Entry vs pro

See ya!.
 
But seriously now chaps ..... Esp Phil, mines bigger than yours :D

Can't we all just be friends? Big or small sensors, we all use our sensors in a similar way, time for a :beer:
 
joel222 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Can I ask what (if anything) have you decided to do ?
There may not have been that much of a difference between the 7d and 5d2 iso 6400 photo's I posted but it's the 5d2 I've mainly used since I got it. The 7d has the tamron 70-300vc on it pretty much permanently for when I need more reach.

There's someone here talking about their concerns with sand that might be relevant to your Egypt holiday ?
 
Phil Young said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol, yeah but I'm not about proving you wrong man, if I had to so much as squint to see the difference I'd have conceded.
 
stu.artd said:
Can I ask what (if anything) have you decided to do ?
There may not have been that much of a difference between the 7d and 5d2 iso 6400 photo's I posted but it's the 5d2 I've mainly used since I got it. The 7d has the tamron 70-300vc on it pretty much permanently for when I need more reach.

There's someone here talking about their concerns with sand that might be relevant to your Egypt holiday ?
Click to expand...

To be honest it was just a question. Yes, I have thought about upgrading, and will one day. If the majority of the replies said yes the 5d produces a lot better IQ than the 550d in well lit conditions I would of been seriously considering one. I still believe it was a fair question, but it all got out of hand. I suppose I will have to conduct a little test myself when I actually buy one. Thanks for the link I'll take a look.
 
joel222 said:
To be honest it was just a question. Yes, I have thought about upgrading, and will one day. If the majority of the replies said yes the 5d produces a lot better IQ than the 550d in well lit conditions I would of been seriously considering one. I still believe it was a fair question, but it all got out of hand. I suppose I will have to conduct a little test myself when I actually buy one. Thanks for the link I'll take a look.
Click to expand...

I've had the 550D, 5D and 5DII and I would say that the 5DII produces better images but not enough to justify the price difference FOR ME. I've moved to a Nikon D300s because I wanted a cheaper camera (than the 5DII) that I'm happy to take out and not worry about because of its build quality. I'm more than happy with what it takes in comparison to my 5DII.

My advice to the Op is get the Canon 60D because it's a fantastic camera that feels so good in the hand with great features for the price.

But it won't help you take better photos than your 550D, you'll just feel better using it. That's what I found with mine.
 
It was a fair question, unfortunately FF v APS-C seems to open a new can of worms everytime it gets asked about.
 
Phall82 said:
I've had the 550D, 5D and 5DII and I would say that the 5DII produces better images but not enough to justify the price difference FOR ME.
Click to expand...

Exactly. One type of camera will be better than another but the better one will cost more and the 'better' may be marginal.
Although the OP's question is a simple one the answer is personal based on cost, value, needs etc,.

I have been through various cameras and settled on the fact that all I need to meet my wishes is a basic crop DSLR (the type of which I can get for £100)
I know they are way better cameras and I know there are worse but that really doesn't matter as I have what I need.
 
London Headshots said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why not jpg? If the differences are not visible in a full sized JPEG, surely the differences are minimal.

I postedt the 100% images a few pages back. No one commented on those ;)

Here they are again (7M each). If the quality is so apparently different it should be really, really easy to tell which is which.


http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/P1010052-full.jpg

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/IMG_0130-full.jpg

If you really want the raws (yes, there is more processing latitude - but not a lot, but with some experience manipulating the images, you can minimise the final image difference):

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/P1010052.RW2

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/IMG_0130.CR2

Please note: I am NOT saying there is no difference, just that the difference is small enough to make it not worthwhile to lug around a FF camera (call it 95% as good). I sold my 5D2 and 4 L lenses and bought micro 4/3rds based on those pictures (they were the last straw TBH - I had done more testing than a single picture ;)) and I'm very happy with the results.... I also think with the better sensor in the GH3, the differences would be even smaller.
 
It is actually pretty easy to tell which one is worse. The first one loses cloud detail and more dramatically the trees and leaves in the background are a blur on the first image and nice and detailed in the second.
So in a side by side comparison the first one is fairly poor.
 
This really did turn into the most pointless thread of the year (and I've got the Tshirt).
How's this look as a quick edit.

arad85 said:
...

Please note: I am NOT saying there is no difference, just that the difference is small enough to make it not worthwhile to lug around a FF camera For Me (call it 95% as good)...
Click to expand...
That's all there is to this 'argument'.

(Not linked to the above)
For anyone to argue that a Quart pot doesn't hold more lager than a Pint pot - is truly baffling:cuckoo:. To the point where it can only be done for the sake of the argument itself:bat:.

Q; All things being equal, is more better?
A; Yes!

The arguments are all around 'how much more do you want or need?' - which to be honest is pointless. Because no-one can say what is suitable or not for someone else without a great deal of information.

Whether you're a FF zealot who insists that you need FF to 'make your lenses work how they were intended':puke:

Or a M43 nut who believes 'it's enough quality for me 98% of the time so surely no-one needs better' :banana:

You really should get out and see that the world is full of different people, with different needs and different budgets and there really is no 'right' system. If there were - that's the one the manufacturers would sell:thumbs:
 
ernesto said:
The first one loses cloud detail
Click to expand...
which is there if you pull the image back slightly in post... (you can try it - the raws are there)

ernesto said:
and more dramatically the trees and leaves in the background are a blur on the first image and nice and detailed in the second.
So in a side by side comparison the first one is fairly poor.
Click to expand...
Only at the corner... Could be a whole host of other things at work there - including taking a picture at WAY past diffraction limiting setting in on the micro 4/3rds camera ;)

And you have to view them at 100% to see that level of detail, which has been said a number of times before, wouldn't be visible in real world prints at normal sizes. I'd also take a guess that you would get more detail out of a GH3 taking that picture - and note, no post import sharpening was applied to either - I have found my G5 photos need more sharpening than the 5D2 files.

The great thing about this debate is the words that are used - and this is where it is subjective. Your "fairly poor" is my "not quite as good". We're both right, but on an absolute scale, on real world images, that get printed to normal sizes, there isn't really that much in it - certainly not as much as people would have you believe ;).
 
Phil V said:
Or a M43 nut who believes 'it's enough quality for me 98% of the time so surely no-one needs better' :banana:
Click to expand...
I have specifically NOT said that. I have maintained all along that there is a difference. Just that the difference isn't as big as some make out (i.e. just because the sensor is 4x as big, it does not make the photo 4x as good).

And all I did was post some pictures that showed a smaller sensor against a larger sensor with a real picture (as opposed to studio setups where the focus accuracy of the PDAF/lens system doesn't really come into play - if anything, that was the straw that broke the camels back for DSLR for me ;))
 
arad85 said:
Only at the corner...
Click to expand...

No, not only at the corner. The whole set of trees look far worse. The fact you think they don't and I think they do is more evidence of why this is a pointless discussion. To me the better image is actually worth paying more for but how much more is the question....

Interesting, my wife who was sat on the sofa asked what I was looking at and when I explained she just said "well clearly the second image is far better"
 
Last edited:
Ken Rockwell is meant to inspire me?

I do like to start the day with a smile :)
 
ernesto said:
No, not only at the corner. The whole set of trees look far worse. The fact you think they don't and I think they do is more evidence of why this is a pointless discussion. To me the better image is actually worth paying more for but how much more is the question....
Click to expand...

It's funny how everyone says now "there is such a huge difference. You can clearly see. I'd pay more for the FF. The clouds look terrible".

.....wasn't hearing that before Andy announced which is which. Quite the opposite in fact.

I have a DSLR and tested it several times with a camera housing a sensor that's what, 12 times smaller??? I have to be honest, if I'm going out ona good day then I'll happily take the compact.

I really don't think it's that much of a difference that people can definitively say which is which, as has been proven in this thread more than once.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
I have specifically NOT said that...
Click to expand...
You can't drag me into this petty war, I never said you did :)
Phil V said:
...
(Not linked to the above)
...
Or a M43 nut who believes 'it's enough quality for me 98% of the time so surely no-one needs better' :banana:
Click to expand...
Again - not aimed at you personally (or anyone else:D)

But still the argument rages - with everyone glossing over everyone else's caveats, because to pretend that other people are speaking in absolutes is enough to keep an argument alive.

From the sidelines - it's just silly - there is no 'right' answer, because the question is subjective. But it's the internet, so we have to prove that the other guy is wrong:lol:. Everyone knows their own answer is subjective - but they have to pretend that the other guy's answer is an absolute in order to be 'right'.:lol: :lol:
 
Phil Young said:
I really don't think it's that much of a difference that people can definitively say which is which, as has been proven in this thread more than once.
Click to expand...


Not when you post images when the larger format is using such a crap lens, no. I posted images where both formats were using high quality primes, and the quality difference was very apparent. Apparently, my tests were dismissed because 100% crops are a useless test. Funny that.


Bigger is better... the end. Stop crying about it. All cameras and all formats have their uses... users will decide. If someone doesn't need the best quality.. fine.. that's' great for them, but facts are facts.
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
No, not only at the corner. The whole set of trees look far worse.
Click to expand...
You also have to take into account that the trees on the FF camera are larger. And, as I've said above, I think with the GH3 sensor, there'd be less difference. We are comparing minutiae which you just wouldn't see on normal sized prints - that's the point I'm making ;)
 
Phil V said:
You can't drag me into this petty war, I never said you did :)
Click to expand...
You implied it was me (otherwise why mention 4/3 ;)) - which is enough :D
 
arad85 said:
Why not jpg? If the differences are not visible in a full sized JPEG, surely the differences are minimal.

I postedt the 100% images a few pages back. No one commented on those ;)

Here they are again (7M each). If the quality is so apparently different it should be really, really easy to tell which is which.


http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/P1010052-full.jpg

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/IMG_0130-full.jpg

If you really want the raws (yes, there is more processing latitude - but not a lot, but with some experience manipulating the images, you can minimise the final image difference):

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/P1010052.RW2

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/IMG_0130.CR2

Please note: I am NOT saying there is no difference, just that the difference is small enough to make it not worthwhile to lug around a FF camera (call it 95% as good). I sold my 5D2 and 4 L lenses and bought micro 4/3rds based on those pictures (they were the last straw TBH - I had done more testing than a single picture ;)) and I'm very happy with the results.... I also think with the better sensor in the GH3, the differences would be even smaller.
Click to expand...

You sold your 5D2 and switched to a micro because you had no business with a professional body. That's all there is to it. The reason the difference was marginal is because you're walking around shooting random pictures. The 5D2 was never meant for you. You went and spent several thousand pounds on a body and lenses to take pictures of things that only require a £200 point & shoot.

Bring your micro to a studio and shoot the kind of world the 5D2 is made for and you'll quickly want your old equipment back.

This thread has said nothing more than "here is why amateurs shouldn't blow their cash on pro bodies". Like I said previously - put the lans cap on and take a shot with each camera. You want be able to tell the difference. It's not about optimal conditions, it's about conditions which don't require anything from either sensor. A Ferrari and a Mini at traffic lights. No difference in it until the lights go green.

I can't really tell the difference in the two shots. The 5D2 shot I assume is the one with the slighter higher dynamic range, but it's hard to tell, because in the second shot, the things which have detail are blurred by wind. The scene has flat lighting and the dynamic range is tiny. You'd struggle to tell the difference between an iPhone and my Hasselblad in these conditions.
 
Phil Young said:
It's funny how everyone says now "there is such a huge difference. You can clearly see. I'd pay more for the FF. The clouds look terrible".

.....wasn't hearing that before Andy announced which is which. Quite the opposite in fact.
Click to expand...

FYI - I didn't even see the post where Andy announced which was which so had no bearing on my opinion.
 
Phil Young said:
I

I really don't think it's that much of a difference that people can definitively say which is which, as has been proven in this thread more than once.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that much either but everyone has a line. There is a difference, even a minimal one and to some that matters for no other reason than that is what they want.
 
arad85 said:
You also have to take into account that the trees on the FF camera are larger.
Click to expand...


...because the sensor is bigger.



Brilliant. :)
 
London Headshots said:
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.
Click to expand...

Every single circumstance? Literally every single one?

Not a chance mate :lol:

And there's not a cance that you personally will see the difference in every single circumstance either :D Not having a go at your expence, just being honest with you :thumbs:
 
London Headshots said:
Bring your micro to a studio and shoot the kind of world the 5D2 is made for and you'll quickly want your old equipment back.
Click to expand...
Actually - I disagree. I also do product shots for Ms arad85. She makes bags etc... The smaller sensor actually gives me more DoF so is easier to use there and gets me enough resolution that I'm happy with 100% crops showing the material (yes, I have seen your thread re: the Hasselblad ;)) In fact, the micro 4/3 had to pass that test too before the 5D2 was sold. But controlled lighting in a studio is "easy" too as you light for base ISO and the lights do the shutter. Then it's down to DR (see below), tonal range and resolution - which - as I say - I'd be willing to bet the GH3 (the picture I have from above is a G5) would be pretty darned close to a 5D2. There really isn't that much in it at base ISOs.... In fact, if you want ultimate studio DR & resolution, you really should look at the 800E - that is way ahead of the 5D2. It is way more ahead of the 5D2 than the 5D2 is ahead of the best micro 4/3rds. But that's where sensor technology (as opposed to size) comes into it.

London Headshots said:
This thread has said nothing more than "here is why amateurs shouldn't blow their cash on pro bodies". Like I said previously - put the lans cap on and take a shot with each camera.
Click to expand...
No, it's not whether amateurs should blow their cash on pro bodies (I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it... but thank you for your concern about my bank balance) it's about whether you get a LOT of extra from the FF sensor. If I felt I got a lot extra from it, I wouldn't have sold it - simple as.

London Headshots said:
You want be able to tell the difference. It's not about optimal conditions, it's about conditions which don't require anything from either sensor.
Click to expand...
Yes. Correct. As has been said a number of times here, "in most conditions, with a well exposed image at low ISOs". No argument that when you push it, you can get more out of a 5D2. But I tend to take my photos where there's enough light about to light the sensor well.

London Headshots said:
I can't really tell the difference in the two shots. The 5D2 shot I assume is the one with the slighter higher dynamic range, but it's hard to tell, because in the second shot, the things which have detail are blurred by wind. The scene has flat lighting and the dynamic range is tiny. You'd struggle to tell the difference between an iPhone and my Hasselblad in these conditions.
Click to expand...
Yup. It's a typical UK outdoor day... But given the supposed advantage of FF, it should be easy to tell the difference.

If you look at the sensor measurements on DxOmark (whether you believe them, think they are useful, or whatever) you'll find for DR there is at best 1 stop in it at the higher ISOs to the 5D2. At base ISOs there is nothing in it in DR and if you compare the Olympus OMD which has (supposedly) the same sensor as the GH3 it has a HIGHER DR than the 5D2 at base ISO. There's about 2 stops of noise difference (but this can be negated slightly by using faster lenses - at a given price point you can get lenses ~1 stop quicker for the micro 4/3rds system). But from a purely numeric approach there is very little difference between a good APS-C/micro 4/3rds sensor and a so-so Full Frame sensor (Canon ;)). Move to a decent FF sensor like in the D800E and you'll find that it completely slaughters even a 5D3 (which is very similar to a 5D2) for DR at base ISO (by 2 and a bit Evs).

Gone are the days where you put the same sensor (film) in any camera and it was solely down to how big that film negative was. With different sensors, there are now other factors at play which affect how the system reacts as a whole. The gap has closed significantly and anyone that dismisses the sensor technology here has their head in the sand....
 
woof woof said:
Every single circumstance? Literally every single one?

Not a chance mate :lol:

And there's not a cance that you personally will see the difference in every single circumstance either :D Not having a go at your expence, just being honest with you :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Did you see the part where I said you won't be able to tell the difference? I literally pointed out, using English that you wouldn't be able to see the difference.

That does not, however, mean the extra quality isn't there. Which was my point (had you have actually read the post).
 
arad85 said:
? No, because it has a different pixel pitch ;)
Click to expand...


Which is a resolution issue. Apparent sharpness is a product of sensor size versus circle of confusion. This is why a 16MP FF camera produces sharper images than a 16MP DX camera despite having a larger pixel pitch.
 
arad85 said:
Actually - I disagree. I also do product shots for Ms arad85. She makes bags etc... The smaller sensor actually gives me more DoF so is easier to use there and gets me enough resolution that I'm happy with 100% crops showing the material (yes, I have seen your thread re: the Hasselblad ;)) In fact, the micro 4/3 had to pass that test too before the 5D2 was sold. But controlled lighting in a studio is "easy" too as you light for base ISO and the lights do the shutter. Then it's down to DR (see below), tonal range and resolution - which - as I say - I'd be willing to bet the GH3 (the picture I have from above is a G5) would be pretty darned close to a 5D2. There really isn't that much in it at base ISOs.... In fact, if you want ultimate studio DR & resolution, you really should look at the 800E - that is way ahead of the 5D2. It is way more ahead of the 5D2 than the 5D2 is ahead of the best micro 4/3rds. But that's where sensor technology (as opposed to size) comes into it.

No, it's not whether amateurs should blow their cash on pro bodies (I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it... but thank you for your concern about my bank balance) it's about whether you get a LOT of extra from the FF sensor. If I felt I got a lot extra from it, I wouldn't have sold it - simple as.

Yes. Correct. As has been said a number of times here, "in most conditions, with a well exposed image at low ISOs". No argument that when you push it, you can get more out of a 5D2. But I tend to take my photos where there's enough light about to light the sensor well.

Yup. It's a typical UK outdoor day... But given the supposed advantage of FF, it should be easy to tell the difference.

If you look at the sensor measurements on DxOmark (whether you believe them, think they are useful, or whatever) you'll find for DR there is at best 1 stop in it at the higher ISOs to the 5D2. At base ISOs there is nothing in it in DR and if you compare the Olympus OMD which has (supposedly) the same sensor as the GH3 it has a HIGHER DR than the 5D2 at base ISO. There's about 2 stops of noise difference (but this can be negated slightly by using faster lenses - at a given price point you can get lenses ~1 stop quicker for the micro 4/3rds system). But from a purely numeric approach there is very little difference between a good APS-C/micro 4/3rds sensor and a so-so Full Frame sensor (Canon ;)). Move to a decent FF sensor like in the D800E and you'll find that it completely slaughters even a 5D3 (which is very similar to a 5D2) for DR at base ISO (by 2 and a bit Evs).

Gone are the days where you put the same sensor (film) in any camera and it was solely down to how big that film negative was. With different sensors, there are now other factors at play which affect how the system reacts as a whole. The gap has closed significantly and anyone that dismisses the sensor technology here has their head in the sand....
Click to expand...

Why are we now talking about the D800? You seem to have taken the view that I'm a 5D2 fanboy. I don't care about cameras. Not in any way. They are just things I use to get my work done. I just happen to own a 5D2 because it was the best camera available at the time I last upgraded.

Again, your entire point hinges on the fact that you're shooting in conditions which do not require a deep dynamic range, and as a result, put no pressure on the sensor to perform. Even in your studio test, you talk of shooting products. The studio doesn't mean shooting in perfect light. It means shooting in a demanding environment.

Honestly, I'm glad you like your camera, but you're insane if you think it compares with a high end DSLR body. It just doesn't. It compares in the same way that two pairs of shoes do the same job.

Also, I never once mentioned your bank account or intimated in any way that you couldn't afford the equipment. I stated that you had no business with it. Hence the reason you sold it.
 
arad85 said:
The gap has closed significantly and anyone that dismisses the sensor technology here has their head in the sand....
Click to expand...


You do realise that this same sensor technology you refer to will (and is)merely be applied to larger sensors as well. You make it sound as if only smaller sensors are being developed, and larger sensors are just languishing in a developmental stasis. Why do you think both Hasselblad and Phase One are investing shed loads of money in a new range of sensors?

There's only one person doing Ostrich impressions in here.
 
arad85 said:
You implied it was me (otherwise why mention 4/3 ;)) - which is enough :D
Click to expand...

And I wasn't just doing a 'people who do...' it had to be an argument with YOU:cuckoo: Odd how the 'full frame' weirdo's didn't just respond for an argument? :thinking:

I'm not a psychiatrist - but I believe it's called a persecution complex;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Which is a resolution issue. Apparent sharpness is a product of sensor size versus circle of confusion. This is why a 16MP FF camera produces sharper images than a 16MP DX camera despite having a larger pixel pitch.
Click to expand...
Nope. CoC has nothing to do with sharpness between FF and APS-C. You use CoC to determine depth of field - a point sharply in focus has a CoC that is infitessimally small so will appear in focus no matter what sensor is used (until you get to see the individual pixels).

What affects sharpness (of in focus points) between different formats is lens MTF. To project the same image onto a FF and APS-C sensor and for it to appear equally sharp, the lens used on the APS-C camera has to have a higher MTF than the one used on the FF as you have to pass a higher spatial frequency to get the same sharpness. Given the pro-lenses are designed for FF, they lose out when you put them on APS-C. It's precisely this that allows micro 4/3rds to punch above its weight - the lenses are better on a lp/mm basis.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You do realise that this same sensor technology you refer to will (and is)merely be applied to larger sensors as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this is where the caveat comes in - and why I am objecting to FF is always better. Whilst Nikon use sensors that are on the leading edge, Canon do not and their FF sensor systems are languishing in some areas where micro 4/3rds are. You have to qualify it as a system lenses & sensor technology included and not simply FF is better as it is bigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top