Will i really miss the crop factor

riu

riu

Suspended / Banned
Messages
998
Name
steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Please help,

I am currently in a dilemma, I have a 7d and shoot mainly wildlife, but occasional documentary stuff. I am thinking of upgrading/changing the camera. Although highly delighted with the 7d I find even in low light and 2.8 lens that the camera does not handle these conditions well.

My question is, if I decide to go 5D Mk3 will I miss the crop factor, or will the quality of the images make it all the worthwhile.

When using the 7D I use 300mm f2.8 with either 1.4, or 2 x convertors.

any advice would be much appreciated

Steve
 
Hi Steve - I'd suggest using the 300 on its own in a situation where you'd usually have the 1.4x on.
If it drives you nuts then you've answered your own question!
Although I guess the 5d has more pixels so you do get some increase in croppability.
cheers, cw
 
Last edited:
you will miss the crop factor,but you get used to it.
 
Chris Wilson said:
Hi Steve - I'd suggest using the 300 on its own in a situation where you'd usually have the 1.4x on.
If it drives you nuts then you've answered your own question!
Although I guess the 5d has more pixels so you do get some increase in croppability.
cheers, cw
Click to expand...

Cheers Chris, will give it a try. If I don't like it might have to see what the 7d mk2 brings (if it arrives) or look at 70d
 
in a word. NO.
you will be so happy rolling around in full frame goodness you won't even notice (unless of course you shoot long all the time in which case you will, a bit) :)
 
I had a 7D and 5D3 pairing for a while and in the end I was shooting 90% of the time with the 5D3 and I also shoot a lot of wildlife and aircraft shots too. I didn't really miss the reach too much, after a while you tend not to notice it, and I was only using the 7D on 'great weather days'. I swapped the 7D for a 70D and use the 70D much more than I ever did the 7D but I still use the 5D3 most of the time. I usually use a Sigma 150-500 OS on the 5D3 but also use a 70-200 and 2x converter on the 70D and although you can tell the difference in reach the photos from the 5D3 are easily croppable to get the two shots very similar.
 
I may be missing the trick here or maybe not getting sucked into the "must have FF" scenario but if you get a FF and then crop to get the same results then whats the point?.....unless of course you do a lot of landscape stuff, though saying that i've never found 10mm on a crop not being wide enough.
I guess in the end it comes down to weather you'd compromise the reach for getting something that can print out quality large sized prints.
 
Martyn, I am not getting into "must have ff", what I am saying is that the 7d image quality at ISO's above 1000 is not as good as I would like. At the minute my only options seem to be 70D (not sure how it handles ISO above 1000) or 5Dmk3 (which by all reports are good at high ISO's). The other option is wait until the 7d mk2 comes out (if it does) , and see the reviews. To be honest would prefer to stay with crop sensor as I I have 17-55 F2.8 which I love. BUT as stated need better low light options.
 
riu said:
Martyn, I am not getting into "must have ff", what I am saying is that the 7d image quality at ISO's above 1000 is not as good as I would like. At the minute my only options seem to be 70D (not sure how it handles ISO above 1000) or 5Dmk3 (which by all reports are good at high ISO's). The other option is wait until the 7d mk2 comes out (if it does) , and see the reviews. To be honest would prefer to stay with crop sensor as I I have 17-55 F2.8 which I love. BUT as stated need better low light options.
Click to expand...

Sorry Steve, i wasn't aiming the must have FF thing directly at you but just in general, Stuart had said above that the shots from the 5d are easily cropable to get the same results, that was the bit that was confusing me, maybe i should read it as, get the same results size wise but with better IQ.
I do see what you mean about using high iso's with the 7d as have the same camera, have you tried dialling in +1/3 exposure comp as since doing this i've been getting better results, the big thing i've noticed on the 7d is it hates the lifting of shadows, seems to bring in a lot of noise, but copes a lot better with darkening of highlights.
 
Martyn D said:
Sorry Steve, i wasn't aiming the must have FF thing directly at you but just in general, Stuart had said above that the shots from the 5d are easily cropable to get the same results, that was the bit that was confusing me, maybe i should read it as, get the same results size wise but with better IQ.
I do see what you mean about using high iso's with the 7d as have the same camera, have you tried dialling in +1/3 exposure comp as since doing this i've been getting better results, the big thing i've noticed on the 7d is it hates the lifting of shadows, seems to bring in a lot of noise, but copes a lot better with darkening of highlights.
Click to expand...

No worries Martyn and no offence taken. I will try the +1/3 exposure comp setting and see how I get on. I would prefer to stay with a crop body if possible, but need better low light performance.
regards
Steve
 
IQ on a FF is just nicer, maybe its because I came from a film background but I prefer the image from a FF camera. I am super happy with a 5D that I never was with a cropped format.
Matt
 
You will obviously miss the reach you currently get with the 300x2. How much, depends on you. Cropping down the 5D3 to 1.6x format will only leave you with 9mp. Why not keep the 7D as well? Not that much money in the overall scheme of things. 7D doesn't like under-exposure, so keep the histogram over to the right a bit with + compensation, as mentioned above.

My guess on the 7D Mk2 is that it will fill the slot vacated by the 1D4. I suspect it will be very good indeed, but priced accordingly.
 
I had a 60D and 6D for a while. I found that when shooting long lenses I was usually in high iso territory in order to keep shutter speeds up. At ISO 1600 up I needed to resize the 60D images down to minimise noise. The 6D images were already clean, and cropping them down to match the field of view of the 60D image left me with two files of similar size. I subsequently sold the 60D as I wasn't realising the potential reach at high iso.
 
Martyn D said:
Stuart had said above that the shots from the 5d are easily cropable to get the same results, that was the bit that was confusing me, maybe i should read it as, get the same results size wise but with better IQ.
Click to expand...

Whilst I said you can crop to get the same results it's very rare I crop any of my photos for anything other than changing the composition (to get the subject on a rule of thirds line etc.) but certainly not for reach.
 
I would certainly miss the reach of the 7D so although I now have a 6D I retained the 7D and it still gets used way more than the 6D (even thinking of "downgrading" the 6D to a 70D!).
 
jonneymendoza said:
Says who?
Click to expand...
.. says every site you look at. Obviously it cant be confirmed due to contractual agreements but again at the winter olympics there where unbranded small canon cameras.
 
barratt1988 said:
.. says every site you look at. Obviously it cant be confirmed due to contractual agreements but again at the winter olympics there where unbranded small canon cameras.
Click to expand...
Small? The original 7d was Same size as 5d.

I admit I have not been following gear as I am too busy shooting.

I am only on the lookout for a 50mm 1.2 mk2
 
jonneymendoza said:
Small? The original 7d was Same size as 5d.

I admit I have not been following gear as I am too busy shooting.

I am only on the lookout for a 50mm 1.2 mk2
Click to expand...
Small ie no grip. Look I duno why your questionin me youve got the net look for your self.

Seem to have a bit of a chip
 
Why would you miss the 'crop factor'? The smaller sensor is not giving you 'extra reach' from a lens, it's simply pre cropping the image. If you want that 'reach' from a Full Frame then there is nothing to stop you cropping to achieve the exact same result.

Nothing to lose then.
 
Ari said:
Why would you miss the 'crop factor'? The smaller sensor is not giving you 'extra reach' from a lens, it's simply pre cropping the image. If you want that 'reach' from a Full Frame then there is nothing to stop you cropping to achieve the exact same result.

Nothing to lose then.
Click to expand...

I made the move from 7d to 5d iii last year partly because of my frustration with noise issues and secondly because some of my work gets blown up on to quite large canvases.

The improvement in the way the camera handles low light will blow you away. Tight crops with good glass will give you excellent results. Additionally the af system on the 5diii is vastly superior. I kept the 7d for a while just to make sure but it never got used again and I sold it.

Go for it :)

Gerry
 
Ari said:
Why would you miss the 'crop factor'? The smaller sensor is not giving you 'extra reach' from a lens, it's simply pre cropping the image. If you want that 'reach' from a Full Frame then there is nothing to stop you cropping to achieve the exact same result.

Nothing to lose then.
Click to expand...
Eh?

If you have a 12mp D300 and a 12 mp D700,for example,how can cropping the D700 by 50% give the same image quality as the D300 would give you?
 
fracster said:
Eh?

If you have a 12mp D300 and a 12 mp D700,for example,how can cropping the D700 by 50% give the same image quality as the D300 would give you?
Click to expand...

Because:

From Ansel Adams in his classic book “The Camera” (New York Graphic Society 1980).

"All lenses of the same focal length give images of the same size at any given subject distance."

This is why the image on a DSLR is not actually magnified in any way by the 1.6x ‘multiplier’.

"All lenses of the same focal length have the same angle of view for any given format."
​
The image simply appears 1.6 times bigger because your cropped sensor is capturing less of what the lens sees. It is not magnifying, it is cropping. :confused:
​
 
gerryrys said:
Because:

From Ansel Adams in his classic book “The Camera” (New York Graphic Society 1980).

"All lenses of the same focal length give images of the same size at any given subject distance."

This is why the image on a DSLR is not actually magnified in any way by the 1.6x ‘multiplier’.

"All lenses of the same focal length have the same angle of view for any given format."
​
The image simply appears 1.6 times bigger because your cropped sensor is capturing less of what the lens sees. It is not magnifying, it is cropping. :confused:
​
Click to expand...

Additionally there are differences in the way the sensors are made up on the two different format sizes. Lots of info here
 
gerryrys said:
Because:

From Ansel Adams in his classic book “The Camera” (New York Graphic Society 1980).

"All lenses of the same focal length give images of the same size at any given subject distance."

This is why the image on a DSLR is not actually magnified in any way by the 1.6x ‘multiplier’.

"All lenses of the same focal length have the same angle of view for any given format."
​
The image simply appears 1.6 times bigger because your cropped sensor is capturing less of what the lens sees. It is not magnifying, it is cropping. :confused:
​
Click to expand...
His point is that you get more pixels in crop then in full frame
 
Hang on, I think I may be reading this wrong, so bear with me.

I know that my 500mm lens is 500mm whether on a crop or full frame.

So I take a frame filling shot of a buzzard with a 12 mp crop camera body like a D300. I then quickly swap my D700, 12 mp full frame onto the lens and take the same shot.

I know the sensor crops the image on the D300. So, to get the same framing on my D700 shot, I would have to crop the image by 50%. But I would then lose 50% of my lovely megapixels.

So,ignoring the fact the DOF and high ISO performance is different, how would an image cropped by 50% in pp be better than the same image that has not been cropped and still has all the pixels in it?
 
i guess one way of looking at it is:
1. shoot with crop sensor, fill the frame and have 12.3mp image (D300)
or
2. shoot with Full Frame, crop image down to fill the frame and have a 5-6mp image.

Thats why some or most wildlife shoot with crop (for that extra `reach`)
Unless of course you can afford the extra zoom glass to fill the frame for you on Full frame.
 
OK, so I think we are all agreeing with each other here. In a round about sort of way.
 
jonneymendoza said:
His point is that you get more pixels in crop then in full frame
Click to expand...

Yes, but only because the pixels are smaller. Because they are smaller and closer together they do not collect so much light hence the noise issue with cropped sensors.
 
Well I have certainly learnt a few things, but still unsure which way to go. Luckily I have offered the chance to try the 5dmk3 and 70d, so I can make comparison's with my current 7D. Hopefully this will answer my question, and maybe the long awaited 7 mk2 will have been announced by then, if it ever exists.
 
I have a couple of projects that will heavily rely on very ISO's as a result I have decided to go 5mk3 and keep the 7d for my wildlife forays, thanks for all the advice and information.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top