Upgrade to Full Frame Inevitable?

[sk66]

No difference. The reasons larger film yielded greater quality is still the same reason larger digital sensors do. You've just replaced silver halide crystals for pixels... nothing more. You're mistakenly thinking that a 12MP image from a DX sensor is the same size as a 12MP image from a FX sensor, and yes, both would print the same size as pixel for pixel, they would be. However... the similarity ends there.

No, we haven't just replaced silver halide crystals for pixels...
The reasons are different, the net result is typically the same.

Silver halide crystals are the same size regardless of the size of the negative (for a given film type). With a larger negative you have more of them and they need less enlargement for a given print size, thus "sharper."

With sensors we have pixels of varying size. If you take an APS with pixels of the same size as an FX sensor (something like 5MP vs 12MP) then the reasons would be the same. But if you take an APS with 12 or even 24 MP vs an FX with 12, then the reasons change. Smaller pixels are less efficient at gathering light, start diffracting much earlier, and require more resolving power from the lens... all of which results in lower contrast and thus the same net effect and less "sharpness."

As I said, it's not typically "enlargement" anymore... or it's not as simple as just that... But it is still typically larger sensor = sharper.

 

[HoppyUK]

No, we haven't just replaced silver halide crystals for pixels...
The reasons are different, the net result is typically the same.

Silver halide crystals are the same size regardless of the size of the negative (for a given film type). With a larger negative you have more of them and they need less enlargement for a given print size, thus "sharper."

With sensors we have pixels of varying size. If you take an APS with pixels of the same size as an FX sensor (something like 5MP vs 12MP) then the reasons would be the same. But if you take an APS with 12 or even 24 MP vs an FX with 12, then the reasons change. Smaller pixels are less efficient at gathering light, start diffracting much earlier, and require more resolving power from the lens... all of which results in lower contrast and thus the same net effect and less "sharpness."

As I said, it's not typically "enlargement" anymore... or it's not as simple as just that... But it is still typically larger sensor = sharper.

Agree with the bits on bold. But what's driving that is reduced enlargement with larger sensors. Nothing to do with pixels or silver halide crystals.

 

[Pookeyhead]

No, we haven't just replaced silver halide crystals for pixels...
The reasons are different, the net result is typically the same.

Yes, the net result is the same because the pixels have little bearing on this issue.

Silver halide crystals are the same size regardless of the size of the negative (for a given film type). With a larger negative you have more of them and they need less enlargement for a given print size, thus "sharper."

You're talking about why larger format film has less grain here... not why it's sharper. Grain size, or pixel size has nothing to do with why larger film/sensors are better.

Smaller pixels are less efficient at gathering light, start diffracting much earlier, and require more resolving power from the lens... all of which results in lower contrast and thus the same net effect and less "sharpness."

Smaller SENSORS do that, yes... not pixels.

Taken to silly extremes, yes but an image from a 16MP FX sensor will appear sharper than one from a 16MP APS-C sensor, even though it's pixels are larger. It is still less enlargement required that makes larger sensors better.


Let me explain: I'll keep maths and science to a minimum for the benefit of all readers, but this is how it works.

• All lenses have a limit to the size of object or detail that they can resolve. This is known as the circle of confusion. For most digital SLR lenses let's assume for the same of this argument that it's around 0.03mm.

Assuming you use the same lens on a APS-C crop sensor camera like a Nikon D7000 and a full frame camera like the D800, it will still resolve detail down to a minimum of 0.03mm regardless of which camera it is on as it's a fixed property of the lens.

• However, 0.03mm is smaller in proportion to the area of a full frame sensor than it is a crop sensor.

• 0.03mm is 0.12% of the total image width of a APS-C sensor (23.5mm x 16mm)

• 0.03mm is 0.08% of the total image width of a full frame sensor (36mm x 24mm)

In other words, the blurriness caused by lens defects is 33% less (or smaller) on a full frame camera compared to a crop sensor camera, regardless of it's resolution.

Again assuming we could use exactly the same lens on a 5 x 4 inch camera (I know you can't befoe anyone points this out), the percentage of image width taken up by the circle of confusion would be 0.02%

This is a 84% decrease in circle of confusion size compared to the whole image area compared to a APS-C crop sensor.


Apparent sharpness can therefore be said to be a product of sensor size.

How visible the aliasing (pixels) will be in print can therefore be said to be a product of the image resolution.

A combination of large sensor and high resolution is best, but a 16MP image on a small sensor camera will be visibly less sharp than a 16MP image from a larger sensor camera despite the aliasing being identical.

Identical sized prints from files for comparison

Sharpness at single pixel level.

16MP D800 images are not taken in DX crop mode, but are resized FX images. All I've done is made the pixels bigger. A 16MP FX sensor would look pretty much the same as the resized D800 image.

The resolution is identical, yet sharpness is greater from the FX image. Fact.

This is why the push for greater and greater resolution from sensors is pointless now. With the D800 we've hit a limit set by the lenses (for 35mm it's actually around 24MP)... not the sensor. If the D4X has greater than 36MP when it arrives (if it arrives) it will be utterly stupid and Nikon just pandering to people like you who feel greater pixels mean better images. If you want more sharpness now, you either optimise lens design more (as MFT has done), or move up to medium format digital. There's no more to be done. More pixels have b****r all to do with it.

 

[big soft moose]

As i said last time this came up , you're right but it only really matters at a pixel peeping level - a crop sensor with a good glass is more than adequately sharp for most applications.

the reason some pro's prefer FX is the shallower dof which is why you can't easily replicate the 'look' of a portrait with major subject/background seperation shot 5D with a 7D unless you use PP

 

[Alastair]

All very well from the technical standpoint, but still perpetuating that myth that increasing sharpness improves the end result and that somehow, if only we all could produce sharper images we'd all be taking better photographs. Sharpness is not the limiting factor on image quality. I don't think it ever has been. It has become this characteristic that's been picked up purely because it's something that can be measured and gets away from that fluffy, nebulous concept of "What makes a good image?"

 

[big soft moose]

Sorry for taking the thread off topic. It depends on your definition. Professionals use professional gear simple as; a 20d/40d/60d etc ain't (nor is a 5DMKIII strictly speaking).

so when andy rouse shot his award winning dolphin shots with a 3MP Canon D30 (after both his EOS 1 film cameras died) he wasnt a proffesional photographer ?

i'm sorry , but you are speaking out of your arse - a proffesional is someone who gets paid for photography, simple - and while some full time pro's might choose 1 series (or the nikon equivalent) many are working with 5D , 7D, 6D or even xxD series cameras.

 

[Pookeyhead]

As i said last time this came up , you're right but it only really matters at a pixel peeping level - a crop sensor with a good glass is more than adequately sharp for most applications.

the reason some pro's prefer FX is the shallower dof which is why you can't easily replicate the 'look' of a portrait with major subject/background seperation shot 5D with a 7D unless you use PP

All very well from the technical standpoint, but still perpetuating that myth that increasing sharpness improves the end result and that somehow, if only we all could produce sharper images we'd all be taking better photographs. Sharpness is not the limiting factor on image quality. I don't think it ever has been. It has become this characteristic that's been picked up purely because it's something that can be measured and gets away from that fluffy, nebulous concept of "What makes a good image?"

I agree completely, as my earlier posts will explain. I said earlier that unless you print big, this is purely academic. The above post was in response to sk66 who seems under the impression that pixel size is the determining factor in sharpness, not sensor size.

Whether you NEED full frame is an entirely different argument. I was merely giving the facts regarding which is more important for sharpness... sensor size or pixel size. Pixel peeping is not the issue... making big prints is.


Unless you print images big, there's really no need for upgrading to full frame at all. As Pete said, shallower depth of field is a reason perhaps, but it's not as if you can't get shallow depth of field with fast lenses with a crop sensor camera. Larger sensors also give less noise (assuming lower pixel density). Other than that, there's really no need unless you want to go bigger than A3.. and even then, crop sensor cameras can give a good account of themselves up to A2 or beyond... it's just that in comparison, FX starts to shine as you go bigger.

This was not an evangelistic, FX preaching session... it was merely to provide some facts regarding what is the determining factor in sharpness.

 

[aserota]

This has been a really interesting thread to read through. Thanks Pookeyhead for the explanation with examples of the benefits of FF, it's really easy to follow to me. Regards the discussion above, I see no reason above why a 'professional' photographer shouldn't shoot full frame with the best lenses. In most cases professional shooters have greater knowledge, experience and skill then a hobby photographer and can get more from their equipment; therefore why should they use anything but the best? A professional cyclist uses the best equipment even though he could wipe the floor against a very keen club (hobby) cyclist, even if he was on an inferior bike with inferior clothing/equipment. I don't see why, if money were less of an object a professional would not use a 1DX or if on a 'budget' a 5D III (or if a real tight budget the II).

Personally I've been looking to move to Full Frame for a long time, but the only thing holding me back is the cost. I'm looking to purchase 2nd hand and my options (on Canon at least) are very unattractive when it comes to FF bodies. Disregarding lenses and just looking at the bodies; crop sensors add a lot more benefits in terms of newer technology that makes up and provides just/better (or slightly worse depending on your personal view) image quality then the FF alternatives. I want to move across, but with a budget I would lose an area of photography (i.e. sport) that the equivalent APS-C would gain in integrated equipment.

For example, if I had the budgets below 2nd hand these would be my comparative options (2nd hand)

£400 - Canon 60D or Canon 5D
£1000 - Canon 70D or Canon 6D/Canon 5D Mk II
£1800 - Canon 5D III (No APS-C near this bracket)


So on the £400 the Canon 60D has so many advantages over the 5D due to the age of the FF body. The only disadvantage I see if the small DOF on the APS-C model.

At £1000 the Canon 70D boasts better sports, video and focusing, but the 6D would be slightly better for still work (i.e. portraits and landscapes)

Over this price the Canon 1DX and 5D III beat the APS-C in every area (exc. focal length, sort of anyway).


I may be talking utter nonsense, but my thoughts none the less.

 

[Jonny M]

so when andy rouse shot his award winning dolphin shots with a 3MP Canon D30 (after both his EOS 1 film cameras died) he wasnt a proffesional photographer ?

i'm sorry , but you are speaking out of your arse - a proffesional is someone who gets paid for photography, simple - and while some full time pro's might choose 1 series (or the nikon equivalent) many are working with 5D , 7D, 6D or even xxD series cameras.

Forgive me for suggesting that professionals use professional equipment, now that's a novel idea. I'm not suggesting that is the only attribute of a professional but getting paid for it is only part of it and not the only criteria, arrogance and ego spring to mind. I'm not having a go at anyone's professionalism, attitude, expertise or experience either as these are qualities amateurs and pros have in equal measure. What's winning an award got to do with being paid or being a pro exactly? Apologies for dragging the original subject off-topic.

 

[woof woof]

As i said last time this came up , you're right but it only really matters at a pixel peeping level - a crop sensor with a good glass is more than adequately sharp for most applications.

Yup. I often wonder if the differences really matter when I read threads that go this way.

I'm pretty sure that just about any FF or APS-C DSLR or any MFT CSC will easily be able to print to A3 which is probably larger than 99% of users will ever print - assuming they print at all. So, the differences in sharpness between FF and MFT (to take the two mass market extremes of largish sensors) will pretty much be diddly squat in real viewing and will only be visible when measurabating.

 

[simonkit]

Yup. I often wonder if the differences really matter when I read threads that go this way.

They definitely do.. but only the ones that are relevant to your individual needs. Unfortunately there's far too much obsession about megapixels, mostly the blame of the marketing departments and uninformed sales people.

If looking for a camera it makes sense to consider your main uses and then consider a number of abilities such as: Dynamic range, FPS, ISO performance, available settings, ergonomics.. the list goes on. Pixel count is just one of a number of technical characteristics that may or may not be important for the buyer and as already mentioned as pixel counts increase across the manufacturers/models it's less and less of a consideration in the scheme of things.

I'm mainly a landscape photographer and bought the D800, pixel count was one factor as I do print large, although it was actually the excellent Dynamic Range of the camera that swayed my decision and without doubt this has proven a more significant feature than the pixel count has. If I'd have been a sports/wedding photographer there's no way I would have gone with the D800 as it's capabilities aren't as good as other models for these genres.

Simon

 

[big soft moose]

Forgive me for suggesting that professionals use professional equipment, now that's a novel idea. I'm not suggesting that is the only attribute of a professional but getting paid for it is only part of it and not the only criteria, arrogance and ego spring to mind. I'm not having a go at anyone's professionalism, attitude, expertise or experience either as these are qualities amateurs and pros have in equal measure. What's winning an award got to do with being paid or being a pro exactly? Apologies for dragging the original subject off-topic.

Most proffesionals use the equipment that is appropriate to the job at hand - this may be a 1Dx a 5D3, a 6d, or it might be a 7D, 60D, or 50/40D (or even a compact it depends what the job is) - classing some equipment as 'proffesional' and another as amateur is just silly - its just equipment - the people using it may be pro or amateur but that is down to whether they are being paid, and also their general ability and proffesionalism.

On the example i gave Andy Rouse (well known wildlife photographer) was on a photo trip to the bahamas photographing dolphins (with the intent of selling the pictures, because he's a proffesional. Both his Eos 1s sucumbbed to salt water damage and he was forced to use a D30 which he'd brought along to test - with this 3mp crop sensored camera he took his best shot of the trip , which went on to win awards and make substantial print sales - the award winning itself is irrelevant , the point is that a pro on a pro photo job is a pro regardless of what gear they use - they arent proffesionals when using a 1 series and amateurs as soon as they use anything else.

Likewise someone who has all the gear and no idea doesnt become a pro just because they've bought a 1 series DSLR

Also your previous point about FX being essential to pro work was also utter lovespuds because A) lots of proffesionals (including many here) use crop sensored cameras, and b) even the 1D (not the 1DS/X) series , and nikons D2H /X which were soddly aimed at the newspaper photo journalist market were 1.3 crop

 

[Pookeyhead]

Regards the discussion above, I see no reason above why a 'professional' photographer shouldn't shoot full frame with the best lenses. In most cases professional shooters have greater knowledge, experience and skill then a hobby photographer and can get more from their equipment; therefore why should they use anything but the best? A professional cyclist uses the best equipment even though he could wipe the floor against a very keen club (hobby) cyclist, even if he was on an inferior bike with inferior clothing/equipment. I don't see why, if money were less of an object a professional would not use a 1DX or if on a 'budget' a 5D III (or if a real tight budget the II).

Simply because professional gear doesn't always offer any tangible benefits in terms of the resultant image. They're probably more likely to use professional lenses... but then again it depends what the intended output is. A camera though, well.. could you honestly tell if an image was taken with a D600 or a D3x? Of course not. You can't compare cyclists to photographers. Certain types of photography require certain things, yes. A sports photographer will probably produce better results with a D4 than a D800, as the D800 is woefully equipped for that task, but in general, for most commercial jobs that don't require anything specific, like massive resolution for product shots, or high speed shooting for sports or press, or movements for architectural photography... well, a camera is a camera at the end of the day. They're just tools. There's no ego or status attached to them... that's an amateur thing, not a professional thing.

plus... most professionals have a range of cameras as their disposal... some "pro", some not... you'd choose what's best for the job. The snobbery attached to those distinctions is very definitely an amateur trait, not a professional one.

Personally I've been looking to move to Full Frame for a long time

What are you hoping to gain? If there are real benefits for you in doing so, then yes, of course, but if not, it's a big investment if you need to upgrade lenses as well. If you have no need to do it, I wouldn't.

Forgive me for suggesting that professionals use professional equipment, now that's a novel idea. I'm not suggesting that is the only attribute of a professional but getting paid for it is only part of it and not the only criteria, arrogance and ego spring to mind.

You've got quite a few professional photographers in here telling you that you are wrong. Carry on if you want, but you're wrong You do not need professional gear to be a professional, and not all professionals use professional gear. It's as simple as that. The end.

I think the objection to your opinion was the way you stipulated it was COMPULSORY!... That implies you MUST have a full frame camera to be a professional, and that is obviously [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. It's ridiculous for many reasons, not least of which is that "full frame" is actually a crappy little small format to some of us, so it's hardly the pinnacle of quality you think it is. Secondly, it just doesn't matter for some jobs. Any camera would do, and often the simplest, lightest and fastest to use is the best, and that's not necessarily the "pro" gear in many instances.

Yup. I often wonder if the differences really matter when I read threads that go this way.

I'm pretty sure that just about any FF or APS-C DSLR or any MFT CSC will easily be able to print to A3 which is probably larger than 99% of users will ever print - assuming they print at all. So, the differences in sharpness between FF and MFT (to take the two mass market extremes of largish sensors) will pretty much be diddly squat in real viewing and will only be visible when measurabating.

I know.. which is why you always make this point in these threads.. and use that word. You like that word

Fact is.. yes it makes a difference... if you print big... as I've always maintained. If you don't print big, you don't need larger formats. It's as simple as that. There's the depth of field issue... you may have a need for that. The ability to crop more... that's worth considering if you need that or not. Pretty much it though. If all you do is publish online and run off the occasional A3 print, then you have no real need for full frame, and if you are already invested in DX or EF-S lenses, then you need to think carefully about what you think you'll be gaining before roasting a great deal of cash on something that will probably be of no benefit to your photography.

 

[big soft moose]

Fact is.. yes it makes a difference... if you print big... as I've always maintained. .

I'd contest that - as i said on another thead I've had a 40D file printed to A02 (for a huge wall picture behind a reception desk) , and the sharpness was fine for that. Okay I don't doubt that if it had been shot on a 5D3 it might have been technically sharper , but the point is that the client wouldn't have known or cared and neither would the visitors who see it on a daily basis.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'd contest that - as i said on another thead I've had a 40D file printed to A02 (for a huge wall picture behind a reception desk) , and the sharpness was fine for that. Okay I don't doubt that if it had been shot on a 5D3 it might have been technically sharper , but the point is that the client wouldn't have known or cared and neither would the visitors who see it on a daily basis.

But as a photographer, if you did this with any regularity, you'd be an idiot to insist that there was no real need to upgrade to a larger format Contest it all you want... when big prints are needed, sensor/film size really matters. For that job, I'd even ditch the D800 and go MF digital... because it would be the correct tool for the job, even though the D800 image would have been acceptable. The client may have been happy, but I wouldn't have been, particularly if it had my name on it anywhere. I'd cringe every time I saw it.

It's about NEED. If you regularly shoot for large display, you shoot on appropriate equipment, and a 40D is not appropriate for that... even though as you demonstrated it would be possible.

It's possible I could walk to work very morning, but driving is clearly the best way to get there.

 

[big soft moose]

I'd agree that a 40D isnt appropriate, but that would be about file size not sensor size - I wouldn't agree that either full frame or medium format are necessary , and i'd be happy to shoot that kind of work on regular basis with a 7D

Why ? , because as you say its about 'need' and there is no 'need' to invest the huge ammount of money that MF digital would require if the client is happy with the output from a crop sensored DSLR - going to a bigger sensor would provide a teeny tiny improvement in sharpness which would only be noticeable by those interested in pixel peeping and for which there is no real "need" in the real world

I could buy a Lamborghini Gulardo for my morning commute , and it would get me here a couple of minuites faster , but why would I 'need' to invest that ammount of cash when my ford focus gets me here just fine ?

 

[big soft moose]

I'd agree that a 40D isnt appropriate, but that would be about file size not sensor size - I wouldn't agree that either full frame or medium format are necessary , and i'd be happy to shoot that kind of work on regular basis with a 7D

Why ? , because as you say its about 'need' and there is no 'need' to invest the huge ammount of money that MF digital would require if the client is happy with the output from a crop sensored DSLR - going to a bigger sensor would provide a teeny tiny improvement in sharpness which would only be noticeable by those interested in pixel peeping and for which there is no real "need" in the real world

I could buy a Lamborghini Gulardo for my morning commute , and it would get me here a couple of minuites faster , but why would I 'need' to invest that ammount of cash when my ford focus gets me here just fine ?

 

[Pookeyhead]

No.. sensor size too. In fact, I've just prepped two files for A02 print @ 300dpi. One from a D800 and one from a D80. Resolution in terms of number of pixels is not the issue.. it's softness caused by sensor size/lens limits.

My monitor is set up to show true real life sizes under print preview, so after resizing, I've selected "print preview" as the size, and just grabbed what was there.

Full images

D800 image

D80 image

After preparing for A02 print @ 300dpi

crops (click for full A02 size crops)

D800

D80

Chalk and cheese mate... chalk and cheese.


Crop sensor cameras just suck at big prints.

 

[big soft moose]

which demonstrates what i just said - visible difference when you pixel peep , b****r all difference when viewed at the range that large prints are designed to be viewed at

I'd suggest we agree to disagree on this as we are coming at this from two very different perspectives - and at the end of the day i'm not saying you are wrong about the sharpness, just that it doesnt matter in the real world

 

[Pookeyhead]

which demonstrates what i just said - visible difference when you pixel peep , b****r all difference when viewed at the range that large prints are designed to be viewed at

I'd suggest we agree to disagree on this as we are coming at this from two very different perspectives - and at the end of the day i'm not saying you are wrong about the sharpness, just that it doesnt matter in the real world

We're not pixel peeping. Those are crops from the image exactly as it would look at A02. I can see the difference clearly from the other side of the room. How far away from the image are the clients if it's behind a reception desk? (shrug)

I'd say it does matter, and yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. However... The facts are now there for people make their own minds up over aren't they After all... why should they listed to either of us when there are actual A02 crops there to decide upon themselves.

 

[big soft moose]

I Can't see any didfference at about a meter away , let alone the other side of the room (although admittedly that could be because of the varying quality of our monitors) , however the point that is missing is the quality of the print - if its printed onto canvas for example the texture of the canvas would be far more apparent than any difference in sharpness.

However my core point is not whether you can tell if you look for difference, but whether it actually matters in the real world- most nonphotographers don't look at a pic hanging in that environment and think "umm thats a little bit less sharp than one i saw the other day " they just glance at it and say "ohh nice view " before moving on to their next appointment - if they remember it at all its the subject matter

Ditto with advertising hoardings etc - if you see a massive ad for coke zero , do you (or more pertinently does the average man in the street) think about how sharp the shot is, or do you just glance at it as you drive past

So my basic point is if a grands worth of crop sensored camera is sufficiently sharp to get the job done to a clients satisfaction, why would anyone go and lay out 5 times as much on an MF system just to get a teeny bit more sharpness ( I'm aware that there might be other reasons for choosing to shoot MF or FX - pixel count, Dof , and feild of view being the three that spring to mind )

 

[Pookeyhead]

Images are there now. Let others decide what's important or not rather than have them read our disagreements

 

[woof woof]

I know.. which is why you always make this point in these threads.. and use that word. You like that word

Fact is.. yes it makes a difference... if you print big... as I've always maintained. If you don't print big, you don't need larger formats. It's as simple as that. There's the depth of field issue... you may have a need for that. The ability to crop more... that's worth considering if you need that or not. Pretty much it though. If all you do is publish online and run off the occasional A3 print, then you have no real need for full frame, and if you are already invested in DX or EF-S lenses, then you need to think carefully about what you think you'll be gaining before roasting a great deal of cash on something that will probably be of no benefit to your photography.

I think you must have me confused with someone else as it's the first time in my life I've ever wrote that word. If that's the word you mean But yes, I do think that threads like this are OTT for most of users as most people reading this thread will rarely if ever print to anything like A3 or bigger although some may well crop heavily but then again may not print the result, most will never need high mp counts and most if truth be told will probably rarely if ever need the high ISO performance of the very latest and best.

If people want to aspire to FF I see little wrong in that, been there myself I'm still there (for reasons other than ultimate IQ) but the advantages and disadvantages need thinking about. Sorry to be boring and back on thread and the last point I'll make is that anyone going to the expense of going full frame probably shouldn't expect a leap in IQ as IMO it's only seen in the areas that truly push the envelope such as huge prints, excessive crops printed big, the extremes of ISO or when boosting the exposure by heroic amounts. Not everyone will go to those places too often. Discussion about pixels, CoC and magnification values etc just muddy the waters IMO and wont be an issue for many and possibly even most as has been pointed out... a 20D level camera is all some "pros" need IQ wise.

 

[DaveKing]

There are lots of reasons to move to full frame, and a lot of reasons why images look better when taken with a full frame camera. The biggest reason, I would argue, that images from a full frame camera look better than a shot by a MFT or APS-C it is more likely to have been taken by someone who is more seasoned as a photographer. A beginner who walks into a shop is more likely to walk out with an APS-C or a MFT camera than a FF, therefore an image with the 'wow factor' is more likely to be from a full frame than the rest simply because the user is better.

I'm buying a FF, not that I'm a good photographer (although I am better than when I first started), mainly because it offers me better use of legacy lenses at their designed focal lengths! Also because it is impossible to get a fast (f2 or quicker) 35mm equivelant lens for an APS-C Canon.

 

[fracster]

to the OP, unless he has died of boredom.

If you can afford to go full frame and if YOU want to, then do it. In my opinion, full frame gives more pleasing results, that does not matter if you are a pro or not. The biggest upsides of shooting full frame, for me ,is that the dynamic range seems better, they kick the backside out of crop bodies at high ISO and the DOF issue.

If these don`t matter, then stick with a crop body and save some money, there are some very good crop bodies out there.

Finally, you can have all the gear in the world, the most important part of your equipment is you. So ask yourself this, is your kit restricting you or is it you personally?

 

[sk66]

Smaller SENSORS do that, yes... not pixels.

Smaller sensors only do that when/because they have smaller pixels...

Taken to silly extremes, yes but an image from a 16MP FX sensor will appear sharper than one from a 16MP APS-C sensor, even though it's pixels are larger. It is still less enlargement required that makes larger sensors better.

????

• However, 0.03mm is smaller in proportion to the area of a full frame sensor than it is a crop sensor.

• 0.03mm is 0.12% of the total image width of a APS-C sensor (23.5mm x 16mm)

• 0.03mm is 0.08% of the total image width of a full frame sensor (36mm x 24mm)

This is not right. The COC for an APS sensor is ~.02mm. Applying the COC for an FX format to APS doesn't work.
It is "wrong" to directly correlate converting PPI to DPI (printing a digital image) as the same as printing from different sized film negatives. It has similarities (when pixel size is equal) but that's all. And there are plenty of reasons to decide that the COC standard is "incorrect," but at least it gives us a "standard" to evaluate things against/a basis for understanding.

As I said, if you keep the pixel sizes constant (not pixel count) between the two formats then the COC is entirely due to the enlargement required... same as for film. The reason the COC remains constant even as pixel count changes (increases resulting in less enlargement for a given print size) is that smaller pixels suck more.

The primary limiting factor on sharpness is actually the lens, and the use of the lens. The simple fact is smaller pixels require a much higher MTF from the lens itself (LP/mm) and most lenses cannot generate what is required. The other fact is you cannot stop down a lens as far when working with higher MP count (smaller pixel) sensors. (it's ~ f/5.6 for a D800)

The net result is that most see little benefit from higher MP count sensors in most situations and the larger sensor wins... but the reasons are entirely different.

It's these same reasons that the D800 "measures" as well as it does... but most do not understand the "why/how," and therefore don't understand that they are "oversampling" and recording huge files in order to get essentially the same results in most cases (or even worse results). And they don't understand that the D7100 is possibly the hardest to "correctly/optimally" use DSLR on the market today.

 

[big soft moose]

Also because it is impossible to get a fast (f2 or quicker) 35mm equivelant lens for an APS-C Canon.

what about the Canon 24mm f/1.4L - okay so its 3mm longer in EFV but its basically the same

 

[DaveKing]

what about the Canon 24mm f/1.4L - okay so its 3mm longer in EFV but its basically the same

OK, sorry I should of rephrased that a 'sensibly priced' 35mm equivalent lens. £1,300 is about the same price I am paying for a 6D with a 24-105 walkaround!

 

[big soft moose]

fair enough what about the sigma 18-35 f1.8 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-35mm-F1-8-Lens-Canon/dp/B00DBL0NLQ

at 18mm that gives a EFV of 29mm

 

[DaveKing]

True - but then if you want a 35mm f1.8 to put on the 6D they arent cheap either

Canon 35mm f2 is about £150 used. Now whether a 6D with a 35mm f2 would take better photos than a 450D with 24 1.4 is another argument...! But a 6D will allow me to use my £50 16mm fisheye, or my 50 1.4 at their desired focal lengths. Also a 20-35 (£70) is a much more useful focal length on the 6D than my 450D.

 

[Phil V]

Forgive me for suggesting that professionals use professional equipment, now that's a novel idea. I'm not suggesting that is the only attribute of a professional but getting paid for it is only part of it and not the only criteria, arrogance and ego spring to mind. I'm not having a go at anyone's professionalism, attitude, expertise or experience either as these are qualities amateurs and pros have in equal measure. What's winning an award got to do with being paid or being a pro exactly? Apologies for dragging the original subject off-topic.

Forgive you? Why? Because you decided to make a point that you could neither substantiate or understand?

I'm afraid you're free to back out, or bring 'evidence' but IMHO you're either trolling or you want us to take you seriously, which is it?

Frankly your post looks like you've read the Adidas predator advert and decided that any footballer who doesn't wear them can't call themselves 'professional', when someone points out that Christiano Ronaldo manages to do fine in Nike's, you've no idea what he's achieved (FIFA World player of the year) and because he doesn't wear Predators it's clear to you he's useless anyway.

Really, you should learn what the difference between OK, good, and great photographers is (not the gear), and then the difference between amateur and professional (not the gear either). Then you can try to work out how an average charging pro photographer can increase his income enough to justify buying only FF gear, and how comes that'll not be good enough at all should he want to compete in the world of commercial advertising photography. And when you've mulled that over, you'll realise that what David said is just true, for a professional or semi pro photographer the gear is a business investment, it has to pay for itself otherwise its an indulgence.

 

[HoppyUK]

Updated - see post #78 below

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Sorry for taking the thread off topic. It depends on your definition. Professionals use professional gear simple as; a 20d/40d/60d etc ain't (nor is a 5DMKIII strictly speaking).

I use a 5DMkII and a 100D. Guess I'm not professional then.

Sometimes... sometimes I even use a plastic toy camera.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Smaller sensors only do that when/because they have smaller pixels...

You're wrong.. it has NOTHING to do with pixels. Sensor size, as it always has been, is the largest determining factor in sharpness.

There are issues where pixel density and size play roles in various factors that affect sharpness to a degree, but they're pretty much an academic argument.

BTW.. COC is a product of the lens... it can not change from camera to camera. The COC of a 50mm Nikkor lens will be the same no matter what camera it is on. It's an optical aberration... it would be the same if the lens was focused on a FX sensor, DX sensor, or a piece of paper.

That statement alone loses you all credibility.

Fact

Fin.

If people want to aspire to FF I see little wrong in that, .

Me neither.. but I think they need to realise it will make no difference to their photography unless they DO print big. Then they are making a choice based on facts and not here say and internet myth. I've nothing aganst people just wanting one.

 

[big soft moose]

Canon 35mm f2 is about £150 used. Now whether a 6D with a 35mm f2 would take better photos than a 450D with 24 1.4 is another argument...! But a 6D will allow me to use my £50 16mm fisheye, or my 50 1.4 at their desired focal lengths. Also a 20-35 (£70) is a much more useful focal length on the 6D than my 450D.

I'm not saying don't upgrade - I'm sure the 6D offers allsorts of advantages over a 450D

I was merely pointing out that its possible to get a faster that f2 lens that will go on a crop for a reasonable(ish) price so that in itself isn't a good reason to upgrade if you were otherwise happy - incidentally where did you get a 16mm fish eye for 50 quid , or a 20-35 for £70 ? ( I wouldn't mind a 20-35 at that price)

 

[DaveKing]

I'm not saying don't upgrade - I'm sure the 6D offers allsorts of advantages over a 450D

I was merely pointing out that its possible to get a faster that f2 lens that will go on a crop for a reasonable(ish) price so that in itself isn't a good reason to upgrade if you were otherwise happy - incidentally where did you get a 16mm fish eye for 50 quid , or a 20-35 for £70 ? ( I wouldn't mind a 20-35 at that price)

I have a habit of buying things when I see them cheap the 20-35 is the f3.5-4.5 not the l though.

 

[arad85]

BTW.. COC is a product of the lens... it can not change from camera to camera.

I agree... but the term CoC diffraction limit is used to define when things are in or out of acceptable focus and this value is dependent on sensor size as well... I think many see CoC as interchangeable with CoC diffraction limit... which it isn't...

 

[HoppyUK]

Put it like this. If you have a car that accelerates from 0-60 in 6 seconds, you wouldn't expect it to go from 60-120mph in the same time. The higher you climb, the harder it gets. It's the same with lenses, and the more resolution required, the less sharp the image becomes.

'Sharpness' has two components. The fineness of detail is one - resolution, or pixels. The second component, and the more significant one for normal purposes, is contrast - how clearly those details are recorded. Resolution and contrast are the two axes of a lens MTF graph - Modulation Transfer Function, the tool lens designers use to measure sharpness - and a fundamental fact of optical physics is that when resolution demands go up, image contrast goes down. Therefore, with smaller APS-C sensors that require greater enlargement than full-frame, the increased resolution required goes hand in glove with reduced contrast. It's inevitable.

The examples below compare a Canon 5D2 (FF, 21mp) with a Canon 7D (APS-C, 18mp). The pixel counts are so similar as makes no difference. The lens is a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC, and it's very sharp at 35mm f/5.6. The target is famed exactly the same with both cameras, and it occupies one-thirtieth of the frame width, so whatever size you're seeing it on screen, multiply by 30x to get the size of the full image with (it'll be something like 4-6m wide, friggin enormous!).

The difference in sharpness between the two images is 11% MTF contrast. Note that there's nothing in it as far as resolution is concerned, the difference is that in the FF image the rings are just more clearly defined (the black areas are darker, and the white areas cleaner). That's typical of FF vs APS-C and clearly visible when viewed closely at this very large size. But if you step back a bit and look at them from a 'normal' viewing distance - basically from the far side of the next room in this case - then it's much harder to choose between them, if at all. Or, reduce the size on your screen so that each square is about 33mm wide. Then move your chair back to roughly 4ft, and you'll be viewing the equivalent of a 1.0m wide print from the standard viewing distance. (Standard viewing distance is the length of the diagonal of the whole frame. Incidentally, this is the distance used for calculating depth-of-field.)

5D2, 21mp full-frame


7D, 18mp APS-C

 

[HoppyUK]

Just a thought. If there was a poll of all TP members, the majority would be shooting on APS-C crop-format DSLRs.

Then ask what the 'professional' members were using for most of their work, and I have a strong suspicion that the majority would be shooting on full-frame. Certainly not all, and certainly not always, but mostly

 

[steveclem]

Some people love demonstrating how clever they think they are, they just can't help themselves. Pop goes another potentially interesting thread,forgive us Father,we are not worthy.