taking picture advice

[JROK]

The 5D has been around for what, almost 3 years now? What happened to the 18 month replacement cycle? The 5D is long overdue and I hope that the extra time means they'll blow the D700 out of the water (I'm a Canon user). I want a 3" LCD that's at least 900,000 pixels, at least 45 AF points, and at least 6fps in RAW. I'm thinking maybe they'll use the old 16MP sensor they have and just revamp it to 14-bit. That'll give it more than the D700 and attract MP nuts. I for one am pleanty happy with 10MP I get from my 40D and was happy with 8MP on my 20D. ISO 50-6400 standard, with some boost available, although 6400 should be pleanty.

Now only if they had all that for $2,000 instead of $3,000! Only reason I'd upgrade is for the sharpness of full-frame.

 

[EpcoTim]

The sharpness of full frame?

 

[PhotoDave219]

The sharpness of full frame?

Yeah..... The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the sharpness. The size of the sensor affects the crop ratio with the lenses.

The original Canon 1D & Nikon D1 & D2 (as well as all the prosumer and entry level models except the 5D & D700) series all have APS sized sensors as opposed to a sensor the size of a 35mm piece of film. This means that all the light coming from the lens is not captured, as the light goes over the edges. Full frame captures everything, wherein your 20mm lens now behaves like a 20, not a 30.

Sharpness of the image has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, although i will take issue with the D2X's high speed crop mode. I have trouble getting something tack sharp out of that when there's a teleconverter on a the 400.

Sharpness has more to do with a couple of factors. 1 - Have you focused it right? 2 - Is it a decent lens? 3 - How much depth of field are you allowing? If you images aren't as sharp as you want, i'd suggest stopping down the lens you're having problems with. The 17-35 i have is notorious for back focusing so in important situations - say yesterday when i'm out in the middle of a thunderstorm covering storm damage - i'll go to 5 or 5.6 just to make sure what i need is in focus if the lens decides to get wonky. Also zoom lenses, even if they are the $1400 super-fast 2.8 variety, just are not as sharp as a fixed, prime lens. There are fewer lens elements going on and nothing moves beyond the focusing elements.

As for the D700 vs 5D mark ii.... keep holding your breath. Canon can't even fix the autofocus problems its having with the 1Dmk3's. What Nikon has done is to give shooters a level playing field, putting their cameras on par or maybe slightly ahead of what Canon has done lately. I just cant understand why Canon toyed with their AF system and wont accept taht theres a problem.

Hey Tim... no chance the 5D mark ii comes in at under 2 Grand. I think that Nikon releasing their D700 has more to do with bringing down the costs of the full frame sensor then anything else.

 

[EpcoTim]

Well if Nikon can hit the reported 1899 number, then I will most likely jump ship. I also don't see Canon releasing a 5DII anytime soon with all the other garbage they have going on. Every camera they make right now has some sort of issue.

And on the full frame topic......A full frame high-MP sensor, like the 16mp in the old 1Ds II will actually out-resolve most consumer grade and some pro lenses. So if your looking for a sharp full framer, you better make sure you have the glass to go in front of it. And also, with a crop body, you are only using the very center of the lens, the best part. With full frame you use the whole lens, which on most lenses will introduce edge distortion, barrel distortion, vignetting, light fall off etc.

 

[JROK]

I understand the difference between APS-C and Full Frame and how technically the APS-C is in the sweet spot of the lens, but for me it seems like all the images I've seen captured from full frame sensors are sharper than those of other sizes. Maybe it's the fact that a 12MP APS-C is more crammed than a 12MP FF? But to me it looks like the photos are sharper.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I think our general point is that the type of lens and the lens quality has more of an effect on sharpness then the sensor size.

Pictures are only as sharp/clear/etc as the worst piece of glass you shoot through.....

 

[JROK]

I think our general point is that the type of lens and the lens quality has more of an effect on sharpness then the sensor size.

Pictures are only as sharp/clear/etc as the worst piece of glass you shoot through.....

Yes, but I think pixel density and compression can also have an effect.

I understand that a 75-300mm $200 piece of glass is going to be worlds softer than a 300mm $2000 piece, I've experienced it myself and seen it myself. But I have also seen how a full frame looks sharper/better than a crop. Maybe it's my brain just assuming that full frame is sharper and better, but I honestly think there's science behind it, particularly having to do with pixel density.

I guess what I'm getting at is this:

What's the point of a full frame sensor if technically an APS-C produces a sharper images since it's in the "sweet spot"? If you're never going to use wide angle glass, then you would never necessarily need full frame correct? For instance you shoot sports and the 1.6x crop actually enhances the length of your lenses and allows you to get closer and get better shots correct?

Or am I correct when I say full frame images look better?

 

[EpcoTim]

Thats true, but theres a fine line there. Smaller pixels can pull out more small detail from an image, but can also produce more noise. Larger pixels tend not to suffer from bleeding as much and don't overheat as fast. It's a trade off, but the most important part is the part thats behind the camera.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Well Yes, I love a 400mm on a D2x. The crop factor does help for sports, especially for the far outfield plays. Almost perfect for shortstop but a bit tight for home plate. Football wise.... about 20 yards away is good for running plays.

But when it comes to the wide stuff, a full frame sensor shows me everything that the lens should. I love a good wide shot. I find that my wide stuff gets too tight and doesnt show enough context of the scene with the crop factor. Now i could either buy a 14mm lens.... which isn't practical for me or i can replace the broken camera i have with some better technology.

My overall point is that the full frame/APS-C differences aren't anywhere as impacting as the lens you have on the camera.

Oh and i so agree that a full frame just looks better. Tho i think that has to do more with everything else in the camera - firmware, processing, better autofocus, etc.

 

[JROK]

Yea, I know that the camera is only a tool and needs a good operator to work to its full extent, but that's true with almost everything in life. For instance, a Ford Mustang with half the horsepower of say a Ferrari could beat it in a race if the Ferrari driver was no good. But we're pixel peeping here.

After I just made that post I decided to dig online to see if sensor size does have an effect on sharpness and found this interesting article by the notorious Ken Rockwell:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

He talks about how the pixel density does effect the sharpness of the image and how a full frame with a cheap lens can outperform a crop with a good lens.

I almost held on to my 20D because of pixel density, but I went ahead and grabbed the 40D because of other features it had over the 20D (fps, LCD, spot meter).

 

[EpcoTim]

Go anywhere but Ken Rockwell for reference material.

 

[EpcoTim]

And knowledge has a lot to do with pixel peeping. Just putting a lens on a body and firing doesn't prove anything really. Understanding the various dynamics of the scene and how they translate is a huge factor.

 

[JROK]

Go anywhere but Ken Rockwell for reference material.

I know, Ken Rockwell is to photography what Jim Hill is to Disney. But I did find his photo comparisons interesting.

 

[EpcoTim]

He is amusing sometimes, just because some of his tests make no sense and his bias is almost unbelievable. And I like your comparison of him, lol, good one, I never thought of that.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Go anywhere but Ken Rockwell for reference material.

X2.

You want good reference material? Robgalbraith.com, sportsshooter.com, strobist.com. Technical data? DPreview.com

.... and JROK, youre right... he's the Jim Hill of Cameras..... LMAO (Fing great line!)

 

[JROK]

X2.

You want good reference material? Robgalbraith.com, sportsshooter.com, strobist.com. Technical data? DPreview.com

.... and JROK, youre right... he's the Jim Hill of Cameras..... LMAO (Fing great line!)

Never heard of RobGalbraith.com, I've been to the others and frequent DPReview.com, but only in the Canon threads and I hardly post, probably for my own good lol! Thanks for the link!

 

[EpcoTim]

Rob Galbraith is a very fair and intelligent reviewer, and hes been doing this stuff forever, read his story on the first Kodak digitals for the press, its pretty cool.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

The 5D has been around for what, almost 3 years now? What happened to the 18 month replacement cycle? The 5D is long overdue and I hope that the extra time means they'll blow the D700 out of the water (I'm a Canon user). I want a 3" LCD that's at least 900,000 pixels, at least 45 AF points, and at least 6fps in RAW. I'm thinking maybe they'll use the old 16MP sensor they have and just revamp it to 14-bit. That'll give it more than the D700 and attract MP nuts. I for one am pleanty happy with 10MP I get from my 40D and was happy with 8MP on my 20D. ISO 50-6400 standard, with some boost available, although 6400 should be pleanty.

Now only if they had all that for $2,000 instead of $3,000! Only reason I'd upgrade is for the sharpness of full-frame.

If Canon is only aiming to blow the D700 out of the water I think they'll will be blind sided by the Sony Flagship when it pops out, all the early scuttlebut has it way beyond the D700... and if Sony is still supplying Nikon with the sensors... I would tend to think the Flagship will be at using the same sensor as the D3x... as long as they put the right electronics with it, Canon might soon find itself setting in a distant 3rd place.