Entry vs pro

mw0dbb said:
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
Click to expand...
Your camera and lenses aren't responsible for flat and dull images - Your eyes are!
 
Found it. :)

5d2 gallery link here
7d gallery link here
The gallery pics are at iso 400/800/1600/3200/6400
The 24-70 was used for both, the focal length adjusted so that the same 'area' was covered.

ISO info should be in the keywords for each pic.

ISO 6400 on 7d

ISO 6400 on 5d2
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
See above.
Click to expand...
IMG1-1024.jpg


IMG2-1024.jpg


The sunshine is different between the two therefore the contrast and shadows will be different. Which is the FF and which is the micro 4/3rds (and don't cheat by looking at the exif ;))?
 
Thank you - I will let others have a guess before saying which.

Also just to say these are SOOC with no processing (well, there was a slight colour change +500K and exposure hike +0.24 on one) and then straight out of LR.

EDIT: and crop to the FF to get it to 4:3 aspect :D
 
Last edited:
pro boddies are built fot speed of access to the major controls , tho some consumer bodies may have the same fuctions , they may be hidden in the menu system.

pro bodies also are built of better stronger materials

but its what is in front of the bodies that is more important , good lenses will make more difference than changing the body , ideally upgrading both is the best option , but its not cheap

my upgrade is about 6k , most of which is new glass .

Cheers Steve

i see three paths

better :existing body good lenses
better still : better body good lenses
Best : better body best lenses
 
i am not sure but thankyou stu for your links to your tests between the 7d and 5dmk2 as to be honest, the 7d still looks ok at 6400 and its not night and day on my screen, yes the noise is more prenounced but not to the degree where the 7d is usless at all. :)
 
joel222 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There will be a difference in overall colour and tone and file quality, but after retouching or post production, assuming you don't have to push the file too much, the quality at low resolution will be very similar.

The problems arise when you start pushing the limits of the image. The 5D will retain integrity even after heavy pushing or pulling of the highlights/shadows, whereas the 550D will quickly degrade.
 
Those two images are really tricky. I honestly can't tell the difference. Both have things that are better or worse about the other.
 
London Headshots said:
Those two images are really tricky. I honestly can't tell the difference. Both have things that are better or worse about the other.
Click to expand...
They were "snaps" out of my front door - just to see what the different cameras could do with a standard scene. Even when viewed at a decent size, they are pretty difficult to tell apart. If you view at 100%, you can tell them apart, but only in the fine detail. In fact, if I were using the GH3 (the micro 4/3rds that took that picture is a G5) I don't think I could really tell them apart even at 100% - the GH3 is sharper than the G5.

Don't get me wrong - the 5D2 is better than the G series Panasonic, but not by as much as people would have you believe unless you are really pushing the edges of what the micro 4/3rds sensors can do.
 
I think that's the point, pro or FF (however you want to define it) will get you more shots in challenging conditions and allow more latitude in PP, that's why it's worth the extra (to some people).

If you're only ever going to shoot in decent light and not do much PP it doesn't really make much difference at all (DoF variations aside).

Personally I love being able to push the exposure on my D700 by 3 stops and still being able to rescue a decent image.

By the way, I can't really tell which of your shots is FF but then I would expect the highlights and shadows to be where the differences are but due to the change in contrast you can't compare these.

If I HAD to guess, I'd the first shot is FF as the textures in the tarmac are better rendered (although that could be the difference of the sun going in and out...).
 
arad85 said:
IMG1-1024.jpg


IMG2-1024.jpg


The sunshine is different between the two therefore the contrast and shadows will be different. Which is the FF and which is the micro 4/3rds (and don't cheat by looking at the exif ;))?
Click to expand...

Right.

I'll say #1 just because there appears to be a tad more DR as the clouds have some detail.

I have to REALLY analyse and really can't say for sure on it. To be honest I'm more guessing.

In my book, that shows that at base ISO, in good light, with a good lens, at a reasonable viewing distance...you can't tell the difference!
 
Phil Young said:
In my book, that shows that at base ISO, in good light, with a good lens, at a reasonable viewing distance...you can't tell the difference!
Click to expand...
That's about the size of it ;)
 
stu.artd said:
Found it. :)

5d2 gallery link here
7d gallery link here
The gallery pics are at iso 400/800/1600/3200/6400
The 24-70 was used for both, the focal length adjusted so that the same 'area' was covered.

ISO info should be in the keywords for each pic.

ISO 6400 on 7d

ISO 6400 on 5d2
Click to expand...

Clearly here - this is where FF stands out. 6400 on the 5D2 would just be a normal ISO for me!

Having said that, I'm quite confident with good PP skills I could clean up the 7D image to look almost the same.

If I needed to shoot that high all the time and obviously didn't want to put the time in for the PP work, clearly FF is the only way to go.
 
Pp is half the fun :) the first image looks sharper so iam saying thats the ff?
 
arad85 said:
Thank you - I will let others have a guess before saying which.

Also just to say these are SOOC with no processing (well, there was a slight colour change +500K and exposure hike +0.24 on one) and then straight out of LR.

EDIT: and crop to the FF to get it to 4:3 aspect :D
Click to expand...

No processing is obviously why you buy expensive FF camera :shrug:

One of them will have a lot more processing latitude than the other. The highlights are nearly blown in both (second is worse - hence more likely to be 4/3, or perhaps it is just more exposed). You need to recover sky, and push the shadows a bit till they look nice, then we can compare. Or you might say that some £100 PS can also do almost same.
 
daugirdas said:
No processing is obviously why you buy expensive FF camera :shrug:

One of them will have a lot more processing latitude than the other. The highlights are nearly blown in both (second is worse - hence more likely to be 4/3, or perhaps it is just more exposed). You need to recover sky, and push the shadows a bit till they look nice, then we can compare. Or you might say that some £100 PS can also do almost same.
Click to expand...
I said above, if you look closely, then yes, you can see the difference, but there isn't a lot in it if you are generally at a fairly low ISO.... I'd dispute "a lot more" in the processing latitude though ;)

Even pushing the G5 a lot, you can get a good image - even in the shadows (and there are actually no blown highlights in that image). Couple that with lenses that are 1/3 the size and weight and a stop faster (which compensates for half the difference between the cameras) and it makes for a much more useable system.

It was certainly good enough to allow me to sell my 5D2/L lenses and move to micro 4/3rds :)

BTW: the first is the 5D2 with 50mm f1.8, the second is a Panasonic G5 with 25mm f1.4. The FF was shot at f11, the G5 at f10.
 
Post capture processing and how much shots can take could be an issue in high DR scenes and my 5D files certainly hold up better than my APS-C or MFT shots when subjected to more processing than is ideal but one thing that I've noticed is that even though my G1 has a lower dynamic range than my 5D it's often easier to get a usable shot because of the on screen histogram.

I've tried this with a difficult scene and I had to take several shots with the 5D dialling in different amounts of exposure compensation until I avoided blowing the highlights (no matter how many shots you take I don't believe anyone can guess the exposure first time and every time and dial the right settings in) but with the G1 and its histogram I got a usable shot the first time. That makes up for a lack of DR to some extent and it also has to be remembered that the latest and leading edge APS-C and MFT sensors now have a much more competitive DR.
 
Phil Young said:
I'll say #1 just because there appears to be a tad more DR as the clouds have some detail.
Click to expand...

Agree, the clouds are the only part that shows any real difference. If 1 is the m4/3 then the camera must be doing something clever with DR
 
I suspect you could throw in a good P&S with those test images and you'd still be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I do agree that in lots of cases most people won't be able to tell the difference between a picture made with m43 equipment compared to FF.

I also agree FF should give you more processing lattitude, much better high ISO noise control, and in some conditions a look (although there are m43 lenses that have a fantastic look too - Oly Zuiko 45mm for example). FF is also much bigger and heavier.

It's horses for courses. It's great to have the choice.
 
What's the point of comparing photos that are only 1024 pixels across? Of course the differences are minimal at such a resolution. What does this prove?
 
And that is maybe the importance of the differences. The entry camera user posts images to Flickr and the like where they look great at the resolutions offered, the pro user maybe wants more than that with larger images and the ultimate quality for clients.
So if you are the former then pretty much any DSLR or m4/3 will do. I am definitely an entry level camera user in that sense and the fact I am very happy with the IQ from my £100 used DSLR proves that. Spending £2000 in my case really would not be worth it in any way.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
That when viewed at a reasonable distance it's difficult to tell the difference???
Click to expand...


The OP wanted to know what the IQ differences were between an entry level crop camera, and a full frame camera. Those images don't help him. Whether he needs the quality is up to him. :)
 
Phil Young said:
what's the beef??
Click to expand...
The beef is probably that there isn't much practical difference between the sizes unless you are pushing ISO, pushing processing hard or cropping & enlarging a large amount (i.e. viewing at 100%). Especially if you end up putting better & faster lenses on the smaller sensor as they are more affordable.

Yes, you can see differences when you view 100%, yes, you need to do more noise reduction on the micro 4/3rds images, but if you're taking photos in good light and they are exposed well, and you're printing up to 18"x12" (ish) - you probably won't see much of a practical difference. There's a lot of people with enough invested in FF & lenses, or have aspirations of owning FF, that don't like to admit that ;)
 
Wonder how a canon 85 1.2 would perform on a m4/3. Oh wait, it wouldn't, there goes that idea.
 
arad85 said:
The beef is probably that there isn't much practical difference between the sizes unless you are pushing ISO, pushing processing hard or cropping & enlarging a large amount (i.e. viewing at 100%). Especially if you end up putting better & faster lenses on the smaller sensor as they are more affordable.

Yes, you can see differences when you view 100%, yes, you need to do more noise reduction on the micro 4/3rds images, but if you're taking photos in good light and they are exposed well, and you're printing up to 18"x12" (ish) - you probably won't see much of a practical difference. There's a lot of people with enough invested in FF & lenses, or have aspirations of owning FF, that don't like to admit that ;)
Click to expand...

Thats what many of us said, I know I did, exactly the above.

You're right about people heavily invested in their equipment, these folk rate their FF cameras over their children! Jeeeeez...be nice if they got over themselves...
 
Phil Young said:
Why do people always do this when they are proved wrong?

If you can't accept the above don't go trying to turn it into a battle of what companies do and don't produce.
Click to expand...


How was anyone proven wrong exactly, sure in ideal conditions with a half decent lens at slow apertures and smaller image size display and print size a m4/3 can look similar to a ff. That's a lot of variables and the lens comment was to add that a system is as good as its lenses and intended use. Not everyone shoots in perfect conditions.

A battle of manufacturers ha ha, good spin on my post.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
No problem Sir!

http://www.ecrater.co.uk/p/16786210/ast-canon-eos-ef-lens-to?gps=1

Manual only, but can be done (and anyway, let's face it, you're going to be using it wide open anyway) ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks, the point was its not the same is it, focal length equiv, no af, rather large on a m4/3 camera, dof won't be the same, so overall it won't act like it should.

"if the position beyong 6, maybe dark area will be caused in the photos"

Pretty sure it wouldn't do that on a 5d.
 
twist said:
How was anyone proven wrong exactly, sure in ideal conditions with a half decent lens at slow apertures and smaller image size display and print size a m4/3 can look similar to a ff. That's a lot of variables and the lens comment was to add that a system is as good as its lenses and intended use. Not everyone shoots in perfect conditions.

A battle of manufacturers ha ha, good spin on my post.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to waste too much effort on someone they defines DOF as quality but anyway...

The main questionable statement risen early on was in good conditions with base ISO blah blah would there be a notable difference in quality...it should also be noted that op was aware of ISO differences.

You said "5d murders 550d".

You were proved wrong.

Move on.
 
I've owned a few m4/3 bodies and was impressed by the performance, especially my little Gx-1 so I'm not anti small sensor, as a carry around 2nd camera for me it was pretty good with the 20mm but it won't replace my main system.
 
seriously, who gives a toss.

People will battle over this like cars, i've made my gtfour accelerate to near the same degree that a ferarri 458 will and i've spent over £15k on parts from the exhaust to the turbo... would a ferarri owner admit that i can keep up with their £100k+ car in my old 1994 rally car?

No, would they want to admit it either knowing they spent far more? No

Who cares, its horses for courses, I love my 60D and the clients I supply to are more than happy with the images it produces or I wouldn't get any money so to be honest, other than iso, i'm not bothered by the ff band waggon.

People need to chill, but the inevitable fact is always that someone who has paid xxxxxx for a camera, a car, a house.. it doesnt matter the subject matter, will not often agree that something that costs xxx can produce the same results in 60% of the conditions
 
twist said:
Thanks, the point was its not the same is it, focal length equiv, no af, rather large on a m4/3 camera, dof won't be the same, so overall it won't act like it should.
Click to expand...
But that wasn't what you said ;) You said:

twist said:
Wonder how a canon 85 1.2 would perform on a m4/3. Oh wait, it wouldn't, there goes that idea.
Click to expand...
It quite clearly would (and if you only want to use it f1.2, there are some apertureless adapters available for a lot less...)

But if you are wanting focal length equivalent, panasonic are bringing out a 42.5 f1.2, and if DoF is your thing, there are a couple of manual f0.95s out there (which will probably focus quicker than the 85 ;)) :D

But don't let facts get in the way of you looking down your nose at me... :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top