Full frame decision?

[EightBitTony]

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.

And in the past, *most* people only looked at 6x4's or smaller. They also hid the blur and out of focus parts, even though they were a little larger than a phone. I didn't know a single person growing up who had anything other than a point and shoot, which you had developed in Boots or sent off in the post, and got back covered in stickers. Until I went to university and met one person with a 35mm SLR, I didn't even know there were other kinds of camera.

All of my family photographs from the 60's are tiny prints, nothing bigger than a 6x4 and plenty from the 60's and 70's smaller than that.

People taking pictures on 'cheap' cameras and looking at them in small format is the norm, and always has been, in my view.

 

[woof woof]

A return to the norm maybe with an interlude which we on this forum are living in of pixel peeping at 100% or more and obsessing over things ordinary people will never ever notice.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...obsessing over things ordinary people will never ever notice.

Like they did in Amateur Photographer etc. back in the 1970s and '80s?

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Well the marketing people did a great job getting costumers to board the upgrading carousel.

 

[snerkler]

And in the past, *most* people only looked at 6x4's or smaller. They also hid the blur and out of focus parts, even though they were a little larger than a phone. I didn't know a single person growing up who had anything other than a point and shoot, which you had developed in Boots or sent off in the post, and got back covered in stickers. Until I went to university and met one person with a 35mm SLR, I didn't even know there were other kinds of camera.

All of my family photographs from the 60's are tiny prints, nothing bigger than a 6x4 and plenty from the 60's and 70's smaller than that.

People taking pictures on 'cheap' cameras and looking at them in small format is the norm, and always has been, in my view.

I think it depends on what you class as the "norm". Yes non professional and non hobbyists only tend to look on phone screens, some maybe computer screens. And yes in the 'recent' past people only viewed on 7x5", 6x4" or sometimes smaller, but don't forget prior to that people had slides and often projected them onto screen much larger. Also, even in the era of the 6x4" prints hobbyists and pros would still 'stress' over processing, sharpness, focus etc etc. and often printed A4 and larger. Granted sharpness was less 'critical' back then, possibly as a result of manual focus and poor AF systems mainly

 

[Craigus]

This conversation happening on this forum is a bit null and void though, you may as well go onto pistonheads and talk about how content you are with your Nissan Leaf as it gets you to the shops and back and that's all you need it for.

 

[snerkler]

This conversation happening on this forum is a bit null and void though, you may as well go onto pistonheads and talk about how content you are with your Nissan Leaf as it gets you to the shops and back and that's all you need it for.

TBH I think these car comparisons aren't the same. As I mentioned depending on the bodies compared the difference between full frame and crop bodies is very small these days. A lot of the time people have a perfectly good crop body and expect that buying FF will be a massive leap forward, which often it's not. As discussed there are benefits, but more often than not these days they're not huge, whereas the difference between a Nissan Leaf and say a Ferrari is huge

 

[Deleted member 49428]

This conversation happening on this forum is a bit null and void though, you may as well go onto pistonheads and talk about how content you are with your Nissan Leaf as it gets you to the shops and back and that's all you need it for.

But how many times have people gone to exhibitions and been able to determine which format took the pictures? Or felt they'd been better if taken with a larger format?
Seems like the only ones noticing are the photographers and mostly while pixel peeping. And as I've said before, I can't establish a corelition between great photography and the format used.

 

[Craigus]

I actually meant the conversation about how things used to be, people being content with phone snaps, 6x4 prints etc. We are all photography 'enthusiasts' or whatever you would like to be called, saying other people won't notice is pointless, otherwise none of us would be having this discussion.

I made my view on FF/crop etc clear in post #56.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

I actually meant the conversation about how things used to be, people being content with phone snaps, 6x4 prints etc. We are all photography 'enthusiasts' or whatever you would like to be called, saying other people won't notice is pointless, otherwise none of us would be having this discussion.

I made my view on FF/crop etc clear in post #56.

Ahh OK I see.

 

[Ed Sutton]

We are all photography 'enthusiasts' or whatever you would like to be called,

I'd prefer to be called a bloke who takes photographs.

 

[Craigus]

I'd prefer to be called a bloke who takes photographs.

Sounds creepy.

 

[Dudewheresmybrain]

I would go 6D over the 5D ii any day - but I would also say... sony A7

 

[woof woof]

Like they did in Amateur Photographer etc. back in the 1970s and '80s?

Geeks have always been geeks and there's nothing wrong with geekdom, we all do it to some extent but sometimes I think that we need a reality check.

For example... by coincidence last night I found a box full of prints from way back when I used to take a lot of pictures at gigs with a mix of my Nikon SLR and a RF and I was actually a bit shocked how good they are... but of course they're relatively small pictures and I wasn't pixel peeping

 

[Kodiak Qc]

I don't know why you say that when I know you know it's untrue.

Today, I got the second email saying that by these words
you are, in a passive aggressive mode… wetm, accusing
me of being a liar, is it so, Richard?

 

[HoppyUK]

Today, I got the second email saying that by these words
you are, in a passive aggressive mode… wetm, accusing
me of being a liar, is it so, Richard?

Absolutely not Kodiak, and I apologise if that's the way you read it.

Maybe there is something in the language barrier between us but you said "...DoF is lens dependent EXCLUSIVELY.." and it is not. I listed all the factors and someone with your long experience must know that distance is also one of them, not to mention format and viewing parameters.

Edit: that's not accusing you of lying, but an error of omission. We're all guilty of that from time to time

 

[McNyat]

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 is a great help to me. Thank you for taking the time to do this for me .

 

[McNyat]

Thanks to everyone who has passed on their advice. As expected, there will always be some slight differences of opinion.
Heres how im thinking at the min...

-Whilst ff will offer a slight improvement the difference will not be massive or ground breaking.

-maybe best to go for a good quality f2.8 70-200 lens for now and swaying towards the Tamron with stabilisation as it is less expensive than the Canon, but close to the same quality, and better than the Sigma when wide open.

Any more thoughts before I go any further?

 

[HoppyUK]

This is a great help to me. Thank you for taking the time to do this for me .

Yes, good comparison

Shots #1 and #3 are the most meaningful to compare. #1 at 200mm on full-frame at 2.8, compared to 125mm on APS-C at 2.8 - same framing, same distance/perspective, same aperture. Just the DoF difference due to format change of about 1.3 stops.

 

[kingo15]

Thanks to everyone who has passed on their advice. As expected, there will always be some slight differences of opinion.
Heres how im thinking at the min...

-Whilst ff will offer a slight improvement the difference will not be massive or ground breaking.

-maybe best to go for a good quality f2.8 70-200 lens for now and swaying towards the Tamron with stabilisation as it is less expensive than the Canon, but close to the same quality, and better than the Sigma when wide open.

Any more thoughts before I go any further?

Yes go for the tamron

 

[McNyat]

Am i correct in thinking that Tamron have recently upgraded this lens? If so would it be worth the extra ££?

 

[Eloise]

Am i correct in thinking that Tamron have recently upgraded this lens? If so would it be worth the extra ££?

They have. Probably, especially for long term especially as it’s now compatible with their USB dock for firmware updates, etc. as well improved performance.