Entry vs pro

joel222

joel222

Suspended / Banned
Messages
703
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
No
I was just wondering if there is a lot of difference in IQ between say my 550d, and say a 5d. 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.
 
In good conditions (lighting) with a decent lens there's very little difference in actual image quality.
 
Sorry I cannot agree with Grotty. Imho the 5d is significantly better than the cropped 550 in image quality as well as build.
 
As one who has moved from 550D to 7D and 5D2 I can say that when compared with a 550D, the 5D2 is streets ahead in IQ in almost all conditions. With the 7D the answer is not so straightforward. The 7D has a superb AF capability leaving the 550D way behind, and its high ISO is also superior, provided the photographer know what he is doing. For sports and wildlife, the high fps makes the 7D a no brainer too. Where both the 7D and 5D2 both score is on weatherproofing, handling and sheer build quality.

I loved my 550D when I had it, but I would never go back. (like my ex wife really!!!;))
 
Ok, I've owned both so let me caveat my post. If you look at a printed photo, you will see little difference (with good lenses in good conditions). You will see a marked difference at higher ISO, especially if studying photos at pixel level.

In response to yellowbelly, I wouldn't agree that the 7D has better noise handling than the 550D.
 
Last edited:
Got to say I think I agree with Joe, in good light shooting the same scene with the same lens there won't be too much difference bar obviously the field of view.
It's in situations where the light is not so good that the IQ of the 5D will clearly be better.

Your paying for other perks, i.e. the full frame (costs more to manufacture, though that was a while ago so might be different) , a better metering system, better AF, metal body rather than plastic, easier access to certain functions, larger viewfinder coverage and finally much improved low light performance.

That's just my view though, mainly due to the fact I would be very hard pressed to tell the difference between two images with field of view adjusted to suit so that the image was identical.
 
In good light I can't tell a huge difference between my compact LX7 and D7000. I think you'd have to be looking quite hard to see a marked difference in IQ between a 550D and 5D.

I'm sure that would change above 1600ISO though.
 
With fast lenses its easy to tell the difference. The 5d images look 'special' and pop, like most ff images. Difficult to see this with kit lenses.
 
I have a 5Dc and at low to middling ISO's and when shooting RAW and processing shots to get the best out of them and if you can avoid pixel peeping at 100%+ IMVHO there's no real significant difference between my 5D, 20D and G1 shots, and people I've challenged can't reliably tell the difference either.

At higher ISO's the 5D pulls ahead and of course with the 5D I'm probably using different focal length lenses and/or shooting at different camera to subject distances and IMVHO at low to middling ISO's that's what makes the images look different.

I'd imagine the sitation is pretty much the same with later generation cameras.
 
Last edited:
Images still pop and can look special with decent fast lenses on a 550D, when conditions are right.
 
twist said:
With fast lenses its easy to tell the difference. The 5d images look 'special' and pop, like most ff images. Difficult to see this with kit lenses.
Click to expand...

That's mostly because with different format sizes you shoot with different focal length lenses and / or at different camera to subject distances, IMVHO.

I've found that to stand any chance of telling formats apart I have to view at very high magnification or print very big and look for clues, like DoF differences.
 
grotty said:
Images still pop and can look special with decent fast lenses on a 550D, when conditions are right.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but Ime FF just has a look especially with fast primes that crop can't match. Depends what you look for in an image I guess.
 
Phil Young said:
Would you not still get the...pop... with a good lens on a 550D?

Are you not confusing shallower DOF with better IQ???
Click to expand...

What do you classify as iq, dof for me is part if it so no confusion, less dof more isolation.
 
twist said:
What do you classify as iq, dof for me is part if it so no confusion, less dof more isolation.
Click to expand...

I think you are slightly confused between quality and execution. DOF is a technique, not a definition of quality. An isolated subject isn't necessarily a better image at all.

A shallow DOF image isn't better in quality than one with more in focus, it's just a different way of shooting.

If we apply what you're saying to macro then an insect with just it's eye in focus is better than one with the subject in full focus? Neither are better in quality, that would be just 2 different shots.

What do I determine as better quality?

-detail / sharpness.
-dynamic range.
-noise.
-aberrations.
-distortion / perspective in relation to intended use.
-colour balance.

All of the above with a good lens and a reasonable ISO will look very similar on both bodies.
 
Throw in a high contrast scene and these older FF cameras will murder 550D for dynamic range and noise control. There is no comparison, but not to say that 550D is not capable of taking decent images.
 
Interesting, only crop I have about at the minute is my little'un's 300D, might try comparing it to my 5DC with them being the same era tech really.
 
Phil Young said:
I think you are slightly confused between quality and execution. DOF is a technique, not a definition of quality. An isolated subject isn't necessarily a better image at all.

A shallow DOF image isn't better in quality than one with more in focus, it's just a different way of shooting.

If we apply what you're saying to macro then an insect with just it's eye in focus is better than one with the subject in full focus? Neither are better in quality, that would be just 2 different shots.

What do I determine as better quality?

-detail / sharpness.
-dynamic range.
-noise.
-aberrations.
-distortion / perspective in relation to intended use.
-colour balance.

All of the above with a good lens and a reasonable ISO will look very similar on both bodies.
Click to expand...

I see it as a quality of the image just like your mentioned sharpness, aberrations, noise and distortion, we can carry on till the cows come home, we both have differing opinions, by subject isolation I don't refer only to a part of a subject only but the entire subject. If you can't see the difference or qualities of a ff (especially in your mentioned criteria) image over crop/your lx7 that's fine, because I believe whenever ff v crop comes up you can't see the benefits. Out of interest have you had a ff and shot alongside your crop with the same lenses and settings?
 
Last edited:
Full frame is night and days better than Crop sensor.

It's the sharpness you get (comparing Nikkor 35mm f1.8G DX to cheaper Canon 50mm f1.8 II) and the much better dynamic range. When I first went full frame, the tree branches and leaves look so much sharper than on crop.

Then the stupidly high dynamic range, where it would seem blown out on the camera's screen (and highlight warning is flashing), but most of the details can be pulled back.

Finally, oh god the sweet high ISO performance. ISO 6400 without any problem, ISO 12800 is still usable. I've asked people to look at ISO 12800 and 3200 A4 sized test shots and none of them can tell the difference. (but zero post process exposure adjustment, real world PP'd shots are noisier) The important thing is not the amount of noise, it's the amount of dynamic range retained at such high ISO.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Not at base ISO?
Click to expand...

exactly at base ISO, anything above will be not great on 5D and complete carnage on crop. I am referring to dark shadows and very bright highlights - a fairly typical scene for the sunsets
 
High end stuff tends to make all the little settings and adjustments much more accessible at your finger tips, without running through all the menus. Which is great for learning to use a DSLR, but not so great when really want to do something special.
 
I always thought pixel count would be the deciding factor between cameras but couldn't work out how a 12MP FF camera can produce better images than a 20odd MP cropped sensor?
 
This is an interesting read...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

and it backs up my own little experiments both on screen and to A3 print.

What I've found ties in with what we've seen on this forum before and what I've read in similar write ups to the linked one at LL.

What I've found is that with good lenses and when shots are processed to get the best out of them I can't reliably see any significant difference in whole image shots taken at low to middle ISO settings between MFT, APS-C and FF and what's more the people who have played my little challenge couldn't reliably tell them apart either.

There's a temptation with FF to use longer lenses and reduce the camera to subject distance to produce a "FF look" but it's mostly down to DoF invho and when the same tricks are played with APS-C or MFT (and yes, you can easily get shallow DoF from MFT) people using DoF as a clue get confused very quickly.

In higher dynamic range shots, at the highest ISO's and when pixel peeping at 100%+ or printing the size of a barn - or doing very heavy crops - of course the larger format will always do ultimately better but the question should include considerations such as...

Do I shoot high dynamic range shots all the time?
Do I shoot at the highest ISO's a lot?
Do I do very heary crops?
Do I produce prints the size of a barn?

If you do those things then the larger the format the better, but you then have to think about how you use the kit... try handholding a large format camera on a windy beach :lol:

IMVHO if you shoot mainly at low to middling ISO's, crop only slightly, produce prints to a max of A3 (and some people don't print at all) and can avoid pixel peeping at 100%+ then you should be able to produce images with APS-C or even MFT kit that can easily get lost in a pile of FF prints or screen images.

Producing A3 prints just to test the theory is an expensive thing to do :gag: and it's a process I probably wont be going through again but viewing those prints and on screen images has convinced me that in many situations and for many shots I can see no significant difference between the MFT and FF cameras I own and the APS-C I used to own :D Gotta remember to use good lenses and good technique and process shots to get te best out of them though.
 
Last edited:
Colin44 said:
I always thought pixel count would be the deciding factor between cameras but couldn't work out how a 12MP FF camera can produce better images than a 20odd MP cropped sensor?
Click to expand...

easy - quality vs quantity given physical limits. How much are 1 billion Zimbabwe dollars?

I'd rather have 12 high quality MP, rather than 20 or whatever softer and lower sensitivity ones. This is even before considering the lenses on them. In fact I am not very keen on D800-like cameras either, but thats open for a debate. With the bayer sensor current technology 1Dx and D4 are about as good as it is going to get (I am sure we can have great 35mm 50MP cameras, but there has to be a big change in design)
 
Which version of the 5D are we talking about? I would think that with the first 5D and the 550D we are looking at sometimes you win sometimes you lose with both cameras, and sometimes you can't tell the difference anyway. With the later 5Ds I'd be very disappointed if they didn't deliver better IQ, they are in a different class altogether. I think I detect GAS here, if it's serious and not treatable then forget the 550D and start comparing the different FF options out there, you will already have started saving or come into an inheritance.
 
What Alan (woof woof) said. I moved from 5D2 & L lenses to Panasonic micro 4/3rds with decent lenses (i.e. the £500+ zooms) and I am very happy with the results.

I hardly ever print and then never above 20" on the longest side.
 
Colin44 said:
I always thought pixel count would be the deciding factor between cameras
Click to expand...

That's what the marketing peeps would have you think, as a society were used to the concept of "more is better". To the average point/shoot user It's easier to market a camera on megapixels, because they probably wouldn't understand anything else.

Some years back, I was building/selling cheap PCs (as well as high end gaming/graphics rigs), I had to offer people the 3 core AMD CPU, even though the Intel 2 core had the best performance at that time. The same with memory, lots of RAM isn't much use if it's last generation and runs at a low FSB speed, not to mention the fact that Windows XP doesn't fully support more than 3GB..... I must have sold 20+ WinXP PC's with over 6GB of RAM, 3GB of which was just wasted, just because people think more = better.
 
I own a 550d and I really struggle with getting good image quality. I have recently bought a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS lens and that has made a huge difference! Although my images still seem flat and dull. I also own a Sigma 10-20mm lens which is great for landscapes, I have wondered for as long time if my camera body is being restrictive? I was thinking about the 7D but wondered if I would get any benefit?

John
 
to be honest john - probably not. Flat and dull is a product of either the lighting and/or the post processing so upgrading won't necessarily help.

Theres not much doubt that the 7D is a 'better' camera than the 550D in terms of AF, build quality etc , but buying a better camera makes you a better photographer in the sameway that buying a posh guitar makes you a better muscian

getting good pics is largely about talent so i'd suggest learning to get great pics from your 550D then upgrading if you still feel limited
 
I do lack talent I will admit!! I won't be upgrading the body until I improve a great deal!

John
 
Also, the 550D has the "same" sensor as the 7D so what comes off the sensor will be pretty much identical ;)
 
Careful there, suggesting that a consumer camera made of plastic costing under £400 would give the same image quality as a sexy magnesium bodied top end camera costing in excess of £1,000 is dangerous talk indeed :nuts: :D
 
woof woof said:
Careful there, suggesting that a consumer camera made of plastic costing under £400 would give the same image quality as a sexy magnesium bodied top end camera costing in excess of £1,000 is dangerous talk indeed :nuts: :D
Click to expand...
Well the 7D has a higher likelihood of getting things in focus (or out of focus if you have not setup the AF system and know what you are doing with it ;))
 
I say we call for a test!

Let's try and get the best out of a FF setup, then try and get the best out of a crop sensor with the sameish subject and let's see if the actual "quality" of the end result is compromised in the crop.

None of this DOF rubbish, we'll do the maths to determine aperture and focal length etc.

Even if they are completely different subjects we would be able to see that the actual quality would be worlds apart (according to some).

Anyone concur?
 
Why not the same subject and even the same lens. Easy enough for someone with a FF and a Crop. In fact anyone who owns both would have already done this test wouldn't they, I mean people here seem obsessed with equipment so that is the first thing you would do isn't it?
 
I did a test of the same subject using my 5d2 and 7d. I only did the test due to a previous thread on here somewhere. Cant find it with the mobile app on my phone just now though.
I think opinion from that was that despite my big preference for using the 5d2 there was hardly anything in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top