Folks, sheesh, when you quote a post that contains inline images, please delete those images from your quote! Don't make everyone download images twice!
Better yet, don't quote the entire post, just quote the portions you are responding to.
Nick_b wrote:
Yes and no, I think. It's silly to argue that the 5D doesn't have better noise control then a 20D or any crop camera because there are a ton of scientific tests on line that anyone can look at and see that there is a difference BUT and that's a big 'but' how will those scientific test results impact YOUR images? We don't shoot under scientific conditions, that's why trying it out for yourself is so important I think. To say you'll get "one stop better" or "ISO ____ on a 5D is like ISO ____ on a 20D" isn't accurate in my experience because so much depends on the quality of light not just the amount. For what I shoot the differences between bodies isn't large given properly exposed files. ...Show more →
Showing different images under different conditions using different cameras and exposures isn't very usefull, imo.
As to whether the scientific tests are usefull.... I say yes.... under the same conditions, whatever they may have been, if one camera is 1 stop better, it is 1 stop better. Whether the difference is meaningful to someone is a different matter.
Seriously, there is no point trying to compare all of these very different shots. All of these pictures could have been better with a better camera and worse with a worse. To see the mettle of the two cameras you need to take exactly the same shot in controlled conditions and compare at equal magnification. The 5D will toast the 20D if this comparison is done fairly, instead of with completely arbitrary changes in lighting, camera settings, and levels of on screen magnification. After all, the 5D at iso 100 craps on the 5D at iso 3200, and the 5D at 25% craps on the 5D at 100%, so of course it's impossible to know at a glance what camera was used. That's entirely beside the point. One camera really will consistently deliver better captures than the other, with any given set of shooting constraints.
Trust me, the full frame camera really does offer another level of performance, and the pictures being shown here can only confuse and obfuscate. If you really want to see the actual difference, take the same shot with each camera using lenses of very similar performance but with a 5/8 ratio of focal length, and for God's sake uprez the 20D shot to 12.8 megapixels before comparing on screen at 100%. That's all I've got to say.
Nick_b wrote:
I know not exactly the same light and subject but I shot with both cameras and when I got home I couldn't tell the difference from one file to the next unless it was DOF related. That was my experience for what it's worth.
Its interesting you say that because all the examples you posted I feel show quite a significant difference, perhaps its just my eyes. I noticed a significant difference when I went from 20D-->5D, but it was in the ISO 800-1600 range since I rarely shoot at 3200.
brainiac wrote:
Seriously, there is no point trying to compare all of these very different shots. All of these pictures could have been better with a better camera and worse with a worse. To see the mettle of the two cameras you need to take exactly the same shot in controlled conditions and compare at equal magnification. The 5D will toast the 20D if this comparison is done fairly, instead of with completely arbitrary changes in lighting, camera settings, and levels of on screen magnification. After all, the 5D at iso 100 craps on the 5D at iso 3200, and the 5D at 25% craps on the 5D at 100%, so of course it's impossible to know at a glance what camera was used. That's entirely beside the point. One camera really will consistently deliver better captures than the other, with any given set of shooting constraints.
Trust me, the full frame camera really does offer another level of performance, and the pictures being shown here can only confuse and obfuscate. If you really want to see the actual difference, take the same shot with each camera using lenses of very similar performance but with a 5/8 ratio of focal length, and for God's sake uprez the 20D shot to 12.8 megapixels before comparing on screen at 100%. That's all I've got to say....Show more →
Well all I gota say is that I'm not a scientist and I have no desire to spend my time playing around with files to prove what other people have concluded. I test gear by shooting with them under the same conditions I intend to use them.
If your images have improved because of the 5D great! maybe you could even share some pictures to illustrate the improvements you have seen in your real world images?
edrodgers731 wrote:
Well, for me, I actually prefer seeing the softer corners and all their CA and coma glory. Because light and distance change the effect, it's hard to accurately fake in post. The edges of the image circle make the image look deeper and more organic to me. I especially like the way fast lenses look in the corners.
The crop sensors make the image look so clinical.
It's a minor argument, but it's valid at least for me.
brainiac wrote:
Trust me, the full frame camera really does offer another level of performance, and the pictures being shown here can only confuse and obfuscate.
+1
Must be a record, brainiac and I agreeing twice on the same day. Means we must be right.
All the FF cameras I have owned have smoked all the crop cameras for image quality, including the 1.3 crop cameras.
Nick_b wrote:
If your images have improved because of the 5D great! maybe you could even share some pictures to illustrate the improvements you have seen in your real world images?
I'm afraid I can't show you any APS-C shots made at iso 12800 because I've never been able to get anything worth keeping at that speed from a crop camera.
brainiac wrote:
OK - I'll play. 1Ds3 at iso 12800:
I'm afraid I can't show you any APS-C shots made at iso 12800 because I've never been able to get anything worth keeping at that speed from a crop camera.
Well we were talking 5D mkI but if you wanna change the subject that's cool with me. Unfortunately I've never used the 1Ds3 before so I can't compare ISO 12800 on it to my 50D and the original 5D didn't have that option so I only have ISO 12800 files from a 50D to share.
but back on the original topic. I think I'm being misunderstood here so I'll clarify my position.
I think the 5D has better high ISO performance then the 20D but in my experience the greatest improvements are in the shadow detail and in pushing exposure levels. Overall I think the 5D's high ISO abilities are overrated. There are a host of other differences to be found when comparing the 5D to comparable crop cameras but whether or not they are 'improvements' will depend on your intended use such as the greater choice of wide angle primes, vignetting, FOV differences, etc.
doesn't that sound like a rather boring uninformative post without pictures to show how I came to those conclusions? now you know where I stand and you know how I've come to get where I am. You and everyone else can now draw their own conclusions on how valid my opinion is. The problem with posts like the one about comparing the cameras to automotive engines is that I have no idea how the poster got to that conclusion or what he/she is basing that opinion on so I think if you are going to make a statement about something be prepared to back it up so that we can at least decide if we should listen to you.
RDKirk wrote:
Folks, sheesh, when you quote a post that contains inline images, please delete those images from your quote! Don't make everyone download images twice!
Better yet, don't quote the entire post, just quote the portions you are responding to.
Nick_b wrote:
Well we were talking 5D mkI but if you wanna change the subject that's cool with me.
OK - I take back what I said - I haven't seen a 50D used that well at iso 12800 before. It looks better than a 5D. Of course, the 5D is 2005 technology so it's a little unfair, until you consider the price at which point the 50D seems like a good bet for low light. That's why I take back what I said. But again, of course, the 5D2 will crap on the 50D but costs more. So the long and short of it is, yes, a crop camera can compete with and even beat a 3 years older full frame camera on high iso and IQ and price. But if you can afford a current full frame camera, then no crop camera can compete. Clear as mud?
Brainiac - would you mind showing how the 5D Mark II "craps on" the 50D? I've been kicking around the idea of that upgrade (I have a 50D now), but don't see any compelling evidence yet other than better ISO performance.
NumberFive wrote:
Brainiac - would you mind showing how the 5D Mark II "craps on" the 50D? I've been kicking around the idea of that upgrade (I have a 50D now), but don't see any compelling evidence yet other than better ISO performance.
To interject, I don't use high ISO much, but in every other way except frames per second the 5DII does entirely 'crap on' the 50D. Better build, better viewfinder, vastly better image quality, pretty much everything.
The only thing they both lack is a superior focusing system, which is a plus mark for Nikon, but for the main thing, which is IQ, the 5D2 is just fab, especially in RAW. Not that the 50D is bad, but the 5D2 is certainly better
NumberFive wrote:
Brainiac - would you mind showing how the 5D Mark II "craps on" the 50D? I've been kicking around the idea of that upgrade (I have a 50D now), but don't see any compelling evidence yet other than better ISO performance.
I recommend you go and take a series of pictures on both cameras. Only you can decide if the difference matters to you. In my opinion the 5D2 has a serious flaw in its processing of low iso images that will reduce its superiority over the 50D, but I still think the jump from 1.6 to full frame is such a big advantage that you will find that the 5D2 'craps on' the 50D in terms of image quality, manual focussing, pressure on lenses to perform, and availability of lenses. A full-frame camera gets better results from worse lenses because of its larger image area. IMO when a photographer uses both formats regularly (as I do), then she will end up reaching for the full-frame camera when quality matters.
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.
Correct me if I am wrong.
A 1.6 crop of a 21 Mpixel FF would gives you a 8 Mpixel i.e. half that of a 50D.
Or the other way round, a FF need to be 1.6x1.6*15=38.5 Mpixel to have equal resolution.
V6 = spinny & smooth yes but V8 burble = soul 
