I think it is time for some real comparsions, don't you think?
I just made a little test with two of my best lenses; the Nikkor 105/2.5 AIS and the Sigma 50/1.4. These have roughly the same AOV if the 50 is put on a camera with 2x crop factor as the 105 gives on FF. I know it isn't fully convenient for Canon owners since you are dealing with 1.6x crop vs. FF, but it works the same way and we don't have to calculate odd f-numbers and so on.
I put my D700 on a tripod and focused manually using live view. Then the 105 was shot at f/2.8 and the Sigma was shot at f/1.4, to get the same DOF. In reality, the Sigma is somewhat shorter than 50 mm and the Nikkor is somewhat longer than 105, which we will see later.
The apertures chosen gives different exposure, and therefore the f/2.8 shot was taken at two stops higher ISO; 800 instead of 200 as for the f/1.4 shot. Then the 50 mm image was cropped to half its linear size, which gives an angle of view resembling that of the same lens when mounted on a 2x crop camera.
Now both our effective sensor areas should have been exposed for an equal amount of photons, totally. However, the simulated crop sensor has only a fourth of the pixel count of the FF sensor, and to equal this out I downsampled the full frame to the same number of pixels.
So, now we have two pictures taken with two different sensor sizes, at the same AOV and the same DOF, with the same sensor resolution. Theoretically, at least. Lets have a look at the differences.
Uh-oh, the AOV is obviously not the same! Well, close enough. DOF isn't equal either, but that has two explanations. The blur discs of the Sigma is smoother edged, and therefore look smaller. Also, the slight difference in relative magnification (the AOV thing) makes a difference.
But, can you see any difference in "background compression"? I can't. And there is none, since the distance is the same.
The differences seen above might not be to much to worry about, but if we look at crops of the two images, the benefit for the larger sensor is kind of huge. Remember that it has been downsampled to the same pixel count, and that the FF shot is at ISO 800 vs. ISO 200 for the crop shot. How about noise? Details?
Game over for the 2x crop. Sort of. Even more interesting is that the Sigma is a larger and heavier lens than the Nikkor. And the Nikkor is 30 years old! And costs nothing.
Edit: A higher pixel count on the smaller sensor (which here is simulated by cropping) would make the Sigma look even worse. You can already see all its aberrations at 3 mpix.
Edit 2: I made a better one, using the 24-70 @ 50/5.6 on FF vs. 24/2.8 on 2x crop. Same procedure as above. The DOF is now more similar.
If any of you think that I should get a 50D for its EF-S compatibility and higher pixel count, instead of a 5D, please stop me now before it is too late.
Navyblue: From what I can tell by reading books & magazines, trolling this Web site, and comparing my images to others, you could stay with Canon cropped sensors, and find photographic happiness.
Ask yourself: Why do I need (or want) a FF camera? If a pro, then maybe you really need FF, at least to impress your clientele . If an advanced photographer, then maybe so, too, but maybe not.
Supposedly FF cameras produce better IQ. Whenever I see this argument, I feel tempted to post one of my better images shot on my XSi, and ask other FMers to guess the machine from which it came. IMHO, not one in a thousand could say whence.
You may consider also that FF cameras mount only EF lenses, and not any EF-S lenses. Other FMers, like myself, swear by the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS Lens. Nothing else in the Canon lineup compares with it. But it works only on cropped sensor cameras.
As to a comparison with the 5D and the 50D, skipping sensor size, the specs should guide you. In short, though, the 50D utilizes the latest Canon technology. It mounts all Canon lenses.
anotherview wrote:
Makten: Thanks for your approach using examples.
If I understand your explanation and if my eyes work here, then the differences relate primarily to lens construction and camera qualities.
Yes. As you can see, the 24-70 is a damn fine lens that gives almost the exact same result on the two formats. At least if not pixel peeping. But on a crop camera, you lose both the possibility for short DOF and the wide angle.
As you say above, a crop camera is good enough for alot of things. I think most people will agree about that, but what I've tried to show is that there ARE in fact differences that obviously could be hard to understand.
There is no benefit with larger DOF, since you can stop down the FF camera and get the same thing at higher ISO, without having more noise. There is no theoretical benefit with "longer reach", since an equally fast lens (not the same f-number!) is about the same size and weight, regardless of sensor format.
--------------------------------------------
So what are the benefits of crop cameras? I'd say mainly lower cost and sometimes "longer reach" because of the existing lenses on the market. Though I believe many are still fooled here. A 300/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent with a 480/4.5 on FF, which doesn't exist in the Canon lineup. If it did, it would not be larger or heavier than the 300/2.8. Not even more expensive if the designers didn't want it to be.
Other FMers, like myself, swear by the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS Lens. Nothing else in the Canon lineup compares with it.
Oh yes, the 24-105/4 IS on FF. It has a wider wide angle, longer tele and lets in more light on the sensor. Shorter DOF too.
You are right that rarely there are times that someone needs full frame. 5D would beat 40D resolution and noise, but just by a tiny bit. And 50D has the latest bells and whistles that 5D doesn't, and takes in EF-S lenses too.
The only thing left with 5D is the lesser DOF and the "prestige" factor of the FF.
For the former, I don't really need it, but I'd love to have that and hope that would open up dimension for more experimentation.
For the later, the average Joe out there wouldn't be able to tell a 350D with a grip and a 1DsIII. It would only very mildly impress those in the relevant industry, considering that it is no longer the latest and best. And what would speak the loudest is the portfolio.
Navyblue, I owned a 40D and wondered whether I should upgrade to 50D, 5D or 5D MkII. I tried all three, and found that I simply could not live with 5D because of the "age" of the camera. It has no auto-ISO, which I had on 40D. Its LCD is feeble. It has no anti-dust device. Its user interface is clunky. All put together, while this does in no way detract from IQ, it did make my customer experience less than enjoyable. Now if I had never used a 40D (or equivalent), and owned a 5D for, say, 3 years, I might feel altogether differently because I would not have taken these amenities for granted. So, before you plunk down your hard-earned, think about this. YMMV.
philber wrote:
Navyblue, I owned a 40D and wondered whether I should upgrade to 50D, 5D or 5D MkII. I tried all three, and found that I simply could not live with 5D because of the "age" of the camera. It has no auto-ISO, which I had on 40D. Its LCD is feeble. It has no anti-dust device. Its user interface is clunky. All put together, while this does in no way detract from IQ, it did make my customer experience less than enjoyable. Now if I had never used a 40D (or equivalent), and owned a 5D for, say, 3 years, I might feel altogether differently because I would not have taken these amenities for granted. So, before you plunk down your hard-earned, think about this. YMMV....Show more →
I share the same sentiment; I'm not satisfied with just owning the 5D. The 5D has great IQ but I'm desperately looking for a 1D to replace the one I recently let go. I'll never let the 5D go because of the IQ but for an everyday camera I enjoy using the 1D.
Auto ISO is useful. Not sure if 5D has ISO display.
Why is 5D's LCD "feeble"? Though the 40D has large LCD but the resolution is something that I thought pretty bas. 10D's LCD although smaller, it looks better IMO when zoomed in. I guess 5D's LCD can't be any worse than 10D?
Apart from the speed, I can bear the "age" of the 10D pretty well. 10D has no joystick, and the menu isn't tabbed like it is now. So I guess 5D's "oldness" should be not a problem for me.
But I guess I'd miss the dust shake feature, and the focusing points wouldn't be at the "right" spot.
But if price is not a factor, would you pick a 50D over a 5D?
Navyblue wrote:
But if price is not a factor, would you pick a 50D over a 5D?
This really boils down to: what do you need the camera for?
The 50D is targeted at fast action and wildlife shooting. Meaning: fast to accuire AF, fast VF black-out times, less shutter lag, fast FPS and decent high ISO in good light (up to ISO1600 outside).
The 5D is targeted at studio, portrait and landscape shooting. Meaning: slow to acquire AF, slow VF black-out times, slow shutter lag, slow FPS, but very good high ISO performance.
That doesn't mean you can't use the 50D for landscape shooting or the 5D for sports. But it will be easier to use any of these cams for the kind of photography they were designed for.
Another thing to consider is that the 50D is newer camera. Higher dot LCD with good colors (as opposed to the 5D's LCD that is much smaller and has a slight color cast), it has LiveView, Micro Adjustment (so you can adjust your lenses for optimal focus), dedicated ISO button, etc.
Navyblue, the simple equation is: 50D + 5D = 5D MkII.
50D offers all kinds of delicious goodies which make photography easier (great LCD, Liveview, lens micro-adjust, DIGIC IV, in-cam lens correction, etc..).
5D offers one thing (but very important): IQ
That doesn't mean that 50D IQ is bad. It just depends what your expectations/tolerance are. It also does not mean that 5D body is bad. You guessed: it just depends what your expectations/tolerance are...:-)
In my case, I tested 50D against my 40D and found it better, but not enough to warrant an upgrade. IQ is better, but not spectacularly so, and the body offers more and better features. If 5D MkII had not been released, I would probably have waited for 60D.
The rest is up to you, depending on your shooting style, priorities, budget, impatience, etc...
But remember my earlier advice: moving to FF is going to reshuffle which lenses you use for what. That in itself could end up costing you quite a bit of money if your present lineup needs to be realigned. If that is the case, I would go 50D without hesitation over 5D.
Another way to put it is this. 50D does not have a glowing reputation for IQ on the forums. Discount that. Neither 40D not actually 5D were greeted by "wow" when they came out, yet they are now beloved and repsected classics. Canon seems to have accumulated bad will from forum members worldwide, who criticize their every move and product. 5D MkII got trashed by thousands of posts, and more thousands talked of moving over from Canon to Nikon. Yet the fact is that this camera is in short supply 4 months after release, while Nikons are in free supply everywhere.
So don't be overly concerned by Internet write-ups, and decide for yourself.
But above all, don't let this get in the way of your shooting pleasure. After I decided to buy 5D MkII, I went to a favorite location of mine, and took a really spectacular shot with my 40D. I still post it today on FM to highlight lens performance. So the camera body in itself is not going to revolutionize that. When looking at my photo albums (I usually print A4), I cannot tell right off the bat which shot comes from which cam just by looking at it. Then when I look just where the differences show up, then I can tell. Hope this helps.
I don't shoot sports, but I do shoot events that has people moving a lot.
I don't shoot continuous shots so the frame rate doesn't bother me. I shoot quite a lot of indoor stuffs so the lower noise would benefit me (though it's not a lot).
All these seems to point me towards the 5D, and I'll still have the 40D if I need it what it has to offer (cropped format, focusing, burst shots and etc). But everyone loves a great LCD and better placed all cross focussing sensor don't they?
Edit: Btw, I blew up a few prints to A2 from my old 10D shots, and I thought they looked fine. And this new body purchase is meant to complement the 40D, not to replace it.
Navyblue wrote:
Thanks for all your responses and advices.
5D focuses slower than 40D?
Yep, not only is it slower to lock on, the 5D has slower VF blackout times and shutter lag. All in all, the 5D feels like a less responsive camera than the 40D when speed is a main concern.
I don't shoot sports, but I do shoot events that has people moving a lot.
I don't shoot continuous shots so the frame rate doesn't bother me. I shoot quite a lot of indoor stuffs so the lower noise would benefit me (though it's not a lot).
The 5D gives excellent IQ at ISO1600 and very good at ISO3200 (when you expose correctly). In this regard it is better than the 40D/50D cameras. The AF should be fast enough to track moving people and also has the benefit of 6 invisible AF assist point (in the center). And some say better it has better low light AF performance than the 40D.
All these seems to point me towards the 5D, and I'll still have the 40D if I need it what it has to offer (cropped format, focusing, burst shots and etc). But everyone loves a great LCD and better placed all cross focussing sensor don't they?
A 5D and 40D combination is very versatile and was/is used by a lot of photographers for a reason
As long as you keep the 40D, you could have the best of both worlds. As long as you are happy to have it in two parts...:-)
Have fun, 5D is a fine cam.
