Wid, I'd try and rent a 5D for a day and shoot it wide open with your primes. It'll set you back some S$, but at least you'll know what it's all about. There is a difference but it's hard to quantify in clinical terms.
For instance, it's great for shooting inside the wet market downstairs somewhere in Chinatown (always forget the name of the street it's on even though I've been in Singapore at least 15 times, sometimes for over three months at a a time).
However, if you find you're shooting at f/5.6 or smaller at ISO 100 say 95% of the time: stick with crop as FF will probably not offer you any advantages.
I tend to use 'pop' when describing 5D images to those wanting to get it, but I do mean it to be the lower DOF and the vignetting as compared to my previous images from the 30D. I've also come across the term '3D'.
You invite a lot of snide comments when you ask such an overly vague and virtually unanswerable question such as "will full-frame bring me magic."
In the OP's defense, I have often heard the 5D's files described as having a "magical" quality. I am sure the OP is referring to these comments. I've also heard the 5D's files described as having an "elusive, 3d " quality to them. Both terms....."elusive" and "magical", are, by nature not very well defined, and subject to interpretation.
Hopefully, with a little time, some of those, who have, in the past, described the 5D files as being "magical" will chime in here, and come forth with their opinions that may benefit the OP. Opinions of a constructive nature, that will hopefully negate some of the harshness of this thread.
I ignored your vulgarity and I thought you'd get it, but you seem to be enjoying yourself here. I've always liked FM compared to other forums as I thought the people here are nice an civilised, and may be if you keep away from this thread it'd make me easier to keep me from changing my mind. Thank you.
I agree there has been some cheap shots here. But please re-read your original question, or even your title, and think hard about what kind of answers you were expecting.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
Wid, I'd try and rent a 5D for a day and shoot it wide open with your primes. It'll set you back some S$, but at least you'll know what it's all about. There is a difference but it's hard to quantify in clinical terms.
For instance, it's great for shooting inside the wet market downstairs somewhere in Chinatown (always forget the name of the street it's on even though I've been in Singapore at least 15 times, sometimes for over three months at a a time).
However, if you find you're shooting at f/5.6 or smaller at ISO 100 say 95% of the time: stick with crop as FF will probably not offer you any advantages....Show more →
I did consider renting one. Though probably one day isn't quite enough. Which might set me for quite a bit
The wet market is close to a "Pearl Centre"? I have to confess I don't know the street names there too.
I do intend to use my 40D with the 17-55IS for all the "incidental" stuffs. And on top of that I wanted to be more experimental and exploratory with the prime lenses. The 5D might be it.
I agree there has been some cheap shots here. But please re-read your original question, or even your title, and think hard about what kind of answers you were expecting.
Navyblue wrote:
I ignored your vulgarity and I thought you'd get it, but you seem to be enjoying yourself here. I've always liked FM compared to other forums as I thought the people here are nice an civilised, and may be if you keep away from this thread it'd make me easier to keep me from changing my mind. Thank you.
Oh, I get it allright... You like to get smart with people who give you nice and civilised reponds to your vague questions... and then being resentful because they confront you with that... What a joke... entertaining indeed
Daan B wrote:
Oh, I get it allright... You like to get smart with people who give you nice and civilised reponds to your vague questions... and then being resentful because they confront you with that... What a joke... entertaining indeed
There are plenty of others who disagreed with the point do you see this "resentment" displayed towards them as you like to call it?
So if a person posted a vague question he deserve vulgarity and ridicule instead of clarification and correction?
Not withstanding the fact that you are still posting here, I'm afraid that you don't quite get it.
I still believe however, that your original question can only be answered by you. If you'd like to ask something more specific, go ahead and I'll try to respond. My impressions of the 5D are quite fresh as I just made the transition from the 30D.
If by FF you mean Full Frame then the answer is yes, they are ALWAYS superior. In the old days, Olympus made a splash with the PenF series. It was a 1/2 frame 35. The impression was that focal lenghts seemed to magicaly double but the resulting image quality was reduced in half. Crop sensors and the 4/3's format are creating the same trick.
What would you rather have as a friend in your compositions? To do a 100% crop on full frame is nothing, no matter the pixel count, when printed. Don't be a pixel peeper. The larger the format the higher the IQ potential no matter the other variable inputs.
hfillmore wrote:
Man, a whole lotta flak flying around here.
In the OP's defense, I have often heard the 5D's files described as having a "magical" quality. I am sure the OP is referring to these comments. I've also heard the 5D's files described as having an "elusive, 3d " quality to them. Both terms....."elusive" and "magical", are, by nature not very well defined, and subject to interpretation.
Hopefully, with a little time, some of those, who have, in the past, described the 5D files as being "magical" will chime in here, and come forth with their opinions that may benefit the OP. Opinions of a constructive nature, that will hopefully negate some of the harshness of this thread.
I still believe however, that your original question can only be answered by you. If you'd like to ask something more specific, go ahead and I'll try to respond. My impressions of the 5D are quite fresh as I just made the transition from the 30D.
Navyblue wrote:
So if a person posted a vague question he deserve vulgarity and ridicule instead of clarification and correction?
Nope, I gave you a nice and civilised response to your question in the 1st place... It was your choice to get smart with me after that... Don't try to blame this one on me.
Not withstanding the fact that you are still posting here, I'm afraid that you don't quite get it.
What do I don't get? that you are full of it? Oh, I got that one already on the previous page
Navyblue wrote:
How about the biggest change that struck you?
Or would it even qualifies as "big" at all?
This is a much better question! And much more likely to garner more positive responses.
As I said before I definitely saw that 'pop' or '3D' effect that I came across in reviews, but really I attribute this to the vignetting and change in DOF. It was particularly evident in my 135mm f/2 images and 17-40L images. Noise control is also better, but you've already stated this wasn't a factor in your decision.
Daan B wrote:
Nope, I gave you a nice and civilised response to your question in the 1st place... It was your choice to get smart with me after that... Don't try to blame this one on me.
Nice and civilised? Yes, especially the smilie.
As for me trying to get smart, it's a "yes" too. But I thought we'd communicate better if I speak your language, except that I forgot my smilie.
Here it is.
Sorry I missed that.
Now, please stop posting in this thread if you have nothing constructive to add. (though I'd be surprised if you'd actually do that, but I like surprises)
Some people call it the "pop" (there isn't an official definition that I am aware of). Some people think that it has to do with perspective difference. Or may be it's the rendering of tonality. I really don't know.
From my extremely limited experience with 5DII while playing in the shop, frankly I don't feel any difference other than it has a bigger viewfinder and a tiny tad bigger. But it is implied that that FF is a whole different world than APS-C and life is never the same again that sort of stuffs.
I see that you have both FF and cropped body and I because of that I do value your opinion. ...Show more →
The "pop" that people talk about I suspect, is perspective. Below is an illustration in the difference in perspective using various focal lengths (foot zooming) on a 35mm format. Note that when you are using APS-C, not only that you are using a longer focal range, you are also cropping on top of that. Therefore the difference is actually pretty big at shorter focal lengths.
Norwin Uy wrote:
This is a much better question! And much more likely to garner more positive responses.
As I said before I definitely saw that 'pop' or '3D' effect that I came across in reviews, but really I attribute this to the vignetting and change in DOF. It was particularly evident in my 135mm f/2 images and 17-40L images. Noise control is also better, but you've already stated this wasn't a factor in your decision.
Thanks.
How about tonality? Would you give some credit to the tone rendering for the "pop" thingie?
I saw the magic you were referring to in a recent post. Someone set up the same shot, same settings with comparable glass with a 5D and XXD. I can't remember the exact models. Basically it demonstrated the difference in DOF and look. I must say, while both cameras took great shots, there was magic in the 5D.
Jonathan Wong wrote:
The "pop" that people talk about I suspect, is perspective. Below is an illustration in the difference in perspective using various focal lengths (foot zooming) on a 35mm format. Note that when you are using APS-C, not only that you are using a longer focal range, you are also cropping on top of that. Therefore the difference is actually pretty big at shorter focal lengths.
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm