Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
Both clear and valid. []
Sure, the 135 is nice. But if you use it wide open and crop it, it won't compare with the uncropped 200 f/2.8 used wide open. I'm just saying you don't pay all that money for full frame and get nothing in return.
Well, if performance = frame rate, then yes. Those who require FF with 7D+ frame rate need not consider canon.
Both clear and valid. [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]
Sure, the 135 is nice. But if you use it wide open and crop it, it won't compare with the uncropped 200 f/2.8 used wide open. I'm just saying you don't pay all that money for full frame and get nothing in return.
Well, if performance = frame rate, then yes. Those who require FF with 7D+ frame rate need not consider canon.
Re: 135 vs 200/2.8 IQ, I didn't get that same impression from Bryan's reviews, though he did say that the 135 sharpens up slightly stopped down. I do agree with the FF thing, though, and I don't even know why, to be honest. There just seems to be something about the images that is special. Kind of like Peety3 said recently about the 24-70, there's some magic air in it or something.
I am not trying to limit the discussion of performance to a single metric, but consider them in totality, with a bias towards the things that I feel are important to my shooting objectives. This was a way to simply point out one (frame rate) in isolation. Considering each on its own merits individually is at least a start towards some hopefully rational conclusion for my situation. Ultimately, I would like the best single body for my needs, if nothing else for the ability to learn it better and for cost reasons as well, even though I know a recent 1-series would be expensive all by itself. The 1DIV may well be that camera, but I don't have the experience to say that the APS-H sensor is a good or bad compromise for me. I have no doubt that is a better body than my 40D regardless.
The 135 is sharper, I think, in a "fair" comparison, if you can make one with lenses of different focal lengths.
But the 135 f/2 + 7D will not be as sharp as 200 f/2.8 + 1DsIII if both lenses are used wide open (so as to get similar DOF).
It's 'cause cropping (what you do with crop body) makes IQ worse, and stopping down (what you do to get the same DOF on a ff body) makes IQ better.
(Of course, if errors get worse linearly or faster as you move away from the center of the frame, cropping might actually improve IQ. I don't think many lenses have this property but maybe some do. And, of course, if aperture is small, stopping down might make IQ worse because of diffraction. But that is beside the point...
It's probably also because ff gives other IQ advantages besides
sharpness (like dynamic range).
That may be a bridge too far.... I would need to find other living arrangements.
I already have a 23-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS I, which is what helps make one of these bodies a viable choice.Open the box, put on a L lens, familiarize myself with the new body and then good-to-go.
I have heard similar comments before. Once I used a 1 series would I want to use something else? As of now, the gripped 50D feels very natural.
I would like his opinion as well. It seems to me I saw in one thread that while waiting for the 1DIV to become available he ordered a 7D, liked it so well he ordered another one and nixed the 1DIV. In addition, he has a lot of experience with all three formats.
Chris
Jon,
Okay, so I may have chosen a lens in the 135/2 that needs to be a click or three off MA to be its sharpest, but that wasn't the point of the comparison. With Brian's ISO crops, the 135 at 2.8 or larger f number is visibly sharper than the 200/2.8 if not dramatically so. Let's say for this discussion that we're using the 135 at 2.8 and the 200 at 4.5. Let's also agree that the effective DOF is the same, because I don't know how to calculate it but it should be close at that point.
Why do you think that the 1DsIII + 200 at f4.5 would outperform the 7D + 135 @ f2.8? Also, why do you say "cropping", based on your definition of "what you do with crop body" (which to me just alters the FOV) makes IQ worse? It seems like if the lenses + FOVCF of the bodies offer the same FOV and DOF that the IQ would be unrelated to sensor format. Is that incorrect? In my previous example, where the FF ended up slightly wider at 200 vs 216, the FF would actually be the one that was slightly cropped. Wouldn't that compromise the IQ of that image instead, since you would be working with effectively less pixels than the original on the FF, and the APS-C would have all 18MP?
I understand that generally sharpness is improved by stopping down to the point of DLA, and with a few exceptions. DLA seems kind of a wash with comparable pixel density per sensor area, regardless of APS-C, APS-H or FF. An APS-C body that reaches DLA around f10 (30D) would have the same DOF and other properties as a FF at about f16, right? Heck, the APS-C might even be the better choice in this example, since the FF body that has the same pixel size and DLA number is the 5D. If it holds true that DOF @ f10 on an APS-C is roughly equal to DOF @ f16 on a FF, then the sharpness of the APS-C is probably going to be slightly better.
I feel like I am spiraling into minutiae here, and even though I enjoy it, and enjoy learning about all this, I really want to know whether choosing an APS-H like the 1DIII or 1DIV will be better for me than having an APS-C. I love my 40D, and I am used to the framing with my lenses on it, but I'd like to get more from my 17-40L on the wide end and from a sharpness standpoint. I have been told that the 17-40L thrives on a FF, and is strangled on an APS-C, cruelly never allowed to blossom to its full potential. [:'(]I have noticed that it isn't uber-sharp, at least on my camera. It may just be that it needs AF Microadjust to match the body better, and it would be fine for me. In that case, a 50D or better would do the trick. Maybe it only needs APS-H to find happiness? [
That may be a bridge too far.... I would need to find other living arrangements.
I already have a 23-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS I, which is what helps make one of these bodies a viable choice.Open the box, put on a L lens, familiarize myself with the new body and then good-to-go.
I have heard similar comments before. Once I used a 1 series would I want to use something else? As of now, the gripped 50D feels very natural.
I would like his opinion as well. It seems to me I saw in one thread that while waiting for the 1DIV to become available he ordered a 7D, liked it so well he ordered another one and nixed the 1DIV. In addition, he has a lot of experience with all three formats.
Chris
Chris,
First sorry for sort of hijacking.
Don't jeopardize the relationship over a camera. It probably isn't worth it. Unless the 1DsIV has a square sensor, electronic shutter, 10fps and costs only $4000. Then, ....
I hope Peety3 does chime in soon. I would like to know why he decided toforegothe 1DIV after owning a 1DIII, but using the 7D. Everyone including Bryan that has had 1-series seems to share the consensus that once you use one you never want anything else, and this seems counter to what he did this time. Even if his usage doesn't parallel mine, I'd still like to hear his reasoning. I have sought his advice before a couple of times and he's not steered me wrong yet.
Me, too. Sometimes I can't help myself
Well, not quite everyone. I went from a 1DIIN to the 5DII. Thought I'd use the 5DII just to compliment the 1DIIN, but I hardly ever use the 1 anymore.
Yes, the 1D feels wonderful when I pick it up. Yes, it is beautiful. Yes, it is super fast, super responsive, and fun. But I just find that the 5DII suits my needs better. I love the low light performance, narrow DOF, and IQ.
I know the 1DIIN isn't the same as a 1DIV, and I've never used a 1DIV. But I can't imagine giving up my 5DII for anything but another full frame camera.
Having used both...the 5D2 and the 1D4, I have to go along with some of the comments that once you've used a 1 series, the other cameras just can't match the balance, feel, or ergonomics. My 5D2 has a battery grip on it, but still doesn't feel the same. They(the 1 series)just feel, well,...right!! Hard to put into words.
As far as image quality goes; I love my 5D2 for portraits, landscapes, low light performance. I have to admit, though, the 9 point system lacks, as far as I am concerned. It works, and I very rarely use the center point, but have the 45 on the 1 series, puts it to shame. I have never used the 7D, so I can't comment there...The focus points themselves, work just fine, and like I said, I typically only use the 8 outer points, and have never had a problem. My concern is using them to focus on what I want...not what the camera wants!! And I don't focus recompose, either.
Back to the quality...I would be hard pressed to find that much difference between the two. The FF 5D2 has a very slight advantage in low light. Other that, the image quality is very similar, with more DR going to the Mark IV. I can push the files much more(not that I do often, but if needed)with the 1DIV, than I can with the 5D2( and my assumption would be even less so with the 7D). The 1D4 just has a quality to the files that the other cameras just can't quite compete with, IMHO.
As far as Bokeh goes, if you look at DOFmaster.com, and compare the 3 cameras, you'll find that the difference isn't all that much, really. For example, I put in 200mm at 2.8 on each respective camera, and the results at 10' were minuscule, as far as paper goes. I know the difference is more noticeable in the field, I'm sure, but between my 2 cameras, in the field, it is not huge. I can take a portrait at 200 2.8 on both FF and 1.3, and they both make the background go buh-bye!!!
I have to admit, though, I really grab the 1D4 more often than I do the 5D2, except when shooting a session, where I employ both! In that instance, I put the 70-200 on the FF, and my 16-35II, on the 1.3. that being said, I really like the 16-35II on the 1.3 more than I like it on FF. Especially for landscapes, or HDR's. Something the 5D2 really lacks, is in the bracketing! I can do a 5 shot HDR hand held with 1D4, faster and better, than I can do a 3 shot with 5D2!!! Granted, it is not as wide, but the corner degradation on the 16-35II is much more prevalent on the FF, than it is on the 1.3. I have actually thought about getting 16-9.com Nikon G adapter, so I can use Nikons 14-24 2.8. But that is a whole different story, altogether.
I've never used the 1DIV, but according to DXOMark, they're almost exactly the same: 12 stops for the IV, 11.9 for the 5DII.
(Okay, sure, the 1DIV has more. [
Probably this has something to do with the fact that the 1DIV has less pattern noise. So in some situations it probably has noticeably more DR than the 5DII, in some situations it probably has less.
I'm surprised. Other things being equal, the larger sensor will have more DR, so the 1DIV was able to make up a lot of ground. Hopefully the 5DIII (if/when) will have some of these same read noise improvements...
Agreed. As much as I enjoy photography, I also have become accustomed to evening dinner and a warm bed.
Me, too. Sometimes I can't help myself
to continue our diversion when I get a few moments...
No problem. It is adding to my education. In fact, I have followed you over to "Advantages of full frame?".
Thanks for joining in greggf, I was hoping to hear from those who have used both. If you were shooting a dance recital using available light, which body would you take if you could only take one?
Chris
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote