FF or crop for wedding photography

ukaskew said:
I've had church photos from the Fuji X-T1 at ISO6400 across a double page spread in a large album with no problems whatsoever. Some of the X-Pro2 guys are setting their AutoISO ceiling at 12,800 now.
Click to expand...
but that's with fujis's fudged isos ;-)
 
owenb said:
yep if your printing a 6x4...7x5 no issue a0 is a different story lol
Click to expand...
I looked at some of my pictures on a 49" TV yesterday for the first time. They were only 2000 pixels wide but looked pretty good to me :D
 
KitsuneAndy said:
I'll take the D750 up to 12800. Did so at the wedding I was at on Saturday to keep shutter speed up around 1/200th
Click to expand...

The X-T1/X-Pro2 is 'crop', which I think is what the discussion here is trying to compare.
 
woof woof said:
Hmmmm. I'll use MFT up to and including ISO 25,600 but it all hangs on what you do with the pictures... process them for best effect and size them for final viewing and view them normally or even quite closely and they may look perfectly acceptable depending upon your own interpretation of what's acceptable. Non geeks viewing pictures may not see what us geeks see.

Sometimes when I'm not happy with the quality of picture I can get I take a look at what others are doing with the same kit and I usually realise that the problem isn't the kit. A quick Google should take anyone interested in the higher ISO performance of just about any camera to example images and if they're good enough the challenge then is to match them.

There was a thread on Luminous Landscape recently about MFT noise which includes some high ISO pictures...

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108083.0
Click to expand...
Yep, as I've mentioned before it's all about expectations. I wasn't happy taking my MFT above 3200 ISO as not only was it too noisy for me it lacked far too much contrast and pop even for a 7x5" print, but that's only my preference. You see more and more people now processing to look like the old film style and therefore actually reducing contrast and adding noise/grain to the image so I guess it all depends how you want your final picture to look.

There's no rights or wrongs, just opinions and preferences :p
 
woof woof said:
Yup, if in northern England and it's raining and there's no detail at all in the white/grey sky :(
Click to expand...
Dunno what you mean, there's at least 3 days a year when we get something other than grey bleak skies :lol:
 
So what are the chances of a new 810 coming out with the bells and whistles of the d5 / d500

I'm not sure what to get as a second body either and was thinking of an 810 to go with my 750 but they're bound to announce a new one the minute I buy one
 
AshleyC said:
So what are the chances of a new 810 coming out with the bells and whistles of the d5 / d500

I'm not sure what to get as a second body either and was thinking of an 810 to go with my 750 but they're bound to announce a new one the minute I buy one
Click to expand...
Something's likely to be on the horizon with the recent fall in price and the fact that it's been nearly 2 years since the D810 was launched. Tech from the Dx bodies usually find their way onto the D8xx and D7xx bodies so I would imagine the D810 replacement would have a similar AF system to the D5 tbh. I just hope they ditch the D5 sensor though and put something in with decent DR.
 
andyscott said:
That's just not true, I have shot old bodies and pushed to 6400 and printed fine.

Do they look like iso 100 nope, have any clients complained.

5 years ago people mustn't have got any decent low light shots ;)
Click to expand...
Ok, I probably could get a decent print at 6,400 even on my 50d with some tweaking, but it would only be passable (I do have newer crops and 1" sensor'd cameras)

My 6d on the other hand would print flawlessly at 6,400.

The point is one is considerably better than the others.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
That's how I always did mine, but I recently bought Reikan Focal, and it's awesome! All of my lenses are spot on now
Click to expand...
Isn't this just an expensive way of adjusting the MA on your camera, ie basically assessing how far your camera front/back focuses and then adjusts the MA accordingly?
 
Right, so I spent a few hours yesterday shooting/testing the lens at different points on the micro adjustment scale. I went right along the scale from end to the other taking test shots and not one of them is perfectly in focus, they look decent until I compare them to the same shot taken with the 550d. Could it be that the lens is just not totally compatible with the body? Any more ideas?
 
snerkler said:
Isn't this just an expensive way of adjusting the MA on your camera, ie basically assessing how far your camera front/back focuses and then adjusts the MA accordingly?
Click to expand...

Depends on how much one values their own time. It has a cost yes, but I'd rather have that do the hard work than me having to appraise each image at each MA setting manually.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Depends on how much one values their own time. It has a cost yes, but I'd rather have that do the hard work than me having to appraise each image at each MA setting manually.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Takes me under 5 mins to do my lenses so not too worried about that (y)
 
joel222 said:
Right, so I spent a few hours yesterday shooting/testing the lens at different points on the micro adjustment scale. I went right along the scale from end to the other taking test shots and not one of them is perfectly in focus, they look decent until I compare them to the same shot taken with the 550d. Could it be that the lens is just not totally compatible with the body? Any more ideas?
Click to expand...
Have you got other lenses to try on each to see how they compare?
 
joel222 said:
I do and it's only the tamron that is oof on the 6d
Click to expand...
Odd, but on saying that I bought a Signa 70-200mm that was the same on my D750 so took it back. Does make you wonder if some lenses just don't like certain cameras or vice versa.

Are your others sharper on the 6d than 550d or is there not much between them?
 
So from this thread I have gleaned that you could buy crop cameras for use for the majority of weddings and rent full frame cameras for the odd occasions when the wedding takes place in a dark venue.
 
Depends what you mean by "shooting weddings" if you do a lot you want fullframe....
 
redsnappa said:
So from this thread I have gleaned that you could buy crop cameras for use for the majority of weddings and rent full frame cameras for the odd occasions when the wedding takes place in a dark venue.
Click to expand...
You can shoot a wedding on anything. But you are aware full frame gives you a lot more than just better low light ability? :)
 
Last edited:
joel222 said:
Nothing in it really
Click to expand...
There should be. Are you shooting raw or JPEG (though even with JPEG you should notice improvements in sharpness, dynamic range, contrast and tonal range).
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
There should be. Are you shooting raw or JPEG (though even with JPEG you should notice improvements in sharpness, dynamic range, contrast and tonal range).
Click to expand...
Depends IMO. If viewing at a 'normal' viewing size sometimes it's difficult to see a difference in IQ between APS and FF. Dynamic range isn't sensor size dependant per se, for example the D7200 has better base DR than a Canon 5d3, or even the new D5

The 6D is 0.6 eve better than the 550D in DR, not sure you'd be able to 'see' that?
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Depends IMO. If viewing at a 'normal' viewing size sometimes it's difficult to see a difference in IQ between APS and FF. Dynamic range isn't sensor size dependant per se, for example the D7200 has better base DR than a Canon 5d3, or even the new D5

The 6D is 0.6 eve better than the 550D in DR, not sure you'd be able to 'see' that?
Click to expand...
You would see it - my RX100 according to DXO figures has better DR than my 6d but that's utter balls, the 6d blows it into the water (though the RX100 is very good, especially for a 1" sensor)! I'm really not sure how DXO work out their numbers...

The 6d recovers a *lot* more shadow detail than my 70d.

This shot is a good example;

sunset over the yard 19th Mar 16 b by -Odd Jim-

The camera exposed completely for the sunset, the rest is shadow recovery! The 70d couldn't do that without major noise.

The difference between my cropped Canon bodies and the 6d is quite pronounced, but I shoot a lot of landscapes where I guess the benefits are a little more defined.
 
Last edited:
joel222 said:
Im shooting in jpeg at the minute so that it's quicker to view the test shots
Click to expand...
It might be that the cameras processing on the 550 is sharpening more than the 6d.

I'd try shooting both raw (not with the Tamron) to see if there's a difference.

The laws of physics dictate you'll see big improvements with the 6d, and definitely more processing latitude :)
 
odd jim said:
You would see it - my RX100 according to DXO figures has better DR than my 6d but that's utter balls, the 6d blows it into the water (though the RX100 is very good, especially for a 1" sensor)! I'm really not sure how DXO work out their numbers...

The 6d recovers a *lot* more shadow detail than my 70d.

This shot is a good example;

sunset over the yard 19th Mar 16 b by -Odd Jim-

The camera exposed completely for the sunset, the rest is shadow recovery! The 70d couldn't do that without major noise.

The difference between my cropped Canon bodies and the 6d is quite pronounced, but I shoot a lot of landscapes where I guess the benefits are a little more defined.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was talking about SOOC shots. In post FF have more 'leeway'
 
joel222 said:
Im shooting in jpeg at the minute so that it's quicker to view the test shots
Click to expand...
As above you need to compare RAW as the JPEG processing could well be different.
 
I think I've sorted the problem. I've changed the settings in picture style, it was set on auto with sharpness set at 0, where as the 550d was set on standard with the sharpness set at 3 so I've made the 6d the same and it's now much better :whistle:
 
joel222 said:
I think I've sorted the problem. I've changed the settings in picture style, it was set on auto with sharpness set at 0, where as the 550d was set on standard with the sharpness set at 3 so I've made the 6d the same and it's now much better :whistle:
Click to expand...
Lol and there you go!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top