Entry vs pro

[twist]

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.

...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.

 

[twist]

But don't let facts get in the way of you looking down your nose at me...

I'm pretty familiar with the fact that pretty much any lens can be used on mirrorless with an adapter, as stated ive owned a few alongside my other cameras. If you're happy with your decision and what it achieves good for you, you've probably saved some money and carrying weight.

 

[Phil Young]

...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.

Lol you sir... are a bit silly.

If I felt a ferrari would benefit me (to use a previous analogy) I would buy one.

Fact is: I can produce at least as good end results to you with what I have and what I use it for...

Edit: you asked about image quality NOT sensor quality.

I'm defining the end product...I don't think you actually know what you're trying to define??

 

[twist]

Lol you sir... are a bit silly.

If I felt a ferrari would benefit me (to use a previous analogy) I would buy one.

Fact is: I can produce at least as good end results to you with what I have and what I use it for...

And the important bit was the last, what YOU use it for, not what I do. I've been fortunate enough to have used a variety of sensor size cameras at the same time tested in the same conditions and then seen the results.

I consider dof as part of the overall quality of an image or a property of it, just like you do aberrations and distortion, you like going round in circles it seems. How is dof not part of the end result?! The final image appears differently at different f stops!

Enjoy your d7k and ill my camera, we both have different requirements.

 

[twist]

OP - sorry if your thread got derailed and my part in that.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I love it when some people who only used lower spec (APS-C) cameras step in to comment on FF. Very passionately, as it obviously adds further weight.

Shall we go and take some photos today? I guess the OP is lost somewhere at the end of page 1

 

[Phil Young]

I love it when some people who only used lower spec (APS-C) cameras step in to comment on FF. Very passionately, as it obviously adds further weight.

Shall we go and take some photos today? I guess the OP is lost somewhere at the end of page 1

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.

 

[hobodan]

I'm not a FF owner, all though I would love a compact FF (Leica) if I could justify the cost

I think the biggest benefit to FF has to be the higher D.O.F control, there are lots of us who love our Bokeh and FF is great for subject isolation. There is also the sheer amount of lenses available for FF, there is just a lot more choice new & used.

Honestly, from files I have downloaded and looked at I would have a hard time being able to tell the difference apart from D.O.F , the latest crop sensors also have excellent high ISO ability. Sure FF is better, but I think you would have to be in a position where that difference matters to really notice the small difference (very large prints etc). Quality wise I'm sure crop sensors would be more than enough IQ for 99.9% of us, but for some reason lots of us aspire to own FF when in truth it's not a need, it's pure lust (it is for me anyhow)

Yes there will be FF owners who will say its no contest - like how M43 owners declare greater D.O.F an advantage after all, & how mirrorless folk prefer the EVF & could never go back to OVF. We as humans do have a tendency to want to justify & defend our own purchasing decisions.

 

[woof woof]

I consider dof as part of the overall quality of an image or a property of it....

By going for 35mm "FF" you're already making compromises on DoF as you haven't gone for a larger format and that's without realising the you can get shallow DoF from smaller formats by using long lenses with wide apertures and/or reducing your camera to subject distance.

Personally I have no experience of really small sensors and really wide apertures as the best I have in that regard is an LX5 and getting shallow DoF from that is a struggle but with the more shallow DoF friendly MFT and APS-C getting shallow DoF isn't a problem if you are willing to use longer lenses, reduce your camera to subject distance and alter your framing.

For me the sweet spot for DoF is probably MFT and APS-C as if you go much smaller than those formats you run into problems getting shallow DoF and if you go much larger you run into problems getting enough DoF at reasonable shutter speeds when handholding and need to use a tripod more.

I have three lenses that are shallow DoF monsters on MFT, a 25mm f0.95, a 55mm f1.7 and a 50mm f2.8 macro and if shallow DoF is my one and only aim my MFT set up probably slightly beats my 5D.

 

[Pookeyhead]

And this allows him to see for himself to some degree, what's the beef??

But it doesn't. Almost any image from any camera will look almost identical at that res. They're useless.

No beef... just saying... post full res, or don't bother. 1024 pixels is really very, very low res.

 

[arad85]

But it doesn't. Almost any image from any camera will look almost identical at that res. They're useless.

No beef... just saying... post full res, or don't bother. 1024 pixels is really very, very low res.

7M each

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

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

BTW: when you look at them 100%, it will be fairly easy to tell, but we don't print/view at 100% when they are on the wall (for reference, printing at 100% at the same size as showing 100% on a 24" screen is equivalent to printing 45" x 35" and viewing from the same distance as you view your monitor from)...

 

[arad85]

BTW: when you look at them 100%, it will be fairly easy to tell

Actually, I'm not sure it is....

 

[woof woof]

But it doesn't. Almost any image from any camera will look almost identical at that res. They're useless.

No beef... just saying... post full res, or don't bother. 1024 pixels is really very, very low res.

I think that when comparing images you should view them as you would in the real world... and by that I mean on screen or at the print size and viewing distance you expect them to be viewed.

I've been through this process myself and it really is something that's easy to do if you have access to cameras with different sensors and similar lenses and a printer.

The best way to decide if MFT, APS-C or FF offer the image quality you want, includig the much talked of shallow DoF, is to do these simple tests yourself. They're easy to do, if a little expensive on ink and paper :razz: but it's the best way and proved to me that for me at anything other then the highest ISO settings either MFT or APS-C is good enough for me It also proved to me that the people I roped in couldn't reliably tell the difference between MFT, APS-C and FF shots, their success rate was no better than chance, just as in the Luminous Landscape piece I linked earlier.

 

[Phil Young]

But it doesn't. Almost any image from any camera will look almost identical at that res. They're useless.

No beef... just saying... post full res, or don't bother. 1024 pixels is really very, very low res.

So you'll get crops side by side and then stand back by 2 meters??

 

[Pookeyhead]

7M each

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

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

BTW: when you look at them 100%, it will be fairly easy to tell, but we don't print/view at 100% when they are on the wall (for reference, printing at 100% at the same size as showing 100% on a 24" screen is equivalent to printing 45" x 35" and viewing from the same distance as you view your monitor from)...

That's 4/3rds vs. full frame.

The OP asked a very simple question:

I was just wondering if there is a lot of difference in IQ between say my 550d, and say a 5d.

Well... here you go. These are a D7000 vs a D800, but still valid.. as I've resized the D800 file to 16MP to make a fair comparison. The results with the two Canon's listed above will be almost identical.

D800 resized to 16MP

D7000

D800 resized to 16MP

D7000

So there you go. Same resolution... one FF one crop.

That's the definitive answer to the OP's question.


Anything else is just people arguing their corner.

The real question is... do you need FF?

The answer is maybe... which seems unhelpful.. but if you....

• Need to print big
• Need the flexibility of DOF
• Need the best low light performance you can get
• or need the ability to crop in and maintain acceptable quality

...then the answer may well be yes.. you need it.

If not.. then you probably don't.

However... he may just want it. In which case, he now has some images to answer his question.

 

[joel222]

WOW, I did not realise asking such a simple question would create such a heated thread. The reason I was asking is when looking at pictures taken by others in a studio environment a lot of them seem far sharper than mine, mainly in the eye area. I understand that light, and quality of light has a major roll in this, but just wondered how much the body did. I'm actually using a 15-85 lens, which I'm lead to believe is not far off L series quality, so that just leaves the body. By no means am I saying that I'm not happy with my images, it was just an observation that I had made.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well.. you now have a definitive answer above Both images were shot with a quality standard prime lens for each body... 50mm f1.8G and 35mm f1.8G respectively. Manual live view focusing was used on each, and each was set to f5.6 for maximum sharpness... or was it f8.. can't remember now.. but at the sharpest middle range of apertures anyway. Both flash lit, with cameras on the same Manfrotto 055 tripod.

 

[Phil V]

That's 4/3rds vs. full frame.

The OP asked a very simple question:



Well... here you go. These are a D7000 vs a D800, but still valid.. but I've resized the D800 file to 16MP to make a fair comparison.

D800 resized to 16MP

D7000

D800 resized to 16MP

D7000

So there you go. Same resolution... one FF one crop.

That's the definitive answer to the OP's question.


Anything else is just people arguing their corner.

The real question is... do you need FF?

The answer is maybe... which seems unhelpful.. but if you....

• Need to print big
• Need the flexibility of DOF
• Need the best low light performance you can get
• or need the ability to crop in and maintain acceptable quality

...then the answer may well be yes.. you need it.

If not.. then you probably don't.

However... he may just want it. In which case, he now has some images to answer his question.

No!
The answer is that if my needs are met by tiny sensors - then everyone else's should be too. Otherwise the comparisons are just unfair.

The problem with the internet is that as you say, people ask the wrong questions? It's not 'is there a noticeable difference' it's 'would I notice the difference if I were to print at...?'

There are always better resolutions, bitrates etc. Is a Mercedes worth so much more than a Mondeo? It is if it's worth it for your needs. People who choose the Mondeo feeling the need to prove it's right for everyone is simply a symptom of the human condition.

BTW - crop sensor user - it does what I need it to

 

[Pookeyhead]

Hence why these threads always descend into the users of each format defending their choice.

Forget all that....

above are some irrefutable examples of the image quality from crop and FF.

I'll let others decide if it's worth the upgrade, because that's a wholly different debate... the "Do I NEED it" debate.

 

[Pookeyhead]

...oh, and just to shut you all up.... here's 5x4" film


100% crops... just as the last lot.

Crop or FF? They're both crap in comparison...

There's always something better. Just use what fits your needs.

 

[woof woof]

That's 4/3rds vs. full frame.

The OP asked a very simple question:

If the question is if there'd be a lot of difference in the images produced by two different cameras I personally wouldn't start by downsizing an image to make the comparison "fair." Why should it be "fair."

If the question is simply "I was just wondering if there is a lot of difference in IQ between say my 550d, and say a 5d." I don't think the question is clear enough.

The question really needs qualifying by bringing in image sizes and probably taking about ISO settings too as if you're producing passport photos in good light it doesn't matter what camera you use but if you're shooting in the dark and printing the image 30 feet wide it will. Personally I wouldn't start by downsizing an image I'd start by deciding what output size I wanted and I'd then produce the best quality image from each camera at that size and review the results.

 

[Pookeyhead]

If the question is if there'd be a lot of difference in the images produced by two different cameras I personally wouldn't start by downsizing an image to make the comparison "fair." Why should it be "fair."

Because if I hadn't, everyone would go "Of course it's better... it's 36MP". Resizing it to the same as the D7000 means that any apparent sharpness still evident is a result of the larger format/smaller circle of confusion, and nothing to do with resolution.

16MP from a crop sensor camera will not be as good as 16MP from a FF camera. In fact... the results would be pretty much the same as those I posted.


Bigger sensor = better quality... assuming equal quality of lenses of course. Until you get to really big stuff.. then even that becomes far less important.

 

[woof woof]

Yes, but by resizing an image your test becomes as irrelevant as any other.

Bigger = Better, is simply too simplistic and misleading.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Actually.. it doesn't.... and if you don't believe me, I'll run the tests again on Monday using a 16MP FF camera and a 16mp crop camera... you'll see the same results.

 

[woof woof]

Actually.. it doesn't.... and if you don't believe me, I'll run the tests again on Monday using a 16MP FF camera and a 16mp crop camera... you'll see the same results.

Over to the OP then

 

[Pookeyhead]

Indeed. I'll still do a test on Monday though. I'll do a D7000 vs D3.. will that satisfy you? That's if the students have left any D3s in stock.. Stores gets raided last day before holidays. If not... I'll see if we have any 5D MkIs in.

 

[arad85]

Bigger sensor = better quality... assuming equal quality of lenses of course. Until you get to really big stuff.. then even that becomes far less important.

OK. Explain this:

Two sensors that are exactly the same size, using the same lens, with the same focal point. The first is consistently sharper than the second every time (and we are using CDAF here, not PDAF where the lens/body variability comes into it here).

It's not just sensor size that matters, but also the AA filter in front of the sensor. I'd be willing to put the GH3 (the first of these two cameras) up against a 5D2 for sharpness...

 

[Pookeyhead]

...and what was the second camera?


Are we using an unfair lens comparison again like you always do when championing 4/3rds?


The OP is interested in two DSLR comparisons, on the same system, with the same lenses.

 

[arad85]

...and what was the second camera?

G5. Same sized sensor, exactly the same lens (swapped from camera to camera). Whilst this is a single example, the GH3 appears to produce a consistently sharper image.

Are we using an unfair lens comparison again like you always do when championing 4/3rds?

Nope - same lens on both cameras.

And "unfair lens comparison" is fair as it's the system you have in your hand that matters. In the same way that downsizing to 16Mpix is fair

 

[Pookeyhead]

So all you've demonstrated is that one camera's sensor is better than another's? Well.. we know this already. I don't think anyone thinks all sensors are the same. The fact is though, comparing a crop sensor DSLR against a FF DSLR will always show a marked difference in favour of the FF sensor.

The fact that some 4/3rd systems rival larger sensors is down to their lenses.. as you well know. Your images don't help the OP in the slightest as you are comparing differences between two identical sized sensors that use very different methods. Likewise the D7100 will probably fair much better against FF cameras than a similar 24MP sensor from another camera. The FF camera will still yeild the highest quality image though... no matter if the gap is less.

On the whole... bigger is better. Yes. Which is why a 5x4" camera with a 30 year old lens on it still kicks ass.

 

[Phil Young]

So all you've demonstrated is that one camera's sensor is better than another's? Well.. we know this already. I don't think anyone thinks all sensors are the same. The fact is though, comparing a crop sensor DSLR against a FF DSLR will always show a marked difference in favour of the FF sensor.

The fact that some 4/3rd systems rival larger sensors is down to their lenses.. as you well know. Your images don't help the OP in the slightest as you are comparing differences between two identical sized sensors that use very different methods. Likewise the D7100 will probably fair much better against FF cameras than a similar 24MP sensor from another camera. The FF camera will still yeild the highest quality image though... no matter if the gap is less.

On the whole... bigger is better. Yes. Which is why a 5x4" camera with a 30 year old lens on it still kicks ass.

Nobody has said a FF camera isn't better.

You are showing us crops though as if people investigate their images like that??

When in the crop, there isn't THAT much difference in sharpness between the D800 and the D7000 so I don't know why you're marking this thread as case closed when everybody on one side of the fence has been saying in good light, base ISO and a decent viewing distance, you wouldn't see a notable difference.

I have no idea why you're even putting crops up when that clearly goes against the argument of viewing distance.

You're only confirming what everybody else knows, I bet 100% I could take a shot of a scene with my LX7 and with my D7000 and half the people would get it wrong when viewed at an appropriate distance or size.

...Jeeeze.

 

[Pookeyhead]

When in the crop, there isn't THAT much difference in sharpness between the D800 and the D7000 so I don't know why you're marking this thread as case closed when everybody on one side of the fence has been saying in good light, base ISO and a decent viewing distance, you wouldn't see a notable difference. .

So why bother at all? Just buy any camera... they're all the same.

 

[arad85]

So all you've demonstrated is that one camera's sensor is better than another's?

?????

No, I've shown that the sharpness and detail you get out of a camera is dependent on the whole system. The sensors are the same size, the sensors have the same megapixels, they are both current cameras yet one is clearly sharper than the other. At a guess, the sharper camera has less of an anti-alias filter in front of it. It also shows that you cannot define sharpness by sensor size alone - even with the same lens.

Well.. we know this already. I don't think anyone thinks all sensors are the same. The fact is though, comparing a crop sensor DSLR against a FF DSLR will always show a marked difference in favour of the FF sensor.

What I understand from my posts above is that you can't simply go bigger is better - you have to take the system as a whole.

The fact that some 4/3rd systems rival larger sensors is down to their lenses.. as you well know.

Yes, but there's also the sensor too in some cases...

Your images don't help the OP in the slightest as you are comparing differences between two identical sized sensors that use very different methods.

Very different methods? What would they be then? I smell someone trying to brush something under the carpet that doesn't fit their theory neatly

On the whole... bigger is better. Yes. Which is why a 5x4" camera with a 30 year old lens on it still kicks ass.

But there you have a camera with a sensor many, many times bigger than micro 4/3rds, APS-C or even FF. It should be visible easily.

Yes, there is a difference between APS-C/micro 4/3 and FF, but it is not as great as people make out - unless you are pushing things (all the photos I've posted have been exposed at base ISO). What it boils down to is when you actually print the darned things, you won't see much of a difference in sensor size unless you go BIG (which is what the 100% crops effectively give you).

 

[Pookeyhead]

?????

No, I've shown that the sharpness and detail you get out of a camera is dependent on the whole system. The sensors are the same size, the sensors have the same megapixels, they are both current cameras yet one is clearly sharper than the other.

Yes.. because of it's sensor... as everything else is equal. Isn't that what I said?


The OP wants to know how a 550D compares to a 5D. The answer is the 5D will be demonstrably better because it has a bigger sensor.

 

[woof woof]

Indeed. I'll still do a test on Monday though. I'll do a D7000 vs D3.. will that satisfy you? That's if the students have left any D3s in stock.. Stores gets raided last day before holidays. If not... I'll see if we have any 5D MkIs in.

No, and why should it?

I've been through all this some time ago but the way I found my way through it all wasn't through downsizing or doing extremely heavy crops, like yours, that's daft IMVHO and of course the large the format the better if that's the test you want to do.

The way I did it was to take pictures with a FF camera and compare them to pictures taken with APS-C and MFT cameras at the screen size and print size that I wanted.

If you print the size of a barn, do extremely heavy crops and print them large or shoot at the highest ISO's then of course the bigger the format the better but if you (mostly) shoot at low to middling ISO's (up to 1600 or even 3200) and view images on screen or print to a max of A3 and can avoid extremely heavy cropping (like the exteme crop you did in your test) and avoid pixel peeping at 100%+ then it's a whole different story and when I went through this I couldn't reliably (beyond chance) see any significant image quality advantage in favour of FF or even pick out the FF images reliably and beyond chance and neither could anyone else who joined me in that little test.

 

[Phil Young]

So why bother at all? Just buy any camera... they're all the same.

You clearly have selective hearing.

1) better output at HIGHER ISO's.
2) to have better functions.
3) clearly for some here... to look cool and say they own a ferrari lol.

 

[woof woof]

The OP wants to know how a 550D compares to a 5D. The answer is the 5D will be demonstrably better because it has a bigger sensor.

This is just too simplistic.

You need to remember that image size hides a great deal and pixel peeping or printing large shows a great deal that may never be visible in real world use.

Will a 5D shot be "demonstrably better because it has a bigger sensor" when the images are whole images shot at ISO 100-1600 and viewed on a 13" lap top? Will the 5D images be "demonstrably better because it has a bigger sensor" if the same images are printed out A4?

Personally, I think that the odds that the 5D images will be demonstrably better fall if the images are viewed "normally" on a screen or printed out at what many people would think of as "normal" print size.

 

[Pookeyhead]

No, and why should it?

Because it definitively answers the OP's question?

If you print the size of a barn, do extremely heavy crops and print them large or shoot at the highest ISO's then of course the bigger the format the better but if you (mostly) shoot at low to middling ISO's (up to 1600 or even 3200) and view images on screen or print to a max of A3 and can avoid extremely heavy cropping (like the exteme crop you did in your test) and avoid pixel peeping at 100%+ then it's a whole different story and when I went through this I couldn't reliably (beyond chance) see any significant image quality advantage in favour of FF or even pick out the FF images reliably and beyond chance and neither could anyone else who joined me in that little test.

I'm assuming the OP has a reason for considering the FF camera, so it's up to him why he wants one, or whether he needs one at all... not you. YOU may not want or need one, but does that make my tests any less relevant? They may not concern you, no, but I didn't post them for you.. I posted them for the OP.

Whether deem them pointless or not, they do, and will show the differenced between the formats, which is all he wanted to know.

For all you know, he may want to print big, or he may want, or need the best possible ISO/noise performance. He may shoot a lot of wildlife or sports, and need to crop in.

You can't just dismiss my tests as pointless because YOU only print to A3 or look at your images on a screen.

I did say at the end of my first post with the images, that whether he needs one or not is up to him, and is another debate entirely. I hoped that would prevent the "You don't need full frame... it's stupid.. you only need it if you print mahoosive prints" etc.... silly me.

Maybe... consider this... maybe, he wants better quality, just because he wants it.. maybe he has no need for it at all? It's his money, his choice, and his camera.... he asked a simple question. The answer is yes, the 5D will give higher quality images. Not "but only if you print big... or only at close viewing distances".. it will be better... period.

That's what he asked.

 

[arad85]

Yes.. because of it's sensor... as everything else is equal. Isn't that what I said?


The OP wants to know how a 550D compares to a 5D. The answer is the 5D will be demonstrably better because it has a bigger sensor.

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....

 

[woof woof]

Because it definitively answers the OP's question?...

I've been consistent in what I've said throughout this thread and I've included the caviats of image size and ISO.

If the OP wants to look at it from your point of view a larger format will usually produce a better 100% crop

If the OP wants to look at it from my point of view, as I've consistently stated, IMVHO there'll be b****r all difference in whole image or even reasonable crop images when the shots are taken at low to middling ISO's and viewed or printed something between passport photo size and A3

IMVHO that's why it's very important to consider output size, how the image is going to be viewed, ISO and cropping.