ecoleman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,992
- Name
- Elliott
- Edit My Images
- No
I have a 70-200 f2.8. I’ll take a few shots at f2.8 at varying distances with the 6D and 7Dmkii tomorrow and post them both here.
Full frame decision?
- Thread starter McNyat
- Start date
I have a 70-200 f2.8. I’ll take a few shots at f2.8 at varying distances with the 6D and 7Dmkii tomorrow and post them both here.
That would be great thanks
The Tamron is much better tjan the Sigma?
Craig_85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,214
- Name
- Craig
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's what I asked ages ago, what do you shoot. Now for me it's easy to answer.
Buy a super fast prime lens, probably a 50mm 1.8 for a couple of hundred quid for your existing camera and see if you like working with a shallow depth of field...
(A lot of the discussion about the sensor sizes and depth of field by the way IMO is down to people moving up to full frame with an existing lens collection. To then frame the subject the same they walk closer, thus reducing the depth of field.)
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Better? Yes. Noticeable better? Yes. Much better? You tell me. The Tamron is also more expensive.
I mentioned it because it sounds like you plan to use the lens at f/2.8 a lot, so may be disappointed.
Re your last sentence, this is exactly why a full understanding of equivalence is important when making these comparisons and buying decisions. By the looks of it, the OP is wanting shallower DoF by changing to full-frame with a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, from APS-C with a 55-250mm f/4-5.6 - that's an 88-400mm equivalent zoom on full-frame, with f/6.4-9 aperture in terms of DoF. There are a lot of changes in that comparison and yes, the net result will be shallower DoF - but how much exactly?
I think the easiest way to think about it is to regard the 55-250 as stopping at 125mm (200mm equiv field of view on FF) where the aperture will be somewhere around f/4.8. So the difference between f/4.8 and 2.8 is 1.5 stops, plus the 1.3ish stops shallower DoF from the format change, gives a net of 2.8 stops less depth-of-field - big difference (though of course the 55-250 actually has a lot more focal length in hand which will swing things back the other way in terms of background blur).
Best way to compare properly/easily/visually is with the blur simulator I linked earlier - and it doesn't frazzle your brain
D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
What about the APSC f/1.8 zooms (though they are big and heavy beasts too) ? Or fast primes? For family days out and vacations etc. FF bodies and f/2.8 zooms can take their toll on photographer and family's patience/goodwill. So f/1.8 primes may be worth a good look and thought.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
It's a fair point re a fast prime. Compared to zooms, where primes really score is with fast apertures, and usually with a handy saving in size and weight. Eg Canon 135/2 L on APS-C would give very similar DoF to a 70-200/2.8 zoom on full-frame, at the same focal length. Perhaps a bit of a one-trick pony though, compared to the versatility of a zoom.
Last edited:
TimHughes
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,655
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends what type of pictures I think. Maybe very little change for many types of images.
ecoleman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,992
- Name
- Elliott
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry, I promised comparison images today but got tied up with various chores. I’ll do my best to get something done tomorrow.
Nawty
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,473
- Name
- Ned
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you want to see the difference you will, it there and clear to see.
The ultimate question is whether that difference is worth the things that go along with FF (i.e. size and expense). Ultimately I chopped in my Nikon FF gear for m43 as I found I had to look at 100% to see any noticeable difference (and often you really had to look for it) and I was happy (nay, surprised) with that level of performance that I was getting. I think this coincided with my understanding with it being the subject and the light that was most critical in a photo so I stopped being obsessed with ultimate sharpness/noise/etc.
But still, other’s mileage varies and only you can make that call. One thing for sure is that if you don’t try you’ll never know.
GTG
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,660
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The thing with photography is you can have all the best gear in the world but you need to be able to make the most of it.
You have to be good all round, editing, knowing the gear very well, tons of practice all the time, learning and all that kind of thing.
Plus online the images are wasted and often cant be shown at full file size or people don't have a screen capable of appreciating it anyway.
It is prints, especially large prints of someone who is good and knows their stuff that really shows what the better full frames can achieve.
No worries. thanks
snerkler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,078
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
TBH I don't think the difference is very big between APS-C and FF. Certainly when I compared my Nikon D500 and D750 the difference was minimal, especially in terms of sharpness. You will see a difference in noise handling at high ISO, and FF does look different as there's no exact match in terms of focal length and FOV. That being said I don't know how much difference you will see between the 550d and 6d as I don't know how good the 550d is.
I wouldn't say it's clear to see a lot of the time tbh, sometimes you have to go into pixel peeping mode to see the differences.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think there's any doubt that you will notice a difference and probably love it, but whether anyone else will see it is a different matter
As mentioned above, if you swap from your 550D with 55-250/4-5.6 lens for full-frame with a 70-200/2.8, the only time they are directly comparable for shallowest DoF is at 125mm on the 550D and 200mm on full-frame. And in that scenario the full-frame combo will show a big difference of almost three stops.
But that's not really the full story. A much better one is the 55-250 on your 550D, compared to the 100-400/4.5-5.6 L on full-frame - pretty much identical in terms of field of view and aperture. And in that case, you're looking at only 1.3 stops less DoF on the full-frame combo, in return for a very substantial investment in cost, size and weight.
Craigus
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,562
- Name
- Craig
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I went from a great crop body Canon to FF Canon and now back to Fuji crop. To be honest, I noticed the biggest difference with high ISO performance. In terms of DoF I noticed a difference when I switched to FF, but that was much more to do with lens choice as I didn't have fast glass on the crop body.
Now moving back to crop body with the Fuji I have fast glass, and looking back at shots taken with the FF camera I really can't see much of a difference. A lot of people go on about how much difference the camera makes yet fail to take into account the subject and background distance, which ultimately makes the most difference.
On the whole, I wouldn't bother if I had the chance to do it again, but once you get the itch you probably will need to scratch it at some point.
Now moving back to crop body with the Fuji I have fast glass, and looking back at shots taken with the FF camera I really can't see much of a difference. A lot of people go on about how much difference the camera makes yet fail to take into account the subject and background distance, which ultimately makes the most difference.
On the whole, I wouldn't bother if I had the chance to do it again, but once you get the itch you probably will need to scratch it at some point.
TheTimeChamber
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,447
- Name
- Nick / Sectionate
- Edit My Images
- No
I upgrade from a D7000 to a FF D750 about 2.5 years ago and I have found that my photography has improved massively, just as it did when I upgrade from a D40 to a D750.
Do it.
Do it.
Craigus
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,562
- Name
- Craig
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And you think that your improvement is down to the camera you're using and if you still had the D7000 you wouldn't have improved in 2.5 years?
Jelster
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,986
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Having taken a very similar route to Craig, I have to say, if you have the FF itch, you need to deal with it. At the end of the day, I found a camera system that I really enjoy using and can carry around. I know my X-T2 with 100-400 & 1.4TC isn't as good as my 6D with 150-600, but it gets me images I am pleased with, and that's all that matters. It's my money, my kit, and as long as my Mrs is happy with me putting the prints on the wall, then I guess it's good enough....
D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
A few years back I had the opportunity to try the A7II alongside my A6000. Granted there was a slight difference, not a significant one OR an overwhelming leap in IQ. I had to look closely and offcource pixel peeping zoome in showed it. I was a bit disappointed and decided to stay with APSC. Today I find I'd rather have a Camera that's fun to shoot and gives me a good user experience, a camera that I want to bring, that incourage me to shoot more and that won't be left at home because of weight and bulk or the "here comes the prophotographer" attitude of it. A camera that's above the quality treshold and that will get out of the way leaving me to make great images without it screaming for attention.
Last edited by a moderator:
If thats the article I think it is ... its flawed.
That article showed you can take great photos using a "crop" camera, and that you can then match those photos using a full frame camera.
It didn't show that you can always take the same photo you took with a full frame, on a crop camera.
SsSsSsSsSnake
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,886
- Edit My Images
- Yes
when I started to get interested in photography in 2012 i bought a Fuji x100,my journey continued through dare I add numerous purchases sales and repurchases of most of theconsidered top prosumer models and some decent glass.
a new purchase sparked some enthusiasm to try and learn more of the craft but was punctuated by yet another gas filled purchase looking for photography shangriLa.yes I did feel that the FF cameras i bought seemed to produce
better looking photos at the time but looking back now over different shots,it was more often because the lighting was better or the composition was more interesting,which was also observable in smaller frame camera shots also when looking back over them.
For certain uses im sure FF has its place but as Craigus says,you may have to scratch that itch to find out for yourself.
PS
my only camera now is my 7th puchased Fuji X100 ,hmm i could have saved myself a lot of money me thinks but I had a lot of fun discovering this.
a new purchase sparked some enthusiasm to try and learn more of the craft but was punctuated by yet another gas filled purchase looking for photography shangriLa.yes I did feel that the FF cameras i bought seemed to produce
better looking photos at the time but looking back now over different shots,it was more often because the lighting was better or the composition was more interesting,which was also observable in smaller frame camera shots also when looking back over them.
For certain uses im sure FF has its place but as Craigus says,you may have to scratch that itch to find out for yourself.
PS
my only camera now is my 7th puchased Fuji X100 ,hmm i could have saved myself a lot of money me thinks but I had a lot of fun discovering this.
Last edited:
redsnappa
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,207
- Name
- Red- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Snappa
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you are misunderstanding what the article is saying, Maybe you just looked at the pictures and failed to read the text. The article is not discussing matching full frame quality with crop as that would obviously be a fruitless endeavour.
The article is simply comparing the difference in depth of field between crop DSLR and a full frame DSLR. I chose that article because it ties in exactly with what was said by this threads OP. i.e. he wanted the shallower depth of field.
No: (at least in my interpretation and I'm thinking back to when the article first came out more than detailed rereading it now) its saying you don't need full frame because look at the wonderful things a crop camera can do (wrt to shallow depth of field). But the article is deliberately showcasing what a crop can do, there are situations where a crop camera falls down when compared to full frame.
So yes a crop camera at f/1.8 can do some impressive things ... however to match the "look" requires a full frame camera to shoot at only f/2.7 ... so take the full frame and shoot it at f/1.8 and the look will be quite different again.
Its why the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 is a great lens, but comparable to a 85mm f/1.8.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
Or try matching the look of a 172mm f/2,5 aeroektar on 4x5". How much or little do one really need? Selecting 85mm f/1,2 or 50mm f/0.95 just because one can and it'll give the "shallowest depth of field possible" doesn't necessarily bring much to one's photography.
Last edited by a moderator:
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Eloise, last sentence?
The problem with these questions is one person's 'night and day' difference is another one's 'bugga all'. The difference is there, but is not significant to that person and their intended use.
For my money, if I'm looking to make a real difference (to say DoF or noise) then it usually involves a change of two stops at least and fiddling about with fractions of a stop is not going to do it. By switching to full-frame from APS-C, you get 1.2-ish stops shallower DoF in a true like for like comparison (and that's clearly illustrated in Manny Ortiz's video) but you also get lots of other benefits with FF and they add up - better sharpness, less noise, more dynamic range, plus you can crop a bit in post-processing without hammering the IQ too much. For me, that's quite a compelling list. YMMV
The point Ortiz is really making in that video is not to obsess about FF as the secret to great images. Good subject + good light + good photographer = good pictures. The type of camera/lens is much less important.
I'm looking again at the article and I think I may have been mixed up ... its unclear (he isn't explicit) if he was keeping exposure values the same or shooting 85mm on full frame but shooting at f/2.7 or so to match a 50mm f/1.8 on crop.Eloise, last sentence?
PS. I was critiquing the video rather than critiquing the message!
Last edited:
TheTimeChamber
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,447
- Name
- Nick / Sectionate
- Edit My Images
- No
TBH, yes it probably would have, but I doubt I would have used my camera as much as the feel between DX and FF is different to me.
#Shinytoysyndrome
Craigus
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,562
- Name
- Craig
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Exactly. This is what it boils down to really. If people think that getting a FF camera will make them better they are going to be disappointed. If it is what you need to encourage you to shoot more and improve then that is fine, but let's face it, it has nothing to do with the camera really.
snerkler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,078
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I think a large part of it comes to which bodies you are comparing as well. As I mentioned earlier I couldn't see a great deal of difference between my D500 and D750, and up until getting the D850 the D750 produced the best images of any camera I've ever had. In terms of sharpness there was very little in it, probably down to the D750 having an AA filter and the D500 not having one. In terms of DR the D750 is 14.5ev vs 14ev on the D500, how much are you going to see this difference day to day? The D500 actually has more DR than a lot of FF cameras, and above 800 ISO is almost comparable to the D750 and D850. Noise performance? I took both the D500 and D750 to an amateur boxing event in some of the worst lighting I've seen and at 12800 ISO the D750 was only marginally better imo, maybe 2/3 stop.Eloise, last sentence?
The problem with these questions is one person's 'night and day' difference is another one's 'bugga all'. The difference is there, but is not significant to that person and their intended use.
For my money, if I'm looking to make a real difference (to say DoF or noise) then it usually involves a change of two stops at least and fiddling about with fractions of a stop is not going to do it. By switching to full-frame from APS-C, you get 1.2-ish stops shallower DoF in a true like for like comparison (and that's clearly illustrated in Manny Ortiz's video) but you also get lots of other benefits with FF and they add up - better sharpness, less noise, more dynamic range, plus you can crop a bit in post-processing without hammering the IQ too much. For me, that's quite a compelling list. YMMV
I'm not saying there's not a difference, but depending on the cameras you're comparing the differences might not be that obvious
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I think a large part of it comes to which bodies you are comparing as well. As I mentioned earlier I couldn't see a great deal of difference between my D500 and D750, and up until getting the D850 the D750 produced the best images of any camera I've ever had. In terms of sharpness there was very little in it, probably down to the D750 having an AA filter and the D500 not having one. In terms of DR the D750 is 14.5ev vs 14ev on the D500, how much are you going to see this difference day to day? The D500 actually has more DR than a lot of FF cameras, and above 800 ISO is almost comparable to the D750 and D850. Noise performance? I took both the D500 and D750 to an amateur boxing event in some of the worst lighting I've seen and at 12800 ISO the D750 was only marginally better imo, maybe 2/3 stop.
I'm not saying there's not a difference, but depending on the cameras you're comparing the differences might not be that obvious
That's certainly true. Sensor performance is advancing all the time and we've reached the point where some of the latest APS-C sensors out-perform older full-frame sensors on some aspects of performance. But like for like, or as close as you can get to that (basically 'same generation' sensors) the differences are still there.
Brazo
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,687
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Absolutely. As the old saying goes..
There ain’t no replacement for displacement.
Meaning yes you can make a 1L Nissan micra faster than the best Ferrari. But strap that same ‘huge’ turbo onto the fezza and away you go!
ecoleman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,992
- Name
- Elliott
- Edit My Images
- No
As promised here are some images from the 6D and 7Dmkii and a 70-200 f2.8 lens. It's by no means scientific. All images are straight out of camera with default LR profile of Adobe Colour.
This photo is of a garden chair with some washing hanging in the background.
Image 1: 6D at 200mm
Image 2: 7Dmkii at 200mm from the same position as the previous image.
Image 3: 7Dmkii. I tried to guess where 125mm was but missed it. This is 115mm from the same position as the previous two. Bokeh or blur not as smooth as the 6D shot.
Image 4: 7Dmkii. Again at 200mm but moved back to try and get the same framing as the 6D 200mm shot. Bokeh or blur pretty similar to the 6D shot but not quite as smooth.
This photo is of a garden chair with some washing hanging in the background.
Image 1: 6D at 200mm
Image 2: 7Dmkii at 200mm from the same position as the previous image.
Image 3: 7Dmkii. I tried to guess where 125mm was but missed it. This is 115mm from the same position as the previous two. Bokeh or blur not as smooth as the 6D shot.
Image 4: 7Dmkii. Again at 200mm but moved back to try and get the same framing as the 6D 200mm shot. Bokeh or blur pretty similar to the 6D shot but not quite as smooth.
Last edited:
TVRTim
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,012
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Based on what you have written above you really don't need a F/F camera, that said if you want a F/F camera that's a different matter, sometime we all have itches that need to be scratched, I've certainly been afflicted more than once and it's cost me a lot of money to find out that I didn't NEED it.
How are you viewing your images? if it's on anything less than a decent 4k monitor (of a decent size as well) you are pretty much wasting your time and money chasing something that you will almost never notice. I have a couple of canvas bound prints on my walls, one of which is 72" long x 36" high, if you put your nose up against it you will see it's deficiencies (camera, processing (it's a 9 image pano stitched together in Lightroom) or printing?) the further you move away the better it becomes and by the time your 4 ft away it's superb. Taken on a nikon D7200 with the 18-55 AF-P kit lens.
And yes I know that canvas prints are very forgiving but that's not the point, the point is "if you want it buy it" but you don't need it.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
True, but we've now reached the point where APS-C is plenty 'good enough'. A Nissan Micra can still exceed the speed limit with ease, so what's the point of a 200mph car? Well, as a petrol head I can see lots of reasons, but you get the point
I think this is what's driving the unstoppable rise of the smartphone - they're 'good enough' for most folks and have many other huge advantages. And they're heading our way fast - computational cameras, ie smartphones with multiple lenses and clever software, are closing the gap between proper cameras at an alarming rate...
snerkler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,078
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Phones have always had bokeh, as has every lens and camera^^agreed many smartphones now simulate ‘bokeh’ so what’s the point of fast primes...
At least we know ....
- Messages
- 43,206
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
My Mrs and all her friends shoot with smart phones and the pictures do look lovely on their smart phone and tablet screens, sometimes shockingly good, and they do impress me until I see them on my pc screen where they don't look anywhere near as good but I suppose most people today will only look at pictures on their phones and tablets.