Lot of people say that they like the reach they get (esp. bird, wildlife etc.) with a 1.6x crop factor camera. I myself use a 40d. But I suppose they can get the same "reach" by doing the 1.6x crop in photoshop on an image shot by a full-frame, right? Then it just boils down to the advantage in viewfinder. And I suppose some advantage w.r.t the af points.
if full-frames had the same fast fps as aps-c cameras, am sure lot of Pros who "need" that extra reach wud nevertheless shift. But I guess that will never happen as they will always make aps-c or aps-h to have faster frame rate than full-frame ones.
kakomu wrote:
If you're an "everything in focus" kind of macro person, you might also consider a Canon G-series camera. The small focal lengths translates to a very wide DoF. Moreover, it has a hot shoe so that you can use a flash.
True. I have an 8X10 shot of a seashell hanging in my bathroom that I took hand-held with my old Canon S2IS and the whole image is very sharp, each grain of sand can be clearly distinguished; I could never have taken that shot hand-held with my 40D or 5D. A bigger sensor is not always better.
kaustubh_d wrote:
Lot of people say that they like the reach they get (esp. bird, wildlife etc.) with a 1.6x crop factor camera. I myself use a 40d. But I suppose they can get the same "reach" by doing the 1.6x crop in photoshop on an image shot by a full-frame, right?
You'll get the same composition, but not the same resolution.
Well, I don't have any pictures or anything to post right now but, I can share my personal experience. I upgraded from a 40D to a 5D2 about 2 months ago. The 40D was actually a very good body and I have a lot of great shots from it. The 5D2 is just in another league though. I'm sure sure this isn't really a fair fight because the resolution and clean high iso capability of the 5D2 is so much greater. These things aside, the real advantages for FF for me are the greater control of DOF and true FLs. I originally was going to keep the 40D and 5D2 but, the 5D2 can be cropped to the 40D equivalent. I still do believe that crops have their place, and will probably add a second crop body to the stable some day. The advantages are obviously the added reach and higher frame rates which makes them great for widlife and sports.
RDKirk wrote:
For the 30x40 portraits I make, it's virtually certain that they frequently will be viewed from within 4-5 feet in the typical living room for foyer setting, and sometimes closer. Resolution is, fortunately, less important in portraits than landscapes. A portrait is "sharp" as long as facial hair looks sharp--nobody wants to see skin flakes and hair mites in a portrait.
A landscape, OTOH, is expected to reveal more and more detail as the viewer gets closer to it--and perhaps even whips out a loupe. The resolution requirements of a landscape, therefore, are essentially infinite.
I agree with both points. And please, no hair mites! :-)
kakomu wrote:
As far as DoF is concerned, as I've written many times, it's a function of subject distance, focal length and aperture.
And print size.
DOF is not an absolute thing in any sense. It is a relative concept and always has been. It essentially describes a region in front of and behind the plane of optimum focus in which the image is "only fuzzy enough that you probably won't notice if you use an arbitrary sensor/film size and print at some specific print size."
This becomes apparent quickly to anyone who bases their DOF-related aperture decisions on "DOF charts," only to find that objects within the predicted DOF range are unsufficiently sharp in very large prints.
kakomu wrote:
You'll get the same composition, but not the same resolution.
Right. I dont disagree. But 1ds is 21 mp, right? So if you crop it to 1.6x, it might be less than the 15mp of 50d...but will that make a significant difference? I am asking..not rhetoric.
The high iso advantage in wildlfie/bird photography is huge.
In a hypothetical world, if 50d and 5D were priced the same, I dont think people will buy 50d because it gives extra reach, will they?...if 1Ds and 1D were priced the same, will they go for 1D? Some will but just because of the FPS advantage...not the crop factor advantage. I guess thats the point I was trying to make.
somebody said: "...if you're the kind of shooter who likes that ultra wafer thin DOF..."
for me, that's the only reason i went FF. the DOF i can achieve with L primes gives my images a look that is intimate and human - and almost worth every penny.
B. Landis wrote:
You either see the difference yourself and want the FF camera or not.
Mr. Landis has IMHO nailed this discussion with his thought. Over the last year I have journeyed from a 20D (8MP) to a 40D (10MP) both 1.6 crop to a 1DMkIIn (back to 8MP but a much bigger sensor) 1.3 crop and finally to a 1DsMkII (16.7MP) FF. At each step I could see differences, improvements in the images I was capturing. The color ran deeper and was more "alive". Shape and form was more in dwelt. Light was immanent. This has nothing to do with looking at pixels under a microscope and honestly it can't really be seen at the resolutions we generally view here in this forum or on a general website. I can see it on my 30" monitor full up in RAW and I can see it in my prints even though the largest I can do is 11x19.
NumberFive, I'm reminded of the scene from Robin Williams' masterpiece The Dead Poets Society where he reads from the introduction to the poetry book. Some brain dead academician tries to suggest that poetry can be charted on a Cartesian coordinate system. Williams' character responds by having his students tear the page out of the book. I think full frame is tearing the page out, looking as wide and open and deeply as possible at light and the world it reveals. There is no proof that FF creates better quality images. That lies in the hands and eyes of both the artist and the viewer with whatever tool they use. Full frame does, however, provide an opportunity for more light. The tool you choose is, ultimately, always an act of faith.
that's because there are few vocal and pedantic members who have to ignore how people actually shoot and think so they can argue fine points.
Seth Tower wrote:
That's what I've been saying all along! Didn't I get raked over the coals in another thread because I said that a FF camera will give you less DOF at the same subject magnification?
kaustubh_d wrote:
Right. I dont disagree. But 1ds is 21 mp, right? So if you crop it to 1.6x, it might be less than the 15mp of 50d...but will that make a significant difference? I am asking..not rhetoric.
The high iso advantage in wildlfie/bird photography is huge.
In a hypothetical world, if 50d and 5D were priced the same, I dont think people will buy 50d because it gives extra reach, will they?...if 1Ds and 1D were priced the same, will they go for 1D? Some will but just because of the FPS advantage...not the crop factor advantage. I guess thats the point I was trying to make.
If you crop the 5DII image to 1.6x crop size, you'd essentially have the same image as though you used a crop body. There's nothing inherently different or superior about the 5D's sensor. it's just larger and has larger pixel pitch (each pixel is larger than a 50D's pixel). I think the pixel pitch of the 5D2 is around that of the 30D or Rebel XT.
DOF is not an absolute thing in any sense. It is a relative concept and always has been. It essentially describes a region in front of and behind the plane of optimum focus in which the image is "only fuzzy enough that you probably won't notice if you use an arbitrary sensor/film size and print at some specific print size."
This becomes apparent quickly to anyone who bases their DOF-related aperture decisions on "DOF charts," only to find that objects within the predicted DOF range are unsufficiently sharp in very large prints.
Dan
Well, yes. Even out of focus images will come back into focus if you downsize the image enough. In the same way that an object may look blurred at 100% size, but start resolving at smaller sizes.
mh2000 wrote:
that's because there are few vocal and pedantic members who have to ignore how people actually shoot and think so they can argue fine points.
kakomu wrote:
If you crop the 5DII image to 1.6x crop size, you'd essentially have the same image as though you used a crop body. There's nothing inherently different or superior about the 5D's sensor. it's just larger and has larger pixel pitch (each pixel is larger than a 50D's pixel). I think the pixel pitch of the 5D2 is around that of the 30D or Rebel XT.
It's not always that simple. When you crop the 5D2 image to 8MP you will be bringing out the pixel level noise, and also there are AF issues too as the object would be smaller in viewfinder and harder to AF on (e.g. Small Bird in flight) so the results are not identical.
1) Larger sensors allow for exposures that are not possible with smaller, because the saturation level ("full well") in number of photons per image is higher. To get the benefit, you must either sacrifice DOF, or allow for longer exposure time.
2) At a given perspective and FOV, lenses with wide aperture and/or short focal length used with a larger sensor don't always have an equivalent for smaller sensors. For example, the equivalent to 35 mm f/1.4 on FF would be 22 mm f/0.9 on 1.6 crop.
I believe OntheRez is speaking somewhat metaphorically. His paragraph:
NumberFive, I'm reminded of the scene from Robin Williams' masterpiece The Dead Poets Society where he reads from the introduction to the poetry book. Some brain dead academician tries to suggest that poetry can be charted on a Cartesian coordinate system. Williams' character responds by having his students tear the page out of the book. I think full frame is tearing the page out, looking as wide and open and deeply as possible at light and the world it reveals. There is no proof that FF creates better quality images. That lies in the hands and eyes of both the artist and the viewer with whatever tool they use. Full frame does, however, provide an opportunity for more light. The tool you choose is, ultimately, always an act of faith....Show more →
The context indictates "more light" is referring to his anteceding "....looking as wide and open and deeply as possible at light and the world it reveals." So by "more light" he's referring to the camera affording the overall ability to "look" more widely, openly, and deeply in a panoply of ways...not just physically admitting a greater number of photons to a CMOS sensor.
