the only difference is the 5DII has some more pixels. Otherwise I fail to see any "magic" with a full frame sensor. I used a Nikon D3 for 18 months but ended up selling it - no magic there either. :-)

Full frame for me just means more sensor to get dirty and all my telephotos are suddenly shorter. :-)
...Show more


It does give you just enough FOV, or maybe I should say it does give ME, just enough FOV to make a 70-200/300 work quite well as a fairly general walk around lens a good deal of the time. On APS-C those were just too long for that. So you do get the option for a long focal length walk-around.

Providing you are not distance limited the sensor has 2.5x more surface area to collect light, not a small amount by any means! Think about it 2.5x times more photos collected given same sensor tech. Of course there is the DOF issue so it depends upon the scenario whether you really get all of this advantage or not.


A 300mm on a FF is pretty nice for soccer since you can shoot it much closer in than with APS-C and of the two cams had the same pixel density you'd get the same reach (granted the aps-c often have a lot more reach, although sometimes motion/tracking blur and such mean it doesn't always 100% come into play).

and when you truly want to minimize DOF it certainly helps there, assuming you have the comparable lenses on each

OTOH there is nothing that matches that quality/convenience of 15-85 IS, 17-55 IS, tamron 17-50 2.8 etc. on FF the 24-70 and 24-105 have blurrier edges, even stopped down, and no IS or no f/2.8 and are larger and heavier and often more expensive. And Canon has no fast FF at any price nevermind in small form factor (although the 1DX will change one of the those two, at incredible cost). And nothing has the reach of the highest density APS-C.





Dec 27, 2011 at 10:16 PM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


24-105f4L is in every way a better lens than the 17-55f2.8IS (on ff vs crop).

More range, shallower DOF, sharper, better built.

Its a stop slower but you have a sensor 2.5 times the area...



Dec 27, 2011 at 10:27 PM
cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


Generally a better VF experience, better noise performance (again, generally), generally better quality (and selection) when you get down into the UWA territory, and the primes work "correctly" without a crop factor, especially if you're a fan of alt glass.

I would absolutely go bonkers for a FF Sony Nex, because then my Rokkor lenses would be "right" instead of cropped like they are on the 5N, though i'm quite happy with 5N IQ.

Also, and this is me, but a 24-105L is just a better match for walk-around than the 17-55 IS. You gain a stop, sure, but FF can more than make up the ISO boost and already has the DOF "factor" built-in when using the f/4 24-105L. And, you get both a wider *and* longer lens with the 24-105. This might be different if Canon would make a decent crop walk-around, but IMO the 15-85, while good IQ, is just too slow at f/5.6 on the wide end. Makes me wonder why they don't make something like a 16-120 f/4 or some other weird concoction.






Dec 27, 2011 at 10:34 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


RobDickinson wrote:
24-105f4L is in every way a better lens than the 17-55f2.8IS (on ff vs crop).

More range, shallower DOF, sharper, better built.

Its a stop slower but you have a sensor 2.5 times the area...


I have both lenses. Never thought to compare the two but the 17-55 is a very sharp lens, much sharper than the Nikon equivalent in fact and with IS to boot. In looking at photozone review of both lenses mounted on a 50D the 17-55mm is sharper at the wide end than the 24-105mm and just about equal for the remainder of the range.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/423-canon_24105_4_50d?start=1





Dec 27, 2011 at 10:45 PM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

TDP ISO crops seem to point that the 24-105 is sharper even at 24mm vs 17mm.

Though both are excellent lenses I have no sharpness complaints about my 17-55f2.8IS.

I'd rather it didnt have zoom creep and it was weather sealed and a 15-60 or 70mm focal range!



Dec 27, 2011 at 10:50 PM
Kirivon
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


M Vers wrote:
Same framing, yes, but not the same 'effect' or look. While I don't think FF is the end-all of DSLR formats it does have superior DOF control over APS-H and, more noticeably, APS-C. Speaking in terms of format only I prefer FF>APS-H>APS-C.


The notion that FF has greater DoF is a misnomer IMO. The primary characteristic that controls DoF is the diameter of the pupil; the greater the diameter the shallower the DoF. If the If an 85mm lens at f/2 has a pupil diameter of 42.5mm, it's still going to be 42.5mm regardless of whether or not you use it on FF or APS-C. The differentiating factor is that if you use an 50mm at f/2 instead on APS-C your pupil diameter is going to be 25mm. Thus, you'd need to use a 50mm at f/1.2 to get roughly the equivalent DoF as an 85mm at f/2.

However, the inherent amount of DoF here is the same. Granted lens design variation means that the pupil diameter won't strictly be the focal length divided by the f-stop, but the principle stands. FF doesn't change the amount of DoF you get from your lenses--you're simply using longer lenses and the longer the lens shallower the DoF.

In practice, yes, full frame effectively has DoF that is 1 stop shallower than APS-C at an equivalent field of view. But, I think it's important to understand why this is the case. If you were to crop all your FF images to match the APS-C framing, you'd find that the results will be identical.

The other difference too is that, with FF, you're getting a wider field of view with equivalent focal lengths. The lens design obviously doesn't change, so in order to fill the frame one often works closer to the lens's MFD--thus reducing bokeh. It took me a month to adjust to this when I switched to FF. I was constantly running into the MFD on my lenses and struggling to get nicely framed food shots.

RobDickinson wrote:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

TDP ISO crops seem to point that the 24-105 is sharper even at 24mm vs 17mm.

Though both are excellent lenses I have no sharpness complaints about my 17-55f2.8IS.

I'd rather it didnt have zoom creep and it was weather sealed and a 15-60 or 70mm focal range!


You're also comparing a 21mp 1DsmkIII to a 15.1mp 50D and FF vs APS-C here. FF is inherently going to resolve more detail from lenses due to the fact that the individual photosites are larger. Downside is that the corner performance is typically worse than an APS-C camera with its sweet-spot effect. The corners look better to me on the 17mm from f/4 onwards on the TDP ISO crops, despite being a less sharp image overall. Incidentally, if I were working with UWA's my order of preference would be Nikkor 14-24 2.8 > Tokina 11-16 = Sigma 8-16 > any current Canon FF UWA offering.

For all the FF hype, any improvements in my images following my FF upgrade can be attributed to the following:
1. Having a camera with better high ISO. Though FF cameras undoubtedly have better noise performance on average, this isn't an entirely FF characteristic. Had the K-5 or D7000 been out at the time they would have been similarly good upgrades.
2. Going from 14.5 to 21mp.
3. Being pigeon-holed into buying 1k + L glass because most cheaper glass didn't perform at the already high level I was used to with my ~$500 lenses on APS-C.
4. Having a bigger viewfinder.
5. Having a FF sized sensor.

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no regrets upgrading to the 5dmk2 and would never go back to APS-C. But, this has more to do with me loving the bigger viewfinder and being more comfortable with the size of the larger body than anything else. However, FF is not the be-all-end all upgrade for everyone. For me, FF was worth the triple the expense of my APS-C sensor because a lot of my shooting is done in poor light and the viewfinder and ISO performance were invaluable. But, if I were a sports shooter the 5dmk2 would have been a *significant* step back from my previous setup in almost every category. The extra size, weight and cost can also be a detractor for a lot of people. I think it's important to sit down and precisely assess your shooting needs when choosing a system, rather than simply buying into the FF hype.




Dec 28, 2011 at 12:41 AM
michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


I've posted this before.

5d, 85mm f/2 vs 40d, 50m f/2....







Dec 28, 2011 at 02:02 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



bobbytan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


Been using the 5D and 5D II since Day One. I have no interest in any other body ... and I am soooo looking forward to the the 5D Mk III and will be an early adopter as well. There is no doubt in my mind that the 5D III will have an improved AF and better/cleaner files.


Dec 28, 2011 at 02:10 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


michael49 wrote:
I've posted this before.

5d, 85mm f/2 vs 40d, 50m f/2....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/496631737_axAcH-XL.jpg



Thanks. Nice and telling comparison.

My issue with crop is that the 24tse isnt quite wie enough and the 17tse has filter issues!

Love that FF isolation tho.



Dec 28, 2011 at 02:14 AM
Nozzleforward
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


Man, 5D2 and a 24-105 is what made me decide to switch back to Canon from Nikon. If only I had the cash to buy one right now Congrads on your setup, I'm sure you'll love it.


Dec 28, 2011 at 02:16 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


I use 1.6, 1.3 and FF crop factor cameras daily, or interchangeably if you will.
The crop factor makes little difference to me, in fact I am almost oblivious to it. I've got a scene or a target in the VF of a camera, and I work with that.

Now, I do make choices as to which camera to use for anticipated scene/target type or lens used. Those choices usually revolve around the frame rate, sensor pixel density, AF capability, camera body size etc. Very seldom I base those choices on the crop factor per se.



Dec 28, 2011 at 02:25 AM
MountainTop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


Am I the only one who was thrown back to "The Brady Bunch" and "all I ever hear is Marsha, Marsha, Marsha"...


Dec 28, 2011 at 04:29 AM
MountainTop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


P.S. - all I ever shoot is "full frame, full frame, full frame"


Dec 28, 2011 at 04:31 AM
LightShow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


It's not so much the FOV or DOF that I like, but the way the lenses render the subject, that get chopped off with crop sensors.


Dec 28, 2011 at 05:14 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


LightShow wrote:
It's not so much the FOV or DOF that I like, but the way the lenses render the subject, that get chopped off with crop sensors.


Uh, that would be because you are using the wrong focal length...



Dec 28, 2011 at 04:36 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


I agree with M Vers (FF>H>C) and PetKal (right sensor for the job).

That said, FF is the only format I would feel good 100% of the time, if finances permit. I would always be wanting more WA with the others or better details.



Dec 28, 2011 at 04:57 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."


RobDickinson wrote:
24-105f4L is in every way a better lens than the 17-55f2.8IS (on ff vs crop).

More range, shallower DOF, sharper, better built.

Its a stop slower but you have a sensor 2.5 times the area...


Well the two 24-105 I tried got a lesser percentage of the best possible out a 5D2 sensor than the 17-55 2.8 or Tamron 17-50 2.8 or even Canon 17-40 or Tamron 28-75 (if you ignore contrast for the latter one) or, as I have heard some say, Canon 15-85, did/do out of 20D-7D aps-c sensors.

And plopping the 24-105s onto APS-C, they no longer had edge problems but all the same, looking at 100% you could see that while sharp enough to not be any worry at all, it simply was not quite as crisp with fine details as my tamrons or 17-40 etc. so with any copies of the various lenses I surely can't agree that the 24-105 is a sharper lens.

Perhaps since 5D2 does 21MP with larger photosites than the 7D and it also doesn't need green imbalance compensation the total resolved detail from 24-105 on 5D2 might be more than the aps-c lenses could get out of aps-c bodies even if near the edges it might still pull in somewhat less. Not sure. But that is a somewhat different issue than which lens itself is sharper or better.

I should also say that I focused mostly in the 24-28mm or so FF FOV range since that was really key for me. I had FF FOV 50mm and 70mm+ covered more than well even for full on pixel peeping times.

It's possible that only a small subset of 24-105L do really well and most of the other copies are much worse. Never seen another lens so often trashed to bits by some and praised by others. Often appears on worst L I ever owned and favorite L lists. But it's hard to say, people shoot in different ways and different expectations. I'm strating to think I've seen enough to think their may be at least some number of copies that perform quite differently though.



Edited on Dec 28, 2011 at 07:58 PM · View previous versions



Dec 28, 2011 at 07:45 PM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password