image quality wise, which one should i go with?
lens I have. EFS-60, EF 50 1.4, 17-85, 70-400 F4 IS
image quality wise, which one should i go with?
lens I have. EFS-60, EF 50 1.4, 17-85, 70-400 F4 IS
In some cases they will be very close, but there are many cases where the 5D will have superior image quality. The biggest difference is that the 5D will give you more light gathering power and thinner DOF for any given field of view and f-number. It will also give slightly better dynamic range, though not very much due to the low read noise in the XSi.
Generally, the MTF (contrast for a given resolution) of a lens goes
down as spatial frequency goes up. Since 12 MP on APS-C is a higher
frequency than 12 MP on FF35, the 5D gets the benefit of the higher MTF
(contrast) at any given print size. However, EF-S lenses don't need to
cover the same image area, so they are designed for the same MTF at
higher spatial frequencies. The 17-55 f/2.8 and 60mm macro are good examples of this.
It also depends on the lens. For example, for macro shooting, I don't think you'll get much better resolution or contrast from 5D+100mm f/2.8 macro than you would get from XSi and EF-S 60mm.
The 28-135 on the 5D is similar to the 17-85 on the XSi, but I don't know if the contrast/resolution would be better or not. The 24-105 certainly would be better.
The 70-200 f/4 L IS will give higher contrast on FF35 for any given field of view, but I don't think you will notice a difference in resolution.
I hope that helps.
It might be relevant to your decision that the EF-S 60mm Macro andthe EF-S 17-85mm lenses simply won't work on a 5D.
For the EF 50 f/1.4 and the 70-(200?) f/4 IS, I'd take the 5D hands down.
by thinner dof , do you mean the area in focus will seem smaller? I guess that makes sense. that's the problem I do either a lot of macro or telephoto, rarely wide angle.
17-85 I'm not worried so much since I'm ready to sell it any day, 60mm macro i'm kind of bummed that I couldn't use it it's what I felt the best bang for the buck lens in my purchase, followed by the 50...
and yes, I purchased the 50 and 70-200 because I know I want to go full frame one day, just don't know when yet.
I do have a question that I keep scratching my head over with, many people said that you get more "reach" with 70-200 on cropped lens, when I think about it, I'd imagine that's "perceivedreach" since your imagesensordoes the cropping for you... I mean I'd like to make the decision or rather have theabilitycrop on my own if I do want that "extra perceived reach" on the final print out. am I missing something?
ultima - I mostly use my XTi for telephoto and macro shots. If I had a FF sensor, and cropped to achieve the 1.6x effect,I would have spent alot more money to not use it. Of course FF allows you to take full advantage of the wide angle end of the spectrum, if that's what you need.
Daniel-I'm going to have to disagree with you on the FF having a thinner DOP. The distance between the lens and sensor is the same on FF and Cropped Frame cameras. The DOP may look deeper on the cropped frame, because it appears closer. Here's an example:
http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/full_frame_vs_crop_sensor_-.html
Originally Posted by Steve Eisenberg
<div>
If you try to achieve the same crop you'd get from 1.6 with FF, you will certainly have a different DOP. If I use a 50mm lens on a 1.6, then I'm going to use an 85mm (or even a zoom at 80mm to make it exact) to get similar crop on the FF, then background is definitely going to be more blurred.
</div>
That guy is definitely not going for similar crops and clearly doesn't understand what people are talking about when the talk about FF having better depth of field. I guess that is why people are so sensitive about information given on these boards. There is a lot of bad info being supplied by anyone who has ten extra minutes to blog about stuff they think they know about.
If you use a diifferent focal length, of course you have a different depth of field. But you can also achieve the same crop by literally cropping the image.
<div>
If you try to achieve the same crop you'd get from 1.6 with FF, you will certainly have a different DOP. If I use a 50mm lens on a 1.6, then I'm going to use an 85mm (or even a zoom at 80mm to make it exact) to get similar crop on the FF, then background is definitely going to be more blurred.
</div>
That guy is definitely not going for similar crops and clearly doesn't understand what people are talking about when the talk about FF having better depth of field. I guess that is why people are so sensitive about information given on these boards. There is a lot of bad info being supplied by anyone who has ten extra minutes to blog about stuff they think they know about.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
If you use a diifferent focal length, of course you have a different depth of field. But you can also achieve the same crop by literally cropping the image.
Seriously?
<div>
Why take a full frame and crop it down to 1.6? Why not fill the frame as you would with you crop and have an image with more detail and more pleasing background.
</div>
Seriously?
Why take a full frame and crop it down to 1.6? Why not fill the frame as you would with you crop and have an image with more detail and more pleasing background.
<div>
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________
</div>
I'm not saying I would or would not. Just having a discussion on some priniciples...
But I'm sure we can all think of times we have cropped, full frame or not.
I'm confused (easily achieved!). So please can some one answer this: I have a FF and a 1.6. If I photograph the same subject at the same distance with the same lens and aperature, which sensor gives the shallower DOF?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote