Entry vs pro

[Phil Young]

David. Two things.

Firstly, it reads as though you might have accepted the fact that crops are a bit pointless here and now truing to defend yourself against looking silly by claiming it was the benefit of the op...which people do so fair enough.

But secondly, it sounds like you are also the worlds biggest pixel peeper now and my respect for what you do has gone down a notch, why can you not see what we are saying and admit it about viewing sizes and apparent sharpness?!?!

It's really annoying that in this thread, people have been proved wrong, but instead of saying "ok fair enough" they clutch at straws and either bring up new arguments to why xxxx is better or sidetrack their original posts by claiming it's for the benefit of the op as seen above.
Come on, just join logic and reason and agree: at normal viewing size there isn't much notable difference. When I say notable... I mean the crop sensor isn't "murdered".

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying despite some sensors being better than others, the differences in quality to be gained by the increase in sensor size will outweigh those. There will always be exceptional sensors compared to others, but no so much as outweigh the differences in format.... not unless the smaller format has some serious lens advantage.

I'm assuming we're testing cameras from the same time period too here... not comparing the latest offerings with obsolete equipment.

Will the 5D yield better quality images than the 550D?

Yes.

I fail to see what there is to argue about.

 

[woof woof]

Will the 5D yield better quality images than the 550D?

Yes.

I fail to see what there is to argue about.

In what circumstances?

 

[joel222]

Well I've got my answer. The fact that there is so much disagreement about it shows me that there is not enough difference between the two to justify me buying one, as I don't yet need to use high iso a lot or print really big. My 550d is more than good enough for what I need, but sometimes it's nice to treat yourself as you know. I am a complete novice, and I know a lot of you would frown upon me thinking about a 5d, but it's like saying does a man need a merc or Bmw, not really, but they're nice to have if you can afford them.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't see how you can say those two statements in the same post and still be happy with the conclusion. On one hand you are saying that results vary because you can have better sensors at the same size, yet on the other you are saying bigger sensors are better irrespective of the "quality" (for want of a better word) of the sensor in place. Does not compute....

I've said no such thing. I'm saying that despite some sensors clearly being superior to others, it's not enough of a difference to outweigh the advantages of larger formats.. not unless the smaller format has some serious lens advantage.

David. Two things.

Firstly, it reads as though you might have accepted the fact that crops are a bit pointless here and now truing to defend yourself against looking silly by claiming it was the benefit of the op...which people do so fair enough.

I have accepted no such thing. If anyone is interested in examining the detail one system is capable of compared to another, crops are highly relevant and very telling. I've conceded that they are pointless for woof woof... as he doesn't give a damn... but that's him. They're highly relevant for the OP, as they definitively answer his question.

But secondly, it sounds like you are also the worlds biggest pixel peeper now and my respect for what you do has gone down a notch, why can you not see what we are saying and admit it about viewing sizes and apparent sharpness?!?!

I don't give a damn whether you respect me or not. That's not an aggressive statement... it's just irrelevant to me.... and to be frank, I think you're out of order for A) suggesting that first of all, quality for quality's sake is a bad thing, and B) That you are making assumptions about me because I was merely posting something to help the OP. Where in ANY of my posts does it suggest that I am a pixel peeper... and so what if I was anyway? My work is what it is... whether I obsess about quality has no bearing on my work once it's hung in a gallery or printed on the page. If you like my work.. will you like it less if you think I'm a pixel peeper?

For the record... I often print at A1.. so yes.. quality IS important to me. That doesn't make me a pixel peeper... it means I have a real reason to shoot on larger formats.

It's really annoying that in this thread, people have been proved wrong, but instead of saying "ok fair enough" they clutch at straws and either bring up new arguments to why xxxx is better or sidetrack their original posts by claiming it's for the benefit of the op as seen above.

In what way have I been proved wrong? The 5D is capable of producing better quality images than the 550D. Are you saying that is not true?

All things being equal, bigger is better. How can you argue with that?

Come on, just join logic and reason and agree: at normal viewing size there isn't much notable difference. When I say notable... I mean the crop sensor isn't "murdered".

There you go again.... "At normal viewing size".. normal for who? In what way am I ignoring logic and reason? A 5D will be better than a 550D. Fact. Whether he needs it, or how big he prints, or how far away from his screen he sits is entirely up to him and nothing whatsoever to do with me.

In what circumstances?

What? It either produces a sharper image, or it doesn't. That's all the OP wanted to know.

What is WRONG with you people? LOL What's all this "in what circumstances" nonsense? Can't we deal in facts?

Christ... you all got small sensor syndrome or what? LOL

 

[woof woof]

...but sometimes it's nice to treat yourself as you know.

Two things.

I decided to test the FF water without spending too much so I bought a used 5D and I like it... but mostly I use my MFT G1.

Another way to satisfy new toy lust is to buy legacy lenses. They're cheap, you get new toys coming through the post and they're fun to use

So, my advice is if you are happy to spend a few hundred £ buy a 5D and if you only want to spend tens of £ buy some legacy lenses.

 

[arad85]

My 550d is more than good enough for what I need, but sometimes it's nice to treat yourself as you know.

Yup. If you don't need it but still want it, that's a very valid reason for buying (it's why I have far too many computers here!).

 

[woof woof]

What? It either produces a sharper image, or it doesn't. That's all the OP wanted to know.

What is WRONG with you people? LOL What's all this "in what circumstances" nonsense? Can't we deal in facts?

Christ... you all got small sensor syndrome or what? LOL

To explain the "what circumstances" question... as I said, IMVHO simply saying BIG=Better is simply too simplistic and should be followed by something like... if you want to shoot at high ISO, print very big or crop till the cows come home.

IMVHO sharpness is a little overrated so that's a discussion I'm just not interested in

And small manhood syndrome... Well, I actually own a FF camera so I have no 5D lust. I have one of my very own and some nice lenses too

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well.. maybe it's be being "too simplistic", but when someone asks "I was just wondering if there is a lot of difference in IQ between say my 550d, and say a 5d"? I thought it may be a good idea to actually give a demonstration that would give him the answer he required, so he could make up his own mind.

There's a reason I've been staying out of the equipment threads lately... and this is it. Pedantry.

 

[arad85]

I've said no such thing.

Go back and read your two sentences - you did say that

I'm saying that despite some sensors clearly being superior to others, it's not enough of a difference to outweigh the advantages of larger formats.. not unless the smaller format has some serious lens advantage.

I've not done the experiment (as I'm no longer interested in the result), but I would be happy to put a GH3 against a 5D2 with real world lenses (i.e. the ones most people would use them with at a given price point) in real world situations and I'd expect the GH3 to give at least as sharp if not sharper output than the 5D2 - even pixel peeping. Why? Because it's about the complete system, not about a single component on a testbench.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Go back and read your two sentences - you did say that

I've not done the experiment (as I'm no longer interested in the result), but I would be happy to put a GH3 against a 5D2 with real world lenses

Easy to say when you've no intention of putting your money where your mouth is

The reason that 4/3rds can punch above it's weight though, is lenses... not sensors. Sharpness is a result of many things, but ultimately it boils down to how small is the smallest thing a lens can resolve/sensor size. The bigger the gap between those two things, and the sharper the image will be. So when comparing two Canon DSLRs, or two Nikon DSLRs, then you will never, ever get the crop sensor camera outperforming the FF camera.

All things being equal, bigger is better.

 

[Phil Young]

David:

Since you like the crops, you wouldn't mind sharing your thoughts on these two. One is an LX7 @ f4 ISO 80, the other D7000 + Tokina 12-24 @f8 ISO100. Do you see a big difference, if so, is it a big difference to you??? Both shot in RAW then only cropped. No sharpening.

#1:

#2

EDIT: sorry, LX7 shot at f4, D7000 f8. Changed above.

 

[LCPete]

...or someone that can't understand the benefit of a ff especialy as they have to justify their crop camera each time something remotely similar to this comes up and that's hasn't owned one and shot it alongside other systems. Or someone that classifies aberrations or distortin as part of the quality a sensor delivers. The 5d is a better camera than the 550d.

sorry got to join in here and disagree

The 550D is just a different camera to the 5D , aimed at a different market
I assume you are not comparing the origanal 5D the the 550 and mean the 5D mk 3 ?

 

[fracster]

Jesus, I bet you lot are good fun to go for a pint with........


Why not agree to disagree and move on, rather than willy waving and being intent on getting the last word in. This place is getting like a infant school playground at the minute.

 

[Phil Young]

Why not agree to disagree and move on

Some debate on politics, we debate on sensor size...are we hurting anyone???

 

[Phil V]

... My 550d is more than good enough for what I need, but sometimes it's nice to treat yourself as you know. I am a complete novice, and I know a lot of you would frown upon me thinking about a 5d, but it's like saying does a man need a merc or Bmw, not really, but they're nice to have if you can afford them.

The answer is simple, forget cameras, lenses are great and will allow you opportunities to experiment with different genres. Lighting will do the same. But if you really want to spend money and improve your photography, training is great, so is a luxury holiday. You can photograph things in SE Asia you can't photograph in Bolton.

I can almost tell your level of expertise from the question, it's a fact that newbies hanker after cameras, learners go for lenses and then photographers go after the important stuff.

 

[twist]

sorry got to join in here and disagree

The 550D is just a different camera to the 5D , aimed at a different market
I assume you are not comparing the origanal 5D the the 550 and mean the 5D mk 3 ?

Don't mind if you disagree, I meant the original. They are different but IMO the 5d is better, but that's in my case. A holiday would be nice

 

[Pookeyhead]

Some debate on politics, we debate on sensor size...are we hurting anyone???

Well.. I just thought I'd post and give the OP some examples. I didn't want a debate on sensor size... as it's pointless.

APS-C or FF.. they're BOTH small formats to me. I still use 5x4 film and I also use medium format digital. You don't have to sell me on smaller formats though, as despite having 5x4 and medium format digital at my disposal, I usually use the D800 for most things.

None of what I've been saying is anti-crop. I was merely providing the OP with information he requested.

David:

Since you like the crops, you wouldn't mind sharing your thoughts on these two. One is an LX7 @ f4 ISO 80, the other D7000 + Tokina 12-24 @f8 ISO100. Do you see a big difference, if so, is it a big difference to you??? Both shot in RAW then only cropped. No sharpening.

Why are you doing this? The OP wanted to know what the quality difference between a crop sensor DSLR and a FF DSLR... I posted some examples, and made the statement I still stand by... that all things being equal, a bigger sensor equals better quality.

For the record, one of those images has such bad chromatic aberration I'd rather not make a comment on the sensor of either.....

...like I said... all things being equal.

I think some people are just WAY too sensitive about the size of their peni.. I mean sensors.

 

[Phil Young]

Why are you doing this? The OP wanted to know what the quality difference between a crop sensor DSLR and a FF DSLR... I posted some examples, and made the statement I still stand by... that all things being equal, a bigger sensor equals better quality.

For the record, one of those images has such bad chromatic aberration I'd rather not make a comment on the sensor of either.....

...like I said... all things being equal.

I think some people are just WAY too sensitive about the size of their peni.. I mean sensors.

Don't worry, it's a natural animal instinct to retract into a corner and then shout abuse when confronted...it turns the tables and takes the heat off you to you don't have to answer which if you got wrong would feel like a bit of a peni...ahem.

The point is this.

You are talking about a sensor vs another sensor slightly smaller.

I have given you an example of a sensor considerably smaller than another and you won't answer which is which...why? Because you can't tell easily.

And OP has already stated he has his answer: there isn't a lot between them for what he uses (which is what we were debating about).

I just think it's a bit cowardly TBH. You came in the thread with the attitude of "here's the crops, they show a difference. END OF" and now when challenged you are changing what you said, bringing up ways to back out of questions, accusing others of not wanting to put their money where their mouth is (but then not answering my question with the crops!?). It's just annoying that you will only debate on your terms with your artillery.

Same thing happened with Andy (Arad85) - you were fine to argue your ammunition but when it came to his very valid point, you just brushed it under the carpet.

Frustrating.

 

[arad85]

Easy to say when you've no intention of putting your money where your mouth is

But I have. I moved completely to micro 4/3rds... And if the G6 has the GH3 sensor, I will be buying it. If not, I'll wait for the GH3 to fall a little more in price.

All things being equal, bigger is better.

But in the real world, all things are not equal

 

[Pookeyhead]

Don't worry, it's a natural animal instinct to retract into a corner and then shout abuse when confronted

Only if one feels threatened.

I have given you an example of a sensor considerably smaller than another and you won't answer which is which...why? Because you can't tell easily.

At a guess, I'd say the bottom one is the smaller sensor, but as I've also said, the bottom one has some really awful CA, so it's not really a fair test. Like I said.. all things being equal.... which is not the case here. One lens is clearly terrible compared to the other.

I just think it's a bit cowardly TBH. You came in the thread with the attitude of "here's the crops, they show a difference. END OF" and now when challenged you are changing what you said, bringing up ways to back out of questions, accusing others of not wanting to put their money where their mouth is (but then not answering my question with the crops!?). It's just annoying that you will only debate on your terms with your artillery.

I still have the same attitude now as when I came in this thread. All things being equal, a larger sensor will produce a higher quality image. No amount of rhetoric from you, or anyone else will change that, because its' a fact.

Same thing happened with Andy (Arad85) - you were fine to argue your ammunition but when it came to his very valid point, you just brushed it under the carpet.

Frustrating.

I brushed nothing under the carpet. He merely demonstrated that between two equal sized sensors, one was better than the other. So? Despite this... either of those sensors will not rival a full frame sensor unless there's a serious disparity between the lens quality of one system against the other. How exactly does demonstrating that one sensor is better than another of equal size proving, or disproving the main topic.. which is, would a full frame camera produce better results than a APS-C size camera. The answer is yes, it will, especially if the lenses are of comparable quality... which in the case being discussed, would be so.


I'm a bit confused what you're actually trying to achieve. Just to set the record straight, are you suggesting that when I say a APS-C SLR will not be as good as a FF DSLR.. are you actually disagreeing with that?

But in the real world, all things are not equal

But when comparing one Canon camera to another one, they pretty much are. What you're doing is saying, "Look... look how great this 4/3rds image is... see.. sensor size is all crap... you don't need a bigger sensor to get good quality", and neglecting the fact that the highly optimised lenses are responsible for that, not the smaller sensor. How does that help someone like the OP who wanted a comparison between two Canon cameras? If it was possible to use the same lenses you are using on your 4/3rd system on a Canon 5D, I think you'd see results that in turn, would make your 4/3rd system seem quite poor in comparison.

So in short... what exactly are you and Phil suggesting? That sensor size is irrelevant?

 

[arad85]

He merely demonstrated that between two equal sized sensors, one was better than the other. So? Despite this... either of those sensors will not rival a full frame sensor unless there's a serious disparity between the lens quality of one system against the other.

And there's the flaw in your logic. Unless you can quantify the difference, there is no way you can claim an absolute. Where is the dividing line - how bad does a FF sensor have to be to be worse than a good micro 4/3rds sensor?

My point is you have to look at this "what is better" question in a system context. That includes lenses, sensors, anti-alias filters in front of those sensors, focusing systems (got to get the subject in focus to start with and that can be a bit of a lottery with DSLRs), the normal light and subject you shoot, together with how big you output and in what medium. And unless you pixel peep (and even if you do sometimes) there isn't much in it between micro 4/3rds, APSC and FF....

 

[arad85]

But when comparing one Canon camera to another one, they pretty much are. What you're doing is saying, "Look... look how great this 4/3rds image is... see.. sensor size is all crap... you don't need a bigger sensor to get good quality", and neglecting the fact that the highly optimised lenses are responsible for that, not the smaller sensor.

No. I was saying that two sensors with the same lens produce different results. You have to view this as a complete system. Ity isn't purely about sensor size.

How does that help someone like the OP who wanted a comparison between two Canon cameras?

It shows it isn't a cut and dried answer.

So in short... what exactly are you and Phil suggesting? That sensor size is irrelevant?

No. Just that it is one element in a whole host of things that determine "quality" of an image and isn't the overriding factor that some claim

 

[woof woof]

Jesus, I bet you lot are good fun to go for a pint with........

Why not agree to disagree and move on, rather than willy waving and being intent on getting the last word in. This place is getting like a infant school playground at the minute.

Well, I can't really speak for the others, obviously, but every post of mine here has been an attempt to be helpful or to try and clarify or in response to posts aimed at me and I've then posted a reply out of politeness.

Willy waving and playground antics don't enter into it for me. As for having the last wo

 

[Pookeyhead]

It shows it isn't a cut and dried answer.

It was for the OP: 550D vs. 5D. That is cut and dried.

And there's the flaw in your logic. Unless you can quantify the difference, there is no way you can claim an absolute. Where is the dividing line - how bad does a FF sensor have to be to be worse than a good micro 4/3rds sensor?

It's either is better, or it is not, and I've yet to see a 4/3rd system that can outperform a full frame system. I'm sure there may be a full frame sensor I'm not aware of that's particularly crap, but that hardly matters... any FF camera you can buy right now, will outperform a 4/3rd system. I suppose you could put a really hopeless lens on the FF system, and then the best lens you can find on the 4/3rds and say "See?.. see?.. not as good", but I thought we would be adult enough to assume that wouldn't enter into the equation.

My point is you have to look at this "what is better" question in a system context. That includes lenses, sensors, anti-alias filters in front of those sensors, focusing systems (got to get the subject in focus to start with and that can be a bit of a lottery with DSLRs), the normal light and subject you shoot, together with how big you output and in what medium. And unless you pixel peep (and even if you do sometimes) there isn't much in it between micro 4/3rds, APSC and FF....

I'm not suggesting 4/3rds or APS-C is crap or anything... but this absolute refusal just to say "No it's not as good as full frame" when it patently isn't, just strikes me as denial.

 

[London Headshots]

In what circumstances?

In every single circumstance. Literally every single one. Whether you are able to see it or not is a different question, but he's completely right.

 

[grotty]

In every single circumstance. Literally every single one. Whether you are able to see it or not is a different question, but he's completely right.

I know what you are saying. However the OP asked about 'general image quality' - so surely in the circumstances that you can't see greater DR, sharpness etc it becomes a moot point.

 

[London Headshots]

You're right.

Only owners have used or seen images from FF.

Lowly APS-C users are not worthy of even being in your company!

Sorry. Silly comments annoy me :bang:

Edit: on my way to a 2hr kickboxing shoot but there's no harm in chatting on the journey.

To be fair, simply seeing an FF image is very different to using an FF camera. One of the first things you will notice when you move to FF is a higher quality image. The general 'feel' of the image, even if intangible, is readily apparent once you own it and start to notice where it performs better.

 

[London Headshots]

I know what you are saying. However the OP asked about 'general image quality' - so surely in the circumstances that you can't see greater DR, sharpness etc it becomes a moot point.

You're forgetting that this is TalkPhotography, where weirdos with cameras doggedly argue over every single tiny fraction of a point, for page after page, in a futile attempt to win a prize that doesn't exist. Especially if it's in defence of a cheaper product that they own.

Pookeyhead is pointing out a simple fact, and I'm not quite sure why anyone is even bothering to try and refute it.

Two parked cars perform identically.

 

[Phil Young]

In every single circumstance. Literally every single one. Whether you are able to see it or not is a different question, but he's completely right.

This is correct (maybe not for those that dislike the DOF) but the point is will people notice a difference in IQ in decent conditions? The answer will be no and that is what was proven.

<to everyone that thinks otherwise> give me a bunch of images from the net where you can see that is FF without the exif. I am not skilled enough to know the difference if I saw an image weather it's taken on 35mm or not.

Without knowing the exif, in decent conditions I wouldn't know WHAT camera it was taken on and that is going out to phones, compacts, micros etc.

 

[London Headshots]

That wasn't proven. What was proven was that people won't notice the difference when the shot is in a tiny resolution. That's the only proof that has been shown here.

Proof I was, myself, very impressed by. Wouldn't have expected it to be so close.

If you want to measure the perfect conditions, just take a picture with the lens cap on. Then you definitely won't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Phil Young]

That wasn't proven. What was proven was that people won't notice the difference when the shot is in a tiny resolution. That's the only proof that has been shown here.

Proof I was, myself, very impressed by. Wouldn't have expected it to be so close.

If you want to measure the perfect conditions, just take a picture with the lens cap on. Then you definitely won't be able to tell the difference.

So 100% crops are better then to tell the difference???

Care to take a stab at my images to see if you can say 100% sure "that's the bigger sensor"....?

 

[London Headshots]

So 100% crops are better then to tell the difference???

Care to take a stab at my images to see if you can say 100% sure "that's the bigger sensor"....?

Yeah cool, post the raw and post the original format that the 3/4 camera shoots in. I'll give it a go. No point in using JPGs.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I know what you are saying. However the OP asked about 'general image quality' -

Oh FFS... is it better or not? Yes or bloody no? The OP didn't use the word "general" at all.. not that it makes any difference if he did.

so surely in the circumstances that you can't see greater DR, sharpness etc it becomes a moot point.

It also becomes a moot point if you don't take the damned thing out of the box! So what? If you take a photo of something with absolutely no edge contrast or clearly defined edges, then of course it doesn't matter... but really? You wanna factor all this in when someone merely asks what the difference in image quality between FF and crop is? "well.... it depends if you photograph something with detail or not..."... really? Why not just give definitive answer... because there is one; It's "yes".


So far we've had "it depends on how big you view them", to "If you pixel peep", and now we're onto only when you can "see greater DR, sharpness etc".

What if I ask which is fastest, a Shelby GT500 or a Nissan Micra... what will you say then? "It depends how fast you drive it" or "only when speed limits allow".. or on a "narrow twisty road the difference will not be as great as you think".. I mean.. A simple question was asked, and A simple answer was provided.

FF provides better quality images than APS-C. It just does. FF also provides better image quality than 4/3rds... it just does. 4/3rds can indeed perform as well as APS-C, but it requires a disproportionate difference in lens quality to achieve it. I DO see Arad85s point about systems playing a role in all this, but it's massively out of context in this thread and hugely pedantic when I'm trying to say that when all things being equal, bigger is better... because the thread was about Canon APS-C vs. Canon FF.... where there is a like for like comparison to be had. He didn't want a 4/3rds system, nor was he asking about one.


Everything I've said in this thread is merely stating that I have given the definitive answer to the OP's question.. which is what are the difference in quality between crop and FF... and I have: FF is better... the end.... not better if you pixel peep... or better only when there's a lot of detail... none of that... it is demonstrably better technically. It's measurable, and provable.

 

[joel222]

The answer is simple, forget cameras, lenses are great and will allow you opportunities to experiment with different genres. Lighting will do the same. But if you really want to spend money and improve your photography, training is great, so is a luxury holiday. You can photograph things in SE Asia you can't photograph in Bolton.

I can almost tell your level of expertise from the question, it's a fact that newbies hanker after cameras, learners go for lenses and then photographers go after the important stuff.

You absolutely cannot tell my level of expertise from the question. If it was that obvious there wouldn't of been five pages of discussion about this. I have the lenses that I want, and don't want to experiment with other genres. I also have enough lighting to be experimenting with until I improve enough with it to buy more. The thing you have got right is that I do want to spend money to improve, and have been in contact with wedding photographers that run courses and will be enrolling once I decide which is the right one. I'm also going to Egypt in October, but I don't have a great interest in that side of it. I knew that it was only a matter of time before an 'old pro' made patronising comments about a newbie wanting to buy a better camera. So tell me, what is 'the important stuff' that photographers go after?

 

[grotty]

Oh FFS sake... is it better or not? Yes or bloody no? The OP didn't use the word "general" at all..

Here's the last part of the opening post, just in case you missed it, FFS

...I know there are differences in things like iso capabilities and maybe other stuff that could lead to better IQ in certain conditions, but I mean in general.

 

[Phil Young]

Yeah cool, post the raw and post the original format that the 3/4 camera shoots in. I'll give it a go. No point in using JPGs.

Ah. I didn't keep the files. I saved a bunch of jpgs and then deleted. Sorry.

Plus, even if I had the RAWs, you'd see which was which lol.

 

[Phil Young]

Here's the last part of the opening post, just in case you missed it, FFS

Lol!!!!!

That was a cracker! Come on David you have to admit, that was a good one!

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'll concede that it was....


however...

. not that it makes any difference if he did.

 

[grotty]

So, because you choose to disregard it, it doesn't matter. That's a strange logic.

Have a nice evening David.