Update or Upgrade? Full frame or not....

[Jon Ruyle]

So for macro, it's usually better to go with smaller pixels, because even when you are diffraction limited they offer improved detail, and that's very important, especially when cropping for magnification.

Daniel, do you mean that more pixels is better than fewer, or do you mean that, say, 15 million small pixels are better than 15 million larger pixels (ie, 15mp is better on a crop body than on full frame)? If you mean the former, I agree. If you mean the latter, I think I disagree. Even if you need a higher f/ number to get the same DOF on full frame (and thus have larger diffraction discs), the larger sensor exactly balances this, so you have the same amount of total resolution. As always, I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong.


The reason I mention this is that if one is considering diffraction vs resolution in, say, a 5DII vs a 7D for macro work, I would give the nod to the 5DII because of its greater resolution (despite the larger pixels). Even though this is a tiny advantage, I think it would be a mistake to say the full frame with larger pixels is at a disadvantage due to diffraction.


Of course I'm only talking about diffraction here: there are other considerations back and forth (eg the 7D gives you more working distance on closeups because you need less magnification to reach the same framing, the 5DII will give you more dynamic range (I think) and better IQ from most lenses, 7D has leveling lines and better autofocus, 5D has a bigger viewfinder, etc etc)

[Daniel Browning]

If you mean the latter, I think I disagree.

I did, but now that you explain, I think you're right. I was thinking that the crop factor gave the opportunity for increased magnification, but really the magnification comes out the same either way for the same total number of pixels. Thanks for the correction.

[Sheiky]

Wow, those are some serious replies [] English is not my mother-language, so I struggle a bit with all the technical talk. Sorry for that []


To begin with: Thank you all for replying!


Now to answer some of your questions. The image quality I was complaining about is the following. Sometimes when I shoot at very low ISO, like 100-200, there is really a lot of noise and the image almost looks like I used iso 3200 or something. To bad I throw these pictures away immediately, else I could show it to you. It could be a mechanical problem as well. Most of the time I don't use iso higher than 400 when I want good quality and I'm planning to print large. The bad image quality issue mostly happens when I have dark backgrounds.


Colors and contrast are all great in my lenses, no problem at all!


My main point is that I don't use my 70-200 as often as I used to. That's the reason I'm looking at selling and buying other things.





About the 100-400. This is a lens I'm looking at for quite a time. I'm not sure if I would use it very often though. I live in Europe, the Netherlands and the weather here is not that great...we don't have a lot of sun, besides in the summer. A lot of rain and grey days. That's why I called it a slow lens. The maximum aperture of 5.6 would make my shuttertimes real slow, unless I would push my iso to numbers I'd rather not do. I do like the zoom and the fact that 400mm might open a totally new world for me. Nowadays when I go hiking, my 70-200 doesn't make good nature photo's simply due the fact that a) there isn't a lot of exciting wildlife here (the Netherlands is a concrete jungle) and b)200mm doesn't get it. Even when I'm pretty close to say a bird of prey, it's still a really small bird on my pictures. c) also the fact that I have to use high shutterspeeds to handhold the 70-200 doesn't help out very much


For sports the 70-200 is the ultimate lens though! But yes I did mention, that I don't shoot sports as often as I did. Nowadays I enjoy hikes in the weekend in stead of standing at the sideline of sports-fields. Now I shoot for myself instead of for other people, which gives me a lot of relaxation and enjoyment.


That said, I decided to rent the 100-400 later this month or early February and test it for a day, see if I like it.





About the 300mm f4....I'm not sure what to do with a prime this long. I don't have a particular hobby like birds. I shoot anything on my way and I think I wouldn't think that it's versatile enough for me. I like the versatility of zooms and the fact that I can change composition in a matter of seconds. Yes I think I wouldn't mind loosing a little image quality over that fact.





My major concern was the macro lens on the full frame. Now I'm still not very much wiser [:P] I know I will loose my crop-advantage, but what about the depth of field. I rarely shoot macro higher than f8 on my 50D. In a lot of cases a higher aperture like f16 kills a lot of natural lighting in my opinion and I kinda like the shallow depth of field []





About the 7D. I wouldn't upgrade my body to a 7D. I don't think the changes to the 50D are good enough to explain the twice as high price of the 7D. At least not for my uses. I don't need 8fps, with macro I use manual focus and a flash most of the time and the advanced AFsystem would have helped me until about half a year ago, but now I'm not depending on a fast AF anymore.





I hope I haven't forgotten anything. Oh yeah, sometimes I can get a bit jalous on the beautifull nature and weather some of you have. It makes me feel very small [:P] highest "mountain" nearby (2 hour drive range) is like 100m high. Closest real mountain is like a 1000km away. I live like 200km of the shore and no there is no white sandy beaches with cristal clear blue water [:P] But yes there is probably a lot here that you have never seen, tourists like it here so there must be a good reason. I guess I'm used to it and don't see the real special things anymore. Starting Macrophotograpy opened a totally new world for me last year. Hope I get that feeling again this year []





conclusion so far: the most voted option is still going full-frame, so that's where my mind is thinking of at the moment. Untill that decision I will fisrt try a 100-400 and maybe some other stuff. I still think I would like FF a lot, but I'm not sure what I would think of loosing the crop-factor...hmmm I forsee a few more hours of thinking in my future [:P] thank you all so far!