Dumb APS-c vs FF question
Please humor me with this one:
I shoot with a Canon 50d and am considering the jump to full frame but concerned about losing the 'reach' I get.
For this shot, I used the 70-200/4 IS at 155mm:
Is my understanding re: FF correct in that:
If I shot with the 5D II at 155mm, I would get the same exact perspective but would have to crop to get this image? If so, would I essentially end up where I am now (as this is on a 15MP sensor)?
If I shot with the 5DII at 200mm, I might get closer to this framing/composition but would have a slightly different perspective? Though granted the 70-200 doesn't really do any distortion from 150-200...
I'm more concerned about shots like those of a full moon where I currently shoot at 200mm on an APS-C 15MP sensor and am trying to figure out if I will essentially get the exact same image from a FF sensor at 21MP if I just then cropped in Lightroom (well, pretty close - 1.6 x 15MP = 24 MP)
Thanks
I shoot with a Canon 50d and am considering the jump to full frame but concerned about losing the 'reach' I get.
For this shot, I used the 70-200/4 IS at 155mm:
Is my understanding re: FF correct in that:
If I shot with the 5D II at 155mm, I would get the same exact perspective but would have to crop to get this image? If so, would I essentially end up where I am now (as this is on a 15MP sensor)?
If I shot with the 5DII at 200mm, I might get closer to this framing/composition but would have a slightly different perspective? Though granted the 70-200 doesn't really do any distortion from 150-200...
I'm more concerned about shots like those of a full moon where I currently shoot at 200mm on an APS-C 15MP sensor and am trying to figure out if I will essentially get the exact same image from a FF sensor at 21MP if I just then cropped in Lightroom (well, pretty close - 1.6 x 15MP = 24 MP)
Thanks
Eyal
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
0
Comments
Other than that, my understanding is the same as yours. At 155mm, this exact image would live in the middle of a 5DII image (but of course you'd get all the benefits of lower noise per pixel, etc, from FF). You'd get a bit more compression shooting at 200mm vs. 155, and the changes in DoF that come with the longer FL as well. Unless I'm totally wrong on that, too.
My site 365 Project
FF cameras do have some other drawbacks too. They're more susceptible to certain aberrations, and since it uses more of the lens you have to worry more about corner issues at low apertures.
Any particular reason you're considering a FF body?
I have a friend who is a portrait photographer in town. She just switched from the 50D to the 5D II. She did me a favor by shooting some headshots and used her trusty 50/1.4. When I get the shots back, I saw distortions that I would normally expect at 30mm. Makes me wonder if the move up will cause me more headache than its worth.
Demian - here's a thread I started discussing my thoughts on staying with the crop body vs moving to FF
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=212238
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Moving Beyond Photography
VirtualPhotographyStudio.com
- x1.6 "reach" over similar MP field, and
- a much more affordable (compared to EF L) EF-S glass line that still provides decent results.
- well, it's also smaller and lighter, but I never cared about that :-)
However, once you start shooting with a comparable L counterpart glass on FF body you really can see the difference. E.g. EF 16-35 II L on 5D2 produces, IMHO, considerably better results than EF-S 10-22 on 7D. Granted, it also costs considerably more: $1,600 vs $800 (both new).In OP example, snapping 50mm on FF is a bit too short for a good portrait work, methinks. You really want be above 70mm to avoid the distortion, at least for the upper body/headshots (full height/groups are different subject).
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Also, yeah anyone who shoots headshots on a 50mm on full-frame, well, they don't really know what they're doing. A headshot should really be shot at 85-100+mm, to minimize forehead / nose distortion. Unless you're a supermodel, and even then there's a reason that many high-fashion photographers have a love affair with a 200 f/2.0 hehe.
50mm is for medium length / family portraits, and general photojournalism. It is not for headshots. I know this may shock many, but trust me! Or, don't trust me:
http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2010/07/21/the-ideal-focal-length-for-portraiture-a-photographers-experiment/
http://www.lesjones.com/2011/06/15/effect-of-lens-focal-length-on-portraits/
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
In her defense, she had just moved up from the crop to FF and was still playing with it. I do need to figure out how to explain this to her though.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Certainly understandable. As a general rule, I NEVER "scold" someone for doing something unless I've also made that mistake myself, and feel qualified to speak on the subject .
As someone with a big nose and a shrinking hairline, I do prefer to be shot at 85mm+ :-P
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Meanwhile, latest out of Canon Rumors is that there may not even be a 7D II. I find it very hard to believe that Canon would leave that area of the semi-/pro crop but it would make this discussion less important. Given a choice between a 70D and 5D III, I would choose the FF jump. Hoping the 7D II does materialize at some point to offer a path forward.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
No. Compression is not a factor of a crop sensor. Compression is a result of the magnification of the lens itself, and the compression in the same 200mm lens image presented to different sensors will be the same on crop/FF/m4/3/MF/iPhone/etc (once you align the image to the sensor plane). The image projected to the sensor is what it is from a particular lens, the size of the sensor does not change the optics involved in producing/focusing the image. What changes is the area of the projected image circle that is actually captured. Crop sensors only take the middle ~40-45% of the circle and present it as the entire image, thus giving an impression that a longer lens was used with respect to angle/field of view. A 200mm lens on crop has the angle/field of view similar to a 300mm on FF, but it still has the DoF and compression of a 200mm lens. So, to get the same angle/field of view, you use a 300mm lens on FF, which has a narrower DoF for the same image than the 200mm lens, and the image compression will also be different due to the higher magnification of the 300mm lens.
My site 365 Project
85mm
24mm (cropped)
The focal length obviously effects the DOF (I think I shot these at f/4) but otherwise they are identical.
But it also wouldn't give you less compression.
My site 365 Project
Less compressed. He would be shooting at 200mm on FF, whereas the crop camera at 155mm had an equivalent FOV to 248mm on FF. When the subject occupies the same amount of the frame, then a wider FOV means less compression while a narrower FOV means more.
I thought the pictures would be enough...
EDIT: I'm going to restate this simply:
RULE 1: Compression is ONLY affected by the relative distance between the lens and different objects.
The ONLY effect that focal length, FOV, or anything else has on compression is forcing you to get closer or further to fill the frame with your subject.
They don't look identical to me; the front can in the 2nd shot looks bigger.
I don't think I am disagreeing with you...It's just that when there are several variables at work it gets a bit complicated.
That said, it is interesting to consider what causes the apparent compression in longer lenses. If you take identical shots with different FL lenses, then crop (as you did) so they have the same FOV, the compression looks similar.
Ok, I give. I understand what you're saying. I don't think well in terms of FF, I suppose, as both my cameras are DX. So I was/am thinking only about changing focal lengths, and not about what the additional component of switching sensor size as well as FL does to the image. Again, mea culpa.
My site 365 Project
I guess it wasn't a 'dumb' question if we're throwing equations into the discussion. Thanks everyone for the lively interaction. While it has seemed like a no-brainer in the past to aim for a FF camera, I'm realizing there are a ton of little things to think about before making the jump.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Not dumb at all! In fact, I have been giving a bit of thought to the exact causes of compression (and enjoying the process).
I prefer FF, though in my collection of bodies I have crop factors of 1.6, 1.3 and 1.0. They each have their place, though CF seldom enters my thinking on which bodies to use.
Seems nobody has addressed this point.
To calculate the megapixels of a Canon APS-C sensor extended to Full Frame, you have to multiply by 1.6 twice.
The reason for this is that the FF sensor is 1.6 times wider and 1.6 times taller than APS-C.
That is why the 5DII has the same pixel density as the 20D. 8.2mp x 1.6 x 1.6 = 21mp.
Take a 5DII shot (5616 x 3744), crop it to 3510 x 2340 (8.2mp) and you get an APS-C sized image.
Your 50D has the pixel density of an imaginary 38mp FF camera.
So for your full moon shot at 200mm, you'll be putting significantly fewer pixels on the moon. The fix of course, is to buy a 300mm lens, or a 1.4x teleconverter. Or just don't print bigger than 12x18".
I have a 7D and a 5DII. The difference in DOF is extremely over-hyped. The benefits to FF as far as I can tell are:
Note that only the first three items will always be true.
The only time APS-C beats FF is when you are focal-length limited, as is the case with your moon shot and your current lenses.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I guess the ultimate question is: is it upwards of $6000 'better'... I know only I can answer that question in the end.
Lower noise would be nice but I have only shot above 800 a handful of times with my 50D. When I did, I would just do a black/white conversion and introduce film-like grain with Silver Efex pro on purpose for that 'look'
Bigger viewfinder is nice but not $2000-more-nice
Pixel peeping, while fun, doesn't really mean that much in the end
And I'm definitely not buying a 300 or 400mm lens anytime soon...
As for walk-around, I really like the 17-55 2.8 IS for that and would have a hard time 'moving up' to the 24-70 2.8 II for so much more money.
For better or worse, I am very comfortable with the APS-C sensor and my current lens line up. I can pre-visualize which lens to use for a given shot and have found the sweet spots for each lens. As I said above, a friend recently shot me with a 50 on the 5D II and I was shocked to see distortion akin to the 30/1.4 I used on my 50D previously. It would be a big curve to get used to how the lenses 'should' work. Without a history of shooting film with an SLR, the 'real' focal length is somewhat arbitrary/irrelevant to my way of shooting/thinking.
I do sell my landscape photography in town and have never had someone look up close and comment on any noise that might be in a finished print. And in fact, I am getting ready for an individual exhibit where I have some really nice shots printed up at 18x24 without any problems.
I'm not trying to be adversarial here by the way (this sort of reads that way - sorry). Just going through the arguments spelled out here and in my head as I decide what to do.
Will wait to see what the 5D/7D upgrades bring and consider my options then.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
I did start with film and I still shoot it occasionally, so I feel more at home with FF. The 17-55/2.8IS is awesome and actually more useful than the 24-70. However the 17-55 is a dust vacuum. At least the one I had was and I did not use a UV filter. Sounds like that is the only aspect of APS-C that might affect you. At low ISO, you would have to print 20x30" and put your nose to it to see any difference between the 7D and 5DII. This is basically the same as pixel peeping, and I agree it is pretty meaningless.
*I am selling my 7D to save up for the 5DIII. When the 5DIII gets here I'll sell my 5DII.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
As for the whole APS-C vs FF, I'm going to stay on the fence until the 5D III and 7DII/70D are announced. I'm hoping they don't put out a 20+MP APS-C - I think that's one factor that may drive me to FF as I can't imagine getting any better image quality out of more than a 15 MP sensor of that size.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
I am actually rethinking this topic in trying to decide whether to follow-up on my pre-order of a 1Dx. My mark IV works great, and though I can occasionally use the higher ISO of a 1Dx, I'm not sure it is a justification to spend that kind of money. I do shoot sports professionally, but only to get the media credential.
How did you go about establishing that part of the relationship? I'd like to continue growing my skills in this area, but wasn't sure how to even start going about getting on the sidelines.
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
I got my start by working a connection at the local newspaper, and building a portfolio from there. Basically, any way you can get access to a good college or professional team will give you a start on your portfolio. It takes some work, but usually you can find a sponsor somewhere.
Thanks for the reply.
Sorry for the thread-jacking.
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site