Time to go FF???

[doodah]

Kiwi2, I generally agree with everything you've said. They make a lot of sense and are also the reasons I plan to stick to APS-C for a long while.

HOWEVER, I cannot agree with the following statement:

The (slightly?) more shallow DOF is certainly not top on my list to go FF too.

The shallower depth of field on FF is VERY dramatic. For example, an f/4.5 lens on FF has the same depth of field as f/2.8 on APS-C for the same focal length, scene and composition. Or an f/1.4 lens on FF has the same DOF as f/0.87 (obviously does not exist) on APS-C. This difference is HUGE.

For portrait shooting, this helps to blur out the background dramatically so that any background distraction is removed, but some shape and form of the environment is retained so that the context of the shot is not forgotten. Bug macro fans will tell you how important it is to reduce background distraction. The same photographic principle applies here.

Oh, I sure don't mind having an ISO 6400 performance that is equivalent to ISO 1600 of today's APS-C sensors. :bsmilie:

As an example, consider this
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28138644, particularly the sunset shot (5D, 85 mm, 1/5 sec, f/1.2, ISO 3200) of the couple.

Having said that, APS-C cameras are generally more versatile, lighter and cheaper for me.

 

[peekarwe]

Kiwi2, very very well said and put... I am bookmarking this post to remind me every once in a while. For me, a 40D is more eminent than ever. I was toying with 5D already until I read your post.

 

[Snoweagle]

order fm bNs? even cheaper..

Nah..buying from either one of the camera shops around Peninsula Plaza/Funan area.

 

[Snoweagle]

if u buying, do PM me. more pple can get more discount.

But i'm buying new set with local warranty, so around $3.6K.

 

[Snoweagle]

Don't think it is because of GSS, if you notice Canon SG used to list EOS 5D (Body only) @ $4299, but recently they changed it to $3999. That may be the reason why the dealers are dropping the price.

Oh really? Then that might be the reason. I hope it drops a bit more when i get my 5D in early July....30+ days to go! :lovegrin:

 

[Snoweagle]

get both FF and APS-C bodies. works in both situations.
use your 40D as main and use 5D as your backup, or vice versa. afterall their current price gap is closing, isn't it?

Hehe i plan to use the 5D as main and my current 10D as backup. But i suppose during event shoots i'll lug both along. My wide lens on 5D and tele on 10D.

 

[dfstan]

But i'm buying new set with local warranty, so around $3.6K.

sounds interesting

 

[Snoweagle]

sounds interesting

Don't forget i still need to spend another $400 on the grip, so total around $4K.

 

[Doughnuts]

The things that stop me from going FF: weight and size. What I really love about FF: shallow DOF. If they squeeze the FF sensor into a 450D or D80 body, I may jump on it together with a couple of prime lenses (35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4).

doodah, you webpage has very well taken landscapes. Did you use efs 10-22mm? i'm thinking of getting one soon..but thinking.

 

[doodah]

doodah, you webpage has very well taken landscapes. Did you use efs 10-22mm? i'm thinking of getting one soon..but thinking.

Thanks. Yes, I travel with the Canon 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS lenses. Occasionally, I'll carry the 70-200 f/4 IS if I know there are stage performances or cultural activities.
BTW, I am selling the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 lens which I bought on impulse. A very nice lens, I must say. :bsmilie:

 

[Doughnuts]

Thanks. Yes, I travel with the Canon 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS lenses. Occasionally, I'll carry the 70-200 f/4 IS if I know there are stage performances or cultural activities.
BTW, I am selling the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 lens which I bought on impulse. A very nice lens, I must say. :bsmilie:

damn lovely shots, my mouth waters at the Mooney Falls (Havasupai Canyon). feel like touching the water. piang eh! cannot sleep liao! must buy for my trip.. .. thanks for the offer, still cannon slighly better, I can only risk 1 investment more..haha this year that is.

 

[calebk]

...
BTW, I am selling the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 lens which I bought on impulse. A very nice lens, I must say. :bsmilie:

The range too limited for your liking?

 

[Doughnuts]

Range wise..think the canon is wider and has less distortion. I dun have much to splurge for regrets..if canon is proven why go otherwise. dun think i'm going full frame also.

 

[Doughnuts]

BTW, sorry TS from detracting earlier, but some of the forumners have excellent photos to share..

If timing is what you need.. wait till more have reviewed the camera.

Go for the FF..Why Not? If you like it and have research enough? Why not? For a new thrill? why not? no other $$ obligations? Why not? Full frame lingerie girl in bed(pop out?)? Why Not?

 

[mismis]

Thanks. Yes, I travel with the Canon 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS lenses. Occasionally, I'll carry the 70-200 f/4 IS if I know there are stage performances or cultural activities.
BTW, I am selling the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 lens which I bought on impulse. A very nice lens, I must say. :bsmilie:

What did you not like about the lens? This is next on my list

 

[doodah]

OK, hope to answer everything in one post. We're going off-topic... :bsmilie:

The range too limited for your liking?

Firstly, the weight (I am very sensitive to that). Secondly, 11 vs 10 mm. Hmmm... still thinking about it. The range itself does not bother me. My 17-55 is on the camera 95% of the time, so when I slap on the ultrawide, I really plan to use it as an ultrawide and nothing else. I know some crazy people leave their 10-22 on the camera and shoot an entire wedding with it... but no, I am not like that. :bsmilie:

Range wise..think the canon is wider and has less distortion. I dun have much to splurge for regrets..if canon is proven why go otherwise. dun think i'm going full frame also.

The distortion part is true, but it comes at a price. Seems that the 10-22 has some field curvature issues at the wide end. The edges are not sharp compared to the center even when the entire scene is at 'infinity'. If I focus on subjects on the edges (regardless of which edge) for 10 to 11 mm and f/8, the center is not sharp, and vice versa. The 11-16 does not appear to have this problem. Needs more confirmation though...

What did you not like about the lens? This is next on my list

It's a fantastic lens. But I need to think about its weight (560 g vs 385 g) and the 10 vs 11 mm thing. At the ultrawide end, this can be significant, depending on one's shooting style.

 

[kiwi2]

Thanks all, who found my little write-up useful. I hope you can come to a decision soon and easily.

doodah,

thanks for sharing...

you know, it's relative. f/2.8 and f/4.5 are just numerical representations of how shallow the DOF is. Who is to judge what is enough? What is considered "dramatic" or "huge" difference in background blur? The quesrtion again is, So What if f/4.5 on FF gives an equivalent DOF compared to f/2.8 on a 40D? To me, these are just numbers as far as judging blurring is concerned. Question is, does it matter to you? Like I said, if you really think it affects your work so much, then the choice is clear isn't it, go for a FF cam.

But I really wonder, are people really concerned or know what they want more than being concerned with mere numbers, such as f/xx on FF is equivalent to f/xx on cropped sensor cameras? (Not directing personally at you but in general.)

Similarly, all too common, some people like to quote specs like Cam x can shoot 3/5/6.5/10 fps.... whoa, go for the one that can go 10fps! Orgasmic! but really, do you care? How often are you gonna shoot at 10fps and burn your CF card/hard disk space? If you are a pro sports photog or enthusiast, then fine. but if you let all these specs overwhem you, you'll be killed by undue worry.

Another eg, MTFs. I've just read a review of a lens. Ironically, the magazine revealed that its lab test showed below average results but on their outdoor shoot, the lens performed outstandingly. Will you be more interested in all the MTF numbers or are you more concerned with the final output? I'd go with the final result any time. Save me from all the graphs, numbers and scientific analysis. Read them with a pinch of salt only.

Yet another eg: some people claim APS-C (thanks for correcting me) cameras are confusing cos they have to always do mental multiplication in their heads on what the final focal length is. Hence they want to go FF. I wonder, what for? Actually, if you are experienced enough, by now, you will have a good grasp of what the equvalence focal lengths are. Even if you don't, does it really matter?

Canon has produced many great EF and EF-S lenses till date that I really don't see any handicap when using APS-C cams. It was a problem for me years back when I was using the old Canon D60 and affordable wide angle zooms were not available. Film cameras were still attractive to me then. Not now anymore. That's why, film to me is dead.

So coming back, instead of saying f/4.5 on 5D is equivalent to f/2.8 on 40D, why not ask yourself: Does the final result matter to you? If so, go for the 5D. To me it's not a big diff. I've shot portraits with f/4 and f/5.6 apertures and I've gotten nice blurred out backgrounds.

Put in another way. I can also argue there are times when I wish for more things to be in focus. Then FF cam ain't that attractive? For macro shots for eg as you've mentioned, on the contrary, getting that background blur does not mean using the widest or very wide aperture all the time. DOF is extremely limited so if you don't control your aperture well, even your subject can be rendered undesirably out of focus. So I don't see how a FF cam comes as a big advantage here.

I suspect many get all confused and get into the hype of plunging their money on a 5D cos they are too over-reliant on numbers and specs. Put those all away and ask youself what sort of image you want to create finally. Then answer often will be clearer that way.

Kiwi2, I generally agree with everything you've said. They make a lot of sense and are also the reasons I plan to stick to APS-C for a long while.

HOWEVER, I cannot agree with the following statement:


The shallower depth of field on FF is VERY dramatic. For example, an f/4.5 lens on FF has the same depth of field as f/2.8 on APS-C for the same focal length, scene and composition. Or an f/1.4 lens on FF has the same DOF as f/0.87 (obviously does not exist) on APS-C. This difference is HUGE.

For portrait shooting, this helps to blur out the background dramatically so that any background distraction is removed, but some shape and form of the environment is retained so that the context of the shot is not forgotten. Bug macro fans will tell you how important it is to reduce background distraction. The same photographic principle applies here.

Oh, I sure don't mind having an ISO 6400 performance that is equivalent to ISO 1600 of today's APS-C sensors. :bsmilie:

As an example, consider this
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28138644, particularly the sunset shot (5D, 85 mm, 1/5 sec, f/1.2, ISO 3200) of the couple.

Having said that, APS-C cameras are generally more versatile, lighter and cheaper for me.

 

[alternatve]

Well said and I certainly enjoyed the read. However, I still am going to aim for FF cameras as I appreciate my wide angle lenses staying wide, the DOF scale on the lens to be usable and for more detail in my pictures.

Here is my reasoning for it:

The 40D is the best (arguably) APS-C camera Canon has to offer and is a recent model (released in 2007) while the 5D is a three, coming to 4 year old model (released in 2005) which is a lifetime for DSLR cameras. To think that it still can compete and win in certain areas against the 40D is a marvel. Also, if the smaller sized current gen APS-C sensor can compete with a last gen FF sensor, imagine how much better it would be when blown up to FF dimensions. Thus, I feel comparing the 5D against the 40D in a fight against FF and APS-C cameras is skewed towards APS-C types.

Furthermore, I don't believe APS-C type cameras are going to be superior to their FF brothers. Like in the good old days of film, the larger negative gives a better image and I believe the same theory applies here when both cameras come from around the same era. More light captured means more detail in the photos. The 40Ds' sensor can catch up to the 5Ds' sensor as the 5D cannot process that amount of detail as effectively as the 40D. It also took 2 generations for the X0D series to catch up to the 5D, imagine what would be the result when the 5D MkII arrives.

(Take note I am delibretely leaving out the 1DsMkIII as it is a "professional" grade DSLR. I wish to compare DSLRs of around the same range, ie the 5D and the 40D. This is the same reason why I am leaving out the 450D as well.)

Feel free to argue with my statements. I do agree with the part where you stated that too many people fondle gear and read reviews without using their cameras in the field at all. I am also not arguing about the poor quality of the 40D, far from it. I love my 40D to bits and am going to retain it as a fast firing and longer reaching second body if and when I get the 5D or it's upgrade.

Samuel

 

[doodah]

For macro shots for eg as you've mentioned, on the contrary, getting that background blur does not mean using the widest or very wide aperture all the time. DOF is extremely limited so if you don't control your aperture well, even your subject can be rendered undesirably out of focus. So I don't see how a FF cam comes as a big advantage here.

Yes, shallower depth of field matters for me. And I am NOT going by numbers alone, but more from shooting experience. I only use numbers to quantify the concept.

Sorry, if I did not make myself clear regarding the macro example. I am NOT recommending FF for macro. I am just saying that it's good to have a clean subject and diffused background, just LIKE shooting bug macros.

 

[peekarwe]

Whether the numbers and specifications matter or not is a personal preference. To some (many in fact), there is a placebo effect. Also, if you have the best equipment by specifications, then there is no excuse not to take good pictures and nothing to blame but your skills.

This thread is damn good and useful with many views on photography as a hobby. But I also wish to highlight the group on the other side of the fence, whose hobby seems to be photography, but actually, are just gadget freaks who looks at numbers and figures. So, for them, having a F1.2 lense is an achievement in the sense that they HAVE a 1.2 lense, not that they can take great pictures that others can't take.