Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 5,451
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: You can't get the full frame body without getting a coupl...


jrhoffman75 wrote:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/03/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-shootout-can-tell-difference/


Meaningless, IMHO.  Without knowing the ISO exposure settings, the comparisons are meaningless.  I have already admitted that there is little difference at the lower ISO settings.  And, the article points out that they used wide aperture settings to keep ISO low.

My point has been, and still is that the differences show up the most at higher ISO settings, upwards of ISO 3200 and ISO 6400. Compare two photos taken at ISO 128000.  In most cases, it will be like night and day.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Honored Contributor
Posts: 5,451
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: You can't get the full frame body without getting a coupl...

A full frame sensor shines at the higher ISO settings.  I woke up to a butterfly before sunrise, in the morning dew, at 45 degrees.

 

EOS 6D Mark II, w/ EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM - 1/32, f/5.6, ISO 25600, @ 105mm, No Cropping

 

EOS 6D Mark II2017_10_030669.jpg

 

 

EOS 6D Mark II, w/ EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM - 1/32, f/5.6, ISO 25600, @ 105mm, roughly 50% Cropping

 

EOS 6D Mark II2017_10_030670.jpg

 

An APS-C sensor cannot come close to this level of low noise at ISO 25600.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,746
Registered: ‎12-02-2012

Re: Which body?


inkjunkie wrote:

This is a bit difficult for me to explain. I have seen photos from various different folks that were taken on full size cameras.  I realize that these photos were more than likely shot in raw and massaged some in an aftershocks program. But this pictures were very eye catching. The focused image was very sharp...with noticeably more detail than what I take. 

I realize that I need to learn how to take better photos before I can utilize a better body. 

 

After posting this last night I realized that I need tof not be so hooked on a full frame. That I need to get better lenses and learn how to use them..and the body correctly. But it doesn't change the fact I would like to get a full size body. 

 

Long and short term objectives...this sounds like a bit of a cop out but I just want to become a better photographer. The owner of the track has given me permission to be trackside next year. In exchange he is expecting me to provide him with some eye grabbing stills and video. 

 

I am one of those folks that sets his goals a bit higher than they should be. I have severe Cervical and Lumbar Spinal stenosis...so often times achieving my goals has become **bleep** near impossible...of late I have repeatedly let myself down...I don't want this to be another one of "those times". 

I hope this answered your question...if not please just say so...I will put some more thought into this...


I hear you. Your solution as far as equipment goes will either be better lenses or better lenses plus a full frame body. There is no possible way the answer is just a full frame body since your current crop lenses won't work on full frame, and because glass just makes a bigger difference than bodies anyway.  I promise if you get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and you shoot it at large apertures (f/2.8 or so) you will see your subject will pop out from the background and the image will be sharp and contrasts compared to any kit lens you had. You will notice a difference. 

 

If you are shooting in decent light the crop and the full frame will give pretty indistinguishable results in most scenarios, and in many cases the superior autofocus of your T7i may best the simpler 6d. The lenses are another story. Start with a good EF L lens or two. You'll need it anyway if/when you go full frame.  

Scott

Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 4,381
Registered: ‎11-13-2012

Re: Which body?

Remember what the OP said:

 

"Do 0 printing, only share them to Facebook"

John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X, Rebel T5i, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, MX472
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,734
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Which body?


jrhoffman75 wrote:

Remember what the OP said:

 

"Do 0 printing, only share them to Facebook"


Which is arguably inconsistent with his subsequent assertion that the track manager will be counting on him for "eye grabbing stills and video". Reading an OP's mind is often difficult, and it certainly seems to be so in this case.

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 4,381
Registered: ‎11-13-2012

Re: Which body?

Stills and video can be posted to FB.

I’m not sure that’s inconsistent if the track manager wants to boost his social media presence. If a business is on FB it’s all about “likes”.

But I do agree the more clear the question the better the answer.
John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X, Rebel T5i, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, MX472
VIP
Posts: 8,128
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: You can't get the full frame body without getting a coupl...

This silly debate goes on forever.  The truth is some FF cameras will offer a distinct advantage in noise levels.  FF sensors are not inherently sharper, less noise, than sub-full frame sensors.  It is the pixel size that determines most of this.

 

Advantages of a FF sensor go beyond low light noise performance to things such as DR (Dynamic Range) and TR (Tonal Range).  Made possible because of the fact you have more pixels.  More importantly, most cameras with larger sensors also tend to have more powerful internal processing units.

 

Carry this to the extreme, say compare a 1Ds Mk II (FF) to a 7D Mk II (cropper), which has better low light performance.  Most will opt for the 7D2. The ongoing improvement in sensors and image processing means current APS-C sensors are as good or better in low light situations as a FF were a few years ago.  In fact it can be narrowed down even further to just different models available today.

A lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,734
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: You can't get the full frame body without getting a coupl...


ebiggs1 wrote:

This silly debate goes on forever.  The truth is some FF cameras will offer a distinct advantage in noise levels.  FF sensors are not inherently sharper, less noise, than sub-full frame sensors.  It is the pixel size that determines most of this.

 

Advantages of a FF sensor go beyond low light noise performance to things such as DR (Dynamic Range) and TR (Tonal Range).  Made possible because of the fact you have more pixels.  More importantly, most cameras with larger sensors also tend to have more powerful internal processing units.

 

Carry this to the extreme, say compare a 1Ds Mk II (FF) to a 7D Mk II (cropper), which has better low light performance.  Most will opt for the 7D2. The ongoing improvement in sensors and image processing means current APS-C sensors are as good or better in low light situations as a FF were a few years ago.  In fact it can be narrowed down even further to just different models available today.


Which brings up a question I've thought about a bit lately: How do the 5D3 and the 5D4 compare in low-light performance? I've found the 5D3 to be excellent in that respect, and one would suppose that the newer sensor of the 5D4 would be even better. But as Ernie points out, pixel size matters; and the 5D4 crams almost half again as many pixels on a sensor of the same size. Does the newer technology cancel out the effect of the additional pixels? Depending on what's important to a potential buyer, it could make a big difference, given that right now a 5D4 costs $1000 more than a 5D3.

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,746
Registered: ‎12-02-2012

Re: You can't get the full frame body without getting a coupl...


RobertTheFat wrote:

ebiggs1 wrote:

This silly debate goes on forever.  The truth is some FF cameras will offer a distinct advantage in noise levels.  FF sensors are not inherently sharper, less noise, than sub-full frame sensors.  It is the pixel size that determines most of this.

 

Advantages of a FF sensor go beyond low light noise performance to things such as DR (Dynamic Range) and TR (Tonal Range).  Made possible because of the fact you have more pixels.  More importantly, most cameras with larger sensors also tend to have more powerful internal processing units.

 

Carry this to the extreme, say compare a 1Ds Mk II (FF) to a 7D Mk II (cropper), which has better low light performance.  Most will opt for the 7D2. The ongoing improvement in sensors and image processing means current APS-C sensors are as good or better in low light situations as a FF were a few years ago.  In fact it can be narrowed down even further to just different models available today.


Which brings up a question I've thought about a bit lately: How do the 5D3 and the 5D4 compare in low-light performance? I've found the 5D3 to be excellent in that respect, and one would suppose that the newer sensor of the 5D4 would be even better. But as Ernie points out, pixel size matters; and the 5D4 crams almost half again as many pixels on a sensor of the same size. Does the newer technology cancel out the effect of the additional pixels? Depending on what's important to a potential buyer, it could make a big difference, given that right now a 5D4 costs $1000 more than a 5D3.


Look at DXO Mark. While their "overall rating" is subjective and opaque, their ratings on low light appear to be based on some objective criterion. 

Scott

Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,746
Registered: ‎12-02-2012

Re: You can't get the full frame body without getting a coupl...

Look at their number for "Sports". It is the highest ISO setting at which they deem image quality to be good. The 5d4 gets 2995 while the 5d3 was in the 2293. 

 

Even if their definition of "good" and yours probably differ, the numbers are at least presumably based on some consistent threshold of image quality that is the same every time. So a 5d4 at ISO 2995 would look the same as a 5d3 at 2293 looks. 

Scott

Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement