Could I be happy with a switch to FF?

[nbaresejr]

And thank you for posting the full size photo. That's quite remarkable at 12,800 ISO. Was that shot in RAW or Jpeg? Because I'm thinking the camera applies some NR when you shoot Jpeg. I could be wrong though, so I'm hoping someone will confirm.

I shoot in RAW. That image was imported into lightroom and saved to jpeg to post here. No adjustments were made. Yes you are correct in camera JPEG does apply some NR. That is a big reason I would not go crazy over the improved IQ on the 7d mkii. It could just be a better jpeg engine. Need to see a RAW to see if it improved or not.

I am loving the Luma Labs Cinch also. Its fairly popular on the Canon Photography on the Net forum. There is a long thread about it. I can post an image of the way i have it setup tonight when i get home.

 

[mom2rtk]

I am loving the Luma Labs Cinch also. Its fairly popular on the Canon Photography on the Net forum. There is a long thread about it. I can post an image of the way i have it setup tonight when i get home.

Thank you! Yes, I'd love to see a photo. I should ask everyone to post photos over on the strap thread. It really helps to have an actual image of what they are describing.

 

[havoc315]

I don't know where Havoc finds those lenses that are unsharp wide open lol

Fuji's lenses are all tack sharp wide open and full of contrast. Even the 56 is super sharp at 1.2.

LOL. I know I sometimes pixel peep too often. But even take your 56/1.2 as an example. Certainly, you can get acceptable shots wide open. But vignetting and sharpness improve when you stop down (at least according to the charts, I've never used the lens).
The center reaches maximum sharpness around F2.8-4, while the edges are best at 5.6 according to testing.

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/871-fuji56f12?start=1

We are fortunate, at the amount of quality glass available now. Even kit lenses can produce very nice results. Most lenses will be acceptably sharp in the center at all apertures. But even many of the best lenses, still benefit from stopping down, and they aren't at their best wide open. Which again brings me back to the point, that you don't need huge apertures unless you are doing extreme low light or want extremely narrow DOF. For most every day use, there is no reason to be shooting at 2.8 and faster.

 

[SkaGoat]

I shoot in RAW. That image was imported into lightroom and saved to jpeg to post here. No adjustments were made. Yes you are correct in camera JPEG does apply some NR. That is a big reason I would not go crazy over the improved IQ on the 7d mkii. It could just be a better jpeg engine. Need to see a RAW to see if it improved or not.

I am loving the Luma Labs Cinch also. Its fairly popular on the Canon Photography on the Net forum. There is a long thread about it. I can post an image of the way i have it setup tonight when i get home.

How does it handle with longer lenses, all the photos I've seen of the Luma Cinch are with cameras with smaller lenses. Looks like it could be awkward with a 70-200mm for example.

 

[SkaGoat]

LOL. I know I sometimes pixel peep too often. But even take your 56/1.2 as an example. Certainly, you can get acceptable shots wide open. But vignetting and sharpness improve when you stop down (at least according to the charts, I've never used the lens).
The center reaches maximum sharpness around F2.8-4, while the edges are best at 5.6 according to testing.

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/871-fuji56f12?start=1

We are fortunate, at the amount of quality glass available now. Even kit lenses can produce very nice results. Most lenses will be acceptably sharp in the center at all apertures. But even many of the best lenses, still benefit from stopping down, and they aren't at their best wide open. Which again brings me back to the point, that you don't need huge apertures unless you are doing extreme low light or want extremely narrow DOF. For most every day use, there is no reason to be shooting at 2.8 and faster.

I guess it depends on what you are shooting... Landscapes etc stopping down is advisable.

If I'm shooting portraits, or sports, I want my 70-200mm f/2.8 wide open, not only to keep shutter speeds high, but to make the subject pop out from the background, I know from personal experience, the shot is much more pleasing on my f/2.8 shots, when compared to the f/4 shots, even when pixel peeping will tell you the stopped down shot is sharper.

 

[havoc315]

You are right, almost all lenses are sharper when stopped up a little, but I think you may have missed his point... basically he was saying on a APS-C camera you don't have as big a drop is IQ, using EF lenses, you don't lose as much sharpness as with FF, and avoid most vignetting. You are only using the centre of the lens, where it is sharpest.
.

I understood his point, I think you are making a different and valid point. It's true that APS-C take advantage of the "sweet" spot of the lens -- But also true that even APS-C lenses, tend to get better results when stopped down.
But you more often shoot at 2.8 out of necessity, not preference.

On Canon APS-C, even the great 17-55L, is best between F4 and F5.6, even on APS-C

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d?start=1


Anyway, my point was that having 2.8 zooms is less critical on a fullframe camera, and it's not like shooting with a 2.8 on APS-C is just as good as shooting F4 on full frame.

Let me give an illustration -- For easier math, I'll assume Nikon/Sony/Pentax 1.5 crop ratio:
Taking a portrait......
APS-C, 33mm focal length, 50mm equivalent.....
From 5 feet away, aperture of 2.8, You get a DOF of about 9 inches. And let's say there is adequate light that you need ISO of 3200.

Now, let's put the 50mm lens on full frame -- 5 feet away, aperture of 2.8 -- Depth of field is 6 inches. Depending on the angle of the head, that might not be wide enough to even bring a whole head into focus. If it's a 2-person portrait, it makes it that much more challenging to bring them both into the DOF.
I'd say the difference between DOF of 6 inches and 9 inches is hardly insignificant.

So to get the 10 inches of DOF on the full frame.. You need to stop down to F4. You will obviously need to boost the ISO up 1 stop... to 6400.

So would I rather take this portrait with an APS-C, F2.8, ISO 3200, or Fullframe, F4, and ISO6400 ---
Having experience with both, I get much much better results with the latter set up.
Not to say I can't get good results with the APS-C setup. But having experienced both, the latter is noticeably better.

 

[fractal]

If you are taking portraits at ISO 6400 I would suggest you need more light.

 

[havoc315]

If you are taking portraits at ISO 6400 I would suggest you need more light.

Unnecessary on full frame, even on the A99...

Not quite 6400, but 3200:

holidayparty-31-Edit.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

6400:

untitled-15.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

5000:

untitled-1.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

3200:

untitled-6.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

5000:

rainy-18.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

6400:

untitled-3.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

And here is all the way up to 12800:

untitled-1.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

My point being, if you have an APS-C camera and find yourself shooting mostly over 1600-3200 then maybe you need to step up to a full frame beast. But under that, the differences ( as the video I posted state ) are negligible.

It also depends on what you are shooting and are doing with the shots. Havoc, are you printing these shots out at 8X10 or larger?

If you are taking a lot of high ISO shots and making large prints then full frame may be worth the extra cost, size and weight.

For me I stopped using a SLR camera for "family shots" because of size and PITA to carry around. I bet over 95% of my "family shots" I don't print out. I save on my computer or online more as a way to remember and document those times. If I want a shot to print out ( or make a Christmas Card, etc.) I will plan it more and make sure I can take it at no higher than ISO 800.

I bought an SLR to take "family shots" and abandoned it because of size, weight and general PITA to carry around. I didn't get back "into" photography until I purchased my mirrorless APS-c camera. The jump up to full frame brings back the PITA factor again (not to mention higher costs) and the times I needed a "full frame" for creative photography over my NEX-7 are very few and far between.

 

[fractal]

In addition, with the advances in NR software the gap narrows.

Here is an ISO 3200 shot run through DXO NR taken with the NEX-7 (sensor is notorious for higher ISO noise). I can live with this.

and if I'm really "jonesing" for full frame look, a "speed booster" adapter is a few hundred dollar away.

 

[havoc315]

My point being, if you have an APS-C camera and find yourself shooting mostly over 1600-3200 then maybe you need to step up to a full frame beast. But under that, the differences ( as the video I posted state ) are negligible.

It also depends on what you are shooting and are doing with the shots. Havoc, are you printing these shots out at 8X10 or larger?

If you are taking a lot of high ISO shots and making large prints then full frame may be worth the extra cost, size and weight.

For me I stopped using a SLR camera for "family shots" because of size and PITA to carry around. I bet over 95% of my "family shots" I don't print out. I save on my computer or online more as a way to remember and document those times. If I want a shot to print out ( or make a Christmas Card, etc.) I will plan it more and make sure I can take it at no higher than ISO 800.

I bought an SLR to take "family shots" and abandoned it because of size, weight and general PITA to carry around. I didn't get back "into" photography until I purchased my mirrorless APS-c camera. The jump up to full frame brings back the PITA factor again (not to mention higher costs) and the times I needed a "full frame" for creative photography over my NEX-7 are very few and far between.

All valid points. And very true, I don't print 99% of my shots. I stopped printing 4X6s of every shot ages ago. But the 1% I do print, I will make large prints, including some high ISO shots.
So I like the comfort of knowing that I *can* print.

And even viewing on a good computer screen... You can see the ISO advantages.
And there is a personal pride in the shots I take... so while others might not notice a difference in the shot, while I know that nobody would notice the difference in a 4X6, I know I want the shot to be as high quality as possible.

Few amateurs NEED a fullframe. You take great shots Fractal.... And one can certainly capture outstanding shots on APS-C.
Full frame though is a nice tool that can allow for even better photography. Just like any other tool.... a high quality lens, an external flash, external lighting, tripods, etc. It's a tool that can be used for even better photography.

 

[fractal]

Havoc,

From what I know of what your shoot and your style, I think the A99 FF is the right camera for you.

For me, "carry-ability" and other factors trump any extra performance I may get. I just wanted to play devil's advocate to help mom2trk figure out what's right for her.

 

[havoc315]

Also, in terms of lens prices....
If you really want to stick to 2.8 aperture, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 gets fantastic reviews, and it's not so expensive..
In fact, as it is stabilized, one can easily argue it's better than the Canon 24-70 2.8L.

 

[havoc315]

Havoc,

From what I know of what your shoot and your style, I think the A99 FF is the right camera for you.

For me, "carry-ability" and other factors trump any extra performance I may get. I just wanted to play devil's advocate to help mom2trk figure out what's right for her.

I'm not so sure it's right for me, lol. I have toyed with the idea of the A7... and Im more than toying with the idea of possibly switching to the Nikon D750.

But yes, I don't mind a bit of extra bulk most of the time. And, I agree that full frame is not a necessity for amateur photographers.

 

[SkaGoat]

In addition, with the advances in NR software the gap narrows.

Here is an ISO 3200 shot run through DXO NR taken with the NEX-7 (sensor is notorious for higher ISO noise). I can live with this.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of NR, you lose a lot of small details, I'd rather a little bit of grain in the photo, rather than over use NR, and have no noise, but a muddy photo.

 

[fractal]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of NR, you lose a lot of small details, I'd rather a little bit of grain in the photo, rather than over use NR, and have no noise, but a muddy photo.

In general I agree with you - especially when I use Lightroom. The NR is "eh".

DXO prime, however, is another animal. It takes forever to use but the results are amazing when I compare to LR.

 

[photo_chick]

I've been mulling over where to go with my camera for a while. My T2i is 4 years old with more than 58K shutter actuations. It has had a few issues that crop up and happen for a while, then disappear. It's still working fine today, but I'm considering where I want to go before it dies.

I really considered myself very happy with APS-C format, and have a great selection of lenses. Unfortunately, many of these lenses would not make the jump to FF with me if I went that direction.

I was so committed to APS-C that I recently bought the Sigma 18-35 g/1.8 lens. Now I find myself disappointed with its early performance. It's just missing focus far too much. I'm about to return it but don't know if I want to try another copy or just a refund. I don't think I can make this choice until I know if I want to make a change to FF or not.

I really hesitate to get a new APS-C camera until I find one that represents a nice jump in high ISO performance. They say the 70D is a little better, but I haven't heard that it's a lot better. I have not seen any confirmation on whether the new 7D Mii is enough better to justify the rather substantial price tag.

So my thoughts keep going back to the 6D which everyone says has amazing high ISO performance. I could sell a few lenses and probably make that happen. But I would have to give up a couple lenses that feel like family to me!

I could probably start with one or two lenses and get by for a while. But if I did, which ones? I have very unsteady hands and love shooting at 2.8 with IS. Would the Tamron 24-70 be the only option to accomplish that?

Mostly I'm just thinking out loud at this point..... as I sit here and try to decide what to do with this Sigma 18-35. I'd love to hear from others shooting with this lens. Maybe I'd like it more if I got an APS-C camera with microadjustment?

I was where you are. Then I had the 5D3 and the 6D both in my hands to play with. I went with the 6D for the ISO. While ISO performance isn't usually something I'd say upgrade a camera for, you mom2rtk, are at the point where you know what that performance will get you. You know if you want it. WANT being the operative word there. That's where I was and once I saw the 6D I was sold. Over the 5D3 even. I wanted that ISO baaad.

Useable ISO 12800 SOOC. That's all I'm saying. Noise reduction, no matter how good, is no substitute for low noise in your RAW images. That said, if you have good NR skills you will be that much happier with the camera's range.

Where the 6D falls short.... focusing on moving subjects. There are AF quirks. I find it hits a good 99% of the time for me and the AF is more responsive than my 50D was. And I'm super nit picky on focus. It also blows every other Canon AF system out of the water when your using the center point in low light. Which is handy for dark ride shooting.

As far as lenses... I love the 24-105. But then I've used that focal range for years and it's one I feel suits my style. I went with a 70-200 f/4 over the f/2.8 because the 6D's ISO is that good and the f/2.8 is too darn heavy. I've also got a smattering of primes which make it very fun to shoot in the dark.

As far as the thought of anyone, professional or amateur, needing full frame.... no one does. It's about what you want, not what you need once you get past basic functionality. Unless you start talking high end MF sized sensors. But that's a whole other ball game.

 

[nbaresejr]

Thank you! Yes, I'd love to see a photo. I should ask everyone to post photos over on the strap thread. It really helps to have an actual image of what they are describing.

I posted some pics in the thread asking about shoulder straps. If you need more pics or have a question i would be happy to answer

How does it handle with longer lenses, all the photos I've seen of the Luma Cinch are with cameras with smaller lenses. Looks like it could be awkward with a 70-200mm for example.

The lens does hang down but with the strap adjusted tight to the body its secure. With the strap hanging its not much different then the BR strap.

 

[Groucho]

So would I rather take this portrait with an APS-C, F2.8, ISO 3200, or Fullframe, F4, and ISO6400 ---
Having experience with both, I get much much better results with the latter set up.

But... what is so much better with the FF camera? Your DoF is virtually identical (assuming your calculations are accurate, 9" vs 10" of DoF.) Pretty much everything else is down to two things, both of which can vary quite a bit: sensor quality, especially older APS sensors vs today's... and lens quality, which is all over the map! You may also be comparing an APS with an AA sensor vs a FF without one.

I would expect the more intangible "look" of the photo to be much more dependent on the lens than the sensor.

 

[havoc315]

But... what is so much better with the FF camera? Your DoF is virtually identical (assuming your calculations are accurate, 9" vs 10" of DoF.) Pretty much everything else is down to two things, both of which can vary quite a bit: sensor quality, especially older APS sensors vs today's... and lens quality, which is all over the map! You may also be comparing an APS with an AA sensor vs a FF without one.

I would expect the more intangible "look" of the photo to be much more dependent on the lens than the sensor.

Of course lens quality comes into play.

But you missed the point. A modern full frame camera gives you approximately a 2-stop advantage over modern aps-c. Some may even say the Canon 6d has a 3 stop advantage over the Canon 70d.
So fullframe ISO of 6400 will have less noise, higher resolution, and better dynamic range, than 3200 on aps-c.

You're gaining 2-3 stops of IQ. You lose 1 stop in making up for the DOF.
Net result: you still gain 1-2 stops of iq.